Mortifications of Early Saints - Too Extreme?

[TrueLight]

I know “Crazy” isn’t as politicallly correct, but i think the two terms mean the same thing. No offense or misrepresentation of your comments was intended.

Pax and God Bless.

Well let’s say someone has an eating disorder. I wouldn’t call them crazy. I would say they have an eating/ psychological disorder.

Now, I know what I’m about to post is from a secular perspective, but I’d love your opinion:
From Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_mirabilis

Anorexia mirabilis literally means “miraculous lack of appetite”. It refers almost exclusively to women and girls of the Middle Ages who would starve themselves, sometimes to the point of death, in the name of God. The phenomenon is also known by the name inedia prodigiosa (“prodigious fasting”).[1]

Anorexia mirabilis differs from the more modern, well-known anorexia nervosa in several distinct ways.

In anorexia nervosa, people usually starve themselves to attain a level of thinness, as the disease is associated with body image distortion. By contrast, anorexia mirabilis was frequently coupled with other ascetic practices, such as lifelong virginity, flagellant behavior, the donning of hairshirts, sleeping on beds of thorns, and other assorted self-mutilations. It was largely a practice of Catholic women, who were often known as “miraculous maids”.

Whether or not there is historical continuity between anorexia mirabilis and anorexia nervosa is a matter of debate within medieval historiography. Some have argued that there is historical continuity between the two conditions,[2] while others maintain that anorexia mirabilis should be comprehended as a distinct medieval form of female religious piety within the historical context of such societies

 

[At_Trent]

I’ll use your statement in the place of what would have been the first part of my response, but still give the caveat I was going to give.

We do also have a responsibilty to our health, as I believe some extremely ascetical saints expressed towards the end of their lives (St. Francis, as I recall, asked the forgiveness of “brother mule the body” for the harsh treatment he had put him through).

In light of our understanding today of infectious disease, drinking the puss of the sick would be an extremely bad idea, and would have been even more dangerous in an age before antibiotics.

Saints who did such a thing did so either out of ignorance of the danger, or if they did realize the danger (people did have some sense of contagious disease even before germ theory explained it) then they did a wrong thing out of good motives. I doubt any of them were were truly, blitheringly insane, especially those whom the Church has explicitly set before us as models of heroic virtue through official canonization. It does not sound as though they drank puss because they thought it was tasty, or disfigured their faces while not realizing what they were doing. They knew quite well the natural horribleness of what they were doing, and did it anyway as an intentional deprivation for the sake of God.

G.K. Chesterton described the ascetical instinct as a natural human instinct, one which like other instincts must be kept within a healthy moderation. I think he was right, not because asceticism is an animal instinct like the drive for food, sex, comfort, etc., but because human beings are naturally a compound being of body and spirit, and the spirit feels freed by overcoming the animal instincts of the body. However, this impulse, despite being fundamentally good like all our natural impulses, can like the others be taken too far. Chesterton’s example of this is the unhealthy extreme asceticism of Hindu India, in which people put hooks in their backs and pull them, and all sorts of other nasty things. Christian spirituality, being incarnational in nature, has an inherent tendency towards moderation of the ascetical impulse, without by any means extinguishing it entirely. I think St. Theresa of Avila is an example of a saint who began by undertaking extreme mortifications, then eventually came to a more healthy balance.

In our increasingly hedonistic and health-obsessed world, our cultural conditioning is generally in the opposite direction, towards creature comforts and against bodily mortification. Viewing past ages through the lens of modern Western culture, their ascetical practices can at first strike us as horrible. If they had been able to see forward to our time, they might have seen us as lazy and worldly and ungenerous toward God. The right attitude might be somewhere in between, not quite as cautious as most modern Catholics but not quite as extreme as some of the saints of old.

Finally, to round out the discussion, I don’t know the accuracy but I heard once about a reported discourse between one of the Desert Fathers and a young disciple. The disciple asked something like “Abba, in the last days, will the Christians fast like we do and hold vigils like we do?” and the Desert Father answered something like “No, my son, in the last days men will hardly have the strength to fast for a single day or keep vigil for a single night. Yet they shall be greater than us. For we contend with the devil chained, but they shall contend with the devil unchained.”

You are probably close to correct on all counts.

Speaking for myself, I can sense the piety and deep faith in these Saints who made mortification a part of their practice of Catholicism, but I’m not sure I can really get close to imagining what went through their minds. At times I feel that I’d have to join a monastery to even begin to “get it” and be a real Catholic. I guess that’s where scruples come in lol.

That story of the Desert Father and a young disciple. If you can recall who the Father was please let me know. That is pretty thought provoking.

 

[At_Trent]

I’m from Peru and quite familiar with St Rose. I read her life in a little book about saints when i was about 6 years old. Can you imagine reading this at that age? lol! I must admit I was a little perturbed but when you grow up in that environment it’s not seen as such a horrible thing just something people of that time did. You have to take into account the time in which she lived. Things were seen from a different perspective then.

I vividly remember the nuns in my school telling us stories about St Rose and reminding us not to complain too much and to see her as an example of someone who did extraordinary things for God. You can be sure no one complained about a stomachache after being told that St Rose burned her face with lye haha. Of course back then they used the ruler still and made us kneel against the corner when we misbehaved. I’m in my early thirties so that’s not so long ago. Oh those nuns were tough but I credit them 100% with making me the person I am today. I’m sure they prayed for me lots too.

I encourage you to keep learning about her and look past this. While you are at it also add St Martin de Porres who is another wonderful Peruvian saint and her contemporary, they knew each other too! I’ve noticed that saints often know other saints in their life and are often friends, dunno why that is

perhaps that kind of piety rubs off

 

[yinekka]

I think we have to put the rather extreme, to our eyes, penances of these saints into the context of the society of their time. To our 21st century mind when most Catholics would pass out if they contemplated the Lenten fast before Vatican II - one full meal and two smaller meals - and living in a culture which encourages us to satisfy our least whim with “go on you deserve it” the thought that some people would do really difficult penances is difficult for us to come to terms with. That said, we are certainly not encouraged to perform such severe penances today and all penances involving corporal mortification, as another poster has said, have to be approved by one’s spiritual director.

Perhaps some seminary manuals have reflections on these penances but I have never read of any public Church documents on the topic.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Truelife-

I take your point on the term “crazy”. It is overly broad and nonspecific to get at the issues you’ve brought up. I will refrain from its use for the rest of the conversation.

If my daughter was starving herself and telling me God was leading her to do so?

You better believe I’d be concerned. First I’d speak to my daughter and wife about it. I’d also go to a trusted priest and seek his counsel. Does God call everyone to starve themselves? I don’t think so, but I do think mortification of the appetites including the appetite to eat is a good thing for everyone to some degree.

I would pray for wisdom for everyone involved and try to discern God’s will. Perhaps my daughter was wrong. Perhaps she was right. I can see both being possibilities. What actions to take from there depend on what is really going on.

It is an interesting topic. Thanks for starting the thread.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[JReducation]

To be clear I did not in anyway mean to directly equate someone like St. Maximilian Kolbe or any other Catholic martyr with an Islamic suicide bomber.

I deeply apologize if anyone got the idea that I was.

What I am saying is that people in the west often ascribe the motivations of the suicide bombers to mental illness, because they can’t grasp that sincere religious devotion would motivate someone to take actions with life and death consequences.

This is the same idea that the OP brought up- looking at someone who does “extreme” things as crazy, because we’ve lost sight of how truly important the spiritual is.

I hope explains things better and corrects any misunderstanding that may have come from what I said.

Pax and God Bless.

There was nothing wrong with your post at all. I think that it was a great teaching tool. That’s why I chose it.

Even in non-Catholic religions, there are very holy people and only God knows how many saints. Many of these people who give their life for their faith do love God very much. They love God more than life itself.

The difference is between one who gives his life for his faith when his back is to the wall, be he Christian or Muslim, and another who goes oiut looking for death when it’s unncessary, be he Christian or Mulsim.

The operative word here is “necessary”. The person who sacrifices health and safety for his faith because of necessity, even though the rest of us can clearly see other choices, that person is subjectively acting in good faith. Ultimately, we do not get judged by how we look to others, but how we look to God.

As one who practiced neuropsych for many years, I can say that there are saints who were mentally ill. Were they crazy? No. There is no such thing in mental health. “Crazy” is a layman’s term, which is used to describe any behavior that is out of the ordinary. Not every extraordinary behavior is pathological. Nor does every pathology render the person incapable of choosing to live a life of heoric virtue.

Let’s look at the Franciscan, Matt Talbot. The man was an alcoholic. We know that this is a debilitating mental illness that can never be cured. However, he managed to stay sober. His faith sustained him in his struggle. After his death, it was discovered that he engaged in some extreme acts of asceticism that were probably not healthy and certainly not approved by St. Francis. Even St. Francis did not engage in the kind of ascetical practices that this faithful son of his did. Nonetheless, his holiness is not in question. He has been declared a Venerable and we’re waiting for God to grant us the two miracles necessary for canonization. In the meantime, he is the only Venerable that I know who has been made a patron. He is the patron of alcoholics.

Sometimes, a pathology can be a means to great holiness. Cancer is a pathology and no one questions its efficacy as a means to holiness. Teresa of Avila suffered from cancer. TB is also a pathology and we have men and women who used it to their spiritual advantage, such as St. Francis and St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.

The problem here is that we have not stripped the stigma from mental illness. We still view it as a bad thing instead of a health problem. For many saints, these pyschological health problems were their greatest cross and their greatest blessing.

I’m remembering studying the psychological state of Francis of Assisi. There is no doubt that the man suffered from depression. We know that depression is both a mental and physical illness. However, depression needs a trigger. The thing that triggered Francis was sin. He felt great sadness in the face of sin. While the psychological and physical impact left him exhausted, as is always the case with depression, the truth does not change. He hated sin and loved virtue. His holiness is not in his emotional and pysical response to sin, but in his struggle to live a virtuous life and teach others to do the same.

In fact, there is great merit there, because despite the emotional and physical drain that he experienced, he never surrendered. There is his heroic life of virute. He had every reason to surrender, but he struggled to keep going, to love and to laugh even when he had to throw his last ounce of energy into it, just as someone like Bl. John Paul II had to throw his last ounce of energy to give witness to the Gospel of Life, even though he was suffering a great deal.

He had proclaimed to the world the dignity of life and had defended it from his youth, facing Nazis and Communists to his old age facing abortionists and terrorists. His last stand in defence of the sacredness of life was to live with what the Lord gave him and gracioiusly surrender what he took away.

The thing that he most loved was being with the People of God talking to them. In his final months, he was unable to do that. His illness became his greatest strength and gave strength to millions. Had he chosen to cave in, who would remember him today? Would he have touched as many lives as he did and brought as many young people as he did back to Christ?

Today, the more we study neuropsychology, the more aware we are that the organic and the psychological are not autonomous. The one often feeds the other. We have to get past the labels and see illness for what it is. It is a means to holiness, whether it is organic or psychological.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bevsue]

WOW! I just have to say this is a wonderful thread and I usually am inclined to avoid in depth learning past a certain time of night since reaching middle-age! Thank you everyone who has posted here. Comments have revealed as much about the faith of the writers, as the saints discussed, and whether or not I agree 100% with the opinions stated, I find that fact very encouraging indeed. May the Lord bless you all as you search for His truth, and seek to follow Him wholeheartedly, which certainly seems to be the goal and longing of many of the folks who have posted here tonight.

I just want to say I find it encouraging to know how carefully saints are studied before they are canonized, and that suffering from mental illness is not considered a barrier to that process or a source of shame for that individual. This seems to me as it should be. Saints are after all human beings, who lived with the full-spectrum of human strengths and weaknesses, illnesses and sorrows, and because of the sacrifice of the Cross on their behalf and their determination to follow Jesus’ call on their lives, made it to heaven. They are the example for us of how we should live, of how we CAN live for God. Our roster of Heavenly Examples would seem incomplete if there WEREN’T brothers and sisters in Christ who struggled with mental illness while they were pilgrims on earth, and still triumphed in holiness to join Jesus in heaven. They are an encouragement to the rest of us who pray for their intercession, on our journey home.

 

[JReducation]

I think we have to put the rather extreme, to our eyes, penances of these saints into the context of the society of their time. To our 21st century mind when most Catholics would pass out if they contemplated the Lenten fast before Vatican II - one full meal and two smaller meals - and living in a culture which encourages us to satisfy our least whim with “go on you deserve it” the thought that some people would do really difficult penances is difficult for us to come to terms with. That said, we are certainly not encouraged to perform such severe penances today and all penances involving corporal mortification, as another poster has said, have to be approved by one’s spiritual director.

Perhaps some seminary manuals have reflections on these penances but I have never read of any public Church documents on the topic.

You won’t see any public statement from the Church on this subject. The ascetical life is one that the Church deliberately avoids legislating. It’s very difficult to legislate on this subject, because of the diversity of cultures, resources, conditions, times and the fact that we have 23 Churches with very different theologies on asceticism. They do not always agree with each other.

The Church tries to legislate what is applicable to the largest number of people. It’s like the no meat on Fridays thing. As the Church grew in places like South America and Africa, this was not a practical penance. Eating meat at every meal is not the norm in these cultures, for many reasons. I remember living in South America, where fish is eaten more than meat. The reason is very simple. More than half of the population has no means of refrigeration. When you kill a pig or cow, you have to consume it quickly. This means that you sell, share or do whatever, to get rid of it. Whereas fish is very available and easy. You go out, catch fish, and eat it. No refrigeration required. No one goes out to catch a shark or some large thing like that. They eat fish several times a week.

Then you have the question of customs. In Africa, birds are not meat. Only mammals are meat. No meat on Fridays or Lent meant no mammal. It was very confusing to the indigenous population when the European Catholics took away chicken and duck from the table. They thought that the Europeans were nuts. These were birds, not meat.

You also have the issue of hunger. The largest number of Catholics today is not in Europe or North America, but in South America and Africa. You don’t impose a Lenten fast on a people who fast all year. Such a penance is cruel. They have to eat when they can find food and eat whatever they can find.

As you can see, universal rules are not always practical. That’s why they have changed from rules to guidelines. The rule remains that we do penance. The penance is going to be different from place to place.

I remember being at school with the friars. We were in boarding school, so we saw the friars eat. I was surprised to see the friars eating meat on a Friday of Lent. I politely asked one of them about it. He showed me where Francis had said that the friars must eat what is put before them. Someone had given them a side of beef. The logic of St. Francis was that you don’t go out and buy fish, while you have a side of beef in the cooler. Violating poverty for the sake of abstinence is not a virtue. Poverty is the highest of all virtues. They accepted their situation. This was their penance as well as a their poverty. They couldn’t even own their penance, but had to accept what was handed to them.

The Church is very rich in traditions that we have yet to learn about. I know a Byzantine monk whose Lenten fast consists of eating what everyone else is deprived of. One would wonder, why? The Byzantines have a very strict fast during Lent. This particular monk has medical condition that requires that he eat animal protein several times a day and prohibits eating grains.

While it is good to have guidelines, because we all need them, otherwise life can be very chaotic and we can become very lazy in our penance, it is also good to have common sense and see people and the world in which they live. as they are. What is proper in one context is highly inappropriate it another.

From where I sit, this is what makes life such an interesting adventure. I guess that’s why even though my body feels as if it were 95 years old, my mind feels 15. I have this wonderful feeling about life and the world. There is much beauty and diversity in it and all of it reflects the mystery that is God. If it were all the same and people were all the same, God would be very boring. That is, if we truly believe that we are created in his image and likeness. The fact that there is so much diversity and beauty among human beings, means that God is never boring and is never exhaustible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Sometimes, a pathology can be a means to great holiness. Cancer is a pathology and no one questions its efficacy as a means to holiness. Teresa of Avila suffered from cancer. TB is also a pathology and we have men and women who used it to their spiritual advantage, such as St. Francis and St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.

This is something I’ve wondered about in regards to mental illness. Is it possible that mental disorders lead one to desire a closer relationship with God?

I’m not sure how exactly to phrase the question. it’s too early and my neurons are sluggish.

Someone who is depressed may naturally withdraw from the world. However if they use that time of withdrawal to focus on God alone, is it them making the best use of a situation or is there a tendency for depressed folks who are already pious to become even more pious.

How about those with OCD/scrupulosity. Is a Catholic with OCD more likely to strive to live a better life for Christ?

Can mental illness be a path to holiness?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

A few things about the practices and mortifications of ancient Saints. First, life in the 12th or 13th century was pretty tough all around. If your bed is a bag of straw, sleeping on the ground is not like giving up a superdreamer double pillow top mattress.

There are quite a few Saints who followed extreme mortifications, particularly after a strong conversion expereince (Francis and Ignatius come to mind), who later forbade similar mortifications to their followers. They realized that they were extreme and not necessary.

The church teaches that anything out of the ordinary in penance or mortification should only be done under the direction of a religious superior or spiritual director. No one should start eating nothing but scabies on their own. There are 100s of Saints from all walks of life, who lived in all times ands places since Christ. It is best for us to focus on those whose lives we can most easily emulate. For those whose lives or practices are extreme from ours, we can certainly draw out the message (for St Rose, think of modesty, humility, and love of the poor) from their actions rather than recreating the actions themselves.

 

[Rence]

St Catherine of Sienna and Blessed Angela of Foligno were known to drink pus from the sores of the sick.

Quote:
Angela of Foligno is reported to have said it was as “sweet as the Eucharist”, and also to have eaten the scabs and lice from those same patients, though precious little else.[5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_mirabilis

You know what, I thought about this last night and today. And I still can’t wrap my mind around it beyond the mental illness aspect. I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s a-okay to to drink pus from sores of the sick and eat scabs and lice from patients in the name of God. But that’s just me. To each his/her own I guess. But I don’t view pus, scabs and lice being as sweet as the Eucharist.

 

[ringil]

True Light,

I don’t know too much about the saints- except for the Jesuit ones , and they, St. Ignatius in particular, are rumored to be pretty severe in the mortifications & penances they practiced.

I am intrigued by St. Rose of Lima. I know nothing of her, except what you posted, and if this is indeed true, it disturbs me greatly.

It just does not seem right to me that one would disfigure themselves with pepper & lye! :bigyikes:

If I believe that I am made in the image & likeness of God, and that God gifted me with exceptional beauty, why would I want to destroy what God created?

I do believe that maybe, some of our beloved saints did indeed suffer from mental illness. The problem is, that most of our saints were canonized long before we understood anything at all about “mental health”. It does not make them any less holy, it just makes them more human, IMHO.

Mental illness also does not preclude holiness. God’s grace builds on nature. He uses human suffering for redemptive value. The increased sensitivity and extreme ability to fixate in some mental illnesses may even be advantageous in a certain spiritual sense.

I read a book about different abnormalities of the brain and one very interesting issue the author brings up relates to St. Hildegaard Van Bingen and some of her visions.

The book shows her drawings of her visions and then explains how consistent these types of images are in those suffering from seizures. St. Hildegaard herself explains situations that seem consistent with the experience of some epileptics.

Does that make her visions false, no way. We need to take in the whole picture when thinking about our saints.

 

[jmj1984]

Actually, that’s not a “no no.” The Catholic Church employs several hundred of us in the fields of Ascetical and Mystical Theology as well as Christian Pysychology. Among other things, one of our jobs is to study the behavior of the saints and separate the human from the divine, the healthy from the unhealthy.

Saints were human beings. Many of them did have psychological problems. That does not take away from their holiness. Holiness is measured by a heroic life of faith and virtue, not the externals. A person can have extraordinary faith and extraordinary manifestations of charity and other virtues, but also have behaviors that are outside of the realm of good mental health.

We have had saints who suffered from depression, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders and even PTSD. Mental illness is no more an obstacle to being a saint than is diabetes, heart disease, TB, or cancer. That is not what the Church looks at. Illness is illness.

During the inquiry leading up to Veneration, we separate that which can be dysfunctional behavior from that which can be sinful behavior. Dysfunctional behavior is not a sin and certainly not an obstable to holiness. It can be rooted in some pathology. One of the most famous saints who suffered mental illness was St. Dymphna. She suffered from panic attacks. St. Francis of Assisi suffered from depression, which is no surprise considering the abuse that he suffered at the hand of his ruthless father. There have been other saints with mental illnesses, such as St. Benedict Joseph.

The term insane is not a term of theology or medicine. It’s a legal term invented by lawyers in order to process their cases using concrete language, since the language of mental health is often too abstract for the courtroom. It’s a very old term, but not a very precise one.

It is also true that the Church does not endorse unhealthy practices, even if they are found in saints. Such things as consuming the puss from the wound of another person, is not seen as a heroic act of virtue. However, the Church looks past this unhealthy behavior to see the charity and humility behind it. It is this charity and humility that sanctifies the person, not the behavior that he or she uses to express it.

One has to take people in their context, as I always like to say. People can do very strange things for very noble reasons. As long as those strange behaviors are not sinful, then the person’s holiness is unchallenged. It is one thing to do deliberate harm, which is always morally wrong and quite another to be eccentric or even neurotic. These conditions do not take away from holiness.

My personal feeling is that if we were a little more honest about our neuroses, we would probably all be a little holier. Honesty is the first step in humility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The behavior TrueLight is referring to have to do with extreme humility and are probably one of the reasons that saints were canonised, to say that actually they are the result of mental illness is therefore wrong. Of course thats not to say saints can’t have mental illness, thats not what I take issue with, my problem is with the suggestion that because they did something which we would consider crazy they are mentally ill.

As for the church ‘not considering them an act of heroic virtue’ that doesn’t seem to be the case with St Margaret Mary Alcoque, she sometimes went without water for days then when told under obedience to drink water drank the dirtiest water she could find and tied chains over her flesh so tight the only way the chains could be removed was by tearing off the skin. This behavior is praised by Fr John Croiset, SJ and was probably also praised by St Claude de la Colombiere. That is i’m sure just one of many examples where behavior we would consider ‘mad’ is in fact an act of heroic virtue and has been recognised by the church as such.

 

[jmj1984]

I hope I am in no means being disrespectful. I am only trying to understand.

Some of these behaviors, if done today, might be seen as mental illness.

Is physical illness possible for a holy person? Of course.

Is mental illness possible for a holy person? Why not? It is like some Christians today hide mental illness because they feel it means they are doing something wrong.

Can starving yourself be an indication of an eating disorder?

Why do spiritual directors counsel against such extreme mortification these days?

Is there a physical danger? Is there a mental danger?

My issue is not with saints suffering from mental illness its with associating acts that are in fact virtuous and then believing these acts indicate mental illness. Starving yourself can be an indication of an eating disorder, of course it can also be an extreme and perfectly legitimate form of penance. As for why spiritual directors counsel against such extreme mortification, because those who have done it are saints and it is generally to them that the incredible graces necessary to carry out are given. Of course in the case of extremely devout lay catholic’s it could in fact be Gods will but still its dangerous for those for whom God does not will it and of course there is the fact that the Church today has mostly lost any idea of mortification.

 

[TrueLight]

My issue is not with saints suffering from mental illness its with associating acts that are in fact virtuous and then believing these acts indicate mental illness. Starving yourself can be an indication of an eating disorder, of course it can also be an extreme and perfectly legitimate form of penance. As for why spiritual directors counsel against such extreme mortification, because those who have done it are saints and it is generally to them that the incredible graces necessary to carry out are given. Of course in the case of extremely devout lay catholic’s it could in fact be Gods will but still its dangerous for those for whom God does not will it and of course there is the fact that the Church today has mostly lost any idea of mortification.

Let me try to clarify what I’m asking:

This is what I said:

These saints were holy and pious people who strove for a closer walk with God every day even at the expense of themselves. In fact many of them died young due to the harsh conditions they subjected themselves to. It is fitting that they be in heaven.

However, does the Church address some of these practices which were a bit…shall we say, extreme? What is the Church’s view?

In the case of the ones who did extreme fasting and drank pus, is it possible some of them suffered from mental illness?

What can we learn to do and not do from these practices of the Saints?

So of course the motives were motives of penance, humility and self-denial and the desire to walk closer with God. However, I asked if the methods used could be seen as rooted in mental illness.

Is it possible to have a case where a modern day spiritual director would give permission to put lye on one’s face or eat pus, even if the motives is humility?

 

[Elixir]

Contemplating the possbility that they were mentally ill however is a big no no.

Wrong. Living a life of heroic virtue doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of mental illness. If someone is drinking pus and eating scabs then guess what…they’re crazy. While being unbelievably disgusting and unhealthy won’t ruin your cause for sainthood it sure ain’t behavior to be emulated.

Whenever I read about these types of early saints with inhuman mortifications and gross personal habits…I gotta be honest, the first thing I think is that they have an unnatural, almost gnostic disdain for their bodies, and secondly that they really could have used some medications.

 

[JReducation]

The behavior TrueLight is referring to have to do with extreme humility and are probably one of the reasons that saints were canonised, to say that actually they are the result of mental illness is therefore wrong.

No, it is not wrong. The virtue does not change, even if the expression of the virtue is an unhealthy one. They were not canonized for eating puss or lice or drinking dirty water. They were canonized for being humble, obedient, penitential, and charitable.

Of course thats not to say saints can’t have mental illness, thats not what I take issue with, my problem is with the suggestion that because they did something which we would consider crazy they are mentally ill.

As for the church ‘not considering them an act of heroic virtue’ that doesn’t seem to be the case with St Margaret Mary Alcoque, she sometimes went without water for days then when told under obedience to drink water drank the dirtiest water she could find and tied chains over her flesh so tight the only way the chains could be removed was by tearing off the skin. This behavior is praised by Fr John Croiset, SJ and was probably also praised by St Claude de la Colombiere. That is i’m sure just one of many examples where behavior we would consider ‘mad’ is in fact an act of heroic virtue and has been recognised by the church as such.

The Church looks at people in their context. What Fr. Croiset and St. Claude may have praised and admired, may well have been abarrant behavior. However, neither of them knew that it was. Just because they praised it, does not mean that the behavior was healthy. They praised it, because they didn’t have the knowledge that we have about mental health.

However, when you go to present a case for canonization, you don’t present these behaviors. What you present are the virtues. The observable behaviors have to support the virtue. The Church does in fact employ many psychologists and psychatrists in this process. The Church wants to know the motives behind the unhealthy behavior. The Church is concerned about freedom and about intent. She does not hand down a clinical diagnosis on the saint.

On the other hand, the Church has never said that such acts were the defining conditions for sanctity. The defining quality of a saint is always the perfection of charity. It is the charity that the Church praises, not the act. These were men and women of great charity, even though sometimes their way of showing charity was less than rational.

Deliberate self-destructive behavior is not holy. Moral theology speaks very clearly against mutilating the body. We have to be discriminating, because there are behaviors that can hurt the body, but were not intended to be self-destructive. One of the things that the saints have very clear in their heads is the commandment to love. While they despise their weaknesses, they are not on a fast track to do themselves in.

It is very possible that mental illness can cloud the judgment and not the virtue. The individual is virtuous, but not always very rational. Again, we have to take them in their context. What they knew and what we know are not the same thing. It is very possible for a person not to realize that something is not very rational and seek help or that there are safer ways of showing love and doing penance.

Let me try to clarify what I’m asking:

So of course the motives were motives of penance, humility and self-denial and the desire to walk closer with God. However, I asked if the methods used could be seen as rooted in mental illness.

Is it possible to have a case where a modern day spiritual director would give permission to put lye on one’s face or eat pus, even if the motives is humility?

No. We would never condone any behavior or action that is dangerous to the welfare of the body. It is one thing to sacrifice the body and even to push the limits. It is quite another thing to do what we know is harmful to the body when it is unnecessary.

There is the principle of double effect. One can foresee that there is a risk involved, but one’s intention is not to do harm to the body. For example, I can foresee that working among people with AIDS I can catch HIV if I come into contact with body fluids. However, caring for them is not a desire to become infected. If there should be an accident and I cut myself with a tainted blade, it is just that, an accident.

If I go to my spiritual director and say that I want to care for AIDS victims in the hope of catching HIV so that I can suffer for Christ, there is on way on God’s green earth that he or she is going to say, “I think that’s great.” Wrong intention. Not the right way to suffer with Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Centurion]

As far as I’m concerned the saints were inspired to do these things out of love for God and neighbor and so I neither see these acts as extreme or crazy. Love for God should know no bounds and that’s what I take from their lives.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is if God asked you to suck puss from your neighbors wound would you do it? Then ask yourself: do I even do the non-extreme things God asks of me?

 

[JReducation]

As far as I’m concerned the saints were inspired to do these things out of love for God and neighbor and so I neither see these acts as extreme or crazy. Love for God should know no bounds and that’s what I take from their lives.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is if God asked you to suck puss from your neighbors wound would you do it? Then ask yourself: do I even do the non-extreme things God asks of me?

God would not ask us to do something that is contrary to his law. Deliberately endangering your health and safety when it is not necessary is contrary to the moral law.

There are times when one has no choice to but take a risk and there are times when the risk is irresponsible.

We must always remember two things. 1) We all do foolish things. 2) Foolish does not make it evil.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Centurion]

God would not ask us to do something that is contrary to his law. Deliberately endangering your health and safety when it is not necessary is contrary to the moral law.

My hypothetical scenario was assuming no bodily harm would come to you from sucking puss out of your neighbors wound.

With that said I will rephrase the question.

If God asked you to suck the puss out of your neighbors wound and assured you that no bodily harm would come to you for doing it, would you suck the puss out?