ALBERT Einstein has been quoted saying or perhaps, writing, “You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.”
Perhaps this disconnect resides in the different cultures wherein each operates. Religion derives its deepest meaning in a culture of faith. Conversely, science thrives in a culture of doubt.
However, the line between religion and science has never been as blurred as it is today. And it is not about theology or dogma, or at least not directly. This point of convergence occurs in the area of healing, particularly psycho-spiritual healing, or more specifically, healing from possession.
The apparent difference is in the terms used in describing the condition. The Catholic Church calls it “demonic possession” while psychiatrists call it either “possession syndrome,” “trance possession disorder,” or “dissociative trance disorder” (e.g. multiple personality disorder).
Indiana psychiatrist Philip Coons attempted to differentially diagnose “demonic possession” and “dissociative disorders” in 1993. He concluded in a report (published in Dissociation in December 1993) that although the mental state in dissociative disorders or ritual trance possession share numerous “superficial similarities,” there are important “fundamental differences.”
These differences appeared to have determined the fact that these patients, whom the Church confirmed as cases of demonic possession, do not respond to the best psychiatric interventions. These differences can also explain why even psychiatrists, those open to the idea of “demonic possession” (e.g. American author M. Scott Peck and British psychiatrist Kenneth McAll) observed healing or cure through prayers, either through a Eucharistic celebration, exorcism or both.
Psychiatric medicine has historically played an essential part in diagnosing demonic possession, as far as the Roman Catholic protocol is concerned. It ensures that the person suspected of possession cannot be clearly diagnosed by current psychiatric science and failed to respond to sustained clinical intervention.
It is clear, however, that the Christian understanding of “possession” is far broader than the best of psychiatric medicine today. Psychiatry is still following the religious lead. Nonetheless, current psychiatric interest in possession as a mental disease can have an inevitable impact of confusing the fact from the theory with its “medicalese” language, expert authority and sanitized understanding of the phenomenon. Evidently, an enlightened psychiatrist can contribute much in the treatment and healing of possessed individuals. Constricted psychiatry can even cause unintended harm.