DSPT Events

Fr. Richard Schenk, OP "And Jesus wept. Notes towards a Theology of Mourning"

Fr Schenk OPI. Imagining the Goal of the Investigation

I want to begin by thanking Thomas Aquinas College for the invitation to this year’s Aquinas Lecture. In particular, I want to thank Phillip Wodzinski for his kindness in making the arrangements and esp. for his meticulous preparation of the handout.

In a longer, written version of this talk I spend more time than is possible today framing the question. Let me just say that I hope the these relections might illustrate the value of looking at Thomas’s biblical commentaries and examining their relation both to Thomas’ other work and to contemporary exegetical and systematic studies as well. The concrete issue before us today will be the possibility and fittingness of a renewed culture of mourning in the face of death.

A longer version of this talk would try to describe the desideratum of a renewed culture of mourning. As a shorthand, let me say it would look for a middle groung between the liturgies of all black or all white colors. A longer version would also try from the beginning to situate what Thomas does in his commentary on the Gospel of John in the context of his systematic work, both theological (say on the nature of beatitude or the two wills of Christ) and philosophical, above all on his innovative and controversial stress on the unicity of the substantial form in the human being. The intentionality of Thomas’ resolute position on the consequences associated with the one transcending yet embodied form of the human being would do much to prepare us for the interpretation of death that he draws from reflection on the Fourth Gospel. For our purposes today, however, let us turn immediately to Thomas biblical commentary, thought today to belong to the last years of his second Parisian regency.

II. Thomas and the Sadness of Christ in his Commentary on John

One feature of the Gospel of John which has never ceased to be a focus of interest and controversy is the Evangelist's use of the verb, tarásso, to shake, trouble or stir up, with reference to the apparently emotional response of Jesus and his disciples to the intrusion of death or persecution into their lives. It occurs in this sense five times in four consecutive chapters, beginning with the scene of mourning for Lazarus in John 11. As Thomas knows, the paradigm of such upheaval is the storm at sea, which churns up the ocean’s waters[i]. As Thomas points out, this "mare turbatum" is still slightly reflected in the Gospel by the waters of the pool of Bethesda, which were thought to be "disturbed" (RSV) or stirred up at times by an angel of healing (John 5:7; in some texts, including Thomas's, also 5:4)[ii]. Troubled waters were ever an easy metaphor for a troubled mind, which could be confused, agitated, or disturbed. Whole governments and states, too, just as individuals, could be caught by such upheaval and thrown into grave disorder or even anarchy[iii]. In that synoptic gospel most closely related to the Gospel of John, Luke uses the verb to describe how Zachariah was "startled" (RSV) at the sight of the angel (1, 12) and how the apostles were "startled" (RSV) at the sight of the risen Lord (24, 37); "shaken" might have been the closer translation. John uses the term to describe Christ immediately prior to his raising of Lazarus ("When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who were with her weeping, he was moved with indignation and deeply distressed": 11, 33) as well as Christ predicting his imminent passion ("Now my soul is in turmoil": 12, 27) and his betrayal through Judas ("Jesus exclaimed in great distress, ‚In very truth I tell you, one of you is going to betray me’": 13:21). Twice Christ refers to the turmoil felt by the apostles ("Set your troubled hearts at rest": 14, 1; 27). The Vulgate uses some form of the verb turbare to translate each of these Johannine passages[iv].

Revealing Thomas's programmatic interest in reading these passages for their potential contribution to a theology of mourning, two dimensions of his exegesis stand out in contrast both to his biblical and patristic sources and to our own contemporary exegesis today: Thomas interprets turbatio resolutely as tristitia; and he identifies behind the thus established fact of Christ's sadness five features of its significance for us. As Thomas himself articulates this two-fold analysis: "…And thus we need to see first what this upheaval in Christ is; and then why he willed to undergo it"[v]. But, here, too, one of Thomas's favorite lines from Aristotle is valid: "finis, etsi sit postremus in executione, est tamen primus in intentione agentis." Indeed, it is because of Thomas's ultimate sense of why Christ should be shown to be sad in the face of death that Thomas first insists on tristitia as the main (but not the only) constituent of Christ’s turbatio. Thomas' hermeneutics of facticity implicitly precedes here his resolute insistence on the fact of Christ's sadness; he argues decisively for the fact of Christ’s sadness only because he can imagine and anticipate its significance. Even the statistical evidence on Thomas's vocabulary suggests the programmatic nature of his remarks: in these same lectiones where Thomas mentions some 34 times some form of the word, tristis, the corresponding texts of the Vulgata and the Catena aurea do not employ the term even once (with the exception of an isolated reference by John Chrysostom to some future hearer of the Gospel as possibly "contristatum"[vi]). While the sadness of Christ is thematized by both Thomas and his texts with the use of some other expressions as well, the relative proportions of their uses of this key term, tristitia, is telling.

A. Turbatio as tristitia: Arguing for the Fact of Christ’s Sadness

That Christ is shaken here precisely by his sadness seems to be a possible, in places even quite a plausible reading, but that reading is in no way the necessary or even the self-understood meaning of John. Many of today's most respected exegetes deny flatly, if without much argumentation, that this kind of upheaval was meant to consist of sadness at all[vii]. Sometimes it is even said that a "pyschologizing explanation is inappropriate"[viii] altogether, which does not prevent such authors from noting the evangelist’s portrayal of "Jesus’ apparently contradictory emotions"[ix] or from emphasizing his "angry inward emotion"[x]. This insistence of recent exegesis that, without a theological or at least a dramatic purpose, the Evangelist would not have mentioned that Christ was shaken, is an altogether plausible view which corresponds well to that patristic and medieval insistence on Christ’s sovereignty which was shared by Thomas and the sources he had gathered into the Catena: because Jesus could have avoided difficult emotions of this kind, he must have had some reason or purpose for choosing to suffer them. Whether this singular revelatory purpose is attributed also to Jesus or merely to the Evangelist, it becomes in either case all the more urgent, in order to grasp the Gospel’s point, that we identify the emotions mentioned here. What does the Gospel want to tell us about Jesus' confrontation with death?

In their reading of John 11, recent exegetes have given primary emphasis to the double occurrence of enebrimésato/embrimómenos (11: 33 and 38), the first of which precedes and is qualified by the five words following it: to pneúmati kai etáraksen heautón ("He was moved with indignation and deeply distressed", so the RSV; or, perhaps more literally: "he growled/groaned inwardly and was shaken"). The verb, which refers generally to non-verbal utterances, such as the barking of dogs and the roaring of lions[xi], is often, though not always, associated with anger. The Vulgate translates the phrase with "fremuit spiritu et turbavit se ipsum". Schnackenburg roughly follows Luther’s suggestion here for underlining this sense of anger: "…ergrimmet er im Geist und betrübt sich selbs…"[xii]: "…ergrimmte er im Innern und erregte sich…"[xiii]. Those exegetes who were still confident of our ability to distinguish here the written "semeia-Quelle" from the Evangelist’s own work assigned enebrimésato to the earlier work on Christ’s miracles; and the following words, to pneúmati kai etáraksen heautón, to the Evangelist. Unfortunately, they rarely dwell on what that addition was meant to convey by way of changed emphasis. The parallels to the use of this verb for articulate expressions of rebuke in Synoptic miracle stories (Mark 1:43; Matt 9:30) have led some to see in the pre-Gospel account "Traces of Thaumaturgic Techniques in the Miracles"[xiv]. All this serves to confirm the reference to anger in the first term, but does little to explain the intent of the Gospel revision; few recent commentaries attempt to name the redactional point. Some of them, however, assuming the incompatibility of anger and sadness, and seeing Christ’s anger documented here, bluntly reject that Christ is portrayed in chapter 11 as saddened. That leaves them with few options for interpreting the short sentence of John 11: 35: edákrusen ho jesous. Et lacrimatus est Jesus. And Jesus wept. R. Bultmann’s interpretation is typical for that "irritation" which Schnackenburg describes as representative of the modern exegesis of v. 35, coming so close after the anger expressed in v. 33. Bultmann first notes the difference between the generic term for weeping, edákrusen, said here of Jesus (the only time this verb is used in the NT) , and the more specific term for wailing, applied to Mary and the Jews who accompany her in v. 33 (klaíousan, klaíontas). From this difference, Bultmann constructs a diametrical contradiction.

The wailing of Mary and the Jews provokes the height of agitation in Jesus (v. 33). In this context, it cannot be otherwise interpreted than his wrath over the lack of faith, expressed in the wailing that is raised in his presence about the death of Lazarus… The statement that Jesus wept (v. 35) – where the weeping must be understood as a sign of agitation in the sense of v. 33 – has hardly any other purpose than to provoke the utterance of the Jews (vv. 36f.) and so to set in a yet brighter light the motif of the faithlessness in the presence of the Revealer. Jesus – again in that anger over the faithless – comes to the grave, which is blocked up by a stone…[xv].

For Bultmann, the weeping of Jesus might be intended merely as a dramatic occasion for some of the Jews to question how serious Jesus’ love for Lazarus might be: "Could not this man, who opened the blind man’s eyes, have done something to keep Lazarus from dying?" At most, the weeping of Jesus might reflect the same kind of anger at wailing which was shown toward the lament for Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5: 38 sq.)[xvi].

An opposing view is taken by Schnackenburg, who is willing to see anger in v. 33, but not in the weeping of Jesus at v. 35: "The weeping here has no connection with the surge of anger"[xvii]. Schnackenburg refers to this passage as possibly related to the use of the noun, dakrúon, in Heb. 5:7: "In the course of his earthly life he offered up prayers and petitions, with loud cries and tears, to God who was able to deliver him from death. …" (cf. Esau’s tears at Heb. 12:17); and in neither case does anger seem to be the primary motivation of Christ’s weeping.

Had Schnackenburg not already let the "turbavit se ipsum" of v. 33 be so strongly interpreted by the anger of "fremuit in spiritu", he could have underscored his interpretation of Jesus’ weeping as an expression of sadness by reference to the close tie admitted between sadness and that turbatio which is ascribed to Jesus in the following two chapters. "Now my soul is in turmoil…. (John 12, 27). "Jesus exclaimed in great distress: in very truth I tell you: one of you is going to betray me" (13: 21) There is at least an indirect parallel here to the synoptic portrayal of Jesus on the Mount of Olives, which from Maximus Confessor to Thomas More’s De tristitia Christi was the locus classicus for the eminently human dimensions of Christ’s will. As Raymond Brown puts it : "John XII 27, 'My soul is troubled (tarassein)', is parallel to Mark XIV 34, 'My soul is sorrowful (perilypos)'. Both reflect Ps. XLII 5 'Why are you so sorrowful (perilypos), my soul, and why do you trouble (syntarassein) me?' "[xviii] The Vulgata makes the association alluded to by Brown all the more apparent to its readers: "Quare tristis es anima mea et quare conturbaras me". Yet even here in the context of chapters 12 and 13 of John, Schnackenburg is more interested in contrasting turbatio to any fear of death[xix] than he is keen to associate turbatio with that sadness of Jesus which he sees expressed in the tears of chapter 11.

Despite their disagreement on whether to include the images of Christ’s turbatio in that depiction of Christ’s sadness which both admit is intended by his weeping, Thomas and Schnackenburg agree on a more basic point. It is because Schnackenburg can see the theological significance which John attaches to Christ’s sadness that he is willing to oppose Bultmann’s complete denial that the gospel is claiming there to be sadness in Jesus.

If we compare other New Testament passages in which tears on the part of Jesus (Heb 5:7) or people following him (Acts 20:19; Rev 7:17; 24:24) are mentioned – the verb is used only in this passage – the reason seems to be the sadness and darkness of the present world, the situation of trial and persecution. On the sad journey to the tomb, Jesus too is moved by the darkness of the inevitability of death. The evangelist does not gloss over the horror of death, but believes that it is conquered in faith (cf. v 25c, 39). The scale of Jesus’ act can only be recognised if the bitterness of physical death is not minimised. The short remark that Jesus began to weep is the dark precursor of his confident prayer to the Father (v. 41), just as in 12:27-28 the momentary "confusion" of his soul gives way to the calm and confident prayer to the Father to glorify his name. It is in this sense that the Johannine Jesus is one with men and not impervious to their distress. The Johannine community is also aware of the darkness of the earthly journey, which ends in physical death, and from out of this knowledge its members lift their eyes in faith to the never-ending future of the life given by Jesus (cf. 8:51; 12:25)[xx].

Thomas is more willing than most of our contemporaries to admit in principle that the Gospel is portraying something of the psychological reactions of Jesus to the events which he experiences[xxi]. Oddly enough, our contemporaries are quicker to moralize the text; and yet Thomas agrees with them that what is portrayed always has a theological point. Where contemporary writers ascribe these intentions to the Gospel author, who might have chosen to portray Christ otherwise, Thomas presents them as the intention of Christ himself, who could have chosen not to be so affected by the sadder side of life and death[xxii]. Like Bultmann and Schnackenburg, Thomas, too, sees in the expression infremuit spiritu an indication of Jesus’ indignation and anger[xxiii]: but Thomas is closer here to Schnackenburg than to Bultmann in holding for the compatibility of sadness with indignation and anger; indeed, Thomas describes sadness as the necessary condition of anger[xxiv]. And yet Thomas goes beyond both of these more recent exegetes by adding to Christ’s anger and sadness a moment of fear as well[xxv]. While seeing in the upset of Christ as portrayed in the Gospel of John a mix of sadness, anger, and fear, Thomas sees sadness as the dominant emotion among the three[xxvi].

B. Why Jesus is shown to be sad: the significance of the tristitia Christi

Unlike the more recent commentaries, for which the passages quoted above from R. Bultmann are paradigmatic, Thomas does not read Christ’s anger as directed against those who are mourning[xxvii]; quite to the contrary, Thomas sees the mourning of the Jews with Martha and Mary as commendable[xxviii] and the mourning of Jesus throughout these chapters as parenetic. Over the course of his comments, Thomas will argue for at least five senses in which the significance of Christ's sadness must be understood.

First: with reference to the ontology of death and the rationality of Jesus' sadness. Unlike many of his contemporaries, such as Bonaventure in his own commentary on John, Thomas sees this upsetting sadness not merely as compassion for human infirmity, blindness, and wickedness[xxix], but as sadness about human death itself: something which Bonaventure expressly denies[xxx]. Like Bonaventure, Thomas sees the turbatio Christi as remaining within the limits of reason, not as a perturbatio which would have eclipsed it; but, unlike Bonaventure, Thomas includes the evil of death in the objects about which Jesus is sad, precisely because Jesus rationally knows what death is[xxxi]. It is here that Thomas could best presuppose the philosophical work he had already done on the anthropological significance of death. Unlike some of our own contemporary theologies of death, such as Karl Rahner's[xxxii], it is not the hiddeness of death which calls for mourning, but the insight into this nocivum.

Second: a sense of the piety and justice of Jesus' mourning. Given the rational insight into the nocivum of death, it was then a matter of piety towards those whom he loved that Jesus would mourn their deaths or the deaths of their loved ones. Thomas interprets the sadness of Jesus as paying this justice of piety both to Lazarus[xxxiii] and to his mourning sister, Mary. By mourning with Mary, Jesus is far from displaying anger at her sadness; rather, by sharing it, he affirms it[xxxiv].

Third: with reference to the Christological significance of Jesus' sadness. By allowing himself to be truly moved by sadness about death, and by showing us how churned up he is in the face of death, the Christ reveals his true humanity[xxxv]: an anti-docetic theme especially well-known to Thomas from his patristic research[xxxvi]. Thomas goes on to reject any contradiction between high and low Christologies, arguing that it is rather the coincidence of both which underscores the significance of each. The raising of Lazarus by the power of Christ's divinity is given its full significance only by the "weakness" of Christ's humanity revealed in his sadness at death.

We should note here that Christ is truly divine and truly human. And so in his actions we find almost everywhere that the divine is mingled with the human, and the human with the divine. And if at times something human is mentioned about Christ, something divine is immediately added. Indeed, we read of no weakness of Christ greater than his passion; yet as he hangs on the cross divine events are manifested: the sun is obscured, rocks are rent, and the bodies of saints that had been asleep arise. Even at his birth, as he lay in the manger, a star shines in the heavens, the angels sing his praises , and the magi and kings offer gifts. We have a similar situation here: for Christ experiences a certain weakness in his human affections, becoming disturbed over the death of Lazarus. We read, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled himself.[xxxvii]

Fourth: with reference to the soteriological significance of Jesus' sadness. By choosing to share our sadness at death, Jesus reveals not only his own human nature, but also his love for humankind. Jesus reveals not only the subjective side of his love, but also the object of his salvific will. In revealing his emnity to the powers of death, he also reveals his will for the restoration of fully human life. Precisely because this emotion of Jesus and its portrayal by the evangelist could have been avoided, its mention underlines all the more the salvific intentionality of the Christ.

„I answer that Christ's being deeply moved here indicates a certain anger and resentment of the heart. For all anger and resentment are caused by some kind of pain and sadness. Now there are two things involved here: the one about which Christ was troubled was death, which was afflicted upon the human race on account of sin; the other, which he resented, was the cruelty of death and of the devil. Thus, just as, when one wants to repel an enemy, he is saddened by the evils inflicted by him, and indignant at the very thought of him, so too Christ was saddened and indignant. There was also power (signified by Christ's being deeply moved) here, because Christ troubled himself by his own command. Sometimes such emotions arise for an inappropriate reason, as when a person rejoices over something evil, or is saddened over what is good… But this was not the case with Christ; thus he says, When Jesus saw her weeping, …he troubled himself. And sometimes such emotions arise for a good reason, but are not moderated by reason. So he says, he was deeply moved in spirit… (as if to say): He took on this sadness by a judgement of reason"[xxxviii].

Fifth: with attention to the parenetic significance of Jesus' sadness. Even before he began his commentary on John, Thomas had argued that not every deed of Jesus narrated by the Gospels was meant to offer us an example for our literal imitation[xxxix]. It is thus all the more striking that Thomas devotes so much space and energy to stressing the parenetic purpose of the passages on Jesus' turbatio. Underscoring again the freedom with which this turmoil of Jesus is manifested here[xl], Thomas insists that, far from displaying anger at the mourning of death, Jesus shared this mourning in order to offer us an example for our imitation, avoiding the dual danger of our mourning too much[xli] or too little. The arguments for exemplarity extend here the logic developed in the other four senses of why Christ is revealed as experiencing sadness in the face of death.

Note that Christ willed to be troubled for two reasons. First, to show us a doctrine of the faith… Secondly, he wanted to be an example for us. For if he had remained unmoved and had felt no emotions in his soul, he would not have been a satisfactory example of how we should face death. And so he willed to be troubled in order that when we are troubled at the prospect of death, we will not refuse to endure it, we will not run away: For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning (Heb 4:15). The relationship of this to what came before is clear. He encouraged his disciples to suffer when he said: He who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. But some might say to him: Lord, you can calmly discuss and philosophize about death because you are above human sorrows, and death does not trouble you. It was to counter this that he willed to be troubled. [xlii]

Developing a brief suggestion by Augustine already recorded in the Catena aurea[xliii], Thomas focuses his sense of the exemplarity meant here by contrasting the parenetic meaning of Christ's sadness with the Stoic exclusion of sadness from the ideal of wisdom. A thing is said to be troubled whenever it is greatly agitated. Hence, when the sea is very agitated, it is said to be troubled. And so whenever a thing oversteps the bounds of its repose and tranquillity, it is said to be troubled. Now in the human soul there is a sentient area and a rational one. The sensitive area of the soul is troubled when it becomes strongly affected by certain movements. For example, when it is contracted by fear, raised up by hope, dilated with joy, or otherwise affected by one or other of the emotions. Sometimes this perturbation remains within the bounds of reason, and sometimes it exceeds the bounds of reason, namely, when reason itself is troubled. And although this latter condition quite often occurs in us, it is not found in Christ, since he is the Wisdom of the Father. Indeed, it is not found in any wise person; thus the Stoic tenet that one who is wise is not troubled, i.e. in his reason. Accordingly, the meaning of Now my soul is troubled, is this: My soul is affected by the emotions of fear and sadness in its sentient part; but these emotions do not trouble my reason: it does not abandon its own order. He began to be greatly distressed and troubled (Mk 14:33)[xliv].

The patristic and post-patristic sources edited by Thomas for his Gloss offer several authorities for the Christological and soteriological senses of Christ's mourning as well as for wider metaphorical interpretations; but the parenetic sense is underdeveloped in the patristic sources[xlv]. By contrast, Thomas is so intent on portraying the exemplary nature of Christ's sadness that he is willing to reverse the immediate sound of the texts,

Let not your hearts be troubled. Thomas asks if Jesus is guilty here of hypocricy, being troubled at death himself, but not granting to his followers the same concession: Let not your hearts be troubled (John 14:1)… But above, John 13:21, it says that Jesus was troubled in spirit. How can he tell his disciples not to be troubled, when he himself was troubled? I answer that he did not teach the opposite of what he did. It was stated above that he was troubled in spirit, not that his spirit was troubled. He is not forbidding them to be troubled in spirit, but he is forbidding that their hearts, that is, their spirits, be troubled. For there is a troubled state which arises from reason; that is to be praised and not forbidden: For godly grief produces repentence that leads to salvation (II Cor 7: 10). Yet there is a different grief or troubled state of the reason itself; this is not laudable because it draws reason from its proper course…[xlvi]

…(A further reason for manifesting his sadness was) so that, by controlling his own sadness, he might teach us to moderate our sadness. The Stoics had taught that a wise man is never sad. But it is very inhuman not to be sad at the death of another. However, there are some who become excessively sad over the evils which afflict their friends. Now our Lord willed to be sad in order to teach us that there are times when we should be sad, which is contrary to the opinion of the Stoics; and he preserved a certain moderation in his sadness, which is contrary to the excessively sad type…The third reason (for manifesting his sadness) is to tell us that we should be sad and weep for those who physically die: I am utterly spent and crushed (Ps 38: 8). [xlvii]

Against the immediate sound of the words taken outside their context, Let not your hearts be troubled, Thomas reads the meaning of the Gospel as Christ's teaching us by word and example to allow ourselves to be troubled enough to mourn both death and sin, that other destruction of genuinely human possibilities: Christ wept in order to show us that it is not blameworthy to weep out of compassion: My son, let your tears fall for the dead (Sir 38: 16). He wept with a purpose, which was to teach us that we should weep because of sin: I am weary with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears (Ps 6).[xlviii]

Although there are types of mourning inconsistent with the ideal of Christian life, there could be no completely Christian existence without a genuine sense of mourning.

III. Imagining the Goal of the Investigation - anew

Despite the well-known seriousness of death which follows from Thomas's anthropology and despite the lesser known but demonstrable intentionality evident in his theology of mourning, especially in the Johannine commentary, there has not yet been a reception of Thomas's suggestions which even comes close to the programmatic nature of his own remarks[xlix]. The future reception of the suggestions evident in Thomas's commentary on John will be possible, only if, beyond the immediate context of mourning the loss of personal loved ones, new contexts are opened up which Thomas anticipated only in part. Two such contexts may be suggested here in closing.

First: the context of interreligious dialogue. Among the many goals of interreligious dialogue is the self-critical attainment of a more genuine sense of one's own religion. The weaknesses perceived in other religions can help interlocutors thematize the all too familiar weaknesses thus easily overlooked by them in their own religion. This goal of self-correction is of special promise to Christianity in its dialogue with non-Abrahamic religions. In his own self-understanding, Thomas articulated his theology of mourning in opposition to both Platonic spiritualism and Stoic indifference: against both, Thomas argues that death is a nocivum which calls for compassionate mourning. In our own day, the discourse with Buddhism can lead Christianity back to the unfinished task of wrestling with its own Stoic inheritance, while the discourse with Hinduism can lead a Christian theology back to the unfinished task of dealing with its own Platonic influences[l]. The significance which Thomas sees in the Gospel of John for the purification of Christianity from its Platonic and its Stoic temptations can be further developed by interreligious dialogue of this kind.

The idea of compassion is central to both Buddhism and Christianity, but in different understandings. Thomas's idea of compassion shows how tristitia can be developed into a virtue of "misericordia" capable of correcting and purifying Christianity of its Stoic temptation to view suffering distantly from the perspective of the entire cosmos. From this self-distancing perspective of the entire cosmos, the Stoics attempted to view their own sufferings as if they were the sufferings of others, rather than, quite to the contrary, to view the sufferings of others as if they were one’s own sufferings: "...Quia autem tristitia seu dolor est de proprio malo, intantum aliquis de miseria aliena tristatur aut dolet inquantum miseriam alienam apprehendit ut suam"[li]. For this purpose, the anti-Stoic idea of compassion needs to work out the idea of a qualified self (to view sufferings "as one’s own", "ut suam"). The discourse with Buddhism can clarify how this idea of compassion needs still to be developed by Christianity in order to provide in a future synthesis a genuine and adequate alternative helpful to human and non-human beings alike. A similar impetus to Christian self-critique can come from Christian conversations with Hinduistic traditions. While the term "Platonic" is widely viewed in a pejorative light by Christian theologians today, the temptation has not vanished to spiritualize (at times by "existentializing") hopes for perfection generally, even for post-mortal salvation. Popular theories of a "resurrection-in-death" have tended to reduce the nocivum of death to a hypothetical possibility that is avoided in fact, as is claimed, by a spiritualized perfection into which earthly existence organically grows, without rupture[lii]. The dialogue with Hinduistic traditions can help Christian theology continue to recover its ideal of a uniquely embodied personality and history.

Second: the context of the quest for justice. In his Johannine commentary, Thomas distinguished and linked two objects of Christ's turmoil: death and a broader sense of injustice and sin, which, like death, render impossible human possibilities[liii]. In his later, post-Thomistic work, Johann Baptist Metz has done much to show to Catholic theology what the programmatic sense of seeking a future from the memory of suffering could look like[liv]. The resources within Thomas for developing this potential of the memoria passionis for the quest of peace and justice have been largely overlooked; less so, the significance for interreligious dialogue. As Metz writes: “The mysticism of apocalyptically inspired traditions is at its heart a mysticism of open eyes with its unconditional obligation to see the sufferings of others. From the founding legends of Buddhism, it is clear that Buddha, too, was changed by encountering the sufferings of strangers; but, in the end, he flees into the royal palace of his inner self, finding in a mysticism of shut eyes an interior landscape immune to suffering and immune to the provocation of a limited time. Contrasted with this, the mysticism of Jesus is a kind of “weak” mysticism. Jesus cannot transport himself outside and beyond the landscape of suffering. His mysticism leads to an apocalyptic outcry.”[lv]

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Thomas, too, has offered us a vision of Christ - and a Christianity - of "open eyes". The commentary teaches us in a unique way how to hear the Fourth Gospel and to live that central exemplum, mandatum and praeceptum it proclaims (John 13: 15, 34; 15: 12, 17). The same love which teaches us to mourn the losses of humankind teaches us to hope for the salvation of human goods. A hope for goods whose loss would not be mourned would be hollow. A Church which could not mourn is one which could not hope; but also: a Church which could not hope is one which could not mourn for long. The future vitality of Christianity will depend on the revival of these twin virtues.


[i] Thomas Aquinas, Super Ioan. 13, lect. 4, no. 1796; cf. already Super Ioan. 12, lect. 5, no. 1651: "…proprie dicitur turbari aliquid quando commovetur: unde et mare commotum dicimus esse turbatum."
[ii] Ibid.: "…turbatio designat commotionem quamdam: et hoc apparet in hoc quod habetur supra, V, 4: Angelus Domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam, et movebatur aqua, et postea sequitur: Domine, hominem non habeo, ut, cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam: quod pro eodem accipit aquam turbari et moveri. Secundum hunc etiam modum dicimus mare turbatum, quando est commotum. Turbatio ergo animi eius commotionem designat."
[iii] Cf. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones et al. (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon (=LSJ, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) pp. 1757 sq.; and William f. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965) pp. 812 sq.
[iv] turbavit: John 11:33; turbata est: John 12:27; turbatus est spiritu: John 13:21; non turbetur: John 14:1; 14:27.
[v] Super Ioan. 12, lectio 5, no. 1650: "…et ideo videndum est primum quid sit haec turbatio in Christo; secundo quare voluit eam subire."
[vi] Catena aurea in Ioan., XII , lectio 4 (p. 497 B).
[vii] Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964) pp. 406 sqq. [viii] Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, Vol. II (New York: Crossroad 1982) p. 334.
[ix] Ibid.; cf. the similar tension at p. 387.
[x] Op. cit., p. 336.
[xi] LSJ, op. cit., 540; Bauer, op. cit., 254; cf. LXX, Lam 2,6; Dan 11:30.
[xii] Wittenberg 1545.
[xiii] Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 2. Teil (Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament IV) Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1985, pp. 419 sqq.
[xiv] So the title by C. Bonner, in: HarvThR 20 (1927) 171-181; cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, op. cit., 406, n. 4, who sees even in the second expression the pnematic excitement of an ecstatic miracle-worker; and, seemingly against this view ("Fehldeutung", even for the Gospel source?), Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, op. cit., p. 421.
[xv] Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 406 sq.
[xvi] For Bultmann’s rejection of older exegesis on the weeping of Christ cf. also op. cit., p. 406, n. 4.
[xvii] Schnackenburg, The Gospel, II, op. cit., p. 336.
[xviii] Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII (Garden City, New York: Doubleday 1966) p. 470.
[xix] Schnackenburg, as Johannesevangelium II, op. cit., pp. 484 sq.; and id., The Gospel, II, op. cit., 386 sq. The English translation here brings "terror", where Schnackenburg eliminates from Christ not just "terror", but even "Todesangst"). By way of contrast to the synoptic Garden scene, "…In John we have only (!) ‘My soul is troubled (erschüttert)’".
[xx] Schnackenburg, The Gospel II, op. cit., p. 337; cf. p. 387.
[xxi] Cf. Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1531: "…consequenter cum dicit, Iesus ergo, ut vidit eam plorantem... infremuit spiritu et turbavit se, ponuntur ea quae pertinent ad affectum Christi." "…Primo ergo ponitur affectus Christi ostensus Mariae…".
[xxii] Unlike Schnackenburg, Bultmann shares one of the exaggerated dimensions of Thomas's reading of how Christ "commanded" himself to have emotions; cf. Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1535: "…quia ipse suo imperio turbavit semetipsum," etc.
[xxiii] Cf. Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1534: "Sed quid significat fremitus Christi? Videtur quod significet iram; Prov. XIX, 12: Sicut fremitus leonis, ita et ira regis. Item. Videtur quod significet indignationem; secundum illud Psalmi CXI 10: Dentibus suis fremet et tabescet. Responsio dicendum quod hic fremitus in Christo iram quamdam et indignationem cordis significat…".
[xxiv] Cf. ibid.: "Omnis autem ira et indignatio ex aliquo dolore et tristitia causatur."
[xxv] Cf. Super Ioan. 12, lect. 5, no. 1651: " …secundum hoc ergo est sensus: Nunc anima mea turbata est; idest, affecta est passionibus timoris et tristitiae, quantum ad sensitivam, quibus tamen ratio non turbabatur, nec suum ordinem deserebat, Mc. XIV 33: Coepit Iesus pavere et taedere."
[xxvi] Cf. Super Ioan. 13, lect. 4, no. 1796: "Inter omnes autem affectiones seu passiones appetitus sensitivi, tristitia magis vim commotionis habet. Delectatio enim, cum dicat quietem in bono praesenti, magis rationem quietis habet quam commotionis. Timor etiam, cum sit de malo futuro, minus movet quam tristitia, quae est de malo praesenti. Et inde est quod turbatio animi praecipue dicitur tristitia. Turbatus est ergo Iesus, idest tristatus." In ST III 15, where Thomas again defends the presence of sadness, fear, and anger in Christ (adding "admiratio", surprise or puzzlement, to them), he again describes tristitia as foundational for fear (a. 7, co. et ad 2: fear as tristitia transposed from a present to a future but not entirely inevitable nocivum) and for anger (a. 9, co: "Ira est effectus tristitiae… Et sic ira est passio composita ex tristitia et appetitu vindictae").
[xxvii] Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1534: "Duo autem hic suberant: unum de quo Christus turbabatur, quod erat mors homini, inflicta propter peccatum; aliud autem de quo indignabatur, erat saevitia mortis et diaboli. Unde, sicut quando aliquis vult repellere hostem, dolet de malis illatis ab ipso, et indignatur ad animadvertendum in eum, ita et christus doluit et indignatus est."
[xxviii] cf. ibid., no. 1527: "… in quo quidem Iudaei commendandi sunt, quia, ut dicitur Eccl. VII, 38, Non desis plorantibus in consolatione."
[xxix] Bonaventura, Commentarius in Evangelium S.Ioannis, c. XI, n. 57 (Quaracchi: Ad Claras Aquas 1893, Opera omnia, vol. VI) p. 404 B. Although Bonaventure is willing to read the turbatio of Christ here as a form of sadness, his unwillingness to read this sadness as mourning about death leaves him with little motivation to develop the idea of tristitia beyond the conventions of the monastic tradition; cf. Rainer Jehl, Melancholie und Acedia. Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie und Ethik Bonaventuras (Veroeffentlichungen des Grabmann Instituts, Neue Folge 32) Paderborn et al.: Schoeningh, 1984. Thomas, too, knows of the destructive power of sadness or melancholy and the traditional interpretation of tristitia as a vice or at least as a passion to be overcome (cf. ST I-II 37, 3 sq.; 39, 1, and the unspoken presupposition behind the preceding quaestion 38 as well), and he will see in Christ's sadness a model of not being overwhelmed by the possible excesses of mourning; but he also can point to positive modifications of tristitia which, under certain conditions and within certain bounds, let it become part of a virtue of genuinely Christian mourning.
[xxx] Ibid.: "Intelligendum tamen, quod Christus non flevit propter mortem Lazari, sed propter nostram miseriam, quae in morte Lazari significabatur." Thomas differs from Bonaventure not only by stressing the possibility of a virtuous qualification of sadness, but by defining the possibility of virtuous mourning, where the object of Christ's sadness is first and foremost the nocivum of suffering and death; cf. also ST III 15, 6, co.: "Potuit autem anima Christi interius apprehendere aliquid ut nocivum: et quantum ad se, sicut passio et mors eius fuit; et quantum ad alios, sicut peccata discipulorum vel etiam Iudaeorum occidentium ipsum". The immediate meaning of mourning death thus remains the foundation of the extended senses of mourning injustice. Jesus' willingness to accept death as somehow a part of God's salvific plan was indirect, presupposing the more basic rejection of death in itself; cf. ST III 15, 6 ad 4: "Et hoc modo mors Christi et eius passio fuit, secundum se considerata, involuntaria et tristitiam causans…" In his ST III 18, 3, Thomas deepens the patristic critique of monotheletism to show that, within the human will of Jesus, the voluntas ut natura, including the preference for life over death, is no less rational than the so-called voluntas rationis, the will of something good only on the basis of some additional reason. Cf. Tomas Alvira, Naturaleza y Libertad. Estudio de los conceptos tomistas de voluntas ut natura y voluntas ut ratio (Pamplona: University of Navarra Press 1985). The indirectness of Jesus' acceptance corresponds for Thomas to the indirect contribution of Christ's death to our salvation; the accent remains on the resurrection: ST III 50, 6 ad 1: "Mors Christi est operata salutem nostram ex virtute divinitatis unitae et non ex sola ratione mortis"; ST III 53, 4: "Si autem consideremus corpus et animam Christi mortui secundum virtutem naturae creatae, sic non potuerunt sibi invicem reuniri, sed oportuit Christum resuscitari a Deo." Neither Christ's sufferings nor his death would have been salvific of themselves: "non satisfactio... nisi ex caritate" (cf. ST III 14, 1-4.")
[xxxi] Super Ioan. 13, lect. 4, no. 1797 sq.:"…Et haec turbatio fuit in Christo: unde signanter dicit Evangelista, quod turbatus est spiritu, idest turbatio quae fuit in appetitu sensitivo, in Christo fuit ex iudicio rationis. Unde supra XI, 33, dicit quod turbavit semetipsum. In Christo enim omnia ex deliberatione rationis etiam in inferiori appetitu sensitivo proveniebant: unde nec subiti motus sensualitatis in Christo fuerunt. Voluit autem hic Iesus turbari propter duo. Primo quidem propter fidei nostrae instructionem. Nam imminebat ei passio, et mors, quam naturaliter refugit natura humana, et, cum eam sibi sentit imminere, tristatur tamquam de malo et nocivo sibi praesente."
[xxxii] On the "Verhuelltheit des Todes", death's "hiddenness, its darkness" cf. Karl Rahner, Zur Theologie des Todes (Quaestiones Disputatae 2) Freiburg et al.: Herder 1958, pp. 36 sqq.; translated by Charles H. Henkey as On the Theology of Death (New York: Herder and Herder 1961), pp. 46 sqq.
[xxxiii] Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1537: "Consequenter Dominus affectum suum lacrymis demonstrat; unde subditur Et lacrymatus est Iesus: Quae quidem lacrymae non erant ex necessitate, sed ex pietate et causa. Fons enim pietatis erat…"
[xxxiv] Ibid., no. 1533: "Circa quam quidem turbationem primo quidem attende pietatem, secundo discretionem, tertio potestatem. Pietatem quidem ex cau sa, quae est iusta. Tunc enim iuste turbatur quis, si ex aliorum tristitia et malo turbetur: et quantum ad hoc dicit Ut vidit eam plorantem; Rom. XII, 15: Gaudere cum gaudentibus et flere cum flentibus."
[xxxv] Super Ioan. 12, lect. 5. no. 1652: "Sciendum est quod Dominus turbari voluit propter duo: primo quidem propter fidei documenta, ut scilicet veritatem humanae naturae approbaret: et ideo iam ad passionem appropinquans omnia humanitus agit…"
[xxxvi] Thomas opposes the turbatio Christi to the later error of Apollinaris, Super Ioan. 12, lect. 5, no. 1654); and 13, lect. 4, no. 1798.
[xxxvii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1532: "Ubi notandum est Christum verum Deum esse et verum hominem. Et ideo ubique fere in factis suis mixta leguntur humana divinis et divina humanis: et si quandoque ponitur aliquid humanum de Christo statim additur aliquid divinum. Nihil enim infirmius de Christo legimus quam eius passionem; et tamen eo in cruce pendente divina facta patent, quod sol obscuratur, petrae scinduntur, corpora sanctorum qui dormierant resurgunt. In nativitate etiam et eo iacente in praesepio, sidus de caelo fulget, angelus laudes cecinit, magi et reges munera offerunt. Simile autem habemus in hoc loco: nam Christus secundum humanitatis affectum aliquid infirmum patitur turbationem quamdam de morte Lazari concipiens; unde dicit infremuit spiritu et turbavit semetipsum", trans. here by James A. Weisheipl OP and Fabian R. Larcher OP as Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, Part II (Petersham, Mass.: St. Bede's), p.181.
[xxxviii] Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1534 sqq. Responsio. Dicendum quod hic fremitus in Christo iram quamdam et indignationem cordis significat. Omnis autem ira et indignatio ex aliquo dolore et tristitia causatur. Duo autem hic suberant: unum de quo Christus turbabatur, quod erat mors homini inflicta propter peccatum; aliud autem de quo indignabatur erat saevitia mortis et diaboli. Unde, sicut quando aliquis vult repellere hostem, dolet de malis illatis ab ipso, et indignatur ad animadvertendum in eum, ita et Christus doluit et indignatus est. (Fremitus significat etiam) potestatem autem, quia ipse suo imperio turbavit semetipsum. Nam huiusmodi quidem passiones aliquando insurgunt ex causa indebita; sicut cum aliquis de malis gaudet et de bonis tristatur; Prov. II, 14: Qui laetantur cum male fecerint et exultant in rebus pessimis; et hoc non fuit in Christo. Unde dicit Ut vidit eam plorantem... turbavit seipsum. Aliquando insurgunt ex aliqua causa bona, non tamen ratione moderantur: et propter hoc dicit infremuit spiritu…, quasi dicat: Iudicio rationis hanc sibi tristitiam assumpsit": Weisheipl/Larcher II, 181 sq.
[xxxix] Cf. Richard Schenk, Omnis Christi actio nostra est instructio. The Deeds and Sayings of Jesus as Revelation in the view of Thomas Aquinas, in: Leo Elders (ed.), La doctrine de la révélation divine de saint Thomas d'Aquin (Studi Tomistici 37) Vatican City: Pontificia Accademia di S. Tommaso, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1990, pp. 104 - 131.
[xl] Cf. Super Ioan. 12, lect. 5, no 1651: "Huiusmodi autem passiones aliter sunt in nobis et aliter fuerunt in Christo. In nobis enim sunt ex necessitate, inquantum quasi ab extrinseco commovemur et afficimur; in Christo non sunt ex necessitate, sed ex imperio rationis, cum in eo nulla passio fuerit nisi quam ipse concitavit. Nam intantum inferiores vires erant subditae rationi in Christo quod nihil agere et pati poterant, nisi quod eis ratio ordinabat. Et ideo dicitur supra, XI, 33, quod Iesus infremuit spiritu et turbavit semetipsum; Ps. LIX, 4: Commovisti terram (idest, humanam naturam) et turbasti eam. Sic ergo turbata est anima Christi quod nec contra rationem, sed secundum rationis ordinem turbatio in eo fuit."
[xli] Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1534: "… secundum iudicium rationis turbatur; unde dicit fremuit spiritu, quasi iudicium rationis servans. In turbatione enim spiritus dicitur mens, vel ratio, secundum illud Eph. IV, 23: Renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae. Quandoque autem contingit quod huiusmodi passiones sensitivae partis nec fiunt spiritu, nec servant moderamen rationis, quin potius ipsam perturbant: quod quidem in ipso non fuit, quia infremuit spiritu."
[xlii] Super Ioan. 12, lect. 5, no. 1652: "Sciendum est quod Dominus turbari voluit propter duo: primo quidem propter fidei documenta…; secundo propter exemplum: nam si omnia constanter egisset et nullam passionem sensisset in anima, non fuisset sufficiens exemplum ad mortem sustinendam hominibus. Et ideo turbari voluit, ut, cum turbamur, non recusemus mortem sustinere, nec deficiamus; Hebr. IV, 15: Non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia, pro similitudine absque peccato. Unde ex hoc apparet continuatio cum praecedentibus. Quia enim dixerat: Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodit eam, in quo ad passionem discipulos exhortatus fuerat, ne dicant aliqui: O Domine, securus potes disputare et philosophari de morte, qui extra dolores humanos existens, propter mortem non turbaris: et ideo ut hoc excluderet, turbari voluit." Thomas is able to synthesize here elements of the Greek theology he discovered in the course of collating his own Gloss on the Gospel, paraphrazing for the Catena aurea John Chrysostom's Hom. 66 in Ioan.: "Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia Dominus ad passionem discipulos exhortatus fuerat, ne dicant, quod ipse extra dolores existens humanos facile de morte philosophatur, et nos admonet, propter hoc quod ipse est sine periculo, ostendit quod et ipse in agonia sit, et tamen propter utilitatem mortem non renuit; unde dicit Nunc anima mea turbata est."
[xliii] Citing and yet going beyond the Tract. 60 in Ioan. for John 13, 21: "Augustinus. Pereant igitur argumenta Stoicorum, qui negant in sapientem cadere perturbationem animorum; qui profecto, sicut vanitatem aestimant veritatem, sic stuporem deputant sanitatem; turbetur plane animus Christiani non miseria, sed misericordia."
[xliv] Super Ioan. 12, lect. 5, no. 1651: "…proprie dicitur turbari aliquid quando commovetur: unde et mare commotum, dicimus esse turbatum. Quandocumque ergo aliquid excedit modum suae quietis et tranquillitatis, tunc illud dicitur turbari. In anima autem humana est pars sensitiva et pars rationalis. In sensitiva quidem parte animae accidit turbatio, quando aliquibus motibus commovetur: puta cum timore contrahitur, spe elevatur, gaudio dilatatur, seu aliqua alia passione afficitur. Sed haec quidem turbatio quandoque quidem sub ratione sistit; quandoque vero limitem rationis excedit, cum scilicet ipsa ratio perturbatur. Quod quidem pluries in nobis contingit, sed in Christo hoc locum non habet, cum sit ipsa sapientia Patris; nec etiam in aliquo sapiente: Unde sententia Stoicorum est quod sapiens non turbatur, scilicet quantum ad rationem. Secundum hoc ergo est sensus: Nunc anima mea turbata est; idest, affecta est passionibus timoris et tristitiae, quantum ad sensitivam, quibus tamen ratio non turbabatur nec suum ordinem deserebat; Mc. XIV, 33: Coepit Iesus pavere et taedere." Cf. 13, lect. 4, no. 1797: "Sed attendendum, quod quidam philosophi fuerunt, scilicet Stoici, dicentes, quod huiusmodi turbatio et huiusmodi passiones in sapientem non cadunt; quamvis enim sapiens secundum eos timeat, gaudeat, et desideret, nullo modo tamen tristatur. Sed horum falsitas manifeste apparet ex hoc quod Iesus, qui est summa sapientia, turbatur. Sciendum tamen, quod duplex est turbatio. Quaedam procedit ex carne, quando scilicet quis turbatur praeter iudicium rationis ex apprehensione sensuali, quae quidem turbatio quandoque quidem consistit intra limites rationis, in nullo eam obnubilans. Quae non perfecta passio, sed propassio dicitur a Hieronymo; et haec in sapientem cadit. Quandoque autem rationis limitem excedit, et eam turbat, et est non solum passio, sed etiam turbatio; et haec in sapientem non cadit. Alia est turbatio quae procedit ex ratione, quando scilicet ex rationis iudicio et deliberatione turbatur quis in appetitu sensitivo. Et haec turbatio fuit in Christo: unde signanter dicit evangelista, quod turbatus est spiritu, idest turbatio quae fuit in appetitu sensitivo, in Christo fuit ex iudicio rationis…".
[xlv] Cf. the Catena aurea at the critical passage, John 11, 33-38: Thomas cites Augustine with the short phrase, "Quare autem flevit Christus, nisi quia homines flere docuit?" After stressing the Christological sense of Christ's turmoil, Theophylact of Ohrid is quoted as then pointing to the parenetic sense as well: "… tum etiam nos monendo, ac metam moestitiae et iucunditati imponendo. Nam ex toto nec compati nec moerere ferinum, ac horum exuberantia muliebre." Referring to Christ's turmoil about the exclusion of Judas (John 13, 21), Thomas cites but does not develop another parenetic interpretation suggested by Augustine in his Johannine treatises: "…etiam Dominus significare sua turbatione dignatus est, quod quando ex falsis fratribus aliquos separari, etiam ante messem, urgens causa compellit, fieri sine ecclesiae turbatione non possit. Turbatus est autem non carne, sed spiritu: spiritus enim in huiusmodi scandalis non perversitate, sed caritate turbatur; ne forte in separatione aliquorum zizaniorum, simul aliquod eradicetur et triticum." The citation continues in a sense more congenial to Thomas's reflections: "…sive ergo ipsum Iudam pereuntem miserando, sive sua morte appropinquante, turbatus est: non animi infirmitate, sed potestate turbatur. Non enim aliquo cogente turbatur, sed turbavit semetipsum, ut supra dictum est. Quod autem turbatur, infirmos in suo corpore, hoc est in sua ecclesia, consolatur, ut si qui suorum morte imminente turbantur, non se reprobos putent."
[xlvi] Super Ioan. 14, lect. 1, no. 1850: "Non turbetur cor vestrum …Sed supra XIII, 21, dicitur: Turbatus est Iesus spiritu, etc. Quomodo ergo docet non turbari qui primo turbatus est? Responsio. Dicendum quod non docuit contrarium eius quod fecit. De eo autem dicitur quod turbatus est spiritu, non quod spiritus eius sit turbatus. Hic autem non prohibet quin turbentur spiritu, sed prohibet quod eorum cor, idest spiritus, non turbetur. Est enim quaedam turbatio ex spiritu, ex ratione procedens, quae laudabilis est, nec prohibetur. II Cor. VII, 10: Quae enim secundum Deum tristitia est, poenitentiam in salutem stabilem operatur. Alia est tristitia seu turbatio ipsius rationis; quae non est laudabilis, quia abducit a propria rectitudine…"; Weisheipl/Larcher, p. 328.
[xlvii] Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1535: "Secundo, ut dum tristatur et cohibet seipsum, doceat modum servandum esse in tristitiis. Stoici enim dixerunt quod nullus sapiens tristatur. Sed valde inhumanum esse quod aliquis de morte alicuius non tristetur. Aliqui autem sunt qui in tristitiis de malo amicorum nimis excedunt. Sed Dominus tristari voluit, ut significet tibi quod aliquando debeas contristari, quod est contra Stoicos; et modum in tristitia tenuit, quod est contra secundos… Tertia ratio est, ut insinuet quod nos pro mortuis corporaliter tristari et plorare debemus: secundum illud Ps. XXXVII, 9: Afflictus sum, et humiliatus sum nimis…"; Weisheipl/Larcher, p. 182.
[xlviii] Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1537: "Ideo flebat, ut ostenderet non esse reprehensibile si aliquis ploret ex pietate; Eccl. XXXVIII, 16: Fili, super mortuum produc lacrymas. Flevit ex causa, ut doceret hominem propter peccatum fletibus indigere, secundum illud Ps. VI, 7: Laboravi in gemitu meo, lavabo per singulas noctes lectum meum."
[xlix] Among the most instructive presentations cf. Hermann Volk: Das christliche Verständnis des Todes, in: id., Gesammelte Schriften III (Mainz: Gruenewald 1978) pp. 185-235; J. B. Lotz, Magis anima continet corpus... quam e converso (ST I, q. 76, a. 3). Zum Verhaeltnis von Seele und Leib nach Thomas von Aquin, in: Zeitschrift fuer katholische Theologie 110 (1988) pp. 300-309; and Leo Scheffczyk: "Unsterblichkeit" bei Thomas von Aquin auf dem Hintergrund der neueren Diskussion (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse) Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften 1989.
[l] For a more detailed account of this possibility of inter-religious dialogue, cf. Richard Schenk, The Progress and End of History, Life after Death, and the Resurrection of the Human Person in the World Religions: An Attempt at a Synthesis from a Christian Perspective, in: Peter Koslowski (ed.), The Progress, Apocalypse, and Completion of History and Life after Death of the Human Person in the World Religions (Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002) pg. 104-120.
[li] ST II-II 30, 2 co.
[lii] Cf. in the work of the later Karl Rahner, especially after his shift to the theory of resurrection-in-death, the Platonic interpretation of death as self-perfection ("Selbstvollendung" ), as maturation ("Reife"/"Zeitigung"), and as the fruition ("Frucht") and harvest ("Ernte") of time, so e.g. in: K. Rahner, Grundkurs des Glaubens. Einführung in den Begriff des Christentums (Freiburg et al.: Herder 1976) pp. 267 sq., 419 sqq. For a critique of the interpretations of death as self-perfective cf. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Tod und Auferstehung in christlicher Sicht, in: Kerygma und Dogma 20 (1974) pp. 167-180. On the internal development of Rahner's theology of death cf. Norbert A. Luyten, Todesverstaendnis und Menschenverstaendnis, op. cit.; and Richard Schenk, Die Gnade vollendeter Endlichkeit, op. cit., pp. 458-477.
[liii] Super Ioan. 11, lect. 5, no. 1534: "Duo autem hic suberant: unum de quo Christus turbabatur, quod erat mors homini, inflicta propter peccatum; aliud autem de quo indignabatur, erat saevitia mortis et diaboli. Unde, sicut quando aliquis vult repellere hostem, dolet de malis illatis ab ipso, et indignatur ad animadvertendum in eum, ita et christus doluit et indignatus est."
[liv] Cf. J.B. Metz: Glaube in Geschichte und Gesellschaft (Mainz: M. Gruenewald 31980) pp. 136-148; id., Gott und Zeit – Zur Zukunft des apokalyptischen Erbes, in: Richard Schenk and Wolfgang Vögele (ed.), Apokalypse. Vortragsreihe zum Ende des Jahrtausends (Loccumer Protokolle 31/99) Loccum: Evangelische Akademie 2000, pp. 289-302.
[lv] Johann Baptist Metz, Gott. Wider den Mythos von der Ewigkeit der Zeit, in: Tiemo Rainer Peters and Claus Urban (ed.), Ende der Zeit? Die Provokation der Rede von Gott (Mainz: Grünewald, 1999), pp. 32-50, here pp. 44 sq.