Loading ...
The Doctor and I were reading the other day from St. Alphonsus’ stirring classic, The Victories of the Martyrs, whilst keeping vigil outside the local abortuary. (Our diocese is doing a 40 Days for Life campaign wherein we keep a nonstop prayer vigil for 40 days, praying for the end of abortion. We are hardly central figures in this effort, but we try to pitch in here and there.) We were reading the stories of the Japanese martyrs — though St. Alphonsus admits frankly that most of these figures have not (at least at the time of his writing) been officially recognized as martyrs. He is using the term loosely to refer to those who appear to have died for the faith, and who we might naturally suppose will one day be canonized. The persecution of the Church in Japan was quite bad at one time, so there were a good number of souls who willingly laid down their lives for the faith.
One cannot be struck, in reading these tales, by the extreme eagerness with which the martyrs go to their deaths. Far from lying low, many are practically begging the Japanese authorities to include their names on the lists of the condemned; entire households are depicted in merry, excited preparation for the awaited day when (so they hope) all will be crucified and will follow their Lord directly up to heaven. In one example, a young man dresses up as an ecclesiastic (though he is not one in fact) because he fears that he will not attract attention in any other way. Many are given opportunities to flee to the country, but they refuse, so eager are they to win the glorious crown of martyrdom.
So, here is the question. Is it right to literally court martyrdom? Certainly it is right to accept it when circumstances require it. In particular, it is unquestionably right to suffer martyrdom if the alternative is to deny the faith. And if the fulfillment of one’s obligations to the Church (for example, filling one’s Mass obligations) entails a risk of martyrdom, then that risk must be run. But would it be wrong to (for example) move oneself or one’s family to a place where the Church was less persecuted and the danger less severe? Would it be wrong to have Masses said in less obvious places, in the interests of lessening the danger to the faithful? (We know this has been done in various times and places.) If we literally beg the executioner to slay us for Christ’s sake, are we then martyrs? Is this righteous? I admire the tenacity of these Japanese Christians, but some of their practices seemed a little questionable, or at least not clearly obligatory.
The question might have some relevance to those of us in academia, because we often make choices about how “public” we wish to be with our faith. The chances of being literally killed for the faith within an American university are extremely small… but very visible and vocal displays of faith would not be at all unlikely to jeopardize or destroy one’s career prospects. Are we obliged to follow the Japanese martyrs in embracing this with joy? Or is it better to be less zealous, and to allow God to distribute our crosses in his own way and time?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
The early (regional but held to have great authority) Council of Elvira held at Illiberis condemned “intemperate zeal” in would-be martyrs and decreed that such examples be struck from martyrologies. For a synopsis of the Council, see, for starters: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05395b.htm
Fascinating. Thank you, Pedantic Prof. See, there’s a reason for me to blog these things.
Pedantic Prof,
1) I don’t see anywhere in that newadvent.org page where it warns against seeking out martyrdom. Can you be more specific?
2) This Council of Elvira was a local council of the local bishops not an ecumenical council of the Church AND it dealt with disciplinary matters, not matters of faith and morals, AND it seems to have had some iconoclastic elements to it — all and all, I’d hardly call the Council of Elvira authoritative on any level.
Clara,
Seeking out or praying for Martyrdom is an act of heroic virtue.
“But would it be wrong to (for example) move oneself or one’s family to a place where the Church was less persecuted and the danger less severe? ”
Why would it be wrong? Heroic virtue is not required, it’s going above and beyond.
If you are deathly ill and weak with cancer, yet you drag yourself to Sunday Mass, knowing that it’s not required for you to attend AND the physical exertion required may even shorten your life, this is an act of heroic virtue.
It’s not an issue of right or wrong.
Blessed Gianna Molla made a heroic choice to die.
The late great Fr. John Hardon, SJ prayed for martyrdom every day of his life.
You do realize don’t you that martyrdom means direct entrance into Heaven? No purgatory time. Have you ever read the accounts of the suffering in purgatory? And St. Alphonus Ligouri, among other saints, say that we will spend 7 years in purgatory for each forgiven mortal sin. Plus, I think that even those with unconfessed mortal sin, in other words those in the state of mortal sin, go to Heaven if martyred for the faith.
All and all, a good deal.
We should all pray for martyrdom.
JSP: The Catholic Encyclopedia article was only a starting-point. In fact, some synods and councils, while local in scope, have always been held as authoritative for various reasons in the universal Church (I am tired and without my library here, but Whitby comes to mind). Elvira is one of these, and some simple searching on its canons will bring up plentiful references attesting to its reach and scope. The proscript on actively seeking death -not the same as white martyrdom as you mention above- became a particular issue with the Donatist heretics. As you know, martyrdom is in the acceptance of death for Christ rather than the pains, according to the axiom. Your assertion “You do realize don’t you that martyrdom means direct entrance into Heaven? No purgatory time” is simplistic to say the least. I am aware of the issues involved with martyrdom since I have a doctorate on the subject and have devoted many years to various aspects of martyrdom; this has been an occasional academic martyrdom, but that’s another subject!
There is an interesting case with St. Polyeuctos who was martyred during the Decian persecutions. This was before Elvira, and he deliberately gate-crashed a pagan ceremony and smashed idols in the middle of it. After Elvira, similar cases were not considered as candidates for veneration. Anyone who actively pursues martyrdom in such an unnecessary way raises some disturbing questions about voluntarily accepting death for Christ, and I wouldn’t be sure that their passport to the throne of Grace is quite as swift as you think…
The Japanese persecutions are interesting because of the number of women and children killed as well, often crucifixed. There are some (graphic) illustrations in Bartolemeo Ricci’s Triumphus Jesu Christi (1608), and Pedro Bivero’s Sacrum sanctuarium crucis (1634) giving a parity between male and female crucified saints (both having images of seventy saints who were crucified throughout history, including some recent Japanese ones.
I suspect much of the martyrs’ attitude to their deaths is linked to the lack of taboo connected to suicide wrapped up with various codes of honor such as the Bushido, which would strike us as odd but would be entirely an act of duty for an early modern Japanese.
JSP, are you the same JSP who on an ealier blog asked why Middle Eastern Catholics would ever want to stay in hostile Catholic countries, or why Irish Catholics would want to stay in Northern Ireland (or, as I like to call it, Protestant-Occupied Ireland)? It seems there’s some cognitive dissonance.
But to get serious, you make it sound as though there *could not* be any moral problem for you to walk into the middle of a local mosque and begin preaching the Faith until the local Mohammedans killed you. 1) What about your duty to your job (in this case=country)? 2) What about your duty to your family? This particular act of “heroic virtue” would require you to fail a lot of people in a capacity you’re sworn to uphold. So, yes, sometimes a “martyrdom” can be arranged in an improper fashion.
Sometimes people actively seek martyrdom. The morality of this depends on how the Church at the time has ruled. A lot of saints under the Roman Empire were pretty eager. Later the Church tried to temper that. Contrast St. Thomas More. He tried every legal loophole in the book to try to put off his martyrdom. Maybe he realized that since he was a world-famous scholar and a former Lord Chancellor, his execution would be a “point of no return” for the English Protestant regime, and he wished not to give his enemies an occasion of sin (i.e. of murdering him). Maybe he just really didn’t see the point in ending life and undergoing Judgment sooner than he needed to — he wished more time to merit further graces.
In any case, prudence governs these things. Sometimes the martyrs are only too happy to meet death, sometimes there are overriding concerns. The Jesuits who hid in priestholes in England were sent to England first and foremost to tend to the flock and to face martyrdom *only* when forced. It would not have been “above and beyond the call of duty” to expose themselves, it would have been contrary to their duties.
And after the first persecutions, for 200 years the Church in Japan went completely underground, I mean hermetically sealed off. No one knew they even existed. Generations of secret Catholics went their entire lives without anyone knowing Catholicism still existed in the country. They didn’t even evangelize much, as far as I know. Their statues of the Blessed Virgin were sculpted such that a pagan would think it wsa a pagan goddess. They had no clergy nor Eucharist nor Penance, and were restricted to baptizing each other, catechizing each other, and praying together.
Interesting comments all, thanks! I had not heard the story of St. Polyeuctos. But though I didn’t know what the Church had said about it, I believe my thoughts were along the lines of the sort of examples Tobias Petrus brings up. If a mother goes off and actively courts martyrdom, leaving her infant alone to die or be raised by pagans, this doesn’t seem meritorious. The same would be true of a parish priest, say, who leaves his faithful without anyone to give them the sacraments so that he can be a martyr. St. Edmund Campion was a martyr in the end, but he tried to do as much good as possible before being caught and killed. That seems much the more admirable way.
Of course, there may be times when one recognizes that martyrs are badly needed for supporting the faith, and that one is in a position to fill this need. In that case, certain measures taken to increase the likelihood might be okay. But I find it hard to believe that a person would go straight to heaven if he got himself martyred mainly for the sake of that “free ride”.
The Holy Father could probably get himself martyred fairly easily if he tried. But I think he owes it to the Church not to do so, unless there is really no other acceptable choice.
“If a mother goes off and actively courts martyrdom, leaving her infant alone to die or be raised by pagans, this doesn’t seem meritorious.”
The case of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity might be of interest here, as they had just given birth when they were martyred. Of course, they found Catholic foster parents. But that just furthers the question — Sts. Perpetua and Felicity probably made sure the foster parents weren’t going to run off and get themselves killed within the next week of entrusting their infants to them.
I hadn’t heard of St. Polyeuctos. I do know that St. Boniface went into a pagan temple and cut down the Germanic “world-tree,” Yggdrasil. That would be the equivalent of destroying the Temple in Jerusalem. And he later paid the price of martyrdom.
Whoops, in my earlier post I meant “Middle Eastern Catholics in hostil *Moslem* countries.”
I’ve heard that when the Roman martyrs entered the circuses, they used to walk up to the lions and strike them, hoping that this would encourage them.
“If you are deathly ill and weak with cancer, yet you drag yourself to Sunday Mass, knowing that it’s not required for you to attend AND the physical exertion required may even shorten your life, this is an act of heroic virtue.”
That would be true only if, as you say, you already were “deathly” ill, i.e. the disease was terminal. Then otherwise good actions that might shorten your life can be justified under the principle of double effect. (That’s why people on their deathbed can take morphine, which shortens their lives. They’re taking it for its painkilling effect, not because it hastens death.)
But let’s say that you were only in “a critical condition,” which a trip to Mass would render terminal. Then going to Church for Mass would simply be suicide, and you’d be *obliged* to stay in bed and wait for a chaplain.
pedantic prof,
Care to elaborate a little more on martyrdom and no purgatory? I don’t need your whole dissertation. Just give me the essentials. (It must be nice to be a professor type and just be able to dismiss people by characterizing their statements as “simplistic.”)
Tobias Petrus,
1) Yes, I’m the same JSP. I don’t think my position is inconsistent. I’d much prefer a quick martyrdom for the Catholic Faith, rather than spending a lifetime in poverty and in 2nd class citizen status, for me and my future offspring, for some ethno-nationalist reasons that have only a small bearing on my religion.
2) No, I wouldn’t seek martyrdom by running into a Mosque and interrupting their prayers, precisely because this probably wouldn’t be martyrdom. One of my worries over here in the Middle East is getting killed for every other reason than because I’m Catholic. I’m much more likely to be killed for being an American, a foreigner, or an unbeliever, than for being a Catholic. And dying for the USA, while certainly noble, is not martyrdom. So, although I may be killed inside that mosque, it would probably be because I’ve insulted their god, or because I’m an American.
3) Regarding my duties to my family or my country – my first duty is to my Faith and to saving my own soul. Of course my own salvation is closely tied to my responsibility of taking care of my family. And I think it’s a false choice to suggest that martyrdom is opposed to one’s family obligations. All Catholics irrespective of their state in life should welcome a true Catholic martyrdom. Do you not think that God will provide for your family or for your parish if you’re a priest?
I’m not suggesting acting recklessly. There’s a difference between praying for martyrdom and recklessly seeking out martyrdom. Certainly, it would be foolish for the pope to travel to Mecca without security during the Haj and restate his Regensburg lecture. Similarly as a father, I’m not going to put my own life or the life of my family at risk for something that I cannot even control – like I said above, chances are that any foolishness and recklessness would lead to simple death for criminal intentions or for anti-American intentions on the killers part, not martyrdom.
The most reckless thing I’ve done over here is stop my car, with my family inside, in the center of a small village, so that I could get out and baptize a man hit by a truck. There were villagers standing around and also one or two gendarmerie soldiers. It crossed my mind that I could be killed, or at the very least assaulted or arrested for baptizing this guy. But I thought this was worth it and that it would be a martyrdom if I were killed.
“But I find it hard to believe that a person would go straight to heaven if he got himself martyred mainly for the sake of that “free ride”. ”
There’s a difference between getting oneself killed and martyrdom. True martyrdom is a gift from God and cannot be sought out by someone intent on a ‘free ride.’
Thanks for continuing to belittle and mischaracterize my statements..
I regret that last sentence. My bruised pride is not important.
Rather, the more important issue, Clara, are these coyly crafted comments of yours, which seem to question the necessity or sanity of some authentic Catholic martyrdoms. This is blasphemy.
JSP, quit it. Clara basically asked if sometimes there was a line, maybe even a fine one, between true martyrdom and a dubious effort to “get oneself martyred,” and where that line was. Then you made it sound as though there were no problems that might prompt the question: “it’s not a matter of right and wrong.” Then we pointed out just what Clara said: there’s a difference between accepting true martyrdom and fanatically seeking it. Then you said, “Of course.” So we all agree on the essentials, I hope.
“pedantic prof,
Care to elaborate a little more on martyrdom and no purgatory? I don’t need your whole dissertation. Just give me the essentials. (It must be nice to be a professor type and just be able to dismiss people by characterizing their statements as “simplistic.”)”
I don’t think that Pedantic Prof was calling into question the fact that martrydom gets you out of purgatory. He was calling into question your whole presentation of the matter in your first post, which was simplistic. Why? You mentioned only the benefits of martrydom, which left the impression that there were no reasons someone might have to seek to avoid martyrdom when morally possible. Why did it leave that impression? Because that was the question at hand, and you seemed to dismiss it with the line “there’s no right or wrong here.” The English Jesuits certainly would have been wrong to jump out of their priestholes and tell Queen Bess’ storm-troopers, “Hey, I’m over here, come and get me! Oh, and here’s a list of more secret Catholics to martyr — I wouldn’t want them to spend any time in Purgatory.” Of course you understand this, but you didn’t put that in your first post.
“Yes, I’m the same JSP. I don’t think my position is inconsistent. I’d much prefer a quick martyrdom for the Catholic Faith, rather than spending a lifetime in poverty and in 2nd class citizen status, for me and my future offspring, for some ethno-nationalist reasons that have only a small bearing on my religion.”
I misread Clara’s question. I thought she asked if it was immoral to move *into* a region of persecution, to court martrydom. She asked just the opposite, so your statements on the two occasions are consistent. Still, the elaboration of your answer might not be sufficient. Wouldn’t spending a life in poverty and 2nd class citizen status *on account of one’s Faith* be worthy? You beg the question by framing it in terms of a contrast between easy, one-off martyrdom and “ethno-nationalist” sentiment. By staying in Lebanon, the Maronites keep the Blessed Eucharist in that country. When they leave, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass leaves. Same goes for the Catholics of Northern Ireland, and the East Timorese. Their ethno-national identities have been formed by the Faith, that of their enemies has not. Plus, it’s *their* country! I don’t blame people for seeking a better life, but there are Catholic reasons to stay too. Isn’t poverty conducive to sanctity? Of course I’d take martrydom with Heaven over a lifetime on Earth. The question I was trying to raise was whether it is better to take a lifetime of perpetual “white martrydom” as a persecuted Catholic — and the real risk of actual martyrdom — over the relative laxity of First World freedom? Who’s to say? I can see arguments on both sides. Each person or household makes its own decisions.
“All Catholics irrespective of their state in life should welcome a true Catholic martyrdom. Do you not think that God will provide for your family or for your parish if you’re a priest?”
You are begging the question. My point was that sometimes your obligation to your family and parish means that you are not to *seek* martyrdom. You are to “welcome” it when it is *true*, of course. No one denied that people should welcome martyrdom when it’s thrust upon one. The question was whether it’s necessary or always fitting to go out of one’s way to get martyred. You agree it is not.
“Rather, the more important issue, Clara, are these coyly crafted comments of yours, which seem to question the necessity or sanity of some authentic Catholic martyrdoms. This is blasphemy.”
The most “borderline” thing Clara wrote was: “I admire the tenacity of these Japanese Christians, but some of their practices seemed a little questionable, or at least not clearly obligatory.” First off, it didn’t seem that Clara doubted “some authentic Catholic martyrdoms” since she doesn’t specify that the killings in question are ones that the Church has officially honored as authentic martrydoms. The Church does not immediately beatify or canonize everyone who ostensibly dies for the Faith, but investigates (i.e. questions) all the examples. Clara didn’t say, “St. Paul Miki wasn’t worthy of sainthood; he was a suicidal fanatic” but “out of thousands of examples, some raise the eyebrows.” Secondly, the very martyrdom-seeking practices that *some* of the Japanese engaged in were subject to censure at various times and places in the Church. That answers the “questionable” bit. As for “not clearly obligatory,” you admit we’re in the realm of heroic virtue, which isn’t always obligatory.
I’m all for repelling a coy, crafty, subtle attempt by a daughter of Eve to beguile us all into blasphemy, but as much as my Grand Inquisitorial nature might wish to find that here, there is reasonable doubt to the contrary.
“Many are given opportunities to flee to the country, but they refuse, so eager are they to win the glorious crown of martyrdom.”
Wasn’t this Socrates’ predicament? He could have fled. And I find his reasons for not doing so rather lame. Aristotle rightly fled when he was indicted. He rightly understood that philosophy isn’t worth dying for . . . ;)
Yes, I think Socrates was basically a philosophy-martyr. Anyway, he clearly seemed hell-bent on getting himself executed. And for the record, the Doctor likes to say that Socrates deserved to die and that he would have convicted him if he were on the jury.
But I might add that I think Pedantic Prof’s point, about the place of suicide within Japanese culture, is a good one. Of course, we don’t condone suicide, and that might make the actions of the Japanese martyrs (or “martyrs” if you don’t think they all were) seem that much more dubious. On the other hand, you might think about it the other way: for the Japanese, to flee when death threatened might have scandalized others and made them think that Christians were wimps. Accepting it bravely, by contrast, would seem heroic. So facing death might have been more necessary to them, for winning converts or bolstering the faithful. In our society, running away from people who are trying to kill you doesn’t normally seem cowardly so much as sensible. So it might be less bad for us to flee that kind of persecution. Anyway, these sorts of considerations would be relevant, I think.
Durkheim dismisses Christian martyrs as a form of suicide. He is, of course, wrong. Without sounding overly pious (is that necessarily a bad thing?!), the two thinsg I know about having read so many marrtyrological accounts, and human motives getting entangled in spiritual desire, is that I am glad Holy Mother Church decides on whether to venerate candidates, and that grace prfects our tainted nature.
Thanks for clearing everything up.
I understand the line from the Lord’s Prayer “Lead us not into temptation” (also translated “Do not put it to the test) as asking to kept from situations that we cannot handle. I do not know if I have enough courage to be true to the Faith up until the point of death. To seek out matyrdom would be placing myself in a position to tempted to renounce the Faith. Instead I ought to avoid occasions of sin.
If God were to give me the grace of martyrdom, He would supply both the opportunity and the courage. I suppose that I could pray for matyrdom understanding it that way. But even so, I would feel presumptious. I suspect that God calls me to a “little way” rather than something so glorious. I prefer to pray “Thy will be done” without specifying. I wish to accept whatever way of death God gives me.
By the way, Clara, I found this blog by following your url in the comments at WDTPRS. I left a comment on your post “a rebuttal” but I don’t know if you will see it on such an old discussion. If it encourages you to look, I can tell you it was positive.