Inaugural lecture

CÉSAR IZQUIERDO, lecturer at School of Theology

Sara's laughter
Theology and humour

Your Excellency Mr. President Magnificent
Your Excellencies
faculty and Students
Ladies and Gentlemen

First of all, I would like to express my understanding for the surprise and even scepticism that will have arisen in more than one person when they see that theology and humour are linked. Theology and humour... isn't that an oxymoron? Theology deals with essentially serious and transcendent things: God, man, salvation, grace, sin, the sacraments... all things that we rightly say should not be laughed at.

To answer the question about the possible relationship between theology and humour, I am inspired by the 18th chapter of the book of Genesis in which three mysterious men who visit the aged Abraham announce to him that Sarah his wife will bear him a son from whom peoples and nations will be born. "Abraham ... smiled and said to himself, "Can a man of a hundred years bear a son, and can Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth to him"? (Gen 17:17). The same is repeated with Sarah who, hearing the same message, smiled inwardly. Sarah's laughter is followed by the following dialogue: "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Am I really going to give birth when I am old? Is there anything difficult for the Lord? At the appointed time, next spring I will come back to you, and Sarah will have had a son. Sarah denied it, saying, "I have not laughed," for she was afraid. But he said to her, 'No, you have laughed'" (Gen 18:13-15). Indeed, she had laughed, as is confirmed by Sarah's own words a little later, in Gen 21:6, after she had given birth to Isaac, a name that includes the meaning of laughing or laughter: "Then Sarah said, 'God has made me laugh; those who hear it will laugh with me'" (Gen 21:6).

I will answer the question of the meaning of Sara's laughter later. For the moment I will limit myself to observing that smiles, laughter and laughter are ordinary manifestations provoked by the humour produced by a given fact or reality. The humorous reaction arises when someone synthetically perceives elements that do not fit into a logical order, but clash with each other without cancelling each other out, thus showing that reality itself cannot be reduced to logic, but can only be perceived by those who can grasp the totality, even if they are not in a position to explain it.

Humour and its theories

I do not forget that we are at the university and that, as with any other issue, a critical reflection on humour should be offered.

In recent years, programs of study on humour has undergone an extraordinary development: on its nature, its origin, its history, its effects, etc. There is an abundance of programs of study in the field of neuroscience, psychology, sociology, etc.

But the serious, philosophical consideration of humour and comedy has aroused the suspicions of Umberto Eco, who thinks that humour and the comic have always represented a challenge for philosophers who have found themselves in trouble when it comes to defining it.

Not without malice, Eco gives a list of authors who have dealt with the comic while being essentially "serious":

(a) a thinker as serious as Aristotle, who introduces the comic precisely as the final explanation of the tragic. (b) a philosopher as fussy, moralising and austere as Kant; (c) another philosopher as austere, dull and not at all prone to jokes as Hegel; (d) a romantic, morbid and plaintive - though reasonably despairing - poet like Baudelaire; (e) a somewhat sombre and existentially anguished thinker like Kierkegaard; (f) some psychologists with little sense of humour, e.g. the German Lipps; (g) Bergson; and (h) the father of neurosis, Sigmund Freud, who revealed the tragic aspects and the death wish that lie at the bottom of our unconscious.

The conditions of humour

It is not necessary to offer a new theory of humour to detect some subjective and objective conditions that make it possible. I will refer to three conditions: the synthetic perception, the concrete case, the incarnated reality. In the case of humour linked to theology there is a fourth condition that has to do with the relationship between the grace of humour and the Grace of God.

Humour is only accessible to synthesis, and is reluctant to be analysed. When someone needs to have the humor of a status or a joke explained to them, one cannot expect hilarity to follow, but perhaps some further question, such as subject "and why did he say..." or "why doesn't he do...", to finally end with "Oh, right", i.e. with rational assent to what is essentially not very rational.

Another condition for humour to emerge is that there is an environment in which it manifests itself. the concrete and the contingent. Essences, and ideologies too, are perfect and complete, they are governed by necessary implications and there is no room for the mismatches and incongruities that feed the good-humoured gaze. For example, mathematics: a issue, an algorithm has nothing humorous about it. Only when they are applied to the concrete, when they open up to particular relations with the human, is there room for the possibility of a humorous look or judgement (as is the case with the animal that has between three and four eyes: the pi-eye).

Nor is there any room for humour in the strictly spiritual because, in the absence of composition, contraposition, contrast or clash, it is totally malleable. For the spiritual to be susceptible to humour, it must be "incarnated" in the corporeal, in the physical, in the temporal, which are those that can harbour the opposites that coexist together, the maladjusted, the inadequate; the humorous, in a word.

In his 1900 work Laughter, Bergson pointed out that the tragic poet tries to avoid everything material. That is why," Bergson writes, "the heroes of tragedy neither drink, nor eat, nor warm themselves. As far as possible they do not even sit down. To sit down in the middle of a speech would be to remember that one has a body". He goes on to recount Napoleon's comment when he met the Queen of Prussia after the battle of Jena: "She received me in a tragic tone, like Jimena: Justice, justice I ask! Magdeburg! She continued in that tone which annoyed me so much. I begged him to sit down, so that he would stop it at once. Nothing ends better with a tragic scene, for when one is seated, the status becomes comedy".

We can conclude that the basic condition for humour to emerge is found in those who accept reality as it is, without trivialising it and without turning it into a weapon to attack or deform social perception. By seeing things in their inadequacy, with their contrasts and imbalances, the funny side they present, he accepts them without feeling manager of them and, at the same time, without renouncing to understand or solve them.

Humour in the Bible

Is there humour in the Bible? This question has been of interest to authors for some time now. Of course, the answer is largely influenced by the culture of each author. For example, Hershey Friedman gives as an example of humour the text of Num 11:18-20. "The Lord will give you meat to eat. And you shall eat it not for a day, nor for two, nor for ten, nor for twenty, but for a whole month, until it comes out of your nostrils and makes you sick to your stomach". The passage is graphic, to be sure, but it is not the subject of humour that provokes a smile. Instead, Friedman has missed an earlier passage (v.5). It must have been a moment of deep depression for the Hebrews when they exclaimed: "How we remember the fish we ate free in Egypt, and the cucumbers, watermelons, leeks, onions and garlic!

In summary, we can affirm that the presence of humour in the Bible does not appear in its direct and intentional expression. The sapiential teaching sees laughter in its double sense of expression of joy or lightness. The laughter of Sarah and Abraham is a special case which we will analyse. On the other hand, Scripture insistently invites us to joy and hope.

Humour in the Christian experience

The conditions of humour - synthesis, incarnation and concreteness - have specific features in the faith experience of Christians. This is not to be understood as if there were a "Christian humour", but from the Christian experience the attunement with the vision of reality in which humour naturally arises is especially enhanced by joy.

Christian joy responds to the same law of incarnation which is actualised again and again in the various forms in which life is made concrete. "Joy is the gigantic secret of Christianity", says Chesterton, an acerbic critic of that disembodied spiritualism which belittles the material, the corporeal and the concrete. He comments on the case of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, who said that she did not give gifts in the gross, sensual, earthly sense, but meditated on Truth and Purity, until her friends benefited from it.

I do not say," says Chesterton, "that this plan is superstitious or impossible, and no doubt it has its economic charm. I do say that it is anti-Christian, in the same sense that it is anti-musical to play a tune backwards (...) (this gift theory) is condemned by Christianity just as soldiering condemns flight".

Thus, Christian joy is necessarily incarnated in concrete life, it manifests itself in various ways and among them in good humour. Not all people have the same capacity to manifest a sense of humour, but in any case they cannot be sad or pessimistic, because for those who love God all things work together for good (Rom 8:28).

Theology does not trivialise tragic human experiences, nor does it respond to them with cruel optimism or empty consolation. But it nourishes the filial awareness of being in good hands, in the hands of God the loving Father. Two consequences flow directly from the panoramic vision that grace provides through faith, and are a source of psychological and spiritual well-being. The first is the healthy ability to relativise everything that is urgent and important for one's own self; one is often in a position to discover that "it's no big deal".

The second refers to the willingness not to take oneself too seriously, even to laugh at oneself. This is what Cardinal J. Ratzinger answered to the question whether God has a sense of humour.

 "Personally I think he has a great sense of humour. Sometimes he gives you a shove and says: 'Don't make a big deal out of it'! In reality, humour is a component of the joy of creation. In many aspects of our lives, it is clear grade that God also wants to encourage us to be a little lighter, to perceive joy, to come down from our pedestal and not to forget our taste for fun.

St Thomas Aquinas has also made his contribution to the Christian experience of humour. For example, in his commentary on article of the Symbol which refers to eternal life. In eternal life, he says, all desires will be fulfilled, and he exemplifies this, among other cases, with the desires of laymen and ecclesiastics: "For those who desire honours, there(in eternal life) honour will be complete. What the laity desire above all is to be kings, and the clergy to be bishops; for both desires will be fulfilled there". It could not escape the saintly Doctor that, if all were bishops and kings, this new state would lose all its attraction.

S. Thomas has also spoken of eutrapelia as a remedy for the weariness of the soul, which is achieved "by some delight in seeking a relaxation in the tension of the spirit. These sayings or deeds in which nothing is sought but rest for the soul are called games. That is why it is necessary to make use of them(games) from time to time to give some rest to the soul". In these games or jokes, it is necessary to avoid seeking delight in clumsy deeds or words, that the gravity of the spirit be totally lost, and that it be worthy of time and man. sample It is interesting to note the judgement of the holy Doctor who, following Aristotle, is stern with those who never tell a joke or do not see with pleasure the humour of others: "Those who behave in this way are hard and rustic(duri et agrestes)".

The humour of the saints

I will limit myself to a brief reference letter to St Thomas More and St Teresa of Jesus. A characteristic trait of More's was humour. To him is attributed the famous prayer that embodies at the same time the grace of withdrawal, the realism of life and hope. In it, he asks God for health of body, good humour, a healthy soul, a heart that knows no boredom, complaints and lamentations. "Do not let me take myself too seriously, nor let me suffer excessively for that overbearing thing called me. Give me a sense of humour, give me the gift of knowing how to laugh, so that I may be able to bring a little joy into life, sharing it with others. Amen.

When Moro refused to bow, as most nobles, officials and bishops had done, to the king's whim, he was condemned to be beheaded. His sense of humour even took him to the scaffold. When he saw the steps he had to climb up to the platform and felt that he lacked energy, he threw down the cane he was carrying and asked his lieutenant for financial aid : "Help me to climb up safely, I'll come down on my own".

A less tragic case is that of Teresa of Jesus. On one occasion, she had obtained a scrap of cloth to make the nuns' heavy habits. But it turned out that the cloth was particularly attractive to lice. To play down the inconvenience, the saint from Avila had the idea of organising a diversion for the nuns. To that end, she prepared a night procession during which they sang a little song that Saint Teresa had composed to pray for the liberation of those "bad people", the lice.

Santa Teresa began:

"Daughters, as you take up the cross,
take courage;
and to Jesus, who is your light,
ask for favour;

He will be your defender
in such a strait."

To which the nuns replied:

"For you give us a new garment,
Heavenly King
deliver this sackcloth
this sackcloth."

And the procession continued with similar couplets.

Humour in the face of mysteries. Sara's laughter

Let us now return to the passage with which I began this intervention, that of advertisement to Abraham and Sarah that they would have a son when both were almost a hundred years old. Abraham laughed (Gen 17:17) and Sarah laughed (Gen 18:12) at what was totally unexpected, indeed, simply impossible.

An analytical mind would have begun to assess the causes, means and effects for the promise to be realised. It would end up interpreting that laughter as a bitter reaction, or at least as an expression of disbelief, if not outright rejection of being faced with a real advertisement to be taken seriously.

I believe, however, that this is not the true interpretation. The husband and wife's reaction did not respond to a purely human logic. Thus sample is the behaviour of Abraham, in whom, indeed, laughter broke out, but after having paid homage of adoration to the one who spoke to him: "Abraham fell on his face to the ground, and smiled" (Gen 17. 17). The profound relationship between faith and humour has provoked the passionate reflection of Kierkegaard, who has found a living example of this relationship in the figure of Abraham.

But it is Sarah who best represents the paradoxical incarnation in laughter, of faith and trust in the promise received after giving birth to Isaac. "The Lord has made me laugh...". Sarah's grateful laughter at the fulfilment of the promise of her motherhood gives the true interpretation of the initial laughter.

Faith is humorous precisely because it is presented as a challenge. The laughter of Sarah and Abraham is that of those who do not know how the things that are announced to them will come about, but at the same time they are aware that they are before the one who does not make false promises. It is, in final, laughter at the undeserved grace that comes into their lives and unleashes an unimaginable state of affairs. It is the humour that comes from the gratuitousness of God's gifts. It is also the humour of an attitude of trust, indeed, of abandonment in the truth, love and power of God.

In all of this, we find aspects that are aptly described as paradoxical.

The Catholic theology of the 20th century, including Henri de Lubac, has dealt with the paradox as meeting of what at first sight appears to be opposites. According to de Lubac, paradox arises when it becomes necessary to maintain two apparently contradictory truths at the same time. It is different from the Hegelian dialectic in which the opposites are in an incessant movement in which they are transformed into each other in such a way that they never appear at the same time. De Lubac conceives paradox, on the other hand, as the simultaneity of the two opposites which, at bottom, i.e. on the supernatural level, meet in profound harmony.

Paradox is not merely a way of speaking about reality, but "it is above all the reality itself, and not the way of speaking about it". Paradox as understood by Catholic theology is characterised by the inclusiveness, the copulative conjunction "and" proper to syntheses (grace and freedom; Bible and Church; authority and freedom, for example), as opposed to the disjunctive from which the antitheses are born, which are expressed by the adversative "or...or" (grace or sin; Bible or Church, etc.). Because it refers to reality, the paradoxical character is all the greater the higher the Degree of reality. For this reason, the paradigm of paradoxes, or the "paradox of paradoxes" as de Lubac says, and in this he agrees with Kierkegaard, is the Incarnation of the Word. Perhaps it was G.K. Chesterton, master of paradoxical humour and fine irony in the face of the postitious and insubstantial, who presented the paradox as the proper expression of faith by highlighting its relationship to humour. What is paradox? Chesterton answers: "Paradox simply means a certain defiant joy that belongs to belief".

Chesterton applied paradoxical thinking to the Christian faith, to which he returned at the age of 48 when he joined the Catholic Church. In his book Orthodoxy, published in 1908, he provocatively develops the reasons for the legitimacy of the Christian faith and the inconsistency of the criticisms it receives.

As long as there is mystery," he writes, "there will be health, and when mystery is destroyed, illness appears. Ordinary people have always been sane because ordinary people have always been mystics. They have admitted the chiaroscuro. (...) They have been more interested in truth than in coherence. If they saw two apparently contradictory truths, they accepted both along with the contradiction. Their spiritual vision is stereoscopic, just like their physical vision: they see two different images at the same time, and that is precisely why they see better".

That is why, he adds, "they have let the children rule the kingdom of heaven and force them to be obedient in the kingdom of earth". The contrast is made with the unhealthy logician who tries to make everything crystal clear, and "all he achieves is to make everything mysterious". The mystic, on the other hand, allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes crystalline.

The same awareness that everything is beyond us, but that at the same time it is a web of God's loving benevolence for mankind, brings the ability to see the incongruities of life with a calm and open view of the play of divine providence. Is life, then, tragedy or comedy? Neither one nor the other. It is not tragedy because the force of destiny is directed towards ultimate order and good, even if it has to face painful, even "tragic" aspects in some cases, which will always be intermediate steps towards the promised final fulfilment. Nor is it comedy because existence lived in depth does not allow for easy and artificial fixes. Once again, Christian laughter is rooted in hope familiar with difficulty and test, which will be followed by the overcoming - not only eschatological - of all incongruity.

Humour is a virtue of high intellectual and moral quality, close to the virtue of wisdom. The humorous view has often been criticised as frivolous and escapist. In fact, it is the opposite: given the human condition, it is the most realistic view we have. Facing life's disappointments and frustrations, irrationalities and contingencies with laughter, with a smile, is a high form of wisdom. Such laughter does not ignore or reduce the possible irrationality it encounters; it simply yields to it without too much emotion or friction. Humorous acceptance of fate is actually the expression of a high form of detachment from oneself.

Religious people with a sense of humour will hardly overestimate their own importance or try to impose their own vision of transcendence on others. Because they know that weakness and error are part of the human condition, they find it easier to be magnanimous and flexible, also in situations of conflict.

I conclude by referring to the relationship between joy and freedom: joy accompanies and is the fruit of freedom that is directed towards truth and goodness. Humour, good humour, on the other hand, only flourishes in a climate of inner freedom of the person who is not crushed by the weight of existence or by fatal circumstances of history. For this reason, humour can contribute to the peaceful revolution of a freedom that is seriously committed to the truth and the good of people and society. " I leave you as an inheritance, in the human sphere, the love of freedom and good humour". These words of St. Josemaría, founder of our University, summary perfectly describe the gift and the task entrusted to us.