Abstract: Two social-scientific models contribute to a better understanding and interpretation of the human experience of pain and suffering. One model highlights a major cultural change in the interpretation of pain and suffering in human experience from a global, historical perspective. The other model is well known and widely used in understanding sickness and delivering health services across cultures, in conducting business across cultures, and comparing values across cultures. This second model serves in this article to present and analyze the Christian interpretation of pain and suffering as shaped by New Testament or Judaic peasant views; a Christian interpretation as shaped by Western culture as in the United States; and a Christian interpretation shaped by Polish cultural values. The article demonstrates "actualization" of biblical texts in diverse cultural contexts.

Polish translation: "Jak odbieramy nasze cierpienie? Próba aktualizacji  tekstów biblijnych," Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 52 (1999) 105-129. (Kraków, Poland).

English revision of the 1990 original  in  The Polish Review  48.1 (2003) 21-42.

    In its 1993 document, The Interpretation of the of the Bible in the Church, the Pontifical Biblical Commission discussed and presented "actualization" as a method of discovering what the Biblical text has to say to believers at the present time, living in different circumstances and in different cultures. Roland Murphy offered some brief reflections on this method in Biblical Theology Bulletin (1996): 79-81. In a 1994 address to a national gathering of religious educators, I too reflected on actualization and highlighted related methods and existing resources available to the general public (1994: 29-30). In this present article, I offer some tools which prove very helpful in actualizing biblical texts, particularly with regard to the topic of the human experience of and response to pain and suffering. Human pain and suffering is indeed a reality which is perceived and interpreted variously at different times in history as well as variously by different world cultures (Christian Asceticism 1950). To reflect this diversity, Bowker (1970) used the plural noun in his book title: Problems of Suffering in the Religions of the World.

    Clearly, people do not generally assign entirely private meanings to events such as suffering in which they are involved. The meaning assigned by an individual to a personal difficulty is usually one of the meanings available in that individual's culture or subculture (Bellissimo and Tunks 55; Zborowski 1969:38-41). Moreover, the meanings themselves change because human understanding and interpretations change over time (Toellner).

    In this study, I present two models for understanding the Christian interpretation of pain and suffering. One model offers an overview of a major cultural change in the interpretation of pain and suffering. The other model allows for cross-cultural comparisons of varying Christian interpretations of pain and suffering. With the aid of these models, I seek to analyze and present the Christian interpretation as shaped by the Old Testament or Judean peasant views; a Christian interpretation as shaped by mainstream United States culture; and a Christian interpretation shaped by Polish cultural values.

I. Models for Interpreting Pain and Suffering.

A. Suffering as Evil and Good

    Toellner (1971) points out that a major shift in the understanding and interpretation of pain and suffering took place from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-eighteenth centuries. Until that time, pain and suffering were viewed as evil, pure and simple. There was nothing good about them at all.

Suffering in the Ancient World to the 1650's

    For millennia until the mid-seventeen century, Western culture viewed pain and suffering as characteristics and results of a defective universe and defective nature which had a basically evil quality. This deficiency in nature was variously explained. Hippocrates said the defect consisted in the disharmony among the elements and qualities of the cosmos. The Manichees taught that the defects were due to the wicked and inadequate efforts of the demiurge responsible for creation. Christians believed that the defect in nature was due to original sin. All agreed that nature is defective; this deficiency generates pain and suffering; and there is nothing human beings can do about it. Moreover, Aristotle and Galen explained that it was the sentient soul, coterminous with the physical body, that felt human pain and suffering.

    How then does one respond to pain and suffering if nothing can be done about it? Some urged heroic defiance. The Stoics denied the presence of pain and the need for alleviation. Christians of Mediterranean origin welcomed pain and suffering as an opportunity for purification and sacrifice. Pain and suffering were interpreted by them as disciplinary measures sent by a loving, heavenly Father whose children ought to obediently and submissively bear it and "offer it up" to him. In sum, the majority believed that pain and suffering has to be tolerated and should be put up with, managed, manipulated, at best ameliorated, allayed and soothed, because it could never be totally eliminated. Recall Jesus' refusal to drink the potentially pain-alleviating drink of wine mixed with myrrh (Mark 14:23) or with gall (Matt 27:34) offered to him during his crucifixion.

Suffering in the Modern world since the 1650's

    René Descartes who argued for the separation of body and soul was one of the first to point out that pain and suffering could actually be good! The soul drives the body like a machine. When the soul feels pain, it is a sign that the machine needs attention or repair. That is good! Within the next century, Leibniz distinguished between moral and physical evil. Pain and suffering belonged to the latter category and was therefore not a defect of imperfect nature but rather a necessary means to a good end. Pain and suffering is a sign of the perfect order of nature.

    This view was immediately welcome and was popularized in a flood of literature which argued that pain and suffering are a good part of nature which is governed by eternal, necessary and inviolable laws. Pain and suffering are thus the guardian and protector of life comparable to hunger and thirst so decreed by "natural law."

    The result of this new way of thinking was a growing awareness that pain and suffering did not have to be tolerated or only alleviated but could be totally eliminated! Ironically, however, what now made sense objectively frequently made no sense at all subjectively when it was experienced especially in sickness. By generally restricting pain and suffering to the body and the "laws" governing it, the problems encountered by the spirit are not addressed and simply ignored. Nevertheless, this shift in the understanding of pain and suffering marks a major dividing point in the history of interpretation of this human experience.

B. Suffering in Cross-Cultural Perspective

    Responses to the human experience of pain and suffering are learned and patterned as part of an individual sufferer's cultural heritage (Zborowski 1961:236). Different cultures respond very differently to pain and suffering even when caused by the same source. Human differences aside, these culturally different responses are at least uniform within a given culture. For this reason, the model developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) for cross-cultural comparison of values can be profitably employed in this present reflection.

    The following figure illustrates the basic elements of the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck model (1961; see the adaptation in Pilch 2007 reported below):
 

PROBLEM 1:  Selecting a principal mode of HUMAN ACTIVITY RANGE OF SOLUTIONS: Being                                             Being-in-becoming                                    Doing

PROBLEM 2: RELATIONSHIPS of human beings TO EACH OTHER RANGE OF SOLUTIONS: Collateral                                          Lineal                                                    Individual

PROBLEM 3: Determining the primary TEMPORAL FOCUS OF LIFE  RANGE OF SOLUTIONS: Present                                                Past                                                     Future

PROBLEM 4: RELATIONSHIPS of human beings TO NATURE  RANGE OF SOLUTIONS: Be subject to it                                      Live in harmony with it                         Master it

PROBLEM 5: Prevailing ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN NATURE RANGE OF SOLUTIONS: Mixture of good and evil                           Evil                                                   Neutral/Good

 

    Here is an explanation of the elements of this model as they can be applied to the interpretation of human pain and suffering. First, notice that there are five major categories bearing upon the human experience of pain and suffering:
 

(1) human activity: how will the person respond to the experience of pain and suffering?

(2) human relationships: who constitute the primary focus of the experience of pain and suffering?

(3) temporal focus on life: how does the time-perspective peculiar to the sufferer affect the interpretation of pain and suffering?

(4) nature: what predominant attitude does the sufferer have toward nature?

(5) human nature: how does the sufferer evaluate human nature?
 

    Third, while each culture selects one of these solutions as primary, the other two are also available as second and third choice solutions either for different circumstances or for different subgroups in one and the same culture.

    Finally, the arrangement of value-preferences presented in Figure 1 beginning with the far left-hand column and moving toward the right records the preferred arrangement of values and solutions that generally prevail among Mediterranean peasants of antiquity as well as of the present, the people generally reflected in the New Testament.

    Beginning with the far right-hand column and moving across toward the left highlights the preferred arrangement of values and solutions that generally characterize mainstream United States Citizens (Pilch 1991) or as Zborowski (1969) calls them, "Old Americans."

II. Human Pain and Suffering Interpreted Cross-Culturally

A. The first century biblical world

    The prevailing peasant value orientations toward pain and suffering in first century Palestine are (See column one in Figure 1 above):

Judean Peasants

Activity:             Be > BiB > Do

Relationship:      Coll > Lin > Ind

Time:                 Pres > Past > Fut

Nature:             Sub > With > Over

Human nature:   Mixed > Evil > Neutral/Good

(The symbol ">" means "is preferred to")

    Nature. Biblical literature reflects the Mediterranean cultural conviction that human beings are subject to the natural calamities that befall them. They are not in charge, they have no ability to thwart them. When the disciples asks Jesus whether it was the blind man's sin or his parents that caused him to be born blind, that is, punished by God, Jesus replies that neither sinned. His congenital blindness is a fact of nature (See John 9).

    By restoring the blind man's sight, however, Jesus stands out as singularly different in this culture, since he uniquely seems able to intercede with God to exercise control or to be master over nature. In fact, throughout the gospels, Jesus displays culturally untypical though very welcome control of nature, especially illnesses, winds, waves, and the like. Biblical literature also reflects the prevailing cultural conviction noted above that nature is flawed, and that pain and suffering is the consequence of that deficiency. In general, Mediterranean culture proposes that the true measure of a human being is how well the individual bears life's reversals. Jesus observes: "If anyone would come after me, let than one deny self, take up the cross, and follow me. For whoever would save life will lose it, and whoever loses life for my sake will find it" (Matt 16:24-25).

    At the same time, Jesus' control over some situations of pain and suffering gave hope to many that life did not have to be thus. Jesus appears to have the power not only to alleviate but even to eliminate pain and suffering, at least to the extent that contemporary readers correctly understand the reports of illnesses healed (Pilch 1988a; 1988b). In this regard, Jesus is rather unique in the culture.

    Being. This seemingly passive response to human experiences as just presented is reflected in the Mediterranean cultural preference for being, that is, for spontaneous response to a given situation. Mary's response to the Angel: "Be it done to me as you have said" (Luke 1:38) is a common response to all human experiences in Mediterranean culture. The phrase expresses resignation to reality that is to be experienced and spontaneously responded to but can never imaginably be directed, controlled, or manipulated. Its modern Mediterranean counterpart is "as you wish."

    Yet "being" is not a passive response at all. It is quite active, even if the choice is to do nothing, or to do the inappropriate thing. The emphasis is on spontaneity, with no forethought of the consequences, as when Peter lashed out with the sword and severed the servant's ear in Gethsemane (John 18:10). "Doing," in contrast, describes the carefully considered and planned response or program with a view to obtaining very specific, desired results.

    The spontaneous response to pain and suffering in the biblical world on the part of the sufferer was indeed to tolerate it. The sufferer's kin and extended kin were expected to commiserate or assist in the struggle for meaning, as in the story of Job. Yet when a person like Jesus sparked hope that something might be done about the situation, sufferers did not hesitate to cry out to him: "Master, that I might see!" or "Make us clean!"

    Human Nature. New Testament passages clearly indicate that human nature is a mixture of good and evil propensities. In an honor and shame debate with the Pharisees Jesus notes: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of personal good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of personal evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matt 12:34-37).

    Thus human nature is unpredictable, and human beings are capable of inflicting pain and suffering upon others as easily as bestowing blessing and grace upon them. The compassion of Jesus (see Mark 6:34; Matt 9:36) and his exhortation to "be compassionate, even as your Father is compassionate" (Luke 6:36) stood in contrast to every-day Mediterranean cultural experience, offering hope that people could behave differently toward one another.

    Collateral or horizontal relationships. The dyadic or strongly other-directed personality types which characterize Mediterranean culture illustrate the cultural preference for groups rather than for individuals. This preference places high value on collateral or horizontal relationships. The global references to the "sick" in the Second Testament invariably mention that "they," that is, some group, brought the sick to Jesus (Mark 1:32). This is either the extended family or those who have established a relationship of fictive kinship with the afflicted person.

    The man paralyzed for thirty-eight years who sat by the pool of Bezatha shocks Jesus and any reader sensitive to this "group" dimension of Mediterranean culture when he says: "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is troubled..." (John 5:7). If his blood relatives have rejected him, that is shameful. If all blood relatives have died, and he still has no one, it is even more shameful for he has failed a basic requirement of the culture: to make friends, an absolutely indispensable means for "making a living" in that world. The suffering due to his lack of friends may well have been greater than the suffering occasioned by his paralysis. He had no one to commiserate with him, and no one to help him until Jesus came by.

    Time. This last story of the paralyzed man also illustrates the Mediterranean cultural preference for the present giving practically no thought to any future such as is dear to mainstream Americans. The thirty-eight years of paralysis were spent day by day, with no strategy (which would characterize "doing") for any long-range goal or alternatives (which characterizes "future" orientation). Without a future orientation, one's daily fare of suffering is a matter of fact experience, day by day. There is no thought of what might have been or what might yet be, for this present situation is all that is and so far as the culture is concerned, all that ever will be.

    Thus far, the model helps understand the normal evaluation of pain and suffering in the first century Mediterranean world and highlights Jesus' occasionally differing views and relationships to the elements of the model. The general thrust of the New Testament story line, however, is that Jesus who ministered to the pain and suffering of others, and who himself experienced pain and suffering on a daily basis, and who died the most shameful death possible, was raised by God and restored to honor such as no human being could ever grant. The Resurrection (Léon-Dufour, Vanhoye, Neyrey), that is, the triumphant experience of Jesus confirmed in his followers two unshakable convictions: (1) Jesus met the realities of pain and suffering in his life, and (2) ultimately he was not defeated by them (Bowker 46). The New Testament literature represents the first endeavors of various individuals to share that triumphant experience --Jesus' and those of others-- with many people, and to work out its implications in day to day life. Paul's taunting hymn to death: "Oh death, where is thy sting?" (1 Cor 15:53-58) is a sterling example (Suttcliffe).

    To summarize, then, how did our biblical ancestors in the Faith redress suffering? It was patiently borne as the normal and expected consequence of a flawed and deficient world. Suffering was accepted quite simply as one of the facts of existence (Bowker). The true measure of the human being is how well the pain and suffering would be born, as Job's friends attempt to help him realize in their long-ranging dialogues.

    After the Resurrection of Jesus, however, with an assured hope of life after death, pain and suffering was more easily borne because the sufferer was assured of ultimate victory. The fact that pain and suffering could not be eliminated did not matter. The thought of Jesus' victory over death was alleviation enough.

B. "Old Americans"

    Zborowski used the phrase "Old Americans" to describe that "social group that seems to set the cultural model of our society as reflected in values and structures" (1969:5). I use the phrase "mainstream United States citizen" to describe the same reality. The value preferences of this culture as indicated in the far right hand column of Figure One above can be summarized thus:

"Old American" or Mainstream United States Citizen

Activity:             Do > Be > BiB

Relationship:     Ind > Coll > Lin

Time:                 Fut > Pres > Past

Nature:             Over > Sub > With

Human nature:   Neutral > Evil > Good

    Doing. One distinctive value preference of mainstream U.S. citizens is an emphasis on doing, that means, directed and intentional activity based on rational planning with a view to achieving a goal. In regard to pain and suffering, the mainstream U.S. citizen seeks to remain calm, unemotional, rational, and to control behavior while in pain or suffering. The goal to be achieved is very definitely the elimination of pain and suffering at best, and most certainly its alleviation at the very least.

    Mainstream U.S. citizens, or the Old Americans of Zborowski's classic study, frown upon complaining in pain and suffering as a useless, selfish, non-social strategy that interferes with the peace of others. It is considered legitimate to complain to therapists who might help but not to family members and friends who might not be able to remedy the pain or suffering. It is preferable instead to gripe, which is viewed as an expression of "fight," a personal, active response to a situation. Griping is thus interpreted as a form of "doing" (Zborowski 1969:56).

    With the primary cultural preference of mainstream U.S. citizens for doing, it is relatively easy to understand why a preoccupation with health dominates consciousness--as well as mass media communication like radio and TV--and why pain and suffering are viewed as unnecessary nuisances which experts should be able to eliminate (Zborowski 1969:67).

    Even so, the mainstream U.S. person afflicted with pain and suffering who consults a specialist does not view the relationship to the therapist as completely passive. On the contrary, the suffering person demands an important, active role in the process by fulfilling the physician's prescriptions, by being cooperative (or argumentative), and by expressing optimism as well as the desire to get well (Zborowski 1969:76).

    It is absolutely imperative to be rid of debilitating pain and suffering in order to return as quickly as possible to the chief cultural imperative: doing!

    Nature. Clearly correlative to this emphasis on doing, achieving, or accomplishing is the absolute conviction that nature exists to be mastered and controlled by human beings. Indeed, the major goal for human beings is to master nature. Thus if contemporary, western medicine does not yet have a cure for AIDS, it will certainly discover one someday. After all, many cancers can be cured if diagnosed early enough.

    This confidence in the human ability to control nature makes pain and suffering unnecessary nuisances (Fichter 30; Edelstein 216). The emergence of this conviction in the mid-16th to mid-17th centuries (Toellner) has reached full maturity in the 20th century West where Christians find the notion of redemptive suffering unattractive and even repugnant (Fichter 32). Redemptive suffering, in mainstream U.S. cultural perspective, reflects the culture's second choice value: to be subject to nature. Only when one cannot master pain and suffering is one obliged to put up with it. Such a position is accepted with reluctance if not with secret hope that someday soon the problem can be mastered. Yet it raises important questions about pastoral practice in Christian ministry to the sick and suffering. As Fichter reported, one cancer patient snapped at his minister: "Hanging on a cross for three hours is easy. Try putting up with a life-time of cancer!"

    For the most part, however, Americans exhibit optimism and a sense of humor even when the pain and suffering is great. Many of Zborowski's subjects joked and used humorous language to describe their pain (1969:50). This is a natural consequence of the belief that nature can be mastered, at least in humor if not in reality.

    Human Nature. The mainstream U.S. citizen's abiding cultural belief is that human nature is neutral and perhaps even good, but definitely not evil or defective or deficient. This, of course, is a change of outlook since the days of the Puritans in the early history of the United States. And there may still be Americans of puritanical outlook and convictions in the United States! But we follow Zborowski in his understanding of "Old American" as those who set the cultural model of this society as expressed in its values and standards, and these people are no longer the Puritans.

    Thus reporting pain and suffering to a health care professional makes the mainstream U.S. citizen feel like a partner with that specialist. Personifying pain and suffering helps to distance it and to assure the victim as well as others that the body is indeed healthy and good! Only some part or element is sick or "evil" and in need of repair (Zborowski 1969: 83-84).

    Another indicator of the mainstream U.S. citizen's conviction about the "neutrality" of human nature is a fondness for the concept, "average." In Zborowski's study, his subjects repeatedly used the adjective "average" to describe themselves, the amount of pain and suffering they could tolerate, their illness, and their behavior. "Average" is understood to mean, normal, correct, accepted, safe, and secure. Anyone who has fallen below the average welcomes any report that confirms progress back to that average norm which is effectively the plane of neutrality.

    Individual. Scholars believe that Americans are very likely the most highly individualistic people in the history of the world. In regard to pain and suffering, the American suffers alone. Though the family is certainly affected in varying degrees, the problem belongs to the individual who is expected to resolve it.

    At the same time, American individualism is often tempered by a concern for the opinions of others. The American individual who suffers and experiences great pain would individualistically like to release emotions and express genuine sentiments about the pain and suffering. This is done only when the sufferer can withdraw from the social environment. At other times, the sufferer keep up a stolid, unemotional, and stoical front as a facade imposed by a cultural code of behavior rather than as a spontaneous expression of attitudes. This latter aspect, characteristic of "being," is a second value choice among mainstream U.S. citizens.

    Future. What makes pain and suffering especially intolerable for future-oriented cultures like the mainstream United States is that the present opportunity for planning for that moment is seriously impaired! In a future-oriented society, the present doesn't exist: it is so minutely divided even into milliseconds that any present one thinks of is immediately past.

    Zborowski notes the humor of contrasting cultural viewpoints: "Future oriented people consider the present-minded ones as childish, immature, or lazy; conversely, individuals who enjoy the present without thinking much about the future will laugh at men trained to plan for the rainy day" (1969:47).

    In summary, it is clear that Americans have no use for pain and suffering but look rather for the most rapid elimination of both. This conviction has made it very difficult for faith and religion to play any significant role in helping Americans to redress suffering. In 1973, an International Symposium on Pain was held in Seattle, where more than 350 physicians, scientists, anesthesiologists, psychotherapists and other health professionals from thirteen countries listened to eighty-nine scholarly papers prepared for the occasion. The role of religion was nowhere on the agenda (Fichter 38). "With relatively few exceptions, medical doctors do not comprehend that spirituality, God, faith, religion -- in short the 'supernatural'-- has any relevance to their primary task of dealing with people in pain" (Fichter 123).

    A study of contemporary, American religious responses to pain and suffering concluded that they could be clustered in three categories.

(1) Mystery. Suffering is a mystery which quite simply has no explanation. One group that strives to wrestle with the mystery of pain and suffering and minister to those afflicted with it is Stauros International (5401 S. Cornell, Chicago, IL. 60615; (312) 752-5732).

(2) Acceptance of Pain. Fichter's study discovered that while 91 percent of health professionals believed that faith in God lessens fears and anxiety for a suffering person, only 39 percent agreed that "the more religious a person is, the more able he or she is to endure suffering" (47). Americans enchanted with technology find it difficult to find meaning in pain and suffering.

(3) Rejection of pain and suffering as unintended by God. The formerly popular practices of voluntary asceticism have largely fallen into disuse among Christians in the contemporary U.S. Pentecostalist Christians and other such healers repeat that "God wants you to be well!"

    How then do contemporary, mainstream U.S. Christian redress suffering? Primarily by seeking out the best technological help available. When that fails (or sometimes together with the search for technological assistance), there may be a reliance upon special devotions, novenas, relics, and other aids to healing. The Resurrection of Jesus does not seem to play as significant a role among contemporary Christians as it did among those of the earlier centuries prior to the turning point in understanding pain identified by Toellner.

C. A Polish Perspective

    When he conducted his classical investigation of pain and suffering, Zborowski (1969), himself a Jewish emigré from Poland, wanted to include Polish subjects, but none were available to him in the Veteran's Administration hospital whence his subjects were selected. Even a single subject would have sufficed. Zborowski (1969:13) cited Margaret Mead (1953) in support of this conviction:

    The anthropological field techniques and theory do not necessarily require careful sampling techniques in the selection of informants in order to study cultural manifestations or patterns, because 'any member of a group, provided that his position in the group is properly specified, is a perfect sample of the group-wide pattern.'

    Zborowski proceeded therefore on this assumption that every individual representative of the four groups he studied (Jews, Italians, Irish, Old Americans) represented the culture in which he was reared. This culture was transmitted by parents, teachers, and peers, and further instilled by the native group. So long as the individual's position in society is identified by information pertaining to sex, social and economic background, education, age, marital status, emotional preferences and values, life history, and other variables, the data this person offers are sufficiently valid to serve as a basis for reconstructing certain aspects of the general pattern.

    For this present reflection, therefore, I have selected Rev. Henryk Maria Malak, a deceased compatriot and former colleague to help explore the ways in which people of Polish heritage including Polish Americans are likely to redress suffering.
Investigations of Polish Americans based on the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck model suggest the following arrangement of value preferences (Mondykowski modified):

Poles

Activity:                 Be > Do > Bib

Relationships:         Lin > Coll > Ind

Time:                     Pres > Past > Future

Nature:                  Sub > With > Over

Human Nature:      Evil > Neutral > Good

    Rev. Henryk Maria Malak, TOSF, was born in Sadki, Poland, November 1st, 1912. He studied philosophy at Gniezno, theology at the Poznan seminary, and was ordained a priest for the diocese of Gniezno by Archbishop Dymek on June 11, 1938. His first priestly assignment in Poland was as vicar Holy Cross Parish, Wrzesnia, and about a year later he was transferred to St. Joseph Parish, Inowroclaw.

    Two months after the Nazis invaded Poland, Henryk was arrested on November 2, 1939. He spent the next six years in concentration camps at Sztutowa (Stutthof), Grenzdorf, Sachsenhausen, and from December, 1940 to May 5, 1945 in the death-camp at Dachau as prisoner # 22,466. In Dachau, two marks on the prison uniform singled out the Polish priests: the 22,000 number; and a "P" on a red triangle (Malak 309-319). In addition, the priests were segregated for most of the duration of the war from the other prisoners.

    Along with all the other Dachau prisoners, Henryk was liberated on April 29, 1945, just hours before the Nazis were to burn the camp and its inmates to ashes. When he finally gained his freedom later that year, Henryk ministered to Polish refugees in camps at Mannheim and Heilbronn.

    He came to the United States and joined the Assumption Franciscan Province in December, 1950. At first he was assigned to the publishing house in Pulaski, WI., where he wrote Polish language articles and pamphlets and edited a devotional magazine until his health failed in 1957. At that time he was transferred to West Chicago, Illinois, until 1963, when he became a chaplain to Polish Sisters in Lemont, IL., where he died on July 19, 1987 at the age of 75. It was in West Chicago that I first met Henryk and translated his Polish language articles into English. To write this article, I translated part and read the entirety of his published two volumes of memoirs: Klechy w Obozach smierci (Clerics in the Death Camps).

Henryk's Position in His Society

    To interpret Henryk's memoirs by filtering them through the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck model, it is necessary, as Zborowski noted in quoting Mead (see above), to delineate Henryk's position or place in his society. He was a priest, and in Polish culture, that is equivalent to being part of the nobility. Clerics in Henryk's day were "generally" held in high regard by the people. At the same time, centuries of mistreatment by the nobility including priests, left a residual dislike and even hatred toward clergy just below the surface in many peasants. During the early days of the war, in the converted mental hospital, Henryk and the priests are sent to harvest beets in the field. He writes: "It amazes us that these landlords have no trouble assigning priests in cassocks to the dirtiest work, to cleaning out the pigsties, but finally we concluded that these must be Protestants" (Malak 41). Yet later in the death-camps the painful historical memories of mistreatment and arrogance from their clergy erupted among the lay prisoners when they perceived or were deceived by the Nazis into believing that the clerical prisoners were receiving special treatment and privileges.

    As a correlative of his status as priest, Henryk's social and economic situation in Poland was comfortable, even if very short-lived! He was ordained just a little more than a year when he was interred in the camps. His education was the classical, pre-Vatican II seminary training which placed strong emphasis on tradition, and unquestioning obedience to authority.

    It is clear from his memoirs and from my personal recollections that Henryk was inclined to introversion, to being alone with his thoughts and feelings. He was a voracious reader and a gifted writer. His masterful use of the Polish language provides near sensual pleasure to a reader conversant with the complexities of that language.

    How did Henryk redress his pain and suffering in the Nazi concentration camps of World War II? The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck model provide a tool for interpreting his memoirs on this subject.

Henryk, Poles, and the Kluckhohn Strodtbeck Model

    Being. Mondykowski has observed (400) that identity of Polish Americans is tied up more with doing than with being. They endure physical illness and discomfort stoically, and generally work and function despite any discomfort because this is important to them. However, I think that in Poland, the native like Henryk is primarily inclined toward "being," that is, to spontaneous enjoyment of the present moment or spontaneous response to the present predicament. In America, this spontaneous response would "doing" (planned and calculated activity; achievement) since that is the prevalent American mode of activity. Mondykowski's comment then is quite correct for Poles in America.

    In Henryk's Poland, however, the early pages of his memoirs make it clear no one was prepared for the ominous dangers mounting on the political horizons. Henryk responded with spontaneous delight to nature in spring, to the delicious meals in the rectory, and to pleasant life all around.

    Later in the camps, Henryk and his fellow Polish priest prisoners also responded appropriately with hard labor demanded by their captors in the camps. Throughout his memoirs, Henryk remarks that the two groups most hated by the SS and their staffs who ran the concentration camps were the Jews and the Polish priests. They were often summoned together: "Juden und Pfaffen!" (Malak 83; 94; 160-172; 183; 269; 275; 456). They were assigned the hardest, most demeaning work which proved to be fatal to most of them. The priests also received daily, regular beatings in greater volume than any other prisoners. One overseer remarked: "Funny, when I worked with the laity, they never got beat so much as these priests!" (Malak 59).

    Spontaneous response to pain and suffering rather than hatching a plan of escape was the basic mode in which Poles met this experience.

    Lineal relationships. Groups that value lineal relationships respect hierarchical arrangements. This is not only true of Poles in general, but of priests in particular. The ancient division between nobility and peasants in Poland continues in the Polish psyche even today when there no longer is a nobility in Poland.

    In  each of the priests' barracks in the camps, one of the priests was singled out and respected by the others as the elder. Though not appointed by the Nazi captors, this elder tried to keep the peace, to minimize bickering, but also was the one who initiated the routine of daily prayer and meditation in the barrack.

    Henryk reports the names of hundreds of priests who passed through the camps or who were murdered, and in the vast majority of instances he attaches a "lineal" designation, that is, he identifies the individual by rank as bishop, monsignor, dean, professor, rector, prefect, and the like, as well as by years of ordination, place in the seminary, and so forth.  This "respect" is an integral part of Polish life and culture where friends who are not long-time friends often speak to each other using the 3rd person singular form of the verb and repeat titles in ordinary conversation.

    Ultimately in the camp itself, as the years rolled by and Henryk survived and became a camp "elder" himself, he and others like him were treated with special regard by other priests because of their "senior" position.

    The clear contrast of this outlook with American cultural values struck Henryk when he recorded his observations of the American soldiers who liberated the camp. It was quite different from what he knew in Poland as well as what he experienced among the Nazis.

    In addition, this lineal attitude colors relationship to God. For instance, Henryk wrote: "God has a holy right to demand sacrifices of reparation. Do we in Dachau respect and submit to that right with full awareness and with joy?" (Malak 399) Here is a most typical expression of the way a Pole and a pre-Vatican II priest would redress pain and suffering.

    Present-time orientation. Even prior to the invasion of Poland by the Nazis, Henryk's memoirs indicate that in spite of threatening clouds on the political horizon, life continued as usual (Malak, 9-15). Afterwards, in the camps, priest-prisoners frequently asked "why did we not see this coming?" "Why did we not prepare ourselves better for such an eventuality?" The Polish temporal focus rooted in its peasant heritage is indeed the present, with deep respect for the past, but little foresight relative to the future.

    At one point, Henryk's maternal uncle (the Polish language distinguishes between maternal and paternal uncles with distinct words for each),  also a priest, arrived in Dachau later in the war and was certain that the war was going to end very soon (Malak 418-422). He soon realized he was deluded, and his health failed rapidly under the maltreatment of the camps. Before he died he gave Henryk his gold tooth to bribe a guard or buy some bread and said: "You will return to life, Henryk, and live it anew!" The comment stuck in Henryk's mind, but even so, it did not focus his attention on a future eventuality so much as prompted him repeatedly to wonder what the present moment meant as he repeated his uncle's dying words.

    Subjugation to nature. Correlative to the preference for the value of "being," Polish people are not dedicated to mastering nature so much as they consider themselves to be part of it and often victims of it. This is typical of a peasant outlook on life and also explains in part why suffering is born so patiently and stoically. This general, Polish cultural trait is further strengthened by the pre-Vatican II, largely Mediterranean inspired, Catholic perspective on pain and suffering.

    In his camp-memoirs, Henryk tells of developing a close friendship with another young priest, Zdzich (a form of the Polish name, Zdzislaw). At the outset, Zdzich is cynical and sarcastic. One day, Goldman, a Jewish prisoner in Stutthof secretly brings Zdzich a book he salvaged from a book-burning session: "Message of Jesus to his Priest," translated from French, published in 1935. Zdzich reads from it: "As I became food for souls, you dear priests, must give your time, strength, talents, and all, to the Faithful, so that they might use and even abuse your patience, your health, etc., without any benefit for you. ... The grape must be pressed. Otherwise it will not yield its precious fluid. A priest was created in my image for this, that souls might trample him, squeeze him thoroughly, taking away time for pleasure or leisure and even life. What kind of impact would it make, O Priest, to see at the end of your life that the grapes of your vine are still unpressed and your chalice is empty?" (Malak, 78-79).  Notice that there is no hint of fighting back, resisting, striving to change fate. One must simply accept it. Throughout the book, Henryk muses from time to time on how much longer to suffer, whether he will ever be sufficiently purified in all these sufferings.

    Human Nature is Evil. The preceding reflection intimates a belief that human nature is inclined to evil, such as abusing other people's talents, time, patience, and the life. And of course as the experience in the concentration camps validates, human evils can be demonic. Frequently in the memoirs, Henryk concludes that the Nazi SS and their assistants were possessed by demons to perpetrate the atrocities and punishments they meted out to prisoners in the camps. This belief is also highlighted by the conviction --both Polish and Roman Catholic-- that human nature needs asceticism, penance, spiritual exercises to learn the good and to embrace it.

    While they used to pray that God might end their beatings, the thought occurred to the Polish priests: "What if God sent this experience to us as a deserved punishment? I recall the words of Father Casimir Grzelak, the spiritual son of Father Maksymilian Kolbe: 'Henryk, what we are living through is a punishment for us, in order that we might learn the most important commandment, the commandment of love! This is Father Maximilian's interpretation; this is what he used to say'" (Malak 62). God punishes us because he loves us:

Endure hardship as discipline. God is treating you like sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our Fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best. God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:7-11)

    Second, as just mentioned, the Blessed Virgin Mary plays a very special and perhaps even a central role in their piety. Henryk in particular is extremely devoted to Mary. "I have a huge child-like faith in the protection of the Immaculate Virgin" (Malak 20). He interweaves in his narrative different apparitions of Mary, her requests, St. Bernadette, Sr. Lucy the Fatima Visionary, and the like, while he also notes --hindsight, of course-- that at the same time Pope Pius XII was hesitating, not relying on Mary enough, dragging his feet in dedicating the world to her Immaculate Heart. In addition, Henryk was devoted to St. Theresa known as the Little Flower. [As a gift for translating his articles between 1959 and 1964, Henryk presented me with a recent psychologically oriented biography of the saint by Ida Görres.] In his judgment, Theresa played a key role in a change for the better in his regard while he was at Dachau.

    In the later years at Dachau, Henryk entered and won a wood-carving contest which spared him from heavy labor. Theresa appeared to him in a dream and communicated with him during the day as he competed. In thanksgiving for his inspiration, Henryk carved her face on the female-mountaineer statue that helped him win the contest. The result is that for the rest of his time in camp, Henryk was assigned to carve statues and art-objects for high ranking Nazi officers like Goering (Malak, 342-357).

    This devotion to Mary and female saints is a form of "marianism," i.e., a secular phenomenon characterized by a veneration of women as almost divine, morally superior, and spiritually stronger than men, which is often the reverse side of machismo, the cult of virility (Stevens). The religious form of marianism is mariology which in some cases appears to become a form of mariolatry. Henryk's devotion to Mary is patent; the book also reveals glimmers of his outlook on women in general. As the war breaks out, Henryk in his rectory muses while reading about St. Bernadette: "I'm a man. Why am I afraid just like this woman?...Perhaps I don't have such great faith" (Malak 20).

    While never neglecting the suffering and resurrection of Jesus, Henryk and his fellow priest-prisoners' spirits seem to be especially lifted by their religious devotion to Mary and the messages of her apparitions. Like Jesus, the priests "tough out" their physical suffering. But it is Mary to whom they turn for consolation and assistance as well as redemption in these difficult times. She, after all, promises to end the war. In Henryk, the Polish macho endurance of pain and suffering is balanced by Polish marianism and mariology, i.e., a respect for women and Mary as morally stronger and spiritually superior.

    A third characteristic of the way in which Polish priests bore their sufferings in the camps was by daily reliance upon traditional Polish devotions, often Marian devotions like the Rosary which they recite almost non-stop either alone or in common. In Dachau, Zdzich contrived an ingenious way to say the Rosary as he stared at the ten German virtues they were to memorize (Malak 238). They sang or recited hymns from the universally known hymnbook of Poland (Serdeczna Matko; Swiety Boze). They recited "Godzinki" (The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary), an unchanging devotion that was like a compact version of the Breviary. They prayed during the roll-call, which took place as much as three and more times a day! (Malak 60).

    There were also manifestations of base humanity in a variety of forms. Henryk reports more than one struggle with despair, and the temptation to run "for the barbed-wire". Either the guard would shoot you for an attempted escape, or you might actually reach the wire and get electrocuted. Whichever occurred, there would be an end to the inhumane and incomprehensible suffering in the camps.

    Also, a division arose between the senior priests and the young priests in camp, something like the "old guard" and the "young turks." The seniors were formally pietistic, the younger were cynical and critical. Henryk felt he was in the second group, which full well realized the deficiencies of their seminary training that ironically somehow supported the senior priests in their pain and suffering.

    At other times, when the priests were segregated presumably because of the intervention of the Vatican and given "privileges" like release from hard labor, or daily rations of wine which had to be "chug-a-lugged" on the spot, rumors ran rife among the laity through the camp that "these lazy bones who abused us in peace-time are still hoodwinking us here in these camps." They have the life, those lucky stiffs!

    Finally, there is an implicit Polish motif that underlies and undergirds the way Polish people in general redress suffering: Polish Messianism. After the failed revolution of 1848, Polish Messianism was given powerful expression in the poetry of Adam Mickiewicz, Juliusz Slowacki, and Zygmunt Krasinski, ultimately inspired by the ideology of Andrzej Towianski (1799-1898). In Polish Messianism, Poland is considered to be indeed another Christ, crucified by and between its ancient enemies, Germany and Russia. Someday this nation like Jesus would rise from the dead. In the meantime, all suffering is interpreted as messianic. Christian Poland and Poles suffer for the sins of humankind. The Holy Ghost himself would descend and deliver its people. As Zdzich noted: "We'll suffer until we learn how to derive joy from our suffering." (Malak 249)

    Even Pius XII's encomium encourages this sentiment to continue. He noted: "How the simple Polish people, so faithful in the silent heroism of their centuries-long suffering, contributed to the spread and maintenance of Christian Europe." (Malak 478)

    Henryk's recollection of his uncle's words: "You will return to life and live it anew" coupled with Zdzich's insistence that Henryk read the German sources like Hitler's Mein Kampf and all of Nietzsche in order to understand nourished Henryk's desire to survive and gave him a goal for life after the war. In this regard, the German priest prisoner, Peter Kentenich (441-448) advised Henryk and Zdzich to consider the need in the future for "an evangelical humanism" full of respect for the person as an individual, having full rights to self-determination within the gospel teachings and ethics. This would bring the hoped for rebirth the clergy knew was needed. Kentenich sounds very much like Pope John Paul II who did not spend any time in a concentration camp and was ordained in 1946 after the war ended.

    Conclusion. This article has attempted to review three different Christian approaches to redressing pain and suffering. The tradition rooted in Jesus and the New Testament literature focuses on the innocent suffering and shameful death of Jesus whom God himself exonerated by raising him from the dead. The Resurrection of Jesus and each believer's share therein is the linchpin in the Christian approach to redressing suffering.

    The Christian tradition as expressed in mainstream U.S. culture confesses and affirms this faith in the Resurrection, but true to its own cultural context acknowledges a primary, more active role for the individual human being as master of personal fate and destiny. Pain and suffering is an unnecessary nuisance and should be checked before it begins. If it cannot be prevented or eliminated, then efforts at alleviation are welcome until human beings gain mastery over nature in this situation and make this particular suffering avoidable and remediable.

    Finally, the Polish Christian approach to redressing suffering finds the Mediterranean based sentiments of Jesus and the New Testament culturally congenial, a good match. In addition, Poland as a nation has embraced and lives out a Messianic mission in the context of which all suffering can be viewed, interpreted, and tolerated. These convictions of three different cultural expressions of the Christian tradition are set into an a welcome general context by Zborowski (1969:31) himself:

Each human group has its own moral and ethical criteria, which are a part of its cultural legacy. They are part of its religious system, its social organization, or its economy. They might be absolute and universal in terms of the society that accepts them, but their nature is relative and even parochial when seen in the light of the diversity of human groups and cultures.

Bellissimo, Anthony and Eldon Tunks
1984 Chronic Pain: The Psychotherapeutic Spectrum. New York: Praeger, 1984.

Bowker, John
1970 Problems of Suffering in the Religions of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christian Asceticism and Modern Man.
1955 New York: Philosophical Library.

Edelstein, E. L.
1974 "Experience and Mastery of Pain." Israel Annals of Psychiatry and Related Disciplines 19:216-226.

Fichter, Joseph H.
1981 Religion and Pain: The Spiritual Dimensions of Health Care. New York: Crossroad.

Folwarski, John and Phillis P. Marganoff.
1996    "Polish Families."  Pp. 658-672 in M, McGoldrick, J.K. Pearce, & J. Giordano (eds). Ethnicity and Family Therarpy (2nd edition).  New York: Guilford Press.

Kluckhohn, F.R. and F.L.Strodtbeck
1961 Variations in Value Orientations. New York: Harper & Row.

Léon-Dufour, Xavier, S.J.
1970 "Passion, Récits de la." Dictionnaire de la Bible-Supplément 6:1419-1492.
 

Malak, Henryk Maria
1961 Klechy w Obozach smierci (Clerics in the Death Camps). Two Volumes. Second Revised Edition. London: Veritas.
    Available from: Veritas Foundation Publication Centre,
                            63 Jeddo Road,
                            London W12 9EE England.
                           veritas@polish.co.uk

English translation in process by Bozenna Nazarczuk Tucker, "Shavelings in the Death Camps," September, 2007.  Bozenna and her family were with  Fr. Malak in the the post-war camps in Heilbronn, Germany.

Malina, Bruce J.
1989 "Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters: A Guide for U.S. Consumers." Biblical Theology Bulletin 19:127-141.

Marthison, R.R.
1958 The Eternal Search: The Story of Man and His Drugs. New York: Putnam, 1958.

Mead, Margaret
1953 "National Character." Pp. 642-667 in A.L. Kroeber, Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Melzack, R. and P.D. Wall
1983 The Challenge of Pain. New York: Basic Books.

Mondykowski, Sandra M.
1981 "Polish Families." Pp. 393-411 in Monica McGoldrick, John K. Pearce, and Joseph Giordano, Editors. Ethnicity and Family Therapy. New York/London: The Guilford Press.

Neyrey, Jerome H.
1988 The Resurrection Stories. Wilmington, DE.: Michael Glazier.

Pilch, John J.
1981 Wellness. Minneapolis, MN.: Winston Press.

1985 Wellness Spirituality. New York: Crossroad.

1988a "Understanding Biblical Healing: Selecting the Appropriate Model." Biblical Theology Bulletin 12:28-31.

1988b "Interpreting Scripture: The Social Science Method." The Bible Today 26: 13-19.

1990 "Marian Devotion and Wellness Spirituality: Bridging Mediterranean and American Cultures." Biblical Theology Bulletin 20: 70-95.

1994 "Illuminating the World of Jesus through Cultural Anthropology," The Living Light 31: 20-31.

1996 "Jews and Christians: Anachronisms in Bible Translations," in Professional Approaches for Christian Educators [PACE] 25 (April): 18-25. (See The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 98-104)

1999 The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible.  Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

2007  Introducing the Cultural Context of the New Testament.  Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, reprint with corrections and up-dated bibliography of  the 1991 publication by Paulist Press.

Pilch, John J. and Bruce J. Malina, Editors
1998  A Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Revised edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Stevens, Evelyn P.
1973 "Marianismo: The Other Face of Machismo in Latin America." Pp. 89-101 in Ann Pescatello, Editor, Female and Male in Latin America: Essays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Suttcliffe, Edmund F.
1953 Providence and Suffering in the Old and New Testaments. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd.

Talbert, Charles H.
1991 Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the New Testament and in its Milieu. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Toellner, Richard
1971 "Die Umbewertung des Schmerzes im 17. Jahrhundert in ihren Voraussetzungen and Folgen." Medizinhistorisches Journal 6: 36-44.

Vanhoye, Albert
1967 "Structure et théologie des récits de la Passion dans les évangiles synoptiques." Nouvelle Révue Théologique 89:135-163. English summary in Theology Digest 16 (1968) 4-7.

Zborowski, Mark
1952 "Cultural Components in Responses to Pain," Journal of Social Issues 8:16-30

1969 People in Pain. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.