Talk:Mortification of the flesh

Mortification and Islam

There is a passing reference to mortification in Islamic contexts, but it seems like this topic needs a full section. Does anyone have any knowledge in this area? The best I can do is a picture of Iranian Revolutionary Guards flagellating themselves with chains. Godfrey Daniel 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that there is a festival in India which involves people walking on the streets and publicly whipping themselves, but I forget its name. --Pdinc 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Got it - Muharram. Pdinc 11:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit

The article says: "The Sanskrit term for mortification is tapas."

Are there any Sanskrit scholars out there who can verify this? I'm pretty sure Tapas refers to "internal heat" or bodily energy released / produced through spiritual practice (although--this may or may not include self-mortification)... similar to Chi (Qi) or the Boiling Heat of the !Kung San (Khoisan). Can any one confirm or deny this?

--Pariah 14:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Although the literal meaning of 'tapas' is heat, it also refers to the act of penance (With 'tapasya' being the verb). Mythologically, there have been Hindu saints who apparently performed penance through meditation for inordinate periods of time (long enough for an anthill to be built upon them).

Im no sanskrit scholar though - the most I did was 2 years of it in middle school. --Pdinc 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The teaching of Pope John Paul II: the salvific meaning of suffering

The section "Teachings of Pope John Paul II" (formerly titled "Teachings of John Paul the Great" includes some numbered references 88 and 89. That suggests the text is pasted from somewhere. Could there be a copyright prob?

---

fuck This section reads to me like a sermon which has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. It should be replaced by a short summary, or deleted entirely. Ben Finn 12:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ben and am seriously concerned about the theology here; it is not typical of Christian teaching as far as I have come to understand it (and I have studied theology for many years, and I have a Philosophy major, a Scripture major and an Theology major). Salvation was not achieved by suffering but by Jesus dying. The punishment for sin is death. (Romans 6:23) If suffering was necessary, then it would have been throughout the teaching and the life of Jesus. The suffering we receive in persecution due to standing up for what we believe cannot be equated with inflicting pain and suffering on ourselves. One of the major issues with reading the Bible is that sentences can be interpreted in many ways and, as a result, Scripture is frequently misquoted. I would prefer to see this whole section deleted as it is not typical of Christianity but rather the ideas of a very small minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmir5000 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've now cut it (here it is for the record): Ben Finn 21:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christ does not explain in the abstract the reasons for suffering, but before all else he says: "Follow me!". Come! Take part through your suffering in this work of saving the world, a salvation achieved through my suffering! Through my Cross.

Gradually, as the individual takes up his cross, spiritually uniting himself to the Cross of Christ, the salvific meaning of suffering is revealed before him. He does not discover this meaning at his own human level, but at the level of the suffering of Christ. At the same time, however, from this level of Christ the salvific meaning of suffering descends to man's level and becomes, in a sense, the individual's personal response. It is then that man finds in his suffering interior peace and even spiritual joy.

Saint Paul speaks of such joy in the Letter to the Colossians: "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake"(88). A source of joy is found in the overcoming of the sense of the uselessness of suffering, a feeling that is sometimes very strongly rooted in human suffering. This feeling not only consumes the person interiorly, but seems to make him a burden to others. The person feels condemned to receive help and assistance from others, and at the same time seems useless to himself.

The discovery of the salvific meaning of suffering in union with Christ transforms this depressing feeling. Faith in sharing in the suffering of Christ brings with it the interior certainty that the suffering person "completes what is lacking in Christ's afflictions"; the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of Redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters. Therefore he is carrying out an irreplaceable cervice.

In the Body of Christ, which is ceaselessly born of the Cross of the Redeemer, it is precisely suffering permeated by the spirit of Christ's sacrifice that is the irreplaceable mediator and author of the good things which are indispensable for the world's salvation. It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls. Suffering, more than anything else, makes present in the history of humanity the powers of the Redemption.

In that "cosmic" struggle between the spiritual powers of good and evil, spoken of in the Letter to the Ephesians(89), human sufferings, united to the redemptive suffering of Christ, constitute a special support for the powers of good, and open the way to the victory of these salvific powers.

He says: "Christ did not conceal from his listeners the need for suffering. He said very clearly: "If any man would come after me... let him take up his cross daily (81), and before his disciples he placed demands of a moral nature that can only be fulfilled on condition that they should "deny themselves" (82). The way that leads to the Kingdom of heaven is "hard and narrow", and Christ contrasts it to the "wide and easy" way that "leads to destruction."

Jimbo's Neutrality Rules: Neutrality = higher proportion for credible experts

I brought back parts of the teachings of John Paul. It provides very important insights into this theological topic. I've also rearranged it so it is more encyclopedic.

If it is a theological topic then the experts have to have the greatest say. The more credible the better.

Neutrality does not mean irreligious or secular. Neutrality means presenting sides, but presenting more the side of the most credible expert.

Please see Wikipedia rules:

If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not

From the NPOV Tutorial:

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them. One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view.

Lafem 09:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reformers' understanding of mortification

This article needs desperately to explain also the Reformers' views. Catholic theology, infused as it is with Greek philosophy, often confuses the intellect and appetites with things belonging to the Spirit even though these things are clearly delineated in Scripture as attaching to the flesh. (And it is important to note that Scripture nowhere provides a middle ground between Spirit and flesh.) When these things are included in the flesh, or natural man, then mortification of the flesh takes on an entirely different meaning because it is not limited to the physical. It follows that all the things that make up the natural or unregenerate man are corrupted, and mortification of the body means not so much causing physical discomfort, but discomfort to the intellect and appetites. After all, it was pride that caused Adam's fall, not gluttony, avarice, lust, etc. In this light, mortification becomes not physical pain, but mental and emotional pain (for lack of better words). True humility is a far more difficult thing to achieve than going without chocolate for a few weeks - and recognizing the depth of our sin and corruption (without excuse) in the presence of a merciful and loving God is an unspeakable agony that would gladly trade its kind of mortification for the lash of a whip.

As to "penance", this Roman tradition stems from the mis-translation of the Greek word metanoeo. This word comes from two root words which, put simply are "to change" and "mind" or "understanding". In the Vulgate this word is translated as poenitentiam agite or "do penance" and it has been said (generously) that Jerome, at the time of his translation, was concerned with the discipline of the Church, and felt that inserting "do penance" rather than the correct meaning "repent" would be a stronger call to action. This has been corrected in most translations (the Douay-Rheims may be the only holdout). An exhortation to "do penance" is immensely different than to "repent" and allows for actions of the body that properly belong to the soul.

Thank you, this is the same reason why Orthodox Christianity rejects mortification of the flesh, it is a pagan concept that has been adopted by Catholicism, and it is incredibly dangerous and blasphamous.

Catholic Saints who practiced mortification

St. Francis: he asked pardon from his Brother Ass, his body, for his severe penances. He called his body "Brother Ass" because he has so little respect for it. He starved himself, wore little clothing and bare feet in winter, gave away whatever was around when beggars asked for help and so his contempt for his body caused him to wear out "Brother Ass" in 10 years. He had to repent on his deathbed for the harm he caused his body, which in effect led to a premature death. It was ironically only on his deathbed that he came to his senses and realized that he had failed to love his own body. In a similar fashion, St. Therese of Lusieux, (sometimes called St. Therese of the Child Jesus) in her autobiography The Story of a Soul (Baronius Press) 2006, reveals that she was forbidden to do acts of mortification when she entered her religious order at age 15. In the Epilogue, p.193, it states that "it was the want of a fire in winter that caused her the greatest physical suffering" and "she spent the day half-frozen with cold". She abused her body so much with neglect that she died eight years after entering the convent, and refused to tell anyone til it was too late how she covered up her most severe acts of mortification.

Seems like vandalism, so I'm removing it. If I'm wrong, please explain why here and put it back. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Kirbytime. There is no problem in fact. Brother Ass is how St. Francis addressed his body. You might want to do a Google Search on St. Francis and Brother Ass and you will find out. :-) Marax

Criticism

This article specifies only one view of mortification, however it mentions nothing about how non-catholics regard those practices. I added a new paragraph which you can expand. Pictureuploader 09:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reformatted to place all religious views on equal footing, putting subsections about christian approaches to the subject in the appropriate section of the article. I'm adding sourced information in sevreral new sections, mostly "indigenous cultures" and "modern secular practices", but it would be great if someone with a knowledge of buddhist and hindu techniques and history would step up and add something, making new sections where appropriate, under "various religions etc"...as I'm afraid my sources won't be as good as someone in the know would have access to. It would be nice if several religions that are quite sizable majority views were represented, instead of just one, since many (if not all) have some aspect of this in their beliefs. Resonanteye 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yowza. Some of this is so pov I can't make heads nor tails of it. I put blockquotes around the bigger chunks of quotation, I edited a bit for grammar, and I added several new sections. We really really need a section on kavadi, hindu asceticism, buddhist meditations which involve pain or monk's lifestyles in China, Tibet, etc...also anything from South America? I know the Mayans did some pretty odd stuff with tongue cutting, and all that, to open their minds up or something... I'm adding this page to the list of research topics in my head. I'm worried, though, that this will become a hot spot for debate or POV disputes. I hope it gets more sources from diverse places is all. Resonanteye

I asked for cites on certain parts of the "modern practices" section, as it is very confusing. One part of it seems to be about body modification which I'm not sure counts (does it? I dunno, I haven't read the book referenced), and then the other part seems to be suggestion that secular mortification (defined as including body mods in the bit above) is about self-hatred/hopelessness. It seems a bit contradictory and biased, and, well, no refs. Then there's this random thing about new age practices. Please explain this to me, else I'm deleting that bit. Apocalypsecabaret (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an excellent NatGeo documentary on Taboo practices of suspension and temporary piercing as a form of spiritual awakening and tests of courage. Bad thing is I can't find transcripts of the documentaries. They certainly aren't about self-hatred or hopelessness. Alatari (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism

Whilst some ascetic practices are used in Buddhism I think these need to be differentiated from mortification. Buddha explicitly rejected the practice of mortification after the harsh practices he undertook prior to his enlightenment almost caused his own death. Mortification is taught to be another form of attachment (and hence source of suffering) by Buddhists, and is spritually counter-productive. The concept of finding a "middle way" is central to our beliefs, and that middle way rules out mortification

I agree, however the term "mortification" in the wider sense includes asceticism that is intended for a higher spiritual goal. Any denial of the body's needs fits in here, in this case its goal would differ...that goal being to end attachment.

It's not the degree of suffering, it is that it is physical suffering that is related to a spiritual goal. That's the simple definition, and asceticism in any form (even mild, and middle of the road) fits. Do you have any references for the quote from Buddha? We could include it in that section, definitely. Resonanteye 22:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For me, I think I would still differentiate. What I call "mild asceticism" is really only a comparative term. More specfically Buddha instructs his followers to act with moderation, eating only what they require for sustence, taking only the sleep they need. Whilst this certainly can seem odd to those of us who sleep/eat more than we really need, neither is it strictly speaking mortification. I can certainly see the need for it's mention here, though perhaps the distinction should be made clearer. I'll dig around ver the next few days for some quotes, I believe the Dhammapada has something. If not Rev Houn_Jiyu-Kennett has written on the subject - though I'm not certain of the copyright status of that so i'll need to look it up

00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can paraphrase the relevant passage and cite it, that'll work. "asceticism", as far as I've read, also includes fasting or exposure to the elements at times. This is not unique to Buddhism, and is also a form of mortification...I'd think so, anyway. Resonanteye 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote help!

Could someone please help me? This is my first time doing a major edit, and I can't figure out the footnotes. I can link to my source, but for some reason it shows my source number as 3, and there's already a 3. And I can't get my footnote in the Footnote section at the bottom of the page to connect to my footnote number. For now I've given up on that. Also, some of the other footnotes in the Footnotes section at the bottom aren't showing up now, and I don't know why. I didn't touch them, and they seem to be on the "edit" page. (maybe?) I thought it was important to note that certain forms of self-mortification are discouraged by the Catholic church, but I definitely did not plan to make other people's footnotes disappear. So sorry! --Eldaglass 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If the number is redundant that means the source has been used previously and not to worry. The reflist sees duplicates and numbers accordingly. I couldn't figure out where your references went in the text. Goto the previous version to copy out your footnotes and use the {{Cite}} template to place them inline right behind the word/sentence they reference. Alatari (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-Catholic Christians

The phrase is used to specify more than just protestant groups, but then links to the protestant wiki article. This seems a bit confusing and counter intuitive. Should this be changed? DeMyztikX (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The opening paragraph had this link unexplained picture but it's out of context and not explained how it is relevant to the article. No matter how interesting it is it needs context. Alatari (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a cilice, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.91.14 (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Mortification in Roman Catholic teaching

I've created Mortification in Roman Catholic teaching as a content fork from the current article, as I think that it gives undue weight currently to the Catholic position. I'm going to trim that section at some time in the future, but as I can be quite severe in these cases I thought I'd leave it to regular editors to do this.

JASpencer (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the 2 year gap between your statement and the fact that it's still here, I took the liberty of axing this entire section as it's literally the exact same information in both articles.Pdinc (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

culturally sanctioned self-mutilation

From the self-harm#History section: "Favazza and Rosenthal (1993) reviewed hundreds of studies and divided self-mutilation into two categories: culturally sanctioned self-mutilation and deviant self-mutilation[24]"

The above classifications deviates between self-harm and practices such as this article. Any ideas what kind of article to create at culturally sanctioned self-mutilation and how to tie in this article and various other non-religious acceptable body modifications or acceptable self-mutilations? Review the Meninger and Ross/McKay classifications schemes in the history section too. Alatari (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Misquotations

Many of the papal quotes are for some reason interpreted to be specifically about mortification of the flesh. Wikipedia is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.14.55 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Church of Body Modification

Would whoever added the statements about the Church of Body Modification please cite some sources? Nothing on the Church's website makes any mention of pain being part of their spirituality at all. Unless someone can give references for these claims, I'm going to remove them from the article. Fyrael (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mortification of the flesh/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Nor only to be found in Christian religions and their subsidiaries, self-mortification has been practiced by eastern ascetics long before the coming of Christ. Buddha himself was an ascetic early on in life but found the unbalanced nature of an ascetic life to detract from his quest for enlightenment. Daoism having taken notes from Buddhism also acknowledged the value of balance. Although Buddhism seeks enlightenment and sustainment through breathing techniques and exercises Daoism ackolwedges the value of food as medicine. Not to suggest that the two conflict but moreso that Daoism includes Buddhism in its practices. There is, however, one great notable difference in breathing technique between the two sects. Buddhists extend their abdomen when they inhale whereas the Daoists extend their abdomen on the exhale. The key difference in result is that Buddhists send more vital energy to the brain whereas Daoists build up energy in the Dantien to be later distributed moreso to the body. Daoist breathing was later adapted by monks and martial artists alike due to its pragmatic value. Buddhist breathing remains superior for such intellectual pursuits as meditation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.93.79 (talk • contribs) 02:55, January 27, 2007

Last edited at 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 00:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)