Book I. Dialogue X: S. Francis de Sales professes the same doctrine: Christian indifference, and how it should be understood

I

Q. How did Bossuet prove what is now in question ?

A. By the principles of the holy Bishop, by his counsels and practice, by the true explanation of all his controverted passages, and lastly by a manifest reason, which is, so to speak, the key to the proper understanding of the spirituals, and above all of the mystics.

Q. On what principle does S. Francis de Sales join together the desire of salvation and perfect love ?

A. In his book on ‘ The Love of God 5 he proves in many places that God wills with a positive will that we should all be saved; from which it follows that he who wishes for salvation acts in accordance with the will of God, and therefore in love, as the Bishop of Meaux says.¹

Q. How did the saint reconcile pure love with the desire for reward ?

A. When speaking to the most perfect souls, so far from trying to make them disinterested in their beatitude by advising them not to think of it, he spurred them, on the contrary, to frequent acts of hope, and to think always of eternal felicity; a precept which he practised well when he said: 2 c I have thought of nothing this morning but that eternity of well-being which awaits us, but in which everything would seem to me of little or no account if it were not the invariable and for ever actual love of that great God who reigns always. 5 Here is the true disinterestedness which makes us love even our beatitude in God and for God.²

Q. What does Bossuet conclude from this ?

A. That so far from saying that the love of salvation and the desire to enjoy God is not an act of charity, the holy Bishop decided the contrary, for two reasons; that by desiring salvation because God wishes it we conform to his will, and that this desire is merely a desire of a love that is always actual, invariable and perfect.³

II

Q. But it is said that the saint spoke ceaselessly of Christian indifference; there is also in his books a whole chapter bearing the title: That holy indifference extends to all things.

A. The Saint explains this himself, when he says that this indifference ‘ is to be practised in things belonging to the natural life, as in health, sickness, beauty, deformity,... in the affairs of the spiritual life, as in dryness, consolations, relish, aridity; in actions, in sufferings—briefly, in all sorts of events. 5 From which it is clear, Bossuet says, 3 that the saint says nothing of salvation, any more than in scores of other passages where he talks of Christian indifference, pushing it as far as it will go, short of indifference to salvation.

Q. What is the fundamental reason of this restriction ?

A. Bossuet tells us 4 that indifference can never concern the expressed and signified will of God; otherwise it would become indifference as to whether we wished or did not wish what God declares that he wills; Christian indifference therefore must be restricted, as the Saint restricted it, to certain events which are ruled by the will of God’s good pleasure, as when his sovereign orders decide on those things which happen every day, such as health, sickness, death, success or failure; from which it is to be concluded that neither indifference nor abandonment can extend to the virtues, for they belong like salvation to the declared will; that is, to the express commandment of God.

Q. Did not the saint say somewhere that it is necessary to lose the taste for the virtues, and that the perfect soul does not wish to enjoy them ?

A. True,⁴ but he explained the idea in this way, adding elsewhere that not enjoying the virtues is not to be indifferent to having or not having them. It means that after stripping ourselves of the proud human desire we have for them, we clothe ourselves again in them, not now because they are agreeable to us, useful, honourable, and fitted to gratify our self-love, but because they are agreeable to God, useful to his honour and destined to his glory.

Q. But perhaps the new mystics regarded in the same way their indifference to salvation and the virtues, wishing solely to strip themselves of everything which involves our self-love, in order to relate it wholly to the pleasure and glory of God.

A. If they regard it thus, replies the Bishop of Meaux, 2 let them explain themselves as the saint does, and let them cease from saying that in a certain state of perfection we must desire or ask nothing for ourselves, for this would be interested; since it would cease to be so as soon as they relate all this to the glory of God.

Q. To what point is it possible, according to Bossuet, to carry disinterestedness in this matter ?

A. In the first place, we must strip ourselves of our own interests to the point at which we desire salvation, the virtues and even love of God more because he wishes it, and in it finds his glory, than for our own happiness, as was explained in the preceding dialogue; in the second place, to the point of not feeling⁵ we are pleasing God or he us (if he wishes to remove this consciousness), but never to the extent of not thinking of pleasing him in our hearts, and not desiring to do so as much as we can.

Q. How does Bossuet reply to the comparisons of S. Francis de Sales which are brought as an objection ?

A. Nothing is easier, he says, 2 than to resolve by these principles the objections which are assumed from the comparisons of the holy Bishop. His c statue,’ which most surprises those who do not understand his meaning, is very easy to explain, because it does not concern an eternal state, but only the time of prayer; in particular the time of that particular prayer which is called the prayer of simplicity or repose, of which we have spoken, in which the soul is urged and, so to speak, acted upon by the spirit of God, rather than acting by its own efforts; there is no matter for astonishment if, in those moments when it is actually under the hand of God, it is compared to a statue which is placed in a beautiful garden solely to satisfy the eyes of those who put it in its place, with hardly any action on its own part.

Q. What is his reply to the comparison of the daughter of the physician or surgeon who, in a violent fever and not knowing what may cure her, desires and asks nothing of her father, in whom she places her entire confidence and who is well able to arrange for her what is most profitable to her health ?

A. This daughter, says Bossuet, 3 certainly wishes to recover, she is not indifferent to this end but only to the means, whose disposition she leaves entirely to her father, for he knows better than she what will do her good; in the same way a perfect soul is not indifferent to its end, which is salvation, but only to the various events and means which will bring that end about, known better to God than to ourselves.

Q. But this daughter seemed so indifferent to her health that even after her cure, instead of thanking her father, she said nothing but: My father loves me well and I am wholly his.

A. Is not this the most efficacious way of thanking her father and recognizing his goodness ? For to give thanks and be grateful is surely to love the goodness of the benefactor rather than his benefits. Thus, Bossuet continues,⁶ what is taken from this daughter is at the most a formula of thanksgiving, a compliment from the lips only, so to speak, and all the feeling in her heart is left. This is a most consoling reply to many simple and virtuous souls who, finding themselves on a thousand occasions filled with certain feelings of gratitude, of hope, of desire and of love, are unhappy because they can explain them neither to God nor themselves by any of the ordinary formulae, by any act of express reflection; as if God did not see well enough the feelings in the intimate depths of their hearts; or that it was necessary to see them themselves in order to have the satisfaction of vain complacency.

Ill

Q. Who are the other spirituals whose teaching was brought forward as an objection in this matter ?

A. Fr. Rodriguez and Fr. Surin.

Q. What are the passages from Rodriguez, and how does he reply ?

A. The first passage is this: ‘ the accomplishment of the will of God gives more pleasure to the perfect man than does his own happiness.’ This passage is conclusive for us, he replies, 2 for so far from excluding joy and happiness it merely subordinates them to the will of God; with this we are in accord, as we have seen, and merely condemn the exclusion they wish to establish.

The second passage is i 1 ‘ We must leave to God the care of our souls as we do that of our bodies.’ When Rodriguez talks thus, we must always remember that this abandonment, copied from S. Peter, has for foundation the words of the same apostle: for he hath care of you: Ipsi cur a est de vobis. So that to cast on him all our cares, even that of salvation, as he exhorts us, is not to abandon them but to put them in more certain hands than ours.

The third passage is: 6 The servant of God casts aside all interest.’ To which he replies: the interest which must be cast aside is self-interest as last end, self-interest without relation to God, self-interest full of anxiety and with no confidence.

Q. What does he reply to the passages from the Catechism and the ‘ Foundations of the Spiritual Life ⁷ of Fr. Surin ? For I have heard that he approved these two books.

A. He tells us so himself in Section XII of the Preface to his Second Treatise, 2 and repeats his approval; no doubt that is why he insists on these passages, and brings them as evidence in support of his views.

Q. What do these passages say, and what is his reply ?

A. The first says: 3 ⁸ The gratuitous service we give to God consists in doing everything with the motive of pleasing God; we are touched only by the attraction of his goodness and his merit; this enkindles us to such an extent that there is no need of any other stimulus to do good, than the knowledge that God is good, liberal and generous, acting and doing good through sheer charity and generosity.’ These, says Bossuet, are plain words, which show us that so far from excluding the benefits of God from our gratuitous service, we use them as support to it; for the love which we bear God for his benevo- lence, y his liberality and generosity, is a very part of this gratuitous service the author refers to.

The second passage says: c The last and most perfect degree of love and gratuitous service is that of the faithful servants, who have even left in the hands of God their salvation and eternal life, retaining no anxiety or thought about it, nor except to wish what God wills for them; but we cannot attain to this without long effort and renunciation of ourselves in prayer, telling God a thousand times that we want nothing but him. 5 We want him then, replies Bossuet, and in the highest point of disinterestedness we do not cast aside the desire to possess him. Who ever desired more ? he adds.⁹

The third passage says: 2 4 In leaving aside all interests we abandon everything to God, not only in time but in eternity, never acting on the consideration of our own interests nor taking our stand on any other principle than the motive of pleasing God. I do not decry the motive of recompense, which may sometimes serve and be of profit; but the most praiseworthy, the most desirable, is that of the glory, the love and the pleasure of our God; so that the soul may say it hopes all things of him for whom it abandoned all. 5

This, said the Bishop of Meaux, is the act of hope in all its strength, in the most perfect abandonment. This is the secret of abandonment, he continues, which is also that of perfect love: The perfect soul seems to lose sight of all self-interest, but so that it may say it hopes all things from him for whom it abandoned all: so that abandonment of all as far as our feelings go, is a reason for hoping all. That was what the apostle S. Peter said: 4 Casting all your care upon him... be nothing solicitous. 5 But note the reason: this is that 4 he hath care of you 5; to have no care for one’s own well-being is in another way to have the most perfect care. Who does not know that the 4 Fly 5 of the Bride in the Song of Songs is merely a more secret manner of invitation ? The soul, who wishes to hide her love from exterior observation, wishes at the same time to feel it in the more intimate depths of herself, and the spouse understands this language.

Q. What general reply did he give to explain other similar passages in Fr. Surin ?

A. When this Father said often that we must keep our recompense, our interest, our merits out of sight; and never think of ourselves, it is either, says Bossuet,¹⁰ on the presupposition, according to S. Peter’s teaching, that God thinks of us and takes cares of us, Qiioniam ipsi cura est de vobis: or because what he calls interest does not include that great interest of possessing God, which deserves a more exalted name; or that the care we take must be without trouble or anxiety; or in any case since our merits are a gift of God, we should attend more to his liberality than to our co-operation, to the principle more than to its effects. And at any rate we should give him all, expect all from his grace, attribute all to him and recognize as his by a perfect self-abandonment all the goods we possess.

IV

Q. What general rule does he give for the better understanding of the spirituals and the mystics, especially in the delicate matters of pure love and self-abandonment ?

A. As he told us at the beginning, we must not take certain of their expressions too literally, but give them broad interpretations; because, he tells us, 2 writers such as S. Francis de Sales, who are full of affection and feelings, do not always wish to speak literally, and we must consider their meaning as a whole. He adds further: ‘ Without adhering scrupulously to the expressions of the holiest men, or even to certain of their conceptions, we must compare them with each other and be content to penetrate to the fundamental meaning. 5 3

Q. Would you give me another particular instance which will show clearly that Bossuet practised the rule he has just laid down ?

A. Here is one,¹¹ that I find in the Preface already mentioned: c... I cannot but recall a thought of that good religious, Brother Laurence, a Discalced Carmelite: He thought it impossible (he said) that God should allow to suffer long a soul abandoned to him, and resolved to abandon all for him. 5 He thought it impossible: was this a dogma that he had laid down in his mind ? No, he spoke from feeling and not from dogma; this as a dogma would have been erroneous, considering the long-suffering of Job and many other saints; but this sentiment (he continued), based on the immense goodness of God, seems to me admirable. Such are the rules of wisdom and discretion that Bossuet established and constantly followed in connection with the spirituals and above all the mystics, who usually speak less in precise dogmas than in sentiments of love. It is by this rule, and in this sense alone, that he justified, as we will see later, the exaggerations of the Saints, their impossible suppositions and the extravagances attributed to them. Because, once more, he knew that the free and noble efforts of divine love are not properly subject in their verbal expression to a rigorous dogmatic criticism. Who will be surprised after this that the cleverest people are pi'oud to follow the decisions of a scholar who is so reasonable in every way ?

Footnotes

1. Book VIII, § 5. 8 Ibid., § 6. ↩

2. These words taken from the book On the Love of Ood explain even better the holy Bishop’s idea: ‘ I love to have God, I love that God should be my sovereign good; this is a holy affection of the spouse, who a hundred times in excess of delight protests: “ my beloved to me and I to him.” ’ (Love of Ood, Book II, ch. XVII.) ↩

3. Book VIII, § 7. 8 Ibid., § 8. 4 Ibid., § 9. ↩

4. Book VIII,r§«14. 8 Ibid. ↩

5. Book VIII, § 18. 2 Ibid., § 15. 8 Ibid., § 21 ↩

6. Book VIII, § 21. 8 Ibid. ↩

7. Fifth treatise, § 13. ↩

8. Preface to the Instruction, § 140. 8 Fifth treatise, § 14. ↩

9. Fifth treatise, § 14. 2 Preface to the Instruction, § 143. ↩

10. Fifth treatise, § 14. 3 Book VIII, § 20. 8 Ibid., § 23. K ↩

11. Preface to the Instruction, § 144. ↩