Corporal Mortification?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theidler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
This Priest gives a good treatment

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/michaelgiesler/corporalmortification.asp
Click to expand...
My point is that most people aren’t those people who benefit from it. Most people have all they can to do behave in a Christian fashion at work, in traffic and with their own family members and neighbors. That’s where the practice of Christianity begins. Mortification, for most individuals, is usually a dodge, a strategy for “feeling holy” without perfecting virtue.

I’m talking about hard-core mortification here, not the light mortification that matches one’s spiritual state, which for most people will be more like light fasting, prayer, scripture reading, abstaining from movies and so on. A person’s penances and so on should always match the level of virtue that they already have.

Example: Trying to jump to the “whips & chains” level while they can’t even get themselves to daily mass and perform daily works of mercy towards others, for instance, would be a mismatch, and therefore dangerous.
 
Daniel 9:3 I turned my face to the Lord God begging for time to pray and to plead, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.

peace
 
A member of Opus Dei told me one time that his most difficult penance was the practice of not hitting the snooze button on his alarm clock, but rather making himself get right out of bed in the morning. I don’t know if he was practicing anything else, but this was the one most difficult for him because it required behavior change. Behavior changes are the hardest, particularly behavior changes in the direction of greater virtue.

The Christian life demands behavior changes and growth in virtue, not just sacrifices or self-mastery.

We live in an age when self-help and self-mastery are considered great things and things to be emulated. This can be very wrong. “Being the best you can be” is not a Christian principle. The 10 Commandments are.
 
iloveangels said:
A member of Opus Dei told me one time that his most difficult penance was the practice of not hitting the snooze button on his alarm clock, but rather making himself get right out of bed in the morning. I don’t know if he was practicing anything else, but this was the one most difficult for him because it required behavior change. Behavior changes are the hardest, particularly behavior changes in the direction of greater virtue.

The Christian life demands behavior changes and growth in virtue, not just sacrifices or self-mastery.
Click to expand...
this would be hard for me too.
 
iloveangels said:
In the wrong hands, which is almost all hands, there is something wrong with it. That is the point of what I’m telling you. Experimenting around with such things can land a person in a psychiatrist’s chair. When it’s used by most people, it’s almost always used as a means of “stress conversion” in order to get relief from feelings of religious stress or guilt. This is the same exact thing that motivates a mentally-ill teenager to cut themselves for relief from their negative feelings. That’s a psychological symptom–and the dependence on it can escalate.

One of the problems here is that many people don’t understand either spiritual theology OR abnormal psychology, and some people are willing to “bless” things off that are seriously abnormal just because they are “religious.”
Click to expand...
I hate to ask for documentation because I don’t always like to ask for that, but in this case it would be helpful.

You post implies then that fasting, abstinence, etc is some sort of stress conversion.

And that in the old days people who dressed in sackcloth, were looking for stress conversion.

You can’t just look at the psychology of it. There is a spiritual component.
 
hazcompat said:
Daniel 9:3 I turned my face to the Lord God begging for time to pray and to plead, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.

peace
Click to expand...
Yep. I agree.

I posted without seeing this.

No one is arguing that some sorts of mortification should only take place under the watchful guidance of a spiritual adviser, but I find some of the comments almost offensive, and I personally have not done any sort of serious mortification. But then again, I made the same sort of comments maybe 6 months ago, even to go as far as to suggest there was some sado-masochism involved.

I know when I fast, it is not stress conversion or me dealing with my guilt a la cutter mode.

We are supposed to be grieved at our sins and constantly make penance.

We can’t psychoanalyze everything.
 
iloveangels said:
My point is that most people aren’t those people who benefit from it. Most people have all they can to do behave in a Christian fashion at work, in traffic and with their own family members and neighbors. That’s where the practice of Christianity begins. Mortification, for most individuals, is usually a dodge, a strategy for “feeling holy” without perfecting virtue.

I’m talking about hard-core mortification here, not the light mortification that matches one’s spiritual state, which for most people will be more like light fasting, prayer, scripture reading, abstaining from movies and so on. A person’s penances and so on should always match the level of virtue that they already have.

Example: Trying to jump to the “whips & chains” level while they can’t even get themselves to daily mass and perform daily works of mercy towards others, for instance, would be a mismatch, and therefore dangerous.
Click to expand...
There are two wonderful stories about this.

Mother Teresa:

She never allowed her sisters to fast, abstain, use the discipline or any other form of corporal punishment. One day, she was cleaning the sores of a leper. If you have ever seen leprosy while it’s raging, it smell like rotting flesh. It’s not a pretty sight either.

I had my daughter volunteer to care for lepers as part of her Catholic education. She would tell me stories that would turn your stomach.

One day, an observer said, “I wouldn’t do that for all the money in the world,” as he covered his nose and mouth. Mother looked at him and said, “Neither would I.”

When asked why the constitutions of her community did not include days of fasting and abstinence, other than those required by the Church, she said, “That kind of penance is necessary for people who do not have to deal with the pain of leprosy, children eaten by rats, people dying in their arms or people vomiting in their faces.” She walked away. Her point was very clear. There are many ways to share in Christ’s cross.

St. Francis:

The rule of St. Francis has fasts and abstinences to be observed. However, if someone offers you a hamburger on Good Friday, St. Francis says that you must eat it. Accepting another person’s charity can cost us. This was his position.

It was Lent. One night a novice woke up screaming that he was dying of hunger. The friars were fasting as was mandated by the Rule and the Church. It was also 3:00 AM. Francis awoke everyone. Ordered that a full meal be prepared for all of the brothers in the house. They sat there and ate together. Later, when in private, Br. Leo asked about this. Francis said, “We must never practice penance at the expense of charity. Both must be signs of love.”
TrueLight said:
I hate to ask for documentation because I don’t always like to ask for that, but in this case it would be helpful.

You post implies then that fasting, abstinence, etc is some sort of stress conversion.

And that in the old days people who dressed in sackcloth, were looking for stress conversion.

You can’t just look at the psychology of it. There is a spiritual component.
Click to expand...
I can help here. Dr. William James and several colleagues, Catholic and other, found that there are two kinds of people who engage in this type of practice.
  1. There are people who are very mature in their faith. You can identify them, because they are rational, practical and they are not zealous about the practice. In simple words, if they can’t do this on a given day or if the superior or spiritual director tells them to stop, they don’t lose sleep over it. He explains that these people are truly focused on the goal, not on the practice itself. For the person of faith, we know that the goal is to conform to Christ in all things.
  2. The other type of person is neurotic. This person feels the need to expiate himself. It’s almost like a need to get rid of something that’s eating away at them. When I first read this, I remembered how they bled people to get rid of ailments. Allegedly, as you bled, whatever ailed you would leave your body. It made sense to me that some people who place their faith on the mortification rather than on the Lord. Therefore, these folks would feel that they never have enough, because if truth be told, man will never be perfect. This kind of person should not be allowed to engage in such practices. The focus is in the wrong place and the faith is toxic to them.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
There are two wonderful stories about this.

Mother Teresa:

She never allowed her sisters to fast, abstain, use the discipline or any other form of corporal punishment. One day, she was cleaning the sores of a leper. If you have ever seen leprosy while it’s raging, it smell like rotting flesh. It’s not a pretty sight either.

I had my daughter volunteer to care for lepers as part of her Catholic education. She would tell me stories that would turn your stomach.

One day, an observer said, “I wouldn’t do that for all the money in the world,” as he covered his nose and mouth. Mother looked at him and said, “Neither would I.”

When asked why the constitutions of her community did not include days of fasting and abstinence, other than those required by the Church, she said, “That kind of penance is necessary for people who do not have to deal with the pain of leprosy, children eaten by rats, people dying in their arms or people vomiting in their faces.” She walked away. Her point was very clear. There are many ways to share in Christ’s cross.

St. Francis:

The rule of St. Francis has fasts and abstinences to be observed. However, if someone offers you a hamburger on Good Friday, St. Francis says that you must eat it. Accepting another person’s charity can cost us. This was his position.

It was Lent. One night a novice woke up screaming that he was dying of hunger. The friars were fasting as was mandated by the Rule and the Church. It was also 3:00 AM. Francis awoke everyone. Ordered that a full meal be prepared for all of the brothers in the house. They sat there and ate together. Later, when in private, Br. Leo asked about this. Francis said, “We must never practice penance at the expense of charity. Both must be signs of love.”

I can help here. Dr. William James and several colleagues, Catholic and other, found that there are two kinds of people who engage in this type of practice.
  1. There are people who are very mature in their faith. You can identify them, because they are rational, practical and they are not zealous about the practice. In simple words, if they can’t do this on a given day or if the superior or spiritual director tells them to stop, they don’t lose sleep over it. He explains that these people are truly focused on the goal, not on the practice itself. For the person of faith, we know that the goal is to conform to Christ in all things.
  2. The other type of person is neurotic. This person feels the need to expiate himself. It’s almost like a need to get rid of something that’s eating away at them. When I first read this, I remembered how they bled people to get rid of ailments. Allegedly, as you bled, whatever ailed you would leave your body. It made sense to me that some people who place their faith on the mortification rather than on the Lord. Therefore, these folks would feel that they never have enough, because if truth be told, man will never be perfect. This kind of person should not be allowed to engage in such practices. The focus is in the wrong place and the faith is toxic to them.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Okay. I understand this. But it’s a case by case basis, right?
 
TrueLight said:
Okay. I understand this. But it’s a case by case basis, right?
Click to expand...
Always.

When I was the superior, no one was allowed to use corporal mortification without my permission and it had to be used exactly as I indicated. If I saw that there was some hint of pathology, the practice was stopped. The current superior continues the same restrictions.

Today, I do formation, which I enjoy more than being superior. I always tell the novices, too much is just as bad as not enough. It’s called discipline for a reason. It requires the practice of good judgment.

The goal is to conform to Christ, not to show how much one hates himself. You can’t love Christ and hate yourself. That’s an oxymoron. If we love Christ, we love what he loves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
However, if someone offers you a hamburger on Good Friday, St. Francis says that you must eat it. Accepting another person’s charity can cost us.
Click to expand...
Such of course would not be something we ought to do under the current penitential requirements…and of course he would very much agree…for he was very obedient to the Church. (not that the poster was saying one ought to not follow the discipline of the Church here)
 
Bookcat said:
Such of course would not be something we ought to do under the current penitential requirements…and of course he would very much agree…for he was very obedient to the Church. (not that the poster was saying one ought to not follow the discipline of the Church here)
Click to expand...
He was obedient to the Church and it’s still in the constitutions and the rule. “The friars shall eat what it placed before them.” It’s in the chapter on fasting and abstinence.

We have to understand Francis. The point that he commands in the rule, which is still in effect today, because it cannot be changed, is that one should comply with the rules of fasting and abstinence as long as one does not violate charity. He points out that rejecting an act of charity from another person does not make the abstinence or fast any better. Rather, it takes away from its value, because penance must always be practiced within the context of love.

Francis does not contradict the Church. But he clarifies the purpose of penance and the relationship between penance and charity.

To address your comment "Such of course would not be something we ought to do under the current penitential requirements…and of course he would very much agree…for he was very obedient to the Church. "

Today’s rules for fasting and abstinence are much less rigorous than those of the Middle Ages. Francis was not afraid to do what Jesus did, when he allowed the disciples to pick and eat on the Sabbath. Francis has it very clear that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The Church has never allowed this rule to be changed for two reasons:
  1. Pope Honorius put a seal on the Rule of St. Francis that does not allow anyone except a pope to touch it. No Sacred Congregation, no superior, no chapter of the order and no bishop can touch it. That seal has never been broken in 800 years. Therefore, the rule about fasting unless it compromises charity still stands today.
  2. The Church has never allowed it to be changed, because it reflects what the Church believes. Penance can never compromise other virtues: prudence, patience, charity, temperance, purity, etc. Penance must always be consistent with the other virtues. We must always remember the words of St. Paul,** "If I have not love . . . " **
The point that I was making is that corporal discipline must be exercised with great charity, otherwise, it’s not a virtue, it’s an obsession.

I remember being in the missions and visiting a family. They lived in the basement of a house that had collapsed. It was not even a basement, because you couldn’t stand up. I believe it may have been about five feet high.

Anyway, it was Ash Wednesday. They invited us to stay with them for supper. When these very poor families invite you to share their table, it’s a very special gift. Often, they barely have enough food for themselves.

The lady had made some chicken soup. She served the other brother a me a bowl, which was actually a large tin, and placed a piece of chicken in each. There was no way that were going to turn down that piece of chicken. Francis would have our heads.

This was a perfect example of what he meant when he said, “The friars shall eat what is placed before them.” As a man of love, you never create an uncomfortable situation for a person who is doing you a great act of charity and generosity. Your sacrifice at that moment is to bite the bullet, eat the chicken soup and be truly grateful.

This is very consistent with the faith of the Church. The Church does not assign days of fasting and abstinence so rigorously that one has to feel obliged to make another person uncomfortable, especially when they are doing you an act of kindness.

In that situation, to decline the piece of chicken would have made the mother feel badly, because she had nothing else to offer us and we knew how important it was to her, her husband and her kids to have the brothers eat with them. The Church would never encourage us to place the law of abstinence or fasting ahead of the law of charity. Nor would she encourage that we place any form of physical mortification ahead of charity. They must be practiced hand in hand. If something has to be sacrificed, it can never be charity.

St. Clare always said that physical mortification must be anonymous and discrete so as not to inconvenience others. My understanding of what she was saying was that one had to be careful not to make others feel as if they were less Christian, because they didn’t do the same. She also said that mortification is for the individual, not for those around him… To starve yourself to the point that you get sick and everyone has to take care of you is not part of the Lord’s plan. That’s in inconvenience for others.

Some people get sick from fasting or abstinence because they don’t know that they have a medical problem until it happens. That’s a whole other point. In that case, the greatest mortification that the sick person can offer is to be humble enough to accept the service of others. To do something that you know ahead of time what is going to happen is foolish and an inconvenience to others. Such an inconvenience is a violation of justice.

If we look at the great saints. Many of those who were very sick also practiced great acts of mortification. However, they did not foresee the medical problem. They are not culpable of violating justice for the sake of mortification.

We’re talking about those who can foresee a problem arising and proceed without caution. That’s the reason that the Church places restrictions on fasting and abstinence: age, health, pregnancy, economic circumstances are just a few important consideratioins.

We are all called to penance, but penance must be part of a life of virtue. It’s a piece in a tapestry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
He was obedient to the Church and it’s still in the constitutions and the rule. “The friars shall eat what it placed before them.” It’s in the chapter on fasting and abstinence.

We have to understand Francis. The point that he commands in the rule, which is still in effect today, because it cannot be changed, is that one should comply with the rules of fasting and abstinence as long as one does not violate charity. He points out that rejecting an act of charity from another person does not make the abstinence or fast any better. Rather, it takes away from its value, because penance must always be practiced within the context of love.

Francis does not contradict the Church. But he clarifies the purpose of penance and the relationship between penance and charity.

To address your comment "Such of course would not be something we ought to do under the current penitential requirements…and of course he would very much agree…for he was very obedient to the Church. "

Today’s rules for fasting and abstinence are much less rigorous than those of the Middle Ages. Francis was not afraid to do what Jesus did, when he allowed the disciples to pick and eat on the Sabbath. Francis has it very clear that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The Church has never allowed this rule to be changed for two reasons:
  1. Pope Honorius put a seal on the Rule of St. Francis that does not allow anyone except a pope to touch it. No Sacred Congregation, no superior, no chapter of the order and no bishop can touch it. That seal has never been broken in 800 years. Therefore, the rule about fasting unless it compromises charity still stands today.
  2. The Church has never allowed it to be changed, because it reflects what the Church believes. Penance can never compromise other virtues: prudence, patience, charity, temperance, purity, etc. Penance must always be consistent with the other virtues. We must always remember the words of St. Paul,** "If I have not love . . . " **
The point that I was making is that corporal discipline must be exercised with great charity, otherwise, it’s not a virtue, it’s an obsession.

I remember being in the missions and visiting a family. They lived in the basement of a house that had collapsed. It was not even a basement, because you couldn’t stand up. I believe it may have been about five feet high.

Anyway, it was Ash Wednesday. They invited us to stay with them for supper. When these very poor families invite you to share their table, it’s a very special gift. Often, they barely have enough food for themselves.

The lady had made some chicken soup. She served the other brother a me a bowl, which was actually a large tin, and placed a piece of chicken in each. There was no way that were going to turn down that piece of chicken. Francis would have our heads.

This was a perfect example of what he meant when he said, “The friars shall eat what is placed before them.” As a man of love, you never create an uncomfortable situation for a person who is doing you a great act of charity and generosity. Your sacrifice at that moment is to bite the bullet, eat the chicken soup and be truly grateful.

This is very consistent with the faith of the Church. The Church does not assign days of fasting and abstinence so rigorously that one has to feel obliged to make another person uncomfortable, especially when they are doing you an act of kindness.

In that situation, to decline the piece of chicken would have made the mother feel badly, because she had nothing else to offer us and we knew how important it was to her, her husband and her kids to have the brothers eat with them. The Church would never encourage us to place the law of abstinence or fasting ahead of the law of charity. Nor would she encourage that we place any form of physical mortification ahead of charity. They must be practiced hand in hand. If something has to be sacrificed, it can never be charity.

St. Clare always said that physical mortification must be anonymous and discrete so as not to inconvenience others. My understanding of what she was saying was that one had to be careful not to make others feel as if they were less Christian, because they didn’t do the same. She also said that mortification is for the individual, not for those around him… To starve yourself to the point that you get sick and everyone has to take care of you is not part of the Lord’s plan. That’s in inconvenience for others.

Some people get sick from fasting or abstinence because they don’t know that they have a medical problem until it happens. That’s a whole other point. In that case, the greatest mortification that the sick person can offer is to be humble enough to accept the service of others. To do something that you know ahead of time what is going to happen is foolish and an inconvenience to others. Such an inconvenience is a violation of justice.

If we look at the great saints. Many of those who were very sick also practiced great acts of mortification. However, they did not foresee the medical problem. They are not culpable of violating justice for the sake of mortification.

We’re talking about those who can foresee a problem arising and proceed without caution. That’s the reason that the Church places restrictions on fasting and abstinence: age, health, pregnancy, economic circumstances are just a few important consideratioins.

We are all called to penance, but penance must be part of a life of virtue. It’s a piece in a tapestry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for such a beautiful explanation!🙂
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
Thank you so much for such a beautiful explanation!🙂
Click to expand...
I will tell my brothers how pleased you are with our constitutions and with the theology of our Holy Father Francis. They will be very happy to know that someone benefited from it. Everything that I’m explaining comes right out of our rule and constitutions. The experience that we had in the missions was because we did as our constitutions tell us to do. Of course, these constitutions are approved by the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. I feel very comfortable using them as a learning tool, because their orthodoxy is unquestionable.

None of it is mine to take the credit; however, thank you for the kind remark.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I will tell my brothers how pleased you are with our constitutions and with the theology of our Holy Father Francis. They will be very happy to know that someone benefited from it. Everything that I’m explaining comes right out of our rule and constitutions. The experience that we had in the missions was because we did as our constitutions tell us to do. Of course, these constitutions are approved by the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. I feel very comfortable using them as a learning tool, because their orthodoxy is unquestionable.

None of it is mine to take the credit; however, thank you for the kind remark.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I think my dear Irish Sisters of Charity must have taught us this some forty years ago, because it made perfect sense to me when you first posted it(before your explanation). It rung a bell, and I was trying to formulate an explanation in my mind, but gave up. I’m glad I did, because you know the rule and the reason for it.

Because a friend of mine has certain food allergies, I abstain from those foods, as a type of “solidarity” with him. I have passed this information on to my family, so they don’t think I’ve gone crazy by-passing tomatoes and avocados. However, I was a guest of my aunt during my father’s funeral, and she served a casserole with tomatoes. My mother started to say something to my aunt, but I stopped her, as I am not allergic to the tomatoes, and it would have been unthinkable to refuse the lovely casserole my aunt made.

That would have been my explanation, but I didn’t know the actual rule, as you do. So thanks, now I have St. Francis to look to for this.🙂
 
iloveangels said:
Light fasting and abstinence, and conversion of everyday behavior are much more appropriate for most people. Many people who consider all kinds of wacky penances are doing it to avoid the prospect of simply converting their lives and behaving in a solidly Christian fashion towards others. It’s often a pride thing.

Religious reading is appropriate, prayer is appropriate, as is going to confession and going to Mass more often.

Anything that modifies the body or draws blood is abnormal and most probably pathological for just about anyone you or I will ever know, I don’t care how “religious” the claims for it are.
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding what we mean by “under spiritual direction”. That means no one takes takes up the “discipline” on their own. Spiritual directors are trained to recognize and identify abnormal thought process. If someone is being prideful, or seeking stress relief, or otherwise disordered, his spirital director will not allow this type of mortification, and will also refer him for professional treatment as necessary.

Using the discipline or similar corporal mortification is not something that your average lay person is ready for, I agree. But that doesn’t mean it is always and everywhere abnormal.

As you say, we would all do well to mind the simple rules given to us by the church - to attend Mass every Sunday, to fast 2x a year, to abstain during Lent, to be kind to those around us. After that we move up to things like daily Mass or following the LOTH, It is only after quite a bit of formation that anyone is ready to even consider corporal mortification like the discipline.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
…

As you say, we would all do well to mind the simple rules given to us by the church - to attend Mass every Sunday, to fast 2x a year, to abstain during Lent, to be kind to those around us. After that we move up to things like daily Mass or following the LOTH, It is only after quite a bit of formation that anyone is ready to even consider corporal mortification like the discipline.
Click to expand...
Mrs Sally,
Correct. It is not something someone should be considering about doing until they are very well along spiritually, and they understand all of the kinds of things that Br JR has explained so well. The great majority of people aren’t yet at this place in their spiritual life and should use everyday behavioral penances instead.

This kind of thing has a sort of “glamor” for some Catholics, and that’s not what it’s for.
 
TrueLight, they don’t like links in here, so I won’t bend the rules, but…

Search for a book called, “Bleeding to Ease the Pain,” page 55. It’s on Google Books. If you don’t like that one, there are plenty more references for this phenomenon. It’s an easy Google search.

I used to be a schoolteacher and I have seen this up close and personal several times. It’s really tragic. The people doing it feel that they have to do it in order to release themselves from the guilt or shame they have from their unsatisfactory relationships; sometimes they also do it for the sense of self-control it gives them or for attention. Depending on what their particular source of stress or feelings of inadequacy are, and what their take on those is. Some even take pride in it, although most don’t exactly, it’s more like fascination for some.

People who engage in this sort of thing are usually confused about its origin and the psychological mechanics of how it works until they are sent to a doctor because they’ve been caught doing it. Then it’s usually explained to them and steps are taken to stop this behavior because it can leave scars, cause infection, cause social problems, be a pre-cursor for other things, etc. At the very least, it’s a cry for help, sometimes an unwilling cry, but nevertheless, a cry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top