From the side lines…“pus” is part of the blood…ingesting blood is forbidden in scripture is it not…outside of your sacrament of course under the appearence of wine…does God contradict himself and call his saints to ingest blood? Just wondering…not meaning to offend…I did find this thread interesting…if not in some places disturbing to my stomach…I just ate.
Then no, I don’t think the methods were rooted in mental illness, otherwise half the saints of the church if not more would all have practices rooted in mental illness something which is not ony statistically unlikely but illogical.
You misunderstand both the necessity of mortification and ignore the Church’s continous emphasis on it during its long history, its has nothing to do with gnosticism and everything to do with mortification.
They were canonised because of their heroic virtues and these virtues were demonstrated in their actions, now if their actions were unhealthy then it follows that the line of thinking behind them was also unhealthy. Of course this isnt true and this is why I believe it is not a good idea to question whether their actions were the results of mental illness because inevitably it reflects on the line of thinking or virtues behind their actions.
I’m pretty sure not drinking water for several days, always drinking dirty water or eating lice would have been just as outrageous then as it is now, our knowledge of mental health has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
As I said above these behaviours are intrinsic to any process of canonisation, they demonstrate heroic vitrues and sanctity of life, if they were to be condemned then likewise the virtues should be. It appears very presumptous of us to suppose that we know better than not only the saints involved but also their spiritual directors and The Church itself which has not condemned or even referred to their aberrant behaviour except to praise it.
Mortification is intrinsic to holiness and extreme mortification is intrinsic to extreme holiness, this has always been the teaching of the church, saints such as St Francis de La Sales, St Margaret Mary Alcoque, St Maria Faustina, St Claude de la Colombiere and esteemed spiritual directors such as Fr Croiset as well as Thomas Kempis to name but a few have all made this point abundantaly clear. Mortification is not self-destructive behaviour, excessive drinking, drug use, sexual promiscuity is self-destructive behaviour. Drinking dirty water or eating lice or whatever great mortifications the saints have performed is not self-destructive nor is it mutilating the body. On the subject of ‘mutilation’ the list of saints who have worn chains around their bodies or used the discipline with the result of drawing blood or leaving permanent marks on their bodies is almost endless. And yet one does not find The Church condemning this, rather saints, biographers and The Church itself repeatedly speaks in praise of these actions and even on occassion recommends them. The fact is the criticism you have for these actions has no support whatsoever in Catholic Tradition, indeed as I have explained just the opposite is the case.
It is rather presumptous of us to believe that we know better than not only the saints involved but also their spiritual directors -in those cases where their spiritual directors approved of their practices- and their biographers. If they all believed it was necessary it was necessary. The fact remains that the church has repeatedly condoned behaiours and actions that are ‘dangerous’ to the welfare of the body whether it is through the extreme fasting of some saints or the eating of for example lice, the extreme use of chains or of the discipline. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of the countless saints who have done so and the praise they have received from numerous others for doing so.
that is interesting about St Maximilian Kolbe… I agree that God would not want us to ruin our bodies, because He created them, - but I’m kind of wondering, where is the line between causing self discomfort and ruining the body? This is something I’m wondering after reading this thread…[/qutoe]
There is a principle in moral theology called the principle of double effect. This is the case where you do something good, even though it may have a secondary consequence that is not desired, but simple tolerated. It is tolerated, because the good must be done. You’re not out to kill yourself by starvation, but the fasting must be done, so you fast. In most cases, there are no collateral effects. In some cases there are and they are not anticipated. In other cases there are and they can be foreseen, but they are not desired. The intent is not to kill. The Church focuses on intent and necessity. Some things are unnecessary. The heroic Christian does what is necessary, even when it hurts.
Monica4316;8317616:
It has no effect at all, as long at the intent was not to do damage. St. Therese says it very well, “Love and do what you will.” Mother Teresa also said, “We will not be judged by the greatness of what we do, but by our love and fidelity.” St. Teresa of Avila said, “Love is enough, since God desires nothing else.” It seems one must be named Teresa to understand that God looks at the heart, not the outside. I think I’ll change my name to Terrence. Maybe it will make me wiser.But - if someone’s behaviour was unhealthy yet came from love of God and neighbour - I am wondering if this affects how pleasing it is to God? Or does He only look at the virtue involved and the love with which it was done?
God bless
Again, we must look at intent. What was the intent? We also look a the means? Is the means appropriate for the intent? And finally, we look at the moral law. Is there anything in moral law that contraindicates such action?
Those answers tell us what is and what is not acceptable.
Unfortunately, many Christian scholars will disagree with you. One of them is Fr. Benedict G. He has written extensively on this subject. This is precisely his area. He was called in to testify in Bl. Teresa of Calcutta’s case. The question on the table was how much of her behavior was damaging and whether it was morally contraindicated, morally acceptable, healthy or pathology. The Church does look at pathology, whether we like it or not. The team of Postulators do chalk a lot of things up to mental illness, neuroses, ignorance or simply culture of the time. None of these take away from the merit of he virtue. The virtue is not dependant on the action. The action is the product of the virtue. But the same virtue could generate a very different action as we have already seen.
Now you’re getting judgmental and that’s not what this is about. We’re not here to judge spiritual directors. I, as a person who does a lot of spiritual direction, take offense at this. i will ask you to drop it right now or I will bow out of this thread.
Ascetical Theology does not use this line of reasoning. Ascetical Theology asks what is the motivating factor behind the action. It passes judgment on that. Christian psychology will tell us whether the person was even aware of the harm involved in the action. That’s why you have a team of experts analyze these cases. Canonization is a multi-disciplinary effort.
If you ever get the questionnaire that the Postulator for a cause sends out, one section of that form is all about the psychological state of the person under study. If there is any hint that there was a mental illness, the question then becomes how the person used the disability. We use illnesses in many ways. There is no reason for denying that even when something is neurotic behavior, the person is doing great good and is fully aware of the good, even though he is not aware of the neurosis. One does not have to be aware that one is neurotic. That is not a requirement for canonization. One has to be aware of virtue.
This may be where you’re having trouble. To state that something is a sign of mental illness is not a condemnation. You can’t condemn illness of any kind. That Church does not set out to do this. In fact, it is preferable to say that someone did something strange because they were neurotic, than because they had a death wish. She praises actions of great charity. She does not praise actions that are dangerous. For example, the Church praises the actions of Mother Teresa toward the poor. She remains totally silent on the lashings that St. Teresa of Avila imposed on herself. She acknowledges that Teresa of Avila did it. She does not praise her for doing so.
No one here has denied this. Everyone knows that there is such a thing as dangerous mortification, which is to be avoided.
I raised no criticism. It may sound like criticism, because I say that some of these behaviors are not healthy. That’s not a criticism. That’s a fact. It takes nothing away from the holiness of these indiviudals. Picking your nose is gross. I bet many saints did it. They probably did not know how unhealthy it was. I’ll give you a wonderful example. In the early days, Franciscans were not allowed to bathe more than once a month. This was a form of penance. Is that healthy? No. Did that have to change? Yes. Even if the Holy Father Francis himself tuaght this, it was not healthy. It takes nothing way from his holiness and his patriarchate. We still love him, obey him and revere him as the Patriarch of the Franciscan Family and the Mirror of Perfection.
My point is simply that numerous saints have inflicted extreme mortifications on themselves, their spiritual directors, their biographers and the church itself has almost always praised these extreme mortifications, the lives of such as St Margaret Mary Alcoque, St Maria Faustina and St Dominic demonstrate this explicitly. To say that these actions are ‘unhealthy’ or that they are the results of mental illness is however one may wish to spin it demeaning. It may be that in others they would be ‘unhealthy’ or too extreme but I trust that in the cases of those saints it was neither, I trust both the saints and those that have judged them over the ages. As for modern scholars they can of course disagree with me, but the judgement of the church has over the ages said otherwise. This is not ultimately an opinion I have invented or made up, it is that of innumerable saints, spiritual directors and the church over countless ages. I am not attempting to put forward my opinion but merely ‘Passing on what I have received’ My opinion in these matters counts for nothing, it is that of the church that matters and it is with that, that these scholars disagree not my own.
Truth be told, nothing should be done without spiritual direction. Spiritual directors really are invaluable.
This is really the bottom line. Having said that, we must always remember that a psychological disorder is no more a bad thing than having cancer or heart disease.
Maria, I am sorry if my post seemed judgemental of people with OCD. I was not speaking of everyone with scrupulosity but only of myself (although I know it sounded like I was speaking of everyone). Of course it is very possible that with many others, their scrupulosity is based on OCD. Unfortunately I have always struggled with distrust in God, and pride.
Isn’t scrupulosity OCD expressed in a religious context?Maria, I am sorry if my post seemed judgemental of people with OCD. I was not speaking of everyone with scrupulosity but only of myself (although I know it sounded like I was speaking of everyone). Of course it is very possible that with many others, their scrupulosity is based on OCD. Unfortunately I have always struggled with distrust in God, and pride.
I completely agree with what you said about obedience
God bless you
St Ignatius of Loyola would be a well known example.
St. Alphone de Ligori wrote about scrupulosity. In fact, he spoke about his own struggles with it. He acknowledged that he was mental condition. St. Alphonse did not know the term OCD or Anxiety Disorder.
I think mortifications can become a source of pride.
Wow. Perfect example. It didn’t mean he different have OCD, but God used his imperfections to do his work.St. Alphone de Ligori wrote about scrupulosity. In fact, he spoke about his own struggles with it. He acknowledged that he was mental condition. St. Alphonse did not know the term OCD or Anxiety Disorder.
He said one thing that is very important. He said that it helped him get started on the right path. Had it not been for this “mental condition” he would not have stopped to ask himself the hard questions that he faced regarding the practice of law. He was a lawyer. He realized that not everything in law and in politics was right. That in itself is not scrupulosity. That’s just common sense.
The scrupulosity came in when he felt compelled to get out of the legal profession as one feels compelled to wash and wash to rid themselves of germs. Had it not been for scrupples, he might have remained in law and been another Thomas More.
However, God had other plans. As we know, “Grace builds on nature.” God used his condition to lead him where he wanted him to be. He entered the seminary and became an Oratorian. From there, he went on to found the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (CSSR), also known as the Redemptorists. They educated and preached to the poor.
But Alphonse’s struggles with scrupulosity did not end when he entered the seminary. He was still scrupulous. The fact that the poor did not have teachers and preachers bothered him to the point that he felt personally responsible. He moved out of the Oratorians and became a consecrated religious That’s how the Holy Spirit called to life the Redemptorists.
Scrupulosity did not stop there. Alphonse was so scrupulous that he was irascible, to the point that his Redemptorist brothers left him and a new congregation was founded, The Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament.
On October 3, 1731, during the Transitus of St. Francis of Assisi, Alphonse had a vision. He saw Christ with Holy Father Francis seated at his right. To Christ’s left, he saw a priest seated. As he looked closely, he realized that that it was him. Christ said to him, “This is he whom I have chosen to be head of My Institute, the Prefect General of a new Congregation of men who shall work for My glory.”
Alphonse was humble and he acknowledge his struggle, but he also trusted the words of Christ. He pushed himself.
Fast forward, the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer came to be. In this wonderful priest, bishop and religious, we see how God can use our condition to build the Kingdom and suffering becomes redemptive love. It is no coincidence that the congregation founded by this man who suffered so much from scrupulosity should be named after the suffering Redeemer
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
No, I’m pretty sure I don’t misunderstand the necessity of mortification nor do I ignore the Church’s continuous emphasis of it. And yes, I’m perfectly aware that mortification has nothing to do with gnosticism. What I said is that when I read of such self abuse what comes to my mind is the physical loathing mentality of gnosticism.
If you say so
