Two Francises and two different kinds of poverty

Introduction to the Devout Life
Part III – Chapters 14-30
Friday November 3, 2006
Korean Language Group

In the first place, we talked about the question of ‘what is the life of enjoying a spiritual richness in whatever economic situations we have?’ Enjoying the life of spiritual richness amidst riches depends on the life of sharing their possessions with others, especially with the poor. According to Francis, possessions are not ours but God’s. He emphasizes the stewardship about possessions (material). People who realize that possessions are not theirs but are only given by God are readily to share their possessions with others and the poor. When this sharing happens in our real life, we experience the spiritual richness even in the situation of our real riches.

Francis offered the example of St King Louis as a radical practitioner who enjoyed the spiritual richness amidst riches. It seems to us that this exemplary is a most convincing one to explain this situation. Interesting to us is that Francis De Sales emphasizes the life-spirituality by saying the stewardship about material, while Francis of Assisi emphasizes the spirituality of poverty that we should voluntarily forsake our real richness, and choose the life of real poverty, and dwells among the poor. In some senses, the spirituality of Francis De Sales about the life of sharing their possessions with the poor is more applicable to the real life of ordinary people in contemporary era than that of Francis of Assisi.

To people who feel and enjoy the life of spiritual richness in real poverty the most important faith and life-attitude depends on the life of accepting God’s will more than our will. Now that our poverty comes from the will of God rather than our will or decision, we need not to shame about our poverty. Provided that our poverty is the intention and will of God, and when we accept the providence and love of God in the situation of poverty, we can experience and enjoy the spiritual richness in our real poverty.

Francis argues that true friendship is the mutual relationship among friends united with God. It means that when friendship takes place as a mutual exchange about charity, devotion, and Christian perfection, the friendship becomes true friendship. The purpose of true friendship is to praise virtue and the grace of God. The concept of charity, devotion, and Christian perfection is also emphasized in every Christian life by Francis and his book, Introduction to the Devout Life. Francis expresses ‘true’ friendship in other expressions such as ‘sacred,’ ‘holy,’ and ‘chaste’ friendship while he expresses ‘false’ friendship as vain, worldly friendship. False friendship, according to Francis, is a friendship that facilitates evil disposition and inclination, sordid sensuality and lustfulness, and vanity.

Interesting to us is that Francis explains false friendship through the image of ‘the honey of Heraclea.’ “The honey of Heraclea is sweeter to the tongue than the ordinary honey because of the aconite which gives it an excess of sweetness” (Francis, p. 199). Francis thinks highly of the concept of ‘sweetness.’ This ‘sweetness’ is expressed as a representative of simple and frank language (communication or mutual exchange among devout persons) about virtue and the grace of God. But an ‘excess of sweetness’ displayed in ‘the honey of Heraclea’ represents a passionate, charming, and flattering expression about sensual qualities. In the end, the image of an ‘excess of sweetness’ of ‘the honey of Heraclea’ expresses false friendship figuratively, implying that it brings evil disposition and inclination, and facilitates sordid sensuality, lust, and vanity among friends.