The Neurosis of Heresy

I recently heard a man psycho-analyzing the extreme anti-Bush sentiment of many Americans today, all in an impressively academic German accent (psychology should always be done in a German accent).  Zee Professor vas speculating as to vhy quite many indiwiduals harbor such strong hatred for President Bush, especially before the Iraqi prison scandals, when for der most part, he had done far less to antagonize der left than most of his predecessors.

Certainly, I would agree, the hatred for Bush has reached a puzzling extreme.  Now, I am a culture-of-life issue voter, quite proudly (what other issue constitutes nearly so important a moral stand?) and beyond that issue, politics does not significantly interest me.  I do keep up to speed, but I have yet to succeed in finding any party with which I can really agree. 

Der good German psycho-analyzer suggested that this hatred of Bush is the result of profound, primortial fear on behalf of individuals who place their locus of control outside themselves and (he said) with the government (alledgedly, this is a description of Democrats).  In general feeling helpless, the addition of fear over survival and security in the post-911 world compells these individuals to (1) deny the fear, and (2) blame the parent-figure viewed as the source of power and control over their life (the government).  Thus, a rage similar to that of a very troubled child against his parents develops towards the symbollic figure of President Bush, who really has not transgressed proportionate to this rage. This occurs simultaneous with a denial that the percieved threat is really anything to fear at all (instead, the government is assigned all the blame by the subconsious). That may be; it's interesting, but whatever.  

To me, the relevance lies with its application to the Church, and with it an opportunity to explore the neurosis of heresy -- specifically the tragic heresy of Sede-Vacanteism.

Any fan of famous Catholic psychologist Rudolf Allers knows how attached that doctor was to neurosis; his most availible work views all psychological disorders, however small, as fragments of nuerosis. As he came from the Psychoanalyst school, this is not surprising.  Nonetheless, his insights are often informative.  

I heard a story once, perhaps in the blogosphere, of a Polish woman, sweet and devout, who went completely ape when a stranger mentioned Pope John Paul II, blaming him personally for myriad evils in the post-Conciliar Church and world.  In her and many-a-geocities webpage, you, Blogophilus, can encounter a primal anger at post-Conciliar hierarchy which is often jarring.  Coming from often pious and traditional folk, this angst is not merely contradictory, it is really quite sad.  What can be said of it?

Defining neurosis, Dr. Allers posits:

1) "There is no case case of characterological anomaly, no case of neurosis, in which open or varously disguised fear does not lurk... it is to a largely the cause of it."

2) "If [one] is afraid, it is because he feels he is not equal to coping with the world."

3) This fear "cannot be clearly experienced in its pure form, for to acknowledge such a fear would be to admit the possibility of personal worthlessness; but such an admission is intolerable... Thus this primal fear finds expression in many forms, partly by being linked to other objects that happen to be occasions for fear and partly by taking shelter under various disguises.

4) "There is a close connection betwen fear and the will to power.  Only the man who feels it absolutely necessary to conquer and at the same time sees likelihood of defeat will experience fear.

5) Hopeless of success (because the locus of control is placed outside one's self) and yet simultaneously desparate for success (#4), "the neurotic person's trouble is that he is incapable of submission to the sovereignty of what is outside himself," effectively uttering a continual "non-serviam."  "Accordingly, rebellion accompanies fear."  The rebellious child, therefore, rebels in anger superficially against the parental figure, yet "actually this rebellion is directed against the unchangeable facts of existence and the rule of law in the universe, man's limitation, the supremacy of other men..." 

6) "If this revolt were experienced in consciousness it would annihilate a man.  The person puts up a defence against it... The primary effort is directed towards the presencation of the sense of personal value, real or pretended."

It is perhaps unsuprising, or at least understandable, that individuals faced with the onslaught of trials which the Church has undergone may be inclined towards near-dispair for the Church's own survival coupled with the conviction of the necesity of the Church's survival.  Doubting the possibility of this success, profound fear develops, leading to surprising anger at the "instigators" of, for example, the Second Vatican Council, or the Pope Himself, whoever is seen to hold the locus of power as a parental figure.  This anger and fear inspire rebellion, rejection of authority (sede vacanteism), while necesitating that the individual himself be viewed as significantly important (a remnant of the REAL faithful, perhaps?).

Indeed, to believe one is safer taking the state of the Church out of the hands of the Pontiff and into one's own discretion, when the individual knows himself to be fallen and knows the Scripture to announce that Hell itself cannot triumph over the Church, seems manifestly neurotic to me. 

What can be done?

Dr. Allers advises, "The nervous individual needs encouragement and not punishment."

In a changing world, predicted by Fatima as a true test of the Church, often there can seem to be little more encouragement than the current Pope's continual admonision (concurrently the very cure for such heretical neurosis): BE NOT AFRAID, Christ has won.

(Citations: Practical Psychology in Character Development).