| <<<Home | Maxims Directory |
Continuation of Commentaries
on the Maxims on Love of St. John of the Cross
by Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Maxim 70.
Do not refuse work, even though it seems that
you cannot do it.
We might wonder where St. John of the Cross is coming
from in giving us this Maxim. It is a
true Maxim because it enjoins a certain type of conduct upon us. As you recall, many of the maxims we’ve
commented upon were mere statements of fact.
When I say “where St. John of the Cross is coming from,” I mean: what
experiences did he have that caused him to see that this is a rule of conduct
that deserves to be taken seriously, that is, is something that brings great
good to our souls. Of course, the great
good to our souls would be that it helps us to attain the goal toward which we
as Carmelites are striving, namely, closer union with God in Love.
If we consider briefly the life of St. John of the
Cross, we see that a great deal of work was assigned to him as one of the first
members of the Reformed Carmelite Order.
He was Novice Master, he was student-Master, he was a Prior, he was a Vicar-provincial,
he was spiritual director of several convents of Discalced Carmelite nuns and
also of several devout lay people. All
these were heavy responsibilities, and being a humble man, he must have felt
that these were beyond his ability, or strength. As the Maxim says, it must have seemed to him that all these
offices involved work that he would not be able to do. This would be true especially where the work
required skills other than those of director of souls, not based upon knowledge
of God’s ways, which in turn required extensive knowledge of scripture and
theology. For example, as Prior in one
house, it fell to him to build a suitable monastery to replace one that was
inadequate. In another house (or maybe
the same one) it fell to him to build an aqueduct to bring a fresh, healthy
water supply into the community. We can
imagine that he thought these tasks were beyond his ability. And so I think it is reasonable to say that
this maxim grew out of those experiences of his. At the same time too, we can surmise that it came out of his
experience as director of souls. Surely
some Friars, nuns and lay people may have asked his advice when they themselves
were assigned work that seemed beyond them, or were asked to undertake projects
that seemed beyond their ability. Then
remembering his own experiences, namely that he never refused work, even when
it seemed he could not do it, and remembering further how adhering to this rule
of conduct deepened his union with God in love, he would have no reservations
with enjoining it upon those who sought his advice, and indeed, upon everyone
desirous of attaining union with God.
In our reflections on Maxim 64 we had to consider the
very last phrase: “think that God utters it” as a means of enabling us to listen
to and hear every reproof with a serene countenance. In that and subsequent commentaries we tried to extend that
practice, or rather, let that practice lead us into the habit of seeing God as
the one who is personally responsible for all the things that happen to us
moment to moment, and to try to find the GOOD He is so anxious to bestow upon
us in all the events of our daily lives.
And so if St. John could ask us to see that it is God who utters a
reproof, certainly he can ask us to see that it is God who either assigns work
to us or simply asks us to undertake certain work. Thus, it makes good sense never to refuse work because God would
never ask us to do anything beyond our ability, or, if it truly was something
we could not accomplish by ourselves, He would not withhold His help and
strength and any other thing we would need to do the work.
But now let us look at this in another way. Let us suppose that St. John of the Cross
himself or one of his directees did take this admonition seriously, and
actually did his/her best to do the work, despite it seeming beyond his/her
ability. And let us suppose further
that the individuals failed, perhaps failed miserably. Would this be a sufficient reason to refuse
to observe this Maxim?
I think we have to say “NO” to that question. Even with a history of accepting work and
then failing, we would have to say that it was still God Himself who enjoined
the work upon us, and therefore, even though He foresaw we would fail,
nevertheless knew that the experience of failure would do more good to our
souls and bring us deeper into union with Himself than the experience of
success. So, even if on occasion
observance of the Maxim would seem to backfire, nevertheless it would remain a
rule of conduct we should always strive to keep. After all, in the Maxim St. John does not include a promise that
we will successfully discharge all the duties or tasks assigned to us even
though it seems we cannot do them. He
thus would be suggesting that accepting the work and making good faith efforts
to carry it out with God’s help is all that is required, and the results, or
rather, human assessment of the fruit of our efforts, are of no
importance. The certain fruit
would always be a deeper and closer union of our souls with God in love.
How then, now, do we relate the second and final
sentence of the Maxim to the first part?
What would be the relationship between “never refusing work” and
“letting others find compassion in us”?
One way of relating them would be to say that it is
always people in need who ask us to do work that we think we are unable to do
for them. We usually speak of
compassion only in regard to people who are suffering. Since it always requires effort on
somebody’s part of bring relief to the sufferer, then it would be compassion
that would motivate someone to do the work that would rid the sufferer to
his/her pain or sorrow.
I think it is reasonable to see that as the way of
relating both sentences of the Maxim because it is usually in regard to the
suffering of others that we feel most helpless to bring relief. Perhaps we feel we don’t have the time, or
the skills or other necessary resources, especially material resources. Better yet, we may know for sure that we
don’t have the wherewithal to draw a person out of the situation that causes
him/her to suffer. What then?
I think that in a situation like that a person asked
to do something to help someone in need would then, in effect, be asked to
direct the sufferer to someone who can help them, or else personally find the
person or persons who can help, who can do the necessary work
successfully. In view of what we said
earlier about God perhaps knowing that a failure to do the work would itself be
good for our souls, we really have no reason to refuse to attempt whatever work
the circumstances call for.
But there is also another way to relate the two parts
of the Maxim. I touched upon it in
trying to imagine where St. John of the Cross was coming from in giving us this
Maxim. It has to do with the fact that
it is always so much easier to be compassionate with sufferers if at one time
or another one has had to experience the same kind of suffering. So if I never refuse work that it seems to
me I am unable to do, in the course of efforts over a period of time I will
have experienced a whole gamut of feelings and emotions, fears, doubts,
anxieties, disappointments, frustrations, discouragement, failures, blame,
criticism, humiliations and outright hostility. These are all forms of sufferings that are very common in the
lives of people. These are inevitable
even in the lives of good people because they were certainly part of the fabric
of the lives of all the saints in heaven and, indeed, part of the earthly life
of Jesus Himself. So, if, over the
course of our lives, or rather, over an extended period, we strive to put this
Maxim 70 into practice, we are bound to accumulate a fund of human experience
that enable us to understand and appreciate what other folks are suffering, and
so quite capable of being the compassionate friend and fellow sufferer that
others need in times of trial and adversity.
As a last comment on this Maxim, it seems that we can
draw from it that suffering is a great equalizer. That is because St. John of the Cross says:
“Let ALL find compassion in you.” By saying ALL surely he means anyone and everyone,
regardless of rank or position or station in life. That would include folks both superior and inferior to
oneself. Even though it is not likely
that either the high and mighty or the really lowly and helpless ever become a
part of our daily lives, nevertheless there is always some form of suffering
that is experienced by everyone, or to which everyone on earth is subject. Indeed the emotions and feelings and
experiences listed above are evidence of the truth of that statement. And so we could say that what makes all
human beings the same, perhaps more so than our being made in the image and
likeness of God, is our common vulnerability. We can all be wounded in so many ways. And perhaps that common vulnerability is itself a good reason to
take this Maxim 70 seriously and try to put it into practice. If we do that we soon experience how
vulnerable we, personally, are, and that would dispose us always to be
profoundly compassionate toward anyone who is suffering. Then we would not have to be told that we
ought never to refuse work, even if it seems we cannot do it.
Maxim 71
- Do not contradict, in no manner speak words that are not pure.
This very brief Maxim requires first that we look into
the meaning of the word contradict.
Or, better, to inquire into the number of different meanings it might
have. The American Heritage dictionary
lists three separate meanings, all related.
1. To assert or express the
opposite of a statement. 2. To deny the statement of someone. 3. to
be contrary to; to be inconsistent with.
The A.H. dictionary listing (entry) also states that the word comes from
Latin “contradicere”, meaning to speak against. (contra = against; and dicere = to speak).
Now that we know the meanings, we can ask why St. John
of the Cross advises us not to contradict? Why is it harmful to the life of our souls? Why is it an impediment to union with
God? The latter two questions certainly
are relevant, because all of St. John’s writings were undertaken to help
Friars, Nuns and devout lay people make progress along the road to union with
God.
But before we examine the three meanings given in the
A.H. dictionary, let’s consider the meaning of the Latin root. Since it means “to speak against”, we can
properly surmise that to do so means to cause the person or situation or thing
spoken of to diminish in the opinion and esteem of the listeners. Hence that would be a sin against charity,
whose gravity would depend upon how seriously the reputation or value of the
thing, situation, or person in question, was damaged in the minds of the
listeners.
Now with regard to speaking against other human
beings, this root meaning of contradict can be considered as involving the
making of judgments about the persons in question. Hence to do so would not only be a failure in charity, it also
would involve disregarding an admonition given us by Jesus, our Incarnate God
and Saviour, Who said: “Judge not, and you will not be judged.”
With regard to things and situations, though, it
doesn’t seem to be wrong to speak against them, rather it seems that, on
occasion, charity would require a Christian, and any person of good will, to
speak against a situation or a thing.
Certain things, like foods and drugs, might have the capacity to bring
delight or enjoyment to an individual, and at the same time be detrimental to a
person’s health. It couldn’t be wrong
or harmful to others to speak against the food or drug or its use by pointing
out its harmful effects on a person’s health.
As another example, suppose a young man or young woman
describes to his/her parents and close relatives the plan of study and life
style he/she has settled upon on the eve of going off to college for the first
time. If parents, relatives and other
dear friends of the young person saw serious flaws in the plan or serious
disadvantages that would result from following the plan, certainly it is not
wrong for them to speak against that plan.
So at least to contradict in the sense of speaking against persons would
fall within the purpose of the Maxim 71, whereas to speak against things or
situations is not necessarily outlawed by it.
Turning our attention now to the meaning listed in the
dictionary, we have to consider them in the context of human
relationships. More specifically, we
have to consider them in the context of the relationships between and among
Friars and Nuns in the Monastery, and between and among members of families or
of the social units that devout lay people would belong to.
It seems to me that St. John has in mind a special
context for this Maxim when applied to Friars and Nuns living in a
monastery. That context would be the
hours of recreation, when the Friars and Nuns would gather to enjoy a bit of
relaxation together from the stress and intensity of the daily round of work
and religious observance. It doesn’t
seem to me St. John of the Cross would have to admonish Friars and Nuns not to
contradict at other times in the monastery, since the Rule of Carmel prescribes
the avoidance of all but necessary talking.
In the recreations of Friars and Nuns nowadays, and
surely in the times of St. John of the Cross, an additional reason for
recreation periods, besides the alleviation of stress and healthy bodily
relaxation, was to help the members of the community bond more closely in
friendship and to promote fraternal charity.
With that as a backdrop, it is easy to see why St. John would admonish
the Friars and Nuns: 1. do not assert
the opposite of a statement made by another; 2. do not deny the statement of another, and 3. do not be contrary to, or behave in a manner
inconsistent with the direction the recreation takes. Or perhaps better, do not do or say anything contrary to, or
inconsistent with, the “spirit” or “mood” of the gathered community. I think it is clear that those kinds of
contradictions would certainly cause hard feelings, wound sensibilities, and
bring about divisions, maybe even factions, within the community. Then “bonding in friendship” and “fraternal
charity” go out the window.
I realize that it is more difficult to apply what I
have said above to social units to which devout lay people may belong,
especially at work or in the market place.
But it can be applied to the family unit and religious societies to
which devout lay-people belong. The
words St. Paul addressed to the community of believers at Colossae certainly
apply to every religious community, every Christian family, every gathering of
devout people:
“Because you are God’s chosen ones, holy and
beloved, clothe yourself with heart-felt mercy, with kindness, humility,
meekness and patience. Bear with one
another. Forgive whatever grievances
you have against one another, forgive as the Lord has forgiven you. Over all these virtues put on love, which
binds the rest together and makes them perfect. Christ’s peace must reign in your hearts, since as members of the
one body, you have been called to that peace.” (Colossians 3:12-15). Of course, more is required of the members
of a community of religious or devout laity to comply with the words of St.
Paul just quoted, but if the Maxim advising us: “Do not contradict or be
contrary...” is not observed, the peace and harmony and brotherly love St. Paul
envisions certainly could never happen.
After all, mercy, kindness, humility, meekness and patience cannot be
reconciled with asserting the opposite or denying what is said by other members
of a community.
But how go about putting this Maxim into practice in
gatherings such as our meetings? How
avoid asserting the opposite of a statement we really believe is
erroneous? It seems to me that the only
way to do it is to avoid making statements with dogmatic certainty. One avoids that by prefacing his remark
with: “It seems to me...” Another way is to be convinced that the subject
matter of our teachings and discussions are too vast and complex, concerned as
they are with God and the things of God, for any one Christian to know the
whole Truth about any of the subjects we treat of here. Thus we can look upon another member’s point
of view, or understanding, based upon his/her particular vantage point, which
differs at least to some degree from our own as helping to enrich us all. And a third way is to see that often it is
not a question of objective truth but of subjective taste. As we all know, it’s impossible to argue
about something as personal and unique as “taste”.
So much for the first part of Maxim 71. Now we ask: What is the meaning of the
second part: “... in no manner speak words that are not pure”, and how
is the second part related to the first part?
First of all, we can say that contradictory words are
themselves not pure, in the sense that they spoil or adulterate a conversation
and a relationship; and, as we saw above, they destroy the spirit of fellowship
and harmony in a gathering of friends or members of a family. So it seems that St. John of the Cross adds
the second part because he wants to include all kinds of impure words, not only
those that contradict. However, I don’t
think he means “not pure” in the sense of obscene because he intends this Maxim
for Friars, Nuns and devout lay people who avoid obscenity like the
plague. To help us get at his meaning, a
look at the Spanish original is helpful.
The adjective he uses, “limpia” means “clean”, primarily, rather than
pure. The Spanish “puro” means
primarily “free of foreign matter” and secondarily it would mean clean. But “limpia” is related to our word “limpid”,
so that I think a better translation of this second phrase would be: “in no way
speak words that are not “limpid.”
When we think of a “limpid pool of water” we get at
the full meaning of “limpid.” It means
both crystal clear, that is, perfectly transparent, and unruffled, or
undisturbed. Thus, St. John advises his
directees always to speak words that are free of deceit, self-seeking, and free
of any tinge of envy, hostility, sarcasm, disdain and whatever else offends against
charity. And at the same time, too, the
words are to be spoken calmly and peaceably.
So now we see the relationship with the first part of the Maxim. Just as contradictory words spoken at gatherings of folks pursuing the same ideals prevent bonding in charity and the deepening of fraternal love, so also, words that are not limpid, or pure, prevent the peace and unity that are the unmistakable signs of the presence and life-giving action of the Holy Spirit.
| <<<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.