I am no expert on this topic; however, based upon my 'gut' feelings and what I have ascertained -Jungian philosophy is to be avoided and will lead one astray...

Additionally, it would appear that Jungian philosophy is practiced by many Catholics maybe unknowingly -in my opinion, practice detrimental to the Church...

What say any experts? Has this topic been discussed here before?

I am just looking for opinions and information regarding this topic -- any information insight regarding Church position(s) on this etc...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 13, 2003

Answers

Have you read any books from Jung, Daniel?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 13, 2003.

Here is a site which discusses Jung's ideas.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 13, 2003.

No I have not. I have glanced through some of his stuff with no wish to disgest further... It seems to counter what I believe...

My only readings on the subject now have been pro vs. con mostly secular in nature AND I will admit that I look at all this information through my own anti-Jung perspective...

Jung seems like a clever detour that is really all about individual freedom and giving in to the innevitable rather than leading principle based life and following in faith

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 13, 2003.

What belief of him makes dislike him, Daniel?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 13, 2003.

collective unconsciousness & archetypes are two reasons...

collective unconsciousness suggests free will is but illusion...

archetypes simply label aspects of human existence in the flesh...

It all seems like an attempt to define 'us' and classify 'us' by the physical earthly experience alone and in doing so it counters faith, it diminishes and in essence destroys and discounts the 'mystery' - the soul...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 13, 2003.

Hi Daniel from the little I have read of Jungs writing it is extremely difficult to grasp. The man was one of the gretaest thinkers of last century and drew on many different areas of thought ..science, psycology(especially his own vast clinical experience), theology, mystism, eastern philosophy, mythology amonngst others.

Few of us are in a position to judge his thought critically but he most certainly did present many challenges to Christianity. He questioned the whole basis of the Greek philosophical conceptions of nature and reality and in doing so was "frozen out" by Christinity. This was a source of great pain to Jung, who believed as he called himself a "lover of the soul" he wanted the Church to take care of souls.

He didnt however believ that the message nor the institions of Christianity were meeting the task of "cura animarum" or care of the souls. He believed that in order for people to find meaning in their lives they need not listen to historical exercises of imagining another world gone by. Rather he thought people should be encountering something affecting our sould in the here and now. He believed this was best achieved through psychology, which many Christians are put off by. He wanted to stress though that just becasue soemthing was "explained" it wasnt "explained away"

Jung provided many thoughts that are very difficult if not impossible to reconcile with our faith(like Jungs thoughts on the concept of evil and the dark side of God, many of which have not been adequaetly explained by the Church) but in the main we could describe Jungs view as ambivilant in regard to the Church as an instituion .

I think its important to understnd he was not attempting to belittle Christianity indeed he loved elements of the smbolism and traditon. However he felt something was missing in todays world, something to bridge the gap between knowing and believing, that something was psychology according to Jung.

Jung most defintely believed in God but didnt feel it was found in an institution. Its not surprising with his own thought on dogma and his focus on the experience of the individual that Jung prefered prtestanism over The Catholic Church, at least in many regards.

I dont know if that helps at all or even if Ive got that much right but if you were after a text that deals of Jungs thoughts on Christianity I would reccommend "Jung and Christianity" by Wallace B. Clift. Actually I dont know if its a good book or not as I havent read any others on this topic.

Blessings

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.

daniel,

i have to inform you of a bit of a fallacy you have fallen into. youve read an opposing psychologists opinion about Dr Jung and youre using it to make a value judgement about Dr Jungs moral character... that or someone else has followed this line and youve ascribed to that work.

I wont side with the idea of collective unconcious directly, since thats something no one will really know about until after we die. the idea certainly doesnt go against our faith, however. look at philosophy, there are many theories that discuss the soul as being a separate entity connected to the body, but that souls are all in a same plane... that could be one form of collective unconciousness. another point of view: what if God chooses to manifest himself in a sort of collective unconciousness. see, you can deny science, or you can chalk it up to one more way that God does glorious things in the world, and works in ways that we can only begin to understand.

On archetypes, you need to do ALOT more research my friend. my mother is an expert in the field of jungian personality types, so i guess im biased here, but as a psychologist she's certainly helped me to see that it takes alot of understanding and study to understand the true ramifications of Jungs ideas of type and temperament, ideas that actually date back to ancient greece.

Jung's archetypes dont force people into a mold, as you say. they are indicators of PREFERENCE for certain actions. Namely, humanity is different and we can measure a persons tendency towards certain actions (ie-- how outgoing they are, how organized they are, how likely they are to procrastinate). this is opposed to alot of psychological views that say that all humanity is essentially the same mentally speaking. this sounds good on the outside but consider this: a person who procrastinates under this idea has a psychological complex leading them to procrastinate since we see under this theory that procrastination can lead to stress and therefore people probably as a norm shouldnt procrastinate. or a child with higher energy levels and lower concentration in a classroom (typical of extrovert sensing types) gets drugged by their psychologists and labelled incorrectly as A.D.D. its terrible

what Jung noted was that some of these psychological behaviors were actually quite NORMAL for some personality types, and not based on a psychological disorder. For instance, in most cases, at a party an introvert will find their friends, hang out and chat with them and not go too out of their way to meet new people (and that is OK). extroverts will wander around the room, chat to new people and get to know them a little bit. hang out with their friends momentarily and then move on (and that is okay too). a persons archetype indicates that these people have two different preferences, but that it is okay to be different.

now, i use the word preference for a reason. is it possible for an extrovert to act introverted? yes, it certainly is. an extrovert who is reading and not talking for an extended period of time is acting introverted. HOWEVER, granted most situations, and increasingly observed with stressful scenarios, one goes back to acting in their preference because it feels more natural. for example: i am an ENFP. I have a preference that says that i like to make decisions along with my intuition and emotion. but because of schoolastic training which favors and pushes for the T instead of F type, i have a strong logical bent as well. in most cases i will make completely rational decisions regardless of my emotions. when stressed out, however, i allow my emotions to influence my decisions more and often run on intuition. niether is wrong, but they indicate a natural preference versus a psychological training inherent in a school system that does not recognize peoples differences.

i hope i have cleared some of this up for you. if you still have any questions please feel free to respond to this

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 13, 2003.

Paul,

I have no fallacies -my opinions are based upon what I have read but are my own... You have provided much to digest... I will read through it in detail and comment in the near future...

My general feel from my initial read is that you are a Jung proponent.

Some intial thoughts questions:

According to Jung is anything specifically good or bad? My feel is that the 'science' is quite subjective and relativistic in addition to providing a fatalistic path e.g. 'preferances', to those who so choose to "go with what is 'normal'" rather than what is for instance Church...

We are all possesed of a tendancy to sin -is this normal? Is accepting the sin OK?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 14, 2003.

I have no fallacies -my opinions are based upon what I have read but are my own... You have provided much to digest... I will read through it in detail and comment in the near future...

sorry to come off so harshly, i sometimes have an abbrasive style. what you have mentioned has been brought up before... as Jung was definately not a Christian. he was really much more a spiritualist. my point is that reading his work (especially his work in psychology which is fairly unrelated to his work in spiritualism) is actually fairly beneficial to proper understanding of human behavior. for example, understanding a persons type would allow one to tailor a conversion effort to that persons psychological needs.

My general feel from my initial read is that you are a Jung proponent.

yes, definately. i support the study of things which expand the mind and broaden horizons... as long as it doesnt harm my faith. so he had a different perspective as me on religion? so what, that doesnt make all of his work bad, most of his stuff is great. i have to admit, though, that i havent read much of his spiritualist works.

According to Jung is anything specifically good or bad? My feel is that the 'science' is quite subjective and relativistic in addition to providing a fatalistic path e.g. 'preferances', to those who so choose to "go with what is 'normal'" rather than what is for instance Church...

here is where the misunderstanding comes in. archetype, and the idea of preference really doesnt deal with moral decisions. that would be a false application of it. it more deals with HOW the moral decision is made, and how one would gather the information to make that decision. for example, being an extrovert doesnt make it okay to skip church on Sunday because youre busy socializing. the morality is seperate from the idea of personality type. all personality type speaks of is HOW people make decisions, not what the decisions should or should not be. but his work in psychology has little to do with morality, that he leaves up to each person studying his work to determine for themselves (namely, a catholic can study his work on types, and a buddist can study his type theory, and niether is offended by moral judgments)

We are all possesed of a tendancy to sin -is this normal? Is accepting the sin OK?

i think i answered this, in that he doesnt deal with the idea of sin. an example would be: a person is possessed of a tendency to procrastinate -is this normal? yes, 50% of the population shows a preference to procrastinate. is accepting procrastination okay? sure, if thats the way people get things done best then why not. get what i mean? its a secular issue, not a morality clause.

NOTE: on the objectivity of science-- its a fascinating thing. science is a merely a tool, like a hammer in a tool box. used by the wrong person it can do much harm. used properly by a person with the proper moral value it is a great tool and can enrich ones understanding of God.

for example, movement of particles in a system causes a polar switch of particles lightyears away. science has determined that we are all surrounded by a field of energy that allows this instant influence of particles across millions of lightyears instantly. this is similar to ether, accept its really not the same idea at all, much more advanced and much more observable. but science doesnt know what to call this field that surrounds and influences everything in the universe. anyone else vote for calling it God?

we can ignore science, and allow people without the moral value to expand on it (like the amish for example, whom if i were of a mind i could tear on until the high heavens since none of them would ever be on the net to see this post, but i like the amish, theyre cool) or we can be the ones to help with science and make sure that we understand better the way that God relates to the world through physical law.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

Daniel,

I am raised Catholic, however I fell away for 20 years, now back, I read many of Jung's books while I was searching for spiritual things in my fallen away years. Carl Jung fits well with today's New Age secular thinking. He was very bright and wrote some great ideas as any bright person might but also many to avoid, and enough of these latter ones to make any good Catholic want to avoid Jung as any kind of role model.

I read an autobiography on him but mostly his technical writing while I studied my dreams. I owned a book shelf row of his books but have since discarded them. I searched the web for some clips that stand out to myself as important when considering Jung...

"Jung's mother, Emilie, was said to be a lively, extroverted woman who loved to talk. She was also clairvoyant and came from a family of mediums, clairvoyants, and ministers. As Jung grew up, he was surrounded by the world of the paranormal....Jung had always had an interest in the realm of the psyche and the paranormal. A good deal of paranormal phenomena would occur around Carl whenever his mother was present....Jung began to make a serious study of the paranormal. He regularly attended seances held by his cousin, Helene Preiswerk, who was a medium. He observed her closely along with the phenomena associated with mediumship. He kept careful records about the work of the seance room and this research became the basis of his doctoral dissertation on the subject." from http://members.aol.com/IsisDawn/jung1.htm, but I recall reading that in my now discarded books also.

Here is a well known incident from Jung's life at 12 years old: "Another significant event occurred in the twelfth year. He became aware of a sinful thought trying to force itself into his consciousness. He had a vague idea that the thought was a forbidden one. After a long struggle to keep it suppressed, he decided to let it become conscious. The thought was a fantasy. He saw God sitting on his golden throne in the sky and defecating. A large turd fell on the Basel Cathedral and shattered it. Instead of bringing damnation as his elders had led him to believe, the fantasy brought him peace. Jung felt God had willed him to sin so that he could experience God and his grace directly."

Now straight from the horses mouth:

In a comment reminiscent of our 1990’s relativistic culture, Jung said of Hindu thought: " Good or evil are then regarded at most as my good or my evil, as whatever seems to me good or evil". Quote from p.275 Memories, Dreams, Reflections by Carl Jung

To accept the eight polarities within the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the most widely used instrument for understanding normal personality differences) predisposes one to embrace Jung’s teaching that the psyche "cannot set up any absolute truths, for its own polarity determines the relativity of its statements." Quote from p.350 Memories, Dreams, Reflections by Carl Jung

Jung taught that the mandala [Sanskrit for ‘circle’] was "the simplest model of a concept of wholeness, and one which spontaneously arises in the mind as a representation of the struggle and reconciliation of opposites." Quote from p.335 Memories, Dreams, Reflections by Carl Jung

Note: Memories, Dreams, Reflections by Carl Jung was written in 1957 when Jung was 81 years old, with clear mind, his life story that may be seen somewhat as a summation of all his work.

other quotes...

"I am for those who are out of the Church" –Carl Jung, in a letter to Joland Jacobi, on hearing the news she had converted to Catholicism...

and this >> Jung: "What is so special about Christ, that he should be the motivational force? Why not another model—Paul or Buddha or Confucius or Zoroaster?" ...

and this >>> In a letter to Freud: "I think we must give [psychoanalysis] time to infiltrate into people from many centers, to revivify among intellectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were—a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal."

Three above quotes found on the ST. CATHERINE REVIEW http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/jungcult.html

Decide for yourself,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 16, 2003.

i've been in therapy with several Xan jungians--great work!

i happen to believe in a collective unconscious; it makes perfect sense to me, but like all therapy, we need to find what it is that we need.

i've known a number of jungians and have trusted each and every one!

my current therapist is a roman catholic franciscan jungian academic seminary instructor, male.

there are jesuit jungians, episcopalian jungians, unitarian jungians, lay jungians, non christian jungians. there are probably buddhist jungians.

jungian work has been invaluable in my process and vocational work--i am about to be ordained priest in the episcopal church and one of my personal dreams is to study in zurich at the jung center.

peace oonie in oakland sheela_na_gigs@sbcglobal.net (a more reliable email address for receiving email than the .mac account, sad to say)

-- Una Ni Riain (sheela_na_gigs@sbcglobal.net), July 18, 2003.

I endorse Daniel's opinion and Mike H.'s comment. Those are great quotes, Mike H.

I'd like to go further by questioning whether Jung (or Freud)'s ideas can be regarded as science. I'd say NO. The real scientists are the evolutionary psychologists or the people behind the computational theory of mind (Pinker, Tooby, Cosmides etc.) or the cognitive behaviorists like David Burns.

It's really a more interesting fide et ratio kind of question to think about how these modern theories fit with Christianity. For example how does the computational theory of mind gel with the doctrine of an immortal soul? Jung is about as scientific as wicca or astrology.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 18, 2003.

Real Scientists? My friend, I encourage you to do more research. Pinker is nothing but a Rush Limbaugh of the science world. You cannot discredit Parapsychology so easily. Look at William James, Maslow, Jung, and more recently Graf, Bache, and the lists go on! I urge you, read more on parapsychology. You cannot easily dismiss the other side just b/c it's not what you consider "science." There are many aspects of parapsychology that follow the "scientific" method. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon though since it's easier not to think about things!

-- Dan (lawsxxx@hotmail.com), October 06, 2003.

Dan,

You can find truths in many systems of thought. Even liars tell or live by the truth most of the time. How could they be liars if they had no truth to deviate from? I could have listed some true statements of Jung in that post above. Such as I once read Jung thinking thus, that by having a family of one's own, one would invite all of society's problems into one's home. I could see wisdom in that. For some reason that stuck with me. Not that this should stop someone from helping others. But overall, Jung is off base enough so that I would not recommend anyone to buy into his worldview. The point is, the full and complete truth, the rock solid long lasting worldview is expressed by the Catholic Church.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 06, 2003.

Dan, if you would choose parapsychology over Rush Limbaugh, I'd feel very sorry for you. Rush is far from a saint, some of his opinions are crummy, and his religion is wrong, but at least he is real.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 07, 2003.

-to further the open discussion; just posting an email I just recieved from Dan an apparent Jung proponent:

"Subject: old news concerning Jung post Date: Tue, October 7, 2003 1:08 am From: "Laws ..." To: dlm@catholic.org Priority: Normal

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I read through some old posts from May 2003 on some messageboard and I feel bad for you. You really should reread Jung, or if you choose not to read Jung, don't talk about him at all when you have no knowledge on the subject. Some people on that board tried to give you accurate information and you dismissed it b/c you didn't believe it. Jung was more in tune with his soul than the most devout Catholic. His psychology was and has been highly rejected among modern scientists for the very reason that it breaks away from the ego, the physical self. You had it reversed. You made it seem like his thoughts were simply only concerning the physical self and not that of the spiritual self. Please, so you don't mislead others, get the facts straight (if you already haven't).

Dan"

Dan,

First, I think that keeping the discussion out in the open will facilitate the pursuit of truth regarding Jung... I have considered what you have conveyed; on its surface it appears to be but opinion with no basis documented or otherwise... Can you provide something 'meatier'?

I think you have it wrong...

Jung is not God and when there is conflict -God trumps Jung...

There are scenarios I have experienced where Jung's 'philosophy' and application thereof contradicts what I know to be truth... For this reason I am at a minimum wary of Jung in part and maybe lazy because I do not want to labor through his stuff to sort out any potential wheat from the chaff.

In my opinion the Jung vine bears bad fruit; therefore it is bad...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 07, 2003.

Dans,

I agree that Jung had a spiritual approach to his psychology. Jung did not try to blatantly eliminate faith and God as the Freud tradition does. So I give Jung credit there. A well-known Catholic priest has said that Jung is the greatest psychologist of all time. But that does not make Jung a Catholic role model. He may be even more dangerous to unwary Catholics because of his spiritual approach. Just like Protestant theology is dangerous to the unwary Catholic. A person can easily tell when a philosophy is incorrect when the philosophy in question is way off. But when it is closer to true than we can be fooled easier. Jung is like that in the psychology realm, closer to true. Jung has taken a scientific approach to many topics and gotten some worthwhile results. But that doesn't mean his worldview is in tact. Psychology does not get to the root problem for souls, which is sin. Non-Catholic traditions tend to deny sin, deny guilt, deny the Eucharist and have contempt for the cross, which is the only way home. Everyone not going through that gate is a robber and a thief.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 07, 2003.

I can't believe that there are still people who think like that. "The cross is the only way home"?! What about every religion oher than Catholicism that has granted its followers peace of mind and preached good will towards men? If God intended to save everyone through Christianity than a Christ-figure would have appeared to even the most remote of cultures. Certainly the missionaries meant well, but they often ended up doing a lot more harm than good, and this cannot be God's will.

Jesus was certainly one of the wisest, most enlightened men ever to have lived, which is why Christians claim to live as he did. But even if he was in fact the son of God, that doesn't change the fact that many of the rules of the church seem to go prevent people from actually living as he did. For example, Catholicism focuses on sin, guilt, and shame and this often makes people feel bad about themselves. To say "our way is the only way" is what creates conflicts, and I highly doubt Jesus would have wanted this.

This is where Jung comes in. He sought to understand the human soul, and he used as scientific a method as possible to do this. By studying so many religions, he recognized that at their essence, most of them are the same in their goals. Following your church's rules will not get you into heaven. The rules are there as general guidelines because without them people would be barbarians. For example, the fixation on sex and abstinece was there for a very good reason. Even fifty years ago, having sex outside of mairrage and promiscuity almost always led to unwanted pregnancy, STD's and ruined lives, so it made perfect sense to preach against it. But now that there is birth control and protection against diseases it just doesn't fit.

Anyway, in so far as Jung's relation to the Catholic Church, I think he recognized it as one of many paths to happiness and/or salvation. But as soon as you get caught up in following the letter of the law and ignoring the overall meaning, it would seem as though you fall into narrow-minded dogmatism. At this point any organized religion becomes nothing more than a system of control, and often an unhealthy one.

If you disagree, please post your response and convince me you're right.

-- Woodrow (Woodrow432@yahoo.com), December 25, 2003.

I thought you were a serious contributor, Woodrow, until I saw you you pretended to be the pope posting a pro-fornication message on this thread: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BdRg

Because you have abused the forum, you don't deserve a substantive response to your above comments, Woodrow.

I think that you fell away from the Church and are now trying to justify your mortal sins. You can't. You are headed for hell. You must return (or join) the Catholic Church and make a good confession.

A holy Christmas to you.

-- (EYE@on.you), December 25, 2003.

For example, Catholicism focuses on sin, guilt, and shame and this often makes people feel bad about themselves. To say "our way is the only way" is what creates conflicts, and I highly doubt Jesus would have wanted this.

If guilt leads you to God then it is not a bad thing. When we do something wrong, we should feel guilty. I know this goes against the hedonistic views of today. As for your ideas of what Christ thought, I think you are very wrong here. The following are sentences from a section (I have cut the story line out of it to make is shorter, you might wish to read it all in context in your Bible though:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. -John 14:5-6

In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him." -John 14:19-21

"Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me." -John 14:24

Carl Jung was a non-believer and a psychologist. Some of the things he came up with are in line with Church teachings, some are a little odd. Many of his ideas have been embraced by homosexual behavior advocates, feminists and others with political agendas. The Church rejects nothing that is a genuine scientific insight into either nature or the human psyche. The theories of such individuals must be evaluated on a point-by-point basis, noting which items are in harmony or out of harmony with the Catholic faith and with good science.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 25, 2003.

Any form of sexual immorality, irrespective of any religion, immediately banishes a human from the Presence of an all Holy God. Subsequently, it results in a weakening of divine principle of love/charity with us. Any person who has an untampered sensitive conscience can immediately experience this in the form of guilt, regret, loss of peace, shame, sadness, etc., irrespective of any religion. Neverthless, those whose conscience is hardened by sin may not feel any of the above, because they have gone away too far from the Presence of God, and all divine love has died, and all grace has dried up. That's why King David prays in Psalm 51 "Cast me not away away from your Presence and take not your Holy Spirit away from me." Such people are then spiritually dead. Their bodies are no longer channels of God's love, holiness, divinity, and eternal life; but they become open channels for every kind of fleshy desires and immorality, irrational passions, and greater and greater immorality until lower than a beast, and subsequent eternal death! Such is the curse of those who follow pleasure without sense.

-- leslie john (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.

-just bumping this old thread up for possible additional input. My opinion has not changed on Jung -in fact, I am more opposed...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 06, 2005.

'collective unconsciousness & archetypes are two reasons...

collective unconsciousness suggests free will is but illusion...

archetypes simply label aspects of human existence in the flesh...

It all seems like an attempt to define 'us' and classify 'us' by the physical earthly experience alone and in doing so it counters faith, it diminishes and in essence destroys and discounts the 'mystery' - the soul... '

no

does it mean if all human beings have 2 arms and 2 legs that they all have the same body

what you are telling in your post is really a misinterpretation of jung's theories

all people have certain things common

physical and spiritual

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 06, 2005.

sdqa,

-you make statements -no proof to support?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 06, 2005.

-here are a couple good articles that detail Jungian based errors:

Jungian Psychology as Catholic Theology

New Book Shows Scary Side of Jung

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 06, 2005.