Is it immoral to blind oneself? (I'm serious)


#1

Hello,

I’m not crazy… (I hope so)

Is it ever okay for someone to deliberately destroy their vision? I mean ever? Jesus did say that if one’s eye causes them to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you, and the same with one’s hand.

Bless you,
Andrew


#2

Read the catechism on mutilation…

Not really bro.


#3

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91


#4

Jesus was using semitic exaggeration to make a point.


#5

It is not morally allowed to blind yourself. For medical reasons, if you had to be made blind for some reason, it would be permissible. Our Lord was using a common preaching technique of His time by using hyperbole.


#6

That passage is about the need to avoid near occasions of sin. (Some Biblical scholars, considering that the passage is close to Christ’s teachings on adultery, opine that it may even be a direct reference to breaking off sinful friendships and relationships, or avoiding “inordinate attachments” in general.)

From its early days, the Church never prescribed self-mutilation even for grave sins such as adultery, sodomy or murder. She did prescribe public penance and a period of exclusion from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but never asked penitents to mutilate themselves.

That said, cases of this act being performed to atone for or avoid sin exist both in Western and Eastern religious traditions; however, they are often the result of an underlying mental illness. (I came across a case myself once, quite a while ago: link to abstract here.)

Take courage in the fact that neither Christ nor His Church would ever demand such a thing of you.


#7

I hope you are not like one of those people I saw on Dr. Phil…they want to live their life being blind, so they do something that causes them to become blind. The girl on the show put something in her eyes to do so. It was a very disturbing show.


#8

Yes, I saw that one, too. Truly unfortunate.


#9

This. The apostles did not pluck their eyes out. Hyperbole at its finest.


#10

Thank you,

No self blinding, got it
:blackeye:


#11

There is disagreement among Christians as to what parts of the Bible should be taken literally.


#12

Ver. 29. Whatever is an immediate occasion of sin, however near or dear it may be, must be abandoned (Menochius), though it prove as dear to us, or as necessary as a hand, or an eye, and without delay or demur. (Haydock)


#13

Not only would it be immoral, it wouldn’t be too smart.


#14

Were you seriously thinking about it?


#15

Don’t make me get all literal Mr. Tombstone…

And by that I mean don’t physically come here and make me…

And by that I obviously am telling you not to come here and create me…

And by telling you clearly I am there with you in person, talking to you…

(Should I recycle the clearly one again?)

Nahh I will let it go…

:slight_smile:


#16

Before I pluck out my eye or cut off my hand, I shall first look a bit more closely at what Jesus actually said. (Always good advice to think carefully about our Lord’s Word)

I’m happy to take Him quite literally. But in so doing, I’m firstly going to very carefully contemplate if it really is my eye ball (retina, pupil, iris, rods, cones) that’s causing me to sin.

I would hate to pluck out one eye only to find that I am still committing exactly the same sin.

I don’t need my eyes to commit adultery in my heart. It’s not my hand that makes me want to rob a bank or punch someone.


#17

Not among Catholics. It is only the Catholic Church that Christ established and gave authority to in matters of faith and morals. If there are any different interpretations of the Bible it only the Catholic Church one that counts.


#18

How do you reconcile your statement with the fact that the Church teaches that people are free to give a literal 7-day reading to Genesis, and are equally free to believe that Genesis is symbolic, non-literal language conveying the truth that God made what is, but did so using processes and timelines not described in Genesis? It would seem that even within the Church there is room to disagree as to Biblical literalism.


#19

Some Christians will interpret the Bible differently and not agree with that. For example, the Orthodox Church will say that they are the true Church and that Rome is in error, and still, the Roman Catholic Church allows Orthodox to receive Holy Communion.


#20

The Orthodox are simply a schismatic part of the Catholic Church.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.