| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |
Continuation of Commentaries
on the Maxims on Love of St. John of the Cross
by Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Maxim 39.
Not observing the imperfections of others, preserving
silence and a continual communion with God
will eradicate great imperfections from the soul and make it the possessor
of great virtues.
Let
us begin by considering what St. John of the Cross means by "observing."
It seems to me it means focusing one's attention upon something along
with thinking or reflecting upon what has been "observed."
In other words, not to observe would be to see and be aware
of something that has transpired, but without focusing one's attention upon
it and thinking about it. I believe
this is correct because we use the expression:
"To make an observation." This
means: "To comment upon something."
Thus, one has focused attention and done some reasoning about a deed
that has taken place. To observe would imply reflecting
upon, forming an opinion, and/or calling attention to the event that has transpired.
That
this is the meaning of "observing" in this maxim is also suggested by the
second type of conduct that is enjoined upon us by St. John of the Cross,
namely, to preserve silence. One
who is silent makes no comment, makes no observation upon what he sees taking
place. Of course, silence can be maintained inwardly
as well as outwardly even when a person is alone, he often makes comments
and observations to himself. This
maxim extends to that inner silence as well, and would have us refrain from
giving a second thought to what we cannot help hearing or seeing.
Now
let us consider the word imperfections. I think it is interesting that St. John
uses this very neutral word, rather than to use a more judgmental word like
fault or sin. A
fault or a sin involves moral guilt.
Surely, St. John would also not want us to "observe" faults and sins
committed by others, so there must be a reason why he does not say so. I think it's because, being a saint, he
possessed the Wisdom to know that ONLY God sees the hearts and motives of
His children, so that no one of us who are trying to be guided by the Wisdom
that proceeds from Divine Love would ever presume to accuse any other person
of faults and sins. Thus, by
imperfections, St. John of the Cross is speaking of conduct that is in some
say merely defective. Defective
conduct is that which is lacking an attribute it is supposed to have. It may not be easy to find examples of
imperfect conduct that does not at the same time fail to measure up to a commandment
given by God, or Jesus, or by the Holy Spirit in the Sacred Scriptures.
But one such example would be
With
all of the foregoing in mind, perhaps now we can speak of imperfections that
occur in the realm of moral conduct.
To do this, we would have to look at an act or deed from a purely
technical point of view. One
realm of conduct that easily enables us to do that is that of justice. The idea of justice consists in giving
another his just, meaning exact due. In the realm of justice there is supposed
to be equality between what a person has a right to, and what that person
has been accorded. Hence there
would be as many imperfections with regard to "doing justice" as there are
failure to measure up to that equality.
The same applies to all the forms of conduct (virtues) that are affiliated
with or have something in common with justice in the strict sense.
For
example, if I buy a 10# bag of potatoes and pay the exact price, and
it turns out that one or two of the potatoes are spoiled, then clearly there
is no longer the necessary equality between what I paid for and what I got,
so that would be an imperfection on the part of the seller, even though he
was not aware of the defective potatoes and could not have intended to give
me less than I had a right to receive.
Something like that would be true in regard to other virtues
related to justice, such as humility, honesty (or truthfulness), amiability,
gratitude, obedience, piety, and so on. With regard to humility, we may fail to
acknowledge the full measure of blame for our sins, or fail to give God the
full measure of credit for the good He enables us to do. Or perhaps better, we may try to assign
ourselves a more important role or status in our community or family than
we have a right to. Considered
technically, that is an imperfection. Or, from the technical point of view,
we may have failed to give exact and complete information to another with
regard to knowledge the other has a right to know.
That is an imperfection and something similar is true with regard to
the other virtues I mentioned: amiability,
gratitude, obedience, piety, wherein I fail to be as good-natured and cheerful
with others as the others deserve (amiability), or wherein I fail to express
adequately to a benefactor that I know he/she made a totally free gift to
me of something valuable (gratitude); or wherein I fail to carry out orders
exactly (obedience); or I fail to give the full measure of honor and reverence
I owe to parents, members of my family, or to the superiors and members of
the communities I am a part of (piety). All of the deeds by means of which I failed
to measure up, would be imperfections, considered however, only from
a technical perspective.
Having considered all those examples of technical failure
to measure up to a given standard, we see it as possible to extend that notion
to all the cardinal virtues besides justice, namely, prudence, fortitude,
and temperance. In all three
it is possible to fail to attain technical perfection by not taking
adequate counsel before acting, in the case of Prudence; by failing to endure
the full measure of inconvenience required, in some circumstances, in order
to adhere to God's Will for us, in the case of Fortitude; or by failing completely
to deny ourselves some gratification that draws us away from full compliance
with God's will, in the case of Temperance. All of these would be imperfections.
Thinking back on all that has been said, I see that without
being aware of it, I have gone from talking about imperfections in other people
to imperfections I find in myself. In
myself, these failures would or could be technical only when I fail
to give due deliberation and consent to these shortcomings. Lacking that, deliberation and consent,
which means acting instinctively, there would be no sin, only imperfection. So without realizing it, I've been talking
about the very imperfections this maxim is designed to help us get rid of.
The three things that will do that are, again, 1. not observing
the imperfections of others. 2.
Preserving silence, and 3. continual communion with God.
Let
us now try to figure out the mechanism by which these three forms of conduct
accomplish the tasks of ridding me of my imperfections and of helping me to possess great virtues.
At
the beginning I spoke about what it means "not to observe imperfections."
But if I am aware of a technical imperfection, and do not reason
or comment about it, what do I do instead of that.
Surely, since I cannot keep my mind from working, what mental process
would automatically follow and help me overcome my imperfections? I say automatically follow because
St. John of the Cross intimates that not observing does eradicate imperfections.
Perhaps, though, St. John of the Cross is thinking of
what he used to do when he noticed an imperfection, and being a humble man,
thought of himself as no different from any other human being. Perhaps, being humble, he kept himself
from observing and commenting by reminding himself that he would not even
have done as well as the person committing the imperfection, but would have
done something more imperfect. Perhaps
in that way he would then turn his attention to Jesus the model of all perfection,
focus his attention on how Jesus did act, or might have acted. In doing that, especially over and over
again, St. John of the Cross would have gradually internalized the standards
set by Christ and thus taken on the mind of Christ.
But
perhaps there is still another way of thinking about the meaning of "not observing."
Because all of us cannot escape falling into innumerable technical
imperfections each day, not to observe perfections could mean "not to see
the other person, but to see Christ in that person."
If anyone were able to do that, and see Christ Jesus as really identified
with that other person, then such a one would immediately start thinking about
letting his/her love for Jesus, gratitude to Jesus, devotion to
Jesus, praise and humble adoration of Jesus all hang out. With Jesus as the object of one's conduct
how could this not help one to reach for the highest and most perfect expression
of all those things, convinced one is dealing with Jesus. How not instinctively strive to be more
honest, more just, more amiable, more reverent, more self-sacrificing, more
generous, and so on for all the virtues.
Wouldn't technical imperfections begin gradually to disappear?
Of
the two possibilities mentioned: one
to think of how Jesus would have acted and gradually putting on His mind,
and two striving to give Him the very best we are capable of, which
possibility would be more effective? I'm inclined to think the second possibility
is more effective. Nevertheless,
we are not obliged to choose only one of the two. We can strive to do both. Then, surely, not to observe imperfections
in others would eradicate imperfections from one's own soul.
Turning our attention to the second of the three means
suggested by this maxim, preserving silence, we will consider what is meant
by preserving silence, and then consider how it contributes to the
eradication of imperfections.
One
thing we know for sure, is that the word "preserve", has at least two ordinary
meanings. One meaning of "preserve" is to store or file something
away and leave it untouched or unused over a long period of time, such as
"preserving" historical documents in an archive. Another important meaning of "preserve"
is to treat something with chemicals, or salt or sugar, and store them away
for later consumption or use. The
treatment is meant to make the items preserved incorruptible, or to
keep them from spoiling, as examples, we think of how taxidermists preserve
game birds and game animals for the hunters to display, and how we preserve
fruits and vegetables and berries either to eat whole or as jams and jellies
later on.
As
applied to "preserving" silence, it seems that neither of these meanings is
adequate for the understanding of this admonition. We don't file away silence, or store it
away, according to the first meaning, because silence is not a tangible commodity.
And the same holds true for the second meaning and for the same reason. Nevertheless, in each of these there is
an element that can be applied to silence, and that is "length of time." Thus, to preserve silence would mean to
continue to "refrain from speaking" whether exteriorly, in utterances, or
interiorly, not even thinking.
Because it is next to impossible to keep from thinking,
that is, keeping interior silence, and even quite difficult to keep from speaking
for extended periods of time (unless we are hermits and only very rarely have
to interact with people) then perhaps we can extend the meaning of silence
to include certain kinds of speaking and thinking. Perhaps we can include "speaking when
God's positive Law, His unwritten law of charity obliges us to speak"
as a form of exterior silence, and perhaps we can include those things that
we are only obliged to think of and be mindful of as a form of interior silence. Perhaps this is so because we think of
sounds of any kind as "breaking the silence" putting an end to the absence
of sound. Perhaps we can think
of silence as "uninterrupted conformity with God's will for us." Whatever words or utterances could not
be reconciled with God's will for us, and whatever thoughts we have or admit
that could not be reconciled with God's Will for us, would then alone be capable
of breaking the silence St. John of the Cross is telling us to preserve.
To
say it another way, only "idle" words or "idle" thoughts would then break
the silence we're all advised to preserve in this maxim. With regard to "idle words" I refer you
to the commentary on maxim 6, that is, the second part of maxim 6, where we
read: "..., and let them understand that every word spoken without (outside)
the order of obedience is laid to their account by God." If God does not lay to our account our
silences, (when obliged to speak), nor does He lay to our account speaking
within the order of obedience, then yes, we can equate speaking and thinking
of what God wants us to think and speak about when He wants us to do so with
preserving silence.
But
now we have to consider: how
does preserving silence eradicate great imperfections?
Again, we note first that St. John uses a very strong
word, the word eradicate. That
means to tear out by the roots. He might have said overcomes or
corrects great imperfections, in the sense of making up for what is
wanting in imperfect deeds. Such
would be the case in the examples of imperfect deeds I gave earlier in the
conference - cleaning a room or ironing a shirt. It is possible to go over those tasks
and bring the results to perfection.
This is not what preserving silence does. Preserving silence removes the causes
and sources of imperfections, i.e., defective deeds.
Can
this be done by the "absence" of words and thoughts? We can say yes if we think of every word
or thought as a source of a defective deed. If we think of silence as an absence
alone, it is difficult to see how what does not exist could be a cause of
anything.
That
being the case, it seems we have now to think of both "not observing" and
"preserving silence" as one and the same thing, or rather "preserving silence"
as the same as "continuing in the state of not observing over a long
period of time.
As
regards the other meaning we gave to silence, namely, speech and thought that
conforms to God's will, that also does eradicate, gets out the roots of our
imperfections, that is our defective deeds. Since we cannot ascribe any imperfection
or any defect to God, then neither can we ascribe it to any command or admonition
He has enjoined upon us. After
all, in God, everything is God. Each of His divine faculties and attributes
is God. This kind of silence:
speaking and thinking only of those things we are obliged to as His
children by adoption and as members of Christ's Body excludes and gets rid
of personal self-will. Our personal self-will is wounded and
defective because of original sin. Left
to itself, our personal self-will is rebellious.
Looking back over the last couple of paragraphs, it appears
that we can identify the kinds of silence we spoke of as themselves being
ways of remaining in communion with God. Indeed, words and thoughts that proceed
from wounded human nature are in themselves defective and thus the cause of
the defective deeds we call imperfections.
Rooting them out, that is deliberately rejecting them, permits our
faculties of thought and speech to be united to God, since no defective thing
can be made one with Him, as we know from our Catholic Faith in the existence
of Purgatory.
But also, doing all things in conformity to God's will for us is the best and truest way to be united to Him, since such conformity unites us to Him in Love. By those means, then the continual communion St. John of the Cross speaks of is achieved. But what is communion? It is mutual sharing of everything that both parties to the communion possess. Thus, a soul in communion with God possesses all His virtues.
**
| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |
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 Maxims
on Love 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.