Self Abuse=mortal Sin?

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='Balthazor' post='1612647' date='Jul 30 2008, 11:04 AM']Who is this "us" person you are talking about? Aren't we all called to be Saints, to lead a life of holiness and eventually go to heaven and be with GOD?

I understand what you are saying and you are right .... about the satanic influence and self hatred not being in line with saintliness. But seriously if I started self-flagellation, with a pure heart and with the call to penance.... my friends, priest and family would have me medicated and committed. Where is the line? How do we know it? How do you recognize it if God calls you to it?

IN particular I point to this biographical account of Saint Rose of Lima that I quoted from Catholic Encyclopedia.

"In her twentieth year she received the habit of St. Dominic. Thereafter she redoubled the severity and variety of her penances to a heroic degree, wearing constantly a metal spiked crown, concealed by roses, and an iron chain about her waist. Days passed without food, save a draught of gall mixed with bitter herbs. When she could no longer stand, she sought repose on a bed constructed by herself, of broken glass, stone, potsherds, and thorns. She admitted that the thought of lying down on it made her tremble with dread. Fourteen years this martyrdom of her body continued without relaxation, but not without consolation. Our Lord revealed Himself to her frequently, flooding her soul with such inexpressible peace and joy as to leave her in ecstasy for hours. At these times she offered to Him all her mortifications and penances in expiation for offences against His Divine Majesty, for the idolatry of her country, for the conversion of sinners, and for the souls in Purgatory."

I understand the reasoning... but a bed of broken glass is a little extreme even for a saint. I accept that it was from God and for redemptive suffering purposes because she is a saint. But even if my holiest of friends did this I would probably spend most of my time trying to save them from self iniflicted harm. (I used to work in a window factory and have put my hands through my share of glass window panes while reworking frames and installing glass in frames.....trust me, when I say broken glass is not a fun penance.... I dealt with enough of it personally to find out)

My general rule is in ecstacy everything flies because you are not in control God is..... outside of that you tread a pretty fine line between holy and crazy.

Personally my most difficult penance is holding back from inflicitng "redemptive suffering " on others who I think might need it... [/quote]

When I speak of "us" I'm speaking of the general population. I'm not well-versed on St. Rose of Lima, but as someone said she had a spirtual director, and she was apparently directed by Christ himself. Most lay people could not sleep on a bed of thorns and broken glass if they wanted to. They need to sleep so they can go to work.

Most of us are called to the ordinary, "little way" of holiness. Prayer, humility, perseverence, doing small acts of mercy that receive little notice, giving up our own way, this is where it is at. It is tremendous suffering simply to live in the times we live in, where human life (including ours) is so devalued and expendable.

Edited July 30, 2008 by friendofJPII

[Barbarus]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1611110' date='Jul 28 2008, 10:09 PM']Objectively, yes, it is a mortal sin. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and we should not harm ourselves purposely. But as Cathherine M said, there can be mitigating factors.

There were some saints who subjected themselves to severe penances that could be categorized as "self-abuse" but these are special cases.[/quote]
It's not objectively a mortal sin.

A sin is mortal when it a person knowingly and voluntarily commits an act that is contrary to the eternal law (grave matter). A "sin" by definition is a thought, action, or word contrary to the eternal law (Augustine's definition). It does not become mortal unless it is committed with the knowing and voluntary components. So, the act alone cannot be considered objectively mortal. Even engaging in an act that results in someone's death is not objectively a mortal sin.

[mommas_boy]

Whether or not a sin is mortal depends on three criteria:[list=1]
[*]That it is grave matter.
[*]That the person knows it is grave matter.
[*]That the person is able to freely and willing choose whether or not to commit it.
[/list]I will not discuss points two and three, as those are the subjective criteria of mortal sin that differ between people, as well as between situations. Suffice it to say that others in this thread have already presented a discussion suitable enough to form your conscience in this matter.

As to point number one, it is the objective criterion, and is most likely the criterion that you meant to ask in your original question. The answer is yes: self-abuse is objectively [b]grave matter[/b], but whether or not it is a mortal sin depends on the subjective criteria in points two and three.

Now, here is where I can't go further: there is in the Catholic faith a wonderful tradition of Saints who practiced mortification. The intent of mortification is different from that of self-abuse, but I can think of an example where self-abuse could be applied with the same intent as mortification. E.g.: the character Silas of [i]The DaVinci Code[/i] who used the Discipline (whip) and cilice (leg thingy that drew blood) with the intent to mortify himself. I believe that this was not mortification, but rather self-abuse. Mortification is good; self-abuse is bad.

For instance, examine these pictures:

[img]http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/cilice.jpg[/img]
[img]http://tinypic.com/imue4l.jpg[/img]

The top picture is the way that the cilice is meant to be used -- to provide minor, superficial irritation without breaking the skin; this is mortification. The bottom picture portrays Silas' misuse of the cilice -- full tightening with major scarring and serious bleeding, likely leading to infection (the flesh around the cilice certainly looks to be septic); this is abuse.

In Silas' case, his intent was to mortify himself, but the extent of the damage that he caused himself leaves little doubt that he was in fact abusing himself.

So, my assumption is that the difference between mortification and self-abuse has nothing to do with the intent, but instead everything to do with the extent of damage caused on yourself? Could a Scholar, Cleric, or Militant please correct me?

Edited July 30, 2008 by mommas_boy

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1612944' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:21 PM']It's not objectively a mortal sin.

A sin is mortal when it a person knowingly and voluntarily commits an act that is contrary to the eternal law (grave matter). A "sin" by definition is a thought, action, or word contrary to the eternal law (Augustine's definition). It does not become mortal unless it is committed with the knowing and voluntary components. So, the act alone cannot be considered objectively mortal. Even engaging in an act that results in someone's death is not objectively a mortal sin.[/quote]

well, yeah, but that can be said for any "mortal" sin. I think we are assuming for arguement's sake that the person knows what they are doing.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1613215' date='Jul 30 2008, 05:05 PM']well, yeah, but that can be said for any "mortal" sin. I think we are assuming for arguement's sake that the person knows what they are doing.[/quote]
OK, well, that caveat was never stated. You would also have to assume that the person is acting voluntarily, btw.

As was stated in someone else's post, the better question to ask is whether this is grave matter, not whether it is mortal sin. Voluntariness and full knowledge are going to be the same sorts of evaluation from sin to sin; the question is the gravity of the sin. The determination as to whether a given action is a mortal sin or is made on a case-by-case basis by evaluating each of the three criteria that have been listed.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1613231' date='Jul 30 2008, 04:31 PM']OK, well, that caveat was never stated. You would also have to assume that the person is acting voluntarily, btw.

As was stated in someone else's post, the better question to ask is whether this is grave matter, not whether it is mortal sin. Voluntariness and full knowledge are going to be the same sorts of evaluation from sin to sin; the question is the gravity of the sin. The determination as to whether a given action is a mortal sin or is made on a case-by-case basis by evaluating each of the three criteria that have been listed.[/quote]

well, from a realistic standpoint, I don't see why someone would inflict self-harm unless they were deeply troubled, which would be mitigating factor.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1613232' date='Jul 30 2008, 05:33 PM']well, from a realistic standpoint, I don't see why someone would inflict self-harm unless they were deeply troubled, which would be mitigating factor.[/quote]
It would influence the determination of voluntariness, it's true. And might even influence the element of "knowing." If someone is not properly able to exercise reason, can they really "know"?

[MRSannie]

So, would cigarette smoking be considered 'self-abuse'??? What about tatoos and piercings?


I am familiar with self-mutilation due to mental illness. This can be depression, eating disorders or other MI. In those cases it is much like a child scratching their chickenpox and getting a scar.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='MRSannie' date='Jul 30 2008, 05:35 PM' post='1613278']
[i]So, would cigarette smoking be considered 'self-abuse'??? What about tatoos and piercings? [/i]

It is a sin to willfully, diliberately start smoking, as it would be a sin to willfully, dilliberately overeat (gluttony).

Scripture warns against tatooing and excessive piercings is a mutilation of the body as is cross-dressing, which is also admonished in Scripture.

Edited July 30, 2008 by friendofJPII

[MRSannie]

just wondering, what constitutes 'excessive piercings' ? I have pierced ears. My daughter has double pierced ears, a belly button piercing and a nose piercing.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MRSannie' post='1613386' date='Jul 30 2008, 09:01 PM']just wondering, what constitutes 'excessive piercings' ? I have pierced ears. My daughter has double pierced ears, a belly button piercing and a nose piercing.[/quote]

[img]http://www.lyzyrdgyzyrd.com/images/piercings.jpg[/img]

Maybe?

[icelandic_iceskater]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1611143' date='Jul 28 2008, 10:36 PM']"Self-abuse" normally means masturbation. When I voted, I thought this was what it referred to.
But self-mutilation is also a mortal sin, as the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Deliberately harming one's self is regarded as a sin against the fifth commandment.[/quote]oh, my bad. Thanks for correcting me.

thanks to everyone who's taken the time to reply.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='MRSannie' post='1613386' date='Jul 30 2008, 08:01 PM']just wondering, what constitutes 'excessive piercings' ? I have pierced ears. My daughter has double pierced ears, a belly button piercing and a nose piercing.[/quote]

You are going to probably lash out at me for saying this, but the belly button piercing and nose piercing (unless it has been done for some religous or cultural reason) is not in good taste. Pierced ears are fine. If I had a daughter, I would only allow her one hole.

[mommas_boy]

To be honest, I can't say with any certainty if that's male or female ...

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1613392' date='Jul 30 2008, 08:03 PM'][img]http://www.lyzyrdgyzyrd.com/images/piercings.jpg[/img]

Maybe? [/quote]


EWW!!!!