A prayer to praise Mary— besides the obvious

[Guest]

Jesus would have suffered almost unbearable mental stress through His Passion.  To state He had psychotic mental illness is something totally different and I don't think there were any signs in Jesus of psychotic mental illness from what we know of Him through the Gospels. It is not because it was any sort of disgrace if He did suffer MI, but simply that there were no signs of it in order to state that He did.  I think probably Jesus might have become depressed in mood and if He had not been, He would not have been human..........but it was not chronic psychotic depression, rather reactive depression to a shocking set of circumstances He had to deal with and in the knowledge He also had to undergo personally those circumstances and eventually did, step by cruel step. 

If reactive depression is now classed as a mental illness, then I can understand Jesus perhaps being in this modern day psychological classification.  Be that as it may, Jesus was not psychotic.  The problem with stating Jesus, in this instance, suffered MI without any qualification whatsoever quite possibly would become the understanding of what mental illness actually means and implies can vastly differ almost from person to person.

[Guest]

Quote

"The problem with stating Jesus, in this instance, suffered MI without any qualification whatsoever quite possibly would become the understanding of what mental illness actually means and implies can vastly differ almost from person to person."

Re the above - what I should have written was: "The problem with stating Jesus, in this instance, suffered MI - and without any qualification whatsoever quite possibly would mean clarifying the understanding of what mental illness actually means and implies.  This understanding can vastly differ almost from person to person."

Edited April 17, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[GreenScapularedHuman]

59 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Jesus would have suffered almost unbearable mental stress through His Passion.  To state He had psychotic mental illness is something totally different and I don't think there were any signs in Jesus of psychotic mental illness from what we know of Him through the Gospels. It is not because it was any sort of disgrace if He did suffer MI, but simply that there were no signs of it in order to state that He did.  I think probably Jesus might have become depressed in mood and if He had not been, He would not have been human..........but it was not chronic psychotic depression, rather reactive depression to a shocking set of circumstances He had to deal with and in the knowledge He also had to undergo personally those circumstances and eventually did, step by cruel step. 

If reactive depression is now classed as a mental illness, then I can understand Jesus perhaps being in this modern day psychological classification.  Be that as it may, Jesus was not psychotic.  The problem with stating Jesus, in this instance, suffered MI without any qualification whatsoever quite possibly would become the understanding of what mental illness actually means and implies can vastly differ almost from person to person.

Respectfully disagreed. And the article discusses the matter its more than just a speculative thought.

Minus the obvious like the messianic and god complex... the Bible even frequents the concern of the crowd and even his family that he had lost his mind including:

Quote

Mark 3:21
When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

But the reason I would think so is that his speech is a bit disorganized and tangential at times, John 17 comes to mind. His replies are vague parabolic replies that in many cases don't really answer the question, which even his disciples ask why the parables and the New Testament often deposits that the answers of Jesus did not make sense to listeners.

Quote

Matthew 13:10;13
The disciples approached him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables? - This is why I speak to them in parables, because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’”

Jesus often spoke about persecution and conspiracies against him, which even the listeners seem a bit startled by the claim:

Quote

John 7:19-24
... Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” The crowd answered, “You are possessed! Who is trying to kill you?” Jesus answered and said to them, “I performed one work and all of you are amazed because of it. Moses gave you circumcision—not that it came from Moses but rather from the patriarchs—and you circumcise a man on the sabbath. If a man can receive circumcision on a sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a whole person well on a sabbath? Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.”

This is an example of the crowd both challenging the sanity of Jesus and questioning who is trying to kill him. Which Jesus doesn't answer the question but rather he offers at best a tangential answer about a justification for 'works' on the Sabbath.

While one might be tempted to read this as a reference to the mentioned conspiracy to kill Jesus in the Gospels... Jesus addressing the crowd says that they are trying to kill him. Which is a possible interpretation but one that ignores that the claim is addressed at the crowd.

Regarding depression... Jesus never married, lived with his mother till his 30s in obscurity (possibly even isolation), and often expressed great lament even fatigue. Jesus' failure to defend himself before Pilate could be seen as a symptom of a depressive episode or possibly even of tiredness as he was up almost the entire night by the gospel's account praying (a common symptom of depression is being up at night and difficulty resting).



Regardless if Jesus was god or not, good or not, true or not, real or not... theres plenty of things in the Gospels that have a lot of value and its impact on Western culture is almost unavoidable even as the West becomes much more secular and irreligious. Richard Dawkings (lauded evolutionary biologist and a bit of a vocal anti-theist/atheist) has said he is a 'cultural christian'... showing that the impact and relevance is very far reaching. So if Jesus was psychotic doesn't change any of that...

And if Jesus was god, was good, was true, and was real.... then thats doubly so... it changes none of that.

Edited April 17, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[Guest]

I think it is all a question of what one believes and the research (or whatever) one can present to support what one believes and today there is plenty of sound research (and whatevers) for either ways of thinking and believing.   

Undoubtedly perhaps if Jesus lived today He would find Himself in a psychiatric ward on psychiatric medications that might have him walking into door frames instead of through doorways etc. etc. and even worse - along with many of our saints who would likely experience the same.   The dedicated following of Jesus was and is - and will always be - counter cultural and questionable, even insane, to the current most common cultural way of thinking and possibly in every generation, i.e. to the secular and secularized mind.  I recall having read two sentences that stay in memory:

•       "psychiatry is the invention of society to keep its more creative members in line" 
•        "God help the poor mystic who falls into the hands of psychiatry"

We can preach and evangelize and be really experts at doing so - and so we should and are called to do so.

 In the final analysis Faith always is a Gift of God.

Quote

 

https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/12878/Capps_Beyond(2003).pdf?sequence=1

HTS 59(3) 2003 621

Beyond Schweitzer and the psychiatrists

Donald Capps1

Princeton Theological Seminary

Princeton (USA)2.5.4

Excerpts only

Quote

Four basic conclusions

Schweitzer concludes his study with a very brief itemization of the results of his critique of the psychiatric studies of Jesus. It consists of four basic conclusions:

• The material [in the Gospels] which is in agreement with these books is for the most part unhistorical.

• From material which is certainly historical, a number of Jesus’ acts and utterances impress the authors as pathological because they are too little acquainted with the contemporary thought of the time to be able to do

Donald Capps HTS 59(3) 2003 653

justice to it. A series of wrong deductions also springs from the fact that they lack any understanding of the peculiar problems inherent in the course of his public ministry.

• From these false preconceptions and with the help of entirely hypothetical symptoms, they construct pictures of sickness that are themselves artifacts which, moreover, do not conform exactly with the clinical forms of sickness diagnosed by the authors.

• The only symptoms that may be accepted as historical and, thus, possibly be discussed from the psychiatric point of view – the high estimate that Jesus has of himself and perhaps also the baptism hallucination – fall short of proving the existence of mental illness.

These conclusions indicate Schweitzer’s confidence that he has effectively distanced his own picture of Jesus, as that Jesus sees himself as the coming Messiah, from the psychopathological pictures formulated by the three psychiatrists. The first two conclusions focus on their lack of knowledge about historical matters, especially relating to sources and the late Jewish context within which Jesus’ own views were formed. The third relates to the psychiatrists’ own field, particularly their application of their own diagnostic categories in imprecise and invalid ways. But the fourth conclusion leaves the door open, if ever so slightly, for future psychiatric approaches to Jesus. It notes that Jesus’ high estimate of himself and possibly the baptismal hallucinatory experience are discussable from the psychiatric point of view, not, however, as evidence of mental illness.

Edited April 17, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

The dignity of those with mental health matters is very important. Jesus in the gospels says to cleanse the lepers. In many ways those with mental health matters are modern lepers. The outcast, the excluded, the blamed, the unwanted, the neglected, the downtrodden...

My brand of bipolar meant that for 20 years I regularly see-sawed through bizarre psychosis for a period and then through a period of normality.  I thought of myself as a modern day leper and the only place I could find any sense of dignity and belonging was with Jesus - not His Church however.

I have said it before and dare say it again.  The Church always has the right words most especially when mental illness is in the news, in the headlines, for some reason; however, in the main, I am not content that the attitudes expressed by The Church at such times are flowing down to diocesan and parish levels and changing opinions and behaviours.  The only thing that really has changed is that actual opinions and behaviours are no longer overt, rather they are covert.  Instead of barring us from the Church choir, for example, because of MI, we are nowadays barred because the choir no longer needs members - or some other veiling excuse. We are in the age of 'political correctness'.

As a sufferer of mental illness, I know we are most often, in fact very often, the object of charity in The Church.  Rare is it, if ever, that we are recognised as having our own gifts and abilities.  As having something valuable to contribute in our own right. 

In this age of political correctness we can strongly and loudly object, for example only, when women are used and are exploited as objects, objectivised.

Edited April 17, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[GreenScapularedHuman]

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I think it is all a question of what one believes and the research (or whatever) one can present to support what one believes and today there is plenty of sound research (and whatevers) for either ways of thinking and believing.  

The veracity, relevance, and quality of such sources not so much.

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Undoubtedly perhaps if Jesus lived today He would find Himself in a psychiatric ward on psychiatric medications that might have him walking into door frames instead of through doorways etc. etc. and even worse - along with many of our saints who would likely experience the same. 

Probably not. At least not in the modern US legal system standard which is they need to be a threat to themselves or others in some way. But yes if Jesus were alive today he likely would of been strongly urged to receive care.

Or just been considered crazy... which he was at his time.

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The dedicated following of Jesus was and is - and will always be - counter cultural and questionable, even insane, to the current most common cultural way of thinking and possibly in every generation, i.e. to the secular and secularized mind.

Very strongly disagreed.

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

 I recall having read two sentences that stay in memory:

•       "psychiatry is the invention of society to keep its more creative members in line" 
•        "God help the poor mystic who falls into the hands of psychiatry"

We can preach and evangelize and be really experts at doing so - and so we should and are called to do so.

 In the final analysis Faith always is a Gift of God.

Excerpts only

I very strongly disagree with both those quotations you give.

Psyco-medication but also psyco-therapy and psycho-education, are important to the health happiness and productive full life to everyone moreover those with mental health matters.

---

The citation you give is more or less true, the gospels were written well after the alleged fact. It is very likely there is no first hand sources in any of the New Testament. The Gospel of Luke when it opens is actually honest enough to admit just that:

Quote

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Although what would pass for the writer of Luke as 'investigation' very likely was nothing in the meaning as it would be used today.

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

My brand of bipolar meant that for 20 years I regularly see-sawed through bizarre psychosis for a period and then through a period of normality.  I thought of myself as a modern day leper and the only place I could find any sense of dignity and belonging was with Jesus - not His Church however.

I am sorry to hear that. Sounds like schizoaffective disorder bipolar type with episodes of psychosis.

The reason I shared with you the NPR article above.

Also I have dated plenty of women with psychosis and bipolar disorder, even both, and they are decent women. Moreover when they are on their medication.

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The Church always has the right words most especially when mental illness is in the news, in the headlines, for some reason; however, in the main, I am not content that the attitudes expressed by The Church at such times are flowing down to diocesan and parish levels and changing opinions and behaviours.  The only thing that really has changed is that actual opinions and behaviours are no longer overt, rather they are covert.  Instead of barring us from the Church choir, for example, because of MI, we are nowadays barred because the choir no longer needs members - or some other veiling excuse. We are in the age of 'political correctness'.

The Catholic Church isn't known for its tolerance, inclusion, sensitivity, outreach, or political correctness.

Mostly the opposite.

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

As a sufferer of mental illness, I know we are most often, in fact very often, the object of charity in The Church.  Rare is it, if ever, that we are recognised as having our own gifts and abilities.  As having something valuable to contribute in our own right.

And that is regretful because there are plenty of people who suffer from mental health matters, even psychosis (as I mention above to another commenter), who contributed well into society.

Sometimes I think that if I were ever to become involved in the Catholic Church again I should start an apostolate to Saint Dymphna to help with the whole subject of mental health comprehensively, as a sort of extension of NAMI.

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

In this age of political correctness we can strongly and loudly object, for example only, when women are used and are exploited as objects, objectivised.

Political correctness is at its most basic element is a more proactive politeness and sensitivity and more nominally a form of progressive social justice/fairness.

I am a pro-feminist, but I think that the role of feminism in allowing women to enjoy safely their right to sexuality (as defined by the United Nations):

Quote

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/gender_rights/sexual_health/en/

• the highest attainable standard of sexual health, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services;
• seek, receive and impart information related to sexuality;
• sexuality education;
• respect for bodily integrity;
• choose their partner;
• decide to be sexually active or not;
• consensual sexual relations;
• consensual marriage;
• decide whether or not, and when, to have children; and
• pursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life.

I don't think there is anything innate against porn or sexual work with feminism. But there is a bit of divide on the issue, resting on if it is exploitation or not, possibly on if it is more exploitative than other non-sexual fields of work. I tend to say it depends. I do however think the field should be far more unionized by women and that women should have far more protections in the field. At very least. Reports of abuse by men, moreover producers of porn, is too common and problematic.

But I understand that the Catholic Church generally views pornography as morally wrong. Which as a libertine I think is a little bit of a shame that they take it so staunchly.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

am sorry to hear that. Sounds like schizoaffective disorder bipolar type with episodes of psychosis.
 

Well, I just had to respond to the above    After some 35 years or so being treated by psychiatrists, I have never had the diagnosis of "schizoaffective disorder etc." other than now on a discussion forum on the internet with an anonymous member.  I obtained quite some time back my psychiatric files under the Freedom of Information laws here in Australia.

 I had to look up your 'diagnosis' on the NAMI website to know what on earth you were on about in your diagnosis.

 Are you a psychiatrist?

Quote

 

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Schizoaffective-Disorder

Diagnosis

Schizoaffective disorder can be difficult to diagnose because it has symptoms of both schizophrenia and either depression or bipolar disorder. There are two major types of schizoaffective disorder: bipolar type and depressive type. To be diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder a person must have the following symptoms.

• A period during which there is a major mood disorder, either depression or mania, that occurs at the same time that symptoms of schizophrenia are present.
• Delusions or hallucinations for two or more weeks in the absence of a major mood episode.
• Symptoms that meet criteria for a major mood episode are present for the majority of the total duration of the illness.
• The abuse of drugs or a medication are not responsible for the symptoms.

 

I have never had ANY of the above symptoms. 

By way of explanation, the reason I introduced the objectification of women is because it is a well understood generally phenomena - and very often sufferers of mental illness are regarded as objects for charity only.   We are objectivised and not regarded as unique individuals, rather we are regarded as and 'lumped into'  a cultural classification - and most often a negative one as objects for charity only.   My apologies if I have been misleading. 

You appear to be well educated and some sort of professional and apologies if you have mentioned this before and I have missed it.  You are far too well educated for the likes of me and I am "blinded by science".

I think that we are probably on opposite sides of the fence re Jesus and mental illness and have no intention of moving - or at least I am sure of what I believe and intend to continue to know and believe and why. 

God bless

Come Holy Spirit Creator come

 

[Guest]

______________

I usually always stress in my posts if the subject is mental illness that taking prescribed medication and following a psychiatrist's instructions are vitally important - for one only. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Well, I just had to respond to the above    After some 35 years or so being treated by psychiatrists, I have never had the diagnosis of "schizoaffective disorder etc." other than now on a discussion forum on the internet with an anonymous member.  I obtained quite some time back my psychiatric files under the (filtered) of Information laws here in Australia.

 I had to look up your 'diagnosis' on the NAMI website to know what on earth you were on about in your diagnosis.

I have never had ANY of the above symptoms. 

Forgive me I was not trying to diagnose and the internet is not the proper venue for it at all.

Bipolar/Major Depressive and psychotic symptoms that have been long lasting, while during non-episodes the person is mostly normal and functional... That is what the disorder is. Also during non-episodes the psychosis experienced is substantially less bizarre and intrusive. It also means that in this dual diagnoses that the psychosis and mood disorder can affect the other. Someone with schizoaffective disorder when they are more depressed may experience more psychotic symptoms and vice versa. So treating both the mood disorder and psychosis is top priority.

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

By way of explanation, the reason I introduced the objectification of women is because it is a well understood generally phenomena - and very often sufferers of mental illness are regarded as objects for charity only.   We are objectivised and not regarded as unique individuals, rather we are regarded as and 'lumped into'  a cultural classification - and most often a negative one as objects for charity only.   My apologies if I have been misleading.

Not misleading. I think I just misunderstood.

I am a pluralist... I think we all have something to contribute and everyone's views/input overall makes life more worth while. So I encourage you to exercise that liberty and uniqueness that is you.

[Guest]

I think we need to get off the person and back on to the subject of this thread and I am as much a hijacker as anyone else.  However, be that as it may,  I intend to have my say:

I thought that you did make an attempt to diagnose and wrongly i.e. "Sounds like schizoaffective disorder bipolar type with episodes of psychosis", including that the internet is not the place for psychiatric diagnosis. 

1 hour ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Bipolar/Major Depressive and psychotic symptoms that have been long lasting, while during non-episodes the person is mostly normal and functional... That is what the disorder is. Also during non-episodes the psychosis experienced is substantially less bizarre and intrusive. It also means that in this dual diagnoses that the psychosis and mood disorder can affect the other. Someone with schizoaffective disorder when they are more depressed may experience more psychotic symptoms and vice versa. So treating both the mood disorder and psychosis is top priority.

None of the above relates to me.  I do not have a dual diagnosis and my now psychiatrist has been treating me face to face for well over 12 years or more.  She also holds a leadership position in a branch of psychiatry in a large public hospital.  For a couple of years in the past, I was treated by the then President of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.  Her parting words to me were "I would love to write a paper about you, but all I could write would be 'I have a patient called Barbara' ". 

Quote

https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-conditions/bipolar-disorder "Severe bipolar episodes of mania or depression may include psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations or delusions. Usually, these psychotic symptoms mirror a person’s extreme mood. People with bipolar disorder who have psychotic symptoms can be wrongly diagnosed as having schizophrenia."

And again: Are you a psychiatrist?  With all due respect, it does seem to me that unless you are, you are certainly not in a position to diagnose/attempt to psychiatrically label another person and quite publicly - and if you are indeed a psychiatrist then you should know better than to attempt a diagnosis through an exchange of a few posts on the internet..........and on a public forum.  Is it ethical?

1 hour ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

So I encourage you to exercise that liberty and uniqueness that is you.

Laughing at the above and at what could come across as patronizing and condescending.  Believe me, I do both without fear and simply because I know no other way.  Probably got me into trouble far more than once in my journey and probably will continue to do so until I kick the bucket.  

Edited April 18, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Quote

 

BarbaraTherese said: I think it is all a question of what one believes and the research (or whatever) one can present to support what one believes and today there is plenty of sound research (and whatevers) for either ways of thinking and believing.  

Green Scapulared Human said: "The veracity, relevance, and quality of such sources not so much."

 

 

For my part I do try to use only sound sources for quotations.  When I studied Modern History the first term in total almost was dedicated to how to identify sound sources, identify bias etc.  In reading posts where there are quotations, I do look and research if necessary as to reliability and soundness - if it is important enough to me and any response I might make, or if I am trying to educate myself on some subject.

In general, I think it is very important indeed that we are gleaning our information from sound sites/authors for example.

Today there are what could be regarded as quite sound sources, often even, for opposing beliefs on most any subject.

[Guest]

I only recently put up a poster on a wall here in Bethany "The challenge is to be yourself in a world where everyone tries to make you just like everyone else".  Available from Pauline Media here in Australia.

Edited April 18, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[GreenScapularedHuman]

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Laughing at the above and at what could come across as patronizing and condescending.

It was not my intent.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

It was not my intent.

Possibly not which I concluded prior to posting ............. an incorrect assumption based on the written word in a post on the internet.