I
Image_of_God
Guest
I was wondering what the Catholic position was on psychopaths and sociopaths.
- Status
M
Musician
Guest
Many times this condition is not the person’s fault because of background, childhood abuse, etc. I think God takes this into account when He judges a soul.
Now, if they commit a crime, I think that they should be held as accountable as the next person.
Now, if they commit a crime, I think that they should be held as accountable as the next person.
D
Desertsailor
Guest
Psychopaths and sociopaths who know right from wrong are responsible for their sins like everyone else. Just because I have a broken leg doesn’t mean I can’t sin.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
those terms are medical or psychiatric diagnoses, not exactly topics for Catholic doctrine. In what context are you asking? do you mean personal guilt for an action which is objectively sinful committed by such a person? The general teaching is that personal guilt may be mitigated or lacking if someone does not have full capacity to understand and consent freely to the action.
The Catholic teaching is that for any action to be sinful it must be objectively wrong, and grave matter in case of mortal sin (think 10 commandments), the person must know it is wrong, and the person must freely choose to do wrong. A mentally ill person often lacks the ability first to judge actions by normal standards, and to freely choose to act, because of the compulsions and delusions inherent in his illness.
If you are asking something else you will have to be more specific.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Thank you for all your responses.
I should clarify. I was wondering how the Catholic Church sees psychopathy and sociopathy. Does the Church view it as a disorder like many psychiatrists ( I know the Church usually bends to science in these cases) or not? Does the Church think that some forms of psychopathy and sociopathy are demonic?
I should clarify. I was wondering how the Catholic Church sees psychopathy and sociopathy. Does the Church view it as a disorder like many psychiatrists ( I know the Church usually bends to science in these cases) or not? Does the Church think that some forms of psychopathy and sociopathy are demonic?
S
Sonic
Guest
Psychopathia is a psychosis. I understand it’s the result of how the brain is physically wired. Therefore, it’s a physical problem with the brain that has yet to be fully understood.
According to recent documentary I watched, psychopaths have no formed conscience at all. They exist in a mindset that is incapable of feeling sorry for anything they do. They can be very manipulative and charming, but also very ruthless and will eliminate anyone or anything that gets in the way of getting what they want.
According to recent documentary I watched, psychopaths have no formed conscience at all. They exist in a mindset that is incapable of feeling sorry for anything they do. They can be very manipulative and charming, but also very ruthless and will eliminate anyone or anything that gets in the way of getting what they want.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
as I said, psychosis is a medical and psychiatric diagnosis. The Church leaves medicine and science to those disciplines. Demonic possession is not considered a possibility, in fact, unless and until psychiatric, medical or other disorders are ruled out by professionals competent to make such diagnoses.
S
Sonic
Guest
Absolutely, and even after they have ruled out a psychological disorder, the exorcist will perform his own tests to determine if there is anything demonic going on.
For example, the exorcist might instruct the person to be given a glass of Holy Water to drink without them knowing it. Then he will observe for any reaction caused by the malignant spirit. Or, the exorcist might bless the clothing of the individual without them knowing it. The evil spirit would become very agitated by the holy water and blessing.
Still, this would only be a preliminary test before they went on to more definitive tests.
S
silentstar
Guest
Being a psychopath or sociopath is not a psychosis. Those terms are not alike.
Psychosis refers to being out of touch with reality. Hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia are all symptoms of psychosis. It is called the “fever” of mental illness because it can come from many different causes. Drug use, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even the stresses of everyday living can cause psychotic symptoms.
People with psychosis have a conscience, unless they have something else wrong with them that has caused them to lack a conscience. People with psychosis can be frightening to both themselves and others because they can be really out of it and ranting about things that don’t make sense, but that is not the same as being dangerous, or lacking a conscience. What is dangerous is when ill people do not receive treatment.
There are many people who have brief psychotic symptoms. such as hearing a voice calling their name when no one is around, who are not ill. Other people with psychosis are very ill. Psychosis is not a single diagnosis but an indicator that something unusual is happening and there may be a need for further testing of the person’s mental state.
Being a psychopath involves lacking empathy for other people and therefore tending to use people for personal gain, what you can get out of them, rather than caring about others or being in equal, respectful relationships with them. Psychopaths, in contrast to people with psychosis, are often very much in touch with reality. They need to be because that is how they observe other people to determine what they can get from them.
Psychopaths are not necessarily violent, although some are. Some commit financial or white-collar crimes, and some don’t commit crimes but go through life as people who take and don’t give.
I don’t know what the Church would say but I assume puzzleannie is correct that they would want a mental health evaluation first before looking into things like exorcism. I’m sure they would encourage people to pray no matter what the situation. And if a psychopath is damaging other people through his or her actions, the Church might suggest people protect themselves, such as not forming a business with a psychopath b/c he or she might not be honorable regarding your share of the profits.
S
Sonic
Guest
I was basing it on my home 1965 Catholic Encyclopedia that doesn’t make the distinction you made. It only classifies mental disorders as neurosis or psychosis. It includes psychopathy under psychosis. Hence, I assumed it was a psychosis, because of the article and because it was caused by a physical problem in the brain.
Edit: The very same article does say that people with a psychosis have an impaired conscience… it does not say they have no conscience. I did say in my post that a psychopath does not have a formed conscience… not that they do not have any conscience at all. perhaps you misunderstood.
Edit: The very same article does say that people with a psychosis have an impaired conscience… it does not say they have no conscience. I did say in my post that a psychopath does not have a formed conscience… not that they do not have any conscience at all. perhaps you misunderstood.
P
prolifewife
Guest
The medical and psychological world have changed a LOT since 1965. Back then I probably would have been declared Psychotic, when in fact my diagnoses is severe OCD. It’s simply outdated material. I believe I’m capable of committing serious sin, but it’s hard to tell what’s serious when you have OCD. So, yes, sometimes the mentally ill have lesser culpability for otherwise serious sin due to the effects of their illness on their conscience or reasoning.
S
silentstar
Guest
I haven’t read that Encyclopedia. The difference is discussed at this link:
hubpages.com/hub/The-Difference-Between-Psychopathy–Psychotic-Disorders
Psychopath is defined as:
Psychopath is not in the diagnostic manual but related conditions of antisocial conduct disorder and sociopath are in there.
I’m stressing this not to be obnoxious but because I have had psychotic symptoms due to bipolar disorder which led me to speak and write in strange ways when I was really ill. One woman assumed based on nothing more than mental illness that I was dangerous, and she treated me as if I were a psychopath, so that is something I’m sensitive about. She wanted a court-ordered mental state exam and some sort of mandated treatment, even though I was already in treatment with both a psychiatrist and a psychologist, who tried talking to her, to no avail.
In the end she did not succeed b/c there was no basis for her requests - I already had a psychiatrist and a therapist so I didn’t need another person involved. I was on medicine but it wasn’t working well. I ended up quitting work because the combination of meds and psychotherapy was not enough to avoid these breakdowns, and I had a psychiatric hospitalization. After that I improved.
This is an area I’m sensitive about. Whether being a psychopath is “officially” classed as a type of psychosis, or not, and I do not believe it is, the 2 problems as defined above have different symptoms and are associated with different conditions.
S
Sonic
Guest
According to the article, OCD was classified as neurosis and not a psychosis. Had they known what we know about OCD now, it probably would have been classified as a psychosis (based on it being caused by the physical condition of the brain).
S
Sonic
Guest
I understand what you are saying, but you really shouldn’t internalize these discussions. It’s not good for anyone to do that. Try to remember that many people here try to present information to the best of their knowledge (with a few exceptions).
As for the 1965 article I mentioned, the writer classifies psychoses into two categories (I’m citing from the article now).
- Functional Psychoses
- Structural Psychoses
Structural Psychoses is explained here…
"There is another basic type. This is comprised of structural psychoses. The structural psychoses describe the individual’s reactions to other individuals and society.
The form of mental illness classified as structural psychoses pertain, then, to the group of personality disorders rooted primarily in the structure of the personality rather than it’s functioning."
So, back in 1965 it was considered a psychosis, and says that people with a structural psychosis could be susceptible to a functional psychosis at various intervals during their lifetime. Perhaps, that is the reason why Psychopathy was considered a psychosis.
A
Aperson
Guest
I am not sure whether I qualify as a psychopath or not.
I don’t feel any emotions other than a bit of fondness for some girls of my age, that has some sort of protective instinct or feeling towards them and towards young girls sometimes.
As a result of not having any emotions, i do tend to search for stimulations. And although I’ve never done anything serious, I do have a tendency of being careless of my actions. This happens because I am unable to feel the basic emotions of guilt and such.
However, I am altruistic and “good” by nature, so I ALWAYS know what I am doing. People consider me a good person, and they also consider me somewhat smart.
The thing is that I didn’t know that I was like this until a few months ago. It’s as if i was in denial, because this also means that I don’t seem to be able to love anyone, even family members or friends.
But now I am responsible for my actions. Now I know why is it easier to do bad things, miss Mass for months , etc, and why I am unable to generate guilt from it.
I already know 3 other people like me and we can all tel right from wrong, that’s for sure. Even if they try to question this, i am almost certain that they know what they are doing.
I already asked on the apologetics section if i should marry or not…I still have insctinvtice and some psycho logic needs, i just don’t feel it.
As a side note, i was never abused or anything…but my father might be the same, he doesn’t seem to know tho…
I don’t feel any emotions other than a bit of fondness for some girls of my age, that has some sort of protective instinct or feeling towards them and towards young girls sometimes.
As a result of not having any emotions, i do tend to search for stimulations. And although I’ve never done anything serious, I do have a tendency of being careless of my actions. This happens because I am unable to feel the basic emotions of guilt and such.
However, I am altruistic and “good” by nature, so I ALWAYS know what I am doing. People consider me a good person, and they also consider me somewhat smart.
The thing is that I didn’t know that I was like this until a few months ago. It’s as if i was in denial, because this also means that I don’t seem to be able to love anyone, even family members or friends.
But now I am responsible for my actions. Now I know why is it easier to do bad things, miss Mass for months , etc, and why I am unable to generate guilt from it.
I already know 3 other people like me and we can all tel right from wrong, that’s for sure. Even if they try to question this, i am almost certain that they know what they are doing.
I already asked on the apologetics section if i should marry or not…I still have insctinvtice and some psycho logic needs, i just don’t feel it.
As a side note, i was never abused or anything…but my father might be the same, he doesn’t seem to know tho…
M
manualman
Guest
We’re generally not in favor or either condition.
Except for a few well chosen albino assassins…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not a psychologist, but I have known a lot of sociopathic people.
I am not sure I would conclude that you are sociopathic or psychopathic. It appears you are pretty young, and young people very often have not developed the kind of empathy they might later develop. Much of what you describe is very typical of simple immaturity. Part of what you ascribe to yourself actually is empathy.
I have come to the belief (and a psychologist friend of mine tends to confirm it) that those conditions are not necessarily absolutes; that there are degrees of it.
Nevertheless, she has opined (and I think she knows what she’s talking about) that sociopathology or psychopathology does not preclude acting in a moral manner or avoiding immorality. Regardless of how the person “feels”, regardless of whether he or she feels impelled by empathy, the person can still choose to act morally and not immorally. He or she can simply “follow the rules”.
I think we can all observe that empathy varies a lot with individuals. One person may feel it so intensely that he or she is virtually paralyzed from action. Another may feel it in this way, but not in that way, or toward this sort of person but not that one. Almost everybody has some “blank spaces” when it comes to that.
But it’s interesting to note that never in the New Testament does Jesus tell us how we should “feel”. He tells us how we should “act”. Therefore, no one who can think clearly is precluded from being a moral person. Granted, empathizing is helpful to moral action. But it is not essential to it.
A
Aperson
Guest
Yes, there should be degrees, as I think that i still have a bit of fondness.
I think that if my case was pure immaturity (I won’t deny it, i do immature stuff q; ) I would still feel some other things…But I don’t. It’s not just the empathy what I don’t feel, I wasn’t even aware that there are more than a few emotions (I was only aware of major emotions).
About the empathy, is more about the way I like to behave…I can’t put myself in other people’s shoes since I have never been there.
But yes, it’s a matter of choices still…I am highly aware of how the rest of the world reacts to things, and after almost 20 years of relating to them I might even be better than some people at this.
And even if I can’t tell differences within myself when people are in anguish, by pure morals and the ability that I do have of telling right from wrong, I do prefer to keep people happy.
Therefore I agree with empathy not being essential, and at least the other people like this who think clearly should be responsible for their actions.
S
Sonic
Guest
Aperson,
Ridgerunner is right. It may simply be your age.
It could be that you might simply have Asperger’s Syndrome? Look it up, and if the characteristics match enough for you to suspect it, then see about getting a test.
Ridgerunner is right. It may simply be your age.
It could be that you might simply have Asperger’s Syndrome? Look it up, and if the characteristics match enough for you to suspect it, then see about getting a test.
A
Aperson
Guest
While some males at my age (19) tend to be less sensitive, they normally still feel something…as a child I didn’t feel anything either…
I don’t think I have it, my motor skills might be slightly less than average in some areas, but i have no language or social skills problems…my lack of empathy doesn’t really affect me socially, since I can still read people’s expressions…
I might get tested for either that or schizoid disorder but i kind of doubt it.
(If I’m writing weirdly it’s because I’m mexican
)(
- Status