Pope John Paul practiced self-mortification

So this is where the idea for flagellation came in DaVinci Code. This is one sick individual, under the guise of penance. Saint or nut?

This merely concludes another sad chapter of one of the darkest periods the Catholic Church has ever known. The thought that a man who was too ill to carry out the tasks of Bishop of Rome should stay in office no matter what, is another example of the dangerous extremism of the far right elements in the Church. This is cult worship and therefore, on just about every known understanding of heresy, it is glaring. The fact that Benedict is to the right of John Paul II is even more jarring on so many levels but it is also a sign that the decadence and corruption at the core of power in Rome cannot stand for long. It is imploding inward and reading things like this just makes it all the more creepy. Personal fasting is one thing to be admired although choosing to do so before he ordained priests and bishops makes it appear like a pathological disorder. John Paul's alleged medieval flagellation of his body also carries a stigma of extremism that very few people find appropriate for the chief shepherd. If true, it's all just too much. It's no wonder the Church is imploding. He should have resigned as soon as he became incapacitated.

What was he thinking? That a merciful and loving God would be pleased with this masochistic display?

Can someone please explain how actually harming yourself in this way (i.e. self-flagellation) could be considered a positive thing rather than a sign of mental illness? I mean no disrespect to Pope John Paul II; I'm sure he was a good person. I also completely understand how self-denial (fasting, celibacy, putting oneself in harm's way to protect another, etc.) can focus one's attention on God. I can even understand why one might lie on the floor in the crucifixion position all night.

But doing real (and possibly permanent) damage to one's own body in private seems rather self-involved. It also seems rather pointless in that it does not help anyone else. Teenage girls who cut or burn themselves are considered mentally ill.

So why is it a sign of sainthood when the Pope does it?

Yet another chapter of continuing Vatican subterfuge and obfuscation:

"Because of the reticence surrounding the process, the witnesses who served as the source for particular affirmations in the book are not named, although some are described loosely as members of the papal entourage or the papal household."

Why are they so AFRAID to go on PUBLIC record? If they really EXIST, that is.

Subito Santo! My eye!

There is a weird view of suffering among many Catholics. I have often heard words of “offering up suffering to God” as if God takes pleasure in it or wills it. (Just offering up suffering causes one to ignore the need to triumph over suffering by ending it.) Particularly weird is self-inflicted suffering and mutilation, as if it brings one closer to God. If God is the loving creator, then he would undoubtedly say that there is not much to love about suffering. That the pope would engage in self-flagellation and suffering in some sort of weird way isn’t good evidence of saintliness. Rather, his postulator makes me think that mental sickness and theological craziness runs deep in the church’s clerical ranks.

Anyone surprised that an Opus Dei pope followed Opus Dei practices?

He spent the night before his coronation lying prostrate before the tomb of Escriva.

I'm just one of the multitude of the young JP II generation. He was a hero and will no doubt be a saint. Chris Smith says the Church is imploding; I see rather a springtime of hope. No doubt some of the subscribers of NCR would rather smear the collective memory of our previous Pope with venomous attacks upon him (not very Christ-like). I say rather, "Thank you Jesus for having given us JPII for our shepherd!"

So laying on the cold ground, beating yourself silly, and starving prove a person a good Catholic? I would think if I did that many years of therapy would be required. Wow. Cult-like is so accurate...

Gross! Not a recommendation for sainthood! Reminds one of the albino in Angels and Demons!

So, John Paul II whipped himself. Maybe if he had not been busy practicing self-flagellation he would have had time to check in to all those reports of sexual abuse of minors by priests.

Back when I was in high school, an atheist classmate of mine taunted me with the line, "Those priests and nuns whip themselves." I told her, "That may have been true in centuries past, but no person in their right mind does that today." I owe her an apology.

Steve

Why is self abuse a criteria for sainthood? Did Jesus call on the most faithful to abuse themselves as sign of their love?

Setting aside this distorted view of faithfulness - JP2 should NEVER become a saint because he turned his back on those who were abused by priests. In fact, he refused to meet with victims who traveled to Rome and wanted to share their story. His handling - protection - of Cardinal Law was also a total disgrace. He put his relationship with Law above all else. A saint, in my mind, must be perfect and JP2- while admirable - was NOT perfect.

Finally, simply look at the quality of the leadership he left behind among the ranks of Cardinals. Not very impressive. He did nothing to respond the attacks by Law on Cardinal Bernardine, after Bernardine died.

The admiration of such unhealthy acts as self flagellation illustrates an institution that is living in the past and still thinking in ways that reverence control and "working out our salvation". Repentance is about turning toward God's love, not beating yourself silly and taking pride in it.

Self-mutilation isn't a virtue--- it's a symptom of a psychological disorder.

Often as not, it's the last resort of a poor, repressed, individual who needs to feel something, anything, in their wordly flesh.

It isn't at all forward to suggest that in those who endeavor to practice complete sexual continence, it is an outlet for feelings, an alternative to a mutual sexual experience or to masturbation.

This news is not cause for adulation, knowing what we do now.

It is cause for deep concern, and for concern for one who was hurting so badly that he felt that he must hurt himself.

Perhaps, though, this is an explantion for why John Paul II was apparently "soft" on those who were unable to keep their vows of chastity. He, himself, was struggling with "the temptations of the flesh."

It would have been better for him, and for the rest of us, to admit that men and women are sexual beings, and to have endorsed the fulfillment of healthy, responsible, natural, sexual relationships for himself and his brother (and sister) priests.

To deduce that John Paul II was tilting at the same windmills of celibacy, and harming himself in the process, is to deduce a painful and sorrowful irony.

Just when you think nothing out of the vatican could surprise you it does. Anyone who had read any of jp's writings on the glory of pain would have known he was seriously deranged and depraved. Lucky for adult Catholics the vatican is no longer needed except for comic relief.

Just a hunch but the flagellation just might have been over impure thoughts which, if true, confirms the suspecion that the chourch really does't like sex and more importantly doesn't like women and views them as an occasion of sin. What is happening to our beautiful Catholic Church. At the very least it is time to turn off the money.

The enigma of JPII was that he clearly was a saintly person & a scholar but his rule of the Church left something to be desired. Let us not forget that no matter how saintly he was there was a lot of dysfunction in the Church during his reign. Having been a participant, he was too wed to the flawed pastoral council termed Vatican II to annul it. This is what a true saint would have done with this council. The Catholic Church is presently in need of a Second Counter Reformation; nothing less will do!

Since this information is being provided by the postulator of Pope John Paul II's sainthood, we have no reason to doubt that it is true.

But it is certainly symtomatic of the state of the church that the postulator thinks Wojtyla's practice of beating himself as "archbishop of Krakow, Poland, as well as after he became pope" is one of the reasons why he's a saint.

It was distasteful enough when The DaVinci Code caricatured self-flagellation as a bizarre practice of Opus Dei. But that, after all was a work of fiction. That the pope himself actually inflicted such masochism on his own body year after year--and thought it sanctifying--is really astounding. It bespeaks an attitude toward the human body and human sexuality that is simply pathological.

Far from supporting John Paul's cause for sainthood, it throws additional light on his failings, and above all on the viciousness of his multi-decade assualt on post-Vatican II Catholicism--which included not only his sustained attack on the teachings of the Council, but also his failure to protect scores of Catholic children from predatory Catholic priets. Evidently he enjoyed inflicting pain.

Saint John Paul II? You've got to be kidding.

Sounds like JPII was Opus Dei, which makes sense considering the ascendency of Opus Dei during his pontificate & his steady dismantling of Vatican II.

St. Thomas More practiced self-mortification, both by flagellation and by wearing a hair shirt under his ordinary clothes. Pope Paul VI of happy memory also wore a hair shirt under his papal simar. It is not uncommon for men of God (and women of God, for that matter) to practice self-mortification in an attempt to unite their suffering to the suffering of Christ Jesus. In so doing, they fulfill the words of St. Paul, "In my own flesh I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His Body, the Church".

We are all, each and every one of us, called to unite our earthly suffering with the redemptive suffering of Christ. For many of us, that is accomplished by offering up earthly difficulties, illnesses, sufferings, tragedies, etc. In addition, since Pope Paul VI Apostolic Constitution on Penance from 1966, on all Fridays we are called by the Church to voluntarily refrain from doing or eating something that we like (not eat meat, not watch a favorite TV show, not go to a movie, not eat another favorite food, etc) as a way to call to mind that Christ suffered and died for us on Good Friday, and so we unite our voluntary sacrifice with His voluntary sacrifice. On Fridays during Lent we are required to abstain from meat, and on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday to fast (on Holy Saturday during the day, we are also called to voluntarily fast and abstain). All of this is designed to remind us, by our small sacrifices and inconveniences, of the enormous sacrifice of Christ.

Some in the Church have, historically, practiced a more severe form of penance and ascetisism. It is not surprising that many Popes have practiced more severe forms of mortification...after all, it is very easy for people with a little authority and power to think of themselves without humility. How much more of a temptation to willful pride would it be to occupy the Throne of Peter? As such, many Popes practice this form of mortification to remind them of their need for humility. It should also be recalled that both Saints Francis of Assisi, one of the most beloved of all Catholic saints, and Benedict would roll around naked in thorn bushes when tempted by sins of the flesh. Saint Francis' bed was a stone floor surrounded by raised bricks, so to set it aside from the rest of his cell (I have seen it first hand in Assisi).

For some, the idea that anyone would voluntarily mortify his or her flesh as a sign of penance and prayer, strikes them as the very definition of extremism and, perhaps, mental illness. After all, isn't the pursuit of pleasure the summum bonum of our society today? Yet, though I myself do not practice such extreme forms of asceticism, I find it a beautiful testimony to the faith of John Paul the Great and the sure and certain hope and belief that he had that this life is NOT all that matters, and that what comes after will be so much greater than anything that has come before.

This is most revealing. While some would view this, as the author of the book obviously does, as an example of holiness, it is in fact a sign of a real and serious mental disturbance. However, everything else aside, I would like to see some comments from the clergy and religious who blog here as to what the position of the Church is regarding such a practice, particularly when physical pain or injury is involved. In the past, I knew of religious who did so but without any severity: it was a rather gentle "tapping" on the back of each shoulder with an approved entwined rope of sorts. It was to serve as a reminder of Christ's passion and our own pennance - but nothing more than that. What is described above is far, far beyond that and, in fact, most extreme. So, any knowledgeable commentators out there?

I have a hard time thinking that Pope John Paul II should be considered for sainthood. He turned his back on the victims of child abuse and enabled priests to continue to victimize children for too many years. Not very saintly in my book.

Although I disagreed with much of what JP II said and some of the things he did, I must appreciate the time and culture from which he came (this is also true of Benedict XVI). The use of various "physical aides" to penance and mortification was quite common and ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous.

In the 50s while in the seminary, a good friend and conscientious seminarian used as an example of "self-mortification" during the rector's evening conference that he refrained from urination after rising at 5:30 AM until just before first class at 8:30 AM. The rector was dumbfounded and told him then and there that such practices were inappropriate. I often wondered if my buddy stopped the practice.

In the early 60s, while in the novitiate, all of the novices were expected to wear "chains" around their waists next to the skin. (I can tell you it hurt like hell and really made you kneel up straight and still in chapel). We wore the chains from rising till after breakfast. We took this all for granted as "part of the program." I must say that we were told that if wearing chicken-wire-like contraption caused sexual arousal we could "get permission" to not wear them. I don't know of any novice who begged off wearing chains. hehe.

Those practices might have been appropriate in the Middle Ages and up through the 19th century and that helps me appreciate where JP II was coming from. But his practices were not in line with the teachings of Vatican II. It just goes to show that it is difficult to reassess "what we learn at our mother's knee" and then change accordingly.

I am not an element. I am a Child of God, by Baptism. You should know that. It's Catholicism 101. I find your hatred, disgusting.

The medical text books would concur that this type of flagellation is disordered and really is sadomasochism. It is interesting where a Charismatic, but sadomasochistic leader takes those that choose to follow this type of disordered mind. Sadomasochism does not equate holiness any more than does the privation of leading a celibate life. In fact these lead to character disorders in so many that follow this kind of self debasement. It is no wonder that our church continues to implode from within. There is a time bomb that does not recognize the need for growth and development in the institution but rather claims the infallibility of what was thought in the past.

This type of mind uses deductive reasoning to “prove” their thinking forgetting that the observation of what is happening in the present is what the Spirit is here to show us. While we all need to use some deductive components in our reasoning the inductive components of learning from experience is the the Spirit at work in the current day prophets. Too bad our leadership is focused on preservation of an Medieval Empire rather than the observation of what the Spirit is asking of us in the present.

May we have peace and understanding and better leadership!

R. Dennis Porch, MD

Much has been made in these comments of the self-mortification element of this article, and most here are, as usual quick to condemn and judge. How is it so different from so many in society work out, or diet to improve themselves physically? Why is the "no pain, no gain" mentality okay in those cases but not in JPII's case? How many of those of you who condemn JPII have piercings, tattoos, plastic surgery, or have had your sons circumcised. In most cases these things are for vanity, and they are celebrated.

Want to buy a cilice or a flail or a hair shirt?

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS257&q=buy+c...

If John Paul II wanted to practice penance, why didn't he abstain from drinking wine and rich desserts, which is much more normal than flogging himself, wearing a hair shirt (torture item) and laying on the floor!

It should surprise no one reading these posts on this topic that those claiming to be young Catholics who see the present Church entering an era of a "springtime of hope," could likely be bishops or shills for the right wing elements of the hierarchy, who will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo. I know many young Catholics, and not a single one of them agree with the sick theology behind keeping an all male celibate priesthood and holding on to cult like practices such as described in this article. They view the Church as dysfunctional and badly in need of REFORM and RENEWAL. They see the present structure as a decadent and corrupt model that is indeed IMPLODING.

how very very sick: self-flagellation!! A saint? He's the only man I know who kissed the earth and walked on women. Now it makes more sense knowing what he did in private.

This conversation has deteriorated, it seems to me, into another fight between ultra-conservatives and progressive liberals. The article was really focused on the issue of JP II's self-abuse as a means of pennance and worship. The question of his sainthood was the larger concept within which the article was written, but not the major point. In any event, I want to tell you all that during this Pope's papacy, a common joke among both laity and religious (including secular priests) was John Paul's "rapid road to saithood." He speeded up the process in an rather ridiculous way, cutting-out centuries old practices and required elements, and I seem to recall that he sainted more people in his papacy than in the previous 5 or 6 centuries (excuse me if my facts are not quite accurate on the numbers). The comparison was that the path to sainthood in the Catholic Church had become, under JP II, much like "speed shopping," where you never get out of your car, pull up to a drive-through, and yell your order out to be filled by fast running stock boys. It has, at least in my view, lessened the specialness of sainthood. And it is not lost on most of us that Benedict is rushing to cannonize JP II and also Pius XII, while John XXIII seems to be "stuck" in a limbo of sorts. Additionally, was JP II and now Benedict XVI going to bestow sainthood on every Pope, and for it to be a precedent that will include Benedict when his time comes? This is not playing well to the world, including most Catholics that I have heard from over the years. I go on too long.....forgive me. I am still hoping to hear something from learned theologians who blog here as to what the Church's official position is regarding the practice of this type of pennance/mortification. It is my understanding that it is NOT sanctioned by the Church and, in fact, is discouraged officially. But I do not know if that is accurate. Can anyone help us with this??

People really don't understand what flagellation is in the mindset of a Christian, do they? It's not about beating one's self for pleasure (which is whatmasochism is), but it is a desire to grow more holy. Try reading about these practises before discrediting it. Christ practised fasting (which, as unlikely as it seems, does fit into the same spiritual category as flagellation). It's not a matter of G-d enjoying the practise, or the person or G-d taking pleasure in the pain, it's about our sinfulness and our deep desire to become more holy.
Really, there just isn't pleasing some of you people. If a report came out that he didn't practise flagellation then most of you would probably be saying "well, there ya go, he's wasn't as traditional as he said. That big liar".
Again, try reading and rationaly thinking about your ideas and beliefs before you go claiming that this man was a nutter.

Clint Green, whoever you are, be you a bishop, or just a plain garden variety shill for all of the reactionary and right wing backward thinking hierarchy in Rome, the very fact that you refer to The Bishop of Rome as sitting on the "throne of Peter" reveals your triumphalist version of what the Catholic Church once was and has been trying to become again since John Paul II became Bishop of Rome in 1978. This is NOT the Church that Peter the Apostle was asked to guide in the name of Jesus. Thrones and palaces like the one occupied now by Joe Ratzinger is the OPPOSITE of Jesus and His ministry on this Earth. It is a carry over from imperial ancient Rome and the image you try to portray of the Catholic Church cannot and will not withstand the test of time in ANY age. Bishops are supposed to be shepherds, NOT kings sitting on thrones, with staffs encrusted with rubies and diamonds inlayed in gold. Jesus was poor and his apostles in the first century bear no resemblance to the cardinals and bishops who act as kings and princes, living a life that insults the memory of Our Lord. Your posts in this and other threads in the NCR have little bearing on what Christ intended His Church to look like. No matter how many imperial terms you use such as "John Paul the Great", it rings hollow and invites a kind of cult worship which then becomes heresy. Vatican II happened for a reason. The Church was becoming a museum. John Paul II and now, Benedict's primary objective is to insure it remains a museum. Catholic people all over the world have become educated and no longer accept this imperial model as a true representation of Christ's Church. The very fact that you continue to defend this model of what the Catholic Church should look like, you are defending an institution that no longer exists. No matter how much you try to disembowel the teachings and theology that came from the Council Fathers of Vatican II, the Holy Spirit, through the People of God will not allow you or any of the other reactionary elements to sabotage the great advances of renewal of Christ's Church. Your "rules and regulations" conform to another era that has through the mercy of God, passed into history. You are left standing on the platform of a train that left the station about forty five year ago. Wake up, Clint Green, whoever you are, it is the year 2010.

Saint Vincent de Paul would not be a fan of self-flagellation as I am sure he would have seen it as Jansenistic

Horrible if this pope who ignored, stalled, silenced the victims of bishops, priests and even religious order founders, founder of Legion Of Christ included Marciel Maciel Dellagodo (embezzler, drug adict, sodomizer, molester of boys, youths, seminarians and some girls,narcissitic power-mad cult-worship inducer) is made 'saint'.

Horrible if this pope who oversaw the issuing of written directives to the dioceses and parishes of the world to ignore, stall victims, to hide and move from parish to parish, even country to country, to hide priests/bishops criminals in the Vatican too... is made saint.

What an evil organization the Roman Catholic curia is if it makes PJPII a saint.

Way back when we lived in Tridentia we were told that the body was "The Temple of the Holy Ghost" we said "Ghost" in that land. We were also told never to harm, "defile" was often the word, or abuse this temple. Yes, word was especially directed to us boys about "self abuse" since our teachers (usually priests) tried to avoid words of more than two sylables. Now there is credible information that the temple was being abused at the highest levels.

All of you here are 100 percent sure that there was not once single instance of sexual abuse under John XXIII? J23 did not know of one single instance?? Hypocrites.

The idea of sainthood is too fraught with pre-scientific and discredited means of verification of holiness and exemplary life. It should be left to legend, where it belongs. There are many more modern means of honoring people who give through their living a glimpse of God.

Some shills here are trying to equate Jesus' fasting to JPII's flogging himself!
As I wrote above, the masochistic pope could have fasted by abstaining, for example, from drinking wine and eating rich desserts! But, hey, even Jesus, Mary and Joseph drank wine as the Cana wedding story tells us.
Karol Wojtila's behaviour is therefore totally out of line with Christianity as willed by the Christian God. "Santo subito!" LOL!

NO sainthood for JPII. An enabler of priests and bishops who criminally molested, sodomized, raped thousands of boys and girls for decades and decades and this pope knew about it, did nothing, sent our in writing directives to keep abuses hidden, to silence the victims, to move the criminal clergy from parish to parish, country to country. To hide many criminal clergy in Rome and Italy too.

From 1979, 1985, 1995, 2005 victims of Legion of Christ founder wrote to JPII finally Rome could no longer ignore these victims of Marciel Maciel Dellogodo as Canon Lawyers got hired by the victims. Pope JPII cozied up to this major embezzelor, drug addict and sodomizer of boys and seminarians Founder of Legion of Christ. Also narcissitic cult inducer too who fathered a daughter too, Legion of Christ founder molested some girls too. Pope JPII ignored the victims reports of abuse untill Canon Lawyers could not be ignored any longer. Ignored the thousands of sex abuse victims, world-wide. The Irish schools, orphanges and churches had sex abuse going on too and he ignored that horrific evidence too.

NOT a saint at all ... sex abuses of Catholic children by Roman Catholic clergy were allowed to continue unchecked from 1979 onwards to the death JPII. Plus he arranged to hide criminal priests, bishops in the Vatican and in Italy to avoid civil prosecution of their criminal pedophiles abuses in their own countries.