Sigmund Freud and Catholic teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ransri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ransri

Guest
What are the teachings of Sigmund Freud that goes against the Catholic teachings? Are there Catholic psychiatrists or psychologists that believe in Freud ?
Can Freud be totally rejected by Catholics?
 
Last edited:
Ransri said:
What are the teachings of Sigmund Freud that goes against the Catholic teachings? Are there Catholic psychiatrists or psychologists that believe in Freud ?
Can Freud be totally rejected by Catholics?
Click to expand...
Seems vague…do you have a specific concern in mind?

Kinda like saying, which days of the week go against Catholic teaching, and are their Catholics who believe in those days? Can the days be totally rejected by Catholics?

Silly, I know, but you get the idea I hope.
 
Freud’s model of the mind and how it works has some value. But he was certainly an atheist and so far as things depend on his atheistic view they are not aligned with Catholic faith.
 
Most psychologists regardless of religion tend to ignore Freud’s wacky ideas, to be honest.
 
What is VAGUE in my post bro?? Can anyone identify??
If I began the question with the words WHAT PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTS EXPRESSED by Sigmund Freud instead of "What are the Teachings of …you might have got the idea somewhat clear!
 
Last edited:
Freud was an excellent writer and a man of his time, trying to build a science of the mind. He saw mankind as an evolved species of primate. He noted how biology, with its focus on morphology and the physical, was totally ignoring the obvious reality of psychology. He considered there to be two instincts inherent in nature - Eros and Thanatos. The drive to absorb and grow vs that to reject and destroy. These he asserted were at the root of all desires and emotions, and when in conflict, led to neuroses. He also tried to establish a neurological construct of how the mind works, but abandoned the project. Psychology and Psychiatry have taken a different route, tending more towards neurophysiology and becoming rather “mindless”. I think they’ve lost much in the process. Interesting fellow and interesting times.
 
Last edited:
From what I know about Christianity, you would probably find it difficult to reconcile the views about human nature.
Freud thought there are three instances of the human mind: Id, Ego, Superego (or in another (or the conscious mind, the preconscious mind and the unconscious mind in another classification).
The Id is considered the source of our impulses and instincts, especially those sexual and aggressive. There is nothing about being good, evil, believing in God or not. The Ego and Superego are formed later as a way to contact the external world and make existence in the society possible- put it this way, at Id level, the only thing that matters are for those drives to be satisfied (if you want, the only thing that the Id seeks is pleasure). But pretty obviously it would make life in a group impossible.
Now, Superego would be the instance that encompass our moral values, religious morals, the laws (written and unwritten), etc. The Ego would be the instance that tries to “mediate” between Id, Superego and reality. Lets say a married person find their boss sexually attractive. At Id level, stuff like being married or being your boss doesn’t matter, there are only the sexual impulses to be gratified. Superego would deem any action or thought unacceptable. The Ego might try to solve the issue by “letting” the person next time to paint a romantic painting with maybe a certain resemblance to their boss (considering the Ego uses sublimation as a defence mechanism) or the person represses that sexual impulse and it might appear in their dreams.

Now about religion- Freud thought it had it’s role somewhere part of the Superego. The useful role was to work on preventing violent impulses to be “unleashed” in a socially unwanted way. Plus it also gave people hope and some sense of understanding when science failed to do so. But if this is all the role religion has- obviously you can argue (and he did) that there are other ways- like science/knowledge to obtain a similar result.

And the elephant in the room here is that if our Ego works so hard to “mediate” between the drives of Id so that they won’t get satisfied in a dangerous or unwanted way, and the demands of the Superego (and the resulting anxiety or guilt) that it might be harmful to add “extra demands” on Superego
 
I’m pretty sure Freud believed that religious phenomena were the product of some kind of neuroses which themselves were the product of childhood trauma. The religious experience was to him therefore some kind of illusion rooted in psychologically mal-adaptive states.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top