My good friend recently sent me information regarding a study which took place from 1954 through 1964. In this study 51 monks agreed to undergo a psychoanalysis. The result - 2/3rd's left the monastery!
How did the pope respond to this study? Of course - He banned psychoanalysis! This banning of psychoanalysis is an institutional limit to human freedom; it's an oppressive act which is in the service of power, rather than in the service of truth. Galileo suffered such a fate at the hands of the Catholic church, and it took the church nearly 400 years to admit that they were wrong (ahh...the infallible pope was wrong!).
What do I mean by "truth" here? Well, ask yourself a question: what "truth" is there in the act of a monk leaving the "monkhood" as a result of psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis, in this case, reveals a truth which otherwise would not have been revealed: psychoanalysis revealed that the monks wanted to live another sort of life. The truth was revealed to the monks; not on behalf of religious faith; not on behalf of "unwavering faith" (unwavering faith is simply clinging to a proposition that one refuses to question - why should this be valued at all?); but on behalf of an agreement to simply speak THE TRUTH - the truth of the psyche without any restrictions of freedom...the question being: What comes to mind?
Why was the pope wrong (ahh, the infallible pope was wrong again!) in banning psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis (what the hell - any form of dynamic psychotherapy) could've been used as a method for determining whether one truly wanted to live a life in the monastery; there could've been huge potential here! Who knows...maybe psychoanalytical/psychological mindedness (which could've grown at the institutional level over time) could've prevented much harm which the church dished out in their later years; of course, I'm speaking of the rampant child abuse as well as the attempted cover-ups which the Church dwelt with for quite a while (mid 90's through the early 2000's).
What would Freud have called the Church's decision to ban psychoanalysis? Simple - repression. But as we know, every repression has its inverse: the return of the repressed. How has this repression, this banning of psychoanalysis, returned?
http://unreasonablefaith.com:80/2009/05/06/why-psychoanalysis-and-priests-dont-mix/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey Adam, great thoughts on this. Thanks for sharing. Here's a question: do you think anyone would do well to live a celibate lifestyle, believing themselves to be a higher class of mankind?
This was certainly the case for Issac Newton, who famously proclaimed that lifelong celibacy was his greatest accomplishment.
But in order for one to equate celibacy with supremacy, one must first have a conception of sexuality which renders sexuality primitive and animalistic; belonging to a "lower class" of mankind.
So to answer your question frankly: can one live well without sex? Of course! Those who are castrated have no choice (one is here reminded of Abelard).
But why must one equate celibacy with supremacy? What exactly is this equation based upon?
Sorry for not clarifying, I should have worded my question, "do you think anyone would do well to live a celibate lifestyle, believing themselves to be a higher class of mankind because they have been ordained as priests?" My intention was not to equate celibacy with supremacy, but to ask two distinct questions. The first question you have answered, that is, some are called to live a celibate lifestyle.
The second question deals with the idea that priests are "ordained" into ministry and are thus set apart as a higher class of people. The Catholic has several such hierarchical distinctions, such as priest, saint, bishop, Pope, etc. These are all above and distinct from the "laity," those "common" folks in the pews. Can anyone live a healthy life believing himself to belong to a higher class of mankind? I believe this will "get to your head," so to speak.
The process of being ordained in the Roman Catholic Church has been the primary motivator for hiding the sexual abuses in the early millennium, since they believe that it changes a priest into a new class of mankind. To remove a priest's ordination, a process called "defrocking," is very rare and causes a theological problem for Catholics (since they believe the priest's very being was changed when he was ordained). What are your thoughts on all of this?
I think what I'm getting at is that I wonder if anyone is meant to live in such isolation, with people treating them like some "holy man," not in the way that some analysands treat their analyst, but in a completely sacerdotal relationship, believing the priest is the mediator between an individual and God. Can that really be healthy? The priest likely never really forms a meaningful friendship with his parishioners, because they always view him as "Father."
Can anyone live a healthy life believing himself to belong to a higher class of mankind?
- This is, of course, the classical definition of narcissism. Narcissism expresses its own form of jouissance, or excess enjoyment. The narcissist will continue to get off on his/her self love until his jouissance begins to break down. In the case of Catholic priests, I believe this jouissance breaks down quite quickly, and they realize that "they" are not exactly equivalent to what their "flock" takes them to be.
As far as heath is concerned...who knows what is a "healthy" life! I sure as hell don't.
Now, regarding the theological question of the priest's being...
We must ask a preliminary question: what exactly lies at the heart of our being? At the heart of our being we are subjects, but what is a subject? A subject is a unstable temporal void which cannot be reduced to any of its predicates (predicates meaning imaginary-symbolic identifications such as priest, teacher, christian, philosopher, student, etc).
So, the priest's being identifies with the image of the priest, and he attempts to internalize all the symbolic rules (or ways of being) which accompany this image of the priest. The subject attempts to pacify his unstable conflict-ridden subjectivity via static imaginary-symbolic signifiers (the images, practices, and rules of priesthood). However, the subject is not reducible to its predicates: there is always that pesky, leftover "gooey stuff" which prevents the priest's being from being fully encapsulated by his role as priest. This leftover gooey stuff is the subject as such.
When these monks were psychoanalyzed their imaginary-symbolic identifications were called into question, and they became aware of how their being was split: split between their imaginary-symbolic identifications, and their abyssmal, void-like and unstable subjectivity as such. When this valley is carved out it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to return to our original mountain of being; we must make our way elsewhere. Hence, 2/3rd's of the monks left their "house of being," and found a new way of being.
Regarding your final paragraph...
Both the analyst and the priest are subjects-supposed-to-know. However, the priest wants to relate to members of his flock in a static and hierarchical manner: I'm the priest, I'll always be your priest, and you better continue comming to church!
The analyst, however, wants to bring his/her analysand to the point of realizing that the analyst is not the subject-supposed-to-know: he or she doesn't possess the key to life's riddles any more than the patient does! The priest wants to maintain the master/slave relationship while the analyst desires his patient to eventually reject the notion of a subject-supposed-to-know altogether!
Psychoanalysis seems closer to reality, because in reality there simply is no subject-supposed-to-know. The fantasy that there is, however, makes living much easier for most.
Hopefully, I was clear.
Well said, your points were very clear. A good psychoanalyst would certainly help the priest "reject the notion of a subject-supposed-to-know altogether."
I wonder how many priests legitimately are more concerned with keeping their parish's attendance high versus some idealistic (albeit fictional) goal. I know this is the primary motivation of many Protestant/evangelical pastors, but many priests I have met seem to have more internal goals, such as trying to please God (the Big Other), or trying to redeem their past lifestyle which may have been amoral.
To clarify, I see far more drive within Protestantism to fill the seats, while within Catholicism and Orthodox churches the motivation seems to be more internal for the priests, usually related to the Big Other (whether God or the comfort of the "lay" leaders).
Post a Comment