Catholicism and Depression

 
On Tuesday, the world woke up to the news that depression had claimed the life of another well loved celebrity. Robin Williams will forever be remembered as a unique and madcap talent, famous for critically acclaimed films like The Fisher King, Good Morning Vietnam, Insomnia, Good Will Hunting, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Awakenings but also for crowd pleasers such as Mrs Doubtfire, Aladdin and Mork and Mindy. Whilst his genius clearly lay in comedy, his acting credits included a range of characters from the psychotic villain of One Hour Photo to the fragile but sympathetic psychologist of Good Will Hunting. It might seem ironic that someone who brought fun and laughter to millions should take their own life but Robin Williams had been battling with depression and drug and alcohol abuse for some time. Perhaps like many, laughter and comedy was a means of keeping the darkness at bay. [1]

Though death, particularly in tragic circumstances, can sometimes lead to somewhat effuse, superfluous hyperbole in eulogy, it appears that Williams was a generous and kindhearted man who was loved by his friends and family. [2] The Beatles suggested that "All you need is love" but that simply is not true. You also need Faith and Hope. People who do decide to take their own lives may no longer have faith in other people or believe that no-one has faith in them. They also do not hope for something better or beyond their suffering.

Sometimes, it is hard to accept depression in a Christian framework. If one is a practising Christian, fully convinced of God's love for them and the complete triumph of Christ on the Cross, what is there to fear? Is depression just a sign of a lack of Faith? Some Christian traditions appear to take this approach seemingly ignorant of Christ's own mental anguish (he was "deeply moved in spirit and troubled" and wept at the death of Lazarus [3]) and the whole tradition of lamentation evident in the Old Testament. "While research shows that some believers can be more resistant to depression... it is also true that some approaches to religion can be associated with higher rates of depression and emotional problems. When evaluating the power of belief to protect against emotional problems, the research seems to show that the question isn't "do you believe?" but rather what do you believe, how, and why?" [4]

The Catholic Church has not always had a complete understanding of suicide because previous generations had little understanding of the psychological causes and impact of depression - it was therefore always analysed in purely spiritual terms. Depression does not leave a person completely devoid of freewill, inexorably fixing them on the path to suicide nor can one overcome it by force of character, joyful obstinacy or a rigorous prayer regimen. As Simcha Fisher suggests, "Many people who are severely depressed are suffering from some combination of spiritual and physical ailments... they are dealing with some things that are out of their control and some things that are within their control... they need sacrificial love and patience from friends and family, and also some kind of hard work and self-knowledge in order to make it through the dark times."  [5] In short, depression is best treated through application of Faith and Reason:

My son, when you are sick do not be negligent,

but pray to the Lord, and he will heal you.

 Give up your faults and direct your hands aright,

and cleanse your heart from all sin.

Offer a sweet-smelling sacrifice, and a memorial portion of fine flour,

and pour oil on your offering, as much as you can afford.

And give the physician his place, for the Lord created him;

let him not leave you, for there is need of him.

There is a time when success lies in the hands of physicians,

for they too will pray to the Lord

that he should grant them success in diagnosis

and in healing, for the sake of preserving life.

He who sins before his Maker,

may he fall into the care of a physician. [6]

Suicide is contrary to the Fifth Commandment and contrary to justice, hope, and charity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbour because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God." [7] It was often believed to be the one sin for which one could not be forgiven because suicide was committed against Hope and the Holy Spirit - the giver of life [8]. For this reason, those who had committed suicide were often denied a Christian burial.

In the Catholic understanding, particular condemnation is reserved for those who encourage suicide as a viable social norm because all life, regardless of how humanity perceives it's value, is precious to God. This view also takes into account the salvific potential of suffering when united to Christ's passion, death and resurrection. "If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law." [9]

Today, the Church understands that as a person needs to be in full control of their faculties to bear the full responsibility of a sin, the gravity of suicide can be mitigated by its circumstances as "grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide." [10] It also actively encourages the faithful to pray for those who have died in such tragic circumstances: "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives." [11] For those who are curious, the Patron Saints for those suffering with depression and anxiety are St Jude and St Dymphna whilst a specifically Catholic outlook on depression can be found in The Catholic Guide to Depression by Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Msgr. John Cihak. [12]

Robin Williams' death is a tragedy devoid of blame or endorsement. It has brought out the voyeuristic worst in our celebrity obsessed culture and media [13] and the downright loathsome abuse of those in grief for a man they loved as friend, husband and father [14]. Christ has taken all suffering offered to Him through his passion, death and resurrection and transformed it - maybe in the manner of his death Robin Williams can convince some who need help to find it, just as they may have found solace in the manner of his life on screen. 

May choirs of angels come to greet him and speed him to paradise. May the Lord enfold him in His mercy. May he find eternal life.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28753326

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28751241

[3] John 11: 33 -35

[4] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2014/08/dealing-with-depression-getting-the-right-kind-of-help-matters/

[5] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2014/08/13/faith-reason-depression-and-help/

see http://lifelibertyandcrap.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/guest-postdepressed-catholics-god-wants-you-to-get-help/ also

[6] Sirach 38:9-15

[7] Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2281

[8] Mt 12: 31

[9] Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2282

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid, §2283

[12] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372068/getting-free-interview

[13] http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2014/08/robin-williams-newspaper-coverage.html

[14] http://mashable.com/2014/08/13/zelda-williams-quits-twitter/

What does it mean to be human?

Warning - This post contains content many people will find upsetting

This week one of the biggest news items in Catholic circles was what was not making the news. Dr Kermit Gosnell is standing trial in a Philadelphia Courtroom charged with seven counts of first-degree murder yet his victims could number in their hundreds. In any other circumstances, a mass murderer would get national and possibly international coverage which would no doubt contain every lurid detail which could be garnered by the press and squeezed out of the case. What makes Dr Gosnell's case different however is that he was performing late term abortions - it is a case "about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women... he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy - and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors". Dr Gosnell is also accused of overdosing his patients with dangerous drugs, spreading venereal disease with infected instruments, perforating wombs and bowels - and, on at least two occasions, causing their deaths." [1]

More details on the case can be found in an article which contains some graphic images by Conor Friedersdorf at http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/. A summary by Kirsten Powers without graphic images can be viewed at http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/ in which she states "You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It's about basic human rights."

The reasons for the failure of major news networks to report the trial which Conor Friedersdorf acknowledges to have numerous elements any one of which would normally make it a major story, clearly lies in the subject matter and what I regard as the "inconvenient truth" of abortion, namely that it places an arbitrary and subjective chronology on what it means to be human. Whether or not a baby can be legally killed could in theory be a matter of days or hours. Looking at it in another way, it could even be the thickness of a womb as babies delivered through failed abortions cannot be legally killed. The application of terms such as foetus or baby can therefore vary in application by time, space and maternal desire. Is there truly a difference between a baby delivered prematurely at 22 weeks which doctors will do everything in their power to save and a foetus removed from the womb at the same date via an abortive "procedure"?

Many of those involved in the Pro-Life cause were outraged by the media blackout on the case and sought to counteract the paucity of coverage by taking to Twitter and other forms of social media to highlight both the case itself and what they regard as a clear case of media bias. I believe that the case is in the public interest, particularly in America where it is taking place and I would hope that it's publication might gradually convince some people that abortion is not a viable solution to unwanted pregnancy and that despite the immense sacrifices and courage required, there is a better way. To this end, I dispatched a few Tweets:

This #Gosnell abortion case really sounds quite horrific :(

The #Gosnell abortion case is quite horrific - the media are afraid to report it for fear of offending liberal sensibilities

The later Tweet produced a response from a friend who thought I was implying that liberals might approve of illegal abortions and gross misconduct which I explained was not my intent. As he suggested, I don't think anyone sane could condone any of Dr Gosnell's actions. 

After we had resolved some misunderstandings, we went on to have an interesting discussion on what it meant to be human and more specifically how we define it. For him, as a Pro-Choice advocate, the issue of legality is important and he used an interesting analogy to describe his position. Law can be used to determine personhood in the same way it does when determining the alcohol limit for driving. Driving above the alcohol limit is drink-driving, while driving if you're slightly below it is not. Where a line must be drawn the law does so but morally, we can recognise a grey area between. To take this analogy further, it affords for scenarios where one individual might be over the limit and another might not having consumed the same amount of alcohol due to differences in physiology or environmental factors.

I rejected this analogy, highlighting that throughout history law has been used to denigrate & extinguish the humanity of many on the whims of a particular interest group and suggested that human life should not be a subjective concept. On this basis, I suggested that conception to death is only definition which made sense. After a brief exchange over why conception was so important and why my definition wasn't extended to eggs    we came to the heart of the debate - what makes us distinctly human?

I began by highlighted that a fertilised egg contained a unique set of human DNA and (without going into the complexity of twins etc) suggested that this had to be our starting point for the definition of human life. Every living person can trace their uniqueness back to this point. He went on to ask  that if DNA was a major part of the definition of what it was to be human, what was my opinion on chimps which share 95% of our DNA, the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, or Neanderthals? I thought this was an interesting point as he was trying to demonstrate that "being human" isn't as rigidly definable as I thought. Could a Neanderthal baby be aborted?

I have to admit that I have never really considered the topic in these terms and am not familiar with the various anthropological and socio-evolutionary factors which might be brought to bear on the debate. I have always considered a DNA analysis of human cells to be concrete but can see how other factors such as intelligence, culture, capability could be more subjective. Ultimately, I suggested these arguments did not have any baring on the abortion debate because they dealt with differences between species. Abortion deals with differentiating within our own species, largely on terms of convenience. How we would deal with "nearly human" species is a very interesting concept, but I argued that nearly human is not human. How we treat other species is nevertheless a mark of our humanity.

This exchange led to a further consequence of attempting to define what is was to be human namely that the first human would be born to technically non human parents. Despite being almost exactly the same as its parents, would that child have all the rights of a human that its parents lacked? Again, though a fascinating concept full of philosophical, theological and anthropological implications, I didn't think this directly impinged on the abortion argument as we can categorically say that any child conceived of human parents was human itself. 

So, the very heart of the argument which can explain our differences was on our choice of definition of what it is to be human. His admitted to the fuzziness at the edges, and mine did not. I was glad to have engaged in this conversation because it was amicable and informative. It has given me further angles to consider and avenues to explore. 

The astute observer will notice that at no point during the conversation did I mention that my position on abortion is underpinned by Christian Faith. I didn't think it was necessary in this instance as I believe the case against abortion can be made by purely rational argument in accordance with natural law. With that said however, I believe that the most fundamental definition of what is to be human is that we are made in the "image and likeness" of God [3]. As children of God, we share in a unique dignity and equality which surpasses all of His other creations. God says to each and every one of us "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart". [4] I believe that this point is further evidenced in the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ and shared in our human life, from conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary and [5] that even in the womb, His presence was felt by others [6]. 

The last thing I wish to point out on the Gosnell case is that in trying to publicise the story, Pro-life advocates should be careful not to try and use it to their advantage in the same crass manner than some Pro-Choice advocates attempted to profit from the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. It was widely reported that Mrs Halappanavar died because she was refused an abortion at a Catholic hospital before all the facts of the case became known when in fact she died due to sepsis which went untreated for too long because of a catalogue of errors by staff at the hospital.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

[3] Gen 1:26

[4] Jer 1:5

[5] Luke 1:26-38

[6] Luke 1: 44

[7] http://carolinefarrow.com/2013/04/11/savita-sepsis-and-statistics/

     http://carolinefarrow.com/2013/04/13/savita-some-more-facts-for-the-hard-of-understanding/

Bishop Burns' NGO

It has recently been brought to my attention that the bishop of my diocese, Bishop Burns, had something to say about Pope Benedict and the Church following his resignation in the Bitter Pill. "Conservatism has had its day. It doesn't work. Despite all Benedict's efforts, the Church is losing its place in society – yet the search for God and meaning remain high."He added: "It's time to reopen the doors and windows for a new blowing of the Spirit, a freedom of speech to search for ways ahead that will address key issues like remarriage after divorce; re-examining ethical issues; developing a simpler and humbler Church stripped of status and elitism."

Pope Francis says no to church as NGO

Bishops Burn' vision of the church is exactly that warned aganist by Pope Francis, "a pitiful NGO" [http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301190.htm] I welcome calls for a reform of the curia in the spirit of simplicity and humility but the Church's mission is to preach Christ crucified and resurrected, not to make compromises with the world. The "popular church" Bishop Burns wants is available in a myriad forms accross the globe where Christ and Christian virtue is an optional extra. Bishop Burns' church is meaningless and will soon be washed away in the tide of secularism, materialism and nihilism until it reaches it's final entropy where it is as bland, inconsequential and insubstantial as any other belief system which places ones own fallen nature and desires at its core. Truth and compassion are not mutually exclusive. I say to Bishop Burns "Liberalism has had its day. It doesn't work".

Celebrating The Blessed Virgin Mary

Today the Church celebrates the birth of The Blessed Virgin Mary. For many churches (perhaps not so much in Britain), the liturgy of today will be marked by processions, special hymns and the veneration of statues followed by a parish celebration featuring food, drink, games and more processions.

The role of The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church and Salvation History is perhaps the most misunderstood of all amongst Protestants, non-Christians and sadly even Catholics. I remember my grandmother often quipped "Go confess your sins to Mary" when I or my brothers had done something she disproved of - the implication of course that Catholics believed that the Mother of God was herself divine, an accusation spread with gusto following the reformation. I often tried to explain to her that Catholics do not worship Mary as worship is reserved to God and God alone. In doing so, I pointed out that Mary was a created being, just like the rest of us, and that the honour she was afforded by the Church was due to her role as The Mother of God and the part she played in God's plan of redemption. The distinction was largely lost on my Grandmother though, partly I suspect because of her mischievous sense of humour and the fact that she could see it would rile me whenever she said it.  Those impressed by theological terms (my grandmother certainly wasn't one of them) will know that the classical distinction is latria (worship resolved for God alone), dulia (honour paid to the saints) and hyperdulia (the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary).

For me, the honour afforded to Mary, like her entire life, points to and helps us understand more fully, the nature of her Son, the meaning of his teachings and glory of his life, death and resurrection. She therefore teaches us about Christ, how to relate to Him and how to be more like him.

Biblical Precedent

When I was younger, I was often amazed by the passages of the New Testament where Jesus uses scripture to show how He was fulfilling it. I often thought of it as the prophets of the Old Testament setting out what the Messiah should achieve and Jesus following their instructions. I eventually came to realise however that I had things backward. Christ came first in the plan of God - the events of the Old Testament were rather God teaching Israel and mankind how it would recognise the Messiah through prophecy and archetype. Thus, Jesus' Last Supper and death did not follow the pattern established by the Passover but rather the Passover was designed so that we should recognise the Christ. Similarly, Christ's suffering came before the Song of the  Suffering Servant but the latter became a "signpost" to Christ.

Like Son, like Mother, the Old Testament also offers us an insight into the role of Mary and I offer a few snippets for your consideration. According to the Old Testament, the Messiah was to be a descendant of David and according to Jewish custom, descent was establish through the maternal line. In the archetype of the Old Testament Kingships, two major positions of delegated authority stand out - that of Prime Minister and Queen Mother. As "keeper of the keys", Jesus affords the position of Prime Minister in His Church to Peter and his successors whilst Mary, as Queen of Heaven and Earth fulfils her role as Queen Mother. Perhaps my favourite "signpost" however is the Ark of Covenant. In the Old Testament, the Ark was constructed to hold the tablets of the ten commandments which was set in a tabernacle. When the Ark was completed, the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle which became the dwelling place of God amongst his people. As the tabernacle was overshadowed by the glory of God, so was the Virgin Mary when she conceived Jesus, thus becoming the new Ark of the covenant. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically. Indeed, the nature of the Ark also acts as a signpost to the nature of Mary. Poor Uzzah, though a good man, was struck dead when he touched the ark in an attempt to steady it, such was its holiness. If Mary were to be saved the fate of Uzzah which all mankind shares as a consequence of sin, she would have to have a share in her son's holiness to such a degree that she be untainted by the original sin of Adam and Eve, not as a result of her own nature, but rather as the first fruits of Christ's life, death and resurrection which reaches throughout all time and space, past, present and future. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, so often confused with Virgin Birth has deep roots indeed.

A New Adam and a New Eve

Eve's reputation has suffered terribly on account of the suggestion that having been tempted by the serpent in the garden, she in turn tempted Adam thus leading to the fall of mankind. Eve succumbed to temptation first and many (men) therefore drew the conclusion that when it came to morality, women were weaker than men. One might however suggest that Adam's first sin may have been neglect of his spouse as he is curiously no where to be found when the serpent arrives on the scene. Putting aside those considerations and what the consequence might have been had Eve succumbed to temptation but not Adam, Genesis informs us that evil entered into the world through the sin of both Adam and Eve. If both a man and women were responsible for the fall, it seems plausible to suggest that a man and woman would have a role to play in it's remedy. Adam and Eve's first and primary sin was that of disobedience. The only possible remedy was the complete obedience of Christ, the New Adam, and the grace that was afforded to Mary, the New Eve, who gave her great Fiat to the message of the angel Gabriel. In this sense, Mary's role in Salvation History and mankind's redemption was a  necessary one, not because God had no choice in the matter, but because God had called and chosen Mary.

By recognising and celebrating what is great and good in Mary, Catholics draw attention to the greatness, goodness and glory of God. We are taught that as her obedience to God was complete and her devotion to her Son unsurpassed, she is a worthy template of how we should live our lives and relate with and to Christ. As Queen Mother and as at Cana, she intercedes with her Son on our behalf, always with the advice that we "Do whatever he tells you" (John 2:3-5). As Saint Maximilian Kolbe said “Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.”

A reponse to Fr Ceirion Gilbert: a war of words that obscures the Church's message

In a recent Blog Post for the Tablet, Fr Ceirion Gilbert, the director of youth services in my diocese (Menevia)  expressed his ire regarding Cardinal O'Brien's recent letter on marriage.

Though I believe that Fr Ceirion was right to express his concern regarding the language used in the Cardinal's letter (it could certainly have been more qualified and perhaps fitting for what was essentially a pastoral letter), I was a little concerned about some of the other comments he had to make.  

I too am riled when I hear people who profess to share my Faith use inflamitory and derogatory words towards others which are incompatible with that Faith. I can also attest however that when I was a young person of the Diocese of Menevia, I felt that my Faith was at odds with my generation and I was glad for it - materialism, nihilism and hedonism have nothing to offer us.

When entering a debate, the type of language used is crucial as it is quite easy to fail to reach an intended audience either because the language used is inaccessible to the recipients (e.g. too theological nuanced) , aggressive or inappropriate.

I see this as a particular problem on Twtter where the 140 character limit leaves little more for expression and manoeuvre. I feel that some Catholic commentators are basically bringing the Faith into disrepute as their exchanges with each other are often full of bile and vitriol. It's Starkey Syndrome - any good they may actually do or truth they speak is lost in the manner of their language and behaviour.

You cannot however play language games with theology. Revisionists can debate what the word "marriage" means in a modern context until The Second Comming or Maximum Entropy - what they cannot do is change God's plan of creation from Genesis to the Marriage of the Lamb.

Fr Ceirion fears that the Church offers "an interpretation of society and humanity at odds with that of younger generations and almost incomprehensible to them". We therefore need to make the message of the church more accessible to them, perhaps through an examination of the language we use to express that message (and through other forms of communication like liturgy, art, creation etc) but certainly not at the expense of the message. It is often all too easy to blame a non-personal entity such as the Magisterium for our own failures in our mission to evangelise, particularly when our best efforts result in failure. Introducing an “us and them” attitude to the hierarchy of the Church is also extremely counter-productive.

  

The "sensus fidelium" has always been an important part of Church teaching and sacred Tradition is kept alive by its waters. One only has to think of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to see that. The Church however is not a democracy - we have Christ as our Head, the Pope as his Vicar and the Holy Spirit as our guide. It has a care of duty for all souls - sinners and saints, all should feel "welcomed and loved". This however cannot be at the expense of Truth - as the Black Eyed Peas suggest, “If you never know truth, then you never know love”.

Jesus was not a stranger to the disappointing effects his own teachings could have on followers or potential followers. Of His own words many of them said "'This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?'” Indeed, “After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more". If they would not follow Christ, many of this generation will not follow us.

The Church now exists in a time when its teachings are increasingly labelled as "intolerable".  Jesus asks us "What about you, do you want to go away too?" Can we answer with Peter "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we have come to know that you are the Holy One of God"?