<<<Home Maxims Directory

 

Continuation of Commentaries

on the Maxims on Love of St. John of the Cross

by Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

 

Maxim 72.

Let your speech be such that no one may be offended, and let it concern things which  would not cause you regret were all to know of them.

Perhaps it seems a bit intimidating to have to reflect upon another Maxim that has to do with controlling the tongue.  Especially since Maxims 67, 68, 69 and 71 just preceding have all had to do with speech in one respect or another.  But even going farther back, we find other Maxims that are concerned, at least partially with, the use of the tongue.  They are, if you recall, Maxims 1, 3, 6, 43, 61, 62, 64.  Still others deal in part with silence, which is the ultimate form of control of the tongue, and they are Maxims 21, 30, 29, 53.  After all that, one would think that nothing more needs to be said, or even can be said about speech or about silence.  Yet, in all fairness, we have to try.  Perhaps what justifies, if it does not mandate, such an attempt, are the words of St. James the Apostle in his letter to all Christians: He writes: “...if anyone makes no mistakes in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.  If we put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey us, we guide their whole bodies.  Look at the ships also: though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs.  So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things.  How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire?  And the tongue is a fire.  The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell.  For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, but no human being can tame the tongue - a restless evil, full of deadly poison.  (James 3:2b-8) RSV, Catholic edition.  It appears, then, that all of the Maxims that deal with speech or silence represent St. John of the Cross’ way of helping us to avoid making mistakes in what we say.  As St. James says, that is a sign one has attained perfection.  One is perfect when one is united to God in love, which means that one’s will is totally one with, and conformed to, the Will of God.  Hence we must welcome this opportunity to try to learn about and apply still other ways of taming the human tongue.

It appears that St. John of the Cross has noticed that in the Maxims just preceding this Maxim 72, he has given us specific rules to observe in order not to commit sin or otherwise do harm to others in our speech.  So now he gives us a general rule that embraces all the others and includes all the others as particular instances or applications of the general rule.  The only thing about this general rule is that it always applies to speech.  It presupposes that one has good reason to speak.  The only way it can govern silence (not speaking) is when to speak at all would offend a listener, or would be a cause of regret to the speaker.

The all-embracing reach of this Maxim is made clear by the fact that a speaker must be careful not only to avoid offending those listeners who are present, but also must avoid offending people who are not present.  Well, on second thought, surely this Maxim does not require us to keep before our mind’s eye all human beings who live on this planet.  That includes people we know nothing about, and so we would have no way of knowing for sure all of the things that would offend them, nor of knowing those things that would not.  Among those people would be Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and folks of other Religions and cultures we have never even heard of.  Thus it seems we have to restrict the meaning of “all” in this Maxim to only those folks who are pretty much like ourselves in religious beliefs, ideals and convictions, or else to only those people with whom we are personally acquainted.  In that way this Maxim becomes manageable, namely, we would have the ability, with God’s help, of course, to comply with it.

We have already dealt with a lot of the things that would fall within the scope of this Maxim, beginning with what we said in regard to Maxim 1:  “Bridle your tongue. very much...” In speaking of it we mentioned not only restricting the number of words we speak, but also restricting the emotional nuances we put into the words we speak, such as hostility, annoyance, impatience, anger, disdain and a host of others that would, or could, offend a listener.

Maxim 3 concerns the manner in which we speak, advising us to speak in such a way that gives evidence to listeners that our souls are calm and we enjoy inner peace.

If we read this Maxim 72 together with Maxim 6, that is, the latter half of 6, it covers those instances when obedience requires that we speak.  It also covers those instances when we might speak outside the parameters of obedience, because to do so would mean that God Himself, if no one else, is the someone offended.

But this maxim 72 also advises us to be attentive to the subject matter, or content, of our speech.  Certain topics have already been outlawed by Maxims already considered.  Maxim 61, for instance, advises us to say nothing of those things that are hidden in our consciences.  If we were to do so, we would regret it because we would lose an eternal fruit.

Another topic to be avoided, according to Maxim 64, is whatever concerns an alleged fault or error we have committed.  Still other topics we should not mention are given in Maxims 67 and 69, namely the sentiments, desires and emotions that fill our hearts, and the complaints that well up in our minds concerning the conduct of others.

Still other topics are outlawed by Maxim 71, preceding this one.  They are matters which are controversial or which would be offensive to pious and chaste ears.

What all of the foregoing indicates is that the previous Maxims concerning use of the tongue deal with special cases, or particular circumstances, among all the things that fall within the scope of the General Rule laid down by this Maxim 72.

Now we can ask if there are other ways in which speech can be offensive to others, and if there are other topics we would regret having spoken of in the event absent individuals were later to hear of it.  At this moment, I can think of only one subject matter that we might speak of, but only with certain, not all, people.  I am thinking of ethnic or racial jokes.  I don’t think I am wrong in presuming that each of us here has friends and acquaintances among a wide spectrum of nationalities, and of one or another race different from our own.  I for one have to admit that I have told ethnic jokes that would offend certain friends of mine.  I would deeply regret any one of them knowing I had told those jokes to others not of their race or nationality.  This kind of thing is certainly excluded by this Maxim.

We have a hint as to what we might regret having said, were it known to absent friends and acquaintances by recalling the commentary on Maxim 37: “The entire world is not worthy of a man’s thought...” There we mentioned that it is beneath the dignity of us human beings to occupy our minds and hearts with base and brutish thoughts and desires. If people who know and respect us were to know we did make such base and brutish topics the subject of our conversations, well certainly, all of us would regret having spoken in a way that disappoints them, at least, or scandalizes them, at the most.

Perhaps one or more of you have a problem with what I have just said.  After all, base and brutish topics would often include things that are sinful even to talk about.  So in effect this Maxim could be interpreted to mean regret that others would know that we are sinners, such that we would have to strive to keep that fact from being known.  But this seems to be in conflict with an important teaching given by St. John which he says, if carried out, mortifies the threefold concupiscence of the flesh, the eyes, and the pride of life.  It is found in Ch. 13, Bk. I of the Ascent, par. 9: “...Act with contempt of self and desire that all others do likewise.”    “...endeavor to speak in contempt of yourself and desire all others to do so.” “...try to think lowly and contemptuously of yourself and desire that all others do the same.”  How can we reconcile that with the second part of Maxim 72?

Well, I personally think they can be reconciled only by applying the teaching of Ch. 13, Bk. I just mentioned to the general non-specific fact that each of us is indeed a sinner.  Each of us should be willing to admit that he/she is the greatest of sinners.  Thus for us to speak contemptuously of ourselves and to hear others do the same is not something we could, or should, regret doing or hearing.

However, it is quite another thing for others to know what our specific sins are that enable each of us to assert that he/she is the greatest sinner in the world.  That is because it could harm the souls of the people who have a great esteem and love for us.  Surely, every one of us is a role model and is looked up to as an example by young people who are still a long way from being emotionally mature.  If they were to learn of our specific grievous sins they could become so disillusioned and hurt that they might easily abandon discipline and all attempts to lead good, holy lives.  We certainly would bitterly regret causing that to happen.

Hopefully, we’ve spoken of all those things we should exclude from our speech on the occasions we deem it either necessary or permissible to speak.  Now we can ask the question: “Are there any topics that I can safely speak of on the grounds that nobody can be offended thereby, or which give me no cause to regret later on?”  Well, yes, there are myriads of wholesome and edifying topics we can speak about because God is the Creator of all the things that exist in the universe, all of them good, all of them sharing a tiny bit of one or more of His attributes.  They are so numerous and diverse, so beautiful and complex, so mind-boggling, and so awe-inspiring, that speaking of them cannot but give Him great honor and glory, and cannot but help people to know Him better and love Him more.  Yet we seldom speak about these things because it is seldom that the opportunity to do so arise naturally and spontaneously when we are with others.

We ask, then: “Would this Maxim, if complied with, result in our hardly ever talking?” Well, since one would have to have made a diligent attempt to put this Maxim into practice over a long period of time in order to be able to give an adequate answer - and that is something I haven’t done - I don’t dare speculate or guess what a suitable answer would be.

That being the case, we can conclude the reflections on Maxim 72 by noting that it would be a mistake, such as St. James had in mind in the passage of his epistle which we quoted at the beginning.  The mistake being to make statements based upon speculation and guesswork rather than upon certain factual knowledge.  We would do well, therefore, to pray for such a deep and fervent love of truth and love of souls that it would become easy for the Holy Spirit to guide and inspire us never to err or otherwise offend in our speech.

Maxim - 73 - Do not refuse anything you possess, even though you may need it.

This Maxim is a variation on Maxim 70 which says we are not to refuse work, even though it seems we cannot do it.  With regard to work, what we give is time, energy, use of talents and abilities.  These, also, are things we need, though only two of them, time and energy are no longer ours, that is, applied to personal benefit, once they are given to others.  Talents and abilities, the other two, are not lost to us when we agree to do all the work we are asked to do.  In fact, using talents and abilities are the best way to keep them, since whatever we have that we do not give away we will lose, in the sense that they do us no permanent good when all is said and done.  And actually, the time and energy given away and applied to assist and benefit others than ourselves are not really lost, they are transformed into eternal, spiritual treasure.

In this maxim we are dealing with material possessions and assets rather than those which are of a spiritual nature.  And so it is an echo and a summation of what Jesus enjoined upon us in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel: “When someone takes your cloak, let him have your shirt as well.  Give to all who beg from you.  When a man takes what is yours do not demand it back” (Matt. 5:40, 42) One difference between the admonition of Jesus and that of this Maxim is what St. John adds: “Even though you may need it.”  But this is only apparent, because in the examples Jesus gives, a person needs his cloak and his shirt and usually whatever, at a given moment, is taken suddenly from him.  But St. John’s Maxim 73 has wider application because it includes things a person may not need every moment of his life, but only once in awhile, or only for a little while each day.

Another difference is that in the Maxim a person is asked for something of ongoing importance in his life.  In part of Jesus’ admonition, the possessions are taken without asking permission, and so we could say that Jesus is telling us not only to let another have what is of value to us, but also to absorb insult and injury as well.  I think it is more difficult to part with things we need under those circumstances than when a person asks us to surrender them freely.  But at the same time it probably requires more virtue, more holiness, because we can justify a refusal whenever we are asked for something we need, that is, we can feel certain we have done nothing wrong or blameworthy by refusing to give up that needed object.

Supposing, though, we were to know that the need for something we possess is even greater than our own need for it.  Even in that case, we would not be justified in withholding the thing asked for because charity, the life of the Christian soul, requires that we put more value on the welfare of others than upon our own.  If charity is violated by the refusal to help someone needier than ourselves, that is the same as saying that our life depends upon giving to the other person, because charity is the true life of the human soul. 

But what about situations when we can be absolutely sure that our need for something surpasses the petitioner’s need for it?  Does this Maxim still require that we give the thing away?  I believe we have to say that it does, because the language is unconditional.  In fact, by saying “even though you may need it” the Maxim is suggesting that there is nothing that would justify a refusal.

But let’s consider the case where our need for the object asked for is greater than the need of the petitioner. Why then, cannot I say to him: “I am not going to say no! to your request, rather, I want you to be aware that without this I would suffer more without it than you are suffering now.  More serious needs must be satisfied before less serious ones.  Therefore, you have a chance to withdraw your request.  Charity in your soul requires that you withdraw the request.”

In my opinion, this would not be a viable option on the part of the one asked.  One reason is the unconditional language of the Maxim, as stated above.  No circumstance would excuse those St. John is advising, nor any of us, from striving to put it into practice.  Which leads us to inquire, “What is it that prompted St. John of the Cross to write this Maxim.  What great benefit for one’s soul derives from it?”

It seems to me that the great benefit St. John of the Cross has in mind is that giving away things we need makes us immediately dependent upon God alone.  While we have possession of a material object that satisfies a specific need we are not immediately, but only mediately, or secondarily, dependent upon God.  That is, at that moment we are not dependent upon God alone.  To be dependent upon God alone, certainly is best for us because we know that God is a most compassionate and tenderhearted Father, who will bring to bear upon the satisfaction of our need all His wisdom and His power.  We know, too, that He is infinitely reliable and faithful in fulfilling His obligations.  Furthermore, He is so tremendously pleased when we let Him know that we value Him personally more than His gifts.  As St. John of the Cross tells us in Maxim 59: It is a serious evil to have more regard for God’s blessing - in this case the object that we need - than for God Himself.  This Maxim 73 provides us with an instance where we can prove we have more regard for God than for His gifts.

Hence, we can see why we cannot say to a petitioner that he should withdraw his request because our need for it is greater than his.  The needier we are, the more we draw upon ourselves the glance of God and the providential care of God.  Needier is related to greater poverty of spirit, and that in turn is related to greater humility.  And we know that God cannot resist humility.  He is so pleased by it that He pours immeasurable blessings upon a humble soul.  The more humble a soul, the more of Himself and His life He is able to pour into that soul.  And one of the first blessings given us when we hand over to a petitioner the thing we need is that God has chosen us to be His personal agent and representative in providing for the needs of the petitioner.  That thought alone could easily induce someone to start giving away everything he needs without waiting for people to ask for them.

It seems to me that we can fittingly conclude the reflections on Maxim 73 by quoting certain passages from the Story of a Soul.  Toward the end of Chapter 10, when discussing the insights into charity the Lords had given her, St. Therese writes the following.

“Although it is difficult to give to one who asks, it is even more so to allow one to take what belongs to you, without asking it back.  O Mother, I say it is difficult; I should have said that this seems difficult, for the yoke of the Lord is sweet and light.  When one accepts it, one feels its sweetness immediately, and cries out with the Psalmist: “I have run the way of your commandments when you enlarged my heart.”

“Jesus does not want me to lay claim to what belongs to me; and this should seem easy and natural to me since nothing is mine.  I have renounced the goods of this earth through the vow of poverty, so I haven’t the right to complain when one takes a thing that is not mine.”

To give up one’s cloak is, it seems to me, renouncing one’s ultimate rights; it is considering oneself as the servant and the slave of others.  When one has left his cloak, it is easier to walk, to run, and Jesus adds: And whoever forces you to go one mile, go two more with Him.”  Thus it is not enough to give to “everyone who asks”;  I must even anticipate their desires...

<<<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.