Suffering

[Julia_Mae]

Having a teenager can certainly make one consider a hysterectomy. Retroactive if possible.

 

[down_under]

For no man can buy his own ransom, or pay a price to God for his life. (Ps 49:8).

For I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ …Paul

So tell me gentlemen in your assessment what is Paul talking about. the sufferings of Christ were perfect so what could be lacking in them? And what could Paul do that Christ could not?
Anyone who (apparently) wants to argue that works have no place in our salvation has difficulty with this passage. It is not very vague. And what about ~“Work out your salvation in fear and trembling”

Your Participation in the salvific mission of Christ is desired by God and required of you by God. We are called to bring the world to Christ and part of that is making reparation for the sins of the world. Making up in our bodies what is lacking In the sufferings of Christ for the others. For the conversion of the world.

I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ…its not going anywhere gentlemen. It has been a “problem” verse for protestants as long as I can remember. For the simple reason that if you claim that your works don’t get you to heaven. If what you do has no barring on your salvation then you don’t know what to do with this verse and several others. Perhaps Paul was joking.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m still undecided who’s worse - boys or girls.

No, I do know, it’s boys.

My girls don’t pick me up, throw me over their shoulder and put me in another room when I’m telling them stuff they don’t want to hear



Sarah x

Hahahaha, you must be petite! I haven’t had that particular problem with mine…

 

[Pitcharan]

For I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ …Paul

So tell me gentlemen in your assessment what is Paul talking about. the sufferings of Christ were perfect so what could be lacking in them? And what could Paul do that Christ could not?
Anyone who (apparently) wants to argue that works have no place in our salvation has difficulty with this passage. It is not very vague. And what about ~“Work out your salvation in fear and trembling”

Your Participation in the salvific mission of Christ is desired by God and required of you by God. We are called to bring the world to Christ and part of that is making reparation for the sins of the world. Making up in our bodies what is lacking In the sufferings of Christ for the others. For the conversion of the world.

I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ…its not going anywhere gentlemen. It has been a “problem” verse for protestants as long as I can remember. For the simple reason that if you claim that your works don’t get you to heaven. If what you do has no barring on your salvation then you don’t know what to do with this verse and several others. Perhaps Paul was joking.

Jesus’ offer to share His glory with those who are willing to share in His sufferings, does not in any way diminish the perfectness of His sufferings.

Paul’s statement was his way of finding a meaning in suffering.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank you Mary.

Yes, I want to be clear this is a hypothetical.

Let’s assume there was a good prognosis.

The quotes you gave from the catechism identify medical care that is not just extraordinary, but also medical care that could be burdensome or dangerous.

Surgery of any kind is always dangerous, and except in the most minor cases, usually burdensome.

So, considering that to be the case, could I morally refuse all treatment and let what will be, be, offering my suffering up to God for souls, and in the event of my death, I’ve done nothing morally wrong and in fact may hasten my journey to heaven?

I hope your boy is now doing well.

Sarah x

Thank you, he just turned 4, and he’s doing well and all caught up with his milestones.

I found this for you… here’s a snip. You could find the article at this link.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1204

One of the most important moral distinctions for end-of-life decisions is that between what is morally obligatory and what is morally optional. What is morally obligatory we are bound to perform; what is morally optional we may include or omit at our own discretion. Moral theologians use the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to make this distinction, in keeping with the words of Pope Pius XII: “Normally one is held to use only ordinary means—according to the circumstances of persons, places, times and culture—that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burden for oneself or another. A stricter obligation would be too burdensome for most people and would render the attainment of the higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends.”
Generally, a medical procedure that carries with it little hope of benefit and is burdensome is deemed “extraordinary” and is not obligatory. For example, a person may judge in good conscience that the pain and difficulty of an aggressive treatment for terminal cancer is too much to bear, and thus decide to forgo that treatment. Whether a particular treatment is excessively burdensome to an individual patient is a moral question that often requires the advice of a priest or someone well-trained in moral theology. Individual patients and their families should seek the guidance of the Church whenever there is any doubt about the morality of a particular course of action.
Most medical treatment received during the course of one’s lifetime is routine and does not raise serious moral questions. Sometimes, however, medical circumstances require considerable reflection about what procedures are appropriate for a given medical condition and time of life. When aggressive and experimental methods are recommended by a physician, the Church teaches that we are free to pursue such treatment whenever there is a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient. We are also free, however, to refuse treatment that is of dubious benefit or when its burdens are clearly greater than its benefits. For example, I might want extraordinary moral means used to extend my life in order to receive the sacraments of the Church, or to see friends or relatives one last time, or to be reconciled with somebody from whom I’ve been estranged. The use of extraordinary moral means always remains optional, but the moral obligation to conserve life obliges us simply to act in the most reasonable manner.

In the scenario of the hysterectomy, it would depend on how advanced the cancer is. A fairly healthy woman with stage 1 uterine cancer, a hysterectomy might be ordinary care. Say another woman has stage 4 breast cancer, and then uterine cancer is detected, a hysterectomy might be considered extraordinary care.

I also wanted to touch on suffering. Redemptive suffering is something that I don’t really understand very well. But I will try to articulate what I understand.

When we suffer, we can unite our suffering with Jesus on the Cross. I think that means the He takes our suffering. The image of a yoke is used, when we are yoked with Jesus, he takes the heavier part, to my understanding.

Using my little guy as an example…he suffered a great deal. I think his suffering had redemptive value in some way. He survived, thankfully. I still think his suffering had merit.

As for the scenario of the woman with uterine cancer, the surgery, the pain, the possible chemotherapy would all entail some suffering. I believe that it would have redemptive merit. I think all our suffering could have merit, so even something that is normally not fatal, like the suffering of childbirth, could have merit.

Hope that helps…

 

[Newbie2]

If that’s the case, there is nothing wrong with me refusing to have for example, a radical hysterectomy, indicated by the presence of cancer.

I could, if I chose, decide to ‘‘offer this up’’ to God, and leave it entirely in His hands as to whether or not I heal, without the intervention of modern medicine or drugs.

And if I took that path, I would not be doing anything wrong, according to the Catholic Church.

And the physical and mental suffering I would endure until my death (if I wasn’t healed or went into remission) would be considered redemptive suffering, assuming again I have that state of mind regarding offering my suffering up to God for the salvation of souls.

Is that correct?

Sarah x

Close. Each situation is unique:

For example, if you were 85 years old vs. 21 years old, there would be a difference.

If the surgery were to be curative vs. being in stage IV (distant metastasis), there would be a difference.

Perhaps hysterectomy isn’t the best example, but I get what you’re asking. Hysterectomy is considered pretty standard medical procedure nowadays. Which leads to an interesting point…if this were the 1920’s, it wouldn’t be “routine”. The considerations of what is considered morally burdensome can change with the standard of medical care available at any particular time and place.

In the case of, let’s say, an otherwise healthy, young, male, refusing a simple gallbladder operation, and offering this up to God, and this young guy then dies in agony, has he done anything immoral?

Immoral. One has to make reasonable attempts to preserve one’s own life. Gallbladder surgery, as you have noted as “simple”, are nearly if not always outpatient surgery nowadays.

Let’s also say he has two teenage children and a wife, all in agreement with him, that he should shun the operation in favor of letting God decide the outcome and he welcomes the suffering as a chance to be closer to suffering Christ.

Moral or immoral?

Still immoral, especially considering that he has dependants.

If he was single, with no living family, would that affect the answer and if so why?

Not with a simple, uncomplicated gallbladder procedure. He still has a moral obligation to take reasonable measures to preserve his own life.

Sarah x

Now, he could refuse pain medication after the aforementioned procedures, but even that would be questionable; pain inhibits healing. To purposefully suffer when that suffering could easily and safely alleviated with temporary administration of meds is really not what “offering it up” is all about.

It’s more about the suffering that we cannot avoid.

Every now and again somebody has themself nailed to a cross in order to unite themself, presumably, with Christ’s suffering. Different than the given medical scenario, but morally similar in terms of dealing with suffering.

 

[down_under]

Jesus’ offer to share His glory with those who are willing to share in His sufferings, does not in any way diminish the perfectness of His sufferings.

Paul’s statement was his way of finding a meaning in suffering.

exactly but if you think as stated above that works have no place then you are in a hard place when it comes to these troubling verses in the Bible. Precisely because Paul is under the impression that your suffering (read works) have value before the Father as a sharing of the salvific mission of the Son. Thank you for your support of this important point. In this way Paul suffering had meaning and purpose allowing them to be bearable. This is why some people can choose suffering and it is not a bad thing. This is also what makes necessary suffering (inoperable brain cancer) bearable. Because we can give our suffering united with the sufferings of Christ for the salvation of the world. In imitation of Christ.

 

[John_of_Woking]

ah the problem of evil and suffering. jews had a good answer you will like it. Why is there evil? Why must we suffer “DONT ASK” (I believe the actual phrase is something like~"where were you when I set up the tides see job)

In the light of Christ we have a new answer to this question. If the master must suffer how much more the servants. Or paul “I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” Now we are removed from having to actually hurt ourselves. The church has acknowledged that we suffer quite enough without adding more. But Pauls logic is quite telling. We are called to imitate Christ to the point of actually participating in the sufferings of God. (offering it up)

to your question there is a visionary at Medjugorje who has an illness that is quite painful. She was offered to have her treatment, operation, and travel (to states) paid for, and turned them down. She agreed to “offer it up” for poor sinners. I am unclear weather this illness can kill her, that having been said no one finds this immoral in Medjugorje. They find it a profoundly Catholic thing to do. I do not know if she fits you description but the story should not too be hard to find…

voices.yahoo.com/medjugorje-visionary-vicka-irelands-late-late-7893544.html

In the most touching part of the interview, Vicka spoke of the great gift of suffering. Vicka has been afflicted with much physical suffering and illness since the apparitions began - something so many people in the world can identify with - and she offered the heavenly perspective on the beauty of suffering:

“I know you think, ‘How can it be a gift?’ But [Our Lady] told us it is a great gift…All we should ask of God is the strength to go on. Our Lady has already told us illness has a lot of value in the eyes of God.”

medjugorjeusa.org/wonders.htm
glad to see I did not waste my 10 minutes. this is a full rendering here is a bit of it…

In 1986, Vicka, (one of the visionaries from Medjugorje) suffering from increasingly painful headaches, was diagnosed as having an inoperable brain tumor and swelling of the joints which eventually resulted in high fevers and comas.
On Febuary 25th, 1988 the Blessed Virgin, instructed Vicka to write three letters: to Father Janko Bubalo, her confessor; to the Bishop’s Commission investigating the Apparitions; and to the priests in residence at the Rectory of St James, Medjugorje. These letters were sealed and delivered to the above-named persons. The instructions were not to open the envelope.

On September 25 1988 (two months and three weeks after her 24th birthday) Vicka asked the recipients of the sealed letters to open them in the presence of two witnesses. Each of the letters written seven months before, contained the same information: Vicka’s illness was God’s gift to her, not a punishment. It was accepted voluntarily, and its purpose was to help heal the illness of sinners. Her sacrifice would be completed on September 25th; on that date she would be healed of her illness.

At this time Vicka underwent tests and the brain tumor was gone.

and that is what he meant by absolute faith. Hope you don’t find this a distraction, but directly applicable to your topic. I believe this does in fact answer your question.

in Christ
Down Under

Medjugorje? Not disagreeing with your theories on redemptive suffering but I don’t think it’s prudent to bring up anything Medj. Related as it is against forum rules and a huge point of division… Peace

 

[down_under]

Medjugorje? Not disagreeing with your theories on redemptive suffering but I don’t think it’s prudent to bring up anything Medj. Related as it is against forum rules and a huge point of division… Peace

completely blissfully unaware of such, but its beside the point. It was uniquely illustrative of the point of suffering in the hope of divine healing, and quite simply believing and doing what one is told in faith that God will hold up the other end. And from all accounts he did.

 

[vames]

Jesus’ offer to share His glory with those who are willing to share in His sufferings, does not in any way diminish the perfectness of His sufferings.

Paul’s statement was his way of finding a meaning in suffering.

Exactly!
And what St Paul said had a very well defined context: an incipient church, in a time marked by actual and potential persecutions and with the perspective of having to suffer and die as a martyr any day. What St Paul wrote to Colossians and Romans were warnings and professions of faith; to be Christian could mean sometimes even to literally imitate Jesus Christ - remember St Andrew who didn’t want to be crucified exactly like Jesus, out of humility.

Colossians: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.
Romans: “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so,** if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him**”.

And indeed, St Paul and many Christians had to suffer and die as martyrs for their faith. How ridiculous is to compare this mission to the whim of someone who avoids a medical treatment “to suffer like Christ”? Or to someone who decides that if he must atone for his or her own sins by seeking unnecessary suffering? There is a lot of unavoidable suffering in our lives; we should accept and bear it as part of our cross on Earth. But nobody asks us to provoke ourselves pain just to prove that we are “like Christ”. Jesus wasn’t a masochist.

 

[down_under]

Exactly!
And what St Paul said had a very well defined context: an incipient church, in a time marked by actual and potential persecutions and with the perspective of having to suffer and die as a martyr any day. What St Paul wrote to Colossians and Romans were warnings and professions of faith; to be Christian could mean sometimes even to literally imitate Jesus Christ - remember St Andrew who didn’t want to be crucified exactly like Jesus, out of humility.

Colossians: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”.
Romans: “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so,** if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him**”.

And indeed, St Paul and many Christians had to suffer and die as martyrs for their faith. How ridiculous is to compare this mission to the whim of someone who avoids a medical treatment “to suffer like Christ”? Or to someone who decides that if he must atone for his or her own sins by seeking unnecessary suffering? There is a lot of unavoidable suffering in our lives; we should accept and bear it as part of our cross on Earth. But nobody asks us to provoke ourselves pain just to prove that we are “like Christ”. Jesus wasn’t a masochist.

You understand that if the Good continue to do nothing in the US for just a little longer (and the UK and Canada to mention it) You will be in a time of formal persecution.

You are quite correct that the provoke ourselves to pain bit was removed as church understanding of what Paul meant developed and mutilation became understood as wrong. But 80% of suffering is optional. You choose it much of the time.

Many of the great saints however lived lives of suffering and God seems to have thought it was a good thing when they gave that suffering to him. We are called to bear our daily crosses “like Christ”. but by your standard Paul was a masochist, and anyone who fasts may also qualify. (dry, not angry, logical, consider it as I wrote it. no animosity friend) In a very real way we are put here to suffer for the faith. To stand with Christ against the world. To bear our cross everyday. We all have a different capacity to carry suffering. Please consider that God takes this into account when he gives out suffering. Some are called to suffer more than others for the good of the kingdom.

 

[Julia_Mae]

. But nobody asks us to provoke ourselves pain just to prove that we are “like Christ”.

No, not to prove we are like Christ. But consider Mary at Fatima asking three children to take on suffering to expiate the sins of hellbound adults. And they did.

Padre Pio’s stigmata, visited on him by Christ, didn’t come without constant pain.

OP’s question isn’t something with a simple answer.

 

[vames]

No, not to prove we are like Christ. But consider Mary at Fatima asking three children to take on suffering to expiate the sins of hellbound adults. And they did.

You are free to believe this particular bit of this private revelation. I don’t. Sorry. A Virgin Mary asking little children to suffer and die for other people’s sins is theologically absurd and incredibly evil. Do you honestly believe that God will be pleased if legions of little children start to follow this “request”, refusing medical treatments, anesthesies, food and water just to suffer and die for others’ sins? Then why did Jesus Christ suffer and die, if what He did is so unimportant and useless that we are asked to sacrifice our children to appease God’s wrath?

 

[vames]

Many of the great saints however lived lives of suffering and God seems to have thought it was a good thing when they gave that suffering to him. We are called to bear our daily crosses “like Christ”. but by your standard Paul was a masochist, and anyone who fasts may also qualify.

Well, I just explained above why neither Jesus, nor Paul were masochists. It’s the difference between suffering and dying for a holy, noble cause, on the one hand, and needlessly harming ourselves (acting “against the just love of self”, as the Catechism says), on the other hand.
Fasting according to our powers and many, many other mortifications in our daily lives are obviously necessary and great, because this kind of lifestyle makes us more humble, help our penance, help us avoid venial sins, prepare us for prayer, keeps us from hardening our hearts - we all know the benefits. But to fast until you faint in the church and until you damage your health is absurd. Some saints have exaggerated in this respect and nobody asks us to follow their example, as we have plenty of other means to refine our souls and to please God. Suffering is not “a merit” placed per se *above *good deeds, hard work and prayer to God. If it were so, we could always sin and then “make penance” by hitting our heads with a hammer and “offering up” the resulting pain. Or we could choose examples of particular mystics who harmed themselves and pretend that we have to follow them to attain sainthood quicker and surer than by other, less spectacular means:

Rose had a fresh, lovely complexion, and she was worried by the thought that this name had been given as a tribute to her beauty. So sensitive was her conscience that she had genuine scruples over bearing the name, and on one occasion, after hearing someone praise her comeliness, she rubbed pepper into her face to mar it; another time, she put lime on her hands, inducing acute suffering. This was her way - a way conditioned by the time and place - of fighting a temptation to vanity. Such self-imposed cruelties, as we have seen in the lives of some of the other saints, have not been uncommon, particularly among those of a mystical bent.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/ROSE.htm

 

[Julia_Mae]

You are free to believe this particular bit of this private revelation. I don’t. Sorry. A Virgin Mary asking little children to suffer and die for other people’s sins is theologically absurd and incredibly evil. Do you honestly believe that God will be pleased if legions of little children start to follow this “request”, refusing medical treatments, anesthesies, food and water just to suffer and die for others’ sins? Then why did Jesus Christ suffer and die, if what He did is so unimportant and useless that we are asked to sacrifice our children to appease God’s wrath?

Have you read much about Fatima? Because how you are characterizing what the children did is pretty far off the mark. The children passed in an outbreak of influenza, I believe. They couldn’t wait to leave. And both were taken to Heaven by Mary. The children themselves designed their own penances, mostly. Mary actually told them to make one of these less severe.

Do I think it would please God if large numbers of children had this sensibility and practiced penances? Yes, I think He’d be thrilled that we have given our children the information and have let them know how powerful their innocent sufferings, even when small, but made by choice out of charity are. What great respect it shows to them to include them as vital members of the Church Militant, and invite them to prayer and penance along with adults that’s a lot more than giving up candy.

Not all can understand. But those who can, should be given the opportunity to participate as fully as they wish under parental care and guidance.

 

[Pitcharan]

You are free to believe this particular bit of this private revelation. I don’t. Sorry. A Virgin Mary asking little children to suffer and die for other people’s sins is theologically absurd and incredibly evil. Do you honestly believe that God will be pleased if legions of little children start to follow this “request”, refusing medical treatments, anesthesies, food and water just to suffer and die for others’ sins? Then why did Jesus Christ suffer and die, if what He did is so unimportant and useless that we are asked to sacrifice our children to appease God’s wrath?

I too have never been able to believe in this and many such private revelations.

 

[vames]

Have you read much about Fatima? Because how you are characterizing what the children did is pretty far off the mark. The children passed in an outbreak of influenza, I believe. They couldn’t wait to leave. And both were taken to Heaven by Mary. The children themselves designed their own penances, mostly. Mary actually told them to make one of these less severe.

By Lucia’s own account, Our Lady asked the children to suffer for others’ sins and in reparation for the sins committed against Her Immaculate Heart. I fail to find anything holy in such a request, even regardless of what the actual sufferings could have meant.

“Our Lady came to see us,” Jacinta said, “She told us She would come and take Francisco to heaven very soon. She asked me if I still want to convert more sinners. I said I did. She told me I would be going to a hospital where I would suffer a great deal; and that I am to suffer for the conversion of sinners, in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and for love of Jesus.”

fatima.ageofmary.com/overview/in-lucias-own-words/jacinta/

But then if you find out what exactly Jacinta was asked to endure, you rather get the idea of a disturbing game, worthy of a horror movie. Only Francisco died of influenza. With Jacinta it was a lot more complicated, depending on who is telling the story.

Dr. Castro Freire who received her at the hospital diagnosed “purulent pleurisy of the large left cavity, with fistula; osteitis of the seventh and eighth ribs of the same side.”

On February 10, Jacinta was operated on. She had much to suffer, for they could not give her a general anesthetic, because of her extreme weakness, and they had to be content with a local anesthetic, a method which was still imperfect at the time. They withdrew two ribs from her left side; the wound was as large as a hand; she suffered greatly from it, and the pain was revived each time it was necessary to bandage the wound.

The doctor in Lisbon who operated on Jacinta considered her a saint because although the local anesthetic did not work, Jacinta never complained. The doctor heard her say to Our Lord: “Now Jesus You can save many souls because I suffer very much.”

fatimacrusader.com/geof/I.asp#c

Jacinta too was confined to her bed during the long winter months, and although she recovered was struck down with bronchial pneumonia, while also developing a painful abscess in her chest. She was moved to the hospital in Ourem in July 1919, where she underwent the painful treatment prescribed for her, but without much effect, returning home in August with an open wound in her side. It was decided that another attempt should be made to treat her, and so in January 1920 she was taken to Lisbon, where she was diagnosed as having purulent pleurisy and diseased ribs.

Eventually in February she was admitted into hospital, where she underwent another painful operation to remove two ribs; this left her with a large wound in her side that had to dressed daily, causing her agony.

theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/appariti/fatima.html

Jacinta suffered terribly right up until the day of her departure for Lisbon, She kept clinging to me and sobbing: “I’ll never see you again! Nor my mother, nor my brothers, nor my father! I’ll never see anyone again! And then, I’ll die all alone!”
“Don’t think about it.” I advised her one day.

“Let me think about it,” she replied, “for the more I think, the more I suffer, and I want to suffer for love of Our Lord and for sinners. Anyway, I don’t mind! Our Lady will come to me there and take me to heaven.”

At times, she kissed and embraced a crucifix, exclaiming: “O my Jesus! I love you, and I want to suffer very much for love of you.”

fatima.ageofmary.com/overview/in-lucias-own-words/jacinta/

Someone should remind me why exactly was Jesus Christ crucified, if such cruelty on a terrified 7-year-old is *requested *by His Mother in reparation for the sins committed against her Heart.

 

[down_under]

Someone should remind me why exactly was Jesus Christ crucified, if such cruelty on a terrified 7-year-old is *requested *by His Mother in reparation for the sins committed against her Heart.

I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. What was lacking? In all accounts you have given medical science did all they could and the kids offered it up as they were told to as a sin offering. They made up in there body what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ. The only strange anomaly for these kids is they were told in advance to be brave because this was going to happen (generally not specifically), and then they all agreed in advance to offer there sufferings up. Which is one point that needs to be understood. How many of us would go through with almost anything if we new the degree and severity of what we would have to suffer to attain this goal? God new the exact pain every blow would inflect. He knew the depth of suffering in intricate detail. To the point that the contemplation of this suffering alone was a suffering by itself. None of us suffer this. We say yes Lord with only the vaguest notion of what lays ahead. But forward we are told to go. How much less could a 7 year old have understood. How little did they understand the suffering that was possible in the human condition? God does not require this suffering from us. Only that we solider on for the glory of God.

If Christ was made to suffer then how much more will we be made to suffer? I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. What you have shown here is not the unnecessary suffering willingly chosen to be undergone by 7 year olds. It is 7 year old willingly suffering for the sake of poor sinners suffering they could have no medically reasonable chance of avoiding.
We all face this to one degree or another. My first wife died of cancer. Cancer sucks. But your suffering can have a point. It does not have to be for nothing if you make up in your body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Or you can sit there and blame it all on God and isn’t he rotten for allow me to suffer in the first place? your call. Choose carefully.

 

[Pitcharan]

… your suffering can have a point. It does not have to be for nothing if you make up in your body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Or you can sit there and blame it all on God and isn’t he rotten for allow me to suffer in the first place? your call. Choose carefully.

Suffering that has meaningful purpose is Godsend and NOT self-inflicted. A private revelation that claims that a person was exhorted by God or any saint, to injure oneself, is unbelievable.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Jacinta suffered terribly right up until the day of her departure for Lisbon, She kept clinging to me and sobbing: “I’ll never see you again! Nor my mother, nor my brothers, nor my father! I’ll never see anyone again! And then, I’ll die all alone!”
“Don’t think about it.” I advised her one day.

“Let me think about it,” she replied, “for the more I think, the more I suffer, and I want to suffer for love of Our Lord and for sinners. Anyway, I don’t mind! Our Lady will come to me there and take me to heaven.”

Someone should remind me why exactly was Jesus Christ crucified, if such cruelty on a terrified 7-year-old is requested by His Mother in reparation for the sins committed against her Heart.

Mary didn’t “request” what happened to Jacinta, she was sick and this is how things proceeded.

On one occasion, she sent for me to come and see her at once. I ran over.
“Our Lady came to see us,” Jacinta said, “She told us She would come and take Francisco to heaven very soon. She asked me if I still want to convert more sinners. I said I did. She told me I would be going to a hospital where I would suffer a great deal; and that I am to suffer for the conversion of sinners, in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and for love of Jesus. I asked if you would go with me. She said you wouldn’t, and that is what I find hardest. She said my mother would take me, and then I would have to stay all alone!”

After this, she was very thoughtful for awhile, and then added: “If only you could be with me! The hardest part is to go without you. Maybe, the hospital is a big dark house, where you can’t see, and I’ll be there suffering all alone! But never mind! I’ll suffer for the love of Our Lord, to make reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for the conversion of sinners and for the Holy Father.”

Mary never compelled her, she simply asked her and even though she had already gone through much, she said she did want to save more souls, by accepting more suffering. So Mary told her what was ahead. What if Jacinta had said no, that she was tired and had enough? We don’t know what would have happened, but very possibly a peaceful and sudden death instead of what it was. In any case, Mary had already promised to take her to Heaven.

Keep in mind that Jacinta never asked to stop suffering, indeed, she wished to. Let’s look at an example of what kind of suffering the children usually experienced and then at the fruits of what she and the others did:

We were playing one day at the well I have already mentioned. Close to it, there was a grape vine belonging to Jacinta’s mother. She cut a few clusters and brought them to us to eat. But Jacinta never forgot her sinners.

“We won’t eat them,” she said, “we’ll offer this sacrifice for sinners.” Then she ran out with the grapes and gave them to the other children playing on the road. She returned radiant with joy, for she had found our poor children, and given them the grapes.
Another time, my aunt called us to come and eat some figs which she had brought home, and indeed they would have given anybody an appetite. Jacinta sat down happily next to the basket, with the rest of us, and picked up the first fig.

She was just about to eat it, when she suddenly remembered, and said: “Its true! Today we haven’t yet made a single sacrifice for sinners! We’ll have to make this one.”
She put the fig back in the basket, and made the offering; and we, too, left our figs in the basket for the conversion of sinners. Jacinta made such sacrifices over and over again, but I won’t stop to tell you any more or I shall never end.

These are the fruits of suffering we know of. We don’t know how many were saved from hell:

Again, a poor woman afflicted with a terrible disease met us one day. Weeping, she knelt before Jacinta and begged her to ask Our Lady to cure her. Jacinta was distressed to see a woman kneeling before her, and caught hold of her with trembling hands to lift her up. But seeing this was beyond her strength, she, too, knelt down and said three Hail Marys with the woman. She then asked her to get up, and assured her that Our Lady would cure her. After that, she continued to pray daily for that woman, until she returned sometime later to thank Our Lady for her cure.

On another occasion, there was a soldier who wept like a child. He had been ordered to leave for the front, although his wife was sick in bed and he had three small children. He pleaded that either his wife would be cured or that the order would be revoked.

Jacinta invited him to say the Rosary with her, and then said to him: “Don’t cry. Our Lady is so good! She will certainly grant the grace you are asking.”

From then on, she never forgot her soldier. At the end of the Rosary, she always said one Hail Mary for him. Some months later, he appeared with his wife and his three small children, to thank Our Lady for the two graces he had received. Having gone down with fever on the eve of his departure, he had been released from military service, and as for his wife, he said she had been miraculously cured by Our Lady.

I know this upsets you for some reason, I’m sorry it does. But I wouldn’t deny these children the choice to suffer that they made or their obviously blessed lives and their Eternal joy in Heaven. They are, and should be, an example for all of us as witnesses to the power of penitential suffering. They weren’t coerced or fooled, they were shown something we haven’t seen and had wisdom adults rarely access. They could have stopped at any time. They didn’t fear Hell for themselves, they didn’t do this to protect or save themselves, they acted out of love and charity for the worst sinners. Just reading their story is the answer to the OP’s desire to understand the theology of suffering.