Posted by Helen on: 03.20.2008 /
In many Roman Catholic parts of [the Philippines], locals re-enact the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on Good Friday by nailing themselves to wooden crosses or stripping down to their waist and whipping their backs bloody with whips.
The Catholic Church frowns on the practice, but some devotees see it as a way to atone for their sins.
The Good Friday ritual has become a tourist attraction in several towns around the Philippines. In one city, 23 penitents have signed up to reenact the crucifixion, the newspaper reported. Four penitents plan to have themselves nailed to the cross.
The point of this article is that health officials are advising practitioners to use clean whips.
I think it’s sad that people feel they need to engage in self-abuse of this sort because of their beliefs. And it bothers me that it’s a tourist attraction i.e. people want to go watch other people inflicting pain on themselves for religious reasons.
Comment by: Jason Horton
1 03/20/08 5:32 AM | Comment Link |I wonder why not? I think that this is a case of taking too far the idea of respecting someone’s religious beliefs. These practices are both unsafe and barbaric, not to mention unnecessary and stupid.
Comment by: Helen
2 03/20/08 6:19 AM | Comment Link |Yes, I wondered about that too, Jason.
On the whole I’m not in favor of taking away peoples’ freedom. But the health secretary could have verbally been opposed to it, I would have thought, because it’s dangerous and unnecessary. He could have recommended against it altogether instead of simply urging ‘use clean whips’.
Comment by: joe
3 03/20/08 8:28 AM | Comment Link |I was reading something the other day about an order of nuns who get up ridiculously early in the morning and whip themselves. In fact, I’ve found the article I was reading here.
Make of that what you will, I’ve no idea about it’s reliability.
Of course, Christianity is by no means the only religion with self-flagallators. Many Muslim men seem to go in for it, particularly during Ashura
Unfortunately our religions have been turned in to festivals of violence.
Comment by: Helen
4 03/20/08 9:03 AM | Comment Link |Joe wrote:
Yes, I think that’s unfortunate too.
Thanks for your comment, Joe.
Comment by: karen
5 03/20/08 9:19 AM | Comment Link |This is the disgusting and highly unfortunate outcome of the original sin doctrine, which I think is one of the enduring negatives of religion.
When you’re taught to regard your own nature as filthy, wretched, lost and terminally unacceptable, physical self-abuse is just taking the next logical step. It’s horrific and such a perversion of the beauty and uniqueness of life.
Comment by: Jason Horton
6 03/20/08 11:26 AM | Comment Link |He could have simply said that they could flagellate themselves or nail their appendages to anything they want but to do so in public would cause offence to other members of society. Therefore it is not allowed. I mean, we have laws about drinking alcohol in public. If that constitutes a public nuisance then flagrant disregard of health and safety should too.
Alternatively he could have arranged for them to be sectioned. Nailing your body parts to anything is not sane. I’m sorry if this seems like I’m disregarding a person’s right to observe their religious beliefs in anyway that they choose but there have to be limits.
Comment by: Randy
7 03/20/08 2:27 PM | Comment Link |Ok…I’ll bite. Jason (or anyone else), would this same kind of “rule” apply to tattoos, body piercings, or brandings that are either publicly displayed or actually performed publicly? These don’t usually have much religious significance, but a lot of people still find them to be a public nuisance or a “flagrant disregard of health and safety” or “not sane” (I think I’ve heard all three of these comments about my own tattoos, by the way).
Or are you just suggesting that such activity be done in a less public way so others don’t have to look if they don’t want to? It sounds like people have to go out to where these flagellations happen (and pay to see it??). It’s not all that “public” as far as I can tell…certainly no more so than my tattoos.
How is this different than choosing to watch a television program or pay-per-view movie or event? Aren’t we able to “change the channel” if we find content offensive? It seems like the tattoo and the piercing are done with the INTENTION of being seen by lots of people who might have objections, while the crucifixion/flagellation deal only happens at a particular time and place and nobody would know by looking at them later that they did this.
Just curious where the line of acceptability is here.
I wonder if the Romans used clean whips? (of course they weren’t all that concerned with the health of the whip-ee, I suppose).
I think the whole reinactment deal is stupid and all about the opposite things Jesus was about, in general. I just like the fact that people are allowed to express themselves in nearly any way they see fit…even if I don’t like it.
Just don’t do it in my backyard.
;-)
Comment by: Jason Horton
8 03/20/08 3:52 PM | Comment Link |Randy, while my personal feelings regarding tattoos are very negative, I can’t compare public flogging (even self induced) or crucifixion with them. I am suggesting that what a person chooses to do to their own body is their decision. However I do believe that the public should not be subjected to such disturbing spectacles. It does seem that it is public. If it isn’t and the “display” is privately arrange, as a freak show if you will, then I wouldn’t object overly. I also wouldn’t choose to see it.
The difference between tattooing and other forms of scarification in modern society is not the viewing of the act of scarification but the end result. The flagellants are not trying to cause an end result but are acting to harm themselves. The act of self harm is what I object to and what I refer to as not sane.
A very good friend of mine has suffered with self harming for many years. It is a symptom of a mental illness and one that she seeks and requires help to combat. It isn’t something that she wants anyone to witness.
I see your point about the limits of acceptability but really, as a society, don’t we set the rules for what is acceptable? Shouldn’t we say, enough is enough, this far and no further. If we make a law to protect the members of society then shouldn’t we enforce it when someone does something that society finds unacceptable? If the law is too harsh or too weak then we have mechanisms in place to change the law but until we have evidence that the law is in error we should enforce it.
That should open up a can of worms.
Comment by: Helen
9 03/20/08 5:33 PM | Comment Link |Randy, like Jason says, the point of the re-enactments is to cause oneself pain whereas I assume (and hope) the point of tattoos is to have the tattoo, rather than the point being the pain involved in getting one.
We do have laws about what can be publically displayed and I wouldn’t see it as inappropriate to at least ban public display of re-enactments. Since the article said they’re a tourist attraction they evidently are able to be publically viewed.
Jesus got involved when he could have turned away because he had compassion. It seems to me that Jesus would have compassion on these self-abusers and would want to intervene and help them see they don’t need to do that. I don’t think he’d just say “Isn’t it wonderful we live in a free country where people can abuse themselves?”
Comment by: Randy
10 03/20/08 6:26 PM | Comment Link |Jason…great questions at the end, bub. I think the issues we’re wondering about are contained in them. Sorry to hear about your friend. I can see where that would add some passion to your points. And you’re right, of course, to say that self-harm is insane. We don’t need to see people who like to hurt themselves do so, for sure.
Helen…turns out there are a LOT of people who get tattoos precisely because of the pain involved. It’s very addicting in that way for some.
Able to be publicly viewed is in the same category as broadcasts on the TV in my mind. You still have a choice to watch or not.
Oh yeah…go ahead and play the Jesus Card, Helen;-)
There were a lot of people who hurt themselves in Jesus time (I’d say being a temple prostitute might qualify, but I’m sure there were other more detrimental occupations and amusements that people participated in back then…we’re not all that different as human beings today, I don’t think).
Jesus didn’t heal everyone. He did say he came for the sick and not those who think they are well (meaning the Pharisees, but generally anyone else who thinks they don’t need any help). These people who are self-flagellating in the article think they are doing so to get right with God. They are wrong, of course, and not well, but they believe they are doing something God would appreciate. Jesus would, I believe, probably try to correct them if they were telling others this is the way to please God and that they should also hurt themselves to receive forgiveness. But I don’t think he’d make a mission of stopping them from hurting themselves any more than he would stopping me from hurting myself, just because they are hurting themselves. Compassion and instruction, yes. Intervention, no. Free will thing, for me anyway.
They think they’re well because of this, so even if he did go to ‘rescue’ them, I doubt they’d think he was being helpful.
“I don’t think he’d just say “Isn’t it wonderful we live in a free country where people can abuse themselves?”
Me either…
Comment by: Helen
11 03/20/08 7:37 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for your response Randy. I don’t entirely agree but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
But he did make a mission of it - his mission was to ’set captives free’ and ‘bind up the broken-hearted’.
To me that goes beyond instruction into intervention.
And besides, if someone abusing themselves because they thought you required it of them and you showed up why wouldn’t they listen to you if you said “There’s no need to do that for me!” Jesus is the one they’re doing it for so if he showed up why wouldn’t people pay attention to what he says is or isn’t necessary for them to do for him?
Why do you assume these people think they’re well? What evidence do we have of this? Aren’t you prejudging the state of their heart?
I stand corrected about the tattoos but I think it’s sad that anyone is addicted to pain.
As for TV broadcasts, I hardly ever watch TV but if I did I’d probably be of the opinion that some things on there shouldn’t be shown. Just as I think re-enactments shouldn’t be tourist attractions. I guess I think it’s immoral to use someone else’s pain for entertainment. Even if it’s passively, as an observer.
Comment by: joe
12 03/21/08 2:19 AM | Comment Link |For me the issue is the aspect of self-promotion and the implications of earned holiness.
To some extent the same thinking occurs week after week as men boost their egos in pulpits and ‘worship leaders’ tug on the strings of the congregation’s emotions. Both can easily slip into aren’t-I-wonderfully-holy-ness.
I just want to stand up and shout ‘NO! You are just as bad as the rest of us. Stop this pseudo-spiritual masturbation and come back down to earth.’
Even these nuns, presumably, think they’re everso holy because they get up at 2am and beat themselves with whips. I don’t accept that it is a sign of self-hate, as I don’t believe anyone would put themselves through that for an extended period of time without committing suicide.
Regarding legal prevention, I don’t trust the government as a proxy for public opinion to tell people how to live. In a multi-cultural society, I don’t think that it is acceptable for society to attempt to make moral judgements. The one (and almost only) area where there is a responsibility is where people are hurting themselves, and more importantly minors and others. I think this kind of public display is not only an orgy of violence, but could encourage vulnerable people to do bad things to themselves.
And for the record, I don’t believe tattoos are in any way the same, not even on the same page, given that they are primarily for body decoration.
Comment by: cipher
13 03/22/08 6:03 AM | Comment Link |This isn’t going to be appreciated, but I think there’s a heavy erotic component in all of this. The connection between pain and pleasure is complicated, and I think, frankly, that’s part of the attraction many feel for the Christian narrative - the opportunity it affords to participate vicariously in some else’s mutilation and suffering. It doesn’t surprise me at all that it erupts frequently into this kind of behavior. It’s a form of acting out.
I’ve become convinced that this is why, in conservative Christian circles, there is such a tremendous obsession with the subject of hell. One gets to fantasize about torture, while remaining safe.
Comment by: Jason Horton
14 03/22/08 11:02 AM | Comment Link |Cipher, as disturbing as that sounds I find myself agreeing with you. I’ll never again be able to walk past a church without shuddering a little. ;)
Comment by: Helen
15 03/22/08 11:38 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Joe.
cipher your theory doesn’t line up with my experience at all so I would be surprised if it’s the case that ‘many’ are attracted to the Christian narrative for the reasons you say. Maybe there are some, since every large group tends to include some people who are attracted to it for a variety of unusual reasons.
Comment by: cipher
16 03/22/08 1:36 PM | Comment Link |cipher your theory doesn’t line up with my experience at all
I believe you, but you felt that way about my last series of comments as well - my assertion that many conservative Christians relish the idea of non-Christians going to hell. One or two others agreed with me. I think your experience might have been unusually positive.
I’ve been reading the posts on ExChristian.net recently. These people, whose opinions are more valid than mine, would paint a picture of evangelical Christianity more in line with what I’m saying. You may want to check it out.
Comment by: Helen
17 03/22/08 4:15 PM | Comment Link |Cipher, thanks for the site suggestion.
I hear what you’re saying but isn’t it possible that people who are ex-Christians, on the whole, have unusually negative experiences and that’s part of the reason why they’re now ex-Christians?
(Because positive experiences don’t drive people to look hard at their lives and find things they think ought to change like negative experiences do)
I wouldn’t be surprised to find that my experience is unusually positive among ex-Christians.
Comment by: cipher
18 03/22/08 4:26 PM | Comment Link |have unusually negative experiences and that’s part of the reason why they’re now ex-Christians
Sure, but it seems to me that their experiences are the more common. Among those who leave, I mean. You left, but you aren’t bitter in the way that they are. And you remain involved with Christians.
Anyway, I’m not trying to give you a hard time, Helen. I don’t come around here very often; I shouldn’t be heavy-handed when I do.
Comment by: Helen
19 03/23/08 7:22 AM | Comment Link |Cipher, I appreciate your comments.
I don’t want to let bitterness cause me to overemphasize what’s negative. My sense is that some other people let that happen.
I also don’t want to have rose-colored glasses on and overlook what are real issues.
I’m trying to walk a line inbetween those two.
I’m still involved with Christians but mostly not the same ones I was involved with previously. Because most of them don’t approve of where I’m at now (and are deeply concerned about it) and so it’s not pleasant or fun to interact with them.
I’m happy to remain friends with those Christians who are interested in remaining friends with me and can do so without lecturing or criticizing or invalidating me. In fact I appreciate those who can because I expect I’m causing them some distress, but they choose to exercise restraint and keep that to themselves.
Maybe these people are more able to leave me ‘in God’s hands’ than the other Christians I used to spend time with. I’m not sure. I only know that it doesn’t work to be around most of the Christians I used to be around because my move away from Christianity upsets them and in reality that very much limits the kind of relationship I can have with them now, regardless of how much I may wish it were otherwise.
Comment by: Robin
20 04/2/08 5:56 AM | Comment Link |I love it when I read something that strikes a chord within me. It usually goes something like this:
“Arrrrgh! That’s riDICulous! Good grief! The people in that situation are doing such and such and they are comPLETEly missing the point of Christianity! (pause) (gulp) Oh, crap. I do that too. (sigh) Lord, have mercy.”
Here’s how it played out in this situation:
“Arrrrgh! That’s riDICulous! Good grief! The people whipping themselves on Easter to atone for their sins are essentially saying “I believe Jesus died on the cross to atone for my sins. I believe it so much I will fervently celebrate Easter. But even though I technically believe his death is enough, I will help him out a little by beating myself up when I think about the ways I messed up this week, this month, this year” and they are comPLETEly missing the point of Christianity! (pause while thinking about the times I have shrank back from talking to God because I am hiding because I feel ashamed of however I happened to screw up that week/month/year and how that emotion of shame feels so true but it patently false because it denies the saving power of Jesus death on the cross. Then I remember how a friend in my support group Healing for Damaged Emotions gently touches me on the shoulder and tells me I’m swinging the Guilt Hammer on myself and Jesus loves me and doesn’t want me to do that anymore seeing as to how he made self-atonement obsolete and I need to just quit fighting it and let myself be loved) (gulp) Oh, crap. I do that too. (sigh) Lord, have mercy.”
Thanks for listening.
I really appreciate your posting this story. I needed to hear it.
Comment by: Helen
21 04/2/08 6:08 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment Robin
This happens to me a lot too: I look at someone else and think “How ridiculous is that?”
Then I realize I’m doing the same thing…yikes! :)
I think it’s common for people who believe Jesus died to set them free from guilt to fall into beating themselves up over their own sins. And feeling ashamed to go before God because of their failures. I don’t think you’re alone by any means.
I’m glad this article helped you see what you were doing and reminded you to just let yourself be loved.
Your support group sounds wonderful. Do you have the saying in it “End the cycle of self-abuse!” One of our other bloggers posted that to someone who was beating themselves up - I love it!
Comment by: Jason Horton
22 04/2/08 9:31 AM | Comment Link |I too look upon may beliefs and think “How ridiculous is that?” I don’t feel any guilt about it. However I do reflect that perhaps my own beliefs and actions must seem equally ridiculous to others. Perhaps that is because we all view others through the lens of our own experiences.
Having said that I still think that there is a point where you have to step forward and say “No, stop it, that’s enough” and take the sharp, pointy things away from people before they hurt someone, probably themselves.
Comment by: Helen
23 04/2/08 10:01 AM | Comment Link |Jason wrote:
Yes…it’s good to be aware that other people see things different from us.
I definitely don’t think we should say “this is great for the tourist trade - keep doing it!” or otherwise encourage people to hurt themselves - but I’m also in favor of respecting people’s freedom of choice. I think I’d only want to intervene if people are doing something that definitely causes serious injury. Otherwise I’m taking away too much freedom. It’s not easy to know where that line is between helping people and inappropriately taking away their freedom of choice.