This page has three parts: Independent Biblical Identification, Cross-Entry Synthesis, and Observation Notes.
01-24 Biblical Resonance Analysis
STAGE ONE — INDEPENDENT BIBLICAL IDENTIFICATION
This entry has three conceptual movements: the resentment and obedience struggle; the cholera petition and divine refusal (pending acceptance); and the decisive locution on the imitation of Christ’s response to opposition — offering the pains given by opponents for those opponents’ own salvation — followed by the three-day suffering and the cholera’s cessation.
Resentment and the Obedience Struggle
How many times I thought I was disobedient… Many times, I would lament to Our Lord, and at times I reached the point of being resentful; and when He wanted me to accept sufferings, I would resist as much as I could… that the most tormenting pain for me was that of not being able to obey.
Sirach 27:30–28:1 — “Resentment and anger, these are abominations, and the sinful man will possess them. He who takes vengeance will suffer vengeance from the Lord.” The temptation to resentment — “I reached the point of being resentful” — is the Sapiential tradition’s “foul thing found with sinners.” Luisa’s honesty about reaching this point, and the divine non-response that follows resistance, corresponds to the Sirach warning: resentment destroys the relationship with God and neighbor. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Romans 9:19 — “For who withstands his will?”” “When He saw that I would begin to resist, the Lord showed He would not pay attention to me… and then, all of a sudden, He would come to surprise me.” The resistance that cannot prevail — confirmed again from Entry 023 — corresponds to Paul’s rhetorical question. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Hebrews 5:8 — “though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” “The most tormenting pain for me was that of not being able to obey” — the correspondence between suffering and obedience-learning is the Hebrews pattern applied to Luisa: the pain of experienced disobedience (involuntary, through the ecstasy she could not prevent) produces the understanding of obedience’s value. Christological/Trinitarian.
The Cholera Petition and Conditional Acceptance
One day I prayed my good Jesus to make this scourge cease. And He said to me: “I will content you, as long as you accept offering yourself to suffer whatever I want.” I said to Him: ‘Lord, no, I cannot – You know how they think. If this thing could pass only between me and You, I would have been absolutely ready to accept everything.’
Galatians 1:10 — “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn’t be a servant of Christ.” “If this thing could pass only between me and You, I would have been absolutely ready to accept everything” — Luisa’s resistance is precisely the human-approval concern that Galatians names: she would accept if it were private, but the public dimension (what the priests think) makes acceptance feel impossible. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Exodus 8:8–15 — Moses and Pharaoh’s repeated petition-and-response pattern (the plague negotiations). The cholera-petition structure — suffering permitted until the creature accepts the divine condition; the suffering ceasing upon acceptance — corresponds to the plague-negotiation pattern: the divine permits the scourge, awaits the creaturely response, and acts upon acceptance. Typological.
The Decisive Locution: Offering Opponents’ Pains for Their Own Salvation
“If I had thought of what men were thinking and of what they were going to do with Me, I would not have operated the Redemption of mankind. But I had my eyes fixed on their salvation, and the great love that devoured Me made Me act in this way: when I would see people who were thinking ill about Me, and who caused occasion to make Me suffer more, I would offer those very pains that they gave Me for their own salvation.”
Hebrews 12:2 — “looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising its shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” “I had my eyes fixed on their salvation” — the gaze fixed on the salvific goal (the joy set before him), enabling the endurance of the cross and the despising of the shame, is Hebrews 12:2’s mechanism applied in the first person. Christ models what Entry 021 described: the gaze fixed on the Father’s will and the salvific purpose makes the bearing of shame not merely endurable but purposive. Christological/Trinitarian.
Luke 23:34 — “Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are” “When I would see people who were thinking ill about Me… I would offer those very pains that they gave Me for their own salvation” — the reparatory offering of persecutors’ pains for their own salvation is the theological content of Luke 23:34 stated in its operational form. The cross-cry corresponds to the mechanism the locution names: the suffering inflicted by opponents is offered for those opponents’ salvation. Christological/Trinitarian.
Matthew 5:43–48 — ““You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, … same? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” The command to love enemies and pray for persecutors corresponds precisely to what the locution names as Christ’s own practice: offering the pains that opponents give him for their salvation is the active form of enemy-love. The command to be “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” is here fulfilled in its most demanding form — Christ himself models it and asks Luisa to replicate it. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Matthew 5:11–12 — ““Blessed are you when people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven.” The priestly accusations (Entry 023) and the cholera context establish the persecution background; the locution responds with the active Beatitude form: not merely endurance of persecution but the transformation of persecution into the instrument of the persecutors’ salvation. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Proverbs 25:22 — “for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the LORD will reward you.” The offering of pains given by enemies for those enemies’ salvation corresponds to the Wisdom-tradition principle: the act of good toward the enemy is the most effective form of relationship with the enemy. The “burning coals” are the grace that transforms. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Colossians 1:24 — “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the assembly,” “Don’t you know that the most beautiful act, the most heroic and most pleasing to Me, which you must offer to Me, is that of offering yourself for the very ones who are against you?” — this is Col 1:24 in its most demanding application: the sufferings offered are for the very ones who inflicted them. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Luke 6:12 — “In these days, he went out to the mountain to pray, and he continued all night in prayer to God.” Hogan cites “Luke 6:12 and following” for the locution on offering oneself for opponents. Luke 6:12–36 covers Christ’s night of prayer preceding the choice of the apostles, followed immediately by the Sermon on the Plain’s teaching on loving enemies. The night-prayer consecration followed by enemy-love teaching corresponds structurally to Luisa’s three-day prayer-in-suffering followed by the cholera’s cessation. Typological.
Luisa Remains Mute — Acceptance — Three Days — Cholera Ceases
I remained mute; I did not know what to answer. I accepted everything the Lord wanted, and so in the evening I was surprised by that state of sufferings, and I remained in it for three consecutive days. Then, after I came round, I no longer heard anything about the cholera.
Romans 8:26 — “In the same way, the Spirit also helps our weaknesses, for we don’t know how to pray as we ought. But the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings which can’t be uttered.” “I remained mute; I did not know what to answer” — the soul’s wordlessness before the divine argument corresponds to Paul’s “we do not know what to pray for as we ought”: the Spirit’s intercession (and here, the victim-soul’s accepted suffering) takes the place of articulated response. Direct doctrinal parallel.
Jonah 1:12, 3:3–5 — Jonah’s offering of himself to stop the storm; Nineveh’s repentance stopping the divine judgment. The three-day acceptance-and-suffering that stops the cholera corresponds structurally to the Jonah pattern: the scourge (storm/divine judgment) is arrested when the designated intercessor accepts the divinely appointed role. Luisa’s three days in the state corresponds to the three days Jonah spent in the whale — a bounded period of suffering that produces the salvific result. Typological.
Esther 4:16 — “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as similarly.” The three-day fast-and-suffering before the crisis is averted corresponds to Esther’s three days of fasting before her intercession for the people. The pattern of intercessory suffering preceding divine action is consistently a three-day structure in the biblical narrative. Typological.
STAGE TWO — COMPARISON WITH HOGAN’S COMMENTARY
CORRESPONDENCES
Sirach 27 / Resentment is a foul thing: Hogan cites “the book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, I think it’s chapter 37, first five verses, it’ll tell you that resentment is a foul thing found only with sinners.” Stage One independently identified Sir 27:30 for the same movement. Note on Hogan’s citation: Hogan cites “Sirach 37, first five verses” but the resentment content is more precisely in Sir 27:30–28:1. Sirach 37:1–5 concerns friendship and false friends. The BRA notes the discrepancy and uses Sir 27:30–28:1 per the content identified. Citation correction noted per protocol.
Galatians 1:10 / Seeking the approval of man vs. God: Hogan cites “Galatians 1:10” for “if this thing could pass only between me and You, I would have been absolutely ready.” Stage One independently identified the same passage. Direct correspondence.
Hebrews 12:2 / Eyes fixed on the goal: Hogan cites “Hebrews 12:2” for “I had my eyes fixed on their salvation.” Stage One independently identified the same passage. Direct correspondence.
Matthew 5:43–48 / Love your enemies: Hogan cites “Matthew 5, 43 to 48” for the locution on offering opponents’ pains for their salvation. Stage One independently identified Matt 5:43–48 for the same movement. Direct correspondence.
Matthew 5:11–12 / Blessed when persecuted: Hogan cites “Matthew 5, 11 to 12” for the persecution-and-joy movement. Stage One independently identified the same passage. Direct correspondence.
Proverbs 25:22 / Heap burning coals: Hogan cites “Proverbs 25:22” for the good-toward-enemy principle. Stage One independently identified the same passage. Direct correspondence.
Luke 6:12 and following / Night prayer and enemy-love: Hogan cites “Luke 6:12 and following” for the offering-oneself-for-opponents movement. Stage One independently identified Lk 6:12 and the Sermon on the Plain’s enemy-love teaching. Direct correspondence.
DEVIATIONS
Sirach 37:1–5 → Sirach 27:30–28:1: Hogan cites “Sirach 37, first five verses” but the content she describes (resentment as a foul thing found with sinners) corresponds to Sir 27:30–28:1. Sir 37:1–5 is about false friendship. The BRA uses Sir 27:30–28:1 per content. Citation correction noted per protocol.
ADDITIONS — MINE
Stage One identified the following not addressed by Hogan:
- Romans 9:19 (who can resist his will) for the resistance-overcome pattern
- Hebrews 5:8 (obedience learned through suffering) for the obedience-pain connection
- Exodus 8:8–15 (plague-negotiation pattern) for the cholera-petition structure
- Luke 23:34 (Father, forgive them) for the reparatory-offering mechanism
- Colossians 1:24 (filling up Christ’s afflictions for the body) for the same
- Romans 8:26 (the Spirit intercedes with groanings too deep for words) for Luisa’s mute acceptance
- Jonah 1:12 / 3:3–5 (Jonah offering himself; Nineveh’s repentance stopping judgment) for the three-day acceptance-and-cessation
- Esther 4:16 (three-day fast before intercessory action) for the same
ADDITIONS — HERS
Obedience at heroic level as sufficient for canonization (contextual): Hogan’s observation — “she could be canonized for this alone, that she lived obedience at such a heroic level at a time when disobedience became very strong in the church… the Lord has her living obedience to make reparation for the disobedience in the church” — is a significant ecclesiological-reparatory identification. The implicit scriptural background is Phil 2:8 (Christ obedient unto death) and the entire obedience arc of Volume 2 (October 3: “I Myself am obedience”). Luisa’s heroic obedience is not merely personal virtue but reparatory ecclesial service.
Hogan’s escalation note on Hebrews 12:2 (contextual): Hogan applies Heb 12:2 to Christ’s model in a way that emphasizes the goal-orientation: “if you think of someone who wants to be a pilot… if you think of a couple getting married… all they think of is that’s the day we’re getting married. That’s what Jesus is saying to her.” The pastoral-practical translation of Heb 12:2 into accessible contemporary analogies is Hogan’s characteristic contribution.
VIP / SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Hogan applies no formal VIP designation. However, her designation “that’s a major revelation at this particular point. Major revelation” — applied to the locution about offering opponents’ pains for their own salvation — functions as an implicit elevation. This is the entry’s doctrinal summit.
STAGE TWO SYNTHESIS
This entry achieves strong convergence: Sir 27 (citation correction noted), Gal 1:10, Heb 12:2, Matt 5:43–48, Matt 5:11–12, Prov 25:22, and Lk 6:12 — seven confirmed citations across all major movements.
Stage One’s major additions: Luke 23:34 (the reparatory-offering mechanism’s Christological model), Col 1:24 (the doctrinal ground), and the three-day typology (Jonah, Esther) for the acceptance-and-cessation structure. Hogan’s major addition: the obedience-as-reparation-for-ecclesial-disobedience identification.
The dominant biblical imagination: Matt 5:43–48 (enemy-love as the governing Sermon-on-the-Mount command), Heb 12:2 (eyes fixed on the goal), and Lk 23:34 (the cross-cry as the reparatory-offering model) constitute the theological triple anchor. The three-day Jonah/Esther typology establishes the biblical precedent for intercessory suffering producing public results.
Cross-Entry Synthesis
Resentment and the Obedience Struggle
“Many times, I would lament to Our Lord, and at times I reached the point of being resentful… But when He saw that I would begin to resist, the Lord showed He would not pay attention to me.”
Both streams converge on Sir 27:30–28:1 (resentment is a foul thing) — with a citation correction from Hogan’s “Sirach 37” to Sir 27:30. Stage One adds Rom 9:19 (who can resist his will) and Heb 5:8 (obedience learned through suffering).
Hogan’s contextual observation is theologically precise: “the Bible is closed to so many people because they’re in disobedience to the Lord… the word of God is not thrown to swine.” The divine withholding of communication when Luisa resists — “He would not pay attention to me and He would not tell me anything else” — is the specific form of this closure: the ongoing locution-relationship depends on the soul’s openness to divine direction. Resistance interrupts the communication channel.
The Heb 5:8 correspondence establishes the paradox operating throughout this movement: “the most tormenting pain was that of not being able to obey.” Luisa experiences involuntary disobedience (she cannot prevent the ecstatic states the confessor told her to avoid) as genuine suffering — the pain of obedience-learning through its frustrated realization. This is the same mechanism by which Christ “learned obedience through what he suffered”: the obedience-knowledge is not theoretical but experiential, acquired through the actual lived experience of its constraints.
Hogan’s ecclesiological identification — “Luisa living obedience to make reparation for the disobedience in the church” — advances REP-1 to its most institutionally significant form. Reparation for human sin (REP-1’s original scope) now extends to reparation for institutional ecclesial disobedience: Luisa’s heroic obedience, precisely at the moment when ecclesial disobedience strengthens, is the divinely appointed counterweight.
The Cholera Petition and Conditional Acceptance
“I will content you, as long as you accept offering yourself to suffer whatever I want.” I said to Him: ‘Lord, no, I cannot – You know how they think. If this thing could pass only between me and You, I would have been absolutely ready.’
Both streams converge on Gal 1:10 (seeking the approval of man vs. God) for the resistance-based-on-what-others-think movement. Hogan cites it; Stage One confirms independently.
The Gal 1:10 correspondence is theologically precise: Luisa’s “if it could pass only between me and You” is the precise form of the human-approval concern Paul names. She would serve God if the service were private; the public dimension makes it feel impossible. The locution that follows directly addresses this: “if I had thought of what men were thinking… I would not have operated the Redemption.” The divine response to human-approval concern is the Christological model of its opposite: the salvific action was operated precisely in the face of universal misunderstanding and opposition.
Stage One adds Exod 8:8–15 (the plague-negotiation pattern) as the typological frame. The cholera-petition structure — scourge permitted, divine condition stated, creaturely resistance, eventual acceptance, scourge ceasing — is the plague-negotiation pattern in its most intimate form: Moses negotiating with Pharaoh for the people’s freedom corresponds to Luisa negotiating with Christ about the conditions for the cholera’s cessation. In both cases, the divine is willing to act on the human’s behalf but requires the creaturely acceptance of the divinely specified role.
The Decisive Locution: Offering Opponents’ Pains for Their Own Salvation
“When I would see people who were thinking ill about Me, and who caused occasion to make Me suffer more, I would offer those very pains that they gave Me for their own salvation… Don’t you know that the most beautiful act, the most heroic and most pleasing to Me, which you must offer to Me, is that of offering yourself for the very ones who are against you?”
Both streams converge on Heb 12:2 (eyes fixed on the goal), Matt 5:43–48 (love your enemies), Matt 5:11–12 (blessed when persecuted), Prov 25:22 (burning coals on the enemy’s head through good), and Lk 6:12 (night prayer and enemy-love teaching). All five confirmed independently — the strongest multi-passage convergence in the entry.
Stage One adds Lk 23:34 (Father, forgive them) and Col 1:24 (filling up Christ’s afflictions for the body) as the most theologically load-bearing additions. Together these seven passages constitute the complete theological architecture of the locution’s central teaching.
Lk 23:34 is the most significant addition. The locution names the mechanism — offering the pains given by opponents for those opponents’ salvation — and Lk 23:34 names the historical event in which Christ enacted it. The entry’s locution is not a new doctrine but an articulation of what was already operative in Christ’s Passion: from the cross, the one whose suffering was inflicted by the crowd prayed for the crowd’s forgiveness. Luisa is being asked to replicate the Calvary prayer in her own smaller sphere of suffering.
Hogan’s designation — “that’s a major revelation at this particular point. Major revelation” — applies specifically to the offering-of-opponents’-pains-for-their-salvation mechanism. The “major revelation” is that not only does the soul not react negatively to those who cause pain, but the pain itself becomes the specific instrument of their salvation. This is RP-6 (the double-direction-of-the-blow) at its most complete Volume 1 statement: the blow of the opponents’ persecution is absorbed and immediately redirected as the reparatory material for those same opponents’ redemption.
Matt 5:43–48 (“be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”) establishes that this enemy-love-in-action is the form of Christian perfection Christ defines. The locution’s “most beautiful, most heroic, and most pleasing” corresponds to the Sermon’s “you therefore must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”: the perfection is precisely the enemy-love-as-reparation that the locution names.
Volume 2 resonance: The September 25 victim-soul capacity — standing in the breach, absorbing the blow in both directions — is here given its fullest Christological exposition in Volume 1. Christ himself models RP-6: he absorbed the blow of his opponents’ sin (the offense against God) and directed that absorbed suffering toward those opponents’ salvation (the just response — their redemption). The double-direction-of-the-blow is Christ’s own Passion mechanism, and the victim soul replicates it by design.
Mute Acceptance — Three Days — Cholera Ceases
I remained mute; I did not know what to answer. I accepted everything the Lord wanted, and so in the evening I was surprised by that state of sufferings, and I remained in it for three consecutive days. Then, after I came round, I no longer heard anything about the cholera.
Hogan does not cite Scripture for this movement but provides the thematic conclusion: “she has now been given her first taste of the power of suffering for others.” Stage One establishes: Rom 8:26 (the Spirit intercedes with groanings too deep for words), Jonah 1:12 / 3:3–5 (intercessory self-offering stops the storm/judgment), and Esther 4:16 (three-day fast before the intercessory action produces the salvific result).
The mute acceptance — “I remained mute; I did not know what to answer” — is the soul’s most complete form of submission. The argument is unanswerable; the example is irrefutable; and the soul’s response is silence followed by acceptance. Rom 8:26 applies precisely: the Spirit’s “groanings too deep for words” corresponds to the soul’s wordlessness before the divine — the acceptance goes beyond articulation into the pure act of the will.
The three-day typology is the most significant structural addition Stage One makes to this movement. Jonah’s three days in the whale (the bounded suffering that produces the salvific result — Nineveh’s repentance) and Esther’s three-day fast (the intercessory preparation that produces the salvific result — the people’s deliverance) both correspond to Luisa’s three-day state that produces the cessation of the cholera. The consistent biblical pattern: three days of intercessory suffering preceding the divine action that delivers the people.
The cholera cessation is the entry’s most concrete confirmation of REP-1’s operational reality. The reparatory vocation (REP-1) is not merely a spiritual category but a causally operative mechanism in history: Luisa’s three-day accepted suffering corresponds to the end of a public epidemic. This is the first historically verifiable result of Luisa’s intercessory vocation in Volume 1, and it establishes the scale of what REP-1 can accomplish.
Synthesis Conclusion
Dominant biblical imagination: The dominant tradition at work in this entry is the enemy-love tradition (Matt 5:43–48; Prov 25:22; Lk 23:34) as the governing theological principle; the goal-fixation tradition (Heb 12:2) as the operative mechanism; and the three-day intercessory-suffering tradition (Jonah, Esther) as the structural typology for the cholera cessation.
Load-bearing correspondences:
-
Luke 23:34 / Colossians 1:24 / Matthew 5:43–48 — The reparatory-offering mechanism in its Christological, apostolic, and dominical forms. Lk 23:34 names the historical event; Col 1:24 names the apostolic participation; Matt 5:43–48 names the commandment. Together they establish that offering opponents’ pains for their salvation is simultaneously Christological (what Christ did), apostolic (what Paul named), and dominical (what the Sermon commands). Luisa is being asked to replicate at the level of her specific circumstances what is universally commanded by the Sermon and universally enacted by Christ on Calvary.
-
Hebrews 12:2 / Galatians 1:10 — The eyes-on-the-goal antidote to human-approval concern. Both streams converge on Heb 12:2; Gal 1:10 is confirmed by both for the human-approval problem. Together they constitute the theological structure of the locution’s first movement: the reason Christ could operate the Redemption despite universal opposition was that his eyes were fixed on the salvific goal (Heb 12:2), not on what others were thinking (the Gal 1:10 temptation). Luisa must replicate the same orientation.
-
Jonah 1:12 / Esther 4:16 — The three-day intercessory-suffering typology and the cholera cessation. Stage One’s typological additions establish that the three-day accepted suffering producing a public result is a consistent biblical pattern. The cholera cessation is not an isolated miracle but the contemporary instance of a structurally recurring divine mechanism: bounded intercessory suffering produces public deliverance.
Hogan’s elevation: “That’s a major revelation at this particular point. Major revelation” — applied to the offering-of-opponents’-pains-for-their-salvation mechanism. This is the entry’s VIP-equivalent content: the mechanism is not merely presented as Luisa’s specific vocation but as the general principle of Christian perfection (Matt 5:43–48) enacted at its most complete form.
Observation Note
(a) Cholera cessation confirms REP-1’s historical-causal scope: The cholera ceasing after Luisa’s three-day accepted suffering is the first historically verifiable instance of REP-1 in Volume 1. Reparatory suffering is not merely spiritually operative but causally operative in public events. This establishes REP-1’s scope as extending beyond the spiritual to the historical-public domain.
(b) RP-6 (double-direction-of-the-blow) given its fullest Christological exposition: The locution’s “when I would see people who were thinking ill about Me… I would offer those very pains that they gave Me for their own salvation” is Christ’s own first-person account of RP-6’s mechanism. Entry 024 is the primary Christological reference point for RP-6 in Volume 1: the double direction of the blow is not Luisa’s unique spiritual technique but the replication of Christ’s own Passion mechanism.
(c) Citation correction — Sirach 37 → Sirach 27:30–28:1: Per protocol. Hogan’s “Sirach 37, first five verses” does not match the resentment content she describes; the correct reference is Sir 27:30–28:1. (d) REP-1 + obedience-as-reparation for ecclesial disobedience identified: Hogan’s observation that Luisa’s heroic obedience makes reparation for the church’s growing disobedience is a new dimension of REP-1’s scope: reparation is not only for public sinners (Entry 017) or cholera victims (Entry 024) but specifically for institutional ecclesial disobedience. This should be tracked as REP-1’s ecclesial-reparation dimension.
Observation Notes
See this note in volume context →
01-24
On the cholera cessation as REP-1’s first historically verifiable instance: This is the most concretely confirmable datum in Volume 1. Luisa’s accepted three-day suffering corresponds to the end of a public epidemic. The reparatory vocation is not merely spiritually operative but causally operative in historical events. This significantly expands REP-1’s scope.
On RP-6’s fullest Christological exposition: “When I would see people who were thinking ill about Me… I would offer those very pains that they gave Me for their own salvation” is Christ’s own first-person account of the double-direction-of-the-blow. Entry 024 is now the primary Volume 1 reference point for RP-6: it is not Luisa’s technique but the replication of Christ’s Passion mechanism.
On Hogan’s “major revelation” elevation: The offering-of-opponents’-pains-for-their-salvation mechanism is the closest thing to a VIP designation in Entry 024. It is the entry’s theological summit and the most practically significant teaching in the entry for understanding victim-soul spirituality.