W
wopako
Guest
Sorry, I didn’t clarified that In the book recommended by You author writes about alleged Freud’ satanism.
Freudianism (but largely misinterpreted) had profound impact on culture, maybe more than darwinism.
- Status
Freudianism (but largely misinterpreted) had profound impact on culture, maybe more than darwinism.
C
catholictiger
Guest
sorry for not understanding there. My professor just copy and pasted from (I think this book I may be remembering incorrectly).
This argument isn’t going to go anywhere though you have your view I have my view I doubt that we would be able to find common ground.
E
empther
Guest
In *Peace of Soul * (1949), Bishop Sheen trashed Freud’s theories.
Basically, it was Freud’s theory that the nature of man was certain instincts, instincts for sex, self-presevation, hunger etc etc etc. And certainly man’s body has all these instincts.
But Freud thought that man’s unconscious has great control over his behavior, and that when repressed ideas were conflicted in the unconsious man’s behavior became neurotic or insane.
To maintain this philosophy, for that is what it is, you have to reject the existence of God, because you have to say that man is a slave of his instincts. He has no soul that can overcome the body’s urges.
Sheen did not condemn all psychoanalysts. He said some did good, useful work when they did not adhere strictly to Freud’s godless philosophy. He noted that many psychoanalysts were distancing themselves from Freud’s school by calling themselves psychiatrists. This was way back in 1949 !
Sheen’s book concentrated on the problem of guilt. It is guilt which troubles so many people. Solid Catholics get rid of this guilt by confession and leaving sin behind.
Without confession, or without admitting the reality of sin at all as so many modern people fail to do, there is no escape from guilty except through alcoholism, drugs, or deliberate or indifferent destruction of the conscience.
For Sheen, the nature of man was threefold: a being who has a body, a spiritual soul, and a love of God.
The love of God works in both directions: man loves God and God loves man.
The “love of God” is a real component of man. It operates. It effects to a large extent what a man who loves God does. For a reverent, good man, it’s no longer a question of not doing sins because they’re forbidden. That’s negative. Rather, the reverent, good man wants to do God’s will. Thus, to be a good man is easy for him. “My yoke is easy and my burden is light” Matt 11;30.
For a man who is not devoted to God, this “love of God” dies. As a result the soul dies in the sense that it is not functioning as it should, and the body dies in the sense that it is not functioning as it should.
Basically, it was Freud’s theory that the nature of man was certain instincts, instincts for sex, self-presevation, hunger etc etc etc. And certainly man’s body has all these instincts.
But Freud thought that man’s unconscious has great control over his behavior, and that when repressed ideas were conflicted in the unconsious man’s behavior became neurotic or insane.
To maintain this philosophy, for that is what it is, you have to reject the existence of God, because you have to say that man is a slave of his instincts. He has no soul that can overcome the body’s urges.
Sheen did not condemn all psychoanalysts. He said some did good, useful work when they did not adhere strictly to Freud’s godless philosophy. He noted that many psychoanalysts were distancing themselves from Freud’s school by calling themselves psychiatrists. This was way back in 1949 !
Sheen’s book concentrated on the problem of guilt. It is guilt which troubles so many people. Solid Catholics get rid of this guilt by confession and leaving sin behind.
Without confession, or without admitting the reality of sin at all as so many modern people fail to do, there is no escape from guilty except through alcoholism, drugs, or deliberate or indifferent destruction of the conscience.
For Sheen, the nature of man was threefold: a being who has a body, a spiritual soul, and a love of God.
The love of God works in both directions: man loves God and God loves man.
The “love of God” is a real component of man. It operates. It effects to a large extent what a man who loves God does. For a reverent, good man, it’s no longer a question of not doing sins because they’re forbidden. That’s negative. Rather, the reverent, good man wants to do God’s will. Thus, to be a good man is easy for him. “My yoke is easy and my burden is light” Matt 11;30.
For a man who is not devoted to God, this “love of God” dies. As a result the soul dies in the sense that it is not functioning as it should, and the body dies in the sense that it is not functioning as it should.
W
wopako
Guest
C. S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” wrote:
“Now you want to distinguish very clearly between two things: between the actual medical theories and technique of the psychoanalysts, and the general philosophical view of the world which Freud and some others have gone on to add to this. The second thing-the philosophy of Freud - is in direct contradiction to the other great psychologist, Jung. And furthermore, when Freud is talking about how to cure neurotics he is speaking as a specialist on his own subject, but when he goes on to talk general philosophy he is speaking as an amateur. It is therefore quite sensible to attend to him with respect in the one case and not in the other - and that is what I do. I am all the readier to do it because I have found that when he’s talking off his own subject and on a subject I do know something about (namely, language) he is very ignorant. But psychoanalysis itself, apart from all the philosophical additions that Freud and others have made to it, is not in the least contradictory to Christianity. Its technique overlaps with Christian morality at some points and it would not be a bad thing if every person knew something about it: but it does not run the same course all the way, for the two techniques are doing rather different things.”
freevampirebooks.org/book3/Mere_Christianity/14784.html
C
catholictiger
Guest
The guy does more then just psychology I have no issue with a pure scientific psychology but when you try to use science to argue philosophy we have a problem. I Freud stuck only with psychology then I have no issue but if uses that to argue philosophy than i have issues.
W
wopako
Guest
Man can be priest and simultaneously psychoanalyst, and talking meaningfully:
"Gender theory ‘creates serious problems,’ says priest
One of civilization’s pillars, the objective recognition of sexual difference, is collapsing, a priest psychoanalyst warned the Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) annual seminar here March 22-23.
Gender theory, an ideology which developed in the 1950s, has redefined sexuality, moving it away from objective sexual differences to subjective notions based on sexual orientation, said Msgr. Tony Anatrella, a Paris psychoanalyst and specialist in social psychiatry.
This theory, which has gained dominance especially among feminists and homosexuals, argues biological sex is not a determinant, but that one’s gender is a social construct, he said. “This creates serious problems.”
Among those problems: a rise in suicide rates even among children, increasing narcissism that keeps adults trapped in infantile forms of sexuality such as masturbation, rising rates of homosexuality, and the inability of young people to form permanent male-female bonds that children need for their healthy psychological development, he said.
“We need a social revolution,” he told about 110 people from across the country. They had gathered for the seminar on the theme “Men and Women, Spouses and Parents: Forming Christian Citizens.”
We need to confront people with the truth even if it means getting into a fight, he said, urging participants not to be deterred by taunts of “homophobia.”
We face a pre-Christian mentality, and must evangelize and humanize the whole of society. We are forced to start anew from the fundamentals, he said.
In Western countries we must stop being afraid to speak up against trends that are oversimplifying things and leaving young people lost. We must create a Christian social fabric that is alive and expanding and provides a model for others.
The origin of the relationship between men and women predates society and does not issue primarily from religion, but from anthropology, Msgr. Anatrella said. Men and women experience a sexual otherness and complementarity that is based in reality.
Christianity provides the fullest recognition of the reality of sexual complementarity based on human anthropology, he said, noting the New Testament begins with the story of a couple, Mary and Joseph, just as Genesis begins with Adam and Eve. The future depends on men and women becoming couples in a lifelong marriage, he said.
The problem with young people is they do not know how to be couples, he said. They know how to seduce each other and to build a relationship in a weekend, but not how to build their union into a lifelong relationship. Many divorce after 10 years.
Gender theory has dehumanized the sexes, dehumanized the embryo, and dehumanized fecundity, he said.
Consequences can be noted even on a biological level. Sperm have lost 50 per cent of their fertility because of chemicals from birth control pills that have found their way into the food chain and water supply, even altering the sexual characteristics of fish, he said.
On a psychological level, psychic life and the development of a proper relationship with external objective reality requires an integration of the objective fact of our biological sex as male or female, he said.
The marriage of a man and a woman allows a child to discover the meaning of objective truth outside his or her self, Msgr. Anatrella said. When we do not have objective reality, only the notion that we are creating ourselves, we are following the narcissistic myth of someone who does not need anyone else, not even God.
We must present the truth of the most basic human relationships grounded in the complementarity of the sexes, he said, not in the limited, unisexual, self-sufficiency model that says men and women do not need each other to marry, to have sex, and to conceive.
The father helps a child discover external reality and the law. He reveals and shows the child how to enter into the world, he said.
The mother helps cultivate a child’s internal reality, including his or her imagination and spiritual side through singing songs and telling stories. She helps the child discover relationship and provides support and recognition."
bccatholic.ca/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1516-gender-theory-creates-serious-problems-says-priest
"Gender theory ‘creates serious problems,’ says priest
One of civilization’s pillars, the objective recognition of sexual difference, is collapsing, a priest psychoanalyst warned the Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) annual seminar here March 22-23.
Gender theory, an ideology which developed in the 1950s, has redefined sexuality, moving it away from objective sexual differences to subjective notions based on sexual orientation, said Msgr. Tony Anatrella, a Paris psychoanalyst and specialist in social psychiatry.
This theory, which has gained dominance especially among feminists and homosexuals, argues biological sex is not a determinant, but that one’s gender is a social construct, he said. “This creates serious problems.”
Among those problems: a rise in suicide rates even among children, increasing narcissism that keeps adults trapped in infantile forms of sexuality such as masturbation, rising rates of homosexuality, and the inability of young people to form permanent male-female bonds that children need for their healthy psychological development, he said.
“We need a social revolution,” he told about 110 people from across the country. They had gathered for the seminar on the theme “Men and Women, Spouses and Parents: Forming Christian Citizens.”
We need to confront people with the truth even if it means getting into a fight, he said, urging participants not to be deterred by taunts of “homophobia.”
We face a pre-Christian mentality, and must evangelize and humanize the whole of society. We are forced to start anew from the fundamentals, he said.
In Western countries we must stop being afraid to speak up against trends that are oversimplifying things and leaving young people lost. We must create a Christian social fabric that is alive and expanding and provides a model for others.
The origin of the relationship between men and women predates society and does not issue primarily from religion, but from anthropology, Msgr. Anatrella said. Men and women experience a sexual otherness and complementarity that is based in reality.
Christianity provides the fullest recognition of the reality of sexual complementarity based on human anthropology, he said, noting the New Testament begins with the story of a couple, Mary and Joseph, just as Genesis begins with Adam and Eve. The future depends on men and women becoming couples in a lifelong marriage, he said.
The problem with young people is they do not know how to be couples, he said. They know how to seduce each other and to build a relationship in a weekend, but not how to build their union into a lifelong relationship. Many divorce after 10 years.
Gender theory has dehumanized the sexes, dehumanized the embryo, and dehumanized fecundity, he said.
Consequences can be noted even on a biological level. Sperm have lost 50 per cent of their fertility because of chemicals from birth control pills that have found their way into the food chain and water supply, even altering the sexual characteristics of fish, he said.
On a psychological level, psychic life and the development of a proper relationship with external objective reality requires an integration of the objective fact of our biological sex as male or female, he said.
The marriage of a man and a woman allows a child to discover the meaning of objective truth outside his or her self, Msgr. Anatrella said. When we do not have objective reality, only the notion that we are creating ourselves, we are following the narcissistic myth of someone who does not need anyone else, not even God.
We must present the truth of the most basic human relationships grounded in the complementarity of the sexes, he said, not in the limited, unisexual, self-sufficiency model that says men and women do not need each other to marry, to have sex, and to conceive.
The father helps a child discover external reality and the law. He reveals and shows the child how to enter into the world, he said.
The mother helps cultivate a child’s internal reality, including his or her imagination and spiritual side through singing songs and telling stories. She helps the child discover relationship and provides support and recognition."
bccatholic.ca/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1516-gender-theory-creates-serious-problems-says-priest
W
wopako
Guest
Even Pius XII did’t condemn psychoanalysis entirely:
"What has just been said of inconsiderate initiation for therapeutic purposes is valid also for certain forms of psychoanalysis. One should not come to regard them as the only means of relieving or of curing psychical sexual troubles. The trite principle that sexual trouble of the unconscious, as all other inhibitions of identical origin, can be suppressed only by their being brought to the level of consciousness, is not valid if it is generalized without distinction. The indirect treatment also has its efficacy and often it suffices to a large extent. As to the use of the psychoanalytic method in the sexual domain, Our allocution of September 13, already cited, has already pointed out the moral limits. In truth, one cannot consider as licit, without further consideration, the evocation to the level of consciousness of all the representations, emotions and sexual experiences, which lie dormant in the memory and the unconscious, and which are thus actualized in the psychic. If the protests arising from a sense of human and Christian dignity are heeded, who would risk making the claim that this manner of treatment does not imply both immediate and future moral danger, when, even if the therapeutic necessity of unlimited exploration be affirmed, this necessity is not, after all, established?
The point about psychotherapeutic practice that We mentioned concerns an essential interest of society: the safeguarding of secrets which the use of psychoanalysis endangers. **It is not at all excluded **that a fact or knowledge which is secret and repressed in the subconscious provokes serious psychic conflicts. If psychoanalysis discloses the cause of this trouble, it will want, according to its principle, to draw out entirely this unconscious element and make it conscious in order to remove the obstacle. But there are secrets which must on no account be divulged, even to a doctor, even in spite of grave personal inconveniences. The secret of Confession may never be revealed. It is equally forbidden for the professional secret to be communicated to another, including a doctor. The same is true of other secrets. One may invoke the principle: “for a proportionately grave reason it is permitted to reveal a secret to a prudent man and one capable of keeping a secret.” This principle is correct within narrow limits for certain kinds of secrets. It is not right to make use of it indiscriminately in psychoanalytic practice."
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12PSYRE.HTM
"What has just been said of inconsiderate initiation for therapeutic purposes is valid also for certain forms of psychoanalysis. One should not come to regard them as the only means of relieving or of curing psychical sexual troubles. The trite principle that sexual trouble of the unconscious, as all other inhibitions of identical origin, can be suppressed only by their being brought to the level of consciousness, is not valid if it is generalized without distinction. The indirect treatment also has its efficacy and often it suffices to a large extent. As to the use of the psychoanalytic method in the sexual domain, Our allocution of September 13, already cited, has already pointed out the moral limits. In truth, one cannot consider as licit, without further consideration, the evocation to the level of consciousness of all the representations, emotions and sexual experiences, which lie dormant in the memory and the unconscious, and which are thus actualized in the psychic. If the protests arising from a sense of human and Christian dignity are heeded, who would risk making the claim that this manner of treatment does not imply both immediate and future moral danger, when, even if the therapeutic necessity of unlimited exploration be affirmed, this necessity is not, after all, established?
The point about psychotherapeutic practice that We mentioned concerns an essential interest of society: the safeguarding of secrets which the use of psychoanalysis endangers. **It is not at all excluded **that a fact or knowledge which is secret and repressed in the subconscious provokes serious psychic conflicts. If psychoanalysis discloses the cause of this trouble, it will want, according to its principle, to draw out entirely this unconscious element and make it conscious in order to remove the obstacle. But there are secrets which must on no account be divulged, even to a doctor, even in spite of grave personal inconveniences. The secret of Confession may never be revealed. It is equally forbidden for the professional secret to be communicated to another, including a doctor. The same is true of other secrets. One may invoke the principle: “for a proportionately grave reason it is permitted to reveal a secret to a prudent man and one capable of keeping a secret.” This principle is correct within narrow limits for certain kinds of secrets. It is not right to make use of it indiscriminately in psychoanalytic practice."
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12PSYRE.HTM
C
catholictiger
Guest
I never condemned psychoanalysis I said reducing everything to instincs saying there is no free will that we don’t have control of our actions, etc.
Again in itself nothing wrong with psychoanalysis it can do much good but if you use it to argue against god or our freedom or free will it’s an issue
Again in itself nothing wrong with psychoanalysis it can do much good but if you use it to argue against god or our freedom or free will it’s an issue
W
wopako
Guest
You are right on these issues.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I think there exists free will in Freud’s theory of the id, ego and superego. The free will is in the ego, as it tries to compromise between the id and superego. The ego is active in choosing to give into the lower pleasures of the id or please the higher-ordered superego. It’s a nice theory, if you think about it in religious terms.
W
wopako
Guest
You’re right. Freud allowed some freedom from instincts. I wonder, why so many religious people don’t see this fact?
- Status