Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: Is there happiness in religious doctrine?

I just finished reading James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man this past week and I was very intrigued by it. The prevalence of the Catholic church and its doctrines throughout the book intertwined with the developing stream of conscience from a young man to an artist of the book's protagonist seems to be the very paradox that modern times often mocks as unrealistic or detached. One cannot recreate reality without overstepping into the boundaries of God, or the higher power. Art cannot exist within the confounds of a convention as harsh as the Catholic church, right? And those who do choose to create art who also subscribe to the church, must be unhappy, because they are "stifled" by the unimaginative confinement of a traditional institution, right?

From what I know of James Joyce's life, he opposed the Catholic church because it he "found it impossible to remain in it on account of the impulses of [his] nature." But, in this lies the inherent problem of the artist. How does the artist balance his or her belief system with the urge to create? How does the artist remain happy and balance belief with creation?

I think Stephen, the novel's protagonist is a prime example of an individual who protects himself from sadness, from the gifts the Catholic church has to offer, but falsely thinks that by protecting himself from the church to succumb to his own nature, he ultimately protects himself from happiness. Stephen finds himself dejected and his soul depraved upon the rejection of the Church and reconciles himself to its teachings.

Stephen is ultimately happy at the end of the novel upon the culmination of his life into a work of art itself, but only after establishing a balance between his religion and his art. So, do we protect ourselves from sadness by rejecting our internal beliefs to feeding the needs of our human nature, and ultimately protect ourselves from happiness by doing this? Is our happiness and indication of whether we can reconcile our morals with our wants?

Pope John Paul II has much to say on the nature of the artist, saying that we are all artists, but the reconciliation of structure with creativity is the ultimate form of inner peace.

"What is the difference between “creator” and “craftsman”? The one who creates bestows being itself, he brings something out of nothing—ex nihilo sui et subiecti, as the Latin puts it—and this, in the strict sense, is a mode of operation which belongs to the Almighty alone. The craftsman, by contrast, uses something that already exists, to which he gives form and meaning. This is the mode of operation peculiar to man as made in the image of God.

Not all are called to be artists in the specific sense of the term. Yet, as Genesis has it, all men and women are entrusted with the task of crafting their own life: in a certain sense, they are to make of it a work of art, a masterpiece."

Beloved and the Meaning of Happiness

"I like marriage. The idea"

Often times, an idea and the execution of that idea are two separate entities. In Beloved, idea of freedom and living in freedom seems to be different to Sethe, Paul D, and the other slaves. Beloved's presence in Sethe's life, despite her freedom, is a constant source of slavery and subordination. Perhaps Morrison is trying to tell us that what we do in captivity determines our fate in freedom. Sethe murdered Beloved and Beloved subsequently haunted 124, and her ideas of freedom, openness, and room to breathe are compromised.

Sethe, while in captivity, chose to murder her baby girl. She believed that by murdering her, she would protect herself from the sadness of knowing her daughter was subjected to grotesque actions. She wanted to know her daughter died in peace. But, by protecting herself from this sadness, Sethe ultimately protected herself from happiness when she was freed. Taking control of another's destiny and not accepting one's own fate while facing danger or abject situations ensures that inner peace cannot be found. That true happiness in the face of freedom cannot be realized.

The association of happiness with freedom is very prevalent. Inhibitions are associated with enslavement or internal alienation. So, when we are free, we must be happy, right? No. As Beloved has taught me, the actions we commit and who we shape ourselves to be while facing adversity, enslavement, or unjust subjugation from others, determine our happiness in our states of freedom. We cannot be happy unless we are peaceful inside. And when we are both free and internally peaceful, we are truly happy.