Are self help books dangerous?

[blackforest]

The most significant “anti-Christian thing” presented is the absence - the presumed irrelevance - of the Triune God in the matter at hand.

God is constantly present and relevant in my life. But not hearing His name mentioned in every secular setting isn’t necessarily “godlessness.” Cognitive-behavioral therapy, for example, is an evidence-based secular intervention for a lot of mental health conditions like depression and anxiety. It isn’t any more “godless” than a dental cleaning or a gall bladder operation. That doesn’t stop me from incorporating my faith into mental health treatment or medical procedures.

As another example, having a baby can be one of the most profoundly spiritual experiences of a woman’s life. I don’t think I’ve ever said more consecutive decades than I did during childbirth! That doesn’t mean that I demanded that every childbirth professional that I encountered share my faith.

Now I must say that every counselor/psychologist/analyst/psychiatrist who is a “registered” and selfless-described “Catholic” is not necessarily better than every non-Catholic one. Catholics have access to Catholic moral teachings if they seek them - concerning some very relevant contemporary moral issues, some Catholic parishes are embarrassingly silent.

As a social worker, I was exposed to clients across the faith spectrum and used it as a learning opportunity. It would have been a breech of professional ethics, however, to use my position as a conversion pulpit. The same applies to psychologists. A good one, however, will encourage you to anchor on to your faith during times of trial.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

The most significant “anti-Christian thing” presented is the absence - the presumed irrelevance - of the Triune God in the matter at hand.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but this sounds like you’re saying that everything that doesn’t explicitly mention God is per se anti-Christian. This can’t be what you mean, right?

 

[fide]

for @blackforest and @RolandThompsonGunner -

It is possible for a Christian to be “part-time” in his faith. God is there, when wanted; God is in a corner somewhere else, in “normal” life. When I am washing dishes, or paying bills, or keeping up with the latest in sports and entertainment, God is irrelevant. When I am gravely ill, or afraid, or in danger, or in serious need, or when a crisis confronts me - perhaps I turn to God, perhaps not, depending. But if asked if I am a believer, I say “Yes, of course.”

And many believers, I think, want to compromise with God. He may want me to be in His will, obedient to His will, 24-7-365; I may want to make a deal for something more “realistic” for us trying to have the best we can get both in this world, and in the world to come. A “reasonable” compromise of God with Mammon - we want to love both. Jesus says:

Mt 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

The word “remain” is a powerful, demanding word. It means “stay there”. “Don’t leave.”

John’s Gospel records this from Jesus, concerning His will for His followers:

Jn 15:4 Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, neither can you, unless you remain in me.
Jn 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who remains in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Jn 15:6 If a man does not remain in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.
Jn 15:7 If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.
Jn 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.

 

[TK421]

@fide Thank you. I really just want only Him. However, esteemed people in my life seem to earnestly be wanting me to help myself even more than just by God, but I think it really does lead oneself into promoting the self whether consciously or unconsciously, over devotion to God alone.

I think God Alone will suffice, but its so tempting to listen to their advice

It’s up to you, but reading material from people who are not Catholic is not sinful by itself.

As for the two books I mentioned: I can’t recall them saying anything that would go against the conscience of a well-formed Catholic. If they do, then that part of the material can be ignored without rejecting everything within it.

Everything created by God is good and everything that comes from God is good. That is why art, literature, music, science, math, as well as psychology are all good, because they all seek to better understand the world and to better understand the human person. All of these things can be misused, but by themselves they are all good.

Peace.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

It is possible for a Christian to be “part-time” in his faith. God is there, when wanted; God is in a corner somewhere else, in “normal” life. When I am washing dishes, or paying bills, or keeping up with the latest in sports and entertainment, God is irrelevant. When I am gravely ill, or afraid, or in danger, or in serious need, or when a crisis confronts me - perhaps I turn to God, perhaps not, depending. But if asked if I am a believer, I say “Yes, of course.”

And many believers, I think, want to compromise with God. He may want me to be in His will, obedient to His will, 24-7-365; I may want to make a deal for something more “realistic” for us trying to have the best we can get both in this world, and in the world to come. A “reasonable” compromise of God with Mammon - we want to love both. Jesus says:

This isn’t really responsive to what I was asking. I’m trying to clarify if you mean that advice or treatments that aren’t explicitly religious are per se “anti-Christian.”

For example, if I go to the doctor and I’m told I have a sinus infection, and she prescribes me an antibiotic and doesn’t say anything about God, is this some kind of implicit repudiation of Christianity?

I assume that isn’t what you mean, because that would be ridiculous, but just checking.

 

[blackforest]

God is there, when wanted; God is in a corner somewhere else, in “normal” life. When I am washing dishes, or paying bills, or keeping up with the latest in sports and entertainment, God is irrelevant.

God is with you during all of these times. He’s relevant, even if you’ve momentarily forgotten about Him and put your mind on other things.

A “reasonable” compromise of God with Mammon - we want to love both.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this analogy, but I really don’t think Catholics are “replacing” God with psychotherapy. At least for me, seeing a non-Catholic therapist helped me grow in my faith.

 

[fide]

For example, if I go to the doctor and I’m told I have a sinus infection, and she prescribes me an antibiotic and doesn’t say anything about God, is this some kind of implicit repudiation of Christianity?

If you leave the doctor healed, and give no thought to God who hid that antibiotic in His creation to be found and used by His human creatures, that they might look to Him for healings much more serious - such as the healing of sin for eternal beatitude - then you have participated in the godless secular culture - that Augustine called the city of man - to the delight of the evil one. The evil one wants every man to forget God completely.

God wants us to understand Truth - through the Son Incarnate. This life is for only a few years; we were made for eternity. This life is a test and an opportunity to awaken - to see and hear and understand, and live in Him - the City of God.

In our time we are seeing the city of man “on steroids” so to speak. Men have never before embraced such insanity - such irrationality, such rejection of reason itself, for the sake of self-gratification - as they have in our time.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

If you leave the doctor healed, and give no thought to God who hid that antibiotic in His creation to be found and used by His human creatures, that they might look to Him for healings much more serious - such as the healing of sin for eternal beatitude - then you have participated in the godless secular culture - that Augustine called the city of man - to the delight of the evil one. The evil one wants every man to forget God completely.

So why couldn’t someone make use of psychological treatment in the same way? See a secular therapist while also continuing to pray, and thank God for the services of the therapist?

Your original point made it sound like if someone sees a therapist they are per se repudiating God. You keep answering with a speech about why forgetting God is bad, which is not a point anyone is contesting.

 

[fide]

At least for me, seeing a non-Catholic therapist helped me grow in my faith.

I’m happy to hear that! We all need to grow in living faith. We need strong faith, able to hold fast in trials, because very difficult trials, testing faith in ways we might not ever have imagined, could come to us in our lifetime here in the “advanced”, the “stable”, the “civilized” West.

 

[fide]

So why couldn’t someone make use of psychological treatment in the same way? See a secular therapist while also continuing to pray, and thank God for the services of the therapist?

Your original point made it sound like if someone sees a therapist they are per se repudiating God. You keep answering with a speech about why forgetting God is bad, which is not a point anyone is contesting.

As far as I know, the science of psychology - like all the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, …) - intentionally limits the horizons of its purview to natural causes and effects. As long as this is the case (if it is), its purview is too limited to touch and heal the wounds of men, and to advance the health of men, as we need. Humanity is made for - is called to - more than the finite, natural observables to which science limits itself.

Psychology touches the profoundly intimate inner life of men! This is very different from physics and chemistry, for example. Matters of the body (the brain, the organ of the physical heart, etc.) are very different from matters of the soul (which includes the intellect, memory and the will - and the “heart” meaning the center of the person, the self). These natural human spiritual faculties are made to participate in supernatural virtues and life.

Therefore dealing with man strictly on a natural level is inadequate. If such dealings (in psychology, for example), are integrated with the supernatural needs of men, then fine. But to reduce or limit one’s understanding of man to the merely natural is to reduce man to merely a more complicated animal, and not a creature made in the divine image, made for fellowship with God, made with a “heart” - a spiritual center - that is made for God and will be restless until it rests in Him.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

As far as I know, the science of psychology - like all the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, …) - intentionally limits the horizons of its purview to natural causes and effects. As long as this is the case (if it is), its purview is too limited to touch and heal the wounds of men, and to advance the health of men, as we need. Humanity is made for - is called to - more than the finite, natural observables to which science limits itself.

This is just not true. Of course psychologists limit themselves to psychology; that’s the field they’re competent in. Dentists and doctors also limit themselves to materialist explanations. If we accept your principle, a Catholic who gets a root canal performed by a dentist is implicitly rejecting God.

I think you’re getting lost in a lot of unnecessary speech making and flowery prose. No Catholic philosopher or theologian would defend the idea that going to a doctor who practices, you know, medicine (ie assuming the physical ailment has a material cause and can be treated with physical means) is denying the primacy of God, or is implicitly asserting that material explanations are the only explanations.

But to reduce or limit one’s understanding of man to the merely natural

No one is doing this; accepting a medical discipline as legitimate doesn’t negate a belief in God. You’re starting from the assumption that people who accept psychology as legitimate are claiming it’s a comprehensive explanation for existence and thus replaces religion. I don’t know where you’re getting there.

Anyway, I’m sufficiently confused so I’ll bow out.

 

[fide]

I’m sorry I was not clearer for you.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I’m sorry I was not clearer for you

No apologies needed. This is the internet, signals get crossed a lot.

 

[mary77]

for instance , to see our bodies as a gift from God, to eat what we need, not use our appetite to calm oruselves from sadness or anxiety, but to respect our bodys because we know our body is the vessel for our soul and God wants us be joyful and enjoy living in our body. You can do anything better for yourself through spiritual guidance.

 

[mary77]

i think we were given a brain to learn knowledge so we can discern between the best choices to make in order to live at our best health, to respect our bodys given by God, so to know how everything works, and know what in anything we eat or use or accept. I think we are always in two places at once , here standing with our feet on the ground and our soul in the spirit world, working together through education and knowledge and prayer.