Mystical marriages

[John Michael Fowler]

Thank you Father Raphael for your response. Forgive my lack of intelligence I see the point you make but doesn't that mean that let's say Confucianism and Buddhism should be referred to and transfigured? I mean there is a lot that's right in both these beleifs and there's a lot that's wrong. Sorry if I don't express myself clearly.

Alright another case, say if someone is posessed by a demon, he goes to the doctor, then to a psychologist- what does the psychologist say? "pray to our Saviour?" I'll wager not, the psychologist will try to explain it falsely, because that's the only way he can. It's like if I get stung by a jelly fish and then go to a doctor who doesn't beleive jelly fish exsist because he's never seen one. That doctor will do everything to explain what happened to me, except saying, 'a jelly fish stung you.' That's why psychology can be dangerous, the first port of call should be a priest, and if he not up to it, try another one. Sorry if I seem dense and have a hang-up on psychology, it just seems strange to me that we reject certain creeds and other ones creep in through the back door, in Christ John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

Just as a Protestant or a Roman Catholic could bring the best of what they are and become Orthodox so could a Confucian or a Buddhist. For example when St Innocent of Alaska was converting the native Aleuts he worked with the aspects native to their culture which could be transformed and 'taken up' by Orthodoxy. This principle was also at work in the way in which Judaism foreshadowed the Church & also in how the fathers believed the best of Greek philosophy was also fulfilled in the Church. Of course we are talking about what truly can correspond to Orthodoxy but that's the very point after all. Conversion isn't just a matter of destroying everything and starting all over again but rather of transfiguring what corresponds to Orthodoxy.

I think we can also apply this principle to psychology at least to discuss how it can relate to the Faith. For example when you say "if someone is posessed by a demon, he goes to the doctor, then to a psychologist- what does the psychologist say? "pray to our Saviour?" I'll wager not, the psychologist will try to explain it falsely, because that's the only way he can." Well someone like Fr George Morelli who often posts to this group would probably very much advise to "pray to our Saviour". Of course he may also give advice as a psychologist just as a doctor would give medical advice and this not contradict in any way the need for us to pray about what afflicts us.

In any case I am only speaking about the general principle of the thing. I am not at all knowledgeable about psychology. So I would be very interested in hearing from someone like Fr George about how he sees the relationship between Orthodoxy & psychology. As someone who tends to think in terms of categories and 'niches' I often wonder exactly where psychology fits into the cure of the soul from an Orthodox perspective. For example someone like St Theophan the Recluse following the Orthodox Fathers points to the distinction of body, soul & spirit in man. Would psychology correspond to the soul while spiritual guidance correspond more to the spirit? (not that there is ever a hard & fast division between body, soul & spirit- it's mainly a matter of what one chooses as a primary focus).

If this correspondence does indeed hold then we could work very usefully towards a better understanding of the situations in which it is most proper for the priest to listen to the psychologist and the psychologist to the priest.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Leandros]

Alright another case, say if someone is posessed by a demon, he goes to the doctor, then to a psychologist- what does the psychologist say? "pray to our Saviour?" I'll wager not, the psychologist will try to explain it falsely, because that's the only way he can. It's like if I get stung by a jelly fish and then go to a doctor who doesn't beleive jelly fish exsist because he's never seen one. That doctor will do everything to explain what happened to me, except saying, 'a jelly fish stung you.' That's why psychology can be dangerous, the first port of call should be a priest, and if he not up to it, try another one.

Dear John Michael Fowler ,

According to your explanation, if someone is NOT possessed by a daemon and goes to a priest, the priest will “diagnose” daemonic possession, because in your words “that's the only way he can”.

When priests substitute real doctors the patients are in REAL danger. For example, in the case of a stupid Romanian priest that literally killed a mentally ill woman when he tried to “free” her because he believed that she was "possessed by the devil" (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1119098341918B265) and in the case of another stupid "minister" in Wisconsin that tried to “heal” an 8-year-old boy that was autistic with “exorcism” (http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/04/08/20/082004wicottrell.htm) and he killed him in the process, the priests failed to server the "patients" because they did not send them to real doctors and they substitute the role of the healer.

A professor of neurophysiology at University of Thessaloniki in Greece has said in one of his lectures: “There are rare cases when a mentally ill “patient” does not respond at all to treatment! It seems like chemical treatment does not have any influence in his behaviour. Then we understand that the “patient” is not pathologically ill and that medicine is incompetent to cure him. We are not gods, we are just doctors and we can only treat pathological/physiological illness. We must understand that our profession has limits”.

Likewise is the case also for priests. They serve a specific ministry that does not provide the “cure” for everything.

Both priests and doctors are needed. They serve different ministries and they both should realise that “they are not gods”. They can not substitute one another. They must perform their ministries with responsibility and with competency.

Of course, some priests or doctors may serve their ministry with inefficiency. This is not a failure of the ministry itself, but it is a personal failure of the specific person to serve according to the high standards that he is required to satisfy.

You wonder what a psychologist would have said to a “possessed” person. Well, if this psychologist is a capable professional he will recognise his inability to “cure” the “patient” with his scientific medical methods. Then the “patient” should have been adviced to find another proper way of treatment.

The problem with “wrong treatment”, either medical, or spiritual is that many people think of “treatment” as a holistic / totalitarian method of solving everything. We have to realize that there are limits in all cases, even in spiritual treatment. The saints of the Church, being absolutely healthy in their spiritual “health”, they suffered from the common human deceases, like every one else and they accepted the services of doctors with gratitude.

The painful experience of wrong and unpleasant treatment from incapable doctors, may guide us to deny the usefulness of “medicine”. There is a Greek proverb that says: “the man, who has been burned from hot milk, is also afraid not to be burned from the cold yogurt”.

[John Michael Fowler]

Dear Father Raphael, thanks Father, that was thought provoking. Of course it's knowing what to pick out from these diiferent beleifs. I remember singing in church that Buddhism and Confucianism were demon inspired. I thought it was a bit unfair on Confucius who to me was just a moralist that mis-guided people have built a religion out of. I am sure if a psychologist or social worker talked about having a beleif in demon posession they would lose their job. You just can't say that.

Thanks for the kind words about London's bombing, it is sad after 30 years of the Northern Ireland troubles, peace settles over there and now we have this new thing. The muslims themselves are British, of Pakistanni origin. One was a Jamaican who converted. I think it's sad that some black people here go to Islam. Why don't they go to the Ethiopian Church? That surely is the black church? It seems where once people became communist now they become muslim.

Thanks again Father Raphael and please pray for my daughter Sabine, John

[John Michael Fowler]

Dear Leandros, sorry I do not express myself clearly, of course a psychologist wouldn't diagnoise demonic posession, that's the point I was making.

Yes there was a case here of a Zairean family who passed themselves off as Angolans and who battered a child because their pastor told them she was posessed, yes you are quite right these abuses are common.

But our Saviour drove demons out of people, would they have been better going off to a Psychologist? Why do we have Saints and Angels, am I wasting my time praying to them? If I broke my leg obviously I wouldn't just pray for it to get better, but you speak of psychology as if it's proven, which it isn't. I can't see why when Roman Catholicism appears here we chase it away, but frankly I could find it easier to defend than I could psychology, which Saint is linked to Psychology- Saint Peter is it- I think not.

As you know I have been abused by a psycholigist that's common as well. I look to Orthodoxy, to God,as a sanctuary away from these things,

in Christ John

[dimitri marinis]

Dear brothers,

The country where I spent most of my life (South Africa) the person = with psychological problems would either visit the psychologist or the = psychiatrist I am not against those two professions each one has a job = to perform. If one goes to psychiatrist he usually pumps you up with = tranquilizers, if one goes to the "mild one" the psychologist he sits = you down and he lets you speak your heart out and this is his job to = listen to the patient where in today's world to find some one to talk to = is quite rare. What John is trying to say Leandros is that a Christian = would not need the psychologist because he supposedly frequently visits = his/her spiritual father and a good spiritual father listens and that's = the cure.

God bless

dimitri

[Leandros]

Dear John Michael Fowler,

I am not arguing against you, but I think that in cases like: child abuse, violence against women, relational frustration, cognitional and learning lag, dyslexia and reading hysteresis and in countless other situations psychology is proven as professional treatment for both victimised persons and for persons with cognitional and functional “shortcomings”.

There are three areas that psychology is proven as a para-medical scientific profession: behavior, cognition and neuropathology.

I understand that you oppose psychology as a means that provide the “absolute” truth about the “patient”. This is also my understanding of "what" psychology should not pretend to be. Psychology can not define the whole human being. A psychologist can help the functionality of human nature in providing his scientific advice and support, but he can not "dive" into the depths of the human soul, only the Spirit of Christ can do that.

Unfortunately, their Freudian heritage guides many psychologists to think that the EGO and SUPEREGO are part of the human soul. I agree with you that, this kind of parallelism is unorthodox and creates more problems than those it tries to “solve”.

Sometimes a psychologist sounds like a “savior” of a damned soul. This is absolutely not what a psychologist is. A psychologist is a “technician” like any other physician. Salvation is based on relations and not on techniques. This is why we “chase away” roman-catholics, because they abolish relations and adopt techniques instead, and you are right: we should also “chase away” the psychologist-saviors as well.

I agree with you that, it is wrong to try to mold a specific person according to the form that is provided by a psychologist. Every person must have the absolute freedom to form his life according to his own pleasure. I understand your messages, as a declaration of denial of forced false psychological treatment. I do not think that anyone should support such treatment and neither am I.

(Message edited by lpap on 22 July, 2005)

[John Michael Fowler]

Thanks to Kosmas I will follow your advice.

Thanks to Leandros, for your explanation. You are a very intelligent man. Have you ever seen that film 'Crossfire' where Robert Ryan doesn't like Jews, I'm a bit like that with psychologists, please forgive me.

Thanks to Dmitri, I am not very articulate, In Christ John
P.S- I will disappear like a hermit crab now, until someone mentions psychologist again.

[Vasilis Kirikos]

"What John is trying to say Leandros is that a Christian = would not need the psychologist because he supposedly frequently visits = his/her spiritual father and a good spiritual father listens and that's = the cure."

I beg forgiveness if I appear tangential in this diatribe; but our Lord said to honor the physician. It is possible for some of the emotionally ill to have had some simple infection that produced sever emotional problems. Examples of such mental illnesses are bipolar (formerly called manic depressive psychosis); COD (compulsive obsessive disorder); even schizophrenia. The first two disorders, bipolar and COD have now been shown to have had a bacterial etiology; _Streptococcus _ _pyogenes_, a bacterium that causes strept throat has been shown to cause both of these emotional illnesses. _Streptococcus_ _pyogenes_ also causes rheumatic fever that can lead to the production of auto-antibodies that attack against the kidneys or the heart.....so why not the brain? Emotional problems that I am certain are caused by interpersonal conflict include something called Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID); formerly called multiple personality disorder. 97% of the DID patients experienced sexual abuses when they were very small children.. Another is ptsd (post traumatic stress disorder) . Formerly called bomb shock and battle fatigue. But one need not to have been directly involved in combat to suffer from ptsd. These people are in dire need of psychiatric help; not spiritual counseling. In Christ, Vasilis

[John Michael Fowler]

dear Vasilis, have you heard of Roy Meadow Munchausen syndrome by proxy, I am no expert but it's women harming their children to get attention. People have been branded baby killers when the babies have died naturally, Angela Canning, is the most famous victim. That's a theory and it's been used to imprison innocent people and children have lost their families, been adopted.

Professor Sir Roy Meadow has now been disgraced thrown off the GMC but his evil has already wrecked families.

What is it better to base your life on Saint Seraphim or Roy Meadows?

I have seen horrific things in my life, as bad as war. The love of my life Maria was in a war- the Angolan civil war, she was tortured, she still has pains in her leg from where she was hit with a machete. We have both seen three babies die in miscarriage, my mother died of cancer. It's enough to send us both mad- but we're not thanks to God, thanks to St John Maximovitch, Saint Sabine, Saint Moses the Black and thanks to our Saviour and his precious Mother. That's the answer when evil enters your mind read Psalm 50 (51) that works, maybe I am not strong enough to do it myself but it does work. To go down the mental health route is no more advanced than going into a pub and drowning yourself in beer or scoring some drugs.

What can't God do? What can a Psychologist do that God can't? The mind and the spirit and the soul all this is God's realm, the body is man's.

My priest holds a masters degree in Psychology but he works as a translator, he tells me that Psychology is not worth it, why would he belittle something that he holds an MA in? We all have trials in life, we all have to be strong, maybe everyone isn't as strong as I am and Maria. My friend is on medication and it shocks them that with my problems I don't take it, but who needs it when the Holy Spirit is there? The Spirit is with us always, we are never alone, if you are lonely call on our Saviour, or one of the saints, there are so many of them...or am I talking nonsense? John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

No I don't think you are talking nonsense but rather you point to the real abuses and misunderstandings that can arise from psychology in regards to Orthodoxy.

As we should know as Orthodox Christians it is Christ and the Church which describe the illness and provide the cure. It is here I think that non-Orthodox medicine (spiritual & physical) can go more or less off the mark. It is in this sense that I agree with you John about the horrors which psychology/sociology can provide.

For example here in Winnipeg, Canada there was the famous case of the boy whose parents a psychologist convinced should be a girl. An operation was then done which left the boy/girl extremely damaged both physically & psychologically. Eventually as an adult this fellow took his own life. From simple misdiagnoses to cases where child workers were falsely accused and convicted of child molestation due to the involvement of psychologists (another true event which occured in Canada)there is plenty to be concerned about.

But what I think is important is to understand 1)if there is any room for the involvement of psychology in the life of Orthodox Christians. 2)and if there is room for involvement then what should it be or what should it be restricted to?

I completely agree that Christ and the spiritual life we are all called to can cure much more than we sometimes believe. On the other hand for example if I encounter someone who is a true schizophrenic I would hope the person was getting help from a psychologist/psychiatrist while also coming to the Church. Isn't this much like someone who has a broken leg and whom you expect to be in the hospital getting help from doctors & nurses? In this case the cure of the Church and of the medical profession is not contradictory but rather complementary.

I think that what is involved here is not the question of are we choosing the cure from Christ or rejecting this. Christ's cure comes from within the Church but through many different means. No one person holds the monopoly on the ability or helping to cure. That is why whether we are talking about physical or spiritual illness we ask the prayers & help of many. Of course we need to ask with discernment- but we do nevertheless ask for the help of many within the Church and also of some not in the Church as long as theirs is real & not false help.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Vasilis Kirikos]

dear Vasilis, have you heard of Roy Meadow Munchausen syndrome by proxy, I am no expert but it's women harming their children to get attention. People have been branded baby killers when the babies have died naturally, Angela Canning, is the most famous victim. That's a theory and it's been used to imprison innocent people and children have lost their families, been adopted...or am I talking nonsense? John "

No, my brother John. I do not think that you are talking nonsense. But one does not give up on medicine because of the mistakes doctors make. And they do make them daily. Nor does one give up on enforcing the law because of the mistakes (sometimes intentional) those who enforce the law make. Doctors also save lives daily. Many more than they kill by accident. And the law works more often than not. Where would society be without either? Munchausen syndrome is a reality of life. And there are and have been many misdiagnosis of that disorder. Shall we sacrifice the lives of children who suffer at the hands of their parents due to this disorder because mistakes have been made falsely accusing parents for such abuse? There is no doubt; misdiagnosis in the medical field is a major problem. That is why it is always a good idea to get a second and even a third opinion when diagnosed as having some major medical problem. When I was doing one of my rotations at Georgetown University one of my fellow students got an eye infection. We decided to try an experiment and sent him to 6 different attending physicians at the ophthalmic clinic at Georgetown. The treatments prescribed varied greatly with each from very aggressive treatment with medicaments to no treatment (let the problem resolve itself) ! Does that mean we should never visit an ophthalmologist? I think not! It means that people make different judgments on the same issues. Some of the judgments, while different, may produce the same desired results. A few times the diagnosis are clearly wrong. But I have seen reports of cases where Munchausen syndrome by proxy was clearly the correct diagnosis; and a child's life was saved. In this particualr case the mother was caught in the act! What she did was gross. However, this particular woman is/was sick. I do not believe that the law is right in meeting out punishment. For one thing I do not believe in punishment. NEVER! I believe in treatment and rehabilitation. PUNISHMENT ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING! Carting someone off to jail for years only produces a sicker, even more criminal mind. Such people leave having more criminal intent when they get out than when they went into one of those hell holes. Dr. Karl Menninger, a noted psychiatrists and founder of the famous Menninger Institute in Topeka, Kansas wrote a book titled "The Crime of Punishment" . I think that it is still apropos to our times and suggest that everyone read it. Lastly, on one occasion at one of the major meetings at the Menninger Institute a speaker (a psychiritsts) made this statement. THE MOST important treatment the mentally ill can receive is LOVE FROM THEIR FAMILIES. And with that he began to recite poetry! Poetry to sooth the troubled mind! Our Lord taught us to LOVE THE SINNER; AND DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO DESPITEFULLY USE AND ABUSE US. So why does society see so much value in punishment? This is not the way of the Lord. Lastly I wish to say this: The Quaker religion (BTW, Quakers are not Christians) gave American society three things...Herbert Hoover, Richard M. Nixon and the penal system; and none of the proved beneficial to our society. But what do you expect? The Quakers are not Christians. Vasilis

[Vasilis Kirikos]

Patriotes! Check this out : http://www.crete1941.com/home6.htm "The battle of Crete is coming to your town "The 11th Day"

Vasilis

[John Michael Fowler]

Dear Father Raphael and Brother Vasilis, thank you for your responses, I don't have much time.

Of course Roy Meadow is sometimes going to be right, if I said 'all dogs bite people' of course it's true of some dogs, I could say 'English people are liars' of course some of us are, but if I came out with Fowler's theory on English lying of course it would be absurd.

You both speak of psychology as if it is cancer treatment. I think Vasilis spoke of people needing treatment after war. Most of my friends are Angolans they've not had four or five years of war but decades, but not one of them has a shrink. Why?

I know the case you refer to Father, it was the case of identical twins both boys but one had an accident so was raised a girl. Yes doctors make mistakes, a lot. But I would make a difference between psychology,psychatry,scientology on one side and medicine on the other. Psychology is a fad, like astrology was once consulted by kings, and was by Nancy Reagan and Hitler, in another few centuries psychology will have passed us by. At least I hope so, but it shouldn't be allowed to tamper with Orthodoxy, the door should be firmly closed on it, just as it was closed against Manicheaism

in Christ John

[Vasilis Kirikos]

Dear brother in Christ, John. I understand your doubts about psychology. But I really don't think you fully understand psychology or its applications; and your doubts are not well founded. Psychology is well established in medicine; and it is far from being a fad. First of all its modern founder, Sigmund Freud was a medical doctor specializing in neurology. His interest in psychology was whetted when he began to receive paralyzed patients who had no physiological reasons for their paralysis. He determined that these patients indeed had no physiological reason for their paralysis but was based on pure hysteria. I am uncertain, but I think that he also saw patients who were seeking treatment for blindness; and he discovered they had no physiological reasons for their blindness. He was able to "cure" these patients by addressing their hysteria. In areas of Viet Nam and other nations of Indochina WHOLE VILLAGES OF PEOPLE BECAME HYSTERICALLY BLIND DUE TO THE SAVAGERY OF THE WAR THEY HAD EXPERIENCED..YES! WHOLE GROUPS! This is well documented. They had seen so much horror that their minds refused to see any more. As a clinician in ophthalmology I have seen first-hand hysterical blindness. Believe me these cases are real and the patient really thinks they cannot see. One method used for affirming hysterical blindness in these patients is to put obstacles in their path. The true hysterically blind will usually walk around these objects without being conscience of what they are doing. What these patients are told is that nothing medically can be found to explain their blindness. THEY ARE NEVER ARGUED WITH THAT THEY ARE NOT REALLY BLIND! WHY? BECAUSE IN THEIR MINDS THEY ARE TRULY BLIND. You make the assertion that "Most of my friends are Angolans they've not had four or five years of war but decades, but not one of them has a shrink. Why?" You seem to infer from this that they need no emotional help. I have my doubts as to the accuracy of your diagnosis. Merely because none of them has a "shrink" doesn't mean that none of them needs one. Anyway, how do you know for sure none of them has seen a professional in that field? Lastly, obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder and many forms of schizophrenia are successfully treated with medicaments. There really are people who are afraid to get out of their homes; indeed some are terrified. There really are people who due to their bipolar disease, think that they are millionaires and really have no money at all; and there really are people who due to their schizophrenia see fire coming out of the hands and heads of people, hear voices coming out of walls and commands directed to them coming from their radios and television sets and are terrified from this. Psychology a fad? Not very likely. BTW, if you read the historical accounts about inoculations against certain diseases during the days of Benjamin Franklin you will find the same arguments you are posing against psychology. Psychologist are not dunking witches......they never have! Our Lord instructed us to honor the physician. In Christ, Vasilis

[Owen Jones]

Some thoughts about modern psychology (which probably should be a separate thread).

Classical psychology, as developed by the Greek dramatists, and then developed rationally by Plato, deals with problems of motivation and orientation. Issues such as mania, narcissism, self-destructive behavior, self-delusion, mass psychosis, violence, injustice, were all dealt with by Plato as various pathologies. The cure was to look at both motivation and orientation. Without an orientation toward the Good, and the practical steps necessary for that proper orientation, there is no value in the analysis.

Later, the Church developed the primary curative function of theology. In particular, the desert fathers developed a very sophisticated range of diagnoses and responses, based on the theory of demonic influences.

Modern psychiatry and psychology develops as an immanentized, and utopian theory and practice in response to the loss of curative practice in the Church. Dogmatic assertions having replaced the curative tradition. If you look at all of the founders of modern psychology, they all have an ideology behind it -- a system of salvation that is devoid of a transcendent ground -- but self-indentified as a substitute for the older promise of salvation by the Church. Some of them, Freud included, allowed that if some "spirituality" helped people, that's fine, but it was viewed as strictly utilitarian. This is not to say that Freud did not make valuable observations. But the theory was irrational and some of his basic observations were flawed. One can make the same statement about all ideologues. They begin with some accurate empirical observation, and then build a theory and a cause around it. There is no question but what, in the heyday of psychiatry, in the first half of the 20th Century, it was seen as man's salvation. Through analysis, we could prevent the causes of war and inequality, etc. Jung even made the claim that if he could subject 3,000 of the world's leadership class to analysis, it would eliminate war. Jung is now completely discredited, not because of his flawed psychological theories, but because he was pro-Nazi, not realizing that the two were closely related. Group psychology and sensitivity training was prioneered by the Nazis and by pro-Nazi German psychologists.

The development of modern psychology and psycho-therapy is an outgrowth of American liberal protestantism. The original founders of psycho-therapy were Protestant ministers who also had an immanentized, utopian vision of changing human nature through therapy, and thereby eliminating war, injustice, and human misery.

The loss of faith in psychiatry and psycho-therapy seemed to reach its zenith in the 1970's with critical literature on Frued, ridicule that it was an indulgence among the upper middle class, and that the basic tenet of psychiatry, to make people better adjusted, was seen as fundamentally reactionary by the New Left. In fact, Freud was an extreme political reactionary who believed that conformity to social convention was the best we could hope for. He believed that neurosis was the result of repression of sexual desires, the result of Victorian social pressures, if not outright sexual abuse of children, which he claimed was virtually universal. The purpose of psychiatry was to identify the cause of this repression (usually having to do with sex), and then bring about a conformity to social convention (from which we get the term "well adjusted"). Marcuse turned Freud on his head, by saying that repression was the cause of neurosis, not just sexual represssion but political repression, and freedom from neurosis came from flouting social convention and in acting out one's sexual desires (the more public the display the better), as a means of bringing about a political revolution.

I think one is rightly skeptical of any practice based on such flawed theories and flawed empirical observations. Psychiatry has staged a comeback in recent decades by turning to pharmacology, and by identifying new nueroses that Freud never contemplated. So now we have millions of kids on rytalin, and millions of people on SSRI's, without looking at the spiritual, moral, or environmental causes of distress. Everything now is biochemical! But there is a furious debate within psychiatry about this two-fold problem: the inherent coerciveness of putting people on drugs who have emotional disturbances; and the apparent fact that these are at best stop gap measures, that what seems to work for most but the most severe cases of psychosis, is a combination of love and discipline. In fact, there is ample statistical evidence that psychotherapy and psychoanalysis compares to the placebo effect in drug trials. A large number of people respond, because they believe there is at least someone who cares about them. Just as a sugar pill has a positive effect on many sick people. My mother-in-law is now in intensive care, having had her colon removed. The surgeon, of all people, said that her recovery now depends almost entirely on family support, the conviction on her part that there are people who love her.

Long before we understood biochemistry, the desert fathers understood the link between spirit and body, and the need for systemic harmony. One cannot cure one alone. Unfortunately, the Church has reduced its teaching to dogma, and has lost its curative practice. The results are inevitable. People search for what they desire someplace else. No concern for the poor evident in the church? Become a Marxist. Psychological disturbance? Go see a shrink.

btw, we are reaping what we sowed in the 60's. Most of the psychological disturbances identified as bi-polar disorder, or OCD, or ADD, are the direct result of abuse of alcohol and drugs in the home. Also, psychiatry got a new lease on life in the 70's and 80's by getting insurance companies to pay for psychiatric treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts. There is no data whatsoever to support the conclusion that psychiatric treatment, including the use of pharmacology, has any success in treating drug and alcohol abuse, or its victims in the family. But because it is funded by insurance, it has become sacrosanct.

But the real question is where do we go from here? Unless and until the Church can rediscover its curative function and tradition, we should not criticise people who desperately seek alternatives, no matter how quack.

[Leandros]

In areas of Viet Nam and other nations of Indochina WHOLE VILLAGES OF PEOPLE BECAME HYSTERICALLY BLIND DUE TO THE SAVAGERY OF THE WAR THEY HAD EXPERIENCED..YES! WHOLE GROUPS! This is well documented. They had seen so much horror that their minds refused to see any more.


Classical psychology, as developed by the Greek dramatists, and then developed rationally by Plato, deals with problems of motivation and orientation. Issues such as mania, narcissism, self-destructive behavior, self-delusion, mass psychosis, violence, injustice, were all dealt with by Plato as various pathologies. The cure was to look at both motivation and orientation. Without an orientation toward the Good, and the practical steps necessary for that proper orientation, there is no value in the analysis.

“There is an ancient Greek “myth” about “Oedipus the King”, which was presented by Sophocles in his homonym dramatic play. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Soph.+OT+toc%20)

Let me present the summary of the play:

Laius and Jocasta were king and queen of Thebes, a town in Greece. One day, they had a baby boy. An oracle prophesied that the boy would grow up and kill his father and marry his mother. To thwart the prophecy, Laius and Jocasta decided to kill their baby. In those days, it was usual to leave an unwanted or defective baby in the wilderness. Laius and Jocasta did this.

A kindly shepherd found the baby. He gave the baby to a friend, who took it to Corinth, another town. The king and queen of Corinth couldn't have a baby of their own. So they adopted the foundling.

One day, after he had grown up, a drunk mentioned his being adopted. Oedipus questioned his parents, but they denied it. Oedipus visited various oracles to find out whether he was really adopted. All the oracles told him instead that he would kill his father and marry his mother.

To thwart the oracles, Oedipus left Corinth permanently.

Travelling the roads, Oedipus got into a traffic squabble and killed a stranger who (unknown to him) was King Laius - his original father.

Soon Oedipus's smarts saved the town of Thebes, and he was made king. (Oedipus solved the Riddle of the Sphinx. ‘What animal has four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs in the evening?’ Of course the answer is ‘a human being -- babies crawl and old folks use walking sticks.’) Oedipus married Laius's widow, Queen Jocasta (his veritable mother). He ruled well, and they had four children.

Eventually, Oedipus and Jocasta found out what had really happened. Jocasta committed suicide and Oedipus blinded himself.”

From this “myth” the ignorant psychologists have invented the “oedipus complex” (http://www.bartleby.com/65/oe/Oedipusc.html): “Resolution of the Oedipus complex is believed to occur by identification with the parent of the same sex and by the renunciation of sexual interest in the parent of the opposite sex. Freud considered this complex the cornerstone of the superego and the nucleus of all human relationships.”

For the Greeks, this Freudian resolution/invention is nonsense.

The “myth” has several levels of interpretation, but let us examine the last act of Oedipus: he blinded himself, after he had found his mother/wife dead. This is how Sophocles presents the scene (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Soph.+OT+1237):

A Messenger unfolds the scene to the Chorus:

“…With a dread cry, as though someone beckoned him on, he sprang at the double doors, forced the bending bolts from the sockets, and rushed into the room. There we beheld the woman hanging by the neck in a twisted noose of swinging cords. And when he saw her, with a dread deep cry he released the halter by which she hung. And when the hapless woman was stretched out on the ground, then the sequel was horrible to see: for he tore from her raiment the golden brooches with which she had decorated herself, and lifting them struck his own eye-balls, uttering words like these: ‘No longer will you behold such horrors as I was suffering and performing! Long enough have you looked on those whom you ought never to have seen, having failed in the knowledge of those whom I yearned to know--henceforth you shall be dark!’ With such a dire refrain, he struck his eyes with raised hand not once but often. At each blow the bloody eye-balls bedewed his beard, and sent forth not sluggish drops of gore, but all at once a dark shower of blood came down like hail….”

Then, the Chorus says to Oedipus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Soph.+OT+1367): “I cannot agree that you have counselled well: you would have been better dead than living and blind”.

And Oedipus replies: “Do not tell me that things have not been best done in this way: give me counsel no more … were there a way to choke the source of hearing, I would not have hesitated to make a fast prison of this wretched frame, so that I should have known neither sight nor sound.”

Now, let us compare the <u>words of Oedipus</u> with <u>the prophesy of Isaiah 6,8-10</u>:

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’ And I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’

He said, ‘Go and tell this people: "Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving. Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.’

Oedipus was forewarned to avoid meeting with his parents. According to his words: in his search for his real parents he “looked on those whom he ought never to have seen and he failed in the knowledge of those whom he yearned to know, therefore he condemned himself to blindness and deafness, so that he have known neither sight nor sound” - although he managed to carry out only the blindness condemnation. His story is an anagogic presentation of the story of Adam and Eve. They were, also, forewarned to avoid eating from the tree and afterwards they were excluded from “hearing” and “seeing” the failed knowledge which they yearned to know.

In this context, prophet Isaiah is called by God to teach the people of Israel repentance. In the same context, Jesus in numerous occasions (Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, John 12:40, Matthew 13:11-15) has said to His disciples that the practise of repentance presupposes the exclusion from the “view” of the parables: “[b]He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’” (Matthew 13:11-13).

Spiritual blindness and deafness are the preconditions of repentance. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). The poor in spirit knows his poverty and he can not find comfort in psychological techniques. His only comfort is the Life “beyond” life. The experiential knowledge of spiritual poverty is the most tragic and oppressive experience. It even makes the poor person to pray for the others, primarily for the others, because the poverty is not the realization of his personal failure, but the realization of failure of success: the success of existential richness is achieved through the enforcement of existential indigence.

We are used to say: “no matter what, life goes on”. Well, we are not supposed to carry on life “no matter what”. Life is not a show. Life is a REALITY. In every occasion of nastiness, death, war, hunger, illness and destruction there is a ruthless sigh coming from the heart: “Oh horror of darkness that enfolds me, unspeakable visitant, resistless, sped by a wind too favorable! Oh, me! and once again, Oh, me! How my soul is pierced by the stab of these goads and by the memory of sorrows!” (Oedipus) (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Soph.+OT+1313)

And as St Paul says: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:24). And he shows the Orthodox way of repentance: ”Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God…For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (Romans 8)

The psychology that makes “blind” people to “see” is a psychology against the path of repentance. It may restore natural order but it is destroying the spiritual order, it destroys the “hope” for the unseen.

Psychology that serves the functionality of human nature as an absolute ideal is a psychology against human freedom, because the exclusion from the psychological “health” is an absolute "normal life" for the person that is walking on the path of repentance.

The repentant is entitled “not to be psychologically healthy”, because his knowledge of life is a personal knowledge of failure of ‘life’ – not of his life, but of ‘life’ itself. He mourns not for his life, but for the ‘life’ as it has been known through relations with other people (war, death, agony, pain). The diagnosed “abnormality” of the Christian is the most genuine “normality” for a person that had the experience of the void/vain knowledge of life and it is his only way left to find the hope through the despair and the depression of repentance.

The knowledge of the forbidden is ontologically destroyed only through the path of repentance. Like Adam and Eve, like Oedipus, like the people of Israel, like the people that are being taught by Christ with “invisible” and “muted” parables we should also be allowed to live the “blind” and “deaf” experience of repentance. Sorrow, depression, frustration, the feeling of exclusion from the “normal” view of life is THE path of repentance. The “normal” view and sound of life is the Life of Holy Trinity that is missing from the “real” world. - “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:15-17)

But, psychology can not understand the difference between the sorrow, depression, frustration and the feeling of exclusion that originate from our failure to satisfy our passions, from the ones that originate from our failure to know, to see , to hear according to our legitimate yearning for Divine Life.

Psychology can not understand that the villagers in Vietnam were “blind”, because they were waiting, in repentance, for the God to heal them, just like He did once in Bethsaida: “Then He came to Bethsaida; and they brought a blind man to Him, and begged Him to touch him. So He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the town. And when He had spit on his eyes and put His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. And he looked up and said, ‘I see men like trees, walking.’ Then He put His hands on his eyes again and made him look up. And he was restored and saw everyone clearly&#187;. Mark 8:22-25). Just like the semi- healed blind man of the Scriptures, the people of “hysterical blindness” and the Vietnam villagers are capable to see just “man walking like trees” and wait for Christ to “make them look up and see everybody clearly”.

Like any other physiology, Psychology is providing just the technique to avoid obstacles. But, in many cases the problem of vision is not to see the visual obstacles, but to “look up” and see “everybody clearly”. This is also the case with the myth of Oedipus, who had the capability to visualize his authentic parents with his eyes, but he failed to see the reality “clearly” and after being conscious of the failure of his success he refused to continue “seeing” in an illusive way.

What the ancient Greeks with the myth of Oedipus are saying, what the Church is saying, is that the restoration of the failure of experiential knowledge is not a restoration of a natural failure and for that it can not be done by a technical restoration. Likewise, Sophocles says in the last lines of his drama through the Chorus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Soph.+OT+1516):

“Chorus:
Residents of our native Thebes, behold, this is Oedipus, who knew the renowned riddle, and was a most mighty man. What citizen did not gaze on his fortune with envy? See into what a stormy sea of troubles he has come! Therefore, while our eyes wait to see the final destined day, we must call no mortal happy until he has crossed life's border free from pain”.

This theatrical ending was called in ancient Greek theater "Katharsis" (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ka%2Fqarsis&bytepos=0&wordcount=1&embed=2), which means "being purified/clean". Psychology is unsuitable for this type of "cleaning".

May God bless us, all.

[Owen Jones]

Excellent post, with which I heartily agree.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

I&#39;ve just returned from my holidays, to find many interesting posts regarding psychology and faith in this thread, which has shifted from the initial focus on mystical marriages &#40;moderator?&#41;.

Much has been said here that I agree with, some of it very astute and creative. As a psychologist, I also find there is much in psychology that leaves me feeling frustrated, particularly in the area of theory. As a person trying to be Christian, I do see psychology as one way of helping people which is compatible with Christian faith, however flawed and imperfect it is. &#34;Psychology&#34; is not a monolithic ideology. It has many schools of thought, often in direct contradiction with one another. In my humble estimation, there is little reason to compare psychology with Orthodox Christianity: one is a scholarly and scientific discipline, the other a living faith. One is a source of human knowledge, the other a source of Divine wisdom. As a psychologist, I regularly see a priest for spiritual help. I have also received referrals from priests who acknowledge that a person may benefit from psychological help, not only due to the presence of psychosis &#40;which will likely require psychiatric pharmacotherapy in combination with psychotherapy anyway&#41;, but also due to relationship difficulties and stress and anxiety related issues which can benefit from psychological help. I do not think my clients are relieved of the need for prayer and repentance by coming to see me &#40;even this thought seems blasphemous to me&#41;, and although it&#39;s not a psychotherapeutic technique, I do sometimes pray for my clients and for help in helping them. I also see a psychologist colleague for supervision of my work with clients, and another for work on personal issues. To be honest, sometimes &#34;ideological&#34; conflicts do emerge. In the end however, I find that the conflicts which emerge are in me, not in the science or the faith, since man is a profound unity as created by God. I do not presume to have all the answers as a psychologist, and I do not think sincere Christians do either. Psychology is not salvation, it is a set of skills and ideas which can be useful when applied with intelligence and sensitivity - and differently in each case, since a new &#34;psychology&#34; has to be discovered to help each one of us. Every doctor knows that the cure is ultimately God&#39;s business, and its the same with psychologists, though that&#39;s not to say there aren&#39;t some self-proclaimed messiahs out there which it is definitely wise to steer clear of. Discernment is a key issue here, and I suspect hard-and-fast rules of the exclude / include variety will not do the topic or the people involved justice.

In Christ
Byron