BODILY PRESENCE. A Franciscan Vision

Studies in Spirituality 24, 179-204. doi: 10.2143/SIS.24.0.3053496 © 2014 by Studies in Spirituality. All rights reserved. WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN BODI...
Author: Luke Lambert
4 downloads 0 Views 499KB Size
Studies in Spirituality 24, 179-204. doi: 10.2143/SIS.24.0.3053496 © 2014 by Studies in Spirituality. All rights reserved.

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN BODILY PRESENCE A Franciscan Vision

SUMMARY – This contribution develops a model of bodily spirituality as a response to the virtual reality in which we have to live and be present. Presence is described as a transformative power operating in a face-to-face encounter, whereby the face stands for the integral act of communicating with one another. The body is approached, not as the physical or material thing (‘dust’), but as an individual incarnation of life (‘Here I am’). A bodily approach to reality gives us reality as a bodily presence, even if it is mediated by the virtual media. Humans are and should be bodily present with the environment, with each other and with God.  The proposed model differentiates between three times three transformations: the body as a locus, medium and image, corresponding to destination, rendition and communion. With the help of this model I describe how the spiritual practices of Saint Francis incarnated Gods presence.  But there is always the danger that other media, for example our language, disengage from our bodily presence, and create its own virtual reality. In the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist the Church has set a sacramental basis for communication. In the sacramental form of communication the Church does not communicate something about Christ, but Christ. This communication can only be fulfilled when we offer our own real bodily presence, and receive Him. A bodily approach to all media of communication may be what the Church has to offer to the world.

In 2004, I completed research for the Dutch Bishops’ Conference on the broadcasting of the Eucharist on TV and radio.1 The main problem of broadcasting sacramental celebrations is that there can be no bodily communion.2 In my description of these broadcasts, I noticed that those responsible were 1

2

97549.indb 179

Willem Marie Speelman, Liturgie in beeld: Over de identiteit van de rooms-katholieke liturgie in de elektronische media, Groningen: Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, 2004. M. Böhnke, ‘Welche Art von Teilnahme ist einem Zuschauer einer Fernsehübertragung von Gottesdiensten möglich?’, in: Liturgisches Jahrbuch 37 (1987), 3-16.

19/12/14 08:50

180

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

developing tactics to elicit the recipients’ bodily presence, as if they were seducing them to approach the screen as closely as possible. If the electronic media cannot transmit Christ’s presence bodily, the bodily presence of the receiver has to make the Eucharist fruitful. After finishing this study, I went on to do something I thought was totally different: Franciscan spirituality. But, here, too, I was confronted with the theme of bodily presence. Francis used his body in his attempt to approach a life according to the perfection of the Gospel (FlCl 6:3). By using the vulnerability of his body, he had a fine sense for the presence of God in people (L3C 11), churches (Test 4), the Sacrament (Adm 1), names (Test 12), icons (L3C 13), the Gospel (L3C 28), and even in the reflection of the creation (CtC). Only recently, I heard media sociologist, Sherry Turkle, talk about the effects of the internet, gaming and social media, especially Facebook, on young people. Turkle criticized the virtual character of contacts in social media.3 Again, the main theme appeared to be (the lack of) bodily presence. Perhaps it is time to describe what bodily presence is and how it may function not only in the liturgy and in spirituality, but also in the virtual reality. Two questions must be differentiated: What do we mean by ‘body’ or ‘bodiliness’? What do we mean by ‘presence’? I will describe presence as a transformative power operating in a face-to-face encounter. The face stands for the integral act of giving oneself and receiving the other. Presence is direct nearness, in which ‘direct’ stands for immediateness, open-heartedness, and for direction (dirigere) and shaping. Of course, presence is not always literally an eye-to-eye relationship; we can be present to each other without constantly looking at each other. It is like being at home: you do not have to be there all the time for it to remain your home; it carries the traces of your presence and you carry the traces of your home, albeit just the faith that there is a home for you. The body is not just the physical or even material stuff we are made of; neither is it the image of a beautiful person on a billboard. Inspired by the phenomenologist Michel Henry (1922-2002), I will approach the human body as the incarnation of life, which is at the same time our vulnerability and sensibility. Bodily, we can enjoy life, but we will always also suffer pain. Bodily, we are connected with the real reality. In this connection, the body is real, and the reality, comme horizon latent, a bodily experience.4 Bodily, we are always involved with the horizons of the reality in which we live. Our bodily involvement is real presence, not necessarily mindful attention, but just being there in interaction. In our natural environment we breathe, in our human

3

4

97549.indb 180

Sherry Turkle, Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other, New York: Basic Books, 2011. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phénoménologie de la perception, Paris: Gallimard, 1945, 109.

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

181

environment we may carry each other, and our relation with the divine may be one of serving. Our time, however, is overwhelmed by the reality of the virtual media. The communication theorist, Marshall McLuhan, gave us insight into the effects of the media in our sense of reality.5 If the body is our gateway to reality, the virtual ‘extensions of the senses’ will thoroughly change our relation with this reality. And, to the extent that the virtual media form our environment, we live in a virtual reality becoming virtual people. ‘Second Life’ is not just a game. The scholastic principle, Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipiendi recipitur, is still valid: a bodily approach to reality gives us reality as a bodily presence, whereas a virtual approach gives us a virtual presence. But the virtual nature of our reality is problematic because, in the end, we cannot live in an illusion. So-called ‘friends’ on Facebook are not the same thing as real friends. The truth is that we are flesh and blood, and we must approach the virtual media in the way that we are. Only then do the media become what they are: media, i.e., means, and not the reality itself. The virtual media must not be the message. While every time has its own problems and will have to find its own solutions, sometimes it is wise to look for answers in our rich traditions, in this case, the liturgical and Franciscan traditions. The liturgical history offers us a dogma of real presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, and Francis of Assisi, a penitent in the 13th century, may be called a patron of bodily spirituality. We all know that there is something paradoxical in the dogma and also in the bodily spirituality of penitents like Francis. But perhaps this very paradox will give us insight into the paradox of bodily presence in our virtual reality. In the following I will try to answer the question of how we may reestablish contact with our bodiliness in our virtual environment, so that we may reestablish a real contact with reality and find real presence in our lives. I will begin with a short theological introduction into bodily presence from the first chapters of Genesis. We will be introduced to the vulnerability and sensibility of our being human, and to our flesh (basar) as the ‘pivot’ of communion. Then I will investigate how phenomenology describes the body as the ‘pivot’ of the world. I will introduce a scheme of nine transformations in which our body lives in and connects us with reality. Finally, I will describe the bodily spirituality of Francis, in which the body (caro) will appear as the ‘pivot’ of our salvation. If the user offers his or her bodiliness, even the virtual media may bring him or her in contact with the real world.

5

97549.indb 181

Marshall McLuhan, Understanding media: The extensions of man, London-New York: Routledge, 1964, 23.

19/12/14 08:50

182

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

1. A SHORT THEOLOGY OF BODILY PRESENCE The biblical story of the Creation gives us an idea of the Divine presence in the world. There are two stories about Creation. The first is the story of the Creation in seven days. It tells about God’s Word causing differentiations. He separated (bara) light from darkness, heaven from earth, land from sea, day from night, creatures ‘after their kind’, male and female. But to put all the stress on the separations would not make sense: the intention of the separation is to establish an order of universal relationship that makes life on earth possible. Logically speaking, differentiations are necessary separations to make relations possible. Life on earth is only possible when there is a mutual interaction between light and darkness, heaven and earth, land and sea, God and humanity, male and female. Thus, the story testifies that the Divine presence has brought His order into the world, turning it into a living-place for His creation. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gn 1:2)

In this verse, the Divine presence appears as a transformative power, in which God shares Himself with the face of the deep: a face-to-face encounter immediately transforming ‘the deep’ into ‘the waters’. Presence is a matter of sharing oneself with the other, thus creating the opportunity for both poles of the relationship to be transformed in mutual interaction. In the first story, God shares His goodness with creation (Gn 1:4.12.18.21.25.31), His image with humanity (Gn 1:27), and His holiness with the seventh day (Gn 2:3). It is justified to question whether and how far God has been transformed in this creative process. The second story is about the Garden of Eden. This story considers the human body as a gift from God to the earth, as Blessed Pope John Paul II said in his Theology of the Body.6 But the earth also gives, for ‘man’ (adam) is formed from the earth (adamah). Adam is not created by the Word alone, but is formed by the hands of God from the blood red ground and His breath of life. The original formation of humankind still bears the tripartite structure of God, earth, and human. The Dutch sculptor and psychologist, Frank de Miranda, draws a triangle on the basis of Genesis 2:4b-7, in which God (JHWH), the blood red earth (adamah), and the red-blooded man (adam) each appear three times.7 This triangle structures presence. 6

7

97549.indb 182

John Paul II, The theology of the body: Human love in the divine plan, Boston: Pauline Books, 1997. Frank de Miranda, Ontmoeting en verwachting: Bijbelse getuigenis vanaf Kain tot aan de Godsknecht uit het boek Jesaja, Utrecht: Bijleveld, 1968, 13-15.

19/12/14 08:50

183

BODILY PRESENCE

JHWH Divine presence

Adamah Blood red ground

Adam Red-blooded man

De Miranda stresses that presence is expressed in the countenance or face. I would like to add that the Hebrew word for face (panim) is a plural form: presence is expressed in two faces turned toward each other.8 But when the redblooded adam is formed from the earth, presence is given a bodily nature. Adam is present with the earth by bodily being ‘there’. Spirituality based exclusively on the divine-human relationship9 runs the risk of lacking this bodily nature of the divine-earthly-human presence. In biblical theology, this bodily nature is recognized in the Garden of Eden, the Promised Land, and the Kingdom of God. Are these mythical images? Or perhaps actual presences of the earth waiting for realization? And, is the realization of this presence performed by the homo faber, the (hu)man who makes it all, or by the homo presens, the (hu)man who is there when it is coming. The bodily presence is particularly strong in the story about the differentiation of adam into a woman and a man. Originally adam was alone, which is explicitly said to be not good.10 This might be a trace of God’s transformation, for God appears to be able to feel what adam feels: something other than Himself, for it is not good. God decides that adam must be a relationship. He causes a deep sleep to fall on adam and differentiates him into a woman and a man. God brings the woman to the man. When the man sees her, he cries out: ‘Flesh from my flesh!’ and calls her ‘woman’. They come to each other and become ‘one flesh’. As in the first story, the differentiation is a presupposition for a relationship. The man and the woman are made to be present to each other in the flesh. Their mutual presence in the flesh (basar) is a matter of kinship and transience, of longing and communion.11 Their face-to-face encounter leads to

8

9 10 11

97549.indb 183

The Hebrew word panim is related to the verb panah, to turn into, to turn to, to concern oneself with. In a negative way, presence is recognized in the figure of Cain. Cain, whose countenance is fallen (Gn 4:6), is not present with his brother, not with the earth, and not with God. Therefore, he is driven out from the face (presence) of the earth, God, and other people (Gn 4:14). His punishment is the consequence of his own absence. As in Kees Waaijman, Spirituality: Forms, foundations, methods, Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 426ff. Gn 2:18; cf. John Paul II, The theology of the body, 35-37. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Bd. 1 (ed. Ernst Jenni in collaboration with Claus Westermann), Gütersloh: Kaiser, 2004, 376-379.

19/12/14 08:50

184

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

the recognition that they share one flesh, one breath, just as they share, according to the first story, one image. The biblical stories about the original presence and its bodily nature clearly have a narrative, if not mythical, character. They are not told as empirical or historical facts. This does not mean that they are not true, for they are true in a narrative way. They are stories, not histories. It does not make sense to believe historically that the world was created in seven days and the woman was formed from the side of the man. But it does make sense to believe in the reality of the stories, for they convey a truth that is not limited to a historical time and place. The truth that the stories tell is that human existence and human communication are based on relations, and more specifically, on presence. This presence has a tripartite structure, involving the shared presence of God, earth, and human. Where it concerns the human being, presence has a bodily nature. Humans are bodily present in the world and to each other. Franciscan spirituality recognizes, however, that our presence to God has a bodily nature also. 2. A SHORT PHENOMENOLOGY

OF

BODILY PRESENCE

Phenomenology describes the lower side of the triangle of presence, i.e., the bodily relation between the human and the earth. According to the French philosopher, Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), human beings are bodily present in the world by inhabiting it. Our bodily presence, therefore, is the root of our conscience and of our communication. Mon corps est le pivot du monde,12 for the body turns it into its living place and becomes part of it. Most phenomenologists continue this line of thought concluding that the human body is one’s situation in connection with the world.13 Michel Henry argues that human bodiliness is not only one’s gateway to the world but also to God: C’est donc en ‘s identifiant à la chair du Verbe ... que l’homme pourra ‘s identifier à Dieu.14 The bodiliness of living beings is, other than a material body, an être incarné. Material bodies do not feel anything, but living flesh (chair) feels that it is alive. The philosopher does not hesitate to introduce a theological argument into the discussion, referring to the Gospel of John 1:14 (Le Verbe s’est fait chair – ‘The Word has made itself into flesh’) and the First Letter of John 1:1 (‘The Word of life’). Henry argues that the human body is created by the Word of God, which is the Word that gives life. Living flesh is 12 13

14

97549.indb 184

Merleau-Ponty, Phénoménologie de la perception, 97. C.A. van Peursen, Lichaam – ziel – geest: Inleiding tot een fenomenologische antropologie, Utrecht: Spectrum, 1970, 110. Michel Henry, Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair, Paris: Seuil, 2000, 23.

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

185

an incarnation of God’s Word, which is in our hearing and seeing and touching (cf. 1 Jn 1:1). Henry concludes that feeling is the revelation of life itself. In the carnal experience, especially in suffering (l’épreuve), life reveals itself to this unique living being. This revelation is the incarnation of life, the Word of life that became flesh, and I would add, becomes flesh. Christian truth is based on the revelation of the Word in the flesh: we are able to know because we live and are able to feel. Truth is thus not in the order of thought, but of experience. Philosophers may argue about the truth, but the truth of suffering is revealed immediately. This immediate experience, felt by the flesh, is the basis for any discussion about truth. But, Henry continues, because of the reality of the incarnation in Christ, it is also the condition of the identification of humans and God.15 The cause of Christian truth is salvation. In Christ, God became human to save humankind. God gave humanity the incarnation of His word as a way of becoming human and as a way of becoming God.16 These are two sides of one process of mutual interaction, the first of which is celebrated at Christmas, the other at the Easter triduum. The spirituality of Francis of Assisi, who, by the way, particularly loved Christmas, stresses that in Jesus Christ, God enters in a bodily relation to humanity: flesh of my flesh (cf. Gn 2:23), near to me in my suffering and my death. Jesus Christ showed how to become a real human being, near to other people, near to the whole of creation, but also near to God. Thus, we can formulate an answer to the question of whether and how far God was transformed: Yes, He transformed. He became human so that He could be received by humanity and in the same process transform humanity into His communion. The phenomenology of Henry gives us a basis for the study of Franciscan spirituality as a bodily practice, in which human bodiliness is used to affirm God’s presence as real presence. It also explains clearly what is meant and what is not meant by ‘flesh’ (sarx). The flesh of the incarnated human being, is not matter, but someone’s ability to feel. Flesh is thus not formed out of atoms and cells, but by suffering and enjoyment. Moreover, flesh always belongs to a specific I, the one who feels, here and now. When God became human, He became one specific human being, living in a specific place (‘there’) in a specific time (‘then’). Thus, Henry’s phenomenology affirms the triple relationship of God, human, and earth. I want to continue spiritually this phenomenological line of thought of our bodiliness as the situation of the ‘I’ in this world, but also as my means to be in communion with God. That I inhabit this world means that I am constantly 15 16

97549.indb 185

Ibid., 15. Augustine, sermo 13 de tempore: factus est Deus homo, ut homo fieret Deus.

19/12/14 08:50

186

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

in interaction with my environment: breathing, growing, perceiving and being perceived, traveling, and working. In order to be able to interact, my body must be sensitive and therefore vulnerable. The effect of the interaction is that my body creates its own living space in the world. But the effect of the interaction is mutual, for, at the same time, the shape of the body is transformed by the environment. As I said earlier, presence is a transformative power, mutually changing both or all three poles of the relationship. The situation of the ‘I’ is a process connecting and transforming the body and the reality. But it is the human flesh that recognizes this process as an incarnation of life. A Scheme of Bodily Interaction with our Environment Related to the interactions with my own body (adam), my environment (adamah), and the vision of the other (consciousness, God), we can describe the bodily presence as a locus, as a medium, and as an imago. The first, naïve impression may link the relation of the ‘I’ with the body to the locus, with the environment to the medium, and with the other to the image. But, in fact, all three poles are present in all three forms. Therefore, considering the different ways in which the body situates the ‘I’, we find nine (three times three) transformations. These transformations describe how the body, its environment, and its otherness are shaped in mutual relationship. The scheme is thus formed that 1-4-7 correspond to destination, 2-5-8 to rendition, and 3-6-9 to communion. Later, this scheme will be used as an instrument to describe how, following a Franciscan spirituality, our body is also shaped in the mutual relationship with the incarnated being of Christ. a) bodiliness as locus 1) being I, here, now 2) breathing in and out 3) growth and decay

- a presence - a permanent interaction - a becoming

b) bodiliness as medium 4) moving/traveling 5) perceiving 6) working

- a vehicle - a sense organ - a working tool

c) bodiliness as imago 7) following 8) recognizing 9) sharing as a face-to-face encounter

97549.indb 186

- an example - self-awareness - an imago Dei

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

187

As a body, we are present in the world. We can only know what is ‘I’, ‘here’, and ‘now’ by experiencing our bodily presence, for the body is the place where I am here and now. Our presence as a living body in the world consists of a permanent interaction, which eventually makes it difficult to draw the line between the body and its environment. Is our breath, for example, a part of the environment or our body? Isn’t our bodiliness reaching out as far as we can see? What about the traces of our bodily presence in our home, which linger after we have left? The interaction with our environment is necessary to stay alive: our body does not only live because God shared His life-breath with us, but also because the earth shares its life with our body. We grow on the earth; its climate has a large impact on the way we grow and decay. Next, our body is a medium with which we move over the face of the earth, perceive our environment, and operate in the world (Gn 2:15: ‘dress and keep the garden of Eden’). Our feet make it possible that we walk upon the earth, and they indicate the tempo in which we are destined to move. Our senses are not only the thresholds of our body, but also tactile organs with which we communicate with the environment. With our hands we are able to turn the environment into a living place, while in the same process the environment will transform our body. The third aspect of our bodiliness is the way in which the body is formed into a visible and recognizable form. Our environment – the other creatures, especially other people – notices and recognizes us because we have a certain body, i.e., a certain form. This form is, to a certain extent, the effect of our living in our environment: by eating, travelling, and working in a certain environment, our body will be formed ‘in the image’ of this environment. But our body is also formed in the images given by others and by God. Our body is formed as an image by following examples in its movements, intentions, and practices. We learn how to act and to communicate, and thus acquire an image, a recognizable pattern of behavior, and also a recognizable look. Subsequently, we acquire a self-awareness and identity. To a certain degree, we know who we are and how other people see us. In this way we develop a consciousness and a conscience. Finally, however, we are formed by the image of the One who is always looking at and after us. Francis says: ‘for what a person is before God, that he is and no more’ (Adm 19:2). In a theological and phenomenological approach we have been able to see that presence is a transformative power. With the help of the scheme of bodily transformations we have also been able to see how presence mutually transforms the body, its environment, and its otherness (cf. Ricoeur: soi-même comme un autre). To a large extent, we could follow our bodily presence without naming God. However, Franciscan spirituality, which is a penitential spirituality, will,

97549.indb 187

19/12/14 08:50

188

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

at every stage of bodily presence, try to be transformed coram Deo, by the presence of God.

3. THE BODILINESS OF FRANCISCAN SPIRITUALITY The 13th century – the time of Francis – was colored by a very bodily spirituality. The term spirituality may provoke the idea that we are dealing with the spirit and not with the body. But just a glance at the spiritual practices in the Late Middle Ages – the cult of Relics, the veneration of the Eucharist as the real Body of Christ, and a huge and varied movement of penitents – leads us to recognize the bodily quality of medieval spirituality.17 The late medieval faithful longed to see, taste, and feel the mystery in their own bodies. They desired to share in the sufferings of Jesus and the pains of Mary, so that they could feel one with them, and through this shared feeling also share in their salvation.18 It is as if the medieval faithful had discovered their own bodies as a possible means to an encounter with Jesus, and through Jesus, with God. Let us have a first look at the role of the body in the conversion of Francis (italics are mine): One day while Francis was praying fervently to God, he received an answer: ‘O Francis, if you want to know my will, you must hate and despise all that which hitherto your body has loved and desired to possess. Once you begin to do this, all that formerly seemed sweet and pleasant to you will become bitter and unbearable; and instead, the things that formerly made you shudder will bring you great sweetness and content’. Francis was divinely comforted and greatly encouraged by these words. Then one day, as he was riding near Assisi, he met a leper. He had always felt an over-powering horror of these sufferers; but making a great effort, he conquered his aversion, dismounted, and, in giving the leper a coin, kissed his hand. The leper then gave him the kiss of peace, after which Francis remounted his horse and rode on his way. From that day onwards he mortified himself increasingly until, through God’s grace, he won a complete victory. Some days later he took a large sum of money to the leper hospital, and gathering all the inmates together, he gave them alms, kissing each of their hands. Formerly he could neither touch nor even look at lepers, but when he left them on that day, what had been so repugnant to him had really and truly been turned into something pleasant. (L3C 11)

At first sight, the impression may be that the errand to ‘hate and despise all that your body has loved’ turned Francis into an enemy of his body. And, to a 17

18

97549.indb 188

Carolyn Walker Bynum, The resurrection of the body in Western Christianity, 200-1336, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Patrick Vandermeersch, La chair de la passion: Une histoire de foi. La flagellation, Paris: Cerf, 2002.

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

189

certain extent he was, at least to the physical tendencies of self-satisfaction and egoism. But when we read this citation more carefully, it appears that the conversion of Francis is actually a very bodily process. Not a word was spoken. Instead, orientation (aversion), position (dismounted), hearing (received an answer), looking, tasting (bitter and sweet), and touching (kissed his hand) played a crucial role in the conversion. It was thus not a personal affirmation of the truth of the divine errand, but a very bodily and even vile encounter in real life. The spiritual life of Francis was always also, and maybe first of all, a bodily experience. His body experiences a conversion to the divine, and is transformed by and towards Him. Using the scheme of the bodily transformations, we can distinguish Franciscan spiritual practices, which transform the body into a place for inhabiting God, a means to serve the love of God, and an image of His beloved Son. A Dwelling Place for God 1. To inhabit the world as pilgrims and strangers The first spiritual practice is that I am here and now bodily present in an environment. Francis did this in a specific way. After his encounter with the lepers, and the discovery of God’s presence in the margins of society, Francis left the world (Test 1-3). He refused to take (a part of) the world in his possession (LR 1:1). From now on, his life would be a presence wherever he would be, without calling any place his own. The crown of this spirituality is the story of Lady Poverty asking the brothers to be shown their enclosure. Taking her to a certain hill, they showed her all the world they could see and said: ‘This, Lady, is our enclosure’. [She said:] ‘You are blessed by the Lord God Who made heaven and earth, my sons. You who have received me into your home with such a fullness of charity that it seems to me that today I am with you as in God’s paradise’. (ScEx 63-64)

2. To fast and pray in chastity and poverty Breathing-eating-drinking is a primary interaction of the body with its environment. This interaction is only possible when the body is willing to let go without taking its environment into possession. Of course, there is mutual exchange between the body and its environment – they belong to one another – but possession would be a body which only inhales. If we would only inhale, eat, and drink, we would not live long. So, in a sense, Francis’ vivere sine proprio (LR 1:1) is a consequence of following his body’s way of living. An example of this is the practice of praying. Praying is communicating with God. But, like breathing, prayer has a dialogical structure. When Francis is on the road, he asks the brother with whom he is travelling to say something in response to

97549.indb 189

19/12/14 08:50

190

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

something Francis says; thus, they would be able to pray in dialogue without a breviary (LFl IX). When he asks if God would approve of him praying all the time, Clare and Sylvester answer that the Lord wants him to go preaching among the people (LFl XVI). He does not own God and cannot keep His salvation for himself. In the realm of eating and fasting, Francis’ spirituality also follows his body’s needs and the needs of his brother’s body, as the story of eating grapes shows (AC 50). 3. To carry Christ One of the most bodily forms of spirituality is the practice of carrying. The body is very well capable of carrying: a child, a task, a candle, a blessing, pain, insults, and diseases. An example is Francis carrying Christ’s wounds as stigmata in his body. Actually, carrying is allowing the other or ‘otherness’ to be at home in your body, which is a more fixed relation than the previously mentioned interaction. Edith van den Goorbergh and Theo Zweerman call carrying one the main characteristics of Franciscan spirituality.19 But Francis’ vivere sine proprio has as a consequence that the practice of carrying is completed by the art of letting go.20 No one and nothing should ever be taken into possession. On the other hand, when the body allows the other and ‘otherness’ to be at home, it will grow. Together with the other, the individual body will start to form a community, a brotherhood of people belonging to each other. Francis, who keeps on carrying that which is not his possession, grows and the brotherhood grows with him. It is only when he becomes afraid of losing ‘his’ brotherhood that Christ corrects him: it is not ‘your’ brotherhood (AC 112). A Means to Serve the Love of God 4. To travel by foot Our body is not only our here-and-now in an environment, but also has the capacity to go through it, to perceive it, and to work in it. With my thoughts I may be ‘somewhere else’, not noticing most things in my environment, but my body is very well aware of the environment; and the living environment – the birds in my garden – is very well aware of me. As a medium, the body is a moving presence, an attentive presence, and a forming presence. It leaves traces of its presence in its environment, albeit just the lingering scent, thus trans19

20

97549.indb 190

E. van den Goorbergh & T. Zweerman, Was getekend: Franciscus van Assisi. Aspecten van zijn schrijverschap en brandpunten van zijn spiritualiteit, Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002, 62-92. (Translated as Respectfully yours: Signed and sealed, Francis of Assisi. Aspects of his authorship and focuses of his spirituality, St. Bonaventure, NY 2001.) Ibid., 83.

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

191

forming it into a living place. Of course, Francis’ body was likewise present in his environment; but as a penitent he used his bodily medium in the service of God. He went out in search of God, perceived the world with an evangelical heart, and served in God’s garden. A decisive point in his life formation was when he heard the Gospel of Jesus sending out his disciples two by two without any protection or possession, ‘to every town and village where he was about to go’ (1C 22; ER 14:1-2). Francis decided to take these words as directed to himself: his ears listened and his feet went where the words and the footsteps of Jesus would send him. As a consequence, Francis and his brothers lived as pilgrims and strangers in this world (LR 6:2), going ‘where he was about to go’, and calling people to do penance and to praise the Lord (ER 21). 5. To perceive the world in a humble way As in all bodily practices, the penitential practice is different from the usual. The penitent is present somewhere, but without possessing the place; the penitent travels, but will walk barefoot. Also, the way in which a penitent perceives the world is different from the world’s view. The usual way of perceiving is to get a grip on our environment. How often has our hand grabbed a thing even before our eyes have seen it? If we look at it, how long can we look with a simple eye before we want to possess it? If we do not want to possess it, is this not just because it seems not to our taste, or disgusting? Francis’ conversion had been a true change of taste: what had been bitter had become sweet. From then on, he perceived his environment differently: not from his point of view, but as through God’s eyes. He saw nature as God’s creation, which was tob, good (Gen 1,4); he did not look at the sins of priests but recognized God’s Son in them, in the Sacrament, in churches, in the crucifix, etc.; he heard heavenly music (2C 126) and saw devils above a town (AC 108). In Francis’ own words, his senses were directed by the Holy Spirit who dwelled in him (cf. Adm 1:12). In this case, the scholastic dictum, quidquid percipitur ad modum percipientis percipitur, means that the perceiver looks with the eyes of the perceived. 6. To work with their hands The body works, and working it harmonizes its environment with itself. This is a reciprocal process, for the work shapes the body to its environment and the environment to the body. In his work, Francis remained in close connection to his humble self and to his environment. He worked with his hands (Test 20) and he cared for the sick and expelled (Test 2): two examples of the most bodily forms of work. There was no other goal in working than to serve God and keep the devil away (ER 7:10; LR 5). But work will inevitably leave traces of the self, so that people will recognize themselves in the work of their hands.

97549.indb 191

19/12/14 08:50

192

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

One time, Francis had made a little vase, and experienced that this vase distracted his attention during prayer. He could not look at it with a simple eye (cf. Mt 6:22), because he saw himself, his vanity (2C 97). It may be good to teach our children to be proud of their own work, but are we not thus raising them to look at themselves? A simple eye beholds the painting, but a complex eye is admiring ‘a Rembrandt’. An Image of His Beloved Son 7. To follow the footsteps of Christ Having realized that bodily I am somewhere, and that my body moves through the world, I may discover that my body is following examples. Without thinking, children follow the movements of their parents and imitate them. The image of a children’s choir imitating the movements of the director comes to mind. The body learns by following, most of all unconsciously. This following strengthens the relationship, for the parents will eventually recognize themselves in the movements of their children, and the children will feel recognized. Indeed, again, this may be a trap, for pride obscures the eye. But penitential spirituality uses this bodily transformation as a way to get closer to Christ, and to strengthen the relations between brothers and sisters. Francis followed the footsteps of Christ (ER 1:1), but he also wanted to be an example himself (Test 20-21; 2LtF 53). In the rule of the Friars, the bodily reality of their life practice is turned into a model.21 8. To mirror the image of Christ When the perceiver recognizes himself in what he perceives, the perceived thing works as a mirror. People recognize themselves in their environment, and their environment recognizes them. Thus, we become conscious of who we are and how our environment sees us. But the penitential spirituality of Francis, and especially Clare of Assisi, has a different intention. They look in the mirror of Christ not in order to recognize themselves in Him, but to become like Him (3LAg 10-18). They develop a conscience of evangelical perfection. Ultimately, this evangelical perfection transforms them into who they are in the eyes of God: ‘yes, good’, that is, an adam ‘and no more’ (cf. Adm 19:2). 9. To live in communion We began our investigation with Adam recognizing Eve in his flesh; and ‘they became one flesh’. The previous eight transformations also show that the flesh 21

97549.indb 192

David Flood & Thaddée Matura, The birth of a movement: A study of the First Rule of St. Francis, Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1975.

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

193

is in itself oriented towards communion. The body grows, harmonizes its environment, and forms a community. The bodily practice of clothing is, especially in the case of the habit of the Friars Minor and Poor Clares, connected to living in communion. Eventually, Francis discovered that all human beings are brothers and sisters, and the whole of Creation is a community. But the last two transformations go even further, for they show that Franciscan spirituality is directed towards communion with God, and that this communion is the affirmation that the human being is created in the image of God, who lives in the communion of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In his Canticle of Brother Sun, Francis affirms that the Creation is a communion with God. But note that the Canticle addresses the elements, i.e., the bodiliness of the Creation: the Sun, the moon and the stars, wind, water, fire, the earth, and bodily death. We share our bodiliness with other living creatures, but the human flesh is different from other creatures. I said earlier that the human flesh recognizes itself as an incarnation of life. In the Christian tradition, the human being is believed to be a creation in the image of God and an incarnation of His Word: we are called to His life. He created us in His image and He shared with us His breath and His Word: in the first story God gives names to the creatures; in the second adam receives this task (Gn 2:19). The image, the breath, and the Word of God are connected to one another. The image is the eikoon. The eikoon is a face-to-face encounter of God and human. God shares His breathing countenance with us. By receiving His eikoon we are able to look like Him, literally: we lend our eyes to Him and look like He does. If we see the world as He does, we can see the things as creatures and recognize that they are indeed good. By receiving His countenance, we are able to speak like Him, and give names to the creatures (instead of merely driveling on about them). A consequence of this faith is that our recognition of something as good and our recognition of the Christ as Son of God must lead to the recognition that God’s Spirit Himself is looking through our eyes (cf. Mt 16:17; Adm 1:6.12). People say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Francis would respond that true beauty is in the eyes of God. But there are also other all-too-human ways of looking. Ways that are rejected by Francis’ bodily spirituality.

4. THE STORY OF THE FALL AS A RUPTURE OF OUR BODILY PRESENCE The story of the Fall is about a radical change in the use of language. Before the Fall, adam gave names to the creatures that God presented to him (Gn 2:19). According to the German philosopher Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), the original language is the communication (Mitteilung) of the creatures to the human

97549.indb 193

19/12/14 08:50

194

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

being who responds to this communication by giving them names.22 Naming, then, is the human response to a face-to-face encounter: talking to a reality. But after the Fall, that talking is changed into a talking about a reality. Language is discovered as an instrument with which the reality can be grabbed, judged, changed, hidden from, and covered (Gn 3). Instead of giving names to the creatures, responding to an immediate encounter, humans started to make images of them, appropriating them, and focusing exclusively on these images. When we talk about someone, we do not need him or her to be there. In fact, he or she should not be there interrupting our talking by being other than we picture him or her. Our images, including our linguistic ones, appropriate the reality and allow us to talk about it without having contact with it. This is a strong and powerful quality of language, for it allows us to talk about things which are not immediately there. We can sit together in a room, drinking beer, and drivel on about the question: ‘What is a tree?’ But this strong quality is also a weak quality, because talking about an absent reality presupposes the absence of reality. Thus, the story of the Fall tells us that we lost contact with God, the earth, and each other, and that we found ourselves thrown out into a world of absence. Let us have a look at the role of language as spoken by the serpent. First, the serpent transforms his nakedness (Gn 2:25: ‘they were naked’ – aroom) into sneakiness (Gn 3:1: ‘he was subtle’ – aroem). The given bodily reality of paradise, where man and woman were naked without shame, is transformed by a snake’s playing with words: by changing a word he changes the world. Second, he changes the word of God by a subtle linguistic move. He asks the woman: ‘Has God said, “You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?”’ (Gn 3:1). We know that this is not what God said, but just by calling His words into question, doubt is raised. Language itself allows the serpent to say anything and change everything, to create its own reality. Third, Eve tries to defend God – which, in itself, is an act of suspicion: that He cannot defend Himself – and discovers that she can change His words also! She says: ‘…God has said, “You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die”’ (Gn 3:3). Finally, Eve takes from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.23 At this moment the language with which adam named the creatures is turned into a judgment. When God looks at His creatures, He recognizes them and His goodness in them. He does not judge them, but calls His creatures each by its proper name. God, whose Name means ‘presence’, is always directly present with His creatures when He calls them: the Name gives the proper name. But 22

23

97549.indb 194

Walter Benjamin, ‘Über Sprache überhaupt und über die Sprache des Menschen’, in: Idem, Sprache und Geschichte: Philosophische Essays, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1992, 30-49. Eugen Drewermann, Strukturen des Bösen. Teil I: Die jahwistische Urgeschichte in exegetischer Sicht, München: Schöningh, 1981, 53-74.

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

195

when the human takes from His knowledge, without being present with God or with the creatures, the talking becomes a judgment about God and the creatures: ‘this is good, that is evil’. This judgment changes Adam and Eve’s bodily reality: they are ashamed of their nakedness (Gn 3:7), they hide from God (Gn 3:8), they are judged (Gn 3:14-19), and sent forth from the garden of Eden, the world of presence (Gn 3:23). The punishment is a consequence of their own absence and judgment. What has happened here is a change of language from naming to judging. A name gives room to the creature, but a judgment takes it in possession. Linguistics links this coming to grips with reality to the structure of language itself. The father of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), taught that language consists of binary oppositions and images. The oppositions and images do not refer to anything but the system in which they exist. As a closed system, language has no contact with the bodily reality to which it is referring. For example, the concept ‘white’, referring to the light tint of a cloud, only has a meaning because and inasmuch as it is not-black. That is why the word ‘white’ can refer to many different tints. In the same way, great is not-small, heaven is not-earth, good is not-evil, man is not-woman, etc. In language, the differentiations of the story of creation are re-organized in abstract binary oppositions. The terms are abstract because this allows language to talk about a reality which is not immediately there. I can talk about strong men without finding one. Likewise, a word does not refer to the thing it says, but only to the story of which the word is a part. I can talk about a tree without referring to a real tree. I can even invent a new word and use it as if it refers to something. A language as a whole does not refer to the reality ‘outside’, but forms its own linguistic reality. Therefore, not only can I make up a story about fairies and gnomes, but, in fact, all our stories are about a reality which only exists in the text. Language appropriates the reality it is talking about, thus creating its own linguistic reality. Each and every story is a linguistic reality. The linguistics of Saussure and his followers analyze the structure of language as a network of strictly virtual relations, sans termes positifs.24 Thus, the reality defined by the language is determined by the virtual network of language itself, and becomes a virtual reality. The story of the Fall is about something as inescapable as original sin: when faith and trust are gone, relations turn into oppositions and appearances into images. Language provides us with the knowledge in the form of oppositions and judgments: good vs. bad, heaven vs. earth, light vs. dark, God vs. man, man vs. woman. The images are formed by combining the oppositions, for example, a good, heavenly, light, strong, and male God; and, as its byproduct, 24

97549.indb 195

Ferdinand de Saussure, Cours de linguistique générale, Paris: Payot, 1972, 166.

19/12/14 08:50

196

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

the image of woman as evil, earthly, dark, and weak. In the bodily reality of paradise, the oppositions are different poles of a related reality, and the images are face-to-face encounters of creatures, bodily present to each other. The basis of our being created in the image of God is the relation of presence: He is seeing us. Presence offers trust. When immediate presence is not felt, for example, when a parent is not at home for the child, this trust is tested: will it develop into a faith that a parent is present also when he or she is not there? The snake, however, finds another solution: turn the language into your home and create your own parent. The sad thing is that when the parent does return, he or she will never be the same as your linguistic image of him or her. When language loses its alliance with the immediate presence of the bodily reality, the related poles appear as oppositions and images separated from their bodily origin. Language is thus structured that it is originally connected with the bodily reality, but when this connection is lost, this structure is equally appropriate to possess the reality and judge it. The medium of language has become the message it was meant to convey. Communicating with our environment and with other humans can transform everything into binary oppositions (it tastes ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’) and images (‘food’ or ‘poison’). This is not just a game, for it has a destructive impact on God, the earth, and the human. It may seem very pious to name God ‘good’, ‘light’, etc. But, with reference to the mystic theology of Pseudo-Dionysius, we must admit that these words also capture God in linguistic oppositions, whereas He transcends all oppositions and images.25 Negative theology might lead to a negative ecology and a negative anthropology too. Nature does not have to be ‘beautiful’ to our taste, and the linguistically ‘others’, such as ethnic minorities and women, should be released from common oppositional speaking and thinking. It obvious that this is almost impossible in a world in which we need language to get a grip on our environment, on ourselves, and on God. In fact, our body is organized in this way too. When a hunter sees a prey at a distance, he or she immediately counts the time his or her feet need to get it; the eyes have already caught it in an image: ‘prey!’ and the hands and jaws are ready grab it. The image is not only the picture that our mind makes of the thing outside, but it is also the form in which our body (our feet, sense organs, hands, and jaws) has grown as an effect of living in this environment. What matters here is that the oppositional image is a form of appropriation: the other is owned. We appropriate our environment and ourselves by transforming everything into oppositions and images. With the help of these, we turn the environment into our living place, our home, and, at the same time, we turn ourselves into a body appropriate to its environment. 25

97549.indb 196

See: http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/MysticalTheology.html (accessed April 2013).

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

197

When Francis of Assisi sets out to mortify his flesh, he intends to discipline this very bodily way of approaching the world. Francis refuses to appropriate God, the world, or himself. He breaks his image of the leper (Test 1-3); he does not judge the brother who does not let him in (TPJ 8-15). On the other hand, we have seen that his penitential discipline is just as bodily, and I would argue here that it is more bodily and more original than the linguistic oppositions and images of our mind. When, in his Praises of God (PrsG), Francis attributes only positive qualities to God, he is not judging God. He is not looking at an image saying, ‘This is great!’ Rather, he is personally relating to God. You are the holy Lord God, Who does wonderful things. You are strong, You are great, You are the most high, You are the almighty king, You holy Father. King of heaven and earth. You are three and one, the Lord God of gods; You are the good, all good, the highest good, Lord God living and true. You are love, charity; You are wisdom, You are humility, You are patience, You are beauty, You are meekness, You are security, You are rest, You are gladness and joy, You are hope, You are justice, You are moderation, You are all our riches to sufficiency. You are beauty, You are meekness, You are the protector, You are our custodian and defender, You are strength, You are refreshment. You are our hope, You are our faith, You are our charity, You are all our sweetness, You are our eternal life: Great and wonderful Lord, Almighty God, Merciful Savior.

We see a string of names given directly to God: ‘You are…’. Speaking to a ‘you’ means that the speaker, the ‘I’, and the listener are actualized as bodily present, even if it is not really the case. Apparently, God has shown Himself to Francis, and he responds to His appearance by giving Him names. In these names, Francis is giving himself to God (cf. Benjamin): ‘I am…’. Every ‘You are…’ responds to an ‘I am…’. Thus, the names form relations between Francis and God, along which they give themselves to each other, in what I called earlier a mutual interaction. When Francis says ‘You are great’, he is communicating himself as being small before God. The ‘You are great’ responds to the unspoken ‘related to me, who is small’. But, again, this is not a judgment, not about God or about Francis. This mutual name giving is a prayer, an orative relation, as Waaijman calls it, in which, using a term from Emmanuel Levinas, the poles are not-indifferent to each other.26 Francis asks God in His greatness to carry his own smallness, in His goodness his own badness, in His rest his own anxiety. Francis experiences that He is doing this already. God is not great, but God carries in His greatness all smallness and, we may add, in His smallness all greatness. Thus, all differences, linguistically abstracted into opposi26

97549.indb 197

Waaijman, Spirituality, 751-758.

19/12/14 08:50

198

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

tions, are brought together in this one ‘tree of knowledge’. God is communio, and Francis and we are invited to enter into His communion, offering all our worries and shortcomings to His abundance. In linguistic communication, especially when it develops into literacy, even the body itself is disengaged from its own real presence and is losing its own bodiliness.27 The philosopher Charles Taylor calls this ‘excarnation’.28 The encounter of Adam and Eve was an immediate presence, one flesh. The other body senses me just as I sense it, like two hands sensing each other: I feel that the other feels me, and we share the feeling. When the body functions as a sense organ and situation of the self, real presence is not a question. But in the course of the development of literacy, printing, and the internet, real presence becomes a matter of growing doubt. In a sense, the dogma of 1215 is just an affirmation of this doubt. It is not a coincidence that this dogmatic affirmation of Christ’s real presence in the sacramental medium was formulated during the same time the Church formulated the liturgy into books and its theology into scholastic syllogisms.29

5. REAL PRESENCE AS A DOGMA AND AS AN EXPERIENCE In the dogma of the real presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood in the consecrated Bread and Wine, the Church has set a sacramental basis for itself: the basis of grace instead of logic, the basis of God sharing Himself in His offerings rather that humanity grasping reality. In His offering God is really present. His presence is a gift, not a syllogism or natural law. The sacramental basis of the Church is the confession that God presented Himself to humanity in Jesus as a human being, offering the opportunity for encountering Him in His humanity, i.e., as a bodily presence here and now.30 In His humanity we share one flesh, just like Adam and Eve shared one flesh. Let us recall the difficulty of scholars with this faith. The reality of bread and wine can be described as a substance and accidents (properties). The 27

28 29

30

97549.indb 198

Cf. Eric A. Havelock, The muse learns to write: Reflections on orality and literacy from Antiquity to the Present, New Haven, London: Yale University, 1986, 98-116; Monica Elsner et al., ‘Zur Kulturgeschichte der Medien’, in: K. Merten et al. (Eds.), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994, 163-187. Charles Taylor, A secular age, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007, 613-615. Willem Marie Speelman, ‘Liturgy of real presence: From books to communication’, in: S. Hellemans & J. Wissink (Eds.), Towards a new Catholic Church in advanced modernity: Transformations, visions, tensions, Münster, LIT-Verlag, 2012, 217-240. Louise-Marie Chauvet, Symbole et sacrement: Une relecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne, Paris: Cerf, 1990, 385.

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

199

accidents cannot really be there without the substance carrying them, and a substance cannot really be there without its accidents communicating it. When a piece of bread has all the properties of bread, it must be bread and not something else. Of course, it may indicate something else, but it is bread. How, then, can a host with all the properties of bread be believed to be substantially not bread but the body of Christ? It is just not logical, not in the 11th century when Berengar of Tours formulated his critique,31 and not now. That is why it was formulated as a dogma, an ‘axiom’ of faith. Francis of Assisi confesses this dogma wholeheartedly, meaning that his response was not an intellectual but a bodily one. In his letter to the clergy he writes: ‘For we have and see nothing bodily of the Most High in this world except His Body and Blood, His names and words through which we have been made and redeemed from death to life’ (1LtCl 3). To him, God’s presence is not something that we understand, but what we have and see, and what creates and redeems us. Notice that he broadens this mystery by including His names and words. In fact, Francis approaches every part of the Church with the highest respect because it is a mystery of God’s real presence here on earth. Bertrand Cornet argues that Francis prefers to use the word ‘sanctification’ instead of ‘consecration’, and the word ‘mysteries’ next to ‘sacraments’ in order to keep his faith out of the scholastic discussions of his time.32 To him, this is not a matter of logical reasoning but a way of having and seeing. This dogma as sacramental basis does not demand our understanding, but our bodily confession in the communion. Louis-Marie Chauvet puts it very briefly: ‘Le Corps du Christ. – Amen’.33 Other than linguistic signs, the sacrament does not refer to an absence but offers a presence, the presence of God. Linguistic signs demand our brains to connect them with their references, using the linguistic oppositions and logical operations. Sacraments – and we may broaden this approach to icons, the Gospel, and saints – do not demand an interpretation but a bodily affirmation. The truth of Francis’ encounter with the leper is not that he understood who he/He was, but that he kissed Him. This sacramental approach can be recognized in many Franciscan stories. Francis recognizes the Creator in the creation (CtC), God’s Son in the priests (Test 9), our Lord Jesus Christ in the sanctified bread and wine (Adm 1:9, LtCl), in the Crucifix of San Damiano (L3C 13), and in all the churches (Test 5).

31

32

33

97549.indb 199

Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum (Sources of Catholic Dogma), no. 700. Bertrand Cornet, ‘Le “De reverentia Corporis Domini”, exhortation et lettre de S. François’, in: Études Franciscains. Tome VI, 14 (1955), 65-91: 69. Chauvet, Symbole et sacrement, 408.

19/12/14 08:50

200

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

Let us return to the core question. How can the sacramental approach of Francis teach us to encounter real presence, and how can we use (virtual) media to mediate it? The answer to this question was actually given long before Francis, when Tertullian said that the body is the pivot of salvation. Although the flesh is, indeed, inclined to sin, it is also ‘the very condition on which salvation hinges’.34 Tertullian stresses that the sacraments are received in the flesh. The meaning of sacraments is not that they refer to something, but that they are offered to us. Their meaning is not that they offer us something, but that the Lord offers Himself here and now – i.e., bodily – to us. That is why Francis approached the ‘things’ from the Church as matters of divine presence. When Clare, in her Fourth Letter to Agnes, contemplates the Crucifix, she is looking at Christ Himself presenting Himself to her (4LAg). The consequence of this sacramental approach is that we have to offer our bodies as a place, medium, and image to receive Him. In order to be able to receive the really present Jesus Christ, we need to be really present ourselves. In the words of the dogma, we need to be there vere, realiter et substantialiter – one could also say bodily. Clare may believe that Christ is looking at her, but her eyes have to do the looking. Francis may hear the Gospel talk to him, but his voice has to do the talking. This may easily lead to a moralistic approach, as if God orders Clare and Francis to do what He wants, instantly making them guilty for not having done so already. But the sacramental approach affirms that it is God who looks through the eyes of Clare and speaks through the voice of Francis. The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy writes that ‘it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, nr. 7). The body, then, is not only the place, medium, and image to receive Him but also to offer Him. Ultimately, one lends his body to God so that He offers and receives Himself (cf. Adm 1:12). God communicates Himself to God; He is communio. Therefore, the faithful are not guilty for failing to do things right, but for not really being there; for keeping their bodiliness for themselves as property and failing to join in with God’s communion. The sacramental approach may be recognized in a broader spiritual approach to life. According to Michel Henry, life reveals itself in the flesh. The flesh makes this revelation real. As a locus, medium, and image, the body – each and every body – is indeed an effect of the incarnation of life. In everybody, life reveals itself. The traces that living bodies have left in the world are traces of life. A religious and spiritual approach considers life as one: we all share one life. All 34

97549.indb 200

Tertullianus, De resurrectione carnis liber, VIII: caro salutis est cardo. See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm (consulted May 31, 2013).

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

201

creatures, then, are traces of the living One sharing Himself with each and every living one. This Living One has revealed Himself to Moses in the Name that may be translated as, ‘I will be there with you’ (Ex 3:14). Francis tried to encounter the present One in other creatures, names, and things. He was looking for His countenance in images, listening to His voice in written words, sensing His presence in other people. Searching, listening, and sensing Francis offered his own bodiliness in order to make contact with His presence. He offered his reality so that God’s ubiquitous and eternal presence could be realized there and then in him. This is also the way in which (virtual) media can be used to connect real presence with real presence. The virtual properties are like the Aristotelian accidentia which need a real substance to carry them, a substance which the electronic media cannot provide. Therefore, we need to offer our own bodiliness to reengage the images with the real life that produced them. This is not a matter of transubstantiation, but of sacramental communication. As with adam, I may recognize myself in the other as one flesh; e.g., I know what another is feeling when that other stubs a toe against a sharp stone. If I feel what the other feels, I do not become the other, but the other and I become one flesh. In this form of communication, we affirm that the virtual properties and images of the other communicating with me are being reengaged with our initial, shared, one bodiliness. This can only be done if I give up my grip on them. In contrast, instead of getting the properties and images, I need to offer my own bodily power to receive them and realize them in my own feeling, speaking, and looking. It is not just my own body or my own life, for I share it with others who are ‘flesh of my flesh’. Thus, real living people can revive the media by connecting the virtual to real life, and through the virtual, real life with real life. The only thing they need to do is to return to their shared bodiliness, our shared reality… and share it. We have to become people who feel that other people feel, who are attentive to the attentions of others, and who lend their voice to say what others cannot. When we are present, attentive, and turned towards each other, the other will be called into real presence – just as the Creator did in the beginning.

CONCLUSION A sacramental approach to reality, mediating His presence, may be an answer to questions raised by Sherry Turkle: people can have real contact with the help of the virtual media if they use them well, that is, if they are bodily involved. One woman in Turkle’s audience was getting close to angry because she and her friends used Facebook to communicate with a friend who was ‘carrying’ cancer, which allowed them to ‘carry’ it together with her. Turkle immediately

97549.indb 201

19/12/14 08:50

202

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

admitted that this was an example of the proper use of the virtual media. Happily, there are numerous examples of people who are not just throwing a glance at nonsense messages, but really getting into each other’s lives. The pivot of this communication is the body, our flesh as an incarnation of life, which is one life in one flesh. The nine transformations, which are differentiated in the scheme of our bodiliness, give a view of the totality of our bodily offering. Using the virtual media well includes being there, interacting, carrying, moving, naming, working, following, recognizing, and being in communion. Perhaps this is what the Church – the Body of Christ – may offer today: Its sense of life as a gift. This gift concerns the reality of the living body, adam, receiving God’s life-breath and giving it back in due time, receiving God’s word and communicating it, and receiving God’s life and realizing it here and now as real presence. The Church’s body, our body, has to become locus, medium et imago Dei. BIBLIOGRAPHY Writings of Francis I have used Francis of Assisi. Early Documents I: The Saint / Ed. by Regis J. Armstrong ofmcap, J.A. Wayne Hellmann ofmconv, William J. Short ofm, New York City Press, 1999. 2LtF Adm CtC 1LtCl PrsG ER LR Test TPJ

The Second Letter to the Faithful (pp. 45-51). The Admonitions (pp. 128-137). The Canticle of the Creatures (pp. 113-114). First Letter to the Clergy (pp. 52). The Praises of God (p. 109). Earlier Rule = Regula non bullata (pp. 63-86). Later Rule = Regula bullata (pp. 99-106). The Testament (pp. 124-127). True and Perfect Joy (pp. 166-167).

Writings of Clare I refer to Clare of Assisi. Early Documents: The Lady / Revised edition and translation by Regis J. Armstrong ofmcap, New York City Press, 2006. 3LAg 4LAg FlCl

97549.indb 202

The Third Letter to Blessed Agnes of Prague (pp. 50-53). The Fourth Letter to Blessed Agnes of Prague (pp. 54-58). The Form of Life (pp. 106-130).

19/12/14 08:50

BODILY PRESENCE

203

Franciscan Sources I have made use of Francis of Assisi. Early Documents I: The Saint – II: The Founder – III: The Prophet / Ed. by Regis J. Armstrong ofmcap, J.A. Wayne Hellmann ofmconv, William J. Short ofm, New York City Press, 1999, 2000, 2001. 1C 2C L3C AC LFl ScEx

The Life of Saint Francis by Thomas of Celano, in Francis of Assisi. Early Documents I (pp. 171-208). The Remembrance of the Desire of a Soul, in Francis of Assisi. Early Documents II (pp. 233-393). The Legend of the Three Companions, in Francis of Assisi. Early Documents II (pp. 61-110). The Assisi Compilation, in Francis of Assisi. Early Documents II (pp. 113-230). The Little Flowers of Saint Francis, in Francis of Assisi. Early Documents III (pp. 566-658). The Sacred Exchange between Saint Francis and Lady Poverty, in Francis of Assisi. Early Documents I (pp. 523-554).

Secondary literature Benjamin, W., ‘Über Sprache überhaupt und über die Sprache des Menschen’, in: Idem, Sprache und Geschichte: Philosophische Essays, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1992, 30-49. Böhnke, M., ‘Welche Art von Teilnahme ist einem Zuschauer einer Fernsehübertragung von Gottesdiensten möglich?’, in: Liturgisches Jahrbuch 37 (1987), 3-16. Chauvet, L.-M., Symbole et sacrement: Une relecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne, Paris: Cerf, 1990. Cornet, B., ‘Le ‘De reverentia Corporis Domini’, exhortation et lettre de S. François’, in: Études Franciscains. Tome VI, 14 (1955), 65-91; 16 (1956), 20-35. Dionysius the Areopagite, Mystical Theology and The Divine Names, New York: Dover, 2004. Drewermann, E., Strukturen des Bösen. Teil I: Die jahwistische Urgeschichte in exegetischer Sicht, München: Schöningh, 1981. (Paderborner Theologische Studien 4) Elsner, M., H.U. Gumbrecht, T. Müller & P.M. Pangenberg, ‘Zur Kulturgeschichte der Medien’, in: K. Merten et al. (Eds.), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994, 163-187. Flood, D. & T. Matura, The birth of a movement: A study of the First Rule of St. Francis, Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1975. Goorbergh, E. van den & T. Zweerman, Was getekend: Franciscus van Assisi. Aspecten van zijn schrijverschap en brandpunten van zijn spiritualiteit, Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002. (Translated as Respectfully yours: Signed and sealed, Francis of Assisi. Aspects of his authorship and focuses of his spirituality, St. Bonaventure, NY 2001.) Havelock, E.A., The muse learns to write: Reflections on orality and literacy from Antiquity to the Present, New Haven, London: Yale University, 1986. Henry, M., Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair, Paris: Seuil, 2000.

97549.indb 203

19/12/14 08:50

204

WILLEM MARIE SPEELMAN

John Paul II, The theology of the body: Human love in the divine plan, Boston: Pauline Books, 1997. McLuhan, M., Understanding media: The extensions of man, London-New York: Routledge, 1964. Merleau-Ponty, M., Phénoménologie de la perception, Paris: Gallimard, 1945. Miranda, F. de, Ontmoeting en verwachting: Bijbelse getuigenis vanaf Kain tot aan de Godsknecht uit het boek Jesaja, Utrecht: Bijleveld, 1968. Peursen, C.A. van, Lichaam – ziel – geest: Inleiding tot een fenomenologische antropologie, Utrecht: Spectrum, 1970. Ricoeur, P., Oneself as another, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Saussure, F. de, Cours de linguistique générale, Paris: Payot, 1972. Speelman, W.M., Liturgie in beeld: Over de identiteit van de rooms-katholieke liturgie in de elektronische media, Groningen: Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, 2004. (Netherlands Studies in Ritual and Liturgy 3) Speelman, W.M., ‘Liturgy of real presence: From books to communication’, in: S. Hellemans & J. Wissink (Eds.), Towards a new Catholic Church in advanced modernity: Transformations, visions, tensions, Münster, LIT-Verlag, 2012, 217-240. (Tilburg Theological Studies 5) Taylor, C., A secular age, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Turkle, S., Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other, New York: Basic Books, 2011. Vandermeersch, P., La chair de la passion: Une histoire de foi. La flagellation, Paris: Cerf, 2002. Waaijman, K., Spirituality: Forms, foundations, methods, Leuven: Peeters, 2002. (Studies in Spirituality Supplements 18) Walker Bynum, C., The resurrection of the body in Western Christianity, 200-1336, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.

97549.indb 204

19/12/14 08:50