By St. John of the Cross
Retreat given by,
Taken from a Retreat given
for Keeseville OCDS group May 12 - 15, 1996
Also given at Springfield,
Lowell, and Turners Falls OCDS meetings (1995)
First Conference
This
brief work of St. John of the Cross was also written in response to a request
from someone else. Last time we
considered what he wrote when asked by the Superior of all the Discalced
Carmelites in Spain to give his opinion of a Religious, a nun, based upon her
account of her mystical (allegedly) experiences in prayer. This time he responds to a member of the
Order, either a lay-brother or a student for the priesthood, who presumably,
has asked for advice on how to be perfect.
But we can also suppose that whatever that person asked for in few
words, was interpreted by St. John of the Cross to be asking, in effect for
advice on how to be a perfect Carmelite member of the Order of Friars.
Perhaps
it may seem inappropriate for us to consider advice given to someone who has
taken the vows of Religious Life, since all of you are not religious and were
not called by God to the Religious State. Nevertheless, three of the four counsels have to do with matters
that are of great importance for any Christian called by God to surrender
his/her life more completely and indeed perfectly to God. Any and all Christians should desire to be
exactly and perfectly everything that God has called them to be. So we can consider all that St. John of the
Cross will advise as the response every Christian, and especially every
lay Discalced Carmelite would receive if he or she were to ask (to paraphrase
the first sentence of the paragraph): How can I be a true lay Christian and
fulfill the obligations of my state in life, advance in virtue, and enjoy the
consolations and delight of the Holy Spirit?
Of
the benefits desired, which we have just mentioned, to be a true lay
person is exactly what is meant by fulfilling the obligation of the lay state,
whether married or single. Surely all
of the four counsels will have bearing on this desired result, but I think that
the two counsels concerning resignation and mortification are principally
concerned with that one part of the question.
Clearly,
the counsel concerning the practice of virtue is addressed to the desire to
advance in virtue since as habits, virtues grow and deepen and extend their
influence the more often they are exercised.
The
counsel concerning bodily and spiritual solitude would then apply principally
to the last of the desired results: to enjoy the consolation and delight of the
Holy Spirit.
It
seems to me that this desired result is something of greater importance in the
life of religious, clearly, but also in the life of a lay person who is called
to the single state. It seems to me
that by Christians called to the married state and thus to family life can and
should expect consolations and delight to be granted chiefly through the
instrumentality of spouse and children and other members of the extended
family. Of course, Christians (lay)
called to family life would also experience delights and consolations that come
directly from the Holy Spirit acting within the soul, but in my opinion that
would not be the chief and predominating way.
Similarly,
though Religious and single Lay Catholics must expect consolations and delight
to come chiefly through the Holy Spirit at work in the soul, and in virtue of
the Indwelling of the Holy Trinity, yet often they also come through the
instrumentality of other members of the Religious Family in the one case and
through friends and relatives, especially like-minded people, in the other case
of single lay Christians.
Now
what do we mean by consolations and delight? And what is the role of
consolations and delight in the life of any Christian (or person) whether
Religious or Lay?
I
think that by answering the second question first, the answer to the first
becomes easier to formulate.
The
purpose of all consolation and delight, in the life of every human person, in
my opinion, is to provide what is called “affirmation.” “Affirmation” can be compared to a “seal of
approval” given by folks in the quality control department. It is the evidence every human being needs
that he or she measures up to standards, can be relied upon, trusted, and is
therefore of value. We all need
to know, for our own mental health, and to have the motivation we need to
continue to discharge burdens and responsibilities faithfully and well, that we
have “standing” in the community, that others respect us and acknowledge our
dignity and worth in society, based upon the fact that we are deemed dependable. Consolations and delights are also the
rewards and recompense we receive to balance out the “cost” in terms of
physical and psychic energy, being persons in the true sense of the word,
sacrificing our merely individual and selfish interest to the good of other
individuals in particular the religious community, the family, the Church, and
of society in general.
To
get back to the first question, What do we mean by consolations and
delights? To begin to get the answer, we must first correct this question:
“When is it that we need to be consoled, and what are the
things that console us?
Generally,
we need to be consoled when we are sad or disappointed, when we have
experienced a loss or a setback. The
degree of sadness or disappointment varies with the seriousness of the loss or
setback. If these are not overcome,
they can tend to paralyze us. If the
loss or setback is very, very grave, the sadness can become despair; the
disappointment can become discouragement.
A
consolation, then, is anything that helps a person to overcome sadness and disappointment. Sometimes this can be done merely by having
someone else express compassion and thus share the feelings of sorrow and
disappointment.
Sometimes
consolation consists of helping the sufferer to see the bright side of the
event that causes the sadness, to see the silver lining of the cloud that
obscures the sunny aspects of life.
Generally a consolation is what helps the person in need of it to see
that life is well worth living, and which thus provides the motivation to carry
on despite the loss.
It
seems to me that those consolations are best and most healthy that are able to
co-exist with pain and sadness. A
“consolation” that would obliterate or overwhelm the sadness and disappointment
is not real consolation in the long run.
One example of that would be turning to alcohol or narcotics. This would be an unhealthy way of
seeking consolation.
It
is interesting that St. John speaks of consolations and the delight “of the
Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is THE
LOVE of the Trinity. Thus, all
consolations come from genuine love. For
those in the lay married state it is the love of the other family members that
moves them to console the member in need of consolation. The disconsolate family member can also, and
will also, if he or she is a person of Faith, find consolations of a spiritual
nature based upon the truths of our Faith, but the need to seek God’s
consolation becomes less urgent to the degree that other members of the family
offer consolation. For the religious
and the single lay Christian, most of the consolation can be expected to be
that derived from considerations of the truths of our Faith, under the
influence of the Holy Spirit of Divine Love.
Clearly, these consolations can and do exist with sadness and pain, and
the greatest is that derived from the conviction that through suffering a
setback and reversal of fortune, one is sharing in the Cross of Jesus and
sharing also in the work. This
consolation is also a delight, but of a very subtle and spiritual nature.
Thus
far, consolations! Are there any
questions about what I’ve just said?
Your observations or questions can help to clarify whatever I have said
that is inaccurate or confusing, so don’t hesitate.
- - - - - - - - -
Having
all that as an introduction, let us go on to treat of the counsel, namely, to
cultivate and practice the attitude and disposition called “resignation”.
To
understand what is meant by resignation, we must consider what it means
to “resign” from a position of responsibility.
Too often we think of “resignation” as applying only in those situations
where it is impossible for us to influence and change a course of events
because they are beyond our control.
But here St. John gives us the truer, more accurate meaning by extending
to “refraining” from trying to influence and change a course of events
when we do have the capability of intervening.
Of course, this is restricted to those situations where we have no right
and no duty to intervene. For the
religious St. John is advising, his duty is to be faithful to the Rule as it
was observed in community at that time.
His duty was to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, and
to discharge the duties assigned to him for the smooth running of the monastery. He was not entrusted with the government of
the community, nor was he a formation director or spiritual director of any
member of the community. St. John knew,
and it seems he pre-supposed that this religious knew that God deals with each
of us in different ways because first of all we are unique as human persons,
but also because we are all at different places or on different levels of
advancement or development on our journeys toward union with God. Thus he could advise not only that the
religious should not do anything, not
even to speak or think about what others were doing. If we don’t always understand ourselves how
could we possibly understand what is transpiring in the hearts and souls of
others in their relationship to God?
In
mentioning the incident of Lot’s wife, it seems that St. John is suggesting
that where that religious has no right or duty to intervene, he should be as
unfeeling, as incapable of thinking or speaking as hard stone.
Would
the religious ever have the right or the duty to intervene or speak? Well, the duty to practice charity - to
exercise any of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy - arises whenever
one encounters a person in need and there is no one else around
who is obliged in virtue of charity and some other virtue such as
justice to go to the person’s aid. And
even then, St. John in other advice in these minor works says that even then,
the religious must ask permission to do the good work, and that if he were to
fail to do so, the good work would be “value-less” because not done out of
obedience to lawful authority.
How
would one translate all of that to apply to a lay Christian, to a lay Discalced
Carmelite? I believe we can say that
like that Religious, the lay Christian must refrain from speaking about or
thinking about any matters that do not fall within the scope of his or her own
vocation. Obviously, lay Christians
have a much wider scope of responsibility and action than the Friar St. John
was writing for. That is because lay
Christians not only are responsible to family and employers, principally, and
have obligations in justice toward matters pertaining to home and family life
and their employment, lay Christians also have an obligation to do what they
can to change society for the better, indeed to contribute to the
transformation of society into the Kingdom of God on earth. So with regard to this counsel on the
practice of resignation, the lay Christian would be obliged to try to identify where
and when it has the right and duty to speak and act so as to influence the
course of events, and to restrict his or her interventions to those situations
only. It seems to me that attending to
those matters would be so time consuming that the lay Christian wouldn’t have
the time nor the energy left to even dream of intervening in matters that are
the responsibility of someone else. But
if perchance a lay Christian were not totally absorbed in his or her own duties
and obligations, then such a person would have to make sincere efforts neither
to think or speak about matters that are the responsibility of others.
Now
the thought occurs to me, and it may have occurred to you also, what would St.
John of the Cross have to say about the modern media, not only T.V., but radio
and newspapers? Would he tell modern
Carmelites not to watch it? Would he restrict
its use? And if so, what rules or
guidelines would he set down?
It
seems to me that we can make a good guess at the answer basing ourselves upon
what he has told us in this counsel and its application to lay Christians. It seems to me he would give us one general
rule of thumb: Read, listen to, and look at those offerings that concern
matters toward which you have a duty or obligation to intervene in some way. I suppose that a supplementary rule would
be: read, listen and watch in such a way and at such times that you do not
take your time and energy away from the more important matters toward (about)
which you have duties and obligations to discharge. In other words: all things in proper order of importance.
For
the religious Friar of St. John’s time there would be the obligation to pray
for the good of society and the Church, and so some exposure to the
media offerings could be deemed very helpful and would even stimulate prayers
for the good of society and of souls.
Perhaps some exposure as entertainment could be justified, since St. John
of the Cross placed great emphasis upon the need for wholesome recreation,
because, he said, an archer’s bow, if never relaxed, loses its resiliency
and becomes worthless. To him,
wholesome recreation was necessary to restore the psychic energy expended in
living the Religious life. Perhaps too,
or surely, viewing of selectable offerings could be justified as education in
matters that would enable one to be a better religious and better serve the
Church and souls.
But
then, judging on the basis of personal experience with T.V. a final rule: If
the sounds and sights and images become so deeply impressed in your
imagination, and keep recurring as vivid recollections with the result that you
cannot keep your awareness focused on God and Divine things in prayer, then it
is better not to read, hear or watch any offerings of the media.
When
we apply those rules regarding newspapers, radio and T.V. to lay Christians, it
is clear that they have a greater right and duty to be aware of what is being
written, spoken and shown in the media because these are the things that shape
society in its values and outlook more than anything else. Thus lay Christians would have to know what
is being offered so as to form a judgment of their effect on values, goals and
outlook, and to respond accordingly: to speak and act in ways that oppose
error and the values and outlook that conflict with Gospel truth and to speak
and act to reinforce those things that are in accord with Gospel values and
truths. That is because, as you know,
lay Christians are bound and obliged by their Baptism to work together for the
transformation of human society on earth.
Of course, lay Christians would also have the duty to pray
for the good of society, especially when no other way to intervene or to
influence society is possible to them.
I
also believe that the rule about observing the priorities, not letting the
media take away from more important matters and duties, also applies to lay
Christians as well. Finally, the rule
about avoiding T.V. if the images evoked cause too many distractions during
prayer time is applicable to anyone who practices prayer, particularly to all
of you lay Discalced Carmelites.
Before
leaving this first counsel, there are three other things in it that
deserve comment. The first is
that the immediate fruit of practicing this resignation is tranquility of
soul. By this I believe St. John
means inner peace, peace of mind and soul.
We cannot overestimate the value of this tranquility, this peace since
it is what Jesus Himself wishes for all of us, as we gather from the way He
always greeted the apostles after the resurrection: Peace be with you! Our God is a God of Peace, and so they
cannot abide in a soul that is not at peace – inner tranquility; peace, is the
greatest and most reliable evidence of the Trinity dwelling within a soul.
The
second is that this practice is not easy. The temptations to preoccupy ourselves with
what is being done and said around us are very strong. But the need to continue to strive mightily
is indicated by its other fruit: to free oneself of sins and
imperfections. The principal sin is
that of rash judgment. One help in
that regard is the saying of Jesus: Judge not and you will not be judged. Another sin would be that of injustice. To intervene even by word where we are not
supposed to is infringing rightful authority, which is contrary to
justice. A further sin or imperfection
would be to create confusion if not doubt in the minds of the people party to
the situation we are to stay clear of.
One of the spiritual works of mercy is to counsel the doubtful. So by creating doubt and confusion, one
commits a sin against charity.
Finally, St. John of the Cross points out that nothing can
compensate for the damage done by failure to practice this
resignation. I heard a saying many
years ago: “What you lose on the bananas, you make up on the onions.” But here we learn that what we lost by not
being resigned cannot be made up by any degree of practice of
virtue or piety or fulfillment of the duties of one’s state in life!!
* * * * * * *
Second Conference
We
go on to the second Counsel, concerning mortification. This is how St. John of the Cross introduces
his teaching in this regard: (Read
first paragraph of #3).
It
is clear from what I have just read that St. John does not mean by the word
mortification here what we (or at least I myself) ordinarily mean by
mortification. Or better, he doesn’t
want us to think of mortification as an active effort on our
part, or something we initiate and carry out.
Rather, he speaks of it as something passive, that is, something, which
we endure at the hands of other agents.
This does not mean that we are totally inactive. Our wills have a part to play, but only in
the sense of imposing restraint upon ourselves. Our participation is to “hold still” and let it happen, at the
very least, that is to say - we must overcome the urges to escape the
mortifying action of other agents upon us.
Therefore,
the passive mortification must be something that is related to the “passive”
purification or “passive” nights of the senses and of the spirit, which St.
John speaks of in his other works. This
counsel would help to clarify St. John’s teachings about the passive nights
because, as far as I know, he does not attempt to identify the “techniques” God
uses to accomplish the “passive” purifications of those “nights”. By this counsel he enables us to deduce that
God uses the very people among whom we live and work to do the work of
mortification and purification.
Now
the reasons why God Himself must intervene to mortify souls desirous of
attaining union with Him in love is because there is only so much we can do by
ourselves to mortify ourselves for union with God. As you know, the purpose of both the mortification we
impose and the active “nights” we voluntarily enter into is to strip
ourselves of every willful “attachment” to what is not God. An attachment of the will is anything that we
“want”, which our own will selects and imposes.
I
don’t know whether I have ever spoken to you about “druthers”. “Druther” is short for “I’d rather” and is
an expression of personal preference.
And “to prefer” means to put something first. A “druther” then is something we want before
all else. So when we are actively
mortifying ourselves, that is to say, when we are putting to death all the
“unruly druthers” that proceed from our fallen human nature, that is, the
“druthers” that have their origin in the cravings of the flesh and the selfish
ego, the very fact that we are the ones who decide what mortifications
to carry out, and how to carry them out, we cannot help but be exercising a
“druther”, a person preference. To be
ready to be united perfectly To God in Love even these most laudable and
necessary “druthers” must go. For
perfect union, there cannot be any “druther” of ours operative in our
souls. Only God’s “druthers” must be operative
in our lives.
The
expression (word) “operative” is very important here because we cannot impose
total inactivity upon our intellects.
If we think of our personal “druthers” as being composed of two distinct
elements, the first of these would be the action or work of the intellect, and
the second and most important of them would be the work of the will (our free
will). The work of the intellect is to
process the data presented to it by the perceptive faculties of our souls. It then comes to a conclusion as to what is
best for us and then also comes to a conclusion as to what kind of personal
activity (or lack of activity) is going to obtain the thing it deems best for
us. Then it suggests to the will:
command the operative faculties of our humanity to pursue and obtain that best
thing. Our personal druther does not
become full-fledged and perfect - that is - it does not really become an
obstacle to God’s druthers (or the druthers of others) until the will has acted
to command our humanity to go after it.
Thus, we will always have “druthers” in the sense that our intellects are
always making suggestions to our wills.
In order to be sure we do not let them become obstacles to God’s
druthers for us, we must continually resist and refrain from letting our wills
command the pursuit of our own druthers.
To
help us understand and appreciate this thing about “druthers”, we can apply it
to a problem we can all relate to, the difficulty we experience when we try to
avoid being “judgmental”. Here too
there is an activity of the intellect and an activity of the will that must both
cooperate before we can be said to be “judgmental”, that is, to avoid “rash
judgments”. Of course, being judgmental
always has to do with other people.
Thus
it is that our intellect is again always processing the data that reaches it
concerning other people. Our
perceptions of other people: what we hear them saying and what we see them
doing (or not doing) are processed by our reason and present us with a
conclusion about each of the other people we deal with. This is something we absolutely cannot put a
stop to. We would have to cut off all
perceptions in order not to make judgments about others. In order to keep the intellect from working
and coming to conclusions we would have to be completely deaf, blind and unable
to feel, taste or smell. (this
suggested by the first counsel: pay no attention to).
So,
once the intellect has come up with a conclusion - a judgment - about a person
or a situation, it presents it to the will and suggests to the will that it
accept that conclusion as the absolute and accurate truth about that person
or situation. The intellect also
suggests to the will the conclusion (judgment) it has come to concerning the
best way to deal with that person. Up
to this point, a person has not committed the sin of rash judgment (being
judgmental). That sin is only committed
when the will accepts the conclusion about the person as true, and commands
that one deal with that person based upon the acceptance of that judgment as
true. So, no matter how strong and
persuasive the evidence is that a person or a situation is such-and-such, as
long as with our wills we refuse to accept it as true (the judgment) we have
not been judgmental.
But
you may be thinking: “If I cannot accept what my mind tells me based upon my
perceptions of another person and I am obliged to deal with that person, what
do I base my conduct upon? From what I
have said, I think the answer is: “Base your conduct upon what you know for
sure is the absolute truth about that person, namely: “That person (and every
other human being) is created in the image and likeness of God, and Jesus has
suffered and died upon the Cross to redeem that person, that is how precious
that person is to God, who loves him/her with an infinite Love.”
To
get back to that first paragraph of 33.
There are some questions that arise about certain assertions he
makes. The first question (and maybe
this is one only a religious like myself would ask) is: How can he say that
the only reason that religious joined the Order was to be worked and tried in
virtue? I ask the question because
I know I never had that as the only reason why I joined the Order, and
I’m not aware that any of my brother or sister Carmelites comes to the Order
for no other reason.
The
second question, which I would expect all of you to think of is: How does
this counsel for a religious apply to me, a lay person?
One
possible answer to my question is that, that Friar expressly told St.
John of the Cross that it was the only reason why he went to the
Monastery. Since we don’t have the
letter that St. John received from him we’ll never know for sure.
But
I think it is of value to suppose that he didn’t expressly say so, and so we
can ask concerning all religious, “What justifies our applying “St. John of The
Cross’ remark to all religious, namely, that the only reason we are in the
monastery, whether we realize it or not, is precisely to be worked and tried in
virtue?”
I
think a good answer to that is, that no matter what reasons or motives
any religious has in joining an Order or Congregation, in order to realize the
objectives - I presume that the motive is some future goal to be achieved by
becoming a Friar or a Nun - the religious had in mind, the only way to achieve
those objectives and goals is to permit oneself to be worked and tried
in virtue.
Let
us suppose that a person joins a religious order to labor for the salvation of
souls. Why would such a person have to
be worked and tried in virtue?
I
believe that someone would join an order for the purpose of working for the
salvation of souls because such a person knows that, that is why the Father
sent Jesus into the world, that is why Jesus endured the cross and the grave,
and thus there is no more noble objective possible than to be instruments
through whom and by whom God the Father and Jesus are able to bring salvation
to souls. This in turn signifies that
such a person loves God and wants to be one with God. Therefore such a person has to be worked and tried in virtue so
that he/she be freed of all defects and other obstacles to becoming a most
pliable and responsive and effective instrument in the hands of God.
Let
us suppose that a person, a woman, joins a religious order like the Carmelite
Nuns and Poor Clares not to work actively, for the salvation of souls, but to
pray for the salvation of souls and for those, like priests and missionaries
and others, including laity, in the Church, who do work in active ministries?
We
can say that prayers are only as effective as the holiness of the person who
prays, and so in order that such a person advance in holiness, that is, in pure
love of God, a love free of self-seeking, she too, needs to be worked and
tried in virtue so as to be stripped of all selfish interest and self-seeking
that contaminate her love for God.
Finally,
what if a person becomes a religious because he or she believes that to do so
is the only way to say “thanks” to God for all He has done for him/her, and
indeed, for the entire human race. We
do say “thanks” by giving gifts, so such a person desires to make a complete
gift of himself/herself in Religious life, which, according to centuries of
tradition, is done by the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Again, here we can say that such a person also
has to be worked and tried in virtue so as to be stripped of all the ways in
which, after having given oneself to God as a gift through the vows, our
devious sinful nature keeps taking back the gift in so many little ways.
This
latter answer now suggests how we answer the question about the laity - How
can this second counsel to a religious apply to them?
I
think we must admit that the lay state is also a vocation, although it
has only been within the last hundred or 150 years that this notion has begun
to be accepted widely. If we think of
the various religious vocations as having not only a primary purpose which is
related to (1) the spread of the Gospel, (2) the salvation of souls and (3) the
institutional exercise of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and
perhaps (4) other, church-related ministries, but also have a witness value in
that they bear witness to the primary of spiritual values and somehow cause the
kingdom of heaven to exist in miniature here on earth, then the vocation to the
lay state is to transform society little by little until it is completely
changed into the full kingdom of God on earth.
Thus, lay people really and truly are the instruments God desires to use
to introduce the reign of God fully upon the earth. Thus, what we said about religious needing to be mortified so as
to be stripped of all those things that keep them from becoming effective
instruments for achieving the ends and objectives of their vocations also
applies to the laity. Thus it is that every
Christian needs to be worked and tried in virtue by mortification at the
hands of others, so as to fit in perfectly in the overall plan of God for us
His children by adoption and as His human children.
The
next paragraph #3, which continues to deal with the notion of mortification,
then indicates how this is brought about by God, making use of human agents,
whether they are aware of it or not!
(Read
the paragraph) pg. 662
(The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, by Fr. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D.
and Fr. Otilo Rodriguez, O.C.D. 1979 Edition. Copies of the book are available
at ICS Publications, 2131 Lincoln Rd., N.E., Washington, D.C. 2002-1199, Phone:
1-800-832-8489. )
Unfortunately,
St. John of the Cross does not go into detail about what those defects are that
keep us from being perfect instruments in God’s hands, or which are evidence of
self-seeking and self-interest, or which are evidence of our tending to take
back in little ways the things we have given to God or surrendered to Him. So we have to see if we can figure it out
for ourselves. So we ask the question: How
do words spoken to us by others achieve some aspect of the necessary
mortification?
Well
insofar as we are instruments, one thing we do not want to hear is that our
work does not measure up to standard.
Thus we would be mortified by criticism. Criticism could be either constructive or destructive. If it is constructive, then usually, in the
process of trying to perfect ourselves as instruments (or be perfected) we may
come to realize that we have to learn more about our work or be more careful,
or to take more time, or to be more thorough, etc.
If
it is destructive criticism, its purpose is not to help us improve and perfect
our work, but to hurt us and to humiliate us.
Perhaps some things said to us or about us through destructive criticism
can also help us to correct defects and so improve us as instruments. But one thing for sure that destructive
criticism can do if we let it, is to purify our motives. It helps us to do our work well, not for
personal rewards, but for its own sake - because it deserves our best effort -
because it is needed by God to achieve His plans for the human race.
Also,
words may be used to accuse us of character defects on one end of the scale, or
of having vices and committing sins on the other end of the scale. Even though it is quite possible that some
of what is said to or about us may be the result of rash judgment and/or a
desire to hurt us, nevertheless we can accept them humbly and take them
seriously and take a good look at ourselves so as to overcome them if we have
those defects or are guilty of those sins to some degree.
In
both cases - criticism and accusation of unacceptable conduct - the results are
an increase in effectiveness as an instrument and an increase in holiness (or
wholeness in the case of character defects), and so God can work through us
more effectively.
Finally,
words may be used to contradict us and to tell us we are wrong and in
error. However, both of these can be
reduced to either of the former or both combined, and again, if we look upon
them as graces, as evidence of God’s mercy, then they also can lead to the same
desired results.
Next,
St. John says that others mortify us and try us in virtue by doing against us
what we would rather not endure. Since
he does not say so explicitly, one way or the other, we may assume that these
deeds are done both deliberately and indeliberately. Most likely, he really means, or has in mind, those done
indeliberately. A good example of this
is found in the life of the Little Flower, St. Therese, who tells us about how
the habit (indeliberate) of a certain nun of grinding her teeth during periods
of mental prayer (in common) was such a torture to her that it nearly drove her
out of her mind. So in general, the
deeds he seems to have in mind are whatever is painful to our senses: of sight,
sound, smell, taste and touch, and a combination of them. In particular it could be that someone turns
up the heat when we are warm, or turns it down when we are cold, or closes the
window when we need a breath of fresh air, or opens it when we are shivering,
puts too much salt and pepper on the food we are served, or leaves it out
completely and there is no salt and pepper on the table to add ourselves. It could be music that we can’t stand, it
could be a cologne that we find offensive, it could be decorations or color
combinations we find distasteful, it could be being sloppy and messy and
disorderly, or even being overly neat and orderly, etc. One thing that bothers me is hearing people,
without Church approval, introducing so called “inclusive language” into
scriptural readings and liturgical prayers - (Classic English literature does
have it).
Something
quite similar to the above, and perhaps the cause of the indeliberate deeds we
would rather not endure is the next manner by which St. John says others work
us and try us in virtue: their temperament and their personal characteristics,
their “style” so to speak. We have all
met people or have had to be with people who just “rub us the wrong way.” All they do and say and look and are “goes
against our grain.” In the world lay
folk can escape exposure to such folks rather easily, most times, though often
enough such people are co-workers or members of a parish a organization that we
belong to. In a religious community,
the opportunity to avoid this type of passive mortification occurs less
frequently.
When
St. John speaks of others working and trying us by their thoughts, it is here
that we have to assume that we get to know those thoughts not because we are
mind-readers, but because those thoughts are betrayed by what others do or say
in dealing with us, and indeed, very often by the expressions on their faces
and by “body-language.” What these
would be can be found among all the things we mentioned in particular above,
although these would not be deliberate on purpose (because not expressed
verbally).
The
final paragraph of #3 at last names two very important virtues St. John had in
mind all along - namely “inner patience” and “being silent.” Patience, of course, is related to
fortitude, the Cardinal Virtue whose supreme act is to endure martyrdom rather
than to deny the Faith altogether.
Patience in the face of the mortifications inflicted upon us by others
is a lesser form of martyrdom. By it we
prefer to endure pain rather than to deny certain elements of our Catholic
Faith or to act contrary to God’s will.
One could be that we deserve hell for our sins (at least original) so in
having been delivered from that, why not endure a lesser evil as our part of
making a tiny bit of reparation of our own to join to Jesus’ infinite
satisfaction. Another truth would be that God’s providence is ultimately behind
all the things that happen to us, and even what He merely permits us to suffer,
are for our greater good. You can
probably think of still other truths among all the truths we hold by Faith.
If
patience is related to fortitude, then inner silence is related to that of
temperance. Temperance enables us to
either take in due moderation or to abstain completely from those things that
bring pleasure to the ego and the senses.
When we are made to endure all the things that others do to mortify us.
Often the only thing that offers some relief or satisfaction to nullify the
pain is to say and think certain things to or about the ones who cause the pain
to sense or ego. Silence keeps that
from happening. Inner silence keeps us
from even thinking things as a way of giving us the satisfaction of getting
even.
I
think I’ve made this conference too long already. So I’ll end by reading all of #4 concerning this second counsel:
pg. 663 of Complete Works of St. John of the Cross 1979 edition.
* * ** * * * * * * * *
Third Conference
(Read
first paragraph of #5. p. 663)
In
this first paragraph, St. John does not elaborate upon the concept of
virtue. In particular, he does not seem
to be speaking about virtues in the strict sense, which are good habits, that
is, dispositions of the soul or tendencies that are acquired by direct effort
and which become a “second nature” in the persons who possess them. Instead, he talks about “acts” of virtue,
and in this first paragraph on the third counsel he mentions explicitly the
virtues of obedience and observance and only hints at other virtues. One of them would be the virtue of Religion,
since be says that his interrogator should have no concern for the world, but
only for God. When he tells him not to set
his eyes upon satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the work at hand, it suggests
he is thinking of acts of the virtues of temperance and fortitude (or at least
patience). In saying that his motives
should transcend mere feelings such as satisfaction or dissatisfaction, he is
suggesting the virtue of self-abnegation, a negative thing, but positively it
would be charity - that is choosing God’s will, or the will of another person
over his own. The last sentence of the
paragraph is a paraphrase of the sentence, which precedes it.
What
then, are virtues in the strict sense?
Can we elaborate on what has already been said about them as acquired
tendencies?
As
acquired tendencies, virtues can be compared to conditioned responses.
(example: Pavlov’s dog) That is the same as saying that they are habits, only good
habits. Virtues, as habits, become
almost like instincts. Thus they come
into play before reason and free will come into play. They are, of course, triggered by our sense perceptions. It is almost like having a whole set of
“buttons,” so to speak, and to each button, when pushed, a certain kind of
response, whether a thought, word or deed, or combination of them all occurs
before we are completely aware of what is happening with our conscious mind. It is the perceptions I mentioned that
determines which “button” is pushed.
Two
questions immediately arise: (l) Give
an example of how certain perceptions evoke an instinctive response that is an
act of virtue, and (2) If these responses take place before we are fully aware
of what is happening, how can we be responsible for them, that is, how can we
take credit for them as good deeds?
With
regard to examples, perhaps the easiest to appreciate would be an example of
acts of humility, the virtue. Consider
our Blessed Mother, whose humility was so great it drew down upon her a whole
series of extraordinary favors. There
must have been plenty of times she perceived in the words and attitudes of
other citizens in Nazareth that they considered her to have extraordinary good
qualities. These would be words of
praise, or attitudes of deep respect and reverence. These would immediately trigger in her the raising of her mind
and heart to God to tell Him “all that they see in me that is good and worthy
of admiration is from You. You gave me
these as utter gift. Of myself I am
nothing.” This raising of her heart and
mind would be so swift to take place that it would be an accomplished fact
before she would be fully aware of what had taken place.
Another
example might be the virtue of chastity.
If all of a sudden, say while watching television, or just walking down
the street, a man who possessed the virtue of chastity would perceive a woman
indecently dressed, before the perception would have time to register fully on
his conscious mind, he would have averted his eyes so as not run the risk of
taking sinful delight in looking at the woman or of experiencing temptations of
the flesh.
It
is a little more difficult to give very clear examples of how acts of the
Cardinal Virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance are triggered,
although the virtue of humility is a subdivision of the virtue of justice, and
the virtue of chastity is a subdivision of the virtue of temperance.
The
virtue of justice (the good habit) is the permanent disposition to give another
what is owed to him in justice. As an
example: If a just, honest man agrees to pay a certain amount of money for
something in a store, and after paying with a larger denomination bill of
currency than the cost of the items, perceives that the clerk erroneously gave
him more change than was due, he would immediately, before even having a chance
to think about it, return the excess amount to the clerk. One who would have the opposite habit - the
bad habit of wanting more than he had a right to, would instinctively get out
of there before the clerk adverted to his mistake.
It
is not as difficult, I don’t think, to come up with examples of how acts of the
Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity can be triggered by our
perceptions.
If
a very charitable person were to perceive another person in need to help
because of some difficulty, he or she would instinctively go to help that
person, if at all possible, and if not, would experience sentiments of
compassion and would surely invoke God’s help upon that sufferer.
If
a person who has strong Hope were made to perceive how little capable he is of
overcoming serious obstacles to fulfilling the duties of his state in life,
whether they be economic difficulties or caused by the needs and conduct of
members of the family before he could apply his conscious mind to addressing
the situation, he would remember that the strength and wisdom is available in
virtue of the promises and merits of Jesus, and thus he would rely on God
rather than himself.
I
do hope those examples will suffice.
Turning
then to the next question: If these responses, though good in themselves,
are instinctive, how can anyone take credit for them? We can only accept praise or blame for deeds freely done, knowing
full well what we are doing.
The
answer to that is that these good habits do not come naturally to us. As I said earlier, they are acquired
tendencies. That means a person has to
engage in a free, deliberate program of acquiring those virtues. One has to practice, rather, force
himself to perform specific “acts” of the various virtues time and time
again. Force is required to overcome
the opposite and natural tendency to do the opposite of the virtuous deed. This certainly requires knowledge and
deliberation and the use of free will, so that the acquired tendencies, the
good instincts become free and deliberate in their cause, and so the one who
has the virtues gets the credit for performing them.
Having
said all that, it seems to me that St. John of the Cross is talking about
performing acts of virtue, rather than acting as a consequence of possessing
virtues. The reason why I think that is
because he speaks of constancy in observing the Rule and of obedience.
As
we all know, the Rule, especially the schedule of Religious and Community acts
in the time of St. John of the Cross, required that the Friars and Nuns perform
those acts at stated times and places.
Very often they would not be in the mood, naturally speaking, to do
those things or share in those community acts.
Therefore, although he doesn’t say so explicitly, St. John is urging his
questioner to acquire the habit of observing the Rule, so that
eventually he would not need the bell to call him to those acts of
observance. Instead, that Friar would
be urged from within and would experience no resistance to fulfilling all the
requirements of the Rule at the right time and in the right place.
Something
similar can be said about the practice of obedience. As you know, obedience usually means setting aside what we want
to do, or what we think is the best thing to do, and doing what a lawful
superior wants us to do. Thus, although
St. John separates the observance of the Rule (religious observance) from obedience,
the former is included in the latter.
We
all know why obedience is necessary in anyone who wants to achieve perfect
union with God in love. Perfect union
with God in love is achieved when a person’s will is totally and completely
united to and conformed to the will of God.
The
word totally and completely united means being united not merely in a general
and common way - common to all Christians - but in a detailed and specific
way. That is because we are all unique
and we live uniquely distinct lives in distinctively different situations and
relationships.
Thus
we don’t need a religious superior or someone to help us discern God’s will
when it comes to all those aspects of life that we share in common with
others. The Ten Commandments suffice for
that, as do the general obligations of our state in life as revealed through
scripture and the moral teaching of the Church, which of course is derived from
Divine revelation.
Those
who have entered religious life cannot unite their will specifically and in
detail with the will of God without bringing every aspect of their lives in
their Order or Congregation under the umbrella of obedience. Does that mean that a religious never
has a chance to exercise initiative or to assume responsibilities based upon
his or her personal perceptions and abilities?
No, because most often the lawful superior tells his or her subjects to
carry out their duties in the manner they deem most in accord with God’s will. (Trusting in the help of the Holy Spirit.)
Those
who have not taken vows of obedience may not have the safeguard of bringing all
things under the umbrella of obedience, but they can and should always,
whenever in doubt, seek the advice or at least the opinion of a confessor, a
spouse, or anyone whom they believe to be a good and prudent Christian.
Right
after mentioning obedience in this first paragraph of the third counsel, St.
John of the Cross speaks of motivation.
He also speaks of the goal of obedience. God is attained by obedience, and what motivates us to obey is to
please God. Here, St. John is talking
about the pleasure that is experienced in the will. Pleasure of the will is the highest and most noble form of pleasure
attainable to rational free creatures.
No matter who we are, when we get what we really want, what we will
to take place, we experience that highest kind of pleasure attainable to
humans. It is of course, a spiritual
pleasure.
This
presents a kind of dilemma for us, because we don’t always “want”, with our
human, natural will, the things that God wants of us and which He asks us
through His representatives, our lawful superiors. How then, can we experience that highest and deepest joy I just
spoke of? The answer can be found in
remembering that our lower nature of feelings, and of “felt” or “sensible”
wants and desires does not fall under the complete and total control of our
“free will”, which is our higher spiritual center of wants and desires. The objects of our higher needs and wants
are of a spiritual nature, which cannot be “perceived” by the senses of our
lower nature. So with our higher will
we can truly want what God wants, namely, what obedience requires of us,
even though our lower nature is clamoring for something else.
In
a beginner, the spiritual joy of knowing we are getting what we want:
what God wants, is overwhelmed by the “sadness and discomfort” that is felt by
lower nature when it does not get what it wants. However, the more one gets used to doing
what God wants and thus wanting to please Him, the more our lower nature
gets accustomed to “doing without”, and eventually the higher spiritual joy
makes itself known and perceptible in the depths of the soul. Therefore, Jesus, who always wanted what His
Father wanted for Him in His humanity, was able to know the deepest and most
spiritual of joys even in the midst of the most atrocious suffering.
In
mentioning doing all things that obedience requires, whether agreeable or not,
St. John is also talking about the virtues of temperance and fortitude. He is talking about temperance because our
motive in doing those things we enjoy with our lower nature, which God also
wants for us (eating, sleeping, keeping warm and healthy) is not the comfort
and enjoyment, but the fact that God wants it for us. He is talking about fortitude because we do not allow ourselves
to be deterred from doing the uncomfortable things God expects of us and wants
from us, but we do them because God wants us to do them.
When
these virtues become second nature to us, a persistent, imperturbable peace,
calm, serenity and joy is always present in the depths of our souls.
(Read
the second and third paragraphs of this third Counsel).
It
appears here that St. John is proposing two objectives by the advice he
recommends in these two paragraphs. The
one is quite evident, namely, that we can speed up the process of finding joy
of a deeper kind in doing God’s will and seeking only to please Him. The other is that all the virtues
will gradually be acquired. To each of
the virtues of justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude, which are called
the Cardinal virtues, many other virtues are related as subdivisions or
daughters of the four main ones.
Justice has the most in number of affiliated virtues: they are (some of
them): Religion, Gratitude, Humility, Hospitality (liberality),
Observance, Obedience, Truthfulness, Piety, and
others: amiability (affability), equity.
Related
to temperance are Chastity, Modesty, (in dress and manners), Sobriety,
Continence (abstinence), Moderation and others: Clemency, Meekness,
Humility, and Diligence.
Related
to fortitude are Patience, Perseverance, Longanimity (patient enduring of
injuries), Constancy and others: magnanimity and magnificence.
The
technique, then, that St. John of the Cross recommends is to be considered in
addition to and subordinate to observance of the Rule and obedience. Thus, only where the Rule or obedience do
not give clear indications of God’s will for us, and we do have some leeway in
which to exercise personal initiative
and
lawful free choice, we are to seek always what is less agreeable to human
nature, that is our sense, and sense appetites, and our ego.
It
is interesting that St. John says that the heavier the cross we freely choose,
the lighter it becomes when carried for love of Jesus. We therefore have to believe that if we
always choose the lesser burdens and crosses, when we have the lawful freedom
to choose, we really are not carrying them for love of Jesus but for love of
self. Then even they begin to seem
unbearable, and we could wind up abandoning those light crosses and thus the
narrow path which alone leads to eternal life.
As
part of lower nature we have to include our natural egos. So part of St. John’s program is to seek
always to mortify our egos by seeking to serve rather than to be served, and
always to seek the last and lowest place in the opinion of others, even the
opinion of good people. A good example
of that is the Litany of Humility, with which I will end this conference!
(Read
the Litany of Humility).
* * * * * * * * *
Fourth Conference
(Read the first paragraph of 4th counsel).
When
we commented on the other counsels, we had to keep reminding ourselves that
they were counsels given to one of his fellow Discalced Carmelite Friars, and
therefore we had to try to adapt them to the extent possible to those who are
called to a lay vocation. That is even
more so true with regard to this 4th counsel.
As we go through it we will see that St. John is asking for an outer
solitude because otherwise one will never achieve inner solitude, a
characteristic of the state of perfection.
Indeed, inner solitude is a characteristic of the Carmelite Spirit,
because one of the sayings that used to be impressed upon us when I was a novice
was: On Mt. Carmel, God alone and I.
It
is necessary to think about the inner solitude wherein one strives to be with
God alone because we can’t help asking, “well, what happens when someone is
all alone with God”? Obviously,
being alone with God does not mean being totally inactive, because by our very
nature we have powers and faculties which have to be occupied with
something. So the purpose of inner
solitude, being alone with God, is to enable the intellect, the imagination and
the heart to direct all their attention to God, who alone can fill them and
give them a kind of “active” repose.
The intellect, or mind, seeks to be occupied with and rest in Supreme
Truth, the imagination seeks to be occupied with and at rest in Supreme Beauty,
and the heart (or will) seeks to be occupied with and at rest in Divine
Goodness. That is, all three faculties
seek to be totally immersed and at rest in God, as well as actively engaged in
knowing Him, in seeing Him, and in loving Him.
This
does present a kind of a problem because when our Lord Jesus made the
statement: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”, He did so
after saying to His disciples (in the Sermon on the Mount) that they must love
their enemies, not only those who love them because His Father allows the sun
to shine on the good and the bad; He sends His rain alike upon the good and the
bad. Therefore, the goal of perfection
(while in this world) requires that we be aware of others and be involved with
others, at least to the extent necessary to practice charity toward
others. How then, can we be alone with
God and yet be involved with people?
That first paragraph gives us the answer. It consists in the altering of our perceptions, or at least in
changing the value we give to our perceptions.
First, St. John says, we are to “deem” or consider everything in this
world as ended, or finished. He
explains by adding that this is accomplished by “detachment.” We spoke just now of having our souls
“occupied” with the truth, beauty and goodness of God. If there is nothing for the powers of our
soul to be “fastened” upon or focused upon, we are alone. If they were formally fastened upon or
focused upon a creature - a created truth, beauty or goodness, which is always
in very small amounts - and the powers of the soul detach themselves from this
creature, then again, the soul is said to be alone, in solitude as regards
those creatures.
The
problem is complicated by a recent catechesis on the Brown Scapular devotion to
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. This catechesis
was written by Our Father General, acting as appointee of the joint General
Councils of the O. Carm’s and the O.C.D.’s.
Besides saying the Scapular (wearing it) obliges one to be open to God
and His Presence in our daily lives, and to be open to His Word in the Bible
and in prayer, we are told that the scapular devotion also obliges one to be
open to others, attentive to their needs.
Obviously not all who wear the scapular as their sign of consecration to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary consider themselves bound to seek perfection
according to the Carmelite Rule for Seculars.
Nevertheless, the General’s catechesis, approved and promulgated by the
Joint General Councils of O. Carm’s and O.C.D.S. does speak of the wearing of
the scapular also as a sign of embracing Carmelite spirituality.
So,
then, what do I mean by saying St. John suggests that we alter our
perceptions? I think he wants us to
perceive all the people and situations we have to deal with daily as being in
some way related to and associated with God Himself. That is, we should not consider them as separate and unrelated to
God. In that way, yes, we do deal with
people and situations, but only as “masks” so to speak that God is wearing, and
that we are really dealing with Him.
But what if the people or situations we deal with are not speaking or
doing things that are in agreement with God’s known Will or Divinely revealed
truth? In this latter case we have to
think of the person or situation as a mask on God’s permissive will, and so we
can still think of ourselves as dealing with Him, though wrestling with Him, as
did Jacob in the account in Genesis.
In
either case, it is not easy to keep before us the awareness of every person or
every situation as being related to God but it is something Our Lord Himself
has already asked of us implicitly by telling us the parable of the Last
Judgment, in which He says: What you did for others who were suffering, or
failed to do for others who were suffering, you did, or did not do for Me,
suffering in them.
To
do this requires a lively faith, hope and charity. A lively faith to keep before us the truth that God is related to
all of nature, especially human beings, as His creation, and is related to all
Christians not only as being made in His image and likeness as are all human
beings, but also as His adopted children, and thus our own brothers and sisters
in the Family of God.
A
lively hope is required because we are relying on God’s promises and Jesus’
merits to provide us with the means we need to overcome all the obstacles both
in our own wounded humanity and those placed in our paths by others and by the
situations we deal with, that could possibly cause us to stumble and fall on
our journey back to God. Hope causes us
to see all our dealings with others and all situations as opportunities to
practice all the virtues we see in Our Lord, and also to rely on the grace of
the present moment for God to respond in the properly virtuous manner.
Of
course, we need lively charity, because only love can give us the courage and
the strength to do those acts of virtue which we find repugnant to our fallen
human nature and to our ego, especially when it requires returning good for
evil.
Thus,
because faith, hope and charity are called Theological Virtues, that is, they
keep our souls in direct contact with God, the change in perception St. John
suggests to us does help us to be alone with God, and thus attain the inner
solitude of this 4th Counsel.
(Read
paragraph #8 and following)
Clearly
these two brief paragraphs are meant only for members of Religious Orders whose
chief aim is the contemplative life, or as he expressly says: the religious
who has consecrated his entire life and all his works to Him.
Since
the admonitions given here are not practical for Lay Carmelites, then these are
to be replaced by the next best admonition.
In my opinion it means: “curbing
one’s curiosity.” We are so inquisitive
by nature that we are always tempted to look into matters and to hear about
matters that really are none of our business.
But
this, too, is an area where we cannot always be sure to what extent we
should withdraw from keeping aware of what is happening around us. The fact that we all need a certain amount
of recreation and change of pace also can make it difficult to stay at home and
pay no attention to what is going on in society. So we all have to make sincere efforts to trust in divine
providence to give us the enlightenment we need when we need it, and we have to
pray for that enlightenment often.
In
that second paragraph of Section 8, St. John of the Cross speaks of avoiding
idle words. Therefore, there must
be some connection between idle words and the inner solitude - or lack of it - which
this counsel is about. Well, I’m sure
you all know that words and thoughts are inextricably intertwined. Words are meant to evoke thoughts and images
in our minds. People speak to us
because they want us to share the thoughts and images in their own minds. They know that words enable them even to
share - in some way - their personal experiences. Words, then, necessarily cause us to receive into our souls the
person who speaks and that person’s unique perspective on his or her
surroundings and his/her posture or attitude, vis-à-vis the outside world.
Inwardly, then, we are not alone.
This
is not bad in itself, because we said earlier that we are to perceive this
person and the situation shared as a mask of God, whether worn by Him because
he identifies with the person, or because it is a “mask” of His permissive
will. Therefore, an idle word would be
one, I suppose, that cannot serve as a mask for God. However, thus far I have spoken of idle words in the context of
what is spoken to us. And surely, we
have all had many idle words spoken to us in the past. Here St. John of the Cross is telling us
that we should not speak an idle word to others. So we reflect further on another effect that
words have on us besides sharing the speaker’s thoughts and experiences with
us. Words, because they put thoughts
into our minds, then trigger in us a whole new train of thoughts. One thing reminds us of another thing or
two, each of those others in turn, and so a lot of things enter into our soul
to occupy our mind and our imagination and our heart that otherwise would not
be there. And our inner solitude is
disturbed if not destroyed.
Of
course we can’t take the blame for that, that is, hearing the idle word, and so
there always remains for us the possibility as seeing it, perceiving it as a mask
of God, to which there will always be an appropriate virtuous response. But this is true only if we don’t purposely
expose ourselves to hearing idle words, as we surely do every time we turn on
the television or pick up certain books and periodicals. So, knowing what effect idle words have on
us: causing feelings and emotions and desires in our fallen nature that cannot
be reconciled with God’s will for us, we must be very careful not to speak idle
words to others, for they could be occasions of sin for the ones we are
speaking to.
It
is not difficult, then, to get a good idea of what we mean by idle words. There are times when there are awkward
silences, and so often we feel obliged to say something to get rid of the
uncomfortable feelings caused by awkward silences. If the words we choose are such as to make the others feel at
ease to make them feel welcome and respected, and in any way affirm their
dignity as human beings worthy of respect, then even if we only talk about the
weather, those would not be idle words.
Thus, as I have interpreted the meaning, “idle words” are words that
cannot be considered part of a consecrated life nor the directing of all one’s
work to God. Thus we understand why St.
John of the Cross puts this admonition here as part of the counsel to foster
inner solitude.
(Read
first paragraph of Section 9)
As
the beginning of the first paragraph of the last section (8) does not apply
literally to Lay Carmelites, now the first paragraph of this section does
indeed apply equally to religious of any order, active or contemplative, and
to lay Carmelites.
Just
as we spoke of interpreting the people and situations we deal with as being
“masks” of God, so also we are to act and deal with others as we go about
fulfilling God’s will for us according to our state in life in such a way that
these become more than just “masks” of God, but really and truly become God’s
way of being present and active in the lives of others and in the situations we
have to address in the living out of our vocation. Obviously, God does not do wrong. He can’t do wrong. It is
impossible for Him to make a mistake.
It is not a mistake or wrong for Him to have a permissive will. There is a permissive will in God because he
created us free out of Love, and it is Love for Him to respect our free will
and not violate it. Thus all the evil
in the world - caused not by God, but by free creatures - constitutes
what, out of love, He permits. And He
always is able, out of infinite wisdom, power and love, to turn it to good, or
to be the occasion of greater wonders of mercy on His part. In any event, when we do allow faults,
whether serious or slight, to creep into the fulfillment of the obligations of
our state in life, our vocation, God cannot be fully in them, and what we do
becomes part of His permissive will that He cannot cause. When free of fault, the fulfillment of God’s
will for us becomes His Work of which we are the instruments, and He is truly
fully in those works.
(Read
second paragraph of section 9)
Here
St. John of the Cross tells us that the best way to foster inner solitude is by
the practice of prayer. Prayer is being
alone with God and focusing the mind, imagination and heart upon Him. He also says that prayer can be something
continual, something that can co-exist with our various activities throughout
the day. One way is to strive to do all
things with Jesus, if we have good imaginations, or for love of Him, or
with thankfulness to Him, so that indeed our hearts remain fixed on Jesus, who
is God, one with Father and Holy Spirit.
He
even speaks of avoiding idle thoughts here, taking what he said about idle
words a level deeper. In this second
paragraph he reveals how much he is aware that our minds were created to be
ever in search of knowledge, because it is knowledge that our minds are united
to reality under the aspect of truth.
He doesn’t tell us to refuse to learn, but St. John of the Cross does
tell us to seek to learn only those things that enable us to preserve the inner
solitude, where God alone and the individual person dwell, namely, how to serve
Him ever more perfectly, especially through the observance of the duties of our
vocation in the Church.
(Read
section/paragraph 10)
Again,
St. John is concerned with reaching the perfection (of charity) in a very short
time. The thought occurs to me, how
does reaching perfection differ from reaching that degree of holiness that God
wills for us to attain? Are they the
same? If they are the same, once we
reach perfection, we will die.
Somehow I don’t feel comfortable with the idea that a person who reaches perfection is no longer of value to God in this world. Really, since Mary and Jesus were always perfect from the moment of their individual conceptions, the degree of holiness is different from perfection, and thus can keep increasing until Our Lord decides to take someone from this world. As we know, God wants as many people to become very holy and live a long time as very holy people, because these are the ones He chooses to be Victim Souls, and thus help Him to bring redemption and salvation to many, many souls who otherwise would not reach heaven.
*
* * * * * * * *
MISSION STATEMENT:
This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno
Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication
of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial
for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.
Texts for the Counsels to a Religious were taken from The Collected Works
of St. John of the Cross, by Fr. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Fr. Otilo Rodriguez,
O.C.D. 1979 Edition. Copies of the book are available at ICS Publications,
2131 Lincoln Rd., N.E., Washington, D.C. 2002-1199, Phone: 1-800-832-8489.