I guess my real struggle with this, is in the denial of desires. I’ve always believed that we are as God made us, some people have desires and some don’t.

Well, consider this. Society, as a whole, has become more feelings-centered and less self-disciplined in recent decades. And what do we have as a result? Rampant homosexuality through our major institutions, radically increased drug use, gang membership, murder, marriage is, for the most part, gone as a lifetime institution, etc. Read any of the "naughty teacher" threads on FR recently?

I'm not implying that you are a bad person. Not at all. But when society, without a good basis in conservative thought, much less a good basis in Christian thought, loses its desire to discipline itself according to basic Christian values, the results are apparent...and heartbreaking.

Now is that a reason to become an ascetic? No. But ascetics seek to discipline their thoughts so that they don't even come within a mile of succumbing to their animalistic desires. I would be happy if people even took the time to "think about it" first (even w/o regard to disciplining the root causes).

In general I agree with your insight here, ForGod'sSake. The only qualification I'd make is "true vs. false" is not logically the same thing as "good vs. evil." It seems to me "true vs. false" indicates rational categories, but "good vs. evil" indicates ontological categories. In other words, the two sets of terms distinguish between the different states of knowing and being. We Christians may sense ourselves moving along a linear path towards good or evil, according to our free choice. But without God to draw us, our propensity/susceptibility to evil will tend to overwhelm us, ineluctibly it seems.

So very true.

Thank you for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Highly amusing that the Pope calls the interviewer on an obscure quotation from the "Pauline Letters" . . . the man clearly is carrying all the early church documents in his head.

What a genius! May he live a hundred years!

Ping

(These excerpts were from pages 349-352 and 354-360 of God and the World: A Conversation With Peter Seewald.)

He promised to never leave nor foresake us. And to take us to be with Him forever.

Solid promises, those.

So I guess he didn’t think that Christ’s sacrifice was enough.

Brother, have you read these words of St Paul?

...and I fulfill in my own flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

These extraordinary words of St Paul confirm that something IS lacking in the sufferings of Christ. I hazard a guess that it is our engagement with them: our conformance to them.

It is a good and holy act to bend our minds to the Passion of Christ: - which for the very great Saints seems to have included acts of physical mortification.

But there are things which we are not to do. For instance: we shouldn't light fires on our chests or hang ourselves from hooks (as some ascetics do in India). And we shouldn't gash ourselves with knives as the Shiite do at the bloody festival of Ashura. Those would be pointless or even horrific abuses: especially the Shiite one, which seems to be sprung from self-loathing at the death of Mohammad's son.

We are to prayerfully join ourselves to the sufferings of Christ. And that joining can take a physical form. It can also take the form of fasting and self-abnegation. All of these help to make up what is missing in the sufferings of Christ.

Sincerely hope this was helpful.

I will go whenever the Lord says it’s time. However, I am not banking on a pre-trib rapture.

I pray we all overcome to the end, and that He will find faith in us, that we will know Him AND BE KNOWN BY HIM until it’s over and done with. If it turns out to be over and done with pre-trib, then hunky dory. IF, OTOH ‘with diff fingers’ as you say Quix, it turns out to be mid- or post-trib, then by His grace I hope to hang tough throughout and to be found in Him on the Last Day.

That's a strawman argument you are spouting, IsCool. Read what I and others have written. None of us have asserted that the Shroud was the ONLY cloth associated with the burial of Jesus. In fact, I can specify at least three other pieces of cloth in addition to the Shroud used in the burial of the Man on the Shroud. The cloth bindings at the ankles and wrists, to keep the limbs from flopping, and the binding around the face to keep the mouth closed. These are written of and required parts of the funeral preparations in the Mishnah, the written book of rules for Judaism... as is a shroud. Why would these observant Jews ignore these requirements of Jewish tradition to suddenly take up Egyptian swaddling mummy bandaging which is nowhere mentioned in the Mishnah?

WoW...You guys are mind boggling...You can specify 4 pieces of cloth used in the buriel of Jesus while the Shroud of Turin shows only one...I gotta hear this story...

The Greek texts report that Nicodemus brought λιτρας εκατον (litras ekatov), litra hundred... libra 100= or 100 Roman pounds = 100 lb. (Although, I suspect that being a Jew, if Nicodemus bought the spices that day, he probably bartered for them in hebrew measurements... he may have already had them on hand... we just don't know.)

Why are you worried about that...The Shroud of Turin experts claim there are traces of plant pollen only produced in Jerusalem on the shroud but yet there isn't a single trace of any of the burial spices and aloes on the shroud...

Can you explain that one too???

At least then you would be spouting such whoppers as "Dead bodies don't bleed...Plus,,,all the blood was drained out...Where do you get the blood for the shroud???" Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D., Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, N.Y. Chief Medical Examiner, Rockland County, N.Y. (Retired), would disagree with your conclusion that "dead bodies don't bleed.

So what??? There are tons of pathologist who know and will say and have said that dead bodies don't bleed...AND, I butchered enough deer, pigs and cows and rabbits and squirrels to know that dead bodies do no bleed once the heart stops pumping...

such as papers by Dr. John Heller, Dr. Alan Adler, Dr. Bruce Cameron, all world renowned experts on blood and blood fractions... all of whom agree that it is blood...

And there are even more experts who say that while the samples have some of the characteristics of blood, they are missing many of the components that are required for blood...

By the way, Dr. Zugibe would agree with you that Jesus' body was washed...

Of course, that's part of the Jewish burial custom...While at the same time, the blood especially on the hand of the figure in the shroud would have been cleaned...

The experts who have examined the shroud that disagree with your theory claim some of the blood on the hand could only get there from a heart that is pumping...So either Jesus wasn't dead when He was buried or He wasn't washed prior to burial...And neither one of those is accurate...

I follow the science and the research. You might want to review that before you dismiss what I have to say on this subject after the almost 40 years of study I have put into it.

Then you have to know that it is still no more than a theory...Whether the shroud is authentic or not has no bearing on my Christianity...There are so many false doctrines and outright lies out there that people try to justify with their tradition and interpretation of the scripture, that I'm only interested in the truth...And the shroud of turin hasn't yet made the grade to be absolute truth...

Its true, I’ve gone camping before. Why bother doing that unless to train to live life according to the habits, and rules, and “training” we develop through the rigor. Yes the trees are nice, yes jumping off of a cliff is thrilling, but its thrilling because it brings us closer to our own mortality.

Aside from that, I think cave diving to be far more crazy than abstaining from meat, or wearing a hair shirt.

OK, thanks. I guess my real struggle with this, is in the denial of desires. I’ve always believed that we are as God made us, some people have desires and some don’t. We act as God has planned for us. Plus, it seems that doing bad things to one’s body, is not really what God would want.

You are right though, about not being a Christian and understanding the membership of His body.

Not being a Christian, I don’t understand the idea of sacrifice as part of one’s worship of God. Is there direction in the bible about this?

See Romans 6 and 7. This is not so much of a sacrifice as a separation from fleshy desires from one's will. A denial of your desires.

Having said that, there is a component of joining one's sufferings to the sufferings of Christ (See Col 1:22-24) as a form of intercession. But it should be pointed out that nowhere does this mean that there is a statement that the redemptive work of Christ is not sufficient. But the Christian, as a member of Christ's body, can contribute his personal suffering to the overall redemption and healing of that body. Pope John Paul II wrote on this subject in his work, Salvifici Doloris (salvific suffering) back in 1984. It is impossible to understand the nature of how our suffering relates to Christ without an in-depth understanding of how we become members of His body (See 1 Cor 12:14-27). I am not sure that it is truly possible to fully grasp it as a non-Christian (See I Cor 2:14). So I don't know that I'd be able to explain it well enough.

But this shared suffering and sacrifice is not the principal component of asceticism -- the principal component is one of reducing one's attachment to sin.

Yes, an abuse report was filed that the poster is not Catholic and posting on a Catholic Caucus.

Thanks. Not being a Christian, I don’t understand the idea of sacrifice as part of one’s worship of God. Is there direction in the bible about this?

Didn’t realize that. I certainly have no objections to respectful, invited non-Catholics.

Lucius,

Please take a look at the RM definition of Caucus threads. It says, However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.

I have already told Stuartcr that if he wishes to ask respectful questions, I am more than thrilled to answer. (See post #62). As the originator of this thread, I am allowed to use my prudential judgment on this.

Consider this the difference between somebody coming to Mass for the first time and asking what is happening, vice somebody getting up in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer and shouting that "all you RCs are going to hell" (yes, I've seen that at Mass before).

Stuart, if you want to ask questions, please feel free.

There is a sect of Islam in which there is a special holiday where many tens of thousands march to one of their holy shrines, and they are all are whipping their own backs, BLOODY, as they walk along. Once a year, there are photographs from Iraq about this “religious” practice. I don’t remember the name of the holiday, nor recall just what it is that they are “celebrating” by drawing blood out of their backs.

Thanks for your replies. I was not raised Catholic and had not heard of this or ascetisim. Are there other denominations that practice this? I just noticed the (Catholic caucus) designation, so I probably should not have participated in the thread.

No problem on that. I always welcome respectful questions. Just like somebody who comes to a Catholic Mass the first time. My attitude is "please ask" -- but don't stand up during the middle of Mass and start consigning everybody to hell. In other words, I don't like disruptors.

As to other denominations, this was not at all uncommon during the first thousand years of Christianity. As this is a caucus thread, I am precluded from speaking about what other confessions do or don't do (otherwise, the caucus designation could be pulled. And if you saw the uproar upthread prior to its deletion, you should understand fully why the caucus designation was applied).

I’d been under the impression that a non-Catholic only had to leave the caucus thread if: 1. He’s making antagonistic remarks or; 2. A Catholic requests that he leave.

The poster’s remarks are not antagonistic, at least not in my view.

Did someone specifically ask him to leave?

Thanks for your replies. I was not raised Catholic and had not heard of this or ascetisim. Are there other denominations that practice this? I just noticed the (Catholic caucus) designation, so I probably should not have participated in the thread.

Then I’ll leave. Sometime in the future, I hope this subject comes up in a non-ecumenical thread, as I would like to try and understand why people do this.

What is considered appropriate for a secular pursuit is judged as mental illness when the goal is of a religious nature.

You've nailed it. Tell a co-worker you're skipping lunch because you're on a diet he will express admiration for your will-power; tell him you're giving up one meal a day for Lent and he'll back away with a curious expression on his face. From then on he'll give you a wide berth.

Amen.

Are you a practicing Catholic?

Based on his profile on his blog, I would say no.

Interests * Hebrew * Ancient Near Eastern Studies * Old Testament * Biblical Theology * classical guitar * Christian Music * fishing

Dear markomalley,

Let me expand my reply in #72 to say that the replacement of Archbishop Jadot eventually played a large role in fixing many things in the Church in the United States, including the clerical sex abuse problems.

However, I think the fact that the sex abuse problem peaked in 1980 is mostly due to other factors that are otherwise hidden from [at least my] view.

sitetest

This guy will always be one of the giants of my age: The Pope, Reagan, and Maggie Thatcher. They won the cold war and destroyed the Russian Empire.

At one point he told the Russians that he would lay down his papal crown and go back to Poland to fight with the Solidarity movement. I still get chills when I think of this.

What this story proves is that he was a man. A man that struggled with what he considered his personal sins and the sins of his people. I have no problem with that.

I pray that the world will see at least one more person of his stature again before we end up in the toilet.

Dear markomalley,

“Do you think that it may have something to do with the Holy Father having replaced Jean Jadot back in 1980?”

No, as my own view is that the effects in episcopal appointments of Archbishop Jadot seem to have lingered beyond his replacement, and as well, it isn't like lots and lots of bishops were immediately replaced.

I don't really know what Pope John Paul did, and I suspect that very few folks will ever know in this life what he did. I believe that he took actions which were hidden from our view that over time dramatically mitigated the problem.

If I had to guess, my guess would be that he gave strong encouragement to like-minded brother bishops to independently develop policies to address the problem. And, if you look at that graph, it's pretty obvious that those efforts met with dramatic success, over time.

I know that many folks criticize the Church for not turning abusers over to the authorities. They forget conveniently that into the 1980s, law enforcement often didn't want to be involved. I remember being in grad school in 1981 for clinical psychology, in one of my first classes, and discussing the development of “controversial” new laws requiring reporting to authorities of any clients who confessed to sex abuse of minors. Not everyone in the mental health field, not everyone in law enforcement, thought this was such a good idea.

Yet, right or wrong on the issue of turning abusers over to the authorities, whatever it is that the bishops, the pope, the Church did, actually DID result in a huge, long-term decline in the number of abusers and the number of abuse victims.

And I'd think that preventing more cases of abuse would be the bottom-line for folks.

sitetest

Are you a practicing Catholic?

Pictures here.

Being Catholic: Sacred Things, [New] Fire, Paschal Candle

Also known as the Easter Candle.

Lit during all of Eastertide for Masses.

Also lit for all baptisms and funerals.

So I guess he didn’t think that Christ’s sacrifice was enough.

I've seen that graph a dozen times before, but it's always hard to wrap my head around just how long ago the problem peaked. Truly, if one is to blame/credit John Paul II with whatever happened to happen during his pontificate, one must credit him with resolving the clerical sex abuse issue.

Agreed. 100%.

Do you think that it may have something to do with the Holy Father having replaced Jean Jadot back in 1980?

Dear markomalley,

I've seen that graph a dozen times before, but it's always hard to wrap my head around just how long ago the problem peaked. Truly, if one is to blame/credit John Paul II with whatever happened to happen during his pontificate, one must credit him with resolving the clerical sex abuse issue.

sitetest

Blessed Miguel Agustin Pro

Sitetest,

Thanks.

In regards to your comment, Although the public revelation of these scandals only broke in the 2000s, the fact is, the actual cases of abuse peaked in the late 1980s, and by the mid-1990s had declined 90%

The above is from the John Jay report. It appears from that chart that the actual peak of incidents in the USA occurred in 1980, at the very beginning of his pontificate. I don't have hard data on the crisis from elsewhere in the world, so worldwide numbers may aggregate to a different peak.

Other than that detail, I agree fully with your post.

Blessed Miguel Agustin Pro

Dear markomalley,

I will add to your post by commenting that many of the evils of the past decades peaked early in Pope John Paul's pontificate, and then began to diminish.

The sex abuse scandals are a good and important example. Although the public revelation of these scandals only broke in the 2000s, the fact is, the actual cases of abuse peaked in the late 1980s, and by the mid-1990s had declined 90%. If the late pope is to be blamed for the bad things that happened during his pontificate, even for bad things that started way before his pontificate (and the sex abuse cases seemed to start to rev up in the 1950s), it would seem appropriate to credit him when things started to improve markedly during his tenure.

Similarly with episcopal appointments. Not so hot in many cases in the early years. Some real improvement in the second half of his pontificate.

Like you, I think that a fair view of his pontificate will point out more than a few errors and mistakes, some of them even systemic. But like you, I think that such a view will also point out that he took many good actions and planted many good seeds that will sprout over time, to the benefit of the Universal Church.

sitetest

There have been a number of less than respectful remarks on the thread, you got caught in the response. About St. Francis, like many saints he practiced self-mortification. By the way, this is not an ecumenical thread. If you are not a Roman Catholic, according to FR rules, you are intruding.

St. Columban, Abbot

St. Columban, Abbot

Some can only wonder why. Perhaps if this thread hadn't been butchered some views applicable to the current dilemma could be read.

True statement.

I don't typically "caucus" threads, but it seems with some subjects (e.g., this topic (mortification), the Blessed Mother, and the like), non-members of the Caucus feel duty-bound to come out of the woodwork. If they wish to express their views, they can do so on another thread, but I feel that this topic, in particular, is so critical for Catholics, that it warrants throwing a caucus label on it.

Sorry that your posts were zapped for a while, but glad they are back.

This thread deals with morality and virtue as a prerequisite to freedom, not the abuses heaped upon our Constitution and nation since the founding.

So you see no significant connection between the two? That's odd.

BTW, you mean "religious" virtue and morality, correct?

Saint Clement I, Pope & Martyr

Thanks, apparently others aren’t.

Nope, just trying to learn stuff.

I am always thrilled to answer respectful questions.

Pope John Paul, as well as his successor, had an opportunity to reverse the evils following Vatican II. He did nothing. Benedict has done nothing.

Well, I actually don't agree with this.

JPII, through his encyclicals, began the action to correct the modernism that crept in the Church because of the so-called "Spirit of VII." Are you familiar with Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Pius X)?

That is not to say that I believe that JPII was perfect, far from it, but he took a lot of actions that may have not been reported or may have been misreported. Ex Corde Ecclesiae provided a good mechanism to reform Catholic colleges. Is it his fault that many bishops would not enforce it within their individual dioceses? (How could he do so with respecting the principle of subsidiarity?) He formed the commission Ecclesia Dei, which provided for the restoration of the 1962 Missal. It was under his pontificate that Liberation Theology was condemned. It was under his pontificate that much of the excesses of the social justice movement was corrected (see encycl. Centesimus Annus, for example). It was under his pontificate where the policy of not allowing homosexuals to enter the seminary was re-stressed (and the famous visitation occurred during that time...which resulted in a lot of cleanup). During his pontificate the Catechism was published -- providing, finally, a concise volume to refute the errors being pushed by the Modernists (again,see Pascendi Dominici Gregis).

And to say that BXVI hasn't fought to correct the excesses that occurred in the wake of VII is just laughable. Have you heard of Summorum Pontificum?

And the above is just a sampling. A small and pitifully inadequate sampling.

Nope, just trying to learn stuff.