Orthodox

Outlet
forDogmatic

Enquiries

Christian
DogmaticsandPsychotherapy

Previous//Contents

//Next

G. WESTERN THEOLOGY
2.bSicknessandhealinginOrthodox
Theology

How does Orthodox Theology imply and how should the Church
understand "sickness" and "therapy", if not with the use of idealistic,
physiocraticorpsychologicalutilitarianformsandnotions?
In our attempt to provide a reply to this question, let's borrowthe following
fundamental principles from Patristic theology:
1.Sickness - every form of sickness - is the consequence of man's Fall. This
means sickness is linked to sin, and not to human nature and as such, it is not
"natural" for man to become sick; it is in fact unnatural - it is "contrary to
nature". At first glance, this appears to lead us to the state that we named
"physiocratic" (ruled by nature) or "ideocratic" (ruled by ideas), where "therapy"
and "cure" would seem to imply a conforming to nature. And yet, certain
clarifications can draw us far away from every physiocratic perception. Given
that man's origin is ex nihilo, his nature per se is convertible - in other words,
it is prone to deterioration and death and consequently to sickness. However,
even nature itself can transcend this tendency - not with any innate powers of
its own, but only if united with the imperishable and eternal God. The
transcending of this convertible and corruptible state which is intrinsic to
human nature has been given to man as a "reason", as a final destination
whose realization has been allocated to man's freedom as a person: the first
man as a free person was called to direct nature - either towards itself or
beyond itself, towards God. Adam - the first man - freely chose the first of
the two (to turn nature towards itself), thus sickness as a natural possibility

became a natural reality. It is no longer possible for human nature to not

become sick; sickness became a "natural" phenomenon, not because it was an
unavoidable thing, but because that is where human freedom led matters.
The consequences of this stance in the matter of therapy we hope will become
apparent, further along.
2.Sickness - like sin - has now become a general and worldwide reality,
which human freedom cannot retract, despite the fact that its appearance and
its consolidation are attributed to it. And the reason for this is because with
death (which entered existence and from a natural possibility became a
natural reality), human nature was segmented and was no longer borne by
each person in its totality, in its fullness. Thus, the personal freedom of one
person does not influence human nature overall; consequently, not only do
sinners become sick, but saints also.
3.Final, actual therapy - as a complete elimination of the sickness - is
impossible and cannot be achieved by human nature, nor by human
freedom. Deterioration and mortality are bequeathed biologically from
generation to generation, and together with them, sickness also. To break
that vicious circle, we believe -in theology- that external intervention was
necessary; an intervention that for us was realized, in the Person of Christ, in
Whom the joining of human nature to the divine (which was the first man's
calling and destination) was realized without the passage through biological
birth, which perpetuates deterioration and death and is something that is
impossible for every post-Fall human. Christ is the only truly "healthy"
Person - not because He is also God (as the notions of "healthy" or "sick" do
not apply to God) - but because of His human nature, which is unaffected by
any inherited deterioration, and permanently joined (voluntarily and freely)
thanks to the hypostatic - the personal - union with God, He has transcended
deterioration and death. Consequently, no therapy (as a true and radical
elimination of sickness) can be considered without Christ. Therapy is
possible, only as an incorporation in Christ - the only truly healthy human. It
is not without significance that - for the Church - the Mystery of the Divine
Eucharist has such a central importance for therapy, and the ascetic
endeavours of human freedom do not suffice for one to become cured.
4.Nevertheless, human freedom continues to be the key to the proper
understanding, both of the meaning of sickness and of therapy. Given that
sickness passed into existence through human freedom, therapy and healing
cannot but likewise pass through the same gateway. This was a secret that

the ascetic Fathers of the Church were well aware of, which is why they
placed so much importance on the exercising of human freedom as a
liberating of oneself from passions. At this point, it is especially important to
note what Saint Maximus has to offer us.
Therapeutic axioms of Saint Maximus
According to Saint Maximus, the quintessence of morbidity is found in selflove. Self-love is not simply a passion; it is the generative cause of all
passions: Do you want to be free of passions? Then cast out the mother of
all passions: self-love (Chapters on Love, II,I). As Photios faithfully analyzes
Maximos' thought (Library of Codices192 G 103, 637),self-love - which
replaced the love towards God - gave birth to hedonism; but because
hedonism was mingled with grief, man became entangled in an interminable
and desperate attempt to hold on to hedonism and cast out the grief. It was
from within this agonized attempt that the multitude of passions was
born.And Photios explains Maximos' thought: That is,if we renounce the
hedonism in self-love, we give birth to gluttony, to pride, to avarice, and to
the things that hedonism provides by whichever means; and if we only flee
from the grief in self-love, we give birth to anger, to envy, to hatred, to
despair and to whatever else the grieving predisposition lacks. From the
mixture of both are born: hypocrisy, flattery deceit, and quite simply, all
other malicious things that are the fabrications of this mixed wiliness.
In other words, if we renounce hedonism but retain self-love, we provoke
gluttony, pride, avarice and everything else that provides hedonism in any
way; and if we were to renounce and avoid grief but again preserve self-love,
we provoke anger, envy, hatred, despair and whatever else contains a
deprivation of hedonism. If again we were to mix both of these together and
avoid them (ie, both hedonism and grief) but still preserving self-love, we
land in hypocrisy, flattery etc.. The conclusions are important.
a.Cure from passions cannot be achieved through any direct struggle against
the specific passions. On the contrary, as we noticed in the passage that I just
read: in view of the fact that the problem per se of spiritual sickness is born
of the deprivation of hedonism - always in conjunction with self-love - the
more deprivation that we provoke, the more the passions that we give birth
to. What does this mean? That, in order to be cured of passions, we need to
allow passions to exist and to function? Of course not. But, it does mean that
as long as self-love is being prolonged, the excision of specific passions is not
only unattainable, but that even when it is achieved, it can be dangerous,

because with the deprivation of hedonism that is entailed, it will give birth to
other passions. Thus it often happens that those who rid themselves of
carnal passions may develop the passion of avarice or pride etc.. Therefore
we are not speaking of therapy, when only specific passions are eliminated.
The sole therapy is found in the elimination of self-love, which is the root of
all those passions.
b.Given that grief is an inseparable element of hedonism in man's post-Fall
state, it is an erroneous perception of "sickness" : the one that we named
earlier, as utilitarian; it is an analgetic approach, and it appears to prevail in
the contemporary philosophy of medicine. Grief is not eliminated by
removing it, but by embracing it. Therapy comes with the invitation and the
experiencing of grief. Of course it often happens that grief is unbearable, and
experiencing it can be exhaustive. That is why every therapeutic treatment
needs to be adjusted to the patient's tolerance (oikonomia). But in no way
should we regard the patient cured, just because he is psychologically
"comforted" or does not suffer. The tragedy of existence lies within the Cross
of Christ, and no therapy can bypass the Cross. We often forget that
hedonism is not only carnal, but psychological also. By extracting grief from
therapy we are only providing hedonism, which constitutes an escape from
reality and true therapy.
c.ThepropercureforpassionspresupposesaccordingtoSaintMaximus
threebasicdistinctions. Hedescribestheminthefollowingpassage,taken
fromthechaptersonlove: The mind of a God-loving person does not fight
against things, nor the notions thereof, but against the passions that are
coupled to those notions. That is, he does not fight against woman, nor
against the one who sorrowed him, nor against the imaginations of them,
but against the passions that are coupled to those imaginations. All the
struggles of a monk against the demons are about separating himself from
the passions of the notions; for otherwise, he is not able to see things
impassionately. An actual thing ("object") is one thing, "notion" is
something else and "passion" is also something else. For, an "object" is - for
example - a man, a woman, gold, and the suchlike. "Notion" is -say- the
memory of one of the aforementioned. And "passion" is -say- an
unreasonable befriending or an uncritical hatred of one of the
aforementioned. A monk's battle - therefore - is against "passion".
WeregardthesedistinctionsbyMaximostobeextremelyimportantforthe
matteroftherapy.Firstofall,theypointoutthatthefightagainst"objects"
of beings per se is an erroneous method, because they give rise to

temptationsanddifficulties.Forstatementslikethesetohavebeenutteredby
amonklikeMaximoswhohaddepartedfrom"objects"andhaddistanced
himselffromtheworldrevealsthatescapingfrom"objects"isnotasolution,
nordoesremainingcloseto"objects"(aswiththosewholiveintheworld)
constitute a cause for sickness. For example, to recommend divorce to
someone who is suffering psychologically in the presence of their spouse
does not constitute therapy for that person. Divorce may remove that
person'sgriefforatime,buttheproblemitselfremainsintact.Thatishow
thecurrentperception(thatamonkleavestheworldinordertobe"cured"of
passions by avoiding temptations) should be regarded as erroneous. The
entirety of ascetic tradition stresses that temptations become even more
powerfulwhenonedepartsfromthe"objects"thatprovokethem,because
the"notions"ofthose"objects"whichtestthepersonremain.
But the same applies to the "notions" of "objects". The memory and the representation of beings is not per se discommended. Contrary to what
Maximos writes, there are many who oppose art, culture, and whatever else
the function of human imagination entails, for the sake of being liberated
from passions. This is an Origen- and Evagrios-like spirituality that
Maximos surely had in mind and opposed, because ideas like those were, at
the time (and I am afraid they continue to be) prevalent among monks.
Maximos stresses that monks' struggles are neither against "objects" nor
against the "notions" thereof, but against the passions that are coupled to
them. A proper therapy demands such distinctions. Otherwise, spiritual
freaks are produced: mentally sick patients, who are in need of therapy more
than anyone else.
d.But, how can one distinguish between "passion" and "objects" and
"notions"? The answer is provided by Maximos, in the paragraph that
follows immediately after the previous one, mentioned above: The
impassioned "notion" is a composite thought, consisting of "passion" and
"notion". When we separate the passion from the notion, what remains is
merely a subtle thought. And we can separate them, through spiritual love
and continence,ifwesowish.The separation of "passion" from a "notion"
cannot be done, except by means of love, continence (=self-control) and free
will. However, these elements require more analysis.
Love as freedom, and freedom as love
Albeit keys for a proper therapy, the meaning of the term "love" as well as
"freedom" are likewise subject to their own pathologies. Thus, "love" can, in
essence, be a form of narcissism; that is, a love of one's self through the image

- the mirror - of another. Narcissism is considered a disease; however, its

forms are so many and indiscernible that it usually cannot be confronted at
its root cause. In reality, every erotic love contains elements of narcissism the kind that we previously called "self-love", in the words of Maximos. The
"passion" of erotic love consists of the demand for exclusivity that it contains;
hence, all of existence is built upon the two persons, as though no other
beings exist around them. Deep down, eros is an egocentric form of love,
which can lead to numerous pathological situations (dependence, separation
anxiety, etc...)
The same applies, in the case of freedom. Freedom, as a liberation from the
other, can signify the crudest form of self-love - a pathologicalindependence
from others which can lead to depression or even suicide, when one
discoversthattheothersarenecessaryforhim,butnotdesirable.Thusthe
problemarisesastowhichwayloveandfreedomcannotonlyliberateus
fromourpassions,butalsoliberatethemselvesoftheirownpathology. At
thispoint,theologycouldofferthefollowingpositions:
a.The transcendence of exclusivity in love. If you hate some, or, you
neither love them nor hate them, and you love some but only with measure,
while you love others intensely, then know that you are far from the perfect
love, which is supposed to love every person equally.Exclusivity negates
love, because underlying it is some form of self-love. We love our friends, our
children, our relatives, our "lovers" etc. more than the others, because we
expect some sort of reciprocation from them, or because some kind of need psychological or biological - bonds us to them. The love of those close to us
conceals the passion of self-love.
b.Theloveofenemies.No form of love is freer than this, and no form of
freedom can relate more, than the form that is the love of one's enemies. If
you love those who love you, what is the grace in you? [...] for even sinners
do the same(Luke6:32). A love that expects reciprocation is sinful; it is
pathological.A love that does not expect any reciprocation - or, better still - is
directed towards those who harm us, is truly "grace" - that is, freedom.
Loving God "in Christ", "while we are still sinners", as well as loving God's
enemies (ie., love towards sinners) is the only liberated love.
In conclusion, it is only when love coincides with freedom that we have
therapy. Love, without freedom, and freedom without love, are pathological
conditions that require therapy.

But, how can these two coincide in practice? It is easy for one to opine on
that which should be done, but what does theology have to say, about howto
dothatwhichshouldbedone?
The Church as a "therapeutic clinic"
We now come to the crucial point of our homily: in what manner can the
Church cure man in practice?
First of all, we need to clarify a misunderstanding that is broadly prevalent.
The Church does not cure so much with what She has, but rather, with what
She is. This detail is extremely important. As a rule, we all seek
the means for salvation inside the Church, but salvationlies in the
very eventcalled "Church", and our incorporation in Her. The difference is
huge, and it has a practical significance, in regard to therapy.
The Church has spiritual fathers and the mystery (sacrament) of Confession
(which should more correctly be called Repentance). Much emphasis and
significance has been placed on this element, when it comes to therapy. The
perfect spiritual father-confessor and a perfect method of confession etc. are
sought out, but what is overlooked is that it is not the spiritual father who
heals. He might be tired during the hour of confession, or, he may not have
the appropriate knowledge: quite usual things. Therapy will not occur
during the hour of the Mystery, quite simply because the Mystery has man's
incorporation in the Church as its objective, and only in there will therapy
occur, slowly and in the long term. How will that happen?
The Church is a therapeutic clinic, because She provides man the potential to
transit from the state of an "individual" to that of a "person". What is the
difference? And how does that occur in the Church?
"Individual" is an arithmetical notion, which springs from one's isolation
from other individuals - which simply is what it is, because it is not
something else. Deep down, "individual" is a negative notion. When man
exists and acts as an individual, he fences himself off psychologically; he
"excises" himself from others. This is a pathological condition, which
constitutes a host of morbid phenomena and perhaps is the very source of all
sicknesses - it is that which Maximos calls "self-love". "Individual" does not
only comprise a problem of a moral or psychological nature; it also has
ontological dimensions. It is linked to death, which is the par excellence
"feeder" and simultaneously disintegrator of the individual; death is that

which highlights individualism, by separating it finally from other

individuals (each one of us dies individually), and eventually disintegrating
it, into decomposition and nonexistence. Individualism is a carrier of
sickness or sicknesses, precisely because deep inside it lurks the fear of death
- the ontological nihilism - if this bizarre albeit true contradiction may be
permitted. The same applies, for the body. If, like Maximos, they link selflove to the body, it is not because the body is evil, but because it expresses par
excellence the fortress of individualism where lurks the potential for excising
ourselves from the others and where death eventually sets its sights and
succeeds. Individualism is the first pathological stage that man goes
through, when he is need of therapy.
The second stage is that of communion. For man to be cured of
individualism, he needs to move on, to his relationship with others, with any
form whatsoever, even if a negative one: to get angry, to beat or even kill
someone. What is usually known as "defusing" is a form of transcending
individualism - a form of "therapy" according to psychiatry. This is not about
the notion of "person"; it is however a form of relationship and communion
which appears as therapy, without actually being.
The stage that the Church aspires to bring mankind is beyond this stage, and
to the stage of "person".
What is the "person"?
The Church borrows the notion of "person" from Her faith in the Trinitarian
God and, after taking it through Christology and Pneumatology, applies it
inside the Church. In the Holy Trinity, "person" is a positive notion - an
affirmative notion - and not a negative one. The three Persons of the Trinity
differ between each other, not because they are isolated and excised from
each other, but on the contrary, because they are joined together inseparably.
The more inseparable the unity, the more it will give birth - produce otherness. This fact secures ontological completeness and stability, absence
of death, and true life. The "other" not only is not an enemy, but is the
confirmation of my own identity and uniqueness: it is the You that makes me
a "Me" and without which, the "Me" is nonexistent and inconceivable.
And something more. In the Holy Trinity personal otherness and uniqueness
are not justified psychologically, but ontologically. The characteristics that
distinguish between the three Persons are onlyontological: eachPersonis
whatItis,andnothingelse.Thepersonisnotjudgedbyitscharacteristics,

butbythesimpleaffirmationofitsidentityasauniqueandirreplaceable
being.Thepersonisnotapersonalitythatis,acoordinateofcharacteristics
(height,beauty orugliness,virtue ormalice,geniusorstupidity etc.);the
personisfreeofcharacteristicsandisnotjudgedbythem.
This perception regarding the person is passed into the Church in the form of
God's love and freedom towards the world, the way it was expressed "in
Christ", with His love towards enemies and sinners. The Church is the place
in which man is not judged by his characteristics (that is what forgiveness
means, which he receives with Baptism and Repentance), but by the fact that
he is who he is. Forgiveness and acceptance of someone as a person, as a
unique and irreplaceable identity, within the community of the Church, is the
quintessence of ecclesiastic therapeutics. The Church heals, not with the
things She says, but by that which She is: a community of love, a love that is
not a sentiment (so that we might seek it in the inner self and the disposition
of the individual), but a relationship, which demands coexistence and
acceptance within a specific community - a community of love, without
exclusivity and conditions. The Church heals, by beingsuchacommunity,
in which the incorporated person becomes freely addicted to loving and
beingloved;where,inthewordsofSaintMaximos,perfect love does not
split the one nature of humans... but, forever aiming at it, loves all people
equally... That is why our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, in displaying His
love for us, suffered for all of humanity... (chapters on love,I,72).
The practical and relentless question however, is: Is the Church a community
of love, a place where one passes from "self-love" to "brotherly love"? From
sickness to healing? To the degree that the answer is affirmative, one can
refer to the Church as a therapeutic clinic. Otherwise, She is a pharmacy,
which provides people with analgesics, without transforming them from
individuals to persons. Because the term "persons" has the prerequisite of
"relationship", and "relationship" entails "community"; otherwise, they
continue to be isolated individuals with an "illusion of sanctity".Extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside of the Church) not
because that is where the means for salvation exist, but because in there is
where the Trinitarian mystery of the inter-embracing of persons is
manifested.
Most people inThe Orthodox Church have, to a large degree, lost the
awarenessof"community",andiftodaytheyspeakofa"therapeuticclinic",
theyprobablymeanitasapharmacy.But the Church continues to be the true
Ark of Salvation, because She has preserved unadulterated not only the faith

in the Personal Trinitarian God and the Christ of all-encompassing love, of

the Cross and of the Resurrection, but also because She continues to be the
genuine eucharistic ("thanksgiving") community, in which are offered those
loving relationships that can heal man, by transforming him from an
individual to a person. It is this faith, this synaxis and community that we
must preserve genuine and active, if we want to regard the Church as a
therapeutic clinic.
GoingoverwhatItriedtosay,IfeelthatImustpointoutthefollowing:
FortheChurchandtheology,therapyisnotapsychologicalormoralmatter,
butanontologicalone. Theaimoftherapyisnottoprovidereliefforthe
symptomsofman'ssickness,buttoensurehisrebirth,bytransferringhim
from the space of selflove where passions are born, into the space of
brotherlylove,wheretruetherapythroughloveisfound.Thispassagefrom
the one space to the other is painful, because it has the Cross as a
prerequisite,or,inthewordsofSaintMaximos,theexperiencingofthepain
thatcoexistswithpleasure.Itisapassagethatmustbeguidedwithcareand
philanthropy,sothatwhatislamemaynotbedislocated,butrather,be
healed(Hebr.12:13).
In this attempt, the Church and theology can provide, not so much the
technique,thespecialization,butratherthefaithinthepersonalGod,from
whichspringsthefaithinmanasaperson,animageandalikenessofGod;
alsotheloveofChristwhichhasnoboundariesandexclusivities,andthe
Church, as a eucharistic (thanksgiving) community which actualizes that
love,asapersonalexistenceandrelationship. Thebattlesagainstpassions
andtheirriddancedonotconstituteanendinitselffortheChurch.They
aspiretothesurfacingofthetruepersonfromwithinthem,totherejoining
offragmentednature,andformantorediscoverhisproperrelationshipwith
God, with other people and with material nature. Health, for us, is the
properrelationshipofmanwiththesethreefactors(God,fellowmanand
nature),whichcomprisethedefinitionofthehumanbeing."Sickness"isthe
upsettingofthistripleandthreedimensionalrelationship. Perhapsthisis
whathugelydifferentiatestheologyfrompsychiatryorperhapsnot;you
will be the judge. What is certain, is that both the Church and medical
science must coincide in this basic discovery, should a dialogue develop
betweenthem.

*****************************************

From the Minutes of a MeetingonTheology and Psychiatrics in

Dialogue
Minutes published by the Apostoliki Diakonia pages 141156,(extract)
Source: http://www.pemptousia.com

Previous//Contents

//Next

TranslationbyA.N.
ArticlepublishedinEnglishon:1482011.
Lastupdate:1482011.

UP