Reading Horan on Francis and Merton.
Thinking of poverty, that of so many by inadvertence, of self by affirmation, and the radical view of poverty taken by Jesus and Francis.
How such occasions shape spirituality, mindful appreciation, and poetic intuition.
As for the issue of poverty, it is true that Francis desired that he and his brothers should live sine proprio (without anything of one’s own). But he didn’t value poverty for its own sake, nor did he hold what most people think of when they hear poverty as a good. Like many modern models of holiness, such as Dorothy Day and Catherine de Heuck Doherty, Francis saw the latent injustices that are perpetuated by economic systems. He detested abject poverty and was moved to action by the dehumanizing effects that this type of poverty and social marginalization has on the poor and voiceless of society. It was, in large part, this ongoing experience and awareness that allowed him to understand better what Jesus’ life of itinerancy and evangelical poverty meant for all Christians. Francis would strive to follow in the footprints of Jesus Christ, who said, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Lk 9:58). Yes, Francis loved poverty but in a way very different than we might initially think and in such a manner that a statement so simple could never adequately portray.
(—p.4 in The Franciscan Heart of Thomas Merton : A New Look at the Spiritual Inspiration of His Life, Thought, and Writing, by Danial P Horan OFM)
It seems the franciscan notion of ad usam (for the use of) that once was written inside of any book or other material thing that others might have thought of as "theirs" -- has stayed with me for over sixty years of an ersatz franciscan life, one with no official connection, sanction, or affiliation.
Unaffiliated is a good word and an interesting reflection. (In Maine, you cannot register to be an Independent, politically. The category here is Unaffiliated.)
When meetingbrook began in the early nineties we chose to enwrap ourselves in the letters m.o.n.o. -- at first the thought was that it might mean 'monastics of no order.' Then we realized that it meant for us 'monastics of no other.' Both interpretations could attenuate our intention. But the latter prevailed.
The intuition was (and is) that God is no-other. That Christ is no-other. Nor is the Spirit an-other.
Buddha is no-other. Bodhisattvas are no others. And, perhaps most important, neither are all our brothers and sisters -- whether human, animal, plant, cosmos, eternity or infinity -- none of them are other.
Living sine proprio (without anything of one’s own), is an unburdening and invitatory to prayer and compassion for all beings wherever and however they are.
If I were to say 'I own nothing' it would be an ambiguous statement. I do not own anything, but I do not own nothing.
Nothing cannot be possessed. It can only be passed through, inasmuch as it passes through you.
Nor is nothing an 'it.'
Nothing is sine proprio -- without anything of one's own.
Perhaps we could say that 'One' is unpossesive, has no possessions, nor longs to appropriate anything -- not our souls, not our bodies, not our minds, not creation itself.
Perhaps 'One' is the freedom of emptiness -- that is, unseparateness and interconnective interrelationality.
How did poet e.e.cummings put it?
one’s not half two. It’s two are halves of one:
which halves reintegrating,shall occur
no death and any quantity;but than
all numerable mosts the actual more
minds ignorant of stern miraculous
this every truth-beware of heartless them
(given the scalpel,they dissect a kiss;
or,sold the reason,they undream a dream)
one is the song which fiends and angels sing:
all murdering lies by mortals told make two.
Let liars wilt,repaying life they’re loaned;
we(by a gift called dying born)must grow
deep in dark least ourselves remembering
love only rides his year.
All lose,whole find
Yeah, that seems worth consideration.