Intruder Shot, Killed at Brasil Mtc

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

They are?

P.S.: I love you, man!

Obviously a Hollywood fake. 

[Kenngo1969]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I had several run-ins with armed hombres in Central America. Never told my parents.

"Dear Mom and Dad,

"Not much to tell!  Still tracting, teaching, and baptizing!  Truly, the field is white, already to harvest!

"Much Love,

"Your Son,

Bernie"

P.S.: I realize that facing down gun-wielding lunatics is no laughing matter.  I'm glad you emerged unscathed.

 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

They are?

P.S.: I love you, man!

That is the plushie subspecies. All Stanleys kill them on sight.

[sunstoned]

Some folks close to the situation are posting on Reddit that the person with the knife who was killed was a return missionary who was once at the MTC.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Some folks close to the situation are posting on Reddit that the person with the knife who was killed was a return missionary who was once at the MTC.

As regrettable as that might be if true, it doesn't change what factors into the equation police use when deciding whether to use deadly force or not.  While, again, I'm unsure what policies or laws govern use of deadly force by police in Brazil, provided they follow the same standards applicable to police in the United States, if police reasonably believe that someone poses an imminent threat of death or of serious bodily injury to themselves or to someone else, they are allowed to use deadly force to neutralize that threat.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As regrettable as that might be if true, it doesn't change what factors into the equation police use when deciding whether to use deadly force or not.  While, again, I'm unsure what policies or laws govern use of deadly force by police in Brazil, provided they follow the same standards applicable to police in the United States, if police reasonably believe that someone poses an imminent threat of death or of serious bodily injury to themselves or to someone else, they are allowed to use deadly force to neutralize that threat.

I am not arguing your point.  Someone shows up with a knife and refuses orders from police, then sad things happen.  It does sound like this is a situation that was caused by emotional/mental issues.

[3DOP]

So Ahab took a lot of heat for mistaking the Temple for an MTC (Missionary Training Center).

Ahab said this about an armed attacker who was killed by police, thinking the perpetrator was killed in the Temple:

"We're all going to die sometime and I can think of worse ways to go.  I wonder what his reception was like on the other side of the veil, considering there were likely some good spirits in that temple then who would be there to greet him."

I am surprised no one has commented on Ahab's beliefs about murderous behavior and being killed by security if it had only been in a Temple.

Surely it is inconsistent with LDS thought that it would be some kind of blessing for the attacker, if only he HAD been killed in a Temple?

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by 3DOP

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Surely it is inconsistent with LDS thought that it would be some kind of blessing for the attacker, if only he HAD been killed in a Temple?

yeah, the comment doesn't really make much sense unless perhaps he is thinking the attacker will get a great escort to hell because there are a bunch of angels hanging around...unless now that I think about it if the attacker was mentally disturbed, I suppose depending on if mental illness takes time to clear up or is removed if caused by a neurochemical disorder, he might have immediately realized his error and thinking clearly then, asked for forgiveness, etc.

But I don't see what difference location of death would make still in the case of criminal behaviour; it isn't like one is dying doing templework where there could be a sense of blessing in doing God's work.  I would suspect many Saints would think it might make things worse for him, desecrating sacred ground by his behaviour. 

Maybe that is what Ahab meant, the deceased would be immediately faced by those not too happy with him.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

59 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

... I am surprised no one has commented on Ahab's beliefs about murderous behavior and being killed by security if it had only been in a Temple.

Surely it is inconsistent with LDS thought that it would be some kind of blessing for the attacker, if only he HAD been killed in a Temple?

Yes.  Surely.

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2020 at 5:14 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

More here:

I am sad to hear that the man was killed.  However, I am grateful he was stopped.

Thanks,

-Smac

My bishop's daughter will be entering that MTC in a couple of months. 

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2020 at 6:07 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Such a truly weird comment.

A little weird, yes, and not the first thing that occurred to me, but I could think of worse ways too.  Like spending 6 months dying of some incurable and painful disease.  Or being eaten by sharks.

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2020 at 7:31 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently the police there don’t mess around. 

Coincidentally, this evening I saw a post linked from Facebook that showed a video of a man in Sao Paolo with a gun attempting to rob a group of women, when one of the women turned out to be an off-duty police officer and she took him all the way down. Died later in the hospital. When I saw this post I wondered if it were the same incident, but apparently not.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

So Ahab took a lot of heat for mistaking the Temple for an MTC (Missionary Training Center).

Ahab said this about an armed attacker who was killed by police, thinking the perpetrator was killed in the Temple:

"We're all going to die sometime and I can think of worse ways to go.  I wonder what his reception was like on the other side of the veil, considering there were likely some good spirits in that temple then who would be there to greet him."

I am surprised no one has commented on Ahab's beliefs about murderous behavior and being killed by security if it had only been in a Temple.

Surely it is inconsistent with LDS thought that it would be some kind of blessing for the attacker, if only he HAD been killed in a Temple?

 

 

 

Yes, it surely is inconsistent — and weird. 
 

I guess we were all distracted by his misunderstanding that it DID occur in a temple and not the MTC. 

[3DOP]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

A little weird, yes, and not the first thing that occurred to me, but I could think of worse ways too.  Like spending 6 months dying of some incurable and painful disease.  Or being eaten by sharks.

Stargazer, hi.

I understand that way of thinking. Taken to an extreme, it becomes an argument for euthanasia. Obviously, you do not go that far. This desire to escape suffering in death, is, in my opinion all too prevalent among those who profess Christianity. It is not just the worldly and atheists who doubt that there is any value, eternally or in the present, to suffering with patience. We need to remember that no one needs to try to enjoy the pain itself of course. Pain is an evil. But in joyful resignation to the good will of God, manfully desiring to be like our brother Jesus Christ, in full acceptance of the value of suffering our own passion, being nailed to our own lingering crosses, the Christian can pass in to eternity as an imitation of Christ. Do not LDS believe in penance for their sins? I think you do. With all respect, I think any of us should rather die of the most painful and drawn out disease, rather than instantly, while threatening someone with a knife. We must be prepared for the possibility of painful deaths. If we fear it too much, we more likely risk being overcome with doubts and fear if the time should come. (We might find our faith tempted, asking why God is allowing this to happen if we do not recognize the value.) Jesus knew the value of His suffering. If Jesus's friends ponder it before it happens, learning to understand value in potential suffering, it will help them likewise to be patient, and at peace in their suffering, if that should be a loving Father's good will for His child. 

I do not mean to become all pious on you Stargazer. I have gained a high level of respect for you over the years here and being so imperfect myself, I do not like to try to admonish you. However, I also did not think it right for me to let an opportunity pass in which I might be the instrument of making anyone think more constructively about the purpose of our lives, and the providence of God who helps His children to "die well", whether instantly in union with Him, or after longsuffering in union with Him.   

Very Respectfully Yours, 

Rory 

Edited February 9, 2020 by 3DOP

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

We need to remember that no one needs to try to enjoy the pain itself of course

The problem I have is when pain or terror is so intense it reduces one’s thinking to the level of irrational, even animalistic. I don’t see much benefit for the individual at that point as to what can be learned?

Perhaps though the spirit is learning/being refined somehow  even if the mind is not. 

[Stargazer]

On 2/9/2020 at 7:05 PM, 3DOP said:

Stargazer, hi.

I was trying to be a little casual about it and here you go being all serious with me. 🙂  I'm hesitant to post some what follows -- please note that I am not attacking your belief, just raising questions.

Quote

I understand that way of thinking. Taken to an extreme, it becomes an argument for euthanasia. Obviously, you do not go that far.

Why not, obviously?  Not that I am a proponent of euthanasia, you understand, but in the case of a mortal condition where further medical treatment is unlikely to do anything more than extend the period of suffering before the inevitable death, would it be an act of suicide or self-euthanasia to refuse medical treatment other than palliative care?  

Consider the scene in Saving Private Ryan where US troops have managed to break through the beach defense, and one team fires a flame thrower into the back door of the bunker. A couple of fully alight German soldiers crawl out the firing gap and fall to the ground. A soldier observing this says to his companions "Don't shoot! Let 'em burn!"  Was the soldier doing right or wrong?  He wasn't trying to be humane; he was clearly glad to see their suffering.  Wouldn't the humane thing be to shoot them to take them quickly out of what is going to be a horrendously painful end?  Or would it be at that point a mortal sin?

Quote

This desire to escape suffering in death, is, in my opinion all too prevalent among those who profess Christianity.

So... are you saying that we should forego anesthetics in order to experience the pain in its fullness? Would that be more virtuous?  I know there is a history of people in Christianity self-flagellating, for no other apparent reason than to experience pain, as if pain were somehow godly. Is it?  You say below that "Pain is an evil", so maybe not, but...

Quote

It is not just the worldly and atheists who doubt that there is any value, eternally or in the present, to suffering with patience. We need to remember that no one needs to try to enjoy the pain itself of course. Pain is an evil. But in joyful resignation to the good will of God, manfully desiring to be like our brother Jesus Christ, in full acceptance of the value of suffering our own passion, being nailed to our own lingering crosses, the Christian can pass in to eternity as an imitation of Christ.

So... those who do not experience excruciating pain are somehow less virtuous?  Is that why there were those who did horrendous things to themselves, like self-flagellation? Because they were trying to be like Jesus Christ?

I am sorry, but passing to eternity while intentionally imitating Christ sounds rather blasphemous to me.  

Quote

Do not LDS believe in penance for their sins? I think you do.

Umm, no we don't.  It's repentance, not penance.  Two entirely different things. The first leads to forgiveness, taking full advantage of Christ's sacrifice and atonement. The second denies Christ's sacrifice in an attempt to take his place -- something which is impossible for us.  

Repentance is required for forgiveness, and it involves contrition, turning away from one's sin, making restitution as far as it is possible to do, and abandoning the sin.  But doing all that doesn't help one jot nor tittle, nor would beating oneself with a cat-o-nine-tails. Because Christ's infinite atonement is what forgives.

Quote

With all respect, I think any of us should rather die of the most painful and drawn out disease, rather than instantly, while threatening someone with a knife.

Well, I would certainly agree.

Quote

We must be prepared for the possibility of painful deaths. If we fear it too much, we more likely risk being overcome with doubts and fear if the time should come. (We might find our faith tempted, asking why God is allowing this to happen if we do not recognize the value.) Jesus knew the value of His suffering. If Jesus's friends ponder it before it happens, learning to understand value in potential suffering, it will help them likewise to be patient, and at peace in their suffering, if that should be a loving Father's good will for His child. 

I do not mean to become all pious on you Stargazer. I have gained a high level of respect for you over the years here and being so imperfect myself, I do not like to try to admonish you. However, I also did not think it right for me to let an opportunity pass in which I might be the instrument of making anyone think more constructively about the purpose of our lives, and the providence of God who helps His children to "die well", whether instantly in union with Him, or after longsuffering in union with Him.   

Very Respectfully Yours, 

Rory 

I do appreciate your sentiments, Rory, and I echo your respect back at you, but I disagree that suffering in itself has any inherent value.  The nobility of someone who, so to speak, "soldiers on" dealing honorably with pain and suffering when there is no remedy for it short of death, is unquestioned.  But when my wife was dealing with her final months of cancer, she took advantage of whatever medical means were at her disposal to minimize the pains associated with her condition. I don't believe that in doing so she was any less virtuous than someone who has deliberately forgone such pain-relief in similar circumstance. 

Edited to remove something I thought might be taken as belittling someone's faith.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Stargazer

[strappinglad]

I have not read the whole story but is it reported that this fellow had actually killed or injured someone prior? If not then his sins were unrighteous thoughts. Boy ,I am in deep doo-doo. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I have not read the whole story but is it reported that this fellow had actually killed or injured someone prior? If not then his sins were unrighteous thoughts. Boy ,I am in deep doo-doo. 

Yeah, me too.

[3DOP]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:59 PM, Stargazer said:

I was trying to be a little casual about it and here you go being all serious with me. 🙂  I'm hesitant to post some what follows -- please note that I am not attacking your belief, just raising questions.

Why not, obviously?  Not that I am a proponent of euthanasia, you understand, but in the case of a mortal condition where further medical treatment is unlikely to do anything more than extend the period of suffering before the inevitable death, would it be an act of suicide or self-euthanasia to refuse medical treatment other than palliative care?  

Consider the scene in Saving Private Ryan where US troops have managed to break through the beach defense, and one team fires a flame thrower into the back door of the bunker. A couple of fully alight German soldiers crawl out the firing gap and fall to the ground. A soldier observing this says to his companions "Don't shoot! Let 'em burn!"  Was the soldier doing right or wrong?  He wasn't trying to be humane; he was clearly glad to see their suffering.  Wouldn't the humane thing be to shoot them to take them quickly out of what is going to be a horrendously painful end?  Or would it be at that point a mortal sin?

So... are you saying that we should forego anesthetics in order to experience the pain in its fullness? Would that be more virtuous?  I know there is a history of people in Christianity self-flagellating, for no other apparent reason than to experience pain, as if pain were somehow godly. Is it?  You say below that "Pain is an evil", so maybe not, but...

So... those who do not experience excruciating pain are somehow less virtuous?  Is that why there were those who did horrendous things to themselves, like self-flagellation? Because they were trying to be like Jesus Christ?

I am sorry, but passing to eternity while intentionally imitating Christ sounds rather blasphemous to me.  

Umm, no we don't.  It's repentance, not penance.  Two entirely different things. The first leads to forgiveness, taking full advantage of Christ's sacrifice and atonement. The second denies Christ's sacrifice in an attempt to take his place -- something which is impossible for us.  

Repentance is required for forgiveness, and it involves contrition, turning away from one's sin, making restitution as far as it is possible to do, and abandoning the sin.  But doing all that doesn't help one jot nor tittle, nor would beating oneself with a cat-o-nine-tails. Because Christ's infinite atonement is what forgives.

Well, I would certainly agree.

I do appreciate your sentiments, Rory, and I echo your respect back at you, but I disagree that suffering in itself has any inherent value.  The nobility of someone who, so to speak, "soldiers on" dealing honorably with pain and suffering when there is no remedy for it short of death, is unquestioned.  But when my wife was dealing with her final months of cancer, she took advantage of whatever medical means were at her disposal to minimize the pains associated with her condition. I don't believe that in doing so she was any less virtuous than someone who has deliberately forgone such pain-relief in similar circumstance. 

Edited to remove something I thought might be taken as belittling someone's faith.

Wow Stargazer. Thank you, thank you. What a thoughtful and comprehensive reply. You raise some very interesting and important questions that I would like to try answer.

And for Calm too! Hi Calm. I had already been thinking of how to reply to the concern you mentioned.

I hope to manage an appropriate response to you both by Sunday.

Oh and Stargazer, I think I read your post before you edited...Seemed okay to me...you disagreed with me profoundly but respectfully. Again I thoroughly appreciate your reply and will be thinking about it for a day or two.

[Calm]

Just came across the quote of Pail Tillich:

Quote

Suffering introduces you to yourself and reminds you that you're not the person you thought you were. It carves through the floor of what you thought was the basement of your soul and it reveals a cavity. Then it carves through that and reveals a cavity.

 

[3DOP]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:59 PM, Stargazer said:

I was trying to be a little casual about it and here you go being all serious with me. 🙂  I'm hesitant to post some what follows -- please note that I am not attacking your belief, just raising questions.

Hey Stargazer. I sensed that I was taking casual to serious and had a little discomfort with it. But what we say when casual often reveals as much as when we are being serious. You were not attacking my beliefs. You are defending your own, and raising good questions that I might not answer to anyone's satisfaction.

[3DOP]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:59 PM, Stargazer said:

Why not, obviously?  Not that I am a proponent of euthanasia, you understand, but in the case of a mortal condition where further medical treatment is unlikely to do anything more than extend the period of suffering before the inevitable death, would it be an act of suicide or self-euthanasia to refuse medical treatment other than palliative care?

 

It is permissible and even advisable to refuse extraordinary medical procedures. My aged and frail mother, for whom I have power of attorney, is currently not receiving the chemotherapy which some of the doctors recommend. I could not authorize the denial of ordinary sustenance such as water, food, or oxygen, even if that would save her some physical pain. (You will see farther on, that since we stop with the New Testament, I am confident that you will eventually agree on why Catholics and Protestants MUST affirm the value of suffering (a word which encompasses many different means and ways of experiencing pain, want, or loss...physical pain being only one "way" of suffering). I am assuming that rejecting the "value" of suffering stems from what you consider an update on the New Testament. 

By the way, even "Former-day Revelation" affirms that it is always permissible and even advisable to use sedatives or anesthesia, to relieve physical pain"   

"Honour the physician for the need thou hast of him: for the most High hath created him. For all healing is from God, and he shall receive gifts of the king. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head, and in the sight of great men he shall be praised. The most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them. Was not bitter water made sweet with wood? The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the most High hath given knowledge to men, that he may be honoured in his wonders. By these he shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shall make up ointments of health, and of his works there shall be no end."

---Ecclesiasticus 38:1-7

     

[3DOP]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:59 PM, Stargazer said:

Consider the scene in Saving Private Ryan where US troops have managed to break through the beach defense, and one team fires a flame thrower into the back door of the bunker. A couple of fully alight German soldiers crawl out the firing gap and fall to the ground. A soldier observing this says to his companions "Don't shoot! Let 'em burn!"  Was the soldier doing right or wrong?  He wasn't trying to be humane; he was clearly glad to see their suffering.  Wouldn't the humane thing be to shoot them to take them quickly out of what is going to be a horrendously painful end?  Or would it be at that point a mortal sin?

The soldier was in the wrong, but that does not mean that there is not another reason to let them live a little longer. If the reason for not shooting is to let them experience more pain, it would be grave matter, other considerations met, and a mortal sin as Catholics define it. However, if the reason for not shooting is that one cannot know if the dying soldiers are in their last painful moments repentantly crying out to God for forgiveness for their sins and trespasses, it would be an act of charity to let them live a few more moments. It is all about motive. It is certainly humane to shoot a dying and suffering horse, whose eternity is not in the balance, but it does not belong to me to presume to hasten the death of one created in the image of God. Let God kill them quick if that is what is best. He loves them more than I do, although I must try to love too. God knows the physical and spiritual situation. I do not. The burning soldiers do not belong to me, they belong to God.

Of course, if a burning soldier can possibly raise a weapon against me or my friends, we can in good conscience dispatch him in self-defense.

Edit to add: If the motive for shooting the burning soldiers was to end pain, in a moment of high tension and a split-second decision, it would certainly be a mitigating circumstance. It would still be taking the place of God as I have explained, but only because I have been thinking about the scenario for a while. If one under pressure to "do something" in a situation that had never been considered, shot someone like that out of a motive of love and mercy, I could not even be sure it was a venial sin. It is possible, especially if the shooter was Catholic, that he could be responsible for not knowing what should have been done. There might be some culpability for that, depending on their level of knowledge and their opportunities to learn. But I am thinking that motive more than act is mostly what would be judged. We can not well judge our brothers. We just don't have the information needed about the interior lives of our fellows.   

Edited February 14, 2020 by 3DOP

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

However, if the reason for not shooting is that one cannot know if the dying soldiers are in their last painful moments repentantly crying out to God for forgiveness for their sins and trespasses, it would be an act of charity to let them live a few more moments

I can see why that would make a tremendous difference for those who believe the chance to repent ends with death.

I don't know if that thought would occur to many Saints though.  Even if there is last minute repentance before death, we teach it must be followed by continuing repentance postmortality.  If it was only pain and fear of death triggering repentance, I am not sure how significant Saints might see that.  I look on that as a possible beginning, but not much more.

Quote

It would still be taking the place of God as I have explained

Could not the Lord be inspiring someone to aid/end another's suffering in such a way as he might inspire to feed someone who is starving?

Edited February 14, 2020 by Calm

[3DOP]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:59 PM, Stargazer said:

Rory wrote: "This desire to escape suffering in death, is, in my opinion all too prevalent among those who profess Christianity.

So... are you saying that we should forego anesthetics in order to experience the pain in its fullness? Would that be more virtuous?  I know there is a history of people in Christianity self-flagellating, for no other apparent reason than to experience pain, as if pain were somehow godly. Is it?  You say below that "Pain is an evil", so maybe not, but...

 

Pain of itself is not godly. Catholics are encouraged to seek pain relief when ill or experiencing health difficulties. You seem to be raising a further difficulty. Apparently, you are also understandably troubled at hearing reports of the more rigorous forms of austerity. The Church would never recommend these and would only allow them in an environment of careful supervision. I suppose it seems incomprehensible to a lot of Catholics too. That does not make it wrong. The purpose is not to experience pain. Nor is the purpose to strike the body with such severity as to damage its health. The body after all, is the Temple of the Holy Ghost. The purpose of Christian mortification is to impose a radical exercise of the soul that will elevate it to a "peak performance". This applies to whatever forms of mortification are applied. For reasons that I attempt to explain below, I hold that only those whose state of life permit it, should seek the most severe austerities. The way for a monk to reach perfection is different from that of a man with a family to rear unto godliness. 

(I fear another objection about the religious life. I would hope to stay focused on Christian Ascetism. Allow me, in anticipation of an objection that what is said above means that the monk or religious sister enjoys an elevated perfection. I do not believe this is so. Whether or no, who could say? We believe that their vocation and calling is to a different life than most of us and God has fitted them for theirs and us for ours. We cannot compare. I do know that the Church teaches that to try to force one's vocation to the priesthood or religious life so that one can be more holy is a path of folly. Everyone to his own calling and vocation and not another's: "For we dare not match, or compare ourselves with some, that commend themselves; but we measure ourselves by ourselves, and compare ourselves with ourselves." [2 Cor 10:12])

Concerning Christian mortification St. Paul writes:

"I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air: But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." (I Cor. 9:26, 27)

I was not originally speaking about self-inflicted suffering, but rather the little crosses we are gifted with every day and often moreso as we approach the end of our lives. I will try to get back to that in my next post. Voluntary mortification and the ascetic life which all Christians must lead is related but somewhat different. Self-inflicted suffering probably does not develop the virtue of patience as much as it does the virtue of temperance in all things. As with involuntary suffering, so with voluntary suffering, in that it isn't the experience of pain that would ever be beneficial. Voluntary austerities address the specific need for the subduing of the flesh unto obedience. There are many small self-inflicted mortifications, such as denying oneself salt at table. It is not for the purpose of "experiencing" less savory food. Such a small sacrifice, we are encouraged can gain powerful results for many of us. These practices are to help us gain the habit of consulting our spiritual wants ahead of our bodily wants. All of the faithful are encouraged to deny themselves and voluntarily "chastise their bodies" as St. Paul admonishes. The virtue it creates is a strong will that has developed the habit of disobeying the flesh when it conflicts with the spirit. These acts are performed with the conviction that the flesh wishes to overindulge itself, and voluntary Christian asceticism is intended to strengthen our attention to the spirit while weakening our attention to the often unjust and irrational demands of the flesh.

More extreme forms of mortification are not to be undertaken without supervision. I have never heard of any but religious (monks and nuns with vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience) "taking the discipline" (self-flagellation). There may be exceptions, but I know of none. In any case, no one, monk or husband, should try to bench press more "spiritual weight" than is ordinary without a "spotter". The same principle would always apply to those who are practising extraordinary exercises in austerity. On the other hand, we don't usually have to consult anybody to quietly drink water when we want that ice cold soda that is in the refrigerator and the Church recommends these kinds of practices to all.

To be sure, mortifications are prescribed in I Corinthians and elsewhere for all Christians today. It is necessary because as the Apostle says, continual indulgence to the comforts of the flesh may easily lead to one becoming a "castaway". This is the primary reason for voluntarily chastising the body, in a continuous war against the flesh. Just as an athlete who races for a crown that will rust, so the Christian who races for an imperishable reward. Enthusiasm and excessive zeal can and assuredly has, led to self-delusion and harmful self-abuse. Just as athletes need a coach, this is why the Church does not approve of anyone doing extreme mortifications without spiritual supervision.      

The context of the passage quoted from St. Paul is a discussion in which he compares the discipline needed in the Christian life to that of an athlete. He says of those who strive to win a race, that they foresee the necessary sacrifices and voluntarily make them. Verse 25:

"And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one."

The word ascetism, seems to come from a Greek word referring to athletic discipline. Note also from the following entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia that it is "an error to measure a man's virtue by the extent and character of his bodily penances. :

"The word asceticism comes from the Greek askesis which means practice, bodily exercise, and more especially, athletic training. The early Christians adopted it to signify the practice of the spiritual things, or spiritual exercises performed for the purpose of acquiring the habits of virtue. At present it is not infrequently employed in an opprobrious sense, to designate the religious practices of oriental fanatics as well as those of the Christian saint, both of whom are by some placed in the same category. It is not uncommonly confounded with austerity, even by Catholics, but incorrectly. For although the flesh is continuously lusting against the spirit, and repression and self-denial are necessary to control the animal passions, it would be an error to measure a man's virtue by the extent and character of his bodily penances. External penances even in the saints, are regarded with suspicion. St. Jerome, whose proneness to austerity makes him an especially valuable authority on this point, thus writes to Celantia:

"Be on your guard when you begin to mortify your body by abstinence and fasting, lest you imagine yourself to be perfect and a saint; for perfection does not consist in this virtue. It is only a help; a disposition; a means though a fitting one, for the attainment of true perfection."

----http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767c.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by 3DOP