Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 2 Comments

The Childhood of a Thought

A thought arrived one morning, as thoughts do, carrying the particular confidence of a thing that has been here before.

It came wearing familiar clothing — a worry I recognize, a narrative I have followed many times down the same corridor to the same small room. It arrived not as a stranger but as a regular guest who knows where the kettle is kept, who doesn’t bother knocking anymore.

I noticed this. Not immediately — that would be too tidy. For a few moments I followed it where it wanted to go, the way you follow someone down a hallway before you realize you were not intending to go in that direction.

And then something shifted. Not through discipline, not through the effort of attention redirected. More like a small adjustment in altitude. A step back and up — just slightly — to somewhere I could see the thought from the outside, the way you see weather from a hillside rather than from inside it.

That small shift is what I want to share with you today.

Most of us live in the valley most of the time. It is not a criticism — it is just the default geography of an unexamined life.

In the valley, thoughts become indistinguishable from the one thinking them. You are anxious and you are the anxiety. You are grieving and you are the grief. You are the irritated version of yourself in the car behind the slow driver, and you are entirely that irritation, with no remainder.

The valley is not a bad place. It is an honest place. Everything feels real there because it is real — the thought you are inside is a genuine thought, the feeling it carries is a genuine feeling. The valley doesn’t lie to you about the temperature.

What the valley withholds is the view.

From the hillside, you can still see the weather in the valley. You are not pretending it isn’t there. You are not trying to achieve some elevated spiritual state, above the ordinary mess of things. You are simply — and this simplicity is the whole of it — at a vantage point from which the thought can be seen as a thought, rather than lived as the whole of reality.

The hillside is not distant. It is available whenever you remember to look for it. The practice of Sacred Noticing — the Pause, the small breath before response — is the path up the hillside. It is not a long path. Sometimes it is one step.

Here is what the contemplative tradition rarely tells us: from the hillside, the thought is not frightening.

It is, in fact, rather like a child playing hide and seek.

My granddaughter, who has hidden behind the curtain — the curtain that does not reach the floor, the feet clearly visible beneath it — is entirely certain she cannot be seen. This certainty is not a failure of intelligence. It is the logic of hiding. She has entered the game fully, has committed to the position, and is experiencing with complete sincerity the thrill of concealment.

From where I am standing, I can see her completely. I know exactly where she is. I am in no danger of being surprised.

And what you feel — if you are paying attention to what you actually feel rather than what you think you should feel — is not strategic advantage. It is affection. She is delightful precisely in her certainty of invisibility. You are not trying to defeat her. You are not trying to expose her as a fraud. You can simply see her, and see her from love.

 

I can see you.

 

This is the interior movement that changes everything. Not a shout. Not an accusation. A quiet recognition, offered without alarm.

The thought that has been arriving with such confident familiarity — the one that knows where the kettle is, that doesn’t knock anymore — when seen from the hillside, does something interesting. It shifts. Repackages. Tries a slightly different approach, a new disguise, a different door. Because the pattern that has been running on the groove of long habit is not accustomed to being seen. It has relied on invisibility. The groove is its infrastructure.

And you, from the hillside, can watch this with something very close to tenderness. Because the hiding child is not your enemy. This is a pattern that learned, somewhere, that this particular hiding place was safe. It has childhoods of its own.

Evagrius Ponticus was a fourth-century desert father whose insight into the inner life remains startling sixteen centuries later. He called these recurring visitors logismoi — not quite the word “thoughts” in our modern sense, but thoughts with momentum, thoughts that have learned to travel in particular patterns, thoughts that arrive not randomly but along the groove worn by all their previous arrivals.

Evagrius was not describing pathology. He was describing the ordinary interior landscape of any person who pays attention. The thoughts of anxiety, of restlessness, of accumulated grievance — these are not signs that something has gone wrong. They are signs that something happened, and the groove it wore is still there, still operative, still offering its well-worn path to the mind that arrives unguarded.

What the desert fathers knew — and what the hiding child helps us feel rather than merely understand — is that the groove is not the self. The thought is not the thinker. The weather is not the valley.

You did not choose the first arrival of the thought that arrives most persistently now. You were not always in a position to choose what happened when it arrived. The groove was worn before you had the vocabulary for it, in rooms you may no longer be able to name.

But you are here now. On the hillside. With a view you did not always have.

Let’s be honest about what this practice can and cannot do.

You cannot, through the act of noticing a thought from the hillside, simply choose to be free of it. The groove does not disappear because you have seen it. The pattern that has been running for years does not dissolve in the recognition.

What changes is smaller — and more important.

The moment between the thought’s arrival and your following it — that is where freedom actually lives. Not in heroic moral choice, not in the achievement of a spiritual state, not in the successful suppression of an unwanted interior visitor. In the gap. In the brief moment where the hillside view is available and the groove has not yet run.

Evagrius was precise about this. The thought arriving is not a moral event. The following is where choice enters. And the choice, in the beginning, can be nothing more dramatic than: I can see you.

That seeing — held for even five seconds before the pattern runs — is the practice. It does not require the suppression of the thought or the prior resolution of whatever the thought carries. It requires only the momentary altitude of the hillside view.

And here is what becomes true over time, through practice rather than through discipline: the groove grows shallower. Not because you have fought it successfully. Because the following — the automatic, unexamined continuation — has been interrupted enough times that the groove’s infrastructure begins, slowly, to loosen.

You are not choosing to be free. You are practicing the single small act of freedom that is actually available to you, in the actual moment you find yourself in.

Which, it turns out, is enough.

 

The Thought That Arrived

It came in wearing yesterday’s clothes,

certain of its welcome,

certain I wouldn’t notice

what it had been wearing last time.

I noticed.

Not in triumph.

The way you notice a child

who believes the curtain

reaches the floor.

I can see you,

I said, without saying anything.

And watched it

try a different angle.

Repackage.

Arrive as something else.

Quieter.

More itself.

The thought passed.

The way weather passes

when nothing holds it.

And the room received

what the thought

would have prevented.

 

The thoughts you have been hosting are not you.

They are the patterns formed by what you did with thoughts that came before them. They have childhoods too — shaped by receptions you barely remember making, in rooms you may not even be able to name.

You did not choose the first arrival. You were not always in a position to choose what happened next.

But you are here now.

On the hillside.

With a view you did not always have.

And what moves through the gap the hillside creates is not yours to manufacture.

It is yours to receive.

 

Which has always been the better invitation.

 

Which thought has been arriving longest — and what would change if you could watch it from the hillside just once before it becomes the weather?

 

— Michael

spiritualbreak.com

 

“I want to mention quietly, as you are my closest readers, that The Practice of Sacred Noticing book is now available at Barnes and Noble and Amazon, in both print and digital formats. You’ll find it here. I’ll have signed copies ready to send in about ten days if you’d like to wait for one of those instead. Either way, I’m glad it’s finally in the world.”

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 4 Comments

The Play We Have Already Written

A Spiritual Reflection on the Characters We Carry

Somewhere along the way, without quite deciding to, we became playwrights.

Not of fiction. Of the people we know.

We took the person — the partner, the colleague, the difficult brother, the aging parent, the friend who disappoints us in the same way every time — and we began to write them. Slowly, from accumulated evidence. Scene by scene, exchange by exchange, over months and years of shared life, until we had assembled something remarkably complete: a full character, with established traits, predictable responses, known weaknesses, recognizable lines.

We know what they will say before they say it. We know how they will react before they react. We know the shape of their resistance, the particular texture of their defensiveness, the way they will eventually come around or the way they definitively will not. We have, without ever using the word for it, become the expert on who they are.

And we carry that character with us into every encounter. Already written. Already cast. Already placed, in our minds, in the scene that is about to unfold.

Evagrius (fourth century theologian) would have recognized this. He mapped a version of it in his teaching on the logismoi — the thought-streams that arise within us and, if unobserved, construct a narrative so familiar that we mistake it for reality. The logismos of anger, for example, does not simply make us irritable. At its more developed stages it creates an entire interpretive framework — a lens through which the person before us is perpetually seen as threatening, inadequate, or in need of correction. We are no longer responding to what they are doing. We are responding to the character that anger, operating invisibly within us, has written for them.

The same is true of sadness, which writes characters that perpetually fail us. Of vainglory, which writes characters as audiences for our own performance. Of pride, which writes everyone as slightly less than ourselves. Each passion has its preferred cast, its recurring narrative, its predetermined ending toward which every scene is quietly being directed.

We do not experience this as bias. We experience it as knowledge.

This is who they are. I know them. I have seen this before. I know how this goes.

And we are often right enough about enough details that the illusion of accurate perception is very convincingly maintained. The character we have written is, after all, based on real observation. It is not fabricated from nothing. The difficulty is more subtle than simple error.

The difficulty is that the character has become fixed. The person before us continues to live and change and surprise — continues to carry, within them, the full unpredictable depth of a human soul that no amount of accumulated observation has yet fully disclosed. But the character we carry has stopped moving. It was written at some point, with the evidence available at that point, and it has remained largely unchanged since. Because changing it would require us to receive something new about this person, and receiving something new requires the willingness to be surprised, and the willingness to be surprised requires the one thing that long familiarity most powerfully resists.

The Pause. Here is what actually happens, in the ordinary exchanges of ordinary life, when the play we have written meets the person who is supposed to be performing it.

We arrive at the encounter already inside the script. Our position is prepared. Our likely response to their likely response is already assembled. We have, in the privacy of our own minds, conducted a version of this conversation before it has begun — and we have arrived, in that private rehearsal, at the conclusion we need. Now we simply require the other person to play their part so we can arrive there together.

They generally do not comply perfectly. People rarely do. There is usually some deviation from the expected lines — a moment of unexpected warmth from someone we had written as cold, a deflection where we anticipated engagement, a silence where we had scripted defensiveness. These deviations are the grace in the encounter. They are the place where the actual person momentarily exceeds the character we have assigned them.

But we rarely notice them as grace. More often we experience them as interference. An anomaly to be explained, or absorbed back into the existing framework, or noted as an exception that does not disturb the general characterization we have established.

Because the script, once written, is remarkably resistant to revision.

Evagrius called the unobserved operation of the passions a form of captivity — not dramatic captivity, not the captivity of obvious sin, but the quiet captivity of a person who has lost the ability to truly see because the thought-stream operating within them has become the lens through which everything is perceived. The logismos of anger does not announce itself as anger. It presents itself as accurate perception. I am not angry. I am simply seeing this person clearly.

This is the deepest form of the dynamic. We are not performing a script. We are perceiving reality. The character we have written is not a character to us — it is the person. And the narrative we have pre-determined is not a narrative — it is simply what is true.

Sacred Noticing addresses this not by telling us we are wrong about the people we think we know — which is both ineffective and often partially untrue — but by interrupting the sequence at its most critical point.

Between the first movement of recognition and the assembled response, there is a gap.

In that gap, if we allow it, something is possible that the script cannot accommodate.

Notice. Something is arising. A familiar pattern in this person, or so it seems. A movement within me that I recognize — the particular quality of readiness that means I already know what this is and what I think of it.

Notice that too. Notice not just what the other person is doing, but what is already assembling inside me in response. The character I am about to address is not only out there. It is also, and perhaps primarily, an interior construction. I am the playwright. And I am about to perform my own scripted role in the scene I have written.

Pause. Not to interrogate this. Not to analyze the origins of the characterization or work through whether it is fair. Simply to stop, for one moment, before the prepared response is delivered.

In that pause, nothing is required. The script is still there. The character is still there. The accumulated history that produced both is still entirely present. The pause does not erase any of it.

It simply creates, within the encounter, one moment of genuine openness. One moment in which the question is not how do I respond to who I know this person to be but something quieter and more honest: who is actually here?

That question — barely a question, more like a brief interior opening — is one of the most radical acts available to a human being in ordinary relational life. It does not require the dismantling of everything we know. It requires only the willingness, for one unrehearsed moment, to not know completely.

Respond. What comes from that open moment is not the scripted response. It is something less defended, less strategic, less aimed at the predetermined conclusion. It may still say something very similar to what the script would have said. But it will carry a different quality — the quality of something that has actually received the person before speaking to them.

That difference is not always visible from the outside. Sometimes it changes nothing practically. But it changes everything in the quality of the encounter itself — for the person who is finally, even briefly, being met rather than managed. And for the one who has finally, even briefly, set down the burden of already knowing.

The characters we carry are not malicious. They are the accumulated effort of a self trying to navigate a complex world with some degree of orientation and efficiency. They are, in their own way, a form of love — the love that pays enough attention to actually learn the shape of another person’s patterns and difficulties and gifts.

The problem is not that we know the people we love. The problem is when knowing hardens into certainty. When the living, changing, perpetually surprising person before us disappears into the fixed character we have constructed in their place. When the play we have written becomes more real to us than the person standing in front of us, waiting — whether they know it or not — to be received rather than performed at.

Evagrius spent his life in the desert learning to see his own interior movements before they became his perception of reality. He called this nepsis — the unhurried watchfulness that notices what is arising before it becomes the lens through which everything is seen.

Sacred Noticing takes that ancient practice and walks it directly into the encounter — into the moment when the character you have written for someone else is about to be confirmed once again, and the space between recognition and response opens, briefly, like a window.

In that space, you do not have to perform your part.

You do not have to deliver the line the script requires.

You can simply pause — and in pausing, receive the extraordinary ordinary gift of the actual person. Who is always, it turns out, more than you wrote them to be. More complex, more fragile, more capable of surprise. More themselves, and therefore more capable of genuine encounter, than the character ever was.

The play we have written is not the scripture of their life.

It is only, and at most, our first draft.

Grace, when we allow it, is always working on a revision.

 

 

 

© Michael J. Cunningham, OFS — spiritualbreak.com.

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 1 Comment

The Borrowed Cloak

The Borrowed Cloak

A Reflection on the Stripping in the Square

From the Way of Francis  ·  Jubilee Pilgrimage, Station Four

 

In the bishop’s square of Assisi, on a spring afternoon in 1206, a young man took off his clothes.

The story has lasted eight hundred years, and you do not have to be Catholic, or religious, or even particularly drawn to medieval saints for it to land. What happened in that square is one of the great hinge moments in the long human story of refusing to live a life defined by someone else — and it happened because something inside Francis Bernardone had finally broken in the right direction.

His father had taken him to court. Pietro Bernardone — successful cloth merchant, heir-builder, social climber — had run out of patience with a son who would not return to the family business, would not stop giving things away, would not stop kneeling in ruined chapels. He wanted his money back, and he wanted, more than that, his son back. The bishop, (present in the square) was trying to restore the peace, urged Francis to surrender the disputed funds and trust in providence.

Francis did not stop at the money.

He went into the bishop’s house. He came back out carrying every garment he had on him. He folded them with care and laid them at his father’s feet. He said, in essence: I am no longer your son in the way you have meant me to be. I have a different Father now.

The bishop, weeping, wrapped him in his own cloak.

 

WHAT HE SET DOWN

It is tempting to read this story as the renunciation of money, and stop there. Money is a familiar thing to give up — at least in our imaginations. We can picture the cloth, the coins, the warehouse keys. We are practiced at admiring Franciscan poverty in the abstract.

But cloth was not the heaviest thing Francis was carrying.

What he set down at his father’s feet was an entire identity composed by other people. A son’s role. A merchant’s future. The whole architecture of expectation that had been built around him before he was old enough to refuse it. He gave back the story — the one in which he was supposed to become a prosperous and well-regarded citizen of Assisi, in which his charm and ambition would be put to predictable use, in which the shape of his life would be drawn by appetites that were not his own.

He could not become Francis until he stopped being the version of himself that Pietro had been writing.

The genius of this scene — and the reason it has not lost its force in eight hundred years — is that the divestment is total without being cruel. He does not curse his father. He does not tear the cloth. He folds the clothes. He places them down. He simply will not carry them another step.

 

THE BORROWED CLOAK

What strikes me, year after year, is what happened next.

Francis did not stand naked for long. The bishop wrapped him in his cloak. The world he had just renounced — represented in that moment by the Bishop, (dressed in vestments), who could not have predicted any of this — covered him with his own cloak. The freedom Francis was walking into did not leave him exposed. It clothed him in something borrowed, something gifted, something not his own.

This is the Franciscan economy in a single image. We let go of what was given to us by inheritance and self-protection and acquisitive habit. And what we are then given back is received. Borrowed. Held lightly. Returned to its source eventually, gratefully, without grasping.

Lady Poverty — the medieval name Francis gave to this whole way of living — is not the absence of provision. She is the presence of trust.

 

EIGHT CENTURIES ON

Eight hundred years later, in a valley on the other side of the world, in a retreat center named for the chapel where Francis first knelt, the same gesture is still trying to take shape in us.

It does not look identical. We are not, most of us, called to undress in public squares. We are called, instead, to a quieter and more sustained version of the same act — to set down, again and again, the inherited self that gets in the way of the called self.

That is what every retreat is, finally. A square. A clearing. A moment in which we are invited to fold up something we have been wearing too long.

It is also what the Franciscan approach to hospitality has always been. When San Damiano commits that no one will ever be turned away for lack of means — when the suggested donation is offered without ever becoming a gate — that is not marketing. That is the heart of it. That is Francis at the bishop’s feet, and the bishop covering him, and the world shifting an inch closer to what it was always meant to be.

Money is not the enemy. Money as the price of belonging is the enemy. Francis broke the assumption — for himself in 1206, and for us now — that what is most worth receiving must first be earned, deserved, or paid for.

That is the freedom we are still learning to extend.

 

THE SQUARE WE STAND IN

Each of us, in some season, will stand in a version of that square.

The clothes will be different. For some it will be a job that has long since stopped fitting but feels too dangerous to remove. For some it will be a story their family has told about who they are — the responsible one, the difficult one, the one who never quite arrived. For some it will be a grief they have been wearing so long they have mistaken it for skin. For some it will be a successful life that quietly does not contain them.

The square is wherever the costume becomes intolerable.

What Francis shows us is that the right response, when we get there, is not to manage it more skillfully. It is to set it down. Not in despair. Not as protest. As an act of trust that something else will be given.

There is a word for this — detachment — a word that sounds austere until you have actually tried it, at which point it begins to sound like relief.

 

WHAT WE MIGHT GAIN

What we gain is not nothing. This kind of letting-go is never about ending up with less.

We gain the freedom of an unburdened identity — the lightness of finally not having to be someone for anybody.

We gain the capacity to hear the actual call — the one that has been waiting underneath all the inherited noise.

We gain a kind of joy that is unmistakable when you encounter it in the genuinely Franciscan: the joy of a person who is not performing.

We gain, perhaps most surprisingly, the ability to receive. The borrowed cloak. The unearned grace. The provision we did not arrange for ourselves.

We gain a Father in heaven who was never going to send us a bill. We gain — in language that fits whatever tradition or none — the slow, astonishing discovery that what we most needed was never something we could have bought.

 

“Start by doing what is necessary; then do what is possible;

and suddenly you are doing the impossible.”

—  Saint Francis of Assisi

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham

The Spiritual Footprint You Are Already Leaving Behind

The Spiritual Footprint You Are Already Leaving Behind

On the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Franciscan Way

 

There is a moment most of us have had and almost none of us have named.

You are with someone — in their kitchen, across a hospital bed, at the end of a phone call that went longer than you expected — and when you leave, something has shifted. Not because of what was said. Not because anything was resolved. But because of a quality in that person’s presence that you received before you understood what it was.

Peace. A sense of being genuinely seen. The feeling, arriving without explanation, that you are not as alone as you thought you were five minutes ago.

You carry it home. You set it down gently on the counter of your interior life, unsure what to do with it but unwilling to let it go entirely.

That exchange — that unnamed gift moving between two ordinary people in an ordinary place — is what the tradition has always been trying to describe. We have elaborate theological language for it. We have the Gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, fortitude, piety, fear of the Lord. We have Paul’s list of fruits in Galatians: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

What we are less practiced at is recognizing them in the wild.

Francis of Assisi was, among many other things, the most effective demonstrator in Christian history of what happens when a human life stops getting in the way of these gifts.

He did not acquire them. He did not earn them through virtue or study or the accumulation of holy experiences. He stripped away everything that was sitting on top of them.

The poverty of Francis — the poverello, the little poor man — is usually understood as a social or economic posture. And it was. But it was also an interior posture. Francis divested himself of the armor of assumption. He arrived at every person and every creature without defenses, without a predetermined category, without needing the encounter to be anything other than what it was. And in that radical openness, something that had been given to him long before — at his Baptism, at his Confirmation, in the bread broken at ten thousand Masses — found its way through.

He held still long enough for the Gifts to do what they had always been able to do.

Consider what happens when we do not hold still.

The Gift of Understanding is the capacity to perceive what is actually happening beneath the surface of a moment — the real emotion under the difficult behavior, the fear beneath the complaint, the longing beneath the silence. It is not a skill. It is not emotional intelligence, though it resembles it. It is a grace, placed in us at our anointing, waiting for the moment we stop moving fast enough to use it.

When Francis rounded a bend outside Assisi and found a leper standing in the road, the Gift of Understanding was present in him. What was not present — what had to be overcome — was the entire apparatus of his upbringing telling him what the leper was: a category, a disease, something to cross the street to avoid. Francis stopped. He looked. He held still long enough for the Gift to speak. And what the Gift said, in that held stillness, was: there is a person here. The trace of God is in this face. Look.

He dismounted. He embraced him. And Francis later said that this — not the voice at San Damiano, not the wounds on La Verna — was the moment everything changed. The moment he stopped looking away. The moment the Gift found its opening.

The Gift of Understanding was present in him. What had to be overcome was everything telling him what the leper was.

The Franciscan tradition offers us a word for this capacity to dwell in a moment rather than manage it: contemplatio. Not contemplation as a spiritual specialty reserved for monks in silent enclosures. Contemplation as a posture anyone can carry into any Tuesday.

The disciples had ten days in the upper room before Pentecost. The Gifts arrived in wind and fire and the sudden ability to speak into the hearts of strangers. Most of us will not have ten days. We will have three breaths.

But those three breaths are the same interior clearing, at a different scale. The first breath interrupts the reflex — something is happening here, and I am going to stop and notice it before I decide what it means. The second breath grounds you in this actual moment — not the accumulated weight of similar moments, not the anticipated shape of the conversation yet to come, but here, now, this. The third breath opens you to what is actually needed — not what you prepared to say, not what habit suggests, but what this moment, this person, this encounter is genuinely asking for.

In that third breath, the Gift of Counsel becomes available. Not as a mystical infusion but as a quiet knowing — the right word, arriving from somewhere below your thinking mind, that you did not plan and could not have predicted. You recognize it precisely because it does not feel entirely like you. It feels like something passing through you.

It is.

Paul calls them fruits for a reason that goes deeper than metaphor.

You do not produce fruit. You create the conditions — good soil, sufficient water, the patient willingness to be pruned — and the fruit grows. The Gifts are the root system, placed in you at your Baptism and tended at every sacrament since. The fruits are what grows from that root when the conditions are right: when you are present enough, still enough, undefended enough to stop blocking what has been trying to move through you since before you could speak.

The peace you gave someone who did not know they needed it. The patience that arrived in a moment when impatience would have been entirely understandable. The kindness that surprised even you — that came from somewhere quieter than your intention and landed more truly than anything you had planned to say.

These are not achievements. They are not evidence of your spiritual progress. They are evidence of the Gifts doing what the Gifts do when we get out of the way.

Every life leaves a spiritual footprint in the world. A trace. An impression in the space between people — something of who you are, what you are carrying, where the Spirit is moving in your life — that is available to anyone paying the kind of attention that makes it visible. The person who left you steadier than they found you was not performing a virtue. They were, in that moment, available. The weight had briefly lifted. The fruit grew.

You are leaving that footprint right now. In the kitchen, in the car, in the difficult meeting that went too long. In the silence after a hard conversation. In the small decision — made when no one is watching — about whether to respond from love or from something smaller.

The question is not whether you are leaving a trace. That is happening regardless. The question is whether you are doing it intentionally — whether you are practicing the conditions that allow the Gifts to move more freely, more often, in more ordinary moments.

Every life leaves a spiritual footprint. The question is not whether you are leaving a trace. The question is whether you are doing it intentionally.

The Franciscan charism, distilled to its essence, is the conviction that the Word became flesh — and therefore that no piece of ordinary life is outside the reach of the sacred. God chose the unremarkable. The feeding trough, not the palace. The dusty road, the tax collector’s table, the leper on the bend outside Assisi.

Sacred Noticing is the practice that takes that conviction seriously. It is the discipline of the poverello applied to attention: arriving at each moment stripped of the armor of assumption, open to what is actually there rather than what you have already decided to see. It is the practice of contemplatio applied to the ordinary: holding still long enough for what has been given to speak. It is the expression of fraternitas in its most practical form: recognizing in every person you encounter a brother, a sister, someone in whom the trace of God is present and worth receiving.

Notice. Pause. Respond from the deep place.

Not a system. A description of how wisdom actually moves in a human life when it is not being blocked.

The burning bush was burning before Moses arrived.

He turned aside and looked. That single act — the willingness to stop, to notice, to resist the reflex to keep moving — was enough for the whole conversation to begin. The Gifts were not delivered that morning to a man who had earned them. They were made available to a man who finally held still.

You were anointed. The Gifts are in you, placed there by the God who chose the ordinary as the primary medium of revelation.

 

You only need to notice.

 

 

 

About the Author

Michael J. Cunningham, OFS, D.Min., is Executive Director of San Damiano Franciscan Retreat Center in Danville, California, and a member of the Order of Franciscan Seculars. This reflection draws on the Saturday morning conference “Sacred Noticing and the Franciscan Way,” part of the Rebuild My Church: A Franciscan Jubilee Year Parish Retreat series. Information at sandamiano.org.

His new book, The Practice of Sacred Noticing: Transforming Your Spiritual Footprint, will be published by Contemplative Company on May 15, 2026, and is available on Amazon and most booksellers.

 

spiritualbreak.com  ·  San Damiano Franciscan Retreat Center  ·  sandamiano.org

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 2 Comments

The Fruits of the Gifts

The Fruits of the Gifts A reflection from spiritualbreak.com

I want to ask you something before we begin.

When was the last time someone was genuinely patient with you — not performing patience, not managing their reaction with visible effort, but simply patient, in a way that felt effortless and real — and you thought to yourself: that is a Gift of the Holy Spirit?

I am guessing the answer is not recently. Or possibly ever.

We tend to notice the fruit. We rarely trace it back to its root.

Here is something I have been sitting with.

We were taught — and the teaching is not wrong, exactly, just incomplete — that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are something we receive and then, over time, develop. Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, Fear of the Lord. Given at Baptism, confirmed at Confirmation, and then — the unspoken implication — waiting to be earned through a life of sufficient virtue, or learned through years of sufficient formation.

Earn or learn. That is the frame most of us are carrying.

And it is the frame, I think, that quietly separates us from something we already have.

The Gifts are not waiting for our readiness. They were placed in us before we had any idea what to do with them. They did not arrive conditionally. They were not issued on a provisional basis pending our spiritual development. They are already present, already operative, already ours — in the full, unconditional sense of a gift from a God who does not give the way we give, with an eye on whether the recipient has done enough to deserve it.

This is not a small distinction.

If the Gifts are something we earn, then the question I am always asking is: have I done enough yet? Am I sufficiently holy, sufficiently formed, sufficiently advanced on the spiritual path to expect Wisdom or Counsel to move through me today, in this ordinary moment, with this person I am finding difficult?

The answer, most days, is no. And so we wait. And the Gifts sit.

If the Gifts are something we learn, the question becomes: do I understand them well enough? Have I been through enough formation, read enough of the right books, practiced enough of the right disciplines to deploy them with any confidence?

Again, most days, the answer is some version of not quite. And so we defer. And the Gifts sit.

But if the Gifts are simply gift — given, present, already ours — then neither of these questions is the right one. The question is not whether we are worthy or whether we are ready. The question is only whether we are available.

I want to be honest about why this is harder than it sounds.

When something is given to you — genuinely given, not earned or learned — there is a particular kind of disorientation that follows. We are not very good at receiving. We are much more comfortable with a transaction we understand: I put in this, I get out that. Gift, in the pure sense, disrupts the transaction. It arrives without an invoice. It cannot be repaid. And without the familiar structure of earning or learning, we are left with a question we do not quite know how to answer: what do I do now?

And into that gap — the gap between receiving a Gift we did not earn and knowing what to do with it — two things tend to move in.

The first is the mind, with its reasonable desire to be in charge. If I cannot earn this or learn this, then let me at least manage it. Let me deliberate about when to deploy patience and how much understanding to offer and whether this situation warrants Counsel or whether I am reading it wrong. The mind steps in with the best of intentions, and in doing so, becomes a kind of intermediary between the Gift and the moment it was given for. The ego, trying to be helpful, ends up being an obstacle.

The second is something subtler. A quiet resistance that does not quite believe the Gifts are a natural part of us. That they belong to another category of person — holier, more practiced, more naturally contemplative. That when something like Wisdom or Fortitude moves through us, it must have been an accident, or someone else’s prayer on our behalf, or a good day we happened to be having. We discount it. We explain it away. We keep it at arm’s length, because to claim it as ours would feel, somehow, presumptuous.

Both of these — the deliberating mind and the resisting heart — have the same effect. They separate us from what was given. Not maliciously. Not even consciously. Just by inserting something between us and the Gift that was never supposed to be there.

What I find most striking is that this separation is not a spiritual failure. It is almost a spiritual inevitability, given how we have been formed.

We have been taught to work for what we receive. We have been shaped by communities that, with genuine love and genuine theological seriousness, emphasized the importance of formation, practice, and growth. None of that is wrong. But somewhere in the transmission, the Gifts got quietly reclassified as achievements rather than endowments. And once that happened, we started approaching our own spiritual inheritance with the posture of a student rather than the posture of a recipient.

The student asks: am I getting this right?

The recipient asks: what is being given here, right now, that I might allow through?

The fruits — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control — are what emerge when the Gifts are unobstructed. They are not produced by trying. They are not the reward for getting the practice right. They are what naturally appears when something that was always present stops being blocked.

The question Sacred Noticing puts to me, every day, is a simple one.

What did I put between myself and the Gift today?

Was it the deliberating mind, calculating whether this was the right moment and whether I had enough spiritual capital to offer something real? Was it the quiet disbelief that Wisdom or Counsel could actually be mine to offer, in this unremarkable moment, to this ordinary person in front of me?

Or did I, even briefly, get out of the way?

I do not think this is a question that generates answers so much as attention. Which is perhaps where it wants to leave us.

The Gifts are present.

They have always been present.

They are waiting not for our readiness but for our willingness to stop standing between them and the moment they were given for.

What would it mean to simply let them through?

 

Add ten seconds to each moment, And my response would be better, kinder, warmer, more forgiving, than my first.

But can I ever be as loving as He is to me?

— Michael Cunningham OFS

Michael J. Cunningham, OFS, D.Min. is the author of The Practice of Sacred Noticing: Transforming Your Spiritual Footprint (Contemplative Company, 2026) and Executive Director of San Damiano Franciscan Retreat Center in Danville, California. Weekly reflections at spiritualbreak.com.