Foley - God Doesn't Always Heal Wounds, Uses Them For Holiness; Example of St. Therese

Now it has to be understood that her sensitivity was not taken away. In fact Pauline says in the beatification process that in Carmel she was just as sensitive to hurt as anyone else. The grace that was given was [that] she was able to make choices in the midst of her over-sensitiveness and I think that says a lot to us, that we often are not healed of emotional wounds but God gives us the strength to do his will and that makes us holy. 

You don't have to become healed emotionally to grow in Holiness. People don't make that distinction. I think a lot of this these aspects of Therese's life, what she would consider her greatest conversion . . . [t]he trauma in her early childhood, a lot of this stuff gets gets sugar coated. . . . I think important or foundational or key to understanding . . . the power of Therese's message [is] that you don't become a saint overnight, you're not . . . given that emotional healing and grace, but rather you're given another grace that where God helps you to overcome in particular moments and so it becomes like an everyday recurrent bearing in strength from God's grace . . . 

[W]hen people come to me for Spiritual Direction I say to them--and this might sound strange-- whatever you do don't try to overcome something in yourself. . . . No, if you make your goal trying to overcome something in your life you're going to get discouraged because you might not be able to and maybe God doesn't want you to. But all I want you to do is do your best every time this temptation comes up because that's how you grow in holiness. These wounds are often the very context of our transformation--not just the context but the location exactly.

Fr. Marc Foley OCD, discussing his book The Context of Holiness on the CarmelCast podcast.

Benedict XVI - Ecce Homo: Jesus Embodies Human Suffering, God's Presence In It

“Ecce homo”—the expression spontaneously takes on a depth of meaning that reaches far beyond this moment in history. In Jesus, it is man himself that is manifested. In him is displayed the suffering of all who are subjected to violence, all the downtrodden. His suffering mirrors the inhumanity of worldly power, which so ruthlessly crushes the powerless. In him is reflected what we call “sin”: this is what happens when man turns his back upon God and takes control over the world into his own hands. 

There is another side to all this, though: Jesus’ innermost dignity cannot be taken from him. The hidden God remains present within him. Even the man subjected to violence and vilification remains the image of God. Ever since Jesus submitted to violence, it has been the wounded, the victims of violence, who have been the image of the God who chose to suffer for us. So Jesus in the throes of his Passion is an image of hope: God is on the side of those who suffer.

 Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two: Holy Week (2011), p.199 

Benedict XVI - Trial Before Pilate: Kingdom of Truth, Not Power

Yet during the interrogation we suddenly arrive at a dramatic moment: Jesus’ confession. To Pilate’s question: “So you are a king?” he answers: “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice” (Jn 18:37). Previously Jesus had said: “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world” (18:36). 

This “confession” of Jesus places Pilate in an extraordinary situation: the accused claims kingship and a kingdom (basileía). Yet he underlines the complete otherness of his kingship, and he even makes the particular point that must have been decisive for the Roman judge: No one is fighting for this kingship. If power, indeed military power, is characteristic of kingship and kingdoms, there is no sign of it in Jesus’ case. And neither is there any threat to Roman order. This kingdom is powerless. It has no legions. 

With these words Jesus created a thoroughly new concept of kingship and kingdom, and he held it up to Pilate, the representative of classical worldly power. What is Pilate to make of it, and what are we to make of it, this concept of kingdom and kingship? Is it unreal, is it sheer fantasy that can be safely ignored? Or does it somehow affect us? 

In addition to the clear delimitation of his concept of kingdom (no fighting, earthly powerlessness), Jesus had introduced a positive idea, in order to explain the nature and particular character of the power of this kingship: namely, truth. Pilate brought another idea into play as the dialogue proceeded, one that came from his own world and was normally connected with “kingdom”: namely, power—authority (exousía). Dominion demands power; it even defines it. Jesus, however, defines as the essence of his kingship witness to the truth. Is truth a political category? Or has Jesus’ “kingdom” nothing to do with politics? To which order does it belong? If Jesus bases his concept of kingship and kingdom on truth as the fundamental category, then it is entirely understandable that the pragmatic Pilate asks him: “What is truth?” (18:38). 

It is the question that is also asked by modern political theory: Can politics accept truth as a structural category? Or must truth, as something unattainable, be relegated to the subjective sphere, its place taken by an attempt to build peace and justice using whatever instruments are available to power? By relying on truth, does not politics, in view of the impossibility of attaining consensus on truth, make itself a tool of particular traditions that in reality are merely forms of holding on to power? 

And yet, on the other hand, what happens when truth counts for nothing? What kind of justice is then possible? Must there not be common criteria that guarantee real justice for all—criteria that are independent of the arbitrariness of changing opinions and powerful lobbies? Is it not true that the great dictatorships were fed by the power of the ideological lie and that only truth was capable of bringing freedom? 

What is truth? The pragmatist’s question, tossed off with a degree of scepticism, is a very serious question, bound up with the fate of mankind. What, then, is truth? Are we able to recognize it? Can it serve as a criterion for our intellect and will, both in individual choices and in the life of the community? 

The classic definition from scholastic philosophy designates truth as “adaequatio intellectus et rei” (conformity between the intellect and reality; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 21, a. 2c). If a man’s intellect reflects a thing as it is in itself, then he has found truth: but only a small fragment of reality—not truth in its grandeur and integrity. 

We come closer to what Jesus meant with another of Saint Thomas’ teachings: “Truth is in God’s intellect properly and firstly (proprie et primo); in human intellect it is present properly and derivatively (proprie quidem et secundario)” (De Verit., q. 1, a. 4c). And in conclusion we arrive at the succinct formula: God is “ipsa summa et prima veritas” (truth itself, the sovereign and first truth; Summa Theologiae I, q. 16, a. 5c). 

This formula brings us close to what Jesus means when he speaks of the truth, when he says that his purpose in coming into the world was to “bear witness to the truth”. Again and again in the world, truth and error, truth and untruth, are almost inseparably mixed together. The truth in all its grandeur and purity does not appear. The world is “true” to the extent that it reflects God: the creative logic, the eternal reason that brought it to birth. And it becomes more and more true the closer it draws to God. Man becomes true, he becomes himself, when he grows in God’s likeness. Then he attains to his proper nature. God is the reality that gives being and intelligibility. 

“Bearing witness to the truth” means giving priority to God and to his will over against the interests of the world and its powers. God is the criterion of being. In this sense, truth is the real “king” that confers light and greatness upon all things. We may also say that bearing witness to the truth means making creation intelligible and its truth accessible from God’s perspective—the perspective of creative reason—in such a way that it can serve as a criterion and a signpost in this world of ours, in such a way that the great and the mighty are exposed to the power of truth, the common law, the law of truth. 

Let us say plainly: the unredeemed state of the world consists precisely in the failure to understand the meaning of creation, in the failure to recognize truth; as a result, the rule of pragmatism is imposed, by which the strong arm of the powerful becomes the god of this world. 

At this point, modern man is tempted to say: Creation has become intelligible to us through science. Indeed, Francis S. Collins, for example, who led the Human Genome Project, says with joyful astonishment: “The language of God was revealed” (The Language of God, p. 122). Indeed, in the magnificent mathematics of creation, which today we can read in the human genetic code, we recognize the language of God. But unfortunately not the whole language. The functional truth about man has been discovered. But the truth about man himself—who he is, where he comes from, what he should do, what is right, what is wrong—this unfortunately cannot be read in the same way. Hand in hand with growing knowledge of functional truth there seems to be an increasing blindness toward “truth” itself—toward the question of our real identity and purpose. 

What is truth? Pilate was not alone in dismissing this question as unanswerable and irrelevant for his purposes. Today too, in political argument and in discussion of the foundations of law, it is generally experienced as disturbing. Yet if man lives without truth, life passes him by; ultimately he surrenders the field to whoever is the stronger. “Redemption” in the fullest sense can only consist in the truth becoming recognizable. And it becomes recognizable when God becomes recognizable. He becomes recognizable in Jesus Christ. In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history. Truth is outwardly powerless in the world, just as Christ is powerless by the world’s standards: he has no legions; he is crucified. Yet in his very powerlessness, he is powerful: only thus, again and again, does truth become power. 

In the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, the subject matter is Jesus’ kingship and, hence, the kingship, the “kingdom”, of God. In the course of this same conversation it becomes abundantly clear that there is no discontinuity between Jesus’ Galilean teaching—the proclamation of the kingdom of God—and his Jerusalem teaching. The center of the message, all the way to the Cross—all the way to the inscription above the Cross—is the kingdom of God, the new kingship represented by Jesus. And this kingship is centered on truth. The kingship proclaimed by Jesus, at first in parables and then at the end quite openly before the earthly judge, is none other than the kingship of truth. The inauguration of this kingship is man’s true liberation. 

At the same time it becomes clear that between the pre-Resurrection focus on the kingdom of God and the post-Resurrection focus on faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God there is no contradiction. In Christ, God—the Truth—entered the world. Christology is the concrete form acquired by the proclamation of God’s kingdom.

 Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two: Holy Week (2011), p.189-193 

Sheen - The Arrest: Passion is a Voluntary Sacrifice of Love, Not an Execution Imposed By Enemies

He could have walked away free, with the soldiers and His enemies prone upon the ground, but it was the “Hour” when Love fettered Himself to unfetter man.

Self-sacrifice seeks no vengeance. Judas and the others had no power to capture Him unless He freely delivered Himself into their hands. Giving His enemies power to stand, He, as the Good Shepherd, had only one concern, that of His own sheep:

If I am the man you are looking for,
Let these others go free.
                                    John 18:8

He must go to sacrifice alone. The Old Testament ordered that the high priest must be alone when he offered sacrifice:

No one must be there in the tabernacle
From the time when the High Priest
Enters the inner sanctuary, to make intercession
For himself and his family and
The whole people of Israel,
Till the time when He comes out again.
                                    Leviticus 16:17

This was His Hour, but not the hour of the Apostles. Later on, they would suffer and die in His name, but presently they could not understand Redemption until the Spirit had enlightened them. He would tread the wine press alone. They were not yet in a spiritual condition to die with Him; in a few moments they would all desert Him. Furthermore, they could not suffer for Christ until He had first suffered for them. The whole purpose of His redemptive death, in a certain sense, was to say to all men, “Let these others go free.”

On entering the garden, the Savior had told Peter, James, and John “to watch and pray.” Peter now decided to substitute action for prayer. . . . Though Peter’s zeal was honest, well-meaning and impulsive, yet it was mistaken in the choice of means. Our Blessed Lord first touched the ear of the wounded man and restored it; then, turning to Peter, He said:

Put thy sword back into its sheath.
Am I not to drink that cup
Which My Father Himself has appointed for Me?
                                    John 18:11

Here in contrast were set the sword and the cup; the sword wins by slaying, the cup by submission. Not the impatience of the violent, but the patience of saints was to be His way of winning souls. . . . It was a cup which contained the Father’s will that, in love for men, He should offer His life that they might be restored again to Divine sonship. Nor did He say that a sentence was laid upon Him to undergo His Passion, but rather that He Himself out of love could not do otherwise. “Am I not to drink that cup?” Furthermore, those who arbitrarily and presumptuously resorted to violence, Our Lord told Peter, would feel that violence itself. Revenge brings its own punishment. Bodies can be conquered with unsheathed swords but those same swords often turn against those who wield them:

All those who take up the sword
Will perish by the sword.
                                Matthew 26:52

. . . 

Dost thou doubt that if I call upon My Father,
Even now, He will send more than
Twelve legions of angels to My side?
                                Matthew 26:53

. . . But His refusal to summon the angels was not an involuntary bowing to a fate, or a submitting to pain that He might be purified. It was rather a quiet surrender of some of His own rights; a voluntary abstinence from the use of superior force for the sake of others, a standing unchained with perfect power to go away, and yet submitting for love of mankind—such is sacrifice at white heat.

. . .

Looking beyond all secondary causes, such as Pilate and Annas, the Romans and the Jews, Our Lord saw not enemies to be defeated by a sword, but a cup offered by His Father. Love was the motive and spring of His Sacrifice as He said:

God so loved the world, That He gave up His only-begotten Son,
So that those who believe in Him,
May not perish, but have eternal life.
                                    John 3:16

. . . The love of the Lamb had to be free; to compel the Lamb of God to suffer would be the height of injustice. Hence the affirmation of power at the moment He delivered Himself into their hands. What God permitted was as equally His will as what He appointed. Here Our Lord refused to see the hand of His enemies in His death, but passed immediately to the idea of the cup His Father gave Him. In that love He reposed even though the cup for the moment was bitter, for good was to come from it.

Ven. Fulton J. Sheen, Life of Christ (1958), Ch. 42: "The Kiss That Blistered"

Benedict XVI - Trial Before Sanhedrin: Jesus Inaugurates a Non-Political Messianic Kingdom

One is tempted to say that the motive for acting against Jesus was a political concern shared by the priestly aristocracy and the Pharisees, though they arrived at it from different starting points; yet this political interpretation of the figure of Jesus and his ministry caused them to miss completely what was most characteristic and new about him. Through the message that he proclaimed, Jesus had actually achieved a separation of the religious from the political, thereby changing the world: this is what truly marks the essence of his new path. 

Nevertheless, we must not be too hasty in condemning the “purely political” outlook of his opponents. For in the world they inhabited, the two spheres—political and religious—were inseparable. The “purely” political existed no more than the “purely” religious. The Temple, the Holy City, and the Holy Land with its people: these were neither purely political nor purely religious realities. Anything to do with Temple, nation, and land involved both the religious foundation of politics and its religious consequences. The defense of the “place” and the “nation” was ultimately a religious affair, because it was concerned with God’s house and God’s people.

. . .

It is an overlap that corresponds to what we discovered in the cleansing of the Temple. Jesus fights there, on the one hand, as we saw, against self-serving abuse of the sacred space, but his prophetic gesture and the interpretation he gave to it go much deeper: the old cult of the stone Temple has come to an end. The hour of the new worship in “spirit and truth” has come. The Temple of stone must be destroyed, so that the new one, the New Covenant with its new style of worship, can come. Yet at the same time, this means that Jesus himself must endure crucifixion, so that, after his Resurrection, he may become the new Temple. 

This brings us back to the question of the interweaving and the separation of religion and politics. In his teaching and in his whole ministry, Jesus had inaugurated a non-political Messianic kingdom and had begun to detach these two hitherto inseparable realities from one another, as we said earlier. But this separation—essential to Jesus’ message—of politics from faith, of God’s people from politics, was ultimately possible only through the Cross. Only through the total loss of all external power, through the radical stripping away that led to the Cross, could this new world come into being. Only through faith in the Crucified One, in him who was robbed of all worldly power and thereby exalted, does the new community arise, the new manner of God’s dominion in the world.

. . . 

Jesus accepted the title Messiah, with all the meanings accruing to it from the tradition, but at the same time he qualified it in a way that could only lead to a guilty verdict, which he could have avoided either by rejecting it or by proposing a milder form of Messianism. He left no room for political or military interpretations of the Messiah’s activity. No, the Messiah—he himself—will come as the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven. Objectively this is quite close to what we find in John’s account when Jesus says: “My kingship is not of this world” (18:36). He claims to sit at the right hand of the Power, that is to say, to come from God in the manner of Daniel’s Son of Man, in order to establish God’s definitive kingdom.

This must have struck the members of the Sanhedrin as politically absurd and theologically unacceptable, for it meant that Jesus was claiming to be close to the “Power”, to participate in God’s own nature, and this would have been understood as blasphemy. However, Jesus had merely pieced a few scriptural quotations together and had expressed his mission “according to the Scriptures”, in language drawn from the Scriptures themselves. But to the members of the Sanhedrin, the application of the noble words of Scripture to Jesus evidently appeared as an intolerable attack on God’s otherness, on his uniqueness.

Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two: Holy Week (2011), p.169-171, 180 

Wojtyla - The Prayer in Gethsemane (from Sign of Contradiction)

The prayer in Gethsemane

1. Sharing the prayer of Jesus

In this meditation we are going to return to a subject already
spoken of: prayer. But this time, rather than talking about
prayer, I would like us - as far as is humanly possible, and
with the aid of grace - to share in the prayer of Christ
himself.

We know how often he used to pray completely alone,
withdrawing from the company of his disciples and keeping
himself totally free to converse with the Father. More often
than not he did this while the others were resting: “And he
spent the whole night in prayer” — “pernoctans in oratione
Dei” (Lk 6,12), as we read in the Gospel. On one occasion
only did Jesus specifically ask the Apostles to share his
prayer with him, and that was in Gethsemane where the
Master had gone, together with them, on Holy Thursday
night. All that Jesus had said and done in the course of the
last supper was still fresh in their minds and hearts. And
then, leaving most of them behind on entering Gethsemane,
he took just three of them with him: Peter, James and John,
the ones he had taken to Mount Tabor, and said to them:
“Stay here and keep vigil with me”. And then, moving a
short distance away from them, he prostrated himself and
prayed (cf Mt 26,38-39). It was all a clear appeal to them to
share his prayer.

Why at that specific moment? Why on that occasion
only? Perhaps because he had already made them sharers in
his mystery in one way: he had given them bread to eat
saying: “This is my body offered in sacrifice for you”

(Lk 22,19), and wine to drink saying: “This cup is the new
covenant in my blood shed for you’, charging them to “Do
this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22,19-20). In so doing he
had made them sharers in his mystery at its most profound
level.

2. Great understanding of mankind

Jesus begins to pray. Moving a short distance away from the
three, he begins to converse with the Father — as on so many
other occasions. This time, however, his prayer is decisive: it
originates in the depths of his soul and discloses the whole
truth of his human nature, not only showing his acute
anxiety at this particular moment in his life as Son of man
but also bringing together, so to speak, all the anxieties felt
by the one who said of himself: “I am the good shepherd.
The good shepherd gives his own life for his sheep”
(Jn 10,11). Jesus embarks on this prayer with an immeasur-
able universal concern for each and every one: “I know my
sheep and my sheep know me” (Jn 10,14). This prayer
reflects Jesus’s great knowledge and understanding of man
and the whole of human nature, sunk in the abyss after the
first sin and subsequently straying further and further from
the will of the Father, with consequences more frightening
than those of the original disobedience.

This prayer is the prayer of great understanding of
mankind, for it was uttered by the one of whom scripture
says: “He had no need of any man’s testimony concerning
another, for he knew very well himself what was in each one”
(Jn 2,25).

3. “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass me by”

What are the words he uses in this prayer? We know them
very well: they are few but unforgettable, simple but highly
charged with the emotion of the hour — the hour in which the
servant of Yahweh must fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah by saying
his ‘Yes’. “Jesus Christ was not ‘Yes’ and ‘No’: in him
there was only *Yes’” (2 Cor 1,19).

Christ’s words in Gethsemane are very simple, wholly
appropriate for expressing the most profound of truths and
the most important of choices. Jesus says: “Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass me by; nevertheless, not my will
but yours be done” (Mt 26,39). We may remark that by this
time it was no longer possible for the cup to pass him by,
because it had already been passed on by him to the Church
and had become “the cup of the new and everlasting
covenant”, the cup of the blood “which will be shed”
(Mk 14,24). And yet, in spite of all that, Jesus says: “If it be
possible, let it pass me by ...”’.

What is the meaning of: “If it be possible”? Is this not the
prayer of the Son of God who, in all the truth of his human
nature, “sees into all things, even the depths of God”
(1 Cor 2,10) in the Holy Spirit? Since he shares to the full
the mystery of God’s freedom, he knows that events do not
necessarily have to take this course; but at the same time he
shares God’s love, and so he knows that there is no other
way. He had in fact come to Gethsemane in order to receive
the death sentence that had long ago been pronounced, in
eternity no doubt (Col 2,14). So, having come, he fell on his
knees and prayed — as if that death sentence, already
pronounced in eternity, had to be pronounced there, at that
very hour. “If it be possible, may this cup pass me by ...”.

Prayer is always a wonderful reduction of eternity to the
dimension of a moment in time, a reduction of the eternal
wisdom to the dimension of human knowledge, feeling and
understanding, a reduction of the eternal Love to the
dimension of the human heart, which at times is incapable of
absorbing its riches and seems to break.

The sweat which appeared like drops of blood on the face
of Jesus as he prayed in Gethsemane is a sign of the acute
torment he suffered in his human heart. “And Christ, in the
days of his flesh, offered prayers and supplications to him
who could save him from death ...” (Heb 5,7).

4. A meeting between the human will and the will of God

This prayer is in fact a meeting between the human will of
Jesus Christ and the eternal will of God, which at this
moment can be seen as the will of the Father concerning his
Son. The Son had become man in order that this meeting
might express all the truth of the human will and the human
heart, anxious to escape the evil and the suffering, the
condemnation and the scourging, the crown of thorns, the
cross and death. He had become man in order that this truth
might then serve to reveal all the grandeur of the love that
expresses itself in a “gift of oneself’, in sacrifice: “God loved
the world so much that he sacrificed his only-begotten Son”
(Jn 3,16). In this hour that “eternal Love” has to give proof
of itself by the sacrifice of a human heart. And it does indeed
give proof of itself! The Son does not shrink from giving his
own heart, for it to become an altar, a place of complete
self-abnegation even before the cross was to serve that
purpose.

The human will, the will of the man, meets the will of
God. The human will speaks by means of the heart and
expresses the human truth: “If it be possible, may this cup
pass me by”. But at the same time the human will surrenders
itself to the will of God, as if passing beyond the human
truth, beyond the cry of the heart: it is as if it were taking
unto itself not only the eternal judgment of the Father and
the Son in the Holy Spirit, but also the power that flows
from God, from the will of God, from the God who is Love
(1 Jn 4,8).

All prayer is a meeting between the human will and the
will of God; for this we are indebted to the Son’s obedience
to the Father: “Your will be done”. And obedience does not
mean only renunciation of one’s own will; it means opening
one’s spiritual eyes and ears to the Love which is God
himself, God who loved the world so much that for its sake
he sacrificed his only-begotten Son. ‘Here is the man”. After
his prayer in Gethsemane Jesus Christ, Son of God, rises to
his feet fortified: fortified by the obedience which has
enabled him once again to attain to Love, as gift from the
Father for the world and for all mankind. He rises to his feet
and goes back to his disciples saying: “‘Look, my betrayer is
close at hand” (Mk 14,42).

5. The mystery of Redemption

This is the third time he has broken off from prayer and
gone back to them. And, just as before, he finds them asleep.
He had reproached them already: “Could you not keep vigil
with me for one hour? Stay awake and pray so as not to give
way to temptation: the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”
(Mt 26,40-41). But even that warning had not kept them
awake. Peter, James and John did not know how to respond
to his call to prayer addressed to them as they entered
Gethsemane. The words Jesus now speaks for the second and
third time become a reproach, a reproach of concern to every
disciple of Christ. In one way the Church still hears those
same words: the reproach addressed to the three Apostles is
accepted by the Church as if it were addressed to herself,
and she tries to fill the gap left by that lost hour when Jesus
remained completely alone in Gethsemane. The Apostles did
not know how to respond to the appeal to share the prayer of
the Redeemer, and they left him completely alone. This
showed that the mystery of redemption required the Son to
remain alone in intimate converse with the Father. This total
solitude creates a dimension fully appropriate to the divine
mystery, which at the same time is a human activity on the
part of the Son of man.

And now the Church still seeks to recover that hour in
Gethsemane—the hour lost by Peter, James and John—so
as to compensate for the Master’s lack of companionship
which increased his soul’s suffering. It is impossible to
reconstruct that hour in all its historical veracity: it belongs
in the past and remains for ever in the eternity of God
himself. Yet the desire to recover it has become a real need
for many hearts, especially for those who live as fully as they
can the mystery of the divine heart. The Lord Jesus allows us
to meet him in that hour - which on the human plane is long
since past beyond recall - and, just as he did then, invites us
to share the prayer of his heart: “Cogitationes cordis eius in
generationem et generationem, ut eruat a morte animas
eorum et alat eos in fame” (Entrance antiphon, Mass of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus). And when “from generation to
generation” we enter into the designs of his heart, from that
sharing there flows the mystical unity of the Body of Christ.

How rich in meaning that “Stay awake!” now becomes:
“Stay awake, so as not to give way to temptation!” Christ
hands over to us that hour of great trial, which always has
been an hour of trial for his disciples and his Church.

“I am the vine ...” says the Lord, and these words are
most appropriate to the situation in Gethsemane. “I am the
vine and you are the branches ... As the branch cannot of
itself bear fruit unless it remains joined to the vine, so also
not one of you, unless you remain in me...” (Jn 15,5). “lam
the true vine, and my Father is the vine-dresser. Every
branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts right out: and those
which do bear fruit he prunes, so that they may bear more
fruit still” (Jn 15,1-2).

The prayer of Gethsemane goes on to this day. Faced with
all the trials that man and the Church have to undergo, there
is a constant need to return to Gethsemane and undertake
that sharing in the prayer of Christ our Lord. That prayer—
according to the standards of human reckoning—remains
unanswered. But at the same time, in virtue of the principle:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not
your ways” (Is 55,8), it marks the beginning of the great
victory, the beginning of the redemptive work on which man
and the world still draw and always will draw, because the
Redemption makes manifest the nature and extent of God’s
love for mankind and for the world (cf Jn 3,16).

And so the prayer of Gethsemane is not left unanswered.

Karol Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction (1977) p. 147-153 

Guardini - Gethsemane (from The Lord)

GETHSEMANE

“After saying these things, Jesus went forth with his disciples beyond the torrent of Cedron, where there was a garden. ..” (Jn 18:1) “according to this custom” adds Luke.

“And they came to a country place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit down here, while I pray.’ And he took with him Peter and James and John, and he began to feel dread and to be exceedingly troubled. And he said to them, “My soul is sad, even unto death. Wait here and watch. And going forward a little, he fell on the ground, and began to pray that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him; and he said, ‘Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee. Remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou willest.’

“Then he came and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, ‘Simon, dost thou sleep? Couldst thou not watch one hour? Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak? And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words over. And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And they did not know what answer to make to him” (Mk 14:32-40).

Then he went back again “And there appeared to him an angel from heaven to strengthen him... And his sweat became as drops of blood running down upon the ground” (Lk. 22:43, 44). And he rose and returned a third time to the disciples and said to them: “Sleep on now, and take your rest! It is enough; the hour has come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go. Behold, he who will betray me is at hand” (Mk 14:41, 42).

After Jesus had ended the sacerdotal prayer he and the little group walked down the hill and out of the city. According to tradition, the house in which the Last Supper had been held belonged to the family of the John who later was called Mark, Peter's assistant missionary and author of the Gospel that bears his name. He is believed to be the John who, ‘having a linen cloth wrapped about his naked body” was also there that last night (until he too was put to dramatic flight—Mk 14:51-51). Jesus, then descended to the brook Cedron and crossed it—possibly at the same spot that his ancestor, the ancient King David, had fled from Absalom. Then they walked up the valley until they came to a farm called Gethsemane. Jesus has often sat there with his disciples, teaching (18:2). Now they feel that things are drawing to a close, and are not surprised when he tells them to wait while he prays. They are quite accustomed to his leaving them in order to speak alone and undisturbed with God. Only the three who had recently been with him on the mountain of the Transfiguration, Peter, John and James accompany him.

A terrible sadness overcomes the Lord—sadness “unto death” says Holy Scripture. Then Jesus tells also the three to wait—perhaps they are surprised to hear him say they should watch with him; it is probably the first time he has ever asked them to. Alone he advances a few paces, falls on his face and prays.

This is no place for psychology. When. guided by reverence and warmed by generosity, psychology is an excellent thing, doing much to help one human understand another. Here though it must fail, for it could only say that this was another instance of natural reaction: after the tension of tremendous religious concentration and the climb to dizzying spiritual heights of surrender, love and revelation—the collapsed, depression. We have only to recall the life of the prophets to see what is meant. Psychology would explain Gethsemane similarly: the rejection by both the ruling class and the masses, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem with its tremendous experiences, the entry into the city, the terrible waiting of the preceding days, the treachery and the Last Supper—as a result of the prolonged strain now the breakdown. In the case of any human fighting under duress for a noble cause, the analysis very likely would be correct, also (at least partly) for a prophet. But with Jesus any such explanation is bound to founder. If it is insisted upon, Holy Thursday is robbed of that weight and salutary power which can be sensed only in contrition and adoration. Here we can proceed solely through faith guided by revelation.

And it must be living faith—no mere passive acceptance of facts. We participate in this mystery only when we realise and admit that its content is our sin. Mankind’s sin constantly being relived in our own deeds and omissions today and yesterday and always; in all our daily rebellion and lassitude, interestedness and sharpness; in the indescribable evil deep at the root of our whole attitude towards existence. We understand here as much as we understand that in the agony of Gethsemane the ultimate consequences of our sin had their hour. Not before we have surrendered ourselves to the dreadfulness of that hour will we understand, really, what sin is. In the measure that we comprehend sin, we comprehend Christ; and we comprehend our own sin only in the measure that we experience what he experienced when he sweated blood in the night.

What does faith tell us? Before all else who this man is there on his knees—the Son of God in the simplest sense of the word. For that reason he sees existence in its ultimate reality.

Wherever we encounter Jesus, it is as the Knowing One, as he who knows about man and world, All others are blind; only his eyes are all-seeing, and they see through to the very ground of human depravity. The forlornness Jesus beholds there embraces the whole of human existence. And he does not see it as one who has broken through to spiritual health and clarity with the help of grace. Jesus’ knowledge of sin is not like that of fallen mankind; he knows about it as God knows—hence the awful transparency of that knowledge. Hence his immeasurable loneliness. He is really the Seer among the blind, sole sensitive one among beings who have lost their touch, the only free and self-possessed one in the midst of general confusion.

Jesus’ consciousness of the world’s corruption is not grounded in the world and therefore prisoner of existence. It springs from above, from God, and enfolds the whole globe, seeing as God sees: around existence, through existence, outwards from existence. Moreover, Jesus’ divine consciousness, before which every thing is stripped and lucid, is not extrinsic, but intrinsic, realised in his living self. He knows with his human intellect, feels the world’s forlornness with his human heart. And the sorrow of it, incapable of ripping the eternal God from his bliss, becomes in Christ's human soul unutterable agony. From this knowledge comes a terrible and unrelenting earnestness, knowledge that underlies every word he speaks and everything he does. It pulses through his whole being and proclaims itself in the least detail of his fate. Here lies the root of Christ's unapproachable loneliness What human understanding and sympathy could possibly reach into this realm in which the Saviour shoulders alone the yoke of the world? From this point of view Jesus was always a sufferer. and would have been one even if men had accepted his message in faith and love; even if salvation had been accomplished and the kingdom established alone by proclamation and acceptance sparing him the bitter way of the cross. Even then, his whole life would have been inconceivably painful, for he would have been constantly aware of the world sin in the sight of a God he knew to be all holy and all love; and he would have borne this terrible and inaccessible knowledge alone. In the hour of Gethsemane its ever-present pain swells to a paroxysm.

The life of God is timeless and changeless; it is fixed in a present that is simple and illimitable. The life of men rises and falls like the tides. In the Lord there was both: eternal present and temporal fluctuation; thus also that inner pain will have had its ebb and flow, its variations in volume, pressure, and acuity. Now was the hour in which everything was to be “consummated”. 

Who knows how God the Father faced his Son in that hour? He never ceased to be his Father; the band of endless love between them which is the Spirit never broke; and yet—“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46). If we do not prefer to pass over this in reverent silence, we must say that God permitted his Son to taste the human agony of rejection and plunge towards the abyss. Christ’s terrible cry from the cross came from the bitter dregs of the consequence of his union with us. But the chalice was given him to taste already in Gethsemane, when, his consciousness of the abysmal forlornness of the world heightened by God’s proximity, his Father began to “withdraw” from him. It was then that Jesus’ knowledge and suffering reached the frightful intensity evinced by his terror, agonised praying, and sweat of blood that streamed to the ground. In much the same way, a whirlpool on the surface of an ocean may be the visible sign of a catastrophe at its depths surpassing imagination.

Gethsemane was the hour in which Jesus’ human heart and mind experienced the ultimate odium of the sin he was to bear as his own before the judging and avenging countenance of God; | hour in which he felt the fury of the Father against sin per se as directed against himself, its porter, and therefore suffered the unspeakable agony of “abandonment” by holy God. We are humanising again. Perhaps it would be better to be silent. But with God’s help, possibly that hour in the garden will not be quite lost on us. There Jesus accepted the Father’s will and surrendered his own. ‘‘His” will was not revolt against God, that would have been sin; it was simply the repulsion of a supremely pure and vital being against the role of scapegoat for the evil of a whole world; revolt against being the one, through no fault of his own) but as the price of self-sacrificing love, on whom all God’s anger must fall. To accept this was the meaning of his words, “...yet not what I will, but what thou willest.”

There the real struggle took place. All that came afterwards was the realisation of that hour, the actual execution of what had already been excruciatingly anticipated by heart and spirit. And in what solitude? So tremendous that we sense the fundamental guiltlessness of the disciples. In the face of such infinite suffering, their little capacity for compassion must have rebounded like the heart of a small child when the grown-ups are engulfed in some shattering experience: it turns aside, begins to play, or simply falls asleep. The fact that there is no alternative shows how hopeless Christ’s isolation is.

No one has ever seen existence as Jesus saw it; neither before nor after. In that hour when his human heart lifted the world from its vapours of deception, he beheld it as otherwise only God beholds it—in all its hideous nakedness. What happened was truth realised in charity. And we are given the standpoint from which we too can see through and reject deception. For that is the meaning of salvation: seeing the world as Christ saw it and experiencing his repulsion of sin.

Roman Guardini, The Lord (1954) p. 368-372

Foley - God Doesn't Always Heal Wounds, Uses Them For Holiness; Example of St. Therese

Now it has to be understood that her sensitivity was not taken away. In fact Pauline says in the beatification process that in Carmel she wa...