| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |
Continuation of Commentaries
on the Maxims on Love of St. John of the Cross
by Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Maxim 6.
Let them reflect how necessary it is to be enemies of self and
to walk to perfection by the path of holy rigor, and let them understand that
every word spoken without the order of obedience is laid to their account by God.
Who
does St. John of the Cross mean by the pronoun them? It seems first of all, that St. John is
speaking either to a Novice Master of Friars, or a Novice Mistress of Nuns, or
perhaps even to a Religious Superior, and therefore they (them) could
only refer to novices or to subjects.
But generally, them (or they) refers to anyone who is serious about
his/her spiritual well being, i.e., the life and health of his/her
soul.
Of
course, some of these folks could be folks not called to perfection, or
at least not intent upon attaining holiness. I say that because the first part, the
first complete phrase applies to
anyone who wants to attain salvation. It applies to anyone who wants to attain
salvation, content merely to get to Purgatory. Even for that minimum it is
necessary to be the enemy of the self.
But
before going into that, we ask:
what meaning do we give to the word “reflect”? Well, rather than refer to only one of
the two principle meanings of the word, let us consider this first part of the
maxims as if both meanings of reflect are
intended.
Because of the context the obvious meaning of “reflect”
is”: that thought process which is
a synonym of “meditate”. It is to
examine a subject by means of the intellect for the purpose of understanding the
subject to the fullest extent possible and as accurately as possible: that is, as it truly is. We keep in mind that the fruit of
reflection upon a subject is to produce conviction: that is a certitude or certainty about
that particular subject.
The
subject presented for reflection, as you can read clearly stated in the maxim,
is “the necessity of being enemies of self”. This does relate first and foremost to
salvation. Jesus did
say: “Whoever loves his life in
this world shall lose it; whoever hates his life in this world for my sake and
sake of the Gospel shall save it.” To love the self in this world is to
be a friend of the self in this world, or, in this life; and to hate the
self in this world is to be an enemy of the self. Clearly, we are talking of
earthly existence only.
Well, why is it necessary to be the enemy of the
self? To explain why, it is
sufficient to remind oneself that the “self” is identified with the person. Perhaps the
words self and person are interchangeable. Indeed I, the person, am the same
as my/self (myself).
But
what does it mean to be a person?
To be a person means to stand in a relationship. We know this for sure because personhood
is of the essence of God the Supreme Being, the supreme reality. God, the Eternal, Infinite, all-perfect
Being is a Trinity of distinct inter-related Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But what is God? God is life, God is Love. Actually, God’s life is God’s
Love. So the life of the
“self”, the only life I can have that will not end with my
departure from this present world is love. If I am loving in the true sense
when I depart this world, then indeed, I live forever, I am
saved.
So
to understand that it is necessary to be the enemy of the self we have to remind
ourselves that self-love is a contradiction in terms. We can only love those we can relate to
or be related to as distinct persons, persons other than ourselves. To try to relate to one’s self as
another is a metaphysical impossibility. Self-love is a nothing, in the
same way that a “square-circle” is a nothing. It cannot possibly exist. If I choose to “love myself” I
have destroyed my being. I
have destroyed my nature. I have
refused to share or to participate in what is real, what is of God. So really, being the enemy of the self
means being the enemy of whatever keeps me from being other centered or
keeps me from being in-relation-to another self, another person. To be an enemy of the self or to hate
the self is the same as wanting to destroy anything in me or about me that
prevents me from loving in the true sense, in the sense that God is love within
the Trinity. To love means to be
for others. In that love only
do we find life for our selves.
Before we go on to consider the next part of this maxim
concerning perfection and holy rigor, let us now try to see how the other
meaning of reflect can be applied.
That other meaning of reflect has as its synonym “to mirror”. As light impinges upon a mirror and is
“reflected”, conduct that represents “being an enemy of self” impinges, or
better, should be allowed to impinge upon the ones for whom this maxim is
intended, and reflected or mirrored to others.
Thus the important thing about putting this first part
of the maxim into practice is to identify the source of the conduct to be
reflected, and of course, to identify the different kinds of conduct that
represents and expresses “enmity to self”.
You all know what that source is, and you all know that conduct. The source of the conduct we must allow
to impinge upon us is Jesus Himself, and the conduct that expresses and
represents enmity to self is summed up in His accepting, really embracing and
treasuring, His Cross.
Another way to say it - being enemy of the self - is that He always did
the Will of His Heavenly Father.
And as St. Paul expressed it:
“though He was in the form of God, Jesus did not deem equality with God
[His Father] something to cling to - Rather, he emptied Himself, and took the
form of a slave. He was found in
human estate and became obedient, even to accepting death, death on a
cross.
For
Jesus, emptying Himself meant becoming incarnate; it meant His assuming our
human nature. In other words, He
identified perfectly with us in our human condition, sin excepted. A very important aspect of our human
condition, due to original sin, is vulnerability. It is the condition whereby we can be
wounded and eventually we can experience death. Another way of saying “vulnerable” is to
say “capable of suffering”. It
means being subject to powers and forces beyond our control that hurt and wound
us. It means being subject to all
the implications of living in a word under the power of sin, evil and
death. The conduct of Jesus that
shows us that He was the “enemy of the self” is His refusal to use sinful means
to avoid physical suffering and death.
And, in point of fact, it was the refusal to use even ordinary
means, lawful means to escape suffering and death. He was particularly the enemy of the
self by setting aside His Will, however, good and laudable it might have been,
and embracing the Will of His heavenly Father.
It
is interesting that St. John of the Cross does not say: “Imitate” conduct that is “inimical to
(the enemy of) the self”. He says
“reflect”. Therefore, that conduct
has to touch us, it has to impinge upon us first. How do we let that conduct of Jesus
impinge upon us?
Perhaps there is more than one way we can understand that.
One way would be by means of Baptism and all the Sacraments of the
church. But perhaps that is not accurate. The merits, the graces, the life of
God earned for us by Jesus being the “enemy of self” in His earthly existence
are what we applied to our souls through Baptism and the other Sacraments,
particularly the Blessed Sacrament. And now having said that, since the “life
of God” that impinges upon and takes root in our soul is the “self-sacrificing”
Love for us that Jesus reveals by His being the enemy of self in this
world, that really is what we are called upon to reflect to others.
We are to mirror what we have received from Jesus so that it also impinges
upon others,
Another way that we let the “enmity to self” practiced
by Jesus in His humanity impinge upon us is through prayer. Prayer is intimacy with Jesus. Prayer is resting in the awareness of
God’s love for us and responding by gratitude, adoration, praise and love. Since God’s Love is Self-sacrificing
Love, through prayer we realize that the only adequate response to it is to
surrender one’s entire self to Him in return. That self surrender entails being
“enemies” of our own comfort and ease, honor, and prestige and to use all our
talent and ability, spiritual and material resources for the good of
others. It entails denying self,
that is, being the enemy of self, in order to serve and to enrich our fellow
human beings. Then we truly reflect
the necessity of being enemies of self.
We
go on now to speak of the second of the three parts of this maxim, which
is: “let them reflect how necessary
it is....to walk to perfection by the path of holy rigor”.
The
word and which joins these two parts of the maxim can be understood to be
both “disjunctive” and conjunctive:
When the word is used to disjoin it means the two ends or entities
the word “and” connects are different from one another. When the word “and” is used to
con-join what goes before and after it, it means they are the
same.
The
two first parts are different when we interpret being the “enemy of the self” as
being necessary for salvation, just making it to
Purgatory.
They are the same when we interpret being the “enemy of
the self” as being necessary for a very high degree of holiness. For that perfection of charity, a “holy
rigor” must come into play in the process of being inimical to the
self.
The
phrase “holy rigor” necessarily suggests the idea of stiffness (as in rigor
mortis), a state of being unbending or resistant to any force as power that
would attempt to change shape or configuration. Thus, to walk by the path of holy rigor
means a relentless, dogged pursuit of Christian perfection. Considered in terms of being the enemy
of the self, holy rigor means never letting up in the work of self denial, never
becoming even a little bit friendly to the self. Holy Rigor would be the same as
constancy and perseverance.
Now
what do we mean by Holy Rigor? I
ask that because is there is a Rigor we can call Holy, there must be a rigor
that is not holy! How would we
recognize which is holy, and which is not?
Immediately there comes to mind the example of the
scribes and Pharisees. They were so
rigorous, so unyielding in demanding conformity to the ritual practices of the
law and the mere human traditions of their ancestors, that they never made any
exceptions, they never would admit that situations could occur when a person was
exempt from those practices and traditions. On the occasion when the apostles, being
hungry, plucked ripe ears of grain on the Sabbath and ate them, the Pharisees
accused Jesus of being their accomplice in violating the commandment to abstain
from work on the Sabbath day. In
other words, they were relentless in demanding that the people put ritual
practices above legitimate human needs.
Their rigor was such that they saw violations where they did not
exist. As you know, they accused
Jesus of breaking the third commandment by performing cures on the Sabbath. How they could equate speaking a word or
two, or touching ears or tongue, or putting mud on the eyes of a blind man with
work is beyond me. So I do
believe that that is what is meant by unholy rigor. But notice, that rigor was applied to
others, it was not applied to themselves.
They were indeed the enemies of other selves, but not their own
selves. The best example of that
was the fact that they could excuse themselves from supporting aged parents by
giving the money that should have been used to honor their parents to the Temple
Treasury or as Jesus said to them “you strain our a gnat (where others are
concerned,) but you swallow a camel (where you yourselves are
concerned).
Since holy and unholy are opposites, it seems to me that
the opposite of the example of the Pharisees would be holy rigor. It would mean being very strict with
oneself, and very lenient toward others.
It would mean being unrelenting in being the enemy of self, in destroying
self love and self seeking, and at the same time being relentless in being
“friendly” to other selves, never omitting an opportunity to enrich others and
serve others in order to make them feel loved and comfortable at the expense of
one’s own ease or convenience. In
other words, since that is what our Lord did Himself and asks of us,
namely: He came to serve and
not to be served, He came to give His life as a ransom for all, He came
(and did) that we may have life and have it to the full. And again: “No greater love can one have than to
lay down his life for his friends.”
A
good example of this holy rigor is found in St. Therese of the Child Jesus. She was able to say at the end of her
life that she had never denied the good God anything. She was relentless in taking advantage
of every opportunity to sacrifice her wishes and her feelings to prove and give
evidence of her love for God. But
in that, she was only imitating Jesus, who was able to say that He always
did the Will of His heavenly Father.
Since the self loves itself in and through self-will, holy rigor
is always, relentlessly, putting self-will to death.
Let
us go on, now, to the third part of this maxim. St. John says: “....let them understand that every word
spoken without the order of obedience is laid to their account by
God.”
Once again, we observe that this maxim is spoken
directly to novice masters and mistresses or to spiritual directors and
confessors and, also perhaps to Priors and Prioresses, but it is meant for
novices, directee and subjects. The
reason why I say that is because otherwise it would not be possible for
obedience to enter the picture. But
it does not mean, however, that each time a subject would want to speak, he or
she would have to go and ask permission.
Neither does it mean that, whether wanting to not, the subject would
have to speak when ordered to do so by lawful superiors. That would only serve to destroy
spontaneity in human relationships.
I
am sure that there is a background situation which inspired St. John to write
the third part of this maxim, and my guess is that it came from his experience
as a Novice Master, director of souls, and as a confessor. As a Novice Master and spiritual director,
it must have been necessary for him to comment on the Scripture - “For every
idle word a man speaks, he will have to give an account before God.”
As a confessor, he would have found it necessary to give instructions
upon how to overcome sins committed by the tongue.
Thus it would result that the novices and directees and penitents would
have to keep his instruction in mind and act upon it, so that sense, they
would be speaking in the order of obedience.
At this point, I would remind you of what we came up with in commenting
on the first of these maxims, which begins “Bridle your tongue....”
The instruction given in that conference could be considered an “order
of obedience”, and so trying to adhere to those guidelines
would be an example of putting the third part if this maxim into practice.
AT
this point, we can take a moment to think about what is meant by “idle” words,
so that again we would have more directives to help us speak “within the order
of obedience.”
| <<<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.