| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |
Continuation of Commentaries
on the Maxims on Love of St. John of the Cross
by Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Maxim 43.
Habitual voluntary imperfections
which are never completely overcome not only hinder the Divine union, but
also the attainment of perfection. Such
[habitual voluntary] imperfections are:
the habit of much talking; some small unconquered attachment, such
as to a person, an article of clothing, a cell, a book, or some kind of food,
or other conversations and little satisfactions in tasting things, and knowing,
and hearing, and the like.
When we were commenting on
Maxim 39, we spoke of imperfections in that commentary as indeliberate, and
therefore involuntary, failures to come up to the standard required to practice
virtues in all their perfection.
That approach seemed necessary because once these were overcome by the
three means recommended to us there, we would then possess the virtues, indeed
the great virtues.
At that time, too we said that
because those imperfections were involuntary, that they could not be considered
sins, formally speaking, because there is no such thing as involuntary sin. All sin, venial as well as mortal,
requires the exercise of free will.
Rather, I should say some degree of freedom in the will's choosing
to sin. As you remember from the
teaching of the Church concerning sin, complete freedom of the will is required
for mortal sin, but then only when one knows that the sinful act committed is a
grave matter, a serious violation of God's Law. In matters where the act is not a
serious, but only a slight violation of God's Law, not even complete freedom of
the will in choosing to commit the sin suffices to make it a mortal sin. On the other hand, when the matter is a
serious violation of God's law, but the will is not completely free in
choosing to commit the objectively grave violation of God's law, the sin again
is only venial. Again, as you know,
duress, inculpable ignorance, grave fear, and passion are what rob the human
will of its complete freedom. And
the reason slight sins are called venial is because they do not drive charity
and God out of the soul, but they do diminish the fervor of charity, and weaken
the bond of love that keeps God united to the soul through the Indwelling of the
Holy Trinity.
But now in regard to the
imperfections of this Maxim 43, we are obliged to say that they are venial sins
because the Will freely chooses to do something it knows is not in complete accord with
God's Will. I do not say God's Law,
because not all of what God desires for us is expressed as a Law He
imposes upon us. For example: God wants all of us to save our souls,
so He gives us a Law, which, by observing it, keeps us from killing our souls
and causing them to be lost. But
God also most sincerely and earnestly desires that each soul attain a high
degree of sanctity. So for that He
gives us the Counsels. We have this
from Jesus' exchange with the rich young man who asked Jesus what he needed to
do to be saved. After Jesus told
him to keep the commandments, and he said that he had observed them all his life
and wondered if there was anything beyond just saving his soul, Jesus
invited him to a high degree of sanctity, saying: "If you would be
perfect, go, sell all you have and give [the proceeds] to the poor, and
you will have treasure in Heaven.
Then come and follow Me."
Now this rich young man was clearly not married, otherwise Jesus would
not tell him to sell everything. A
married man would have had to keep enough to care adequately for a wife and
children. And clearly, in saying:
"Come, follow Me," Jesus was inviting the young man not only to voluntary
poverty, but also to voluntary celibacy and to the vow of obedience. But of course, Jesus did not invite only
unmarried people to a high degree of sanctity. He invited married people and those
unmarried people not called to religious life (through voluntary poverty) when
He said "If anyone would be my disciple, let him deny himself, take up his
cross daily, and follow in my footsteps."
These folks are then invited to embrace
the spirit of the counsels, the spirit of the vows of Poverty, Chastity and
Obedience.
So, if a person knows for sure
(through prayer, spiritual reading, hearing sermons, graces received in Holy
Communion), that it is the sincere desire (or will) of Jesus that that
person strive for greater holiness of life, and the person voluntarily chooses
to ignore that desire of Jesus, a manifestation of His Will for the person, then
how can that choice fail to diminish the fervor of love for Jesus in that
person? How can it fail to weaken
the bond of love that unites them?
So for this reason, the voluntary imperfections of this Maxim 43 really
are venial sins.
Thus it is not difficult to
understand why these voluntary imperfections hinder the divine union St. John of
the Cross speaks of. True union of
a person with God is achieved by a union of wills. Or rather, the divine union that St.
John of the Cross speaks of is "transforming union." In that union God and the soul are
completely one because the human will is in complete and total accord with the
Will of God, which embraces not only that aspect of God's Will which is a law
that must be obeyed under pain of mortal or venial sin, but also that
aspect of His Will that consists of His desires for each individual human
soul. Although that aspect of His
Will which is Law is binding equally upon all human beings, God's desires
for each individual are distinct and unique as the individuals themselves are
distinct and unique. A person's
will has to be in complete accord with both aspects in order for the divine, or
transforming union to take place.
It suffices for salvation if a soul, that is, a person, conforms his will
to God's will as expressed in the Divine Positive Law, the 10 commandments and
all that is implicit in those 10 commandments.
Having introduced this notion
of transforming union, we see also why the voluntary imperfections hinder
the attainment of perfection.
Semantically, based on words alone, it is obvious that a person cannot be
imperfect and perfect at the same time.
But also, it is clear that when a soul has attained the transforming
union with God through complete oneness of its will with God's will, the soul
partakes of all the attributes of God to the extent a creature is capable. But there is no imperfection in
God. God is utterly perfect. "Be perfect" He told Abraham (and
each of us), "As I am perfect."
Thus those voluntary departures from God's desire for the soul
prevent it from reaching the perfection to which God calls
it.
Now before we comment on all
the examples of imperfections St. John of the Cross gives us in this Maxim 43,
let us mention another reason why they hinder divine union. It is based upon the absolute purity of
God. As you know, scripture tells
us that nothing impure is admitted into the presence of God. Of course, presence here means
the "embrace of God" or union with God. After all, every creature is present to
God in the sense that God is aware of all things and it is He who preserves all
creatures in existence. Except for
the "habit of much talking," all
the others are examples of unconquered attachments. But we have already seen when commenting
upon Maxim 34, St. John of the cross includes attachments, or voluntary
imperfections, among the appetites.
That the appetites hinder the divine union is one of his most clear and
well-known teachings. Among the
five effects attachments cause in the human soul is defilement. Related effects are turbidity and
obscurity. These obviously
prevent God from welcoming such a soul into His intimate embrace, known as
transforming union.
Let us now consider how the
examples given in the Maxim operate to impede or hinder Divine
Union.
The first one is: the habit
of much talking. Although habits
are a kind of second nature in our likes in that they are a set of instincts
that cause us to act, automatically, without adverting to what it is we are
doing, they are always voluntary in cause.
If a habit is bad, and inclines us to sin automatically, without
adverting to the fact we are committing a sin at that moment, sooner of
later we become aware of that habit at other moments, and then we either
freely decide to either overcome the bad habit or we decide freely to do nothing
about it. Sometimes freely deciding
to do nothing about it takes the form of wishing we could overcome it,
but never taking the first step to get rid of it. Because good habits are harder to come
by, they clearly require free and forceful steps to acquire them. So, habits are always voluntary in
cause.
Now in the Rule of St. Albert
of Jerusalem, who wrote the Primitive Rule for the Carmelite hermits on
Mount Carmel, there occurs an admonition to preserve silence in virtue of a
saying in Holy Scripture: In
multiloquio non decrit peccatum, meaning: In a multitude of words sin
will not be lacking. Why is
this so? Most likely because in the
course of lengthy conversations the individuals involved would be taking time
away from important duties. Again,
in the course of lengthy conversation between people topics and subject matter
comes up that is none of their business.
Furthermore, in the process of talking about people and events, people
are bound to form erroneous judgments and to distort the truth, and probably
injure or otherwise tear down the good reputation of
others.
Clearly, St. John of the Cross
was giving this maxim to Carmelite Friars and Nuns who had vowed to observe the
Primitive Rule, and thus cultivate silence, so he could just as well have said
in place of this first imperfection, the statement: the habit of unnecessary
talking. And this is what lay
Carmelites ought to use in helping them to decide whether they have the habit of
much talking. For anyone, religious
or lay, necessary talking does not break the silence that is part and parcel of
a contemplative way of life. We
touched on this topic of necessary talking when commenting on the first, third and sixth maxims in this
series. The only thing left to say
is that friendly conversation and sharing is a means to tightening the bonds of
friendship and unity in mind and heart.
That is why we have time set aside to socialize at our meetings over
refreshments. It builds
community. If we restrict ourselves
to conversing only when, and only about those things necessary to build
community, we will never, ever say too much.
Next, St. John of the Cross
mentions a number of unconquered attachments.
Let us now consider each of them, one at a time.
(a) To a person. We know of course, that it is not an
imperfection to enjoy a closer friendship with certain people rather than with
others, or even to have a best friend among all one's friends. That is to say, in and of itself and for
our purposes let us postulate that one loves God first and foremost, before best
friend and family members alike.
But imperfection does creep in when one's preference for the company of
the best friend or the desire to please the best friend causes one to ignore
others or to fail to show others proper recognition and esteem. The imperfection worsens if the
legitimate right others have to our time and talent is ignored because of one's
preference for a best friend. That
is what causes the otherwise lawful closeness to become an attachment. Are we afraid that being there for
others when they have a lawful claim upon us is going to offend the best
friend? If he is one who would take
offense at that, then surely he is not one with whom we should want to be united
in mind and heart as best friend.
(b) To an article of
Clothing. I suppose this means
having such a great liking for an article of clothing that one would never
willingly part with it, no matter what.
This reminds me of what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: "If someone takes you to court over
your cloak, give him your tunic as well.
If someone asks you for something, give it to him. If someone wants to borrow from you, do
not turn away." (Matt.
5:41,42) The imperfection in this
attachment would be, then, a refusal to accept Jesus' invitation to attain a
high degree of sanctity. It also
implies putting one's own personal preference for something non-essential to him
before another's essential need.
This would be an inversion of value and would violate God's Will that
Charity reign supreme in all personal relationships.
(c) To a cell. We wonder how it is possible for a
person to be attached to his cell in a monastery. In the days when St. John was living,
the cell of one Friar or Nun was basically the same as that of any others: a simple bed, a simple table and chair,
each article just like any other in any other cell. So perhaps one could become attached to
his/her cell in those days because of size, its location in the monastery, the
view from the window, and things of that nature. Thus they would be features of that cell that afforded some
kind of ease or comfort or consolation.
This calls to mind a previous maxim, #20 which spoke of souls that wallow
in mire and souls that soar like birds.
Thus the attachment to the cell would mean that its occupant is seeking
refreshment and consolation to lighten the burdens of carrying one's cross in
creatures rather than in God, in the Holy Spirit. But what does one do who realizes that
he/she is attached to his/her cell?
How overcome the attachment, since most often a person is not able to
move at will to other cells that do not offer like comfort and consolation and
refreshment? I do believe that the
thing to do is to see all those features of a cell as gifts from God, and to
think of the relief these things afford as coming directly from Him and from His
love for us. Then one could embrace
them as part of His overall Will for oneself, and that should suffice to
overcome the attachment. For lay
Carmelites living today, and Friars and Nuns, too, by the word cell we
can substitute the words: "living quarters," or "home." We also can overcome any possible
attachment to our living accommodations in the same way a Friar or Nun of old
might do as I just suggested. We
have to train ourselves to see them as evidence of God's kindness and mercy
which these living quarters mediate to us, and let those attributes of His I
mentioned be our source of comfort and relief.
(d) A book. What is there about a book that could
cause a person to become attached to it?
Perhaps I can find the answer by reflecting upon the books I have in my
room. Theoretically, living in a
monastery with a large library, it isn't necessary to have books in my room,
except perhaps for the volumes of the Breviary we are not currently
using, and the books out of which I am currently doing spiritual reading. Of the other books, some I keep for easy
reference, such as my Theology textbooks, collected works of our Saints, Bibles,
a concordance, etc. There is
however, one group of books I keep in my room which I know I'll never read or
use. But I keep them because I am
afraid that if I put them in the library, they will get thrown out as
irrelevant. All they have, there,
for me is sentimental value. They
represent something I hold dear.
Where would the imperfection lie in hanging on to these books, since the
expression "hanging on to" is practically synonymous with "being attached
to"? I hate to think of my having
them in my room as an attachment since I never even give them a thought, except
on such occasions at this. So if I
did depend on them daily as reminders of values or subjects or topics I hold
dear, then perhaps they would become idols for me, and would rob God of the
attention and affection I owe to Him as the source of all that is worthy of
esteem.
(e) Some kind of food.
When we say grace before meals we thank God for "these gifts we are
about to receive from Thy Bounty." Perhaps
if someone picks and chooses only a certain food over all the many kinds God
provides, and does not accept and be content with the particular food chosen
by the cook, through whom God's bounty touches us, then the imperfection would
lie in preferring one's own will to God's will for us on that occasion. It would be a refusal to submit our personal
"druthers" to God's "druthers."
(f) Or other
conversations and little satisfactions. At first it would appear that the word
"conversations" means the same as a verbal exchange or chat engaged in by two or
more people. However, by saying
other conversations, St. John of the Cross is giving the same meaning to
conversations as he does to the notion of giving a person, an article of
clothing, a cell, a book, some kind of food an overly important place in their
lives and in their daily routine.
Looking it up in the American Heritage dictionary I find a fifth meaning,
the second of two obsolete meanings, namely: manner of life; behavior. That is why I combined other
conversations and little satisfactions for this sixth example of
unconquered attachments. And we can
summarize and include all the kinds of conversations and little satisfactions
under the one term: experiencing or
perceiving. After all,
tasting, knowing, hearing and the
like are all forms of "perception."
Why should someone become
attached to a perception? I believe
the answer is found in realizing that all perceptions give rise to feelings and
emotions. So one is really attached
to the pleasant and delightful feelings and emotions rather than to what is
tasted, known, and listened to.
Therefore what we said about
souls that wallow in the mire and souls that soar like birds applies to this
last category as well as to the previous five. If we know God wants us to soar - seek
delight and refreshment in Him alone - and we prefer to wallow, seek it in
creatures instead, we will be unable to attain divine union and the perfection
this maxim speaks about.
| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |