The Last Sermon of Archbishop Oscar Romero

March 23, 1980

Let no one be offended because we use the Divine words read at our mass to shed light on the social, political and economic situation of our people. Not to do so would be un-Christian. Christ desires to unite himself with humanity, so that the light he brings from God might become life for nations and individuals.

I know many are shocked by this preaching and want to accuse us of forsaking the Gospel for Politics. But I reject this accusation. I am trying to bring to life the message of the Second Vatican Council and the meetings at Medellin and Puebla. The documents from these meetings should not just be studied theoretically. They should be brought to life and translated into the real struggle to preach the Gospel as it should be for our people. Each week I go about the country listening to the cries of the people, their pain from so much crime, and the ignominy of so much violence. Each week I ask the Lord to give me the right words to console, to denounce, to call for repentance. And even though I may be a voice crying in the desert, I know that the church is making the effort to fulfill its mission....

Every country lives its own "Exodus"; today El Salvador is living its own Exodus. Today we are passing to our liberation through a desert strewn with bodies and where anguish and pain are devastating us. Many suffer the temptation of those who walked with Moses and wanted to turn back and did not work together. It is the same old story. God, however, wants to save the people by making a new history....

History will not fail; God sustains it. That is why I say that insofar as historical projects attempt to reflect the eternal plan of God, to that extent they reflect the kingdom of God. This attempt is the work of the Church. Because of this, the Church, the people of God in history, is not attached to any one social system, to any political organization, to any party. The Church does not identify herself with any of those forces because she is the eternal pilgrim of history and is indicating at every historical moment what reflects the Kingdom of God and what does not reflect the Kingdom of God. She is the servant of the Kingdom of God.

The great task of Christians must be to absorb the spirit of God's kingdom and, with souls filled with the Kingdom of God, to work on the projects of history. It's fine to be organized in popular groups; it's all right to form political parties; it's all right to take part in the government. It's fine as long as you are a Christian who carries the reflection of the Kingdom of God and tries to establish it where you are working, and as long as you are not being used to further worldly ambitions. This is the great duty of the people of today. My dear Christians, I have always told you, and I will repeat, that the true liberators of our people must come from us Christians, from the people of God. Any historical plan that's not based on what we spoke of in the first point-the dignity of the human being, the love of God, the kingdom of Christ among people-will be a fleeting project. Your project, however, will grow in stability the more it reflects the eternal design of God. It will be a solution of the common good of the people every time, if it meets the needs of the people.... Now I invite you to look at things through the eyes of the church, which is trying to be the Kingdom of God on earth and so often must illuminate the realities of our national situation.

We have lived through a tremendously tragic week. I could not give you the facts before, but a week ago last Saturday, on 15 March, one of the largest and most distressing military operations was carried out in the countryside. The villages affected were La Laguna, Plan de Ocotes and El Rosario. The operation brought tragedy: a lot of ranches were burned, there was looting, and-inevitably-people were killed. In La Laguna, the attackers killed a married couple, Ernesto Navas and Audelia Mejia de Navas, their little children, Martin and Hilda, thirteen and seven years old, and eleven more peasants.

Other deaths have been reported, but we do not know the names of the dead. In Plan de Ocotes, two children and four peasants were killed, including two women. In El Rosario, three more peasants were killed. That was last Saturday.

Last Sunday, the following were assassinated in Arcatao by four members of ORDEN: peasants Marcelino Serrano, Vincente Ayala, twenty-four years old, and his son, Freddy. That same day, Fernando Hernandez Navarro, a peasant, was assassinated in Galera de Jutiapa, when he fled from the military.

Last Monday, 17 March, was a tremendously violent day. Bombs exploded in the capital as well as in the interior of the country. The damage was very substantial at the headquarters of the Ministry of Agriculture. The campus of the national university was under armed siege from dawn until 7 P.M. Throughout the day, constant bursts of machine-gun fire were heard in the university area. The archbishop's office intervened to protect people who found themselves caught inside.

On the Hacienda Colima, eighteen persons died, at least fifteen of whom were peasants. The administrator and the grocer of the ranch also died. The armed forces confirmed that there was a confrontation. A film of the events appeared on TV, and many analyzed interesting aspects of the situation.

At least fifty people died in serious incidents that day: in the capital, seven persons died in events at the Colonia Santa Lucia; on the outskirts of Tecnillantas, five people died; and in the area of the rubbish dump, after the evacuation of the site by the military, were found the bodies of four workers who had been captured in that action.

Sixteen peasants died in the village of Montepeque, thirty-eight kilometers along the road to Suchitoto. That same day, two students at the University of Central America were captured in Tecnillantas: Mario Nelson and Miguel Alberto Rodriguez Velado, who were brothers. The first one, after four days of illegal detention, was handed over to the courts. Not so his brother, who was wounded and is still held in illegal detention. Legal Aid is intervening on his behalf.

Amnesty International issued a press release in which it described the repression of the peasants, especially in the area of Chalatenango. The week's events confirm this report in spite of the fact the government denies it. As I entered the church, I was given a cable that says, "Amnesty International confirmed today [that was yesterday] that in El Salvador human rights are violated to extremes that have not been seen in other countries." That is what Patricio Fuentes (spokesman for the urgent action section for Central America in Swedish Amnesty International) said at a press conference in Managua, Nicaragua.

Fuentes confirmed that, during two weeks of investigations he carried out in El Salvador, he was able to establish that there had been eighty-three political assassinations between 10 and 14 March. He pointed out that Amnesty International recently condemned the government of El Salvador, alleging that it was responsible for six hundred political assassinations. The Salvadorean government defended itself against the charges, arguing that Amnesty International based its condemnation on unproved assumptions.

Fuentes said that Amnesty had established that in El Salvador human rights are violated to a worse degree than the repression in Chile after the coupe d'etat. The Salvadorian government also said that the six hundred dead were the result of armed confrontations between army troops and guerrillas. Fuentes said that during his stay in El Salvador, he could see that the victims had been tortured before their deaths and mutilated afterward.

The spokesman of Amnesty International said that the victims' bodies characteristically appeared with the thumbs tied behind their backs. Corrosive liquids had been applied to the corpses to prevent identification of the victims by their relatives and to prevent international condemnation, the spokesman added. Nevertheless, the bodies were exhumed and the dead have been identified. Fuentes said that the repression carried out by the Salvadorian army was aimed at breaking the popular organizations through the assassination of their leaders in both town and country.

According to the spokesman of Amnesty International, at least three thousand five hundred peasants have fled from their homes to the capital to escape persecution. "We have complete lists in London and Sweden of young children and women who have been assassinated for being organized," Fuentes stated....

I would like to make a special appeal to the men of the army, and specifically to the ranks of the National Guard, the police and the military. Brothers, you come from our own people. You are killing your own brother peasants when any human order to kill must be subordinate to the law of God which says, "Thou shalt not kill." No soldier is obliged to obey an order contrary to the law of God. No one has to obey an immoral law. It is high time you recovered your consciences and obeyed your consciences rather than a sinful order. The Church, the defender of the rights of God, of the law of God, of human dignity, of the person, cannot remain silent before such an abomination. We want the government to face the fact that reforms are valueless if they are to be carried out at the cost of so much blood. In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people whose cries rise to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you in the name of God: stop the repression.

The Church preaches your liberation just as we have studied it in just as we have studied it in the Holy Bible today. It is a liberation that has, above all else, respect for the dignity of the person, hope for humanity's common good, and the transcendence that looks before all to God and only from God derives its hope and its strength.

Biographical Information

Archbishop Óscar Arnulfo Romero (1917 -1980), was a prominent Roman Catholic priest in El Salvador during the 1960s and 1970s. After witnessing numerous atrocities attributed to the El Salvadoran government, Romero began to publicly denounce the corruption, exploitation of the poor and acts of state sponsored violence being committed by the El Salvadorian government.

Romero used the moral authority of his status as Archbishop to speak out for government reform and soon came to be known as the "Voice of the Voiceless." The Archbishop opposed U.S. military support for the Junta government and called for troops to disobey orders to fire on innocent civilians. Despite tremendous International public support, the Archbishop's perceived use of his religious position as a platform to advocate political reform drew harsh criticism from the Catholic Church, the El Salvadorian government, and U.S. foreign policy interests.

Romero understood the increasing risk of openly opposing the established power structure. On March 12, 1977, the Archbishop's long-time friend, Jesuit Father Rutilio Grande, was assasinated by the El Salvadorian Death Squads in response to his calls for reform. At the funeral Mass, Romero acknowledged: "We must all be willing to die for our faith even if the Lord does not grant us this honor." [1]. Romero boldly declared his willingness to accept martyrdom if his blood might contribute to the solution of the nation's problems. "As a Christian," he asserted, "I do not believe in death without resurrection. If they kill me, I shall rise again in the Salvadoran people." [2]. Archbishop Romero was assassinated on March 24, 1980, while celebrating Mass at the chapel of the cancer hospital where he resided.

In 1986, the Rothko Chapel, an institution committed to advancing human rights and interfaith understanding, commemorated the martyrdom of Archbishop of San Salvador by establishing Oscar Romero Award fin recognition of the unsung, heroic efforts of activists or organizations in the area of human rights.

In 1991, the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador was established to investigate allegations of severe human rights violations which had occurred since 1980, in accordance with the Mexico Agreements of April 27, 1991. In its report of March 15, 1993, the Commission documented the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero, was organized and carried out by pro-government forces, known as the death squads, including two graduates of the School of the Americas.

In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed March 24th as the "International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims" in honor of Archbishop Romero's efforts in the defense of human rights.

On February 3, 2015, Pope Francis signed a decree recognizing the assassination of Archbishop Romero as an act of Christian martyrdom. The decree clears the way for the beatification of Archbishop Romero.

References

[1]. Catholic News Service. (2015). Pope recognizes martyrdom of Archbishop Romero. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500492.htm. (Accessed 07/22/2015).

[2]. United Nations. (2015). Biography of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero http://www.un.org/en/events/righttotruthday/romero.shtml. (Accessed 07/22/2015).

The Major Tenets of Liberation Theology

The Aims of Theology

"Theology is an understanding which both grows and, in a certain sense, changes. If the commitment of the Christian community in fact takes different forms throughout history, the understanding which accompanies the vicissitudes of this commitment will be constantly renewed and will take untrodden paths."

– Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (1973)

“Much contemporary theology seems to start from the challenge of the nonbeliever. He questions our religious world and faces it with a demand for profound purification and renewal.

…But the challenge in a continent like Latin America does not come primarily from the man who does not believe, but from the man who is not a man, who is not recognized as such by the existing social order: he is in the ranks of the poor, the exploited; he is the man who scarcely knows that he is a man. His challenge is not aimed first at our religious world, but at our economic, social, political, and cultural world; therefore, it is an appeal for a revolutionary transformation of the very bases of a dehumanizing society.

The question is not therefore how to speak of God in an adult world, but how to proclaim Him as a Father in a world that is not human."

– Gustavo Gutierrez, “Liberation, Theology, and Proclamation” (1974)

"In our theological efforts we have called this ‘Theology of Liberation’ because ‘liberation’ is very often translated to ‘salvation.’ How do we say to the poor, ‘God loves you’? This question is larger than our answers. It means it is an open question, and we try in this liberation theology, and I can say in the different liberation theologies, to try to answer this point."

– Gustavo Gutierrez, remarks at Elmhurst College (2009)

Love of Neighbor

"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?


"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

– Mark 12:28-31, New International Version


“Love of neighbor is an essential component of Christian life. But as long as I apply that term only to the people who cross my path and come asking me for help, my world will remain pretty much the same. Individual almsgiving and social reformism is a type of love that never leaves its own front porch.

… On the other hand my world will change greatly if I go out to meet other people on their path and consider them as my neighbor, as the good Samaritan did… The gospel tells us that the poor are the supreme embodiment of our neighbor. It is this option that serves as the focus for a new way of being human and Christian in today's Latin America.”

– Gustavo Gutierrez, “Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith” (1979)

Christian Duty to Address Social Injustice

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

- Psalm 82:3-4, New International Version

"The Christian faithful are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor.”

- 1983 CIC, canon 222.2

"According to Catholic teaching, through one's words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. Therefore, when instituting public policy one must always keep the 'preferential option for the poor' at the forefront of one's mind. Accordingly, this doctrine implies that the moral test of any society is; 'how it treats its most vulnerable members.' The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor."

- Option for the Poor, Major themes from Catholic Social Teaching, Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis.

“I am not refusing the necessity, even today, of immediate help to the poor, but I say it is not enough. Today the call is to try to change the social structure and to change some mental categories—to be clearer about mental categories, the feeling of superiority, for example, to some cultures. This is a mental category and we need to change this.

In the ultimate analysis, poverty means death; unjust and early death. Missionaries of the 16th century, some years after their arrival on this continent, said, ‘The Indians are dying before their time.’ Well, it was true certainly, but it’s true today also. The poor are dying before their time because poverty means death—unjust and early death."

– Gustavo Gutierrez, remarks at Elmhurst College (2009)

"It is not a question of idealizing poverty, but rather of taking it on as it is—an evil—to protest against it and to struggle to abolish it. As Paul Ricoeur says, you cannot really be with the poor unless you are struggling against poverty. Because of this solidarity—which manifests itself in specific action, a style of life, a break with one’s social class—one can also help the poor and exploited to become aware of their exploitation and seek liberation from it.

Christian poverty, and expression of love, is solidarity with the poor and is a protest against poverty. This is the concrete, contemporary meaning of the witness of poverty. It is a poverty lived not for its own sake, but rather as an authentic imitation of Christ; it is a poverty which means taking on the sinful human condition to liberate humankind from sin and all its consequences.”

– Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (1973)

Keep Hope Alive

"But God will never forget the needy; the hope of the afflicted will never perish."

- Psalm 9:18, New International Version

“We must also engage in our work hopefully. Hope is not the same thing as optimism. Optimism merely reflects the desire that external circumstances may one day improve. There is nothing wrong with optimism, but we may not always have reasons for it.

The theological virtue of hope is much more than optimism. Hope is based on the conviction that God is at work in our lives and in the world. Hope is ultimately a gift from God given to sustain us during difficult times. Charles Péguy described hope as the ‘little sister’ that walks between the ‘taller sisters’ of faith and charity; when the taller sisters grow tired, the little one instills new life and energy into the other two. Hope never allows our faith to grow weak or our love to falter.”

– Gutierrez, America magazine (Feb. 3, 2003)

The Conquering of Reason by the Knight of Faith

Søren Kierkegaard ushers in the Kingdom of Heaven by establishing an hierarchy, whereby faith usurps reason as the ultimate monarch of this world. For Kierkegaard, the “absurdity” of faith is the vehicle by which the individual opens the door for God to operate in the human realm. This allows the spiritual reality that “all things are possible” to overcome the perceived impossibilities of our finite world. [1]. Kierkegaard argues, however, that faith creates a moral dilemma for the individual. One must often transgress reason and the established moral order to remain obedient to faith; creating a natural tension between the individual and society which understands God’s Will to be rational and ethical. This is the paradox that Kierkegaard sets out to explain in Fear and Trembling.

Kierkegaard promotes faith as the highest good that humankind can achieve. He enlists the aid of the Father of Skepticism, Descartes, to refute the tenants of strict rationalism:
"What God has revealed to us is incomparably more certain than anything else … we ought to submit to the Divine authority rather than our own judgment even though the light of reason may seem to us to suggest, with the utmost clearness and evidence, something opposite." [2].

For Kierkegaard, the outward world, being the realm of reason, is “subject to the law of imperfection” and “indifference.” [3]. In this kingdom, justice does not always reign supreme; the righteous are not always rewarded for their works, and good does not always triumph over evil. “It is otherwise in the world of spirit. Here there prevails an eternal divine order, here it does not rain on the just and the unjust alike…” [4]. In Kierkegaard’s economy, faith is the courageous act of trust necessary to bridge the gap between the spiritual and the natural worlds, and transcend the boundaries of reason.

Kierkegaard asserts that reason restricts the full expression of the individual by enslaving him to “the ethical as such is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone … at every moment.” [5]. However, the requirements of faith often place the individual at odds with the universal:
"As soon as the single individual wants to assert himself in his particularity [expressed through his obedience to the divine will], in direct opposition to the universal, he sins, and only by recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal." [6].

What a conundrum! The individual’s only option is to sin; either by disobedience to God, or by transgression of the ethical. This, for Kierkegaard, represents the paradox of faith.

The Great Dane’s solution is the teleological suspension of the ethical. This simply places the ethical in a subordinate position to the absolute, creating an hierarchy by which the individual is justified in the subjugation of reason through faith. This relationship is exemplified through Kierkegaard’s contrast of the Tragic Hero, and the Knight of Faith.

The Tragic Hero represents the man who is ruled by reason. He is subject to the moral order, and his duty is the Good of the State; justification comes through adherence to the universal, and for him temptation is represented as individuality. The Tragic Hero is beloved by society for his conformity to the universal, and his rejection of self.

The Faithful Knight is the antithesis of the Tragic Hero; he stands in opposition to the universal, and his duty is to the Divine dictate. He is justified through his obedience, and his temptation is represented by the desire to reconcile with the universal. He is a reject of society for his failure to conform to reason or reside within the universal. The Tragic Hero represents the misguided priorities of an imperfect society, while the Knight of Faith is the archetype of the rightly ordered life.

Kierkegaard makes a strong emotional appeal to abandon reason for an unquestioning trust in God. His appeal for the Christian community to embrace a heightened sense of spirituality is diminished, however, by the unguided self-reliance of the individual to determine the will of God. By Kierkegaard’s own admission, The Knight of Faith is subject to error, yet can be counseled by no-one. This places the exercise of faith on a shaky foundation, by placing the individual beyond the reproof of the ethical, while never fully allowing one the security of affirmation by the community that they are within the Divine will.

A strong argument can be made that this kind of spiritual individualism leaves the adherent vulnerable to deception, and could promote the loss of faith. The Knight of Faith, rather than being liberated, is always bound by the possibility that he is operating within his own desires; the outcome being the only evidence of whether or not his path was the correct one. Therefore, the Knight of Faith is posed with a new paradox; he must either sin by seeking the external validation that he is on the correct path (a sign of fear and unbelief), or he must continually forge ahead risking the possibility self-delusion.

by Lawrence Christopher Skufca (2008)
Some Rights Reserved

Bibliography

[1]. Kierkegaard, Søren . 1843. Fear and Trembling. Trans. Alastair Hannay. (London: Penguin Books, 1985). pp. 73.
[2]. Descartes, Rene. 1644. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. Trans. Elizabeth S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 1973). pp. 231 and 252.
[3]. Kierkegaard, Søren . 1843. Fear and Trembling. Trans. Alastair Hannay. (London: Penguin Books, 1985). pp. 57.
[4]. Ibid., p. 57.
[5]. Ibid., p. 84.
[6]. Ibid., p. 83.

Enlightenment Theology: John Locke

John Locke’s “The Reasonableness of Christianity,” is the unification of enlightenment era idealism with traditional Christian thought. Locke’s assertion of the freedom of the individual believer and his call for tolerance in doctrinal differences lead to a uniquely modern interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Deemed by many to be a defense of Christianity, “The Reasonableness of Christianity” comes across to this reader as Locke’s attempt to reconcile his own philosophical views with his personal religious faith.

Locke advocates the individual freedom of the believer in non-essential matters of religious conviction: “The law of faith … is for everyone to believe what God requires him to believe as a condition of the covenant he makes with him.” [1]. To Locke, the Christian faith consisted of the acknowledgement of fundamental precepts that were necessary for the attainment of eternal security, and of supplemental spiritual truths in which we are only regulated by the revelation we are given. This allows for a certain amount of freedom of belief within Christianity.

Locke’s evaluation of the Bible is that only the direct instruction of Christ and the apostles, contained in the Gospels and Acts, are to be trusted as the necessary components of salvation. Locke makes a distinction between the “fundamental articles” of faith revealed in the Gospels and the instructions to the Christian community contained in the epistles to the churches. [2]. For lack of a term provided by Locke, I will label these primary, and secondary teachings. The primary doctrines which Locke deems necessary for salvation are faith in the eternal God of scripture, as evidenced by repentance and a return to morality, and belief in the messiahship and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The secondary teachings are those moral precepts that are espoused by Paul and the other early church fathers through their instructions to the infant churches. Locke values these teachings as useful truths to the observance of the Christian faith, but unnecessary for entering into the covenant of salvation with God. [3].

According to Locke, salvation is a restoration of the immortality and state of bliss that was lost to humanity by the fall of Adam: “as Adam was turned out of paradise, so all his posterity were born out of it, out of the reach of the tree of life; all, like their father Adam in a state of morality, void of the tranquility and bliss of paradise.” [4]. Locke acknowledges that this original act of disobedience tainted humanity, but contends that the penalty enacted upon future generations was not a state of guilt, but a state of mortality. [5]. The idea that God would impose a penalty upon Adam’s posterity for an act they did not commit offends Locke‘s notion of divine justice. This is where I believe that Locke's theology breaks down. His argument presupposes that eternal damnation is the consequence of a penalty imposed, rather than a state of separation which exists between God and humanity. It can be reasonably argued that humanity is not so much penalized, but rather voluntarily removes itself from God’s providence and protection, returning us to the original state of chaos which existed prior to the act of creation.

Whichever state existed after the fall, Locke conjectures that Jesus Christ was the Messiah promised by scripture, whose purpose was to restore the original condition of humanity. Locke argues that belief in this restoration is a fundamental requirement of “saving faith,” reasoning that this is the only requirement for salvation set forth by “Our Savior and his apostles.” [6]. Locke asserts a “threefold declaration of the Messiah” through the miracles performed by Christ, his fulfillment of the prophecies, and his proclamation of the doctrine of the Messiah. [7]. This provides Locke with sufficient proof of the identity of Jesus, and the validity of his teachings. Locke’s dependence on the use of scripture to validate scripture is an obvious shortcoming in his contention that the truth of Christianity can be attained objectively through human reason.

The innovation of “The Reasonableness of Christianity” is in Locke’s supposition that humanity would be incapable of constructing an equitable system of morality without the aid of divine revelation. Locke reproves previous religions for their failure to instill virtue, maintaining that prior to the advent of Christianity, organized religion did little more than advocate proper observance of rituals. Locke also faults philosophy for its unsuccessful attempts to produce an organization of ethics comparable to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Locke finds Christian morality to be the most substantive and comprehensive system ever proposed to humanity.

Locke’s theological essay serves as a testament to the influence of the Age of Reason upon traditional Christian beliefs. Its success lies not in Locke’s defense of traditional Christian beliefs, but in its call for theological reform. It is a challenge to reassess traditional Christian values to accommodate the enlightened ideals of freedom, individuality and tolerance.

By Lawrence Christopher Skufca (2008)
Some Rights Reserved

Bibliography

[1]. John Locke. 1695. “The Reasonableness of Christianity.” (Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA): 32.
[2]. Ibid., 32, 43-44.
[3]. Ibid., 43.
[4]. Ibid., 27.
[5]. Ibid., 26-27.
[6]. Ibid., 43.
[7]. Ibid., 37.

Religion and Psychology: Complementary Disciplines or Competing Ideaologies?

Religion and Science have shared a complex relationship which has historically fluctuated between cooperation and conflict. Both disciplines arise from an intellectual desire to explain the natural world, but their paths have diverged over the nature of knowledge. Holmes Rolston III, a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University, sees their missions as complimentary, but different: “science operates with the presumption that there are causes to things, religion with the presumption that there are meanings to things.” [1]. Using the Aristotlean model, science generally deals the notion of efficient causation, the explanation of how phenomenon occurs, while religion deals with the notion of final causation, or why it occurs. [2].

Science claims objectivity by incorporating the scientific method. Its goal is to compile empirically observable facts in an effort to understand and predict phenomena in the Natural World. It then tries to establish cause and effect relationships and create explanatory theories of how the universe operates. Its reasoning is deductive; it observes the specific to make inferences about the general. Reality is only experienced through the senses and should remain value neutral. The purpose of Science is to explain what is, not what ought to be.

Religion agrees that the world is intelligible and is capable of being logically understood. However, natural law alone “provides only the beginning of illumination.” [3]. The understanding gained through our senses is useful, but incomplete. Its full value is realized by imparting significance, or “meaning” to the phenomenon. Reality is subject to our conscious awareness; shaped by interpretation, as well as, by experience. Religion’s purpose is to supply the meanings for why things happen; to explain what is in order to evaluate what ought to be. In this feature, Religion is more akin to Philosophy than Science.

According to Rolston, the problem occurs when the two disciplines transcend these boundaries by trying to explain the world in the other’s terms. Each discipline operates logically only within its own paradigm. Science is constrained to explaining causal events through quantitative proofs while Religion is restricted to applying qualitative proofs. This principle is exemplified by the social sciences attempts to measure abstract concepts such as Justice or Happiness. When Science enters into the realm of meanings, its method no longer retains its validity. Likewise, religious logic breaks down when it attempts to attribute causes.

Psychology can be fairly assessed as trying to accomplish both objectives. In its study of the organic biology of the brain, its course remains scientific. Psychology explores biological makeup, chemical reactions, and neural activity through synaptic nerves in an attempt to compile causal explanations for how the organic brain operates. It uses the same methodology as biologists, chemists, and physicists. Where it deviates from its sure scientific footing is through its attempt to assess how the conscious mind operates. Here it seems to enter the realm of the theosophical by trying to derive meaning for why the sentient mind interprets reality in the way that it does.

A valid critique of Psychology is justified when it turns its attention away from testable hypothesis’ to generate its theories. It often takes a philosophical approach in its inquiries and tries to legitimize subjective intellectual contemplation as objective scientific evaluation. The questions it attempts to answer, such as the origin of religious belief, however, are not always scientific in nature. It is at these times that a conflict between Psychology and Religion arises, and they become little more than competing ideologies.

For the purposes of this paper I will take a look at two competing psychological theories about the origin and nature of religious belief. The first contribution will be an analysis of Sigmund Freud’s Future of an Illusion, which offers a negative view of Religion. The second text will be William James’ lectures on The Varieties of Religious Experience which present a more optimistic view of Religion. Hopefully this will shed some light on the difficulties Psychology faces when attempting to inquire into the nature of religious belief.

Freud and Religion

Freud became aware of subconscious mental processes while treating mental patients suffering from neurosis and hysteria. Freud developed a method of analyzing human pathology termed Psychoanalysis which he viewed as an application of the scientific method to the study of human behavior. In an exercise called free association, Freud asked patients to randomly express their thoughts in therapy sessions. Freud believed this provided valuable insights into how the human mind draws conclusions about reality.

Freud theorized that the human psyche was controlled in a large part by the subconscious which sought to project primal instincts such as fear, sexuality and aggression outwardly. According to Freud, emotional symptoms and character traits were complex solutions to the unresolved conflicts of childhood. He believed that the subconscious was a composition of unrealized instincts and desires which manifested themselves in the personality of an individual. This was the basis for his analysis of religious beliefs.

Freud believed religious belief arises as a form of wish fulfillment in man’s psychological attempts to control the uncertainty of nature and fate, “life and the universe must be robbed of its terrors.” [4]. Freud saw the development of consciousness as part of the evolutionary process, with religious belief being an initial stage. In this developmental stage, which he termed “humanization of nature,” Freud suggests:

Impersonal forces and destinies cannot be approached; they remain eternally remote. But if the elements have passions that rage as they do in our own souls, if death itself is not something spontaneous but the violent act of an evil will, If everywhere in nature there are beings around us that we can know in our own society, then we can breathe freely, can feel at home in the uncanny and can deal by psychical means with our senseless psychology. [5].

Freud believed that the “humanization of nature” allowed individuals to project feelings of control over natural forces. The individual cannot comprehend the overwhelming forces of nature as his equal, therefore he makes them divine and gives them the attributes of a father. “It has an infantile prototype … For once before one has found oneself in a similar state of helplessness: as a small child, in relation to one’s parents.” [6]. Parents, like nature, cause fear in individuals by stripping them of their sense of control “thus it was natural to assimilate the two situations.” [7]. The father figure is adopted as the model for the divinity. He is to be feared for his powerful influence on the survival of the child, and yet trusted for his protection against external dangers.

At this point Freud turns toward the failing of the original model. There was a gradual shift in the understanding of the Gods' role in controlling nature. As individuals realized that the Gods did not protect them from pain and suffering, they made the Gods subordinate to Fate. The Gods who created fate, along with nature, had arranged it so they could leave them to operate on their own. “The more autonomous nature became and the more the god’s withdrew from it … the more did morality become their domain.” [8]. The Gods attention turned towards remedying “the defects and evils of civilization.” [9]. This change in commission resulted in a handing down of divine precepts which “were elevated beyond human society and were extended to nature and the universe.” [10].

According to Freud, this led to the understanding of a higher moral order and purpose, imparting religious significance to individual lives. The divine attributes eventually evolved into a single divine entity projected as a benevolent caretaker whose rules protect us from the “merciless” forces of this world. “In the end all good is rewarded and all evil punished, if not actually in this form of life then in the later existences that begin after death.” [11]. This allows the individual to rationalize the existence of pain and suffering in the world and permits hope of a distant redress of grievances.

Freud’s conclusion is that religious teachings are not the product of experience or the end results of rational logic, but are simply illusions. Religious beliefs, in his assessment, are the product of our subconscious desires to fulfill “the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind.” [12]. Religious belief is wish fulfillment projected into the external world; God is simply a false archetype constructed as a form of psychological defense mechanism.

Freud’s belief is that the provability of Science is superior to that of Religion, and that the illusion will eventually pass into oblivion. On an individual level, Religion is simply cerebral self medication, whereas on a societal level, it is a means of coercing reluctant individuals into suppressing their primal instincts. According to Freud, this is the one saving grace of Religion.

A legitimate criticism of Freud is that he abandons the scientific method for the same type of philosophical inquiry into epistemology which he rejects. Freud collects no empirical data, forms no testable hypothesis, and presents no objective evidence to support his theory of Religion. His assumptions wind up being just as unproven as the dogma of religious belief. Freud acknowledges this lack of evidence, simply asking us to rely on the validity of the psychoanalytic approach.

Another critique of Freud’s "humanization of nature" model is that individuals are driven to pursue both, religious and scientific knowledge for the same reasons; the lack of control over one's environment leads one to inquire into cause and effect relationships in an effort to control their environment. Scientific inquiry best serves these interests when attempting to control defined physical and chemical interaction, and is quite deficient in explaining social relationships. Conversely, religious practice is limited in scope to the examination of human behavior. With the exception of Occultism, Religion does not concern itself with controlling physical processes.  Therefore, both disciplines serve different, but necessary, psychological needs.

An atheistic reliance on Science in the social realm simply provides a rationalization for dismissing unwanted moral restraints.  "Why can’t the theist put down Freud’s rival belief? Antireligious “scientific” belief is really the same in kind, a governing Weltanschauung, and we can easily postulate it for some unconscious rebellion against one’s parents, some desire to be free from guilt or moral commandments…" [13].

Finally, Freud's analysis fails to adequately account for the belief systems of Eastern religions. Freud's explanation of unconscious archetypes does not account for the development of non-deistic belief systems such as Buddhism or Confucianism, which do not provide the psychological comfort of a  personal deity. Neither does it adequately address the belief shared by Hindus and Deists, of an impersonal, mechanistic God whose primary function is to administer the proper functioning of divinely ordained cycles and relationships within the natural world. Not all religious belief systems fit easily into the paradigm of Freud’s psychoanalytic hypothesis.

As a result, Freud’s analysis leaves the door open for the possibility that the concept of the Divine exists as a form of innate knowledge, rather than being the result of socialization.  Assuming, arguendo, the ontological arguments of Socrates and Rene Descartes, the concept of God may simply be the unconscious acknowledgement  that we understand such abstract concepts as infinity, perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, despite the fact they form no part of the human experience. In this scenario, it would be natural for an individual to analogize the divine attributes with  comprehensible human archetypes, such as father, mother, king, teacher and healer. Perhaps, this is the most rational way to communicate abstract concepts which are not commonly experienced through sensory perception. Personalizing the divine attributes through human archetypes may simply be the best educational tool we have developed for conveying universally intuited moral understanding.

James and Religion

In 1902, distinguished psychologist and philosopher, William James, gave a series of lectures at the University of Edinburgh, entitled, The Varieties of Religious Experience. James studied the written testimony of numerous individuals attempting to describe their personal spiritual experiences, in an attempt to conduct an empirical study of religious beliefs. Like Freud, most of his observations came from individual case studies and his arguments have more of a philosophical ring to them.  However, in contrast to Freud,  James focuses on the personal nature of religious experience outside the context of socialized community belief structures.

James views Religion as an individual consciousness, rather than a group experience. His position is that the truly religious person is not shaped by society. James acknowledges there is a superficial mode of Religion in which the adherent follows “conventional observances” as proscribed by his culture. James agrees that in this type of simple religious observance, the adherent is not intellectually transformed, but simply conditioned to perform traditional practices and customs. James writes this off as “meaningless” religious observance. To James, the true believer is an eccentric personality and individualistic in his approach, pointing out that many religious believers are inspired to act in ways that are contrary to traditional norms. This is exhibited by the “exceptional and eccentric” demeanor of religious reformers such as George Foxx. [14].

James argues that an individual’s religious beliefs are grounded in the conscious: “All our attitudes moral, practical, or emotional, as well as religious are due to the ‘objects’ of our consciousness, the things which we believe to exist, whether real or ideally along with ourselves.” [15]. Concrete concepts such as God, as well as more abstract concepts such as mercy, justice, and holiness exist as “pure ideas” of which the individual has no prior experience. These ideals may be “present to our senses” or may merely exist as thought, but they bring forth sincere and genuine responses.

The paradox is that words like God, soul, and immortality have no sub-context in the natural world. They are theoretically devoid of any significance yet are understood in the context of religious practice much the same way as Science lends significance to words such as time and space in the material world. According to James, “This absolute determinability of our mind by abstractions is one of the cardinal facts in our human constitution.” [16].

James' view is that attributing human characteristics  to God is a consequence of the inability to meaningfully express the concepts Religion deals with. These abstract religious concepts are internalized as intuitions that operate on a deeper level than rational thought. In James’ view rationality is preconditioned for by our intuitions and is an inferior method for founding belief: “The truth is that in metaphysical and religious sphere, articulate reasons are cogent for us only when our inarticulate feelings of reality have already been impressed in favor of the same conclusion.” [17]. Our instinct leads and our intelligence follows. As a result, no belief system, whether scientific or rational, can be changed by rational argument.

James did not see the natural world as perceived through the senses as a providing a full measure of reality. James speculated "…so long as we deal with the cosmic and the general we deal only with the symbols of reality, but as soon as we deal with private and personal phenomena as such, we deal with realities in the completest sense of the term” [18].

In James' opinion, our inner experience may be subjective and unscientific, but it has the greatest effect on shaping our reality. Inner religious motivations lead to changes in character and manifest themselves in the deeds accomplished by the religious individual. The “stronghold of religion” lies in this individuality, or self-actualization of the believer, and through this “the theologian’s contention that the religious man is moved by an external power is vindicated.” [19].

James acknowledges that proof of whether God exists is not needed for Religion to serve its purpose. James determines the way to save the utility of religious belief is by supplying justification for the illusion. His defense of Religion consigns the Divinity to the role of little more than an inspirational device. For James, the actual power of God is manifested through the individual’s belief in God.

James’ view of Religion is very individualistic in this sense. There is no sense of community, morality, or an ordered universe such as prevails in many religious traditions. James disposes of any notion of a universal purpose by assigning personal beliefs about the divine dictate as overbeliefs. In James' view, a person is only capable of ascertaining the divine will for their own behavior and interactions.

James dismisses the notion of a personal deity, defining God is a personal experience rather than a sovereign entity. This addresses the critique that Religion is oppressive in the application of its subjective moral standards onto unwilling members of society, but it takes much of the substance away from what a Divine Being is or represents in most cultures.

At a purely subjective level Religion is vindicated. Whether or not religious tenets are correct is of no consequence as long as they prove useful to the individual. The subconscious self creates a personal entity which guides us through our personal reality, making God a "causal agent as well as a medium of communion.” [20]. This subjective perception of reality serves a rational function of empowering the individual religious believer.

Conclusions

Freud and James' individual case studies leave us with an unsatisfactory scientific resolution as to the original source of religious faith. Ironically, both theories fall victim to the same epistemological shortcomings they originally set out to confront by examining the source of the concept of God. What we are left with is the centuries old question DeCartes left us with -- does the intrinsic belief in God originate from an idea implanted by an external force which acts upon us, or is it simply the by-product of an innate desire to assign meaning to an incomprehensible world.

Neither Freud nor James provides us with a scientific solution to the problem. They offer no insights on what empirical data we should collect, form no testable hypothesis to validate their conclusions, do not control for different religious ideologies, and base their findings on a miniscule sample of humanity. Instead, each man relies on the trustworthiness of the psychoanalytic approach to correctly diagnose the subjective, unconscious motivations of their subjects.  Freud and James both come to the determination that religious belief is an internalized rationalization of the outside world, but arrive at different conclusions for the utility this rationalization serves.

For Freud, religious belief is simply a psychological defense mechanism -- a kind of personalized rationalization to provide us with a sense of self-control over an unpredictable and hostile environment. Its usefulness is in providing  a societal control mechanism which coerces reluctant individuals into suppressing their primal instincts.

James, on the other hand, views religious belief as an individualized experience. Our inner experience helps shape our reality. The utility of Religion is in the self-actualization of the believer which empowers us to achieve greater accomplishments. Personal faith motivates us to look beyond our individual deficiencies.

Neither intellectual attributes religious belief to a pathological condition or a deficiency in critical reasoning skills. Conversely, each psychologist views Religion as a healthy cognitive function based on the natural consequence of the mind's attempt to process imperfect information which cannot be experienced through our natural senses. What motivates us to attach personal significance to mundane human experiences? Why do individuals continue in their religious faith with little or no tangible proof of its utility? Is the belief in a Divine Being helpful or harmful to our daily existence? These are qualitative inquiries which fall outside the realm of testable scientific hypothesis. As such, they are subjective experiences which become matters of personal conscience.

Psychology's conjecture into how the mind forms abstract religious concepts requires it to resort to the same speculative ontological arguments for which it criticizes  Theology.  Psychology retains its sure scientific footing when it limits its scope to the ream of quantifiable proofs; it overreaches when it attempts to magnify subjective  individual  experiences into broad, generalized assumptions. Likewise, Religion retains its integrity when it limits its examination to the realm of individual human potential; overreaching when it attempts to extrapolate broad, generalized principles and indiscriminately apply them at an organizational level. When reduced to over-simplified, dogmatic doctrine, both fields of study are susceptible to harmful misapplication. It is at these ideological impasses that Psychology and Religion stop functioning as  complimentary disciplines and become little more than competing belief systems. 

By Lawrence Christopher Skufca (2007)

Some Rights Reserved

Bibliography

[1]. Holmes Rolston III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey, pp. 22-23.

[2]. Owen Gingrich, “God’s Universe.” p. 12.

[3]. Holmes Rolston III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey, p. 23

[4]. Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, p. 20.

[5]. Ibid., p. 20.

[6]. Ibid., p. 21.

[7]. Ibid., p. 21.

[8]. Ibid., p. 22.

[9]. Ibid., p. 22.

[10]. Ibid., p. 23.

[11]. Ibid., p. 23.

[12]. Ibid., p. 38.

[13]. Holmes Rolston III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey, p. 163.

[14]. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Lecture I. p. 4.

[15]. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Lecture III. p. 1.

[16]. Ibid., p. 3.

[17]. Ibid., p. 13.

[18]. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Lecture XX. p. 11.

[19]. Ibid., p. 20.

[20]. Ibid., p. 22.

Jeanne d'Arc: Delusional or Prophetic?

A Psychological Inquiry into Religious Experience

Modern psychology, in it’s effort to better understand individual human behavior, has seen fit to study and diagnose the behavior of key historical figures. According to Nolen-Hokesema (2001), psychiatric biographers have studied the lives of political leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Napolean Bonaparte, as well as religious leaders such as Martin Luther and George Fox, in an effort to diagnose their behavior using current psychological models. Although such research is speculatory at best, it can prove beneficial in identifying specific behavioral traits that have persisted throughout history. Jeanne d’Arc, more commonly known in the English speaking World as Joan of Arc, is one such historical personality that has seemed to generate much psychological debate, and would be of interest to anyone concerned with the effects of religious experience on the human psyche.

Jeanne, a fifteenth century martyr, led a successful military campaign against the English, which she believed was the call of God on her life. According to the transcript of her trial, Jeanne testified that she was counseled by the archangel Michael, St. Catherine, and St. Margaret, often accompanied by a great light whom she interpreted to be Jesus. Jeanne insisted that during these conversations she was instructed of God’s will for England to withdraw from aggression towards France and that the displaced Dauphin, Charles, was to be be crowned King of France. Jean never wavered in her assertion that she was under the authority of the “King of Heaven” in her mission to save the French monarchy, a belief that eventually led to her being condemned to death at Rouen in 1431.

In November of 1455, twenty-four years after Jeanne’s execution, an independent investigation was authorized by Pope Callixtus III (newworldencyclopedia.org, 2005). After what has come to be known as the Nullification or Rehabilitation Trial, the verdict of the inquisition at Rouen was overturned; On July 07, 1456, Jeanne was formally acquitted of any wrong doing by the Vatican (newworldencyclopedia.org, 2005). Pope Benedict XV brought closure on May 16, 1920, whereby, Jeanne was cannonized as a saint and the Church officially endorsed her visions as being manifest of God.

There has been much speculation to whether or not Jeanne suffered from mental illness, attested to by an estimated 12,000 books that have been written about her, in part, to address her claims (Nash-Marshall, 2001). This raises the question: According to current diagnostic standards, as defined by the Diagonostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMV-IV, 2000); does Jeanne’s behavior fit the criteria for abnormal behavior? If so, what disorder was she affected by? And ultimately we must consider whether or not it is prudent for Psychology to treat religious experience as mental illness.

Distinguished psychologist, William James, recognized the impact that religious experience has had on the human psyche throughout history, and advocated the importance of critical evaluation. James performed case studies on some of the more dramatic conversion experiences of several historical figures, the most notable being the Christian evangelist George Fox. James reported his observations in a series of lectures at Edinburgh entitled The Varieties of Religious Experience - A study in Human Nature (1901-1902) :

 ... the most important step forward in psychology ... is the discovery ... that, in certain subjects at least, there is not only the conciousness of the ordinary field, with its usual centre and margin, but an addition thereto in the shape of a set of memories, thoughts, and feelings which are extra-marginal and outside of the primary conciousness altogether, but yet must be classed as concious facts of some sort, able to reveal their presence by unmistakeable signs ... unlike the other advances which psychology has made, this discovery has revealed to us an entirely unsuspected peculiarity in the constitution of human nature.

James (1901-1902) asserted that the occurrence of spiritual transformation has persisted throughout history and is too common an experience in individuals to be dimissed, urging his contemporaries toward further research.

James may have been the first to hypothesize that religious experience is accompanied by biological changes (1901-1902). This seems to have been validated by recent experiments at MIT (Newton, 2004), whereby neuroscientists have discovered that humans are capable of undergoing neurological and physiological changes as a result of meditation and prayer. James (1901-1902) concluded that a metamorphosis took place in religious experiences, changing the very nature of who a person was:

what is attained is often an altogether new level of spiritual vitality, a relatively heroic level, in which impossible things have become possible, and new energies and endurances are shown. The personality is changed, the man is born anew ...

This best describes the life of Jeanne d’Arc.

Much of what is historically known about Jeanne has been obtained from over 100 eyewitness accounts recorded in the trial transcript of her prosecution for witchcraft and heresy by an English Ecclesiastical Court at Rouen in 1431. I will reference the English translation by Barrett (1932). Interestingly enough, Jeanne was never found guilty of any criminal offense, of any heresy against the Church, nor of any charges of witchcraft. The misconduct that eventually allowed for Jeanne’s death sentence to be ordered and carried out was her habit of dressing in men’s clothing, which her prosecutors deemed to be demonic. According to Jeanne’s testimony at the trial, she adopted the habit after being given command of the French troops at the seige of Orleans in 1429. Scholars have speculated that this was an attempt by Jeanne to gain the respect of her male counterparts, as well as to protect herself from violation by making herself less attractive to the male soldiers.

Thorton’s biography in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), portrays Jeanne as a devoutly religious, illiterate peasant girl, whose prophecy helped to inspire the Armagnacs (the party of the Dauphin, Charles) to victory over the Burgundian French – English alliance during the Hundred Years War. Prior to Jeanne's arrival in Chinon in 1429, the Argmanacs had lost control of France. Nash-Marshall (2001) states that the Duke of Burgundy, decided to back the English in 1417, allying with England against the Dauphin, Charles. Then Charles VI, the reigning King of France, signed a treaty with Henry V of England which made the English monarch the successor to the throne of France, displacing the Dauphin as rightful heir. By 1429, the Dauphin was on the brink of defeat; he had retreated to Bourges to set up an alternate court, and his troops were simply unable to resist the invasion of France. As a result, many key cities, including Orleans in October of 1428, had fallen to the English.

Nash-Marshall (2001) reports that Jeanne first presented herself to Lord Robert Baldicourt, in May of 1428, being adamant that God had commanded her to seek out Baldicourt and to aid the Dauphin in claiming the French crown. Jeanne was initially ridiculed by the French garrison commander. However, after Baldicourt reported to Charles that she had accurately forecast the French defeat at the Battle of the Herrings outside Orleans, the Dauphin reluctantly agreed to hold counsel with her in March of 1429 (Nash-Marshall, 2001). The Dauphin reportedly tested Jeanne, whom he had never met, by disguising his identity and forcing her to correctly select him in a crowded room (Thurston, 1910). Jean was able to easily identify him and attributed her success to having recieved a “sign” from God, through the “voices” which “counseled” her (Barrett, 1932).

Charles was further convinced of her claims during a private conversation, in which Jeanne purportedly disclosed a revelation, which she referred to as a “secret sign,” communicated to her in her conversations with “St. Mary, and St. Margaret” (Barrett, 1932). Jeanne refused to reveal what the “sign” was to her prosecutors at Rouen, but it led Charles to send her to Poitiers, where she was examined by a commitee of Bishops and doctors (Barrett, 1932). According to Thurston (1910), Charles was advised that “the theologians found nothing heretical in her claims to supernatural guidance, and, without pronouncing on the reality of her mission, they thought she might be safely employed and further tested.” When questioned at her trial, Jeanne consistently referenced her testimony to the theologians at Poitiers (Barrett, 1932). Unfortunately, the records of her testimony at Poitiers have not been preserved (Thurston, 1910).

After being scrutinized by the clergy, Charles entrusted Jeanne with command of the French troops at the seige of Orleans in March of 1429 (Nash-Marshall, 2001). On her arrival at Orleans, Jeanne had a letter transcribed and delivered to the English Commander which read:

Hand over to the Maiden, who is sent here by God the King of Heaven, the keys to all the towns you have taken and violated in France . . . in God’s name go back to your own lands. And if you will not do so, await the word of the Maiden, who will go to see you to your very great misfortune. King of England, if you do not do so, I am a commander, and whereever I come across your troops in France, I shall make them go, whether willingly, or unwillingly; and if they will not obey, I will have them wiped out. I am sent here by God King of Heaven – an eye for an eye – to drive you entirely out of France. And if they are willing to obey, I shall have mercy on them . . . (Williams, 2005).

The English did not take heed and were defeated at Orleans after a decade of military dominance over France. Jeanne liberated Loire the following month, and Charles was crowned King of France at Reims in July (Nash-Marshall, 2001). Jeanne’s prophecy was fulfilled upon Charles VII’s coronation.

After attaining the throne, Charles lost interest in the War and withdrew support and provision from Jeanne’s campaign (Thurston, 1910). Joan was wounded in the September assault on St. Denis and was unwillingly removed from the battle by the Duc d’Alencon, who abandoned the seige (Thurston, 1910). A truce was struck between Charles and Henry that winter, and it was April before Jeanne returned to battle (Lafont, 1910). Prior to her return, Jeanne stated that she had been counselled by her voices that she was to be captured by Midsummers Day (Barret, 1932). Joan was taken prisoner by the English army on May 24, 1430 at Compiegne (Thurston, 1910).

Was Jeanne mentally ill? Jeanne’s testimony and the statements of witnesses at the trial give the most accurate account of her mental state, her belief system, and her previous behavior. According to the DSM-IV (2000), Jean would have fit the description of Psychotic. The term “psychotic” was formerly defined as “delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occuring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature”(DSM-IV, p. 297). There is no historical evidence that would suggest that Jeanne’s visions were substance induced or related to a medical condition. This would definitely lead to “the absence of insight into their pathological nature.” The updated definition in the DSM-IV generalizes the term psychotic to mean the “presence of certain symptoms,” and allows for the definition to vary, depending on the disorder.

Jeanne would meet citeria A for Schizophrenia, defined as the “presence of two or more of the following symptoms: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, and disorganized or catatonic behavior”(DSM-IV, 2000, p. 299). As stated in the DSM-IV delusions are “erroneous beliefs that usually involve a misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences”(p. 299). The DSM-IV goes on to say: “the distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea . . . depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.” By this definition, Jeanne was not delusional; her strongly held convictions came to pass, proving their veracity after the fact. However, if Jeanne’s contemporaries would have ascribed to modern psychological standards, the examiners at Poitiers, without the advantage of precognition, would have deemed her delusional. The DSM-IV goes on to note that “certain types of auditory hallucinations (e.g. two or more voices conversing with one another or voices maintaining a running commentary on the person’s thoughts or behavior) . . . are to be considered typical schizophrenic behavior and that no other negative symptoms need be present.” At her trial in 1431, Jeanne clearly stated that she was “counselled daily” by her voices since first hearing them at the age of thirteen, and that St. Mary and St. Margaret sometimes spoke with one another before counselling her. She also described visual, olfactory, and tactile hallucinations stating that she had seen St. Mary, St. Margaret, and St. Michael “as clearly as she saw” the judges before her, describing their physical appearance, fragrance, manner of dress, and the “smooth” texture of their garments (Barrett, 1932). Jeanne clearly meets criterion A for Schizophrenia.

Criterion B of Schizophrenia, referred to by the DSM-IV (p.312) as social/occupational dysfunction, is subject to interpretation. In order to meet criteria B, it would have to be deemed that Jeanne showed “functioning” in her work, social relations, and personal care “markedly below the level prior to the onset” of her visions at the age of thirteen (DSM-IV, p.312). It is hard to assess what Jeanne’s potential was in these areas of developement, and it could be reasonably argued that she positively progressed. Jeanne transformed from an introvert to an extrovert, was highly motivated in her work, and prior to her death was a well disciplined soldier at her physical peak. In addition, she intellectually progressed from an illiterarate peasant girl to an accomplished military strategist. After her death, Jean, Bastard of Orleans, testified that “she was able to execute many marvelous maneuvers which had not been thought of by two or three accomplished generals working together (Grundy, 2000).”

Criterion C of Schizophrenia, duration, is securely met in Jeanne’s case. The DSM-IV’s prescribed length of time is at least six months of “continuous signs of the disturbance” and “at least one month of symptoms.” Jeanne’s voices and visions persisted from their onset at the age of thirteen until her untimely death at the age of nineteen.

Criterion D of Schizophrenia calls for a closer scrutiny of Jeanne’s behavior.
The DSM-IV requires the exclusion of Schizoaffective and Mood Disorders, for a diagnosis of Schizophrenia. A Schizoaffective Disorder is understood to be “an uninterrupted period of illness” during which the symptoms of criteria A of Schizophrenia manifest themselves in concurrence with the symptoms of a mood disorder (DSM-IV, p. 319). Jeanne tesified at Rouen that her voices had become increasingly urgent, and that by February of 1429, they had become desperate about seeking the audience of the Dauphin. Jeanne’s agitation with the plight of her King and her Country, along with her grandoise ideas of it being her responsibility to save France from its fate, and her increased involvement in goal oriented activities meet the three symptomatic requirements that the DSM-IV deems necessary to meet criteria A for a Manic Episode.

Criteria B requires a fourth symptom from criteria A to be present if her mood was irritable, rather than elevated or expansive. This leads to us having to draw a conclusion about Joan’s temperament without sufficient information. Jean’s temperament seems to have changed to fit her circumstances. From the testimony at her trial, Jeanne and her extremely loyal troops had developed a powerful bond. This would suggest that she was temperate, rather than aggressive with them. In her efforts to persuade Lord Baldicourt, Charles, and the commitee at Poitiers, she would have had to measure her persistence with respect and humility, which exhibits self control of her emotional states. She was, after all, only a female peasant among male nobility. Yet, in direct contrast, at St. Denis she was so tenacious that she had to be forcefully removed from the battle by one of her commanders after being wounded, and she displayed open disdain for her prosecutors at Rouen, showing that she had the propensity for aggressive behavior, given the occasion. There is simply not enough evidence to make a sound judgement as to whether or not her moods were incongruent with the situations she encountered. For this reason I do not believe that a mood disorder can be safely assumed.

Jeanne’s failure to meet criteria B of both, Schizophrenia and Mania, would make a diagnosis of these disorders unmerited. This would consequently rule out a diagnosis of Schizoaffective or Bipolar I Disorder as well. What we are left with then is the DSM-IV’s catch-all diagnosis for psychosis, Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Once Jeanne’s grandoise visions came to pass, however, this stigma would have to be removed.

Jeanne had no definable mental illness according to current psychological standards. What is more, it is debatable whether or not Jeanne’s behavior was abnormal, as defined by the current guidelines that her behavior must be maladaptive, or be a cause of concern for the safety or comfort of herself or others. Despite her extraordinary behavior, Jeanne seems to have had gained the trust and favor of Charles VII, her examiners at Poitiers, her fellow troops, and the majority of the French population. The people who seem to have found Jeanne's behavior most disturbing and dangerous were her English adversaries.

This poses a dilemma for modern psychology. Jeanne’s experiences and statements, no matter how outlandish and bizarre, were for Jeanne, genuine religious experiences. The fact that the predictions of her voices came to be realized only adds to the conundrum. Pure skepticism can write these events off to mere happenstance, or theorize that they were simply self-fulfilling prophesies. Psychology cannot, however, without prejudice, dismiss the veracity of Jeanne’s claims, nor the effects of faith on the human psyche. In order for Jeanne to have transformed her “delusions” into reality, she needed to draw the French commander Robert Baldincourt, two kings, an entire committee of educated doctors and theologians at Poitiers, the French Military, thousands of English and Burgundian soldiers, the Ecclesiastical Court at Rouen, and the populace of France into her delusions over the span of fourteen months. This amount of influence over such a short timespan, no matter how charismatic a leader, is truly astounding.

The lack of a valid psychological explanation for what transpired in fifteenth century France leads me to the conclusion that a shortcoming of modern psychological models is their failure to recognize the effects of genuine religious experience. This is attributable to a century old notion that spirituality is a subjective experience and cannot be objectively studied using empirical methods. An added obstacle is that the biblical model of faith as defined by Hebrews 11:1, “the assurance of things hoped for, [and] the conviction of things not seen” is the psychological definition of delusional. This is most likely the belief that Jeanne adhered to, and is a scripture that continues to influence over a billion people worldwide. Under current psychological standards these people would be considered delusional.

Psychology has failed to embrace the challenge put forth by William James. A commitment to serious inquiry and unbiased empirical research into the phenomenon of religious experience is necessary if we are to gain a comprehesive understanding into human behavior. With the clear evidence of its ability to motivate individuals to greater personal acheivement, transform mental perspectives, and produce observable changes in mood, character and personality; it has become impossible, in good conscience, to continue to dismiss personal spiritual events as merely emotional, superstitious, or hallucinatory experiences. As long as the existing prejudices against faith and spirituality remain unexamined, Psychology will fall short in its claims of objectivity and the integrity of its Scientific methodology are fairly called into question.

Lawrence Christopher Skufca (2005)
Some Rights Reserved

(Motivational Contributors: Dana Leighton, Toni Bryant, and God our Father in Heaven, who is the author of all inspiration in the pursuit of truth and understanding)

Bibliography

[1]. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (Fourth Edition, Text Revision, pp. 297-334). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
[2]. Barrett, W.P. (1932). The Trial of Jeanne d’Arc Translated into English from the Original Latin and French Documents. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from:http://www.ordotempli.org/jean_d’arc_trial_transcript.htm
[3]. Grundy, J. (2000). Joan of Arc Considered. Retrieved Mar. 14, 2005, from: http://stjoan-center.com/topics/jgrundy.html.
[4]. James, William. (1901-1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience, (Lecture X: Conversion – Concluded). Retrieved April 07, 2005, from:http://www.csp.org/experience/james-varieties/james-varieties10.html.
[5]. Nash-Marshall, Siobhan. (2001, Spring). On the Fate of Nations. Logos: A
Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, Vol 4: 2. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from:http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/logos/vol4_2/nash.html.
[6]. newworldencyclopedia.org (2005). Joan of Arc. Retrieved April 07, 2005 from: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Joan_of_Arc.
[7]. Newton, Curt. (2004). Meditation and the Brain. Technology Review, February, 2004. Retrieved April 07, 2005 from: http://www.technologyreview.com/R&D/wtr_13453,295,pl.html.
[8]. Nolen-Hoeksama. (2001). Mood Disorders: Leadership, Creativity, and Bipolar Disorder (pp.257-259). Abnormal Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[9]. Thurston, Herbert. (2004). St. Joan of Arc. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, (online ed.). Retrieved March 14, 2005, from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm
[10]. Williamston, Allen. (2005). Joan of Arc’s ‘Letter to the English’ (March 22, 1429). Retrieved March 14, 2005, from: http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_letter_Mar1429.html.