| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |
Continuation of Commentaries
on the Maxims on Love of St. John of the Cross
by Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Maxim 34 .
Any appetite causes five kinds of harm in the soul: first, disquiet; 2nd, turbidity,
At first, I thought that it
would not be appropriate for me to comment upon this Maxim because St. John of
the Cross himself explains what he means by it in Book I of the Ascent
of Mount Carmel. At its very
beginning he begins to comment on the poem that opens with the phrase "one dark
night." After explaining what he
means by the "dark night" namely - the deprivation (absence) of all sense
experience brought about by the "mortification of the appetites" he goes on to
speak of the "two main areas of harm" caused by the appetites within the
person in whom they dwell: These
are: "...(1) they deprive him of God's spirit; and (2) they weary,
torment, darken, defile and weaken him." (Bk I, Ch 6, par 1). Although the second area of harm does
not coincide exactly in wording with this Maxim 34, it is evident that they are
equivalent. Thus we would equate:
Maxim
(disquiet with weary
)
34
(turbidity with torment, and )
Ascent
(obscurity with darken
) Book I, Ch. 6
The other two are
identical: weaken (weakness) and
defile (defilement)
However, in reading the first
several chapters of the said Bk. I, especially Chapters 3 to 12 inclusive, I
came to the conclusion that it would be to our advantage to reflect upon the
various shades of meaning St. John of the Cross gives to the word "appetite,"
whether used alone, or modified by various adjectives. In addition, it will be helpful to
comment upon the two totally different meanings he gives to the word
"darkness." And lastly, to reflect
upon the meaning of the value he gives to the word
"virtue."
Here are some of the synonyms
he uses for appetite: attachment,
affection, desire, hunger, concupiscence and thirst. We find them throughout the 10 chapters
mentioned.
Here are some of the adjectives
St. John of the Cross uses with the word appetite:
inordinate (ch. 6, par 1; ch. 9, par 3; ch. 12, par
5)
voluntary (ch. 11, pars. 2 & 3; ch. 12, pars. 3, 5 &
6)
habitual (ch. 11, par. 3)
sensual (sch. 12, par 4)
natural, involuntary (ch. 12, par. 6)
Let us now begin to talk about
them. Perhaps the synonym that can
best substitute for the word appetite is the word "desire." Although the word desire is an "active"
(as opposed to passive) verb, it really has its origin in the experience of a
want or a need. As we must
have remarked in one or more previous conferences, we experience a need or a
want as a "perception" that something essential to our well being is
lacking. Thus, if, together with
the perception of lacking something we have at least a suspicion, or
at best, a conviction that a certain item or activity is going to supply
the need, then we "desire" it.
Necessarily, the very notion that the thing desired is going to bring
satisfaction implies that item or activity is perceived as a good. This shows that the act of desiring is
an act of love, because love seeks union and possession of what we perceive as
good. I think this is borne out by
the fact that we use the word appetite mostly in regard to eating. Food is essential because if we do not
eat we cannot live. So we
instinctively perceive nourishment as a good and we "love" it. That is, we get "hungry" for food at
certain times each day, and we love it and seek union with it by ingesting
it. St. John of the Cross does use
"hunger", as pointed out above, as a synonym for appetite and also thirst. Someone with a "good" appetite is able
to enjoy most varieties of food and is able to eat a goodly amount of food and
consume a goodly amount of beverage.
Besides desire, hunger and
thirst, another very good equivalent of appetite is the word
concupiscence. It includes
both hunger for food and thirst for beverage, but includes also every possible
type of hunger and thirst for every possible kind of perceived
"satisfaction." Chiefly, though,
concupiscence is concerned with hunger and thirst of the psyche or ego. Obviously, some hungers of the psyche
are concerned with spiritual, or better, non-corporeal things, activities and
experiences perceived as "good" because they seem capable of fulfilling various
"needs" to give "life" to the ego or psyche. Mid-way between the hunger and thirst
for food and drink and the hunger and thirst for non-corporeal foods,
satisfaction would be the "concupiscence" of the flesh, which has to do with the
natural attraction we human beings feel toward persons of the opposite sex. Genesis tells us that the first man,
Adam, while still perfect, felt a need for an appropriate companion, which was
lacking for him among all the creatures and living things God brought to him to
give them their names. The creation
of Eve, the first woman was intended to supply that need. So, to re-capitulate the word appetite,
used all by itself in the writings of St. John would be an all embracing term,
like concupiscence. Both are the
practical equivalent of hunger, thirst, and desire rolled into
one.
The other two synonyms
mentioned above that St. John uses for the word appetite, namely, attachment and affection, seem
to add a particular nuance or shade of meaning lacking in all the others. The word "affection" seems to apply the
notion of a "preference" or the notion of a "favorite." In the example of a simple desire
for food and drink, or whatever else would seem to satisfy a felt need of body
or psyche, an "affection" would mean the desire for a particular preferred or
favorite kind of food or drink.
The word attachment goes
even further than that. A
particular appetite (hunger, thirst, simple desire) for some preferred or
favorite "good" for bodily and psychic life is such that the person having the
attachment would be held fast, almost held captive, by the appeal of that
particular perceived good. Thus, in
my opinion, it is the appetites considered as affections and especially
attachments that cause all the harm that St. John enumerates in this Maxim
34.
One other synonym for hunger,
thirst and desire that would include also the ideas of "affection" and
"attachment," in my estimation is the word "craving." When people "crave" a certain kind of
food, or drink, or activity, or experience, we know that they would never even
be able to resist grasping and enjoying the perceived good they crave whenever
the opportunity presented itself.
They wouldn't even be able to "want" to resist. So it would be a foregone conclusion
that a person with a craving always satisfies it whenever possible. Again, this is what I think St. John of
the Cross means by the word "appetite."
It is only those appetites that govern and control a person that cause
the harm. Or, to be more specific,
it is the cravings for created corporeal or non-corporeal things that cause the
harm. To have that same kind of
craving, affection, attachment for God, that is, the Will of God, is something
most wonderful and wholesome. It
does not harm, it undoes the harm mentioned in this Maxim and most perfectly
satisfies our God-given craving for life in its fullness. This also is explained by St. John of
the Cross in that same first book of the Ascent of Mt.
Carmel.
Now we can reflect upon the
word appetite as modified by the various adjectives noted
above.
1. Inordinate
appetite.
Since God is the creator of our entire
humanity, He is the one who designed and equipped us in such a way that we
instinctively perceive certain things as necessary, and, therefore, "good" for
bodily and psychic life. These
would be the "natural", involuntary
appetites St. John of the Cross refers to as not causing any of the harms
referred to in this Maxim 34. He
also refers to them as "first movements."
As such, they cannot cause harm because being instinctive, they are
spontaneous and automatic and precede any intervention of reason and deliberate
will. It is only when and after
free human will makes a choice in regard to these natural, involuntary appetites
that it is possible to speak of inordinate, or their opposite
ordinate appetites. To
satisfy appetites in a manner that is ordinate, that is orderly, means to
satisfy them as God, Himself intended them to be satisfied. Ordinate appetites are in conformity to
His Will, therefore to be in conformity with God's Will is to be united to Him
in love. Thus, ordinate appetites
truly confer an increase of God's life, which is the true life of the human
soul.
2. Voluntary appetites.
When St. John of the Cross uses
this term in Chapters 11 and 12 of Book I of the Ascent of Mt. Carmel, he
speaks of them as the kinds of appetites that always do cause the 5 kinds of
harm. This indicates that he has in
mind voluntary and inordinate appetites. The ordinate appetites that bring about
conformity to the Will of God must obviously be voluntary as well, since they
cannot be involuntary and disordinate at the same
time.
We would have to say the same
as regards the other two adjectives St. John of the Cross uses with the word
appetites: habitual and sensual. Both of them are spoken of as causing
the same harm as voluntary, disordinate appetites (cravings, attachments) that
hold a man captive. As St. John
himself says in the text of Bk. I referred to, habitual disordinate (and thus
voluntary) appetites are vices.
Vices, because they are habits, become "second nature" and
quasi-instinctive appetites. They
do all the harm mentioned because they are "voluntary" in their cause. The vices develop and grow out of
repeated choices to satisfy the natural, involuntary appetites in a manner
contrary to the Will of God.
Sensual appetites are, then,
the cravings, affections, attachments, hungers, thirsts and desires for what is
"good" for bodily life alone, for that aspect of our humanity that is only
corporeal and thus perishable. It
is disordinate because they must be set aside whenever they conflict with and
include the "good" that fosters and nourishes the "life" of the soul, the non-corporeal and imperishable
aspect of our humanity. These are
necessarily voluntary also in the mind of St. John of the Cross,
otherwise he could not speak of them as doing the five kinds of second type of
harm. I do believe that what has
been said is sufficient to help us know exactly what St. John of the Cross means
by the appetites as obstacles to union with God that need to be mortified and
put to death.
Let us go on now to his use of
the words "darkness" and "virtue."
St. John says in ch. 3 or Bk I
of The Ascent: "...night
is nothing but the privation of light and consequently... darkness and
emptiness... for the faculty of sight -..." (par. 1) He goes on to say that to deprive each
of the other sense faculties of the experience of their proper objects, i.e. of
hearing, tasting, feeling and smelling, is to cause them to be in
"darkness." (par 2) He then
summarizes by saying: "Accordingly, the presence of the soul in the body
resembles the presence of a prisoner in a dark dungeon, who knows no more than
what he manages to behold through the windows of his prison and has nowhere else
to turn if he sees nothing through them.
For the soul, naturally speaking, possesses no means other than the
senses (the windows of its prison) of perceiving what is communicated to it.
(par. 3)
But still, this is not the
"darkness" he has in mind when he speaks of the "one dark night." This
total absence of sense perception "...the mere lack of things... will not
divest the soul if it craves for all these objects." St. John tells us specifically that he
is talking about the "denudation" (stripping) of the soul's cravings and
gratification of those cravings.
This is what leaves the soul free and empty of all things, i.e., in darkness,
even though it possesses (has experience of) things.(par.
4)
However, in chapter 4 of this
same book I, St. John of the Cross gives the complete opposite of the above
meaning to "darkness." He says:
"...all of man's attachments to creatures (appetites) are pure
darkness in God's sight. So,
to be free of these appetites is darkness and to have them is
darkness. (par. 1). Then in
par. 2 of this ch. 4 he states unequivocally: "Darkness, an attachment to
creatures, and light, which is God, are contraries and bear no likeness to each
other." Perhaps these two
different meanings are the reason why many people find this doctrine of St. John
of the Cross so difficult to understand.
Another misunderstanding of
people concerning the meaning of the "dark night" is found in their
tendency to equate the dark night with unwanted sufferings and setbacks
and frustrations that they encounter in their daily lives. These are things beyond their control,
whereas the "dark night" of St. John - mortification of the appetites -
is something a person is supposed to inflict upon himself/herself. Of course,
these unwanted sufferings are still very valuable because, first, they
constitute the daily cross we are supposed to pick up and carry after Jesus, and
second, they reveal to us exactly what those appetites, attachments, cravings,
desires, hungers and affections are which we must mortify in order to
enter the "dark night" that alone can be a preparation for union of the
soul with God.
Now let us turn to St. John's
use of the word virtue in the 10 chapters in which he explains the
doctrine contained in Maxim 34. In
the chapter (10) of Bk I, where St. John treats of the appetites as weakening a
soul and making it lukewarm in the practice of virtue, he gives the impression
that virtues and appetites can coexist in the same soul. That is, one might conclude that a
person has the capacity to perform acts of virtue, but is robbed of the
strength to carry them out. Then in
chapter 12, par. 5 of Bk. I, he writes: "an act of virtue produces in a man
mildness, peace, comfort, light, purity and strength, just as our inordinate
appetite brings about torment, fatigue, weariness, blindness and
weakness." This suggests that
the appetites that need to be mortified cannot co-exist with virtue in one and
the same soul. But this apparent
contradiction can be resolved by remembering that at times the word virtue is
used to mean what it truly and essentially is, a constant disposition of
soul or a permanent orientation of soul, and the external effect of that
disposition. The external effect of
the permanent disposition we call virtue is always an act that conforms to God's
will in a particular situation. So
it is possible that, for reasons outside himself, a person will perform
an act that coincides with God's will, even though his appetites or inner
dispositions cause him to lean toward what is not God's will. For example, a judge may force a debtor
to pay his creditor what he owes him, and so the debtor is obliged from outside
himself to perform an act of justice, an act of virtue. Clearly, though, he does not (the
unwilling debtor) possess the virtue of justice. As another example, St. Teresa advises
her daughters to acquire the virtue of humility by forcing themselves to
"humiliate" themselves in the sight of others. These would be true "acts" of humility,
but would not yet proceed from the virtue of humility, the disposition to
esteem oneself the lowest and meanest and least worthy of honor and deference in
the eyes of others. In other words,
by acting as if they were humble, the daughters of St. Teresa of Jesus
would eventually become really humble and possess the virtue of
humility.
I was going to try to show
that the terms "disquiet" and "weariness" are the same, although on the surface
they seem quite different. But
I think it suffices to say that both can be related to rest. A disquiet person
is not at rest, and a weary person usually craves to be at rest. When something is disquieting, as much
as one would like otherwise, it robs one of rest and makes him weary. So in effect, they are the same.
Likewise, turbidity and torment
seem to be completely different.
When water is turbid, sand and dirt and other matter is swirling
all around in it and the water loses its calm, clarity and transparence. When a person is tormented, it usually
means that things are stirring themselves up in his mind or soul and he is
robbed of inner calm and peace so that his soul would lose its clarity and
transparence. So these would be the
same in effect. i.e. turbidity and torment.
We don't need to comment upon
the words "obscurity" and "darken," they are really synonymous in most
contexts.
Having said all the foregoing,
there is nothing else to say except that I hope these comments will help us
better appreciate the teaching of St. John in Bk. I, Chapter 3-12 inclusive,
of The Ascent of Mt. Carmel.
| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |