Glory in suffering

[Acumen]

Do Catholics believe there is glory in suffering?  And if so, what does this say about those who purposefully hurt themselves to gain such glory?  Where do we draw the line?

[fidei in nuce]

Acumen

I’m going to jump in on this because, from what I can glean from our interactions, I think you will ultimately agree with the reasoning even if you personally do not prescribe to the concept.

Catholics believe suffering is redemptive [Christ made it so on the cross] and there is glory in redemption, so in as much as our [the servants] suffering contributes to our redemption [by virtue of the Master’s perfect act], there too is glory.

Where do we draw the line?  Taking the neurotic and the masochist out of the discussion, it evidently is tied into a specific call, because the Catholic understands vicarious suffering as part of the Communion of Saints doctrine and one must be called to this sacrifice; think of the athlete, who is called on, then trains his body for the purpose of the team’s sake. [I couldn’t think of a better example at the moment].  But to extend that example, it would be detrimental to the welfare of the individual and the whole team if that athlete caused himself excessive harm; thus defeating both objectives.

My point is that first, one must be called in some way to carry the cross of Christ [corporal mortification], and whether suffering [mental, physical or spiritual] is voluntary [at least accepted] or not, it must spring from and contribute to an authentic spirituality [uniting us with Christ]. 

We see the positive effect of denying ourselves certain things for the health of our bodies [diet, exercise, etc.].  The vicarious aspect of suffering rests on the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.  To what degree it unites us with Christ and builds up the Body of Christ is the subjective standard for where we draw the line; only God knows the intention of the object of the agent involved.

Fidei

[metis]

Acts.5
[41] Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.

Acts.9
[16] for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."


Rom.5
[3] More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,

Rom.8
[17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

1Cor.12
[26] If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

2Cor.1
[5] For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.

Phil.1
[29] For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

Phil.3
[8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ...
[10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

Col.1
[24] Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

2Tim.1
[8] Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God,

2Tim.2
[3] Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

Heb.2
[10] For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.

 1Pet.2
[21] For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

1Pet.5
[9] Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.



Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Fidei and Vern,

What would be your reaction if you learned a good friend of yours was flogging himself because he believed that such suffering had redemptive results?  Let's say he would come to work bruised and sore enough where it pained him to sit?

[fidei in nuce]

Acumen

Many have done just that and more…today we recognize them as Saints.  That being said, I would be skeptical if it were not under the guidance of a competent, holy, and recognized spiritual director.  There can be many misdirected intentions that may surface as vice.

Fidei

[metis]

What would be your reaction if you learned a good friend of yours was flogging himself because he believed that such suffering had redemptive results?  Let's say he would come to work bruised and sore enough where it pained him to sit?

I've been getting flogged ever since I got married, and that was almost 41 years ago!  Didn't you notice how saintly I am?

I don't believe it necessary to inflict unnecessary suffering on ourselves any more than I wish it inflicted on anyone else.  However, it is certainly very conceivable that we may allow ourselves to suffer to help someone else out, such as donating a kidney to a dying neighbor.

Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

Personally, I don't see ANY reason to believe that intentionally experiencing physical pain is akin to the "suffering" from the aforementioned scriptures.

Yes, Jesus underwent physical suffering - but not of his own accord. It was the full spectrum of persecution that entailed the biblical "suffering." Sometimes that meant physical pain inflicted by others, and sometimes it meant having everything you had and knew taken from you... but nowhere do I see a reason to intentionally inflict suffering - especially physical pain - on ourselves.

Some call that Sadism... but if it's under the guise of Christianity it's suddenly okay?

No, I don't agree with that at all (obviously). I think that suffering for His name is justified - but not if we inflict it on ourselves. I couldn't care less if later generations call you a saint.

Jesus may have allowed others to inflict physical pain on Him, but He didn't do it to Himself, or ask anyone to do it. He was persecuted, as was the early Church - and it just makes sense that the Apostolic tradition would note the benefits of withstanding that persecution for the Name of Jesus Christ.

[fidei in nuce]

Thorolf

The distinction between voluntary mortification and self-inflicted sacrifice is subtle; does not fasting constitute voluntary mortification and a self-inflicted denial of food or water?   Was St. John the Baptist sadistic to live such an austere life in the desert?  No, and this is part of the larger doctrine of the Communion of Saints and should be discussed only in that context; it’s like separating the doctrine of Purgatory from imparted righteousness.  My point is that anyone who holds to the ‘individualism’ and ‘verticalness’ of Protestant redemption is never going to accept the necessity of corporal mortification for one’s justification or other ascetic practices for that matter; the division lies elsewhere.  The disagreement is with the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints, not corporal mortification or asceticism.

Fidei

[Acumen]

Fidei,

The distinction between voluntary mortification and self-inflicted sacrifice is subtle; does not fasting constitute voluntary mortification and a self-inflicted denial of food or water?

You're right, but there is a significant difference between denial of a biological craving and beating oneself.  When done for a moderate time, the former is actually healthy for the body, unless you already have an underlined malady like say diabetes.  The latter inflicts harm to the body signified by brusing, inflammation, soreness, and physical pain.

-Acumen

[fidei in nuce]

Acumen said:
You're right, but there is a significant difference between denial of a biological craving and beating oneself. 

Fidei responded:
The finis operas and the finis operantis can be morally good in either case; again, if done with prudence under the guidance of a trained and competent spiritual director [circumstance], it is an acceptable ascetical practice [morally good act], regardless of modern sensitivities to the contrary.

Acumen said:
When done for a moderate time, the former is actually healthy for the body, unless you already have an underlined malady like say diabetes.  The latter inflicts harm to the body signified by bruising, inflammation, soreness, and physical pain.

Fidei responded:
This practice is ripe for abuse.  But, you originally asked, “Where do we draw the line”.  Was that rhetorical?  Maybe you would only fast 7 days and someone else might fast 40 days and nights.  Did they go too far?  Would you sit outside in 340 for 2 hours in a tee shirt to deny yourself the biological craving of warmth?  Where is the line for you?  That’s the answer you want.  You seem to suggest that it cannot inflict physical pain.  Well, then to what degree of pain?  If it leaves a mark, then is that too far?     

I wouldn’t expect any non-Catholic to be warm to the idea of this mortification any more than I would expect to find Protestant dessert monks performing ascetical practices; for that is where this originated.

Regardless of your position, it would do you well to read some of the writings of St. Catherine of Siena, St. Thomas Moore, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila or St. Therese of the Little Child Jesus to name a few.  All of these have practiced the very thing that you find objectionable.  It won’t change your mind, we both come from our own theological moorings, plus we all live in a cultural setting that denies anything other than material realities.  But you will appreciate how this became the means to the end of suppressing the concupiscible appetites of some truly holy Christians.

Now I would like to make a confession.  I couldn’t see myself whipping away at the flesh or doing something to cause lasting pain or discomfort.  I would be concerned with my own scrupulosity and besides that, there’s something about the practice that makes me uncomfortable.  But I am unable to dismiss something that has worked so well for so many; by that I mean it has brought many [the person performing it] closer to Christ.  Reading the lives of those Saints I listed, you would find individuals whose sanctity and increase in justice, we could only hope to have a portion.  If I find this practice odd, it is not wise that I do it because they do it, nor to reject it totally because it’s objectionable to my sensitivities.  If great persons have done it, I leave it on the table; for those who oppose it also oppose a multitude of other Catholic practices.

So, I still hold to the position of my first post, where I stated, “one must be called [it comes from Christ] in some way to carry the cross of Christ [corporal mortification], and whether suffering [mental, physical or spiritual] is voluntary [at least accepted] or not, it must spring from and contribute to an authentic spirituality [uniting us with Christ]”.

Buon Natale to all!!   

Fidei

[Acumen]

Fidei,

This practice is ripe for abuse.  But, you originally asked, “Where do we draw the line”.  Was that rhetorical?  

Not at all.

Maybe you would only fast 7 days and someone else might fast 40 days and nights.  Did they go too far? 

I believe that depends upon the health of the individual.  An individual with diabetes, for instance, has difficulties regulating blood sugar levels.  If the person is already hypoglycemic, then fasting will induce a coma and eventually cause brain damage.  I think that a fair standard for determining when self-denial is morally wrong is when it harms one's health.

Would you sit outside in 340 for 2 hours in a tee shirt to deny yourself the biological craving of warmth?  Where is the line for you? 

I don't know, is the person in question a 90 year old frail female, or perhaps an individual with hypothyroidism?  If so, then waiting outside for 2 or more hours would probably kill either one of them.  Again, I would say that the line for me is really a matter of health.

That’s the answer you want.  You seem to suggest that it cannot inflict physical pain.  Well, then to what degree of pain?  If it leaves a mark, then is that too far?

No, I wouldn't use pain as a standard because not all pain is unhealthy.

-Acumen

[julrich]

jesus was criticized for not being an ascetic follower of John the baptist.
Mortification of the flesh was not his teaching or discipline.  Disciplined poverty and itinerant healing were his practice.  Release from the shame of physical infirmity was a joyous affirmation of physical, spiritual and social wholeness.  Paul was more stoic about the flesh than jesus.  Enduring suffering was more of a program to overcome oppression than a self-imposed spiritual discipline in the ministry of Jesus.  Rabbis were critical of the self-mortification of nazirites.  Paul went on a crusade against the mortification of circumcision, even comparing it to pagan practice.  I think asceticism in christianity is a result of hellenistic syncretism, not the suffering of jesus in the flesh.

[Acumen]

What questions did I miss?

[Acumen]

El,

Do you really think he wanted a specific answer to what was too much mortification or was he asking who or what dictates if mortification is even appropriate?

Typically, I don't answer questions that aren't asked.  If I were to do that, I would only get myself into trouble.  If Fidei wants me to answer his questions, then let him ask; he doesn't need you as a facilitator.

[julrich]

I'm not convinced that the 40 days in the desert reports a specific event.  I do think it may represent an ascetic past with the baptist.  But going to jerusalem to dangerously challenge authorities is not an example of ascetic discipline.  And being beaten by brutal enforcers isn't either.

jules

[Acumen]

He did ask the questions, you obviously didn't understand them, why don't you read them over and try answering them in proper context...I guess I should have expected this from a Sola Scripturist.

Okay, let's try this again.  Look for all the sentences that have question marks after them.  Okay, good.  Now make note of them and then compare them to my responses.  Nuff said.

[Thorolf]

Thorolf

The distinction between voluntary mortification and self-inflicted sacrifice is subtle; does not fasting constitute voluntary mortification and a self-inflicted denial of food or water?   Was St. John the Baptist sadistic to live such an austere life in the desert?  No, and this is part of the larger doctrine of the Communion of Saints and should be discussed only in that context; it’s like separating the doctrine of Purgatory from imparted righteousness.  My point is that anyone who holds to the ‘individualism’ and ‘verticalness’ of Protestant redemption is never going to accept the necessity of corporal mortification for one’s justification or other ascetic practices for that matter; the division lies elsewhere.  The disagreement is with the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints, not corporal mortification or asceticism.

Fidei

Well, no.. fasting is not that. Fasting is a method of subjugating the flesh to allow us to separate from the things of the world and focus on God. My daughter may want a new toy... my saying no and beating her into accepting that she's not getting a toy are a far cry from the "same thing."

Fasting is not abuse, self-inflicted or otherwise, and it is not "mortification." It has a long tradition and is evidenced in the Bible as something Jesus actually did - and not for the purpose of feeling humiliation and shame.

Jesus never self-flagellated, and never instructed - or even volunteered - to be so abused. Did He know it was coming? I'm sure He did... but accepting what must be and asking for it are two completely different things. It seems that some either can't or won't see that very distinct difference.

I'm not sure why you think the disagreement lies elsewhere... frankly, I think the disagreement lies ALSO with this issue...

[Thorolf]

I guess I should have expected this from a Sola Scripturist

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya...

"You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Acumen]

Yeah, I think it's time for a definition of the term.

[Acumen]

El,

If someone slapped me because they knew I would turn the other cheek; and they knew I could have stopped them, is that the same as asking to be slapped?