Evil vs mentally ill, what's the difference? What's the Christian response?

[seekerz]

This topic may have been covered in some form before, so my apologies if it is repetitious. I know I’ve had questions in the past and my concerns persist so here goes:

Often when something tragic happens, we hear the perpetrator variously described as sick, evil or worse. Of course we know that mental illness is real and so is evil. The points I’d like discussed are:

1. If a person has been diagnosed with mental illness, is it appropriate to describe him or his acts as evil? The acts may be heinous, yes, but calling them evil seems to me to imply an exercise of will. If his mental illness made him unable to control his actions, are we justified in this description? Does an action have to be willed to be described as evil?
2. There seems to be a relatively new (?) tendency to classify behavior previously considered simply aberrant, as medical disorders. For example, alcoholism is now considered a disease. With this being the case, how much responsibility can we attribute to a perpetrator suffering from such conditions? Can his acts be described as evil?
3. In the case of behavior disorders such as ADD, ODD, difficult behavior may affect every area of a sufferer’s personality. Could there be a spiritual component and how can we tell? How much of behavior is brain chemicals and how much has a spiritual basis? Are people with those disorders to be assigned the same responsibility for their acts as unaffected people?
4. In this age of holistic medicine, where illness and healing is acknowledged to often have not just a physical component, how much weight do we give to the spiritual? Not as much as the fringe Christians who see every disease as the devil’s handiwork, I know, but how much?

We have a responsibility to treat those who suffer from mental illness with the compassion, but some events/tragedies seem to make that really hard to do. Maybe a better understanding of the above issues could help.

I’d appreciate any guidance, discussion or airing of similar concerns.

 

[teachccd]

There are certain acts that are intrinsically evil. Torturing someone is, by it’s very nature, an evil act. But the culpability of the one committing the act is a completely different issue. We cannot mix apples and oranges. If one is in a state of mind that disallows rational thinking, then the discernment of right and wrong may be severely impaired thereby reducing the accountability of that person. This does not negate the fact that the act was evil and given a rational mind one would be fully culpable and would probably be in the state of mortal sin. Only God can judge and I leave that up tp Him.

So, evil vs. mentally ill is exactly that. Two separate and perhaps opposing issues… God Bless

 

[Mike_Brick]

This topic may have been covered in some form before, so my apologies if it is repetitious. I know I’ve had questions in the past and my concerns persist so here goes:

Often when something tragic happens, we hear the perpetrator variously described as sick, evil or worse. Of course we know that mental illness is real and so is evil. The points I’d like discussed are:

Teachccd has it right, you are talking two different issues.

1. If a person has been diagnosed with mental illness, is it appropriate to describe him or his acts as evil? The acts may be heinous, yes, but calling them evil seems to me to imply an exercise of will. If his mental illness made him unable to control his actions, are we justified in this description? Does an action have to be willed to be described as evil?

There seems to be a relatively new (?) tendency to classify behavior previously considered simply aberrant, as medical disorders. For example, alcoholism is now considered a disease. With this being the case, how much responsibility can we attribute to a perpetrator suffering from such conditions? Can his acts be described as evil?

Insane is a legal term, used to describe someone who was not aware his act(s) are evil, and therefore illegal. A person determined to be insane cannot be convicted of a crime. Whether the act(s) are sinful is another issue and is to be judged by God alone.

1. In the case of behavior disorders such as ADD, ODD, difficult behavior may affect every area of a sufferer’s personality. Could there be a spiritual component and how can we tell? How much of behavior is brain chemicals and how much has a spiritual basis? Are people with those disorders to be assigned the same responsibility for their acts as unaffected people?

We know a lot, and every succeeding generation learns more, but we do not know much about the actual cause of bad behavior. I spent 33 years in state and local law enforcement and many times thought I had it figured out only to be let down on the next case. Yes there are problems that can be attributed to “brain chemicals”, and especially to brain injury, but sometimes we see the same behavior from others who are not so afflicted.

1. In this age of holistic medicine, where illness and healing is acknowledged to often have not just a physical component, how much weight do we give to the spiritual? Not as much as the fringe Christians who see every disease as the devil’s handiwork, I know, but how much?

You are describing fringe Christians on one extreme, and there is another extreme that removes culpability by claiming illness, not mailce. Both must realize that evil entered our world with the act of Adam and Eve, who were urged on by the devil himself. Were it not so, we wouldn’t be discussing it this way. Lately and IMHO, as a result of the sin of Adam, we expect to have all the answers regarding good and evil, but we just don’t and in this life we never will.

We have a responsibility to treat those who suffer from mental illness with the compassion, but some events/tragedies seem to make that really hard to do. Maybe a better understanding of the above issues could help.

I’d appreciate any guidance, discussion or airing of similar concerns.

Your topic deserves careful thought from everyone. One warning, don’t believe much of what you see and hear in the news. They get it so wrong much of the time, mostly because in a great many of the issues, especially with the electronic media, they only spend a few minutes researching, and then publish something that seems credible, when it isn’t.

God Bless

 

[blessedtoo]

1. If a person has been diagnosed with mental illness, is it appropriate to describe him or his acts as evil? The acts may be heinous, yes, but calling them evil seems to me to imply an exercise of will. If his mental illness made him unable to control his actions, are we justified in this description? Does an action have to be willed to be described as evil?

As teachcd stated, an intrisically evil act is just that, regardless of who the actor is or what the circumstances are. The act itself is evil.

Having worked with mentally ill people, it is not always clear for us to determine how much culpability they have with regard to evil acts. One gentleman I worked with was schizophrenic and bi-polar. His disease was severe and he was rarely at a “baseline”, the period when he might have been capable of discerning right acts. However, there was a sense of wrong and right that was inherent most of the time. How far this sense could permeate all his actions is arguable. Some of the symptoms of mental illness can also cause great confusion when trying to understand culpability. With this particular person, hightened sexual obsession was a big part of his psychopathology. During these periods, it would have been impossible for him to comprehend the moral implications of his behavior.

1. There seems to be a relatively new (?) tendency to classify behavior previously considered simply aberrant, as medical disorders. For example, alcoholism is now considered a disease. With this being the case, how much responsibility can we attribute to a perpetrator suffering from such conditions? Can his acts be described as evil?

This is a different scenario from mental illness. While there may be substance to the argument that a person in full blown alcoholism has compromised his ability to choose freely, it can also be argued that for one to achieve this level of disability, one would have had to be choosing freely all along to continue drinking enough to develop an addiction. In addition, one could question the validity of this assertion by pointing out that many alcoholics do in fact finally stop drinking of their own volition. What happens to them that they finally discover this ability to choose freely even in the midst of their addiction?

As an ex-drunk, I do take issue with the “disease” approach to alcoholism. While I understand it has helped many, I also think it is partly responsible for the “disease culture” we now live in. Shop too much? You have a disease. Fornicate too much? You have a disease. I think it’s a slippery slope which has contributed to the near decimation of personal responsiblity in our society.

1. In the case of behavior disorders such as ADD, ODD, difficult behavior may affect every area of a sufferer’s personality. Could there be a spiritual component and how can we tell? How much of behavior is brain chemicals and how much has a spiritual basis? Are people with those disorders to be assigned the same responsibility for their acts as unaffected people?

You can probably guess that I have trouble accepting the loose and liberal diagnosis of these “disorders” as well. Back in the stone age, many of these behaviors would have been recognized for what they are: poor discipline and lack of moral direction. Boys that couldn’t sit still in class were said to have “ants in the pants” and the sister’s would deal with that in their own ways. Today, these rambunctious kids are medicated to keep them quiet. Anyway, enough ranting.

If I were to equate these disorders to something a bit more grounded in medical and scientific fact, I would liken them to mental retardation. In these cases, folks who are handicapped in this way certainly can’t be held culpable for acts which are intrisically evil. Children who are severely mentally retarded often engage in hyper-sexual behavior, have violent tendencies, etc. Yet they clearly have no ability to discern right from wrong. Of course, it would depend on where one falls on the continuum with regard to how compromised their mental faculties are.

 

[blessedtoo]

1. In this age of holistic medicine, where illness and healing is acknowledged to often have not just a physical component, how much weight do we give to the spiritual? Not as much as the fringe Christians who see every disease as the devil’s handiwork, I know, but how much?

I suffer with a medical condition whose pathology is ambiguous and contested within the medical community. I have been reluctantly forced to seek help in the holistic medicines because western treatments have failed. In my personal experience, one must be very careful to discern fact from quack. While it’s true there is a mind/body connection, as a Catholic, I also have to factor in the grace involved in suffering and the power of God. I do not believe my mind can heal me. I do not believe my mind can kill me. However, between those two extremes exists the reality that some behavioral and cognitive adjustments can help certain medical conditions.

I am open to the possibility that “natural” remedies can help heal physical ills. I am open to the possibility that certain body manipulation treatments like massage and Chiropracty can provide some relief from pain and suffering. I am convinced that prayer helps the mind, soul and body.

I place no stock in the “new age” slant on holistic health. I don’t partipate in reiki, crystals, yoga, etc. Even before my return to the Church, these approaches rang false.

I don’t percieve my illness, or anyone else’s, to be from God. I believe completely that I am allowed to suffer for some greater purpose. However, I do fall victim to questioning that purpose and sometime’s wondering if God is paying attention! Apparently, I am not alone in this, as Blessed Mother Theresa also had doubts and questions. Thankfully, I can ask her for help!

We have a responsibility to treat those who suffer from mental illness with the compassion, but some events/tragedies seem to make that really hard to do. Maybe a better understanding of the above issues could help.

This is such a great point and an issue which brings up many conflicting thoughts and feelings for me. It was all brought to a head recently with the conviction of John Couey and the subsequent decision to give him the death penalty. I have been following this horrific case for years and no other story has touched me as deeply. I found myself hoping the judge would give him the death penalty, primarily so that Jessica’s father might have some peace. To realize I hoped for someone’s death has been very disturbing for me. While the judge completely dismissed the defense attorney’s attempt to paint Couey as mentally retarded, I have always felt while watching him that there was something not quite right. While there have been murderers who so clearly personify evil that you have no doubt they knew what they were doing, this man did not strike me in this way. When they released the audio tapes of a conversation he had with his sister right before his verdict was read, I was even more disturbed by what seemed to be a clear lack of comprehension on his part for what he did. Of course, I wasn’t in the trial and didn’t hear all the facts of the case so I can only go with my gut speculation. In any event, this is one of those cases I think you are referring to when you said some events and tragedies make it hard for us to extend compassion.

I guess for me, compassion and justice are not mutually exclusive. I feel a great deal of compassion for Couey. I know he had a terrible life, filled with voilence, abuse, and despair. I am tremendously sad that this was his experience on earth. But that doesn’t dismiss the evil that he did, nor does it pardon him from the penalty.

Holy cow! I guess I had alot to say about all this!

 

[seekerz]

Thank all of you so much for sharing. There’s a lot of food for thought in there.Things are becoming clearer now. Guess there’ll always be a some murky areas, but we can’t expect to understand it all. It’s enough if we know that which is necessary to treat (and talk about) people rightly.

 

[pyropam]

I’ve been to both mental wards and prisons. Have you??? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference in the people housed there. It may sound crazy to you but certain people from both groups seem demonic.

Could a “sane” person commit murder??? I don’t think so.

Could a “sane” person assault/rape a child??? I don’t think so.

So should all those who commit murder or child molestation be sent to a mental ward??? I don’t think so.

When people are a danger to others then they should be put away for a lifetime.

If we went through the prison system and moved all those with mental illness to a mental hospital…the prison system would be virtually empty.

 

[seekerz]

I’ve been to both mental wards and prisons. Have you??? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference in the people housed there. It may sound crazy to you but certain people from both groups seem demonic.

Could a “sane” person commit murder??? I don’t think so.

Could a “sane” person assault/rape a child??? I don’t think so.

So should all those who commit murder or child molestation be sent to a mental ward??? I don’t think so.

When people are a danger to others then they should be put away for a lifetime.

If we went through the prison system and moved all those with mental illness to a mental hospital…the prison system would be virtually empty.

Are you suggesting that all criminals are insane? Or are you implying that the presence of mental illness in a criminal should not affect how he’s punished?

As for putting dangerous people away for life, it depends on what they’ve done and how you define dangerous. A drunk driver is certainly dangerous but I think you’ll agree that a DUI shouldn’t merit life in prison.

It would be helpful to note that neither criminal inclinations, nor mental illness are particularly picky about the families they rear their heads in. One reason why this is an important topic to ponder.

 

[blessedtoo]

I’ve been to both mental wards and prisons. Have you??? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference in the people housed there. It may sound crazy to you but certain people from both groups seem demonic.

Could a “sane” person commit murder??? I don’t think so.

Could a “sane” person assault/rape a child??? I don’t think so.

So should all those who commit murder or child molestation be sent to a mental ward??? I don’t think so.

When people are a danger to others then they should be put away for a lifetime.

If we went through the prison system and moved all those with mental illness to a mental hospital…the prison system would be virtually empty.

I surely do not agree nor do I think it’s that black and white.

In most U.S. states, legal insanity is not sufficient to avoid a guilty verdict, rather to be not guilty by reason of insanity it must be demonstrated that the defendant could not tell the difference between right and wrong.

reference.com/browse/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
Most crimes are comitted by people who are completely sane but choose to do evil. It is rare that true insanity is the cause. Even in cases where the defendent is clearly insane, such as with Jeffrey Dahmer, insanity is rarely accepted as an excuse for criminal behavior.

Even those who are technically “insane” still have the ability to tell right from wrong in certain situations. This alone would cause doubt for those trying to determine culpability and guilt.

 

[seekerz]

I surely do not agree nor do I think it’s that black and white.

reference.com/browse/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
Most crimes are comitted by people who are completely sane but choose to do evil. It is rare that true insanity is the cause. Even in cases where the defendent is clearly insane, such as with Jeffrey Dahmer, insanity is rarely accepted as an excuse for criminal behavior.

Even those who are technically “insane” still have the ability to tell right from wrong in certain situations. This alone would cause doubt for those trying to determine culpability and guilt.

I’ve always wondered about that legal standard. It’s one thing to be able to distinguish right from wrong, but what if capacity for self-control is impaired?

Do you think that a mental condition that significantly diminishes the capacity for self-control, diminishes moral responsibility for wrongdoing?

 

[blessedtoo]

I’ve always wondered about that legal standard. It’s one thing to be able to distinguish right from wrong, but what if capacity for self-control is impaired?

Do you think that a mental condition that significantly diminishes the capacity for self-control, diminishes moral responsibility for wrongdoing?

I think that we have annihilated the concept of moral responsibility by allowing the psychiatric community and pop psychology in general to label sin and moral failing as “disorders”. Consider the “anger management” issue. Many domestic violence cases are dumbed down by this assessment and men (or women) who beat or abuse their spouses are trotted off to classes to “learn” about their “addiction” to anger. What rubbish. Anyone who beats their spouse should be seeking counsel with their spiritual advisor to learn about the true nature of marriage. What programs like “anger management” do is continue to place the focus on the perpetrator by having them “explore” the issues behind why they abuse (which almost always includes wallowing in memories of their own abuse issues). It’s simple really. They lack understanding of the meaning of love, marriage, and moral character. Do you think a pop therapist can teach that?

If you are interested in exploring this issue in depth, I recommend a great book that discusses the origins of the “disorder” movement.
amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Therapy-Self-Reliance/dp/0312304439

An incident occurred with the man I spoke of before where, in a fit of “rage”, he pushed one of his nurses against a door. Later, when the incident was reviewed and he was confronted, he said that he understood that his behavior was wrong and that he “stopped” himself from hurting her even more than he had. He was a huge guy and she a tiny woman. He could have done alot more damage but he held himself back. Even in the midst of his complete mental decompensation, he recognized some capacity for self restraint.

Since I have so little trust and faith in the psychiatric community, I suppose I am skeptical of their ability to discern moral truth in many of these cases. Rather than name it for what it is - sin and moral failure - they create a new “disorder”, which immediately neutralizes moral responsibility.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The act should be described for what is, evil that the mentally ill person can see public disaproval and may in time develop a conscious of right and wrong. Don’t excuse their behavior, let there be consequences for bad behavior, regardless of mental state. Those consequences also serve to protect the public from harm and may have an effect of teaching the person right and wrong, even if it is just to advoid those consequences.

 

[seekerz]

The act should be described for what is, evil that the mentally ill person can see public disaproval and may in time develop a conscious of right and wrong. Don’t excuse their behavior, let there be consequences for bad behavior, regardless of mental state. Those consequences also serve to protect the public from harm and may have an effect of teaching the person right and wrong, even if it is just to advoid those consequences.

Interesting point of view and I agree to a limited extent because only professionals can really quantify a person’s extent of mental illness or low IQ. Some may be able to learn with reward/punishment, some may not have that ability.

My own feeling is that the word evil, though rightly applied to the act, should be used with care because it can just as easily slip into usage to describe the perpetrator. For a genuinely mentally ill person, not only is that unjustified in my opinion, but it also serves to blur the difference between ‘mentally ill’ and ‘evil’, making them essentially one and the same.

Sure there should be consequences, but for the mentally ill, that should consist of placing them where society can be protected against them, without the element of punishment. I.e. provide them a reasonably comfortable environment, provide medication/other professional help - just keep them where they can’t harm anyone.

One the other hand, for a criminal who is mentally competent, the emphasis should be on punishment and depending on the severity of the crime, where appropriate, rehabilitation. Prisoners should be made to earn their keep and should be provided with the bare essentials of life, in my opinion.

 

[goofyjim]

Actually facts show that when it is mental illness and being properly treated those people are less likely to commit violent crimes while on their medication. So it would behoove us to find funding to treat them so as to bring the crime rate down. Violent criminals are not ill. They instead are patholigical which cannot be treated with medication. JPII in addressing mental patients at a hospital once said they were very close to God. If the mentally ill were evil why would he say such a thing?