I’ve heard it said that some people can’t stand Saint Thérèse’s writing because it is too girlish. Perhaps the same of Marcel Văn: too boyish.

I really can’t see how this makes any sense as a complaint. Thérèse and Marcel talk about falling into the loving hands of a good Father. Partly this is a style; but the style reflects the heart. It is clear that there is a good, large, favourite place for children in the Gospel who is Jesus Christ.

Indeed, if the simplicity of the Gospel and the writings of these two children-at-heart were not enough, we could turn to another Doctor of the Church to set the record straight. Saint Bernard, who, with other Doctors of the Church, emphasizes that the spiritual journey can be broken, by and large, into a threefold path: one begins, one progresses, one arrives to a very close union with the will of God (but still on earth). What is interesting is that, for Bernard, the latter of these states is simply “a son” who talks about “his Father’s essential goodness”:

One praises God because he is mighty, another because He is gracious, yet another because He is essential goodness. The first is a slave and fears for himself; the second is greedy, desiring further benefits; but the third is a son who honours his Father.

It is quite strong to say that the “state of the perfect”, as it has sometimes unclearly been called, is an emphasis on a “a son” who talks about “his Father’s essential goodness”. This is not an accidental part of the description of spiritual progress for Saint Bernard. It’s part of the core: a child’s view of his Father’s total goodness and enveloping care and provision.

So, if childlikeness can really be progress in spirituality… why complain? The style is the thing. The focus is the thing. It is good.