Friendship? a study from the Introduction to the Devout Life, by St. Francis de Sales
.jpg) |
| by Carlo Maratta |
You
are my Friends1
the Lord says to his disciples. St. Francis de Sales says Friendship
is the most dangerous of all affections
2
in his Introduction
to the Devout Life.
The apparent discrepancy is intentional.
The
theme I chose from St. Francis de Sales' work in his Philotea,
the nickname
to
his great spiritual work the INTRODUCTION
TO THE DEVOUT LIFE, would
be on Friendship. The reason I chose this theme among the hundreds of
other themes in the book is for its relevance to humanity in every
age... for its intriguing demand by the young and said to be
sparingly found in Religious life. By humanity, I would refer it to
the youth scene in these post-modern age. While for Religious life, I
would be referring to the complaint of quite a good number of
religious that 'we
were
not given proper formation into affective maturity.'
The
quotation from John's Gospel in the first lines of this paper was
incomplete. It should have read “You
are my friends, if you do what I command you.”
With regards the quotation from Philotea,
it should also be read in its entire context of six chapters3
in Part III of is book. St. Francis de Sales scripturally defines
Christian
friendship only at the end of the sixth chapter that dealt with the
dynamics of Friendship. He quotes the
wise man, who fears the Lord shall direct his friendship aright, 4
and
then the
friendship of the world is enmity with God.5
The
introductory discrepancy was not a contradiction nor an incoherence
with the friendship
according
to Jesus and the friendship
according to St. Francis of Sales. The incoherence and at times
contradictoriness will be found in how people in all walks of life
would like to define it. They would readily be found defining it in
ways that would not only be profitable but also would be convenient
for themselves. It is this 'definition by convenience' that I wish to
address which is what St. Francis advices Philotea.
The
difficulties or challenges today predominantly revolve with the same
problem since the beginning of human time. We hear of so much
complaints due to pain and suffering and inconsistency when
confronted with aching
hearts.
We hear of weakness and failures and even scandals when the human
heart fails to live up to its vows of friendship and its commitment
to love. In the attempt to seek solutions, the process begins not
only identifying the problem but also the people affected by it. This
identification is shown through studies made by sociologists
searching for understanding on how and why the human heart
inadequately responds in history. We often hear vogue
and
vague terms when we hear nominatives that classify people at
different times and generations: the
industrials,
the
rebels,
the
hippies,
the
post-war
boomers,
the
generation-x
moderns,
and now the gen-y
post-moderns.
In all these, the subject with the human heart remains the same. In a
few years, the
gen-z
post-post-moderns
would
be in the limelight. Funny to wonder what name they would call this
next group when they have ran out of alphabets. And yet the human
heart remains the same. It seeks friendship and it seeks love and its
seeks rest.
For
those of us that assume that these two words, Love and Friendship,
were usually synonymous ie. Love and Friendship used interchangeably
as shown in many languages that prove their common origin, like amigo
~ amor in Spanish, amico ~ amore in Italian, amicitia ~ amare, in
Latin. In fact the root for the English 'friend' is the German's
freund
which
when rendered in its Old English present participle freogan
means 'to love, to favor.”
So
how does St. Francis want to explain these two. He says that Love
does
not seek anything in return.
While Friendship implies mutual
love.
Love is an action of the will to benefit the recipient gratuitously I
would have it interpreted. And Friendship is a relationship that is
founded on reciprocal exchanges that bring benefit or favor to the
parties concerned.
The
second principle is that Friendship when rightly understood is meant
to involve one's life for the other with nothing expected from the
other in return, but simply a total participation of oneself for the
benefit of the other. And this term of Holy Friendship he fittingly
referred to as marriage.7
The
third principle is of that friendship when wrongly understood would
be short lived and would
melt away,
as he says, like
snow in the sun.8
He clearly enunciates the kind of utilitarian aspect of seeking the
company of the other for reasons that benefits oneself or even for
mutual motives of profit, satisfaction or pleasure. This is not only
wrong, but even evil he says rightly. His examples are so down to
earth one needs to read the entire chapters to see the
'grounded-ness'
of this Saint.
The
fourth principle that could be inferred is that while friendship
entails a mutual
exchange of 'benefits', when these common
interests
go beyond intellectual compatibility, altruism or even objectives for
justice and philanthropy, the saint says nothing beats that
friendship when its mutual
interest
is purely about charity, devotion and Christian Perfection. To these
last kind of common holy
interests
are the kind of Friendship that should be kept and fostered. St.
Francis calls Friendship even real
when
what one seeks and what one shares is the highest of all good ie.
Goodness itself, who is God. This I should say could be called
perfect friendship as we could remember in the lives of the saints.
The
fifth principle is the need to distinguish carefully genuine from
false friendships. The saint illustrates his proofs by way of
categorically pointing out that all sweet
talk
does not bring any good. In fact he demonstrates his keen
psychological prowess to illustrate his familiarity with human
subtleties that evidently leads not only to nowhere but even to sin.
He even clearly states that when petty complaints arise and the
sweeter the gestures, words and actions become, the more it should be
doubted and even left behind. He teaches instead to take note that
true friendship, because it is sincerely devoid of self interest, is
one that is modest, simple and straightforward.9
And he concludes this point by saying , a true friend will
not sigh for anything save that God is not loved enough.
In
the sixth principle He gives finer details for fostering the true
meaning of Friendship. He says that it not only means to offer what
is pleasantly good for the other but to mould and enable the other to
be better by correcting the faults even if it may hurt and displease
the recipient. For a true friend according to him, consistently
wishes only the integral growth and development of the other.
The
seventh and the last principle of friendship inferred is that true
friendship could not and will not thrive amid sin.
The saint goes on to explain that Those
who draw together in friendship for mere temporal profit, have no
right to call their comm-union,
friendship.10
These
pages with these guidelines were written before the saints death
probably by 1622. That's about 392 years ago when the saint penned
these thoughts to the young reader he meant it for initially. And
this means also that the relevance of these guidelines are so
timeless that they easily could stand for a response for the
Philoteas of today. The problem of friendship was obviously present
then as it apparently exists still today or else I would not have
bothered picking a theme that was not intriguing, in demand and
sparingly found even today.
Intriguing,
because friendship is so natural since childhood in human experience
and yet so natural to mistake it for something it is not. Friendship
is in demand in so many hearts and by so much degree from those who
are good at complaining about a bleeding hearts when no one even
cares
to lifts a finger to tie some stitches on it before bleeding to
death. Friendship is so diversified today that its true form could
sparingly be found today with the naked eye. It is a word that is so
much used. Its meaning is so much misused and its practice defiantly
abused.
Will
a post-modern youth asks what is friendship? No they won't. They have
already their preconceived criteria as answers. They seek or better,
they long for someone who can personify, whom st. Francis calls
those who authentically present to those abandoned, cared for the
poorer ones, respected the neglected ones (to whom they identify
with) without expecting anything in return. To them, these youth will
begin to trust again and then will begin the process to mutually
build a relationship of respect and generosity for another, a
relationship which is called real friendship that St. Francis spoke
about. This is the only friendship they trust. The youth today are
too smart that they know they are being 'utilized' willingly or
unwillingly.
Instead
with disgruntled persons in religious and priestly life have the
perennial knack at lobbing complaints at their superiors and
formators. They annually,
like
clock work, harp on the same tune during annual evaluations and
programming. They say that they were not formed properly into
'affectivity.' They say that the Ratio
lacks a substantial element of formation
to affectivity.
If St. Francis were alive today, he would easily have these lot on
canonical leave. He would ask them for two things first that
formation was never a one way street. And second is that the problem
of affectivity has more roots prior to the entry into the formation
houses. At times it could be bluntly said that some candidates are
'dented goods' which an initial formation program presupposes had
been pre-processed before admission. Follows are the two responses
using in the light of what St. Francis advised.
St.
Francis would demand that they learn to understand the meaning of
Love as he explained. As well as the ambiguity of Friendships which
is misconstrued as a relationship whereby affectivity is of issue.
For the saint, affectivity is not the issue. In St. Francis, when
people who seek and ask something, more so when asking for healing of
affectivity, is probably a red-flag. For the saint these kind of
needs are not a problem of a lack of formation to friendship in the
formation house, but a problem more primitive. In fact they are so
primitive, that inter-disciplinary sciences that can identify and
verbalize such needs are required. For when a person has gone through
the formative system and then realizes his immaturity in his or her
affective response, it is not the fault of the formative process. For
the simple reason, that the formative stage in religious life is not
a hospital nor a therapeutic institute. Surely, there are flaws for
all human system, and the formative system or Ratio
is
not without room for improvement. But to complain and demand that the
system must have a program for affective maturation, will not pass
the test of St. Francis. For him the kind of relationship expected of
a person at that level of responsiveness to a vocation ie. Religious
life, or even of priestly life, demands also a level of
professionalism to mean accountability. But are we religious or are
they not? Are we people who accepted willingly and consciously to
embrace the consecrated life. And this only means that it was first
and foremost a relationship entered into with God and not with the
institution or with another person which comes only secondarily as an
expression of this primary relationship with God.
For
St. Francis, this friendship with God demands responsibility to seek
only the good of the other... on the part of man, to seek only the
glory of God. It may sound too 'cloud-like in the seventh heavens'
but in fact, this is exactly what the vows and commitment was all
about, to love without reserve. The saint warned that if one started
to seek formation to affectivity while meaning 'show
me respect, give me understanding, opportunity for professional
growth, space to express individualism, quasi-freedom,
all these are smacks of vanity, then it loses the realness of
friendship and definitely failed to be professionals ie. People who
promised to leave everything behind, following Christ to love God
totally. Calling a spade a spade is what keeps things realistic too.
What is lacking is not learning the dynamics of human friendship.
What is lacking is growth in Faith ie. that relationship with God. If
one wants to learn to be mature in his human friendships he ought to
be mature first in his friendship with God and not the other way
around. There should be room to realize that one's faith ought to
have grown so as to give us the capacity to respond to the challenges
of the present stage of life we may be in. Like a crab that needs to
molt in order to grow. And while molting, a crab becomes so soft and
vulnerable to predators.
The
second response would be to realize that formation is like having a
spoon of honey offered on one's mouth. It all depends if one would
swallow it or spit it out. This choice remains in the hands of the
individual if he, responsible as he is would realize that he cannot
live on honey alone, and would instead find some bread to serve as
supplement. But one cannot keep on whining on what one is simply
served with he needs also to learn how to cook other food when he
knows what is available in the table is not enough.
St.
Francis develops his theme on Friendship which such amazing clarity
of the human weakness and its diverse façade.
His detailed knowledge of the intimate stages of human psyche is very
astonishing. Moreover his proneness to use imagery and metaphor shows
he is not only well read and learned into things scientific and as
well as familiar with domestic life. He captivates Philotea and his
readers with ease and precision. These words he compiled together
brought me to laugh time and again at his pastoral wit but also laugh
to acknowledge how cunningly frank and insistent this good pastor is
in helping souls... in guiding them to really a devout life – a
solid friendship with God.
For
those who cannot bear the thought that mature or as the saint calls
'real' friendship is based on the willingness to share God with the
other, it means really ouch!
But for others who sync with these thoughts of the saint, its means
really wow!
No
one said following Christ was a walk in the park.
Before
verse 14 of the Johannine gospel, should read “Love one another as
I have loved you” in verse 12. And verse 17 should read 'this is my
commandment, that you love one another.'
The
Lord does not invite but instead commands all those who wish to be
his friends today and those even prior to 392 years ago, to Christian
Friendship. Based on St. Francis definition, we all must love one
another as Christ loved us. And that meant giving oneself for the
other's good without anything in return, that is Friendship.
We
ask why is Friendship so illusive for whining religious? Why
are they not allowed to have meaningful friendships that they may
mature better. Reply,
because the identity of consecrated life (religious life) is grossly
misunderstood today. Men of God, men for God, and men in God are
usually content and happy and are capable of great friendships
because they are generous and seek first the good of the Other.
As their hearts are filled by the overwhelming presence of the
Other,
they willingly and healthily build real
friendships
with others.
I
was so bemused at the moment St. Francis dealt on 'intimate
friendships' a phrase which in the words today would at
face value mean
'particular friendships.' The saint likened 'intimate
friendships' to
a journey together either in a field or going up a steep hill. At
first glance I myself did not know what does it have to do with
friendships. And when he expounded his thoughts as consistent as it
were, then
I was simply floored at the profundity of his wisdom of his
simplicity of is grace. He
said that when walking in a plain field, there is no difficulty of
walking in the same direction while as going up a steep hill would
require the assistance and help of another.
The saint zeroes in with the analogy that in a field there is no
urgent need to hold hands nor
even to stay close to each other since the field all are
walking
on is flat and secure. This is the same with real friendship. Once
the very foundation of the relationship is the
secure centrality of God
as
the common good that is shared,
there is no room to be afraid and so require each one to hold the
hand or to be in arms length of the other. There is no fear of losing
sight of
the other. There is no fear of
losing
the
destination since both if not all, are in the holy
'solid' grounds of
God's
presence.
When
however the terrain is steep and the danger of falling off would be a
perennial risk and hazard,
it would necessitate that each would not simply be content on keeping
each other closer but even more expedient if one held the hand of the
other to assist each other in reaching
the
same destination safely.
The saint would
recommends
the closeness of a friend when there is a risk of being distracted or
weak in the steep ascent towards the plateau of God. A good friend
should be the one that
is first
to grab your hand lest you fall or be continually holding your hand
due to discouragements or weakness of
heart to
proceed.
In these two metaphors the saint deals with 'intimate friendships' as
a
proximity
that could mean not only frequency of contact but also spatial.
It
was interesting for me to realize that the saint lacked may
have perhaps one
aspect uncovered
when having to deal with
'particular friendship' that
the
modern age has been debating about. I said
debating
since, the younger generation of religious would use this pointing
stick
as an argument against their formators and superiors who emphatically
considered this intimate friendship as taboo. And yet the younger
generation would harp on that it is due to this 'forbidden'
intimacies of friendship that they blame their inadequacy for
affective maturity today. Just
by using the 'blame game' indicates an argument like water on a
duck's back.
The
aspect that the saint may
have not explicitly expounded
was the factor of being 'enclosed' ie. a friendship that is so
exclusive
unto the parties that it does not allow others to enter. Yet
basing
myself on the line of principles of St. Francis, exlusive
friendships
are not healthy at all and are not to be confused with 'intimate
friendships.' The
saint already points
out
a fine line of caution to its practice. Particular friendship, being
exclusive and lacking in openness to others, are definitely vain and
even unhealthy. In itself, particular friendship is self destructive
and incapable of bringing about the intended affective maturity. For
the saint, when the relationship expresses jealousy and
possessiveness, there is definitely something that is not good but
only an enclosure of mutual selfishness. A healthy intimacy would
naturally be free of the compunction or fear of losing out in the
attention one receives from the other. When the intimacy of the
friendship is centered in God, it cannot be diffusive and even
zealously expectant that others may enter into this beautiful circle
of
goodness they
had just discovered. Therefore, particular friendships should remain
taboo for those who seek a more devout life.
To
round up, the
fuel to any relationship is continuity says the saint. If faith is
the name of this friendship with God. The actual 'good' that is
shared is called love that is in Sales-ian
terms that which does
not seek anything in return and only seeks the good of the other.
This powerful energy
or more emphatically called fire11
as
Teilhard de Chardin wants to call it is exactly what St. Francis de
Sales refers to as the
ruler of every motion of the heart. Thus
it is no wonder that the human heart will remain the same... it will
remain restless
until
it finds its ruler, and only then will it find perfect rest12
because
it has found its true friend.
1
John 15,14
2
F.de Sales. INTRODUCTION TO THE DEVOUT LIFE.
Internet edition. Christian Classics Etheral Library: Grand Rapids,
MI. p.78 www.cce.org/ccel/desales/devout_life.html
(accessed October 2013.)
3
F.de Sales, Part III: Chapter 17-22
4
Ecclesiasticus 6,17
5
James 4,4
6 F.de
Sales p.78
7 F.deSales
p.79
8 F.deSales
p.79 on Sensual Frienships
9 F.deSales
p.82
10 F.de
Sales p.84
11 P.T.de
Chardin. ESSAY ON CHASTITY
12 St.
Augustine. CONFESSIONS. (author's emphasis)
No comments:
Post a Comment