Chapter 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Feeling Revolution<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is the feeling<\/em>\nof the President of the United States that the price of imported oil is too\nhigh.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe psychiatrists and psychologists on the\npanel were almost unanimous in their feeling<\/em>\nthat masturbation is quite natural and normal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFDA researchers cannot help but feel<\/em> that Laetrile is useless in the\ntreatment of cancer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSeveral leading economists were asked for\ntheir feelings<\/em> about the reason for the\nsudden drop in the stock market.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe newly appointed advisor to the president\nstated in a press conference that she has the strong feeling<\/em> that abortion is a matter of choice for the woman.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSeveral theologians wrote a book on the\nsubject of human sexuality because they felt<\/em>\nthat the moral standards of the Church cause unnecessary hardships for the\naverage Catholic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The psychiatrist-author of a learned book about\nfeelings writes: \u201cI have never felt<\/em>\nthat people\u2019s inner feelings have some claim to public recognition\u2026 . I myself feel<\/em> we have responsibility to keep \u2018it\u2019\n(bad temper, foul language, ill humor) in.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are but a very few examples of\nhow we have become a nation of \u201cfeelers.\u201d Or, at least, if we still think,\nknow, believe, and have opinions, we do not care to say so. We prefer to call\nit \u201cfeeling.\u201d Check your newspapers and magazines and you will discover that\n\u201cto feel that\u201d is used frequently to express activity of our reasoning faculty.\nListen to relatives, friends, neighbors, fellow workers, hosts and guests of TV\ntalk shows, and you will hear them do the same thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no doubt about it\u2014feeling is IN! But\nis thinking on the way out? Is man\u2019s reason becoming an endangered species?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf it feels good, do it!\u201d many a bumper\nsticker proclaims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are told: \u201cLet it all hang out. Do your own\nthing. Follow your feelings. Express your emotions. Never repress your\nfeelings.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n You are O.K. and I am O.K. and everybody is\nO.K.! And everything you do with another person is O.K., as long as you really love<\/em> him. But what is \u201creally\u201d?\nAnd what is \u201clove\u201d? A feeling pure and simple? Or something more than a\nfeeling?<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have come a long way from Victorian prudery,\nunemotional formality and stiff upper lips, to our present day enthusiasm for\nfeeling, hugging, kissing and touching everyone we meet. Those of us who drag\nour feet in participating in this feeling revolution are gently asked on bumper\nstickers whether we have hugged our kids today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sex, of course, has provided the most fertile\nsoil for the feeling revolution. The new feeling philosophy has developed into\na veritable sexual arena of novel experimentations, unrestrained\ngratifications, fanciful titillations, unpurged audiovisual presentations and\npublications, and new anything-goes legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The last stronghold of \u201cemotional\nuptightness\u201d\u2014angry feelings\u2014is being attacked with great vigor by an army of\nself-acclaimed assertiveness experts. People are trained by them to express\ntheir anger and to \u201ctell it like it is.\u201d They learn new ways of \u201clooking out\nfor number one,\u201d and to \u201cgo with their anger.\u201d No one is allowed to be shy,\nmeek or self-effacing any more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You ask, how do I<\/em> feel about this feeling revolution? If you really mean what you\nsay, \u201cHow do I feel<\/em>,\u201d the answer is,\n\u201cBoth glad and sad.\u201d If you mean, however, \u201cWhat do I think<\/em>?\u201d, I will give you my professional opinion. First, I will\ngive you the good news\u2014the reason for my feeling glad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much good has come from Sigmund Freud\u2019s\ndiscovery early in this century that the neurotic repression of our emotions\nand feelings is detrimental to our emotional health. The once high incidence of\nsexual disorders has dwindled to almost zero, although not all older persons\nhave been able to shake off the effects of the damage done in their childhood\nyears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have learned how important it is to make our\nchildren feel<\/em> loved by showing\naffection. Bottle feeding is making way of late for breast feeding as\nparent-infant bonding (the intimate relationship of infants to their mothers\nthat may be formed immediately after birth) is sought in skin-to-skin and\neye-to-eye contact. Unless we get back into the family business, I believe that\nthe country is on a headlong course for disaster in terms of these human\nrelationships and family interactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In general people are becoming freer and more\nspontaneous in relating to others also on a feeling level. They want to learn\nmore about emotions and feelings, and how they can contribute to a more\ncontented and happier existence. Their instinctive substitution of \u201cfeeling\u201d for\n\u201cthinking\u201d is an indication of their awareness that in the past we have\nstressed the development of our thinking mind at the expense of the use of our\nemotions. By saying \u201cI feel\u201d instead of \u201cI think,\u201d people mean, \u201cWe want things\nto change; we want to be whole<\/em> human\nbeings, not solely thinking human beings.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much progress has been made in controlling or\nlessening unpleasant feelings like anxiety, depression, despair, agitation and\ntension with a large variety of tranquilizers and antidepressant medication.\nMany physical disorders can now be treated successfully because of what we have\nlearned about the relationship between body and feelings. Nevertheless, we\nstill have a long way to go before our understanding of emotions and our\ntreatment of emotional disorders can be considered adequate and successful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now for the bad news\u2014the reason for my feeling\nsad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our failure to eliminate past neurotic\nrepression of feelings and emotions by employing a non-neurotic manner of\ndealing with them is having wide repercussions throughout our society. This is\nmost evident in the sexual area, the prime target of the popular belief that to\nexercise restraint is a certain invitation to become neurotic, or stay\nemotionally retarded and unfulfilled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We now see sexual disorders and new forms of\nemotional immaturity. With all its pleasures, the so-called sexual revolution\nis producing more impotent playboys and frigid playmates.1<\/sup><\/a> With the greatly\nincreased \u201csexual freedom\u201d there is more post-coital depression and greater\ninability to relate in non-genital ways. These sexually, or rather genitally,\nhyperactive persons are more lonely and isolated from each other. They\nfrustrate each other in their promiscuous pursuit of the goal: to feel loved\nand wanted. The \u201cjoys of sex\u201d are accompanied by intensified feelings of fear,\nworry, anxiety, tension, hate, loneliness, depression and despair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ignorance about how to deal maturely with our\nsexual feelings, together with continued suppression and repression of our\nso-called \u201cnegative\u201d emotions\u2014especially anger in all its variations and\nnuances\u2014as well as generalized confusion about the role of emotions and\nfeelings in our lives, are responsible for the me-first culture of\nself-fulfillment and the new narcissism, \u201cthe besetting psychological disorder\nof modern western culture.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The speculations about this modern disorder by\npsychoanalysts, psychiatrists, sociologists, social historians, social critics\nand psychologists reveal the extent of our inability to put man\u2019s emotions and\nfeelings in their proper context. The conclusions of these human scientists,\nvaried as they are, make it abundantly clear that modern man is not served by\nour continuing need to see the individual as a social animal, or a rational\nanimal, or a behavioral phenomenon. Man is not<\/em>\nan animal, even though he feels pain and pleasure like an animal. He is not<\/em> a rock even though he falls like a\nrock. Men and women are rock-like, plant-like, animal-like, and God-like; but\nthey are not rocks, plants, animals, or gods. They are entirely just human\nbeings, human persons.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Man must be seen and understood as man, as the\nsum total of all his faculties\u2014vegetative<\/em>\n(pertaining to the plant functions of nutrition, growth and reproduction), sensory<\/em> (pertaining to the animal\nfunctions of sensing, feeling and moving), intellectual,\nvolitional<\/em> (pertaining to the will), and spiritual<\/em> in his relationship to his fellow-man and his Creator.\nOnly in this context is it possible to make sense of what always has been, in a\ncertain way, the most puzzling aspect of his nature: his emotional life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, a book that intends to shed light on\nthe precise purpose and function of man\u2019s emotions and feelings must give due\nconsideration to the spiritual dimension of man. To exclude this dimension, as\nmost books on psychology and psychiatry do, is, in my opinion, unscientific,\nregardless of the more widely held belief that scientific study must be limited\nto the scientifically measurable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reader will have to determine for himself\nwhat is true in this regard. For sure, many a reader may no longer know whether\nwhat he experiences is a matter of feeling or knowing. As a result he may be\nconfused about many issues of vital importance to his state of life. His\ninability to extricate himself from this confusion is often a cause of apathy\n(from the Latin, apathos<\/em>, \u201cwithout\nfeeling or passion\u201d). Without clarity of thinking and a fully developed and\nbalanced emotional life, he is defenseless against the powers of evil. He is\nweak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, as he gains insight into the\ndifferences between feeling and thinking, and into the ways each can support\nand strengthen the other, his powers of judgment will multiply. So will his\ncapacity for knowing and living the Good News, for leading the life Jesus wants\nhim to have in abundance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For those afflicted by emotional disorders this\ninsight will help lift their confusion so they can benefit more from\npsychotherapy. Those in positions of influence and power over others will be\nbetter disposed to make correct judgments unaffected by undue emotional\ncontamination. Their greater love and compassion for their children, students,\nemployees, religious subjects, constituents, and others, will make their laws\nand regulations more humane without abandonment of basic principles of\nmorality, justice and charity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This book is dedicated to all Christians. My\nreason for doing so is twofold. First, because through the centuries too many\nChristians of all denominations have been the unfortunate victims of\nemotional\u2014and indirectly, spiritual\u2014afflictions which in some way are traceable\nto misconceptions of emotions in the Christian culture and to misunderstandings\nof certain Scripture passages. Second, because I am grateful for all I have\nlearned from my Christian patients, as well as my Christian audiences and\ncorrespondents throughout North America and other parts of the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In dedicating this book to all Catholics,\nProtestants, and Evangelicals it is my sincere wish that it will contribute to\ngreater unity among my Christian brothers and sisters, and bring to them and\nthe world the peace and joy of Christ through the healing and prevention of\nemotional suffering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When I write about the meaning of man\u2019s\nemotional life as an integral, well-defined part of his God-given nature, I do\nso as a Christian psychiatrist, not as a humanist. I am convinced that even\nthose who have been taught that psychology and psychiatry are of the devil,\nthose who believe these sciences belong to the \u201cworld,\u201d will agree that I am\nnot a secular humanist, but a true Christian after reading this book. I am\nequally convinced that this book will deepen the reader\u2019s belief in the healing\npower of the Holy Spirit, as well as his understanding of how the Spirit works\nwith and through human beings. He may be assured that the contents of these\npages will not lead him away from the Gospel, or ensnare him in strictly human\nways of thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This book is written in question-and-answer\nstyle with a minimum of professional jargon. Whenever their use could not be\navoided, professional terms are explained and clarified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is written primarily for nonprofessionals,\nordinary men and women who form the backbone of our society, as well as people\nin positions of leadership in business, churches, government, the military, and\nelsewhere. It is intended for parents and teachers, adults and adolescents,\nlaity and religious. In short, it is for everyone who desires to enrich his or\nher life by learning the exact meaning and interdependency of emotions and\nfeelings, feeling and thinking, heart and mind, being and doing, restraint and\nrepression, the flesh and the spirit, soma and psyche.<\/p>\n\n\n\n NOTE: This is not to say that professionals,\npsychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, counselors, theologians,\npastoral workers, spiritual directors, and all workers in the mental health\nfield cannot benefit from this book. They can. In fact, Feeling and Healing Your Emotions<\/em> is a suitable introduction to\nthose books\u2014the ones I\u2019ve already written or co-authored and others I plan to\nwrite\u2014designed for the professional reader.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Chapter 2<\/p>\n\n\n\n Emotions\u2014Man\u2019s Psychological Motors<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Editors\u2019 note: The original title\nof this chapter was Emotions\u2014Man\u2019s\nPsychic Motors.<\/em> Because the term psychic<\/em>\ncaused confusion, we have renamed it. Dr. Baars used the words \u201cpsychic\u201d and\n\u201cpsyche\u201d when speaking about the concept of psychic<\/em>\nor psychological<\/em> wholeness<\/em>. He defined the psyche as \u201ccomprised of the spiritual\nlife, the intellectual life, the life of the will, and the emotions.\u201d\nThroughout this book the term psychic is to be understood in that context, not<\/em> in the sense of the mystical,\nmagical or telepathic.5<\/sup><\/a> The words psychic and psychological\nwill be used interchangeably throughout this revised edition.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Dr. Baars, I am confused about the words \u201cemotions\u201d and \u201cfeelings.\u201d Are\nthey the same?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Not quite. Though one can say that\nall emotions are feelings, the reverse is not true. Not all feelings are\nemotions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Feelings that are not emotions include, for\nexample, those of pain, hunger, thirst, cold, warmth, fatigue, tension,\nrelaxation, sleepiness, and dizziness. These feelings originate in our body and\ncause us to be aware of certain changes in a part or the whole of our body, or\nany of its organs. These somatic feelings, or bodily sensations, serve the\npurpose of alerting us to our bodily conditions and needs, and of giving us an\nopportunity to make adjustments to bring about or maintain a healthy or\ncomfortable bodily state. For example, we eat in response to the feeling of\nhunger; we take a rest when we feel tired; we go for a checkup when we feel\npain; we turn on the heat when we feel cold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An emotion, on the other hand, is primarily a\npsychic reaction to stimuli from the world around us. As we are part of that\nworld, too, we can also feel an emotion in response to our own thoughts,\nmemories and bodily feelings. It is a response to whatever information our\nsenses provide concerning the goodness, lack of goodness, usefulness or\nharmfulness things and beings have for us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, I love a gorgeous sunset; I desire\nto buy a beautiful painting; I feel joy when I am with my children; I hate\nburned food; I feel aversion whenever I must take my foul-tasting medicine; I\nfeel sad when I am sick; I hope to pass my exam; I despair of ever making\nenough money to buy a house; though I fear a fist fight your words give me\ncourage to defend myself; getting bad advice from my broker makes me angry. I\nwill come back later to a discussion of these eleven basic human emotions.\nRight now I want to draw your attention to the meaning of the word \u201cemotion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Derived from the Latin, ex-motus<\/em>, past participle of the verb ex-mov\u00eare<\/em>, the word \u201cemotion\u201d has to do with motion<\/em>, movement<\/em>, motor<\/em>. Emotions, like the bodily or\nsomatic feelings, cause us \u201cto be moved\u201d or \u201cmove,\u201d depending on the particular\nkind of information our senses give us. But unlike the feelings which are\nconcerned mainly with the state of our body and its organs, our emotions are\nreactions to the world around us and to our own inner psychic world. In that\nsense one can say that their importance overshadows that of our bodily feelings\nbecause their range is infinitely great. On the other hand, if we were not\nenabled by our somatic feelings to take good care of our bodies we would not be\naround very long to be moved emotionally by the world we live in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bodily feelings are easily understood and dealt\nwith by all of us. Our emotions are much more complex and therefore a ready\nsource of confusion and misdirection. Our current \u201cfeeling revolution\u201d\nprimarily involves our emotions, not our somatic feelings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q That means our sexual feelings, in which we see the greatest upheaval\nand lack of inhibition and control, belong to the emotions. Is that right?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Not really. Sexual feelings result\nfrom the stimulation of specific end organs in our erogenous zones, in the same\nmanner that pain is felt when specific end organs in the skin, bones, internal\norgans, and so forth are stimulated. Once these sexual feelings have been\nexperienced by self-stimulation, arousal by others, or watching things of a\nsexual nature, they may then be felt when we think of the person we love\nintimately, or by any other thoughts, fantasies, and memories with sexual\nconnotations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, just because sexual feelings can\noriginate in the thinking mind or be closely associated with the emotion of\nlove, this does not mean they are emotions. We all know that the smell of fresh\nbread baking in the oven can make us \u201chungry,\u201d or rather evoke a hearty\nappetite. So can the thought of going to the best restaurant in town in a few\nhours. When I was imprisoned in France during World War II some of the French\nprisoners would spend hours recounting in detail every imaginable culinary\ndelight. This would intensify my hunger pains to the point of having to request\nthem to change the subject. Likewise, the very thought, when we wake up, of the\nbackbreaking work to be done that day can make us feel exhausted even before we\nstart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is because our sexual feelings can be\naroused so easily, and their pleasurable character can be so intense, that they\nhave been in the forefront of our so-called \u201cfeeling revolution.\u201d And because\nthey can be associated so very closely with our emotion of love we have been\nled to believe that the sexual revolution was a sign of greater emotional\nmaturity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I expect to make clear that this is an\nillusion. I also want to deal with what emotional maturity really entails, and\neverything else about your emotions you should have learned when you were a\nchild and adolescent, but nobody ever told you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q I like the idea of calling emotions \u201cmotors that cause movement.\u201d Are\nthere different kinds of movement?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Yes, indeed. The easiest way to\nunderstand the different kinds of movement or functions which emotions can\ncause or have is by distinguishing two kinds of emotions or \u201cmotors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n One group of emotions causes inner movement\nwithin the psyche. This inner movement may be compared to that occurring in a\nlight bulb when you flip the switch on. Electrons begin to move which create\nlight and warmth. Thus it is also with the first group of emotions. We feel\nmoved with love<\/em> for our dearest\nfriend. We are moved with compassion<\/em>\nin seeing him sick in bed. His suffering makes us feel sad<\/em> and moves us to tears. When he recovers we are moved with joy<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second kind of movement is comparable to\nthat of an electric motor. When the key is turned the motor begins to run and\nprovides the source of energy for a car, an electric drill, a mechanical toy,\nand the like. Likewise, the emotions of this type provide the energy for our\nactions and deeds. More about this type of psychic motor later on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, I want to deal with the emotions which\ncause inner movement within the psyche, the emotions of the pleasure appetite.\nThey function in their simplest and purest form in the child in response to the\nsense objects he can touch, see, hear, taste and smell. As he grows older and\nhis intellectual and spiritual lives develop, he sees and evaluates the sense\nobjects of his world in a changing light. They acquire higher or \u201cnobler\u201d\nqualities than the simple material qualities they possess in and by themselves.\nAs a result the intellect increasingly modifies and \u201cennobles\u201d the child\u2019s\nearliest emotional responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we recognize something as being good and\npleasurable for us, that sense object will stimulate in us the first and\nfundamental emotion of the pleasure appetite, namely the emotion of love. This\nfeeling may grow into the emotion of desire, and when we come to possess that\nsense object we will experience the emotion of joy. To give an example, you\n\u201cfall in love\u201d with a beautiful dress; the longer you admire it in the window\nthe stronger your desire to wear it becomes; finally, when you can afford to\nbuy it, or someone presents it to you as a gift, you feel joyful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The corresponding emotions for that which does\nnot constitute a sense-good or an object of pleasure for us, in fact just the\nopposite\u2014a sense-evil (here the word \u201cevil\u201d has nothing to do with morality; we\nare discussing only what is transpiring on the level of the senses)\u2014are those\nof hate, aversion and sadness. When the doctor tells me I must take cod-liver oil\nfor my anemia, I feel hate\u2014\u201cdislike,\u201d if you prefer\u2014for this medicine; as I\nopen the bottle when the moment arrives for me to take it, I feel aversion, or\nrevulsion; and when I swallow it I feel anything but joy; I feel sad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These six emotions make up the first group:\nlove, desire and joy in response to whatever my senses recognize as a\nsense-good; hate, aversion and sadness in response to a sense-evil. Our\nlanguage offers us a number of words to describe these basic emotions and their\nvaried nuances, modifications, intensities and degrees. Roget\u2019s Thesaurus<\/em> gives a selection of many words for all our\nemotions. Common variants for the emotion of love are liking, fondness;<\/em> for desire\u2014wish,\nwant;<\/em> for joy\u2014happiness, delight,\ngladness, pleasure, satisfaction,<\/em> and so on. For the emotion of hate it\noffers dislike, displeasure, distaste;<\/em>\nfor aversion\u2014repugnance, repulsion,\ndisgust, loathing;<\/em> for sadness\u2014unhappiness,\njoylessness, sorrow, blues.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are also words that describe combinations\nof any of the emotions belonging to this group. Compassion<\/em> connotes love and sadness; tenderness<\/em>, love and gentleness, and so on. Sympathy, empathy,\naffection, kindness and a host of other words describe either combinations of\nseveral emotions, or nuances of a single emotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All of the emotions in this first group are\ncalled emotions of the \u201cpleasure appetite,\u201d the inner movements of human beings\naroused by all that is good, lovable and pleasurable. Because these\nemotions\u2014when fully developed and integrated with our higher faculties\u2014make us\ntypically human, I like to call them \u201chumane emotions.\u201d They make up the\n\u201cheart\u201d or inner core of man\u2019s emotional life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Are you suggesting that animals do not have the same or similar\nemotions because you call them \u201chumane\u201d? Are we not rational animals and\ntherefore like them in everything except our rational faculty?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Although animals, at least the\nhigher species, possess essentially the same emotions as humans, it is precisely\nbecause they lack a rational faculty that their emotions are not \u201cennobled.\u201d\nLet me explain. Emotions, in and by themselves, exist for the benefit of the\none who possesses them. In this sense they can be said to be selfish; they\nserve their owner, first and foremost. Only under the growing influence of the\nintellect, which provides man with much more information about the world than\nthe primary sources of our emotions\u2014the senses\u2014can ever give us, the emotions\nalso become oriented toward the good of others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A child feels joy when he possesses a beautiful\ntoy; it is his<\/em> toy. He is not happy\nwhen another child has a toy that he himself does not have. On the other hand,\na mature adult may experience greater joy when not he but someone else\npossesses something valuable. The other\u2019s joy is also his joy. The child\u2019s selfish<\/em> love, desire and joy become over\nthe years the selfless<\/em> love, desire,\nand joy of the mature adult. Animals do not love in this human way, even if at\ntimes they seem to behave as if they do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q I have to give that some more thought. In the meantime, will you tell\nus about this second group of emotions you said we have?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A As I said before, this group of\nemotions provides the energy for our actions. They stimulate us to move or act,\nwhether it is by talking, walking, writing, laboring, studying, or other\nactivities. These actions are aimed at doing what is useful for the\ngratification of our desire to obtain something that will give us joy. Working\nat a menial job to earn money would be a very common example of a utilitarian\nactivity that will enable us to buy something that will make us happy.\nSubmitting to an operation so that one will enjoy good health is another one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A moment\u2019s reflection will make it clear why we\nneed a separate set of emotions to engage in some utilitarian activity. None of\nthe humane emotions I have explained before will stimulate us to do whatever is\nuseful, or difficult, or requires backbreaking labor, or whatever else needs to\nbe done to overcome an obstacle that prevents us from enjoying something, or to\nprotect ourselves from something harmful\u2014cancer, for example\u2014that keeps us from\nenjoying life. Most people enjoy having white, sparkling teeth and a perfect\nbite. But none love, desire or enjoy the hours of dental work or surgery it may\nrequire. A retired person finds delight in growing his own fruit and\nvegetables, yet he finds nothing desirable or enjoyable in constant weeding. It\nis clear that in either example the person needs some different kind of emotion\nto move him to exert effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The two basic emotions which may become\noperative when faced with the need to do something that is not enjoyable or\ndesirable in itself, because it takes pain and effort, are (1) hope\u2014or any of\nits variants, like confidence, trust, expectation, optimism; and (2) despair or\nhopelessness and pessimism. If we must prepare for a very difficult examination\nin order to obtain a desired diploma or license, we can react emotionally to\nthis challenge either in an optimistic way with the emotion of hope and\nconfidence; or pessimistically with a feeling of despair. Our ultimate\ndecision\u2014to study or not to study for weeks and months on end without a rest or\ntime for fun\u2014will be greatly influenced, if not determined, by either of these\ntwo emotional responses. However, in a mature and healthy person the last word\nwill be spoken by our higher faculty of the will, about which you will read\nmore later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are still other emotions that also belong\nto this group, that which we have called the utilitarian<\/em> or assertive<\/em>\nemotions.6<\/sup><\/a>\nThese serve the purpose of stimulating us to respond to whatever is harmful, to\nwhat threatens our life, safety, freedom, health, peace of mind, our loved\nones, our possessions and so on. Again there are two ways of responding to a\nthreat, namely either in an optimistic manner with the emotion of (3)\ncourage\u2014boldness, fearlessness, fortitude, audacity, nerve, and the like; or\npessimistically with the emotion of (4) fear\u2014or dread, timidity, fright,\nanxiety, or panic. Again, how we will actually act in the face of a danger or\npossible harm will be determined in the first instance by either of these two\nbasic assertive emotions. But, unless there are pathologically chronic or\nmomentary obstructions to the normal emotion-will relationship, the final\naction will be determined by the will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, there is a fifth assertive\n(utilitarian) emotion. It is, so to speak, the \u201cultimate emotion\u201d that serves\nthe purpose of emotionally arousing us when an evil is certain to harm us, or\nwhen it has already done so. For instance, my feeling of anger is aroused when\nsomebody strikes me in the face\u2014or you feel angry when you hear about plans to\nfire you from your job for no good reason. The anger is our ultimate stimulus\nto try and protect ourselves from almost certain harm; to try to undo the harm\nalready done; to take measures that the harm is not done again in the future;\nto deal as effectively as possible with the cause of our feeling of anger.\nThere are numerous synonyms and variants of the emotion of anger. To mention a\nfew: irritation, annoyance, upset, hurt, mad, temper, wrath, resentment, ire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These five basic emotions of the assertive\ndrive therefore are very useful and necessary psychic motors in giving us the\nenergy to overcome obstacles that separate us from the things we desire and\nwhich promise to make us joyful. They are also needed to arouse us in defense\nagainst what is harmful in the hope that, when successful, we will be happy. Of\ncourse, when despair or fear is the cause of our inaction, we will not succeed\nin overcoming the obstacle or protecting ourselves from harm, and thus we will\nbe unhappy. Or, in other words, the humane emotions are responsible for our\nfeelings of joy and happiness, while the assertive emotions operate in the\nservice of the humane emotions by paving the way. The assertive emotions serve\nthe humane emotions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q I notice that love, desire, joy, hope, and courage have opposing\nemotions of hate, aversion, sadness, despair, and fear. What is the opposing\nemotion to anger?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A There is none. Even if one is\ninclined to consider, as some do, the emotion of anger as a combination of the\nemotions of hate and courage\u2014hate for the cancer that threatens life, and\ncourage to fight it by every means possible\u2014it would not follow that its\nopposite would be a combination of love and fear. There simply is none.\nNevertheless, I would suggest that you give this question some thought. It will\ndeepen your understanding of the emotions in general.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q If it is true that our humane emotions are stimulated by what we know\nor sense is good (or not good) for us, and our assertive emotions by what is\nuseful or harmful, what organs or faculties provide us with this information?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A The knowledge of what is good for\nus, or pleasing to our nature, comes primarily from our external senses\u2014sight,\nhearing, touch, taste and smell\u2014as well as from our internal sense of\nimagination\u2014by means of which we are able to imagine or visualize in our mind\nwhat is actually absent in our immediate environment. These senses directly\nstimulate our humane emotions. I feel happy when listening to my favorite\nmusic. When my wife calls me long distance I wish I could be with her. I feel\nhappy when I know I have been promoted in my job, because I visualize or imagine\nwhat I can buy with the larger paycheck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this last example, we see how an abstract\nidea stimulates my humane emotions by means of the imagination. Take such an\nabstract idea as \u201cfreedom.\u201d When we try to form an idea of what it means we use\nimages like prison gates opening or going away to college for the first time\nand not having your parents sit up waiting for you when you come home.\nThoughts, ideas, and opinions stimulate emotional responses via the products of\nthe imagination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is somewhat less simple in the case of the\nassertive emotions. Animals know instinctively what is useful and harmful for\nthem. For instance, a spider \u201cknows\u201d how to spin his web, and how to repair it\nwhen it is destroyed; a bird \u201cknows\u201d how to build its nest; the salmon \u201cknows\u201d\nwhere to go to spawn, and so on. But man\u2019s instinct is poorly developed. The\ninfant\u2019s \u201cknowledge\u201d of how to nurse at its mother\u2019s breast seems to be the\nmost developed one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps in ages past man, too, possessed a much\ngreater instinctive knowledge of what was useful and harmful to him. If so, one\ncould speculate that it had less and less chance to develop in children because\nof their parents\u2019 eagerness to prematurely make them do useful things (roots of\nthe work ethic), and warn them against potentially harmful things (roots of\nover-protectiveness). As a result of the parents\u2019 anxious need to protect their\nchildren and make them into achievers, children are prevented from discovering\nharmful and useful qualities naturally. Instead of relying on their own\ninstincts they have been trained to rely on the \u201cwisdom\u201d of adults.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The word \u201csophisticated\u201d is defined as: \u201c1.\naltered by education, worldly experience; changed from the natural character or\nsimplicity; artificial; 2. deceptive, misleading.\u201d Because of this, one could\nsay that man possesses a \u201csophisticated instinct\u201d because its natural character\nhas been altered, evidently more for the bad than for the good. He has lost what\nperhaps was once a natural faculty. Since the child\u2019s natural instinct is\npractically nonexistent, and his education or training by adults or his worldly\nexperience may be deceptive or misleading, it is precisely here that emotional\nmalfunctions have a chance of developing. (See Chapter 6<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n To return to the question, what faculties\nstimulate our assertive emotions? It is this sophisticated instinct (or\n\u201cparticular reason\u201d in rational psychology) as well as our memory that are the\nprime stimulators of our assertive psychological motors. Or, to narrow down the\nlatter, it is our memory or recall of what we felt, and how we responded, and\nhow these responses worked out earlier in life when faced with a variety of\nobstacles and dangers, that has an important bearing on how we respond\nemotionally as adults.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Earlier you spoke of the ennobling effect of reason on our humane\nemotions. You also spoke of man\u2019s will. Can you tell us more about those higher\nfaculties of reason and will?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A On this higher level man\u2014not the\nanimal\u2014possesses a third motor, a super-motor so to speak, which is, or should\nbe, in charge of all our actions. It should have the final word in making\ndecisions as to what actions one will take when we are moved by our emotions.\nOur super-motor, or free will, should make these decisions with the help of the\ninformation provided by our intellect (which in turn gets much of its\ninformation from the same senses which also stimulate the emotions). It should\nmake its decisions in freedom, that is, unhampered by obstacles from without or\nfrom within (more about this later). If this super-motor operates in gear with\nand is supported by the assertive emotions, we will act smoothly, if not\neffortlessly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, if we will to succeed in our\nstudies at all cost and also feel hopeful about our ability to do so, our will\nis supported by our emotion of hope and things promise to go well. Our will is\nmade truly powerful because of its support by hope. We have \u201cwill power.\u201d On\nthe other hand, this power will be much less if, instead of hope, we feel\ninclined to despair. Now our will must work against this feeling of despair.\nBecause the will\u2019s energy is diverted it is less powerful. Studying will be\nharder, though success is still possible, of course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If our third psychic motor, our free will, is\nin gear with our humane emotions we will act in a truly human way<\/em>. For instance, if we share our riches with the poor\nbecause Jesus told us to do so, and we do it also because we are filled with\ncompassion for them, our acts of charity have a truly human quality. This is\nnot so, or much less so, when we will to be charitable but feel devoid of\ncompassion for the poor. (Of course, this does not diminish the moral value of\nthe charitable act. More on the role of our emotions in acts of virtue in a\nlater chapter.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q You mean this free will, which you call our psychic super-motor, has\nthe final say in how we act and feel? Or should have the final word?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A You are right as far as our actions\nare concerned. The will always has the final say as far as acting and doing are\nconcerned. At least, this is true for the truly mature adult, who is free of\nemotional or mental illness, or organic brain disease, or any other abnormal\ncondition that prevents the will from exercising its proper function without\ninterference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the will cannot dictate or determine what\nwe feel or should feel. Our psychological motors, our emotions, are stimulated\nby what we sense, imagine, know, or believe is good, bad, useful or harmful for\nus. The will, also a psychic motor, is not a stimulant of our emotions. It\ncannot command how we are to feel, nor can my<\/em>\nwill command your<\/em> emotions. Not even\nGod can command us how to feel. But He can and does command how we are to act,\nand it is up to our free will to decide what course of action to take when we\nare emotionally aroused, and how to control and direct these acts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this regard we are also different from the\nanimals, whose actions are determined by feelings. If there are several\nfeelings at the same time, the strongest one determines the animal\u2019s actions.\nThe animal has no higher faculty, neither free will, nor reason. We say that\ncertain animals are \u201csmart\u201d but this smartness is not on a par with that of man\nwho, for instance, knows what a tree is regardless of the great variety of\nexisting trees. An animal \u201cknows\u201d only this tree, or that tree. He knows the\ntree with his senses because it looks and smells in a certain way. Man knows\nthe universal tree as well as the particular tree; the animal \u201cknows\u201d only the\nparticular tree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The animal\u2019s feelings, aroused as they are by\nhis senses, as well as by his instincts, determine how he will act. Unless he\nis trained to go against those feelings or instincts by a human being who\nconditions his responses with other feelings (fear of punishment or desire for\nreward), the animal acts on impulse. The animal acts more or less spontaneously\naccording to what he feels. To act on impulse is natural for the animal, but\nnot for man. His feelings and impulses to act require reflection by his\nintellect. When he is fully integrated on all levels of his nature, and\npossesses a well-directed will, he is able to act spontaneously and correctly!\nThe animal, child and sociopath act more or less impulsively unless trained to\ndo otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q If I have it right, our assertive emotions are motors for action, and\nso is our free will. Right?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Yes, you are quite correct. And\nthat explains why there is, for example, confusion about the meaning of\n\u201cmaturity.\u201d Because our will can bring about any action that any of the five\nbasic assertive emotions\u2014singly or in combination\u2014can move us to perform, it is\npossible for a person to live and act almost exclusively on his rational\/volitional\nlevel (i.e., on his thinking\/willing level), without being emotionally\ninvolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To give a simple example, when I catch somebody\nin the act of stealing my wallet my feeling of anger is capable of making my\nfist hit him (with or without consent of my will). But I can also hit that\nperson without first feeling anger (either because I never allow myself to feel\nthis emotion, or because I don\u2019t care since I know the wallet is empty). In\nthat case I might will<\/em> to hit him\nbecause I think<\/em> he needs to be taught\na lesson, or it is the best way to make him give me back my belonging. In the\nabsence of any emotion my will decides how I will act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As I shall illustrate later many people act\nalmost all the time without participation of their emotions. What I want to\npoint out here is that such a \u201ccool and collected\u201d way of life may easily give\nthe impression of mature living. But it is not. A truly mature existence\ndemands a harmonious integration between emotions, thinking and willing. Only\nthen can we experience to the fullest the joy for which we are created. It is\nthe absolute psychological foundation for the abundant life Jesus has brought\nus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q What about the other part of our higher faculties, man\u2019s intellect?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Man derives his knowledge of the\nworld first from his senses. This sense knowledge is of a concrete or\nparticular nature and provides the material for our reason to work on, analyze,\nsynthesize, judge, abstract and so on. This source of higher knowledge is our\nreason, our working or discursive mind. Our reason enables us to reason, argue,\nthink, form ideas, compare, judge and solve problems. If we do all these things\nin a reasonable manner we are proceeding in a rational manner. But when our\nreason does not function according to the facts, in accord with reality, we are\nirrational (from the Latin root, ratio<\/em>\nwhich means \u201creason\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n I often hear the word \u201crationalize\u201d used as\nmeaning \u201cto reason,\u201d (e.g., \u201cI rationalized that it would be best to make my\nold car do for another year\u201d). This is incorrect. To rationalize is to invent\nan acceptable reason for behavior that had its origin in subconscious motives\nconsidered unacceptable by a person. For instance, in the days when all women\nwore hats, a woman would buy a new hat and tell her husband, \u201cI didn\u2019t have a decent\nhat to wear to my garden club.\u201d But actually she had been feeling very low and\ndiscouraged or perhaps resentful of what her husband had done, and had bought\nherself the new hat to get a \u201cnew lease on life.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much less known is the fact that man also possesses\na receiving<\/em> source of knowledge which\nobtains its insights as free gifts, without the effort it takes for our reason\nto construct thoughts, judgments and solutions. Our intuitive mind (not\ninstinctive mind) directly perceives truths independently of any reasoning\nprocess, but merely by, as the Latin root (intueror\u2014<\/em>to\nlook, to view) indicates, \u201clooking,\u201d \u201cconsidering,\u201d or \u201ccontemplating.\u201d Our\nreceiving, intuitive, or contemplative mind receives its knowledge from such\nsources as nature, the arts, faith and directly from God through the Spirit. If\nman can be said to possess a spiritual faculty, it is his intuitive mind that\nis the basis of his spiritual life, and provides the link between the material\nand spiritual worlds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the Latin word for our discursive mind,\nor reason, is ratio<\/em>, so the Latin\nword for our intuitive mind is intellectus<\/em>.\nIt is composed of inter<\/em>-\u201cbetween,\u201d\nand lectus<\/em> from legere<\/em>-\u201cto read.\u201d We see the connection in the following example.\nYou receive a letter from your friend after he has moved to another part of the\ncountry. The letter is full of information about his new life, his new house,\nhis job, etc., which indicates he is doing very well. Yet you have read between\nthe lines that he is not as happy as he wants you to believe. You know\nintuitively something that your logical, rational mind has not told you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q I am familiar with the word \u201cintuition,\u201d but that we have an intuitive\nmind is new to me. I took some psychology in college, but never heard about it.\nEverything you hear deals with our reason. I suppose that our reason or working\nmind is of far greater importance than our receiving mind. Am I correct?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A In the final analysis the very\nopposite of your assumption is true. This may sound strange, if not\nunbelievable, because we are surrounded by evidence of what man\u2019s reason has\nbeen able to invent, build, compose, and provide for us in terms of material\nwell-being. The numerous accomplishments of our technology and incomparable\nscientific endeavors seem to directly contradict my contention that our\nintuitive mind is primary and must be served by our rational mind, not vice\nversa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a sense this claim is confirmed by the fact\nthat most, if not all, of our mathematical, philosophical and technological\ndiscoveries had their roots in a sudden gratuitous insight received in a moment\nof quiet, while napping, or during the time between waking and sleeping (yes,\neven in a dream). But always in times when our reason was least operative, so\nthat in those times of rational inactivity it was possible for the receiving\nmind to be receptive to previously unknown ideas and concepts. For sure, these\nnovel ideas have to be developed and tested by the working mind, but it was the\nintuitive mind that received in its openness the gift<\/em> of the novel idea. It is somewhat like our inability to recall\na certain known fact no matter how hard we try, until we decide to stop all\nthese efforts of our reason, and the result is that the answer suddenly \u201cpops\u201d\ninto our mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are two more reasons for describing our\nintuitive or gifted mind as superior to our reasoning mind. If you agree that\nthe possession of a Cadillac is of a higher order than the hopeful expectation\nthat you will have one some time in the future, then you must conclude the same\nfor knowledge already possessed by the intuitive mind as compared with the\nknowledge yet to be arrived at by the discursive mind. You may counter that\nquantitatively the fruits of man\u2019s reason seem to far outnumber those of his\nintuitive mind. But this is not proof that reason is superior and primary to\nintuition. In our busy society, in which every person outstrives the next in\nthe pursuit of happiness, our intuitive mind is simply not given sufficient\nopportunity to operate as it should. In fact, it is rusty from chronic disuse\nand will need much oiling and lubrication and patient attention in restoring\nits various parts to function, if we are to attain greater \u201cmental health\u201d than\nwe have now in our sole reliance on our rational mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am afraid that our interest in meditation and\ncontemplation of the past decade will prove little more than a fad. Not because\nan answer to our need for happiness cannot be found there, but because Western\npeople are always too much in a hurry to give a good thing like contemplation a\ngood try. Unlike cattle that can be force-fed with growth hormones to reach the\nmarket sooner, or trees that can be made to grow faster and get to the\nlumberyards earlier, the activity of our intuitive mind cannot be speeded up by\ngurus or drugs. But more about this under the topic of \u201caffirming living.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second reason for the relative superiority\nof the intuitive mind is found in the difference between the nature of the\ntruths with which both minds are concerned. Scientific truths concern our\nreason. Their discoveries can bring much happiness through greater material\nwell-being. But our intuitive mind is the receptacle of spiritual truths, of\nthings that lie beyond our senses and rational observation. These truths give\nus happiness of a higher order because they deal with more important topics\nthan worldly things, worthwhile as they are. They are of passing interest to\nus. Not so, however, with the things not of this world, the immaterial or\nspiritual things that never decay or cease to exist\u2014God, the soul, life after\ndeath, eternity, and so on. These are of lasting interest to man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A final remark on this topic, of interest for\nwomen especially. Over the ages men have usually considered women\u2019s ways of\nthinking as being inferior to their own. Paul even told them to keep quiet in\nchurch, and governments forbade them to vote. Their \u201cemotionality\u201d was\nconsidered to interfere with their reasoning capacity. However, women always\nhave been known for possessing a more developed intuition than men. Therefore,\nwomen must be considered to have a superior source of knowledge than men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I do not know whether this difference is\npeculiar to the difference between the natures of men and women. I am inclined\nto think so. But if it is not, it must have developed as the result of\ncenturies of women being far less preoccupied with worldly and utilitarian\nthings than men, of having far more quiet and peace at home and thus of living\nin an environment that promoted the sensitivity of their intuitive mind. This\nargument, of course, would also hold true even if woman\u2019s intuitive mind is by\nnature more developed. In either case, modern woman stands to lose her superior\nway of knowing when she succeeds in becoming as active and driven as a man in\nher striving for the right to think, live and work like men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Can you tell us more about the relationship between our emotions and\nour higher faculties? At least, between emotions and intellect, since you have\nalready talked about emotions and will.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A I trust you will excuse me for\nhaving expanded on the subject of reason and intuition. But it is a most\nimportant subject particularly because it is largely ignored, or omitted in the\nspecialties of psychology and psychiatry. However, with these insights we now\nare in an excellent position to understand the proper and healthy relationship\nbetween the two groups of emotions and the two kinds of cognitive sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our receiving or intuitive mind is more closely\nassociated with our humane emotions, while our working mind or reason exerts a\ngreater and more direct influence on our assertive emotions. Our intuitive\nmind, with its knowledge of things spiritual, authentic goodness, beauty and\ntruth, ennobles the humane emotions, which in turn enhance the intuitive mind\u2019s\nsensitive grasp of the personal, of relationships and intimacy, of love and\nfriendship, of faith and hope. In fact, it is this ennobling influence that\nmakes the emotions of the pleasure appetite truly human; hence my term \u201chumane\nemotions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we speak of \u201cknowing with our hearts,\u201d or\n\u201cheart knowledge\u201d\u2014the heart being the symbol of our emotions\u2014we refer to the\nknowledge resulting from the interplay between our humane emotions and our\ncontemplative mind. We cannot possess the full truth of anything unless we know\nit on both the intellectual and emotional levels of our existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our reason and assertive emotions concern\nthemselves with more mundane things, with the things of this world, with\nknowing and doing practical things, with effectiveness. Reason uses the psychic\nmotor of the assertive emotions to compose and construct things, to achieve in\nbusiness and to manufacture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One can say that man\u2019s \u201cheart\u201d is made up of\nhis humane emotions, ennobled by his intuitive mind. And his \u201cmind\u201d is his\nreason, aided by his assertive emotions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A proper balance between our state of\n\u201caffectivity\u201d\u2014our capacity to be affected or moved by our humane emotions\u2014and\nour state of \u201ceffectivity\u201d\u2014our readiness to think and act effectively\u2014determines\nto a large extent our psychic wholeness, our maturity, and our freedom from\nincapacitating psychological, spiritual and emotional disturbances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I shall say more about the interaction between\nour emotions and our higher faculties in later chapters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Is it true that love, joy, compassion, tenderness, empathy, sympathy,\ncaring, appreciation of the good, the beautiful and spiritual truths, and all\nother emotions ennobled by our \u201cgifted\u201d mind, are the ingredients of the\nauthentic happiness found in our relationship with God, others and ourselves?\nAnd that our discursive mind, together with courage, hope, fear and anger, is\ninvolved in problem solving, technological achievements, overcoming obstacles,\nkeeping safe, providing comforts and whatever else contributes to our material\nwell-being and happiness?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Yes. But never forget, it is not a\nmatter of either\/or with respect to the distinctions I have presented in our\nemotional and intellectual lives, but a matter of both, each contributing in\nproper measure to the fullness of living. In every one of us there is need for\na correct and continuously maintained interchange between the contemplative\nlife and the active life, between intuitive and discursive activity of the\nmind, between being and doing, between being moved and moving, between \u201cheart\u201d\nand \u201cmind.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Are emotions purely psychic events, or are other parts of our being\ninvolved also?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Although the primary response to\nwhat our external and internal senses tell us about the goodness, badness,\nusefulness, and harmfulness of the world around us takes place in our psyche,\nthere are always simultaneous changes taking place in our bodies. These\nphysical, bodily or physiological changes do not follow the psychic event,\ncalled emotion; they are part and parcel of the emotion, and occur simultaneously<\/em>. Thus we see here again\nanother demonstration of the indivisible wholeness of our human nature, of the\nfact that we are \u201cin-dividuals\u201d (i.e., \u201cin-divisible\u201d units of psyche and\nsoma). \u201cUpward,\u201d the humane emotions are intimately linked with our spirit, and\nthe utilitarian or assertive emotions with our reason. \u201cDownward,\u201d both groups\nare linked with the bodily processes. It is through our emotions that psyche\nand soma are one. We are psychosomatic units or somato-psychic units. A change\nin the psyche produces a change in the soma, and vice versa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, you can hear in a person\u2019s voice\nthat he is very happy and excited, or you can see in the way he walks and picks\nat his food that he is depressed. Conversely, when someone punches me in the\nnose my anger may show in the color of my face and the trembling of my voice,\nor when I am told I have cancer my fear may reveal itself by my pupils becoming\nlarger and the palms of my hands beginning to sweat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most readily observable physiological\nchanges occur when our emotions of fear and anger are aroused. All of us are\nfamiliar with these changes either because we have felt them ourselves, or\nobserved them in others: a more rapid heartbeat, sometimes to the point of palpitations;\na flushing or pallor of our face; sweating; trembling voice; shaking of the\nhands or the entire body; difficulty in breathing; widening of the pupils of\nour eyes. If our blood pressure is measured it is usually up. Laboratory\nstudies will show higher blood sugar levels in the blood, secreted by the liver\nto provide us with greater instant energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These simultaneous psychological and physical\nchanges serve the purpose of enabling us to react in an integrated manner. If\nthe fear of an attacker moves us to run for our lives, the physical changes\nmake this possible through the increased supply of energy from blood sugar, the\nincreased blood circulation, etc. If our anger moves us to fight for our lives,\nwe are able to do this through the instant readiness of our body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What I have said here about the emotions of\nfear and anger holds true for all other emotions, although in some these\nphysiological changes are not as pronounced and immediately evident to\neveryone. Yet, everyone is familiar, whether he knows it or not, with the\neffect of authentic love on the person\u2019s tender voice, touch, gaze and physical\npresence to the beloved. Compare this with the manifestations of selfish,\nsexualized love\u2014the possessive kiss and grasping, overpowering of the other\u2014and\nwe realize how the emotion of love affects the whole person as a psychosomatic\nunit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recognition of these factors will aid us later\nin understanding why some emotional malfunctions make themselves manifest in\npsychosomatic disorders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Is there anything else we should know about emotions and their\nfunctions?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A I cannot emphasize enough how\nabsolutely necessary it is to always distinguish clearly between the emotion\nitself\u2014the psychic arousal together with the simultaneously occurring\nphysiological changes\u2014and what is done in response to the emotion. Unless we\nclearly differentiate between emotion and behavior we will never overcome the\nconfusion, fear and suspicion surrounding the topic of man\u2019s emotional life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What you feel<\/em>\nis one thing. What you do<\/em> when you\nexperience that feeling is an entirely different matter. We should also try to\nmake this clear in the choice of our words. For example, what is meant when we\nsay, \u201cI became so angry when he called me stupid\u201d? Did I merely feel angry\ninside myself, or did I also express or \u201cact out\u201d my angry feeling by slamming\nthe door, raising my voice, blowing my top, swearing and throwing things? We\nmight possibly improve our communications by saying, \u201cI felt<\/em> so angry when he called me stupid; but I did not do or say\nanything.\u201d Or, \u201cI did not get angry,\u201d or \u201cI felt so angry that I told him off\nin no uncertain terms.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Remember that the physiological changes\naccompanying a given emotion are not<\/em>\npart of the behavior, of what is commonly called the \u201cexpression of a feeling,\u201d\nor the \u201cacting out\u201d of that emotion. These \u201cexpressions\u201d or \u201cacting out\u201d go\nbeyond the physiological changes either as \u201cwilled\u201d or \u201cuncontrolled\u201d behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The foregoing is beautifully exemplified in Ephesians\n4:26<\/a>, \u201cBe angry, and sin not\u201d (Douay). This means, go ahead, feel\nyour anger; that is the natural way to feel when someone offends you. Then use\nyour reason in order to determine the most effective way to deal with the\nsituation and with the person who offended you. By doing this, and by not\nacting on impulse, you are able to refrain from a sinful action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I shall come back to this Bible passage, and\nothers like it, to demonstrate how it contains advice of great psychological\nvalue, in addition to its moral instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chapter 3<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fables and Delusions about Emotions<\/p>\n\n\n\n A fable<\/em>\nhas been facetiously defined as a \u201cfalsehood formulated to fortify virtue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A delusion<\/em>,\na psychiatric term, is a \u201cfixed false belief.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is not an exaggeration to state that man\u2019s\nemotional life has been the victim, perhaps since time immemorial, but\ncertainly in the last several centuries, of prejudice, fear, ignorance and\nhalf-truths. Though I doubt that anyone ever deliberately tried to mislead\nother people for the purpose of making them more virtuous, it seems likely that\nthe emergence and perpetuation of many fixed false beliefs concerning man\u2019s\nemotions had its origin in misinterpretations of certain Bible passages and\nreligious teachings. It seems plausible to assume that other factors, too, have\ncontributed to our present confusion in matters emotional\u2014folklore, ethnic\ncultures, pagan beliefs, non-Christian philosophies and religions, etc.\u2014but I\nhave little first-hand information of this. What I do know and have learned in\nseveral decades of clinical psychiatric practice with a predominantly Christian\nclientele is the particular role certain pejorative attitudes and beliefs\nconcerning man\u2019s feelings and emotions have played in the development of\nemotional-spiritual afflictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We should not hesitate to take a close look at\nthis role provided we do so without blaming any particular Christian\ndenomination, church or church persons, and certainly not blaming matters of\nfaith and dogma. We desire to learn what<\/em>\nis wrong, not who<\/em> was wrong and\nresponsible, directly or indirectly, for sufferings traceable to those\nmisconceptions regarding man\u2019s \u201clower nature,\u201d his feelings, emotions and\nsenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Are you suggesting that the teachings of Christ as contained in the New\nTestament, and the teachings of the Old Testament, have been the cause of\nemotional immaturity and emotional illness?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Not at all. Those teachings,\nbecause of their divine origin, are unsurpassed in showing us how to live a\nmoral life and do the will of God. However, as the Bible is not a textbook of\npsychology, it has been possible for many to draw conclusions concerning man\u2019s\nnature that are not warranted in the light of what we now know. I presume that\nGod did not consider it necessary at every point to inspire the biblical\nauthors to write down things man could discover for himself in time by virtue\nof his intellectual acumen. And that is precisely what has happened even though\nit took many centuries to construct an intellectually satisfactory\n(comparatively speaking) psychology of man as man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It seems to me that we have entertained for\nmany generations a variety of mistaken notions about our own nature that have\nbeen detrimental to large numbers of Christians and Jews. Unfortunately, all\nnew and current ideas about man\u2019s psyche and emotional life are not necessarily\nmore sound than past Jansenistic and Puritan notions. In fact, quite a few of\nthem already can be said to have had an effect on people that is more\ndisastrous than any of the old ones. In this century psychology, the study of\nman, his nature, and its powers, habits, and acts, is a strictly secular,\nscientific one, which tries to reach its conclusions independent of older, more\nphilosophical approaches. Many modern schools of psychology seem to be totally\nunfamiliar with the insights provided in ages past, and thus handicap\nthemselves unnecessarily in trying to know man in his totality. If in the past\nthe investigative spotlight was focused almost exclusively on man\u2019s reason,\nwill and spirit, and his \u201clower nature\u201d taken more or less for granted, if not\nactually downgraded, the reverse is true in modern times. It was only recently\nthat I read an article by a young psychiatrist, entitled, The Reality of the Human Will: a Concept Worth Reviving.<\/em>7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Do you agree with this suggestion?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Yes, I most certainly do. American\npsychology is an empirical science that views human behavior as a complex\nintegration of basic biological needs and essential cultural adaptations\ndetermined by unconscious motivation. In focusing on man\u2019s behavior rather than\nhis faculties, American psychology has proven itself inadequate in\nunderstanding man as possessing a spiritual dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is needed is a rediscovery of the\nphilosophic foundations and supernatural premises of European psychology and\nChristian truths, to deepen our understanding of the clinical discoveries of\nAmerican psychology and psychiatry. Moreover, the unearthing of some\nanthropological insights which have lain buried for more than seven centuries\ncannot but enhance this process of integration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Will you give us some examples of the misconceptions about our emotions\nthat have proven to be harmful for the patients you have seen in your many\nyears of practice?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Let me start with some general\nobservations and attitudes toward man\u2019s emotional life, and then mention some\nspecific examples. By the way, since the number of priests, religious men and\nwomen, and Catholic lay people I have treated in my practice outweighs the\nnumber of Protestants, my remarks will be based mainly on what Catholics learned\nas children in the home, school and religion classes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It has always been a common practice to\ndistinguish between man\u2019s \u201clower\u201d and \u201chigher\u201d natures. This implied, of\ncourse, if it was not stated explicitly, that there was something inferior\nabout our body, senses and feelings, and that only our \u201chigher\u201d nature\u2014reason,\nwill and spirit\u2014could be trusted. The words \u201csensual\u201d and \u201csensuous\u201d always\nimplied something bad and dangerous, almost as much as \u201csexual.\u201d The feelings\nand emotions aroused by man\u2019s senses and sex organs were considered to threaten\nand diminish his freedom to act in a morally correct way. In other words, man\u2019s\n\u201clower\u201d nature was thought to have fallen more than his \u201chigher\u201d nature,\nwhereas, in fact, his nature as a whole had been weakened or wounded by\noriginal sin (which also left him despoiled of his supernatural gifts of\nsanctifying grace, immortality, and integrity).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A commonly used word for \u201cemotion,\u201d at least in\ntextbooks used by seminarians studying for the priesthood, was \u201cpassion.\u201d\n\u201cPassions\u201d suggested something very intense and violent in the areas of\nsexuality and anger. They were mentioned in the same breath as ignorance as\nbeing enemies of our free will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Young women aspiring to become religious\nsisters were constantly admonished from their first day in the convent to \u201crise\nabove their feelings,\u201d and to ignore their emotions, if not also bodily pains\nand aches. Sensuality and sexual feelings were to be fought or controlled by\nwill power and grace, if the individuals were to have a chance to become truly\nspiritual and holy persons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A large variety of exercises were prescribed to\nhelp young men and women subdue their lower natures during the long years of\ntraining preceding ordination and profession of final vows. In nineteenth-century\nFrance a certain religious order of teaching brothers required their young\ncandidates to use poudre du pudeur<\/em> \u201cpowder of shame\u201d when taking a bath, lest\nthey would be able to see the submerged lower part of their body. (This order,\nlike many other French religious orders, emigrated to America during the\ngrievous persecution of the Catholic Church by bourgeois liberalism.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In another order the members wore a metal chain\naround the loins directly touching the skin, which could be tightened when\ntroubled by \u201cimpure thoughts and passions.\u201d \u201cThe third kind of penance is to\nchastise the body, that is, to inflict sensible pain on it. This is done by\nwearing hairshirts, cords, or iron chains on the body, or by scourging or\nwounding oneself, and by other kinds of austerities.\u201d8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In other religious orders the subjects had to\nrise from their cots in their dark cubicles during the night and at a given\nsignal hit their bare skin with a knotted rope until blood flowed. In at least\none very strict order of monks the men were required to sleep with their hands\ntied to a ring fastened in the wall above their heads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These admittedly extreme practices are not\nrecounted here for the sake of ridicule or cheap sensationalism, but merely to\nillustrate the deep-seated fear of man\u2019s lower nature that prevailed among\nChristians until fairly recent times. This fear drove the best of men and women\nto leave no stone unturned in \u201cmortifying\u201d (i.e., \u201cbringing to death\u201d) passions\nconsidered hostile to their vocations. As these highly intelligent, God-fearing\nand well-intentioned men and women became\u2014as priests, sisters and brothers\u2014the\neducators of children and adolescents in generation after generation, the\nimpact of this fearful attitude toward the emotions on the secular society was\nenormous. Because of the Church\u2019s preeminent position in the world this impact\ninvolved both Christians and non-Christians, aided and abetted by the\ncontagiousness of the virus of irrational fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus teachers in Catholic schools, both\nreligious and lay, either perpetuated certain mistaken notions about the\nharmfulness of particular emotions and bodily feelings, or they presented essentially\ncorrect notions in an atmosphere of fear and doubt that some pupils were unable\nto remain insensitive to. What these educators presented on the intellectual\nlevel was thus contradicted on the emotional level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q But do you not agree that a certain amount of fear is necessary to get\nchildren to do what is right so they will not give in to every feeling or\ndesire?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A I do not agree if it means making\nthe child fearful or causes him to feel guilty for having a desire, let us say,\nto steal an apple. For man to experience the emotion of fear is proper only\nwhen he is exposed to or threatened by something potentially harmful. Though it\nis wrong for a child to steal apples from his neighbor\u2019s yard, the desire for\nthe apple is not a threat; it is a natural inclination. The possibility of a\nbeating if he steals is a threat, and fear of the pain may keep him from\nstealing. But the use of this threat should leave room for his learning to\nrefrain from stealing because it is, in the first instance, the correct and desirable\nthing to do. Surely, for this his will needs to become strengthened so it can\nguide his desire in the right way. But we do not strengthen it by making\nchildren fearful of their emotions and drives. In fact when we do this we are\nsetting the stage for a whiplash effect that will make itself felt at a later\nage. In time the irrational fear becomes an obstacle to the proper functioning\nof the will. (More about this in Chapter 6<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Then how do we train children to do good and avoid evil?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A The answer to that is that children\nare not to be trained<\/em> in matters of\nmorality. On this point the commonly held idea that man is a rational animal\ndid not help anyone. Training is aimed at the correct performance of actions\nwhich may or may not be accompanied by a desire for doing those things. One\ntrains animals to perform regardless of whether it is natural to them, or\nwhether they like it. So it is all right to train a child to get up when the\nalarm goes off, to clean his room, to fix a broken toy, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the matter of morals, however, the child\nneeds to be educated<\/em> as to what is\nmoral and what is immoral, and why this is so. With proper education offered at\nthe right time\u2014and this always varies from child to child\u2014the child\u2019s love and\ndesire for the good have an opportunity to develop, and likewise a dislike and\naversion for the evil. And it is this growing combination of emotional liking\nand desiring the good, together with the will to do the good, that leads to\ntrue will power, and also to experiencing true joy in doing what is good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, this educational process requires\nmuch more knowledge and effort on the part of parents and educators; it\nrequires much more than giving the child a licking when he misbehaves and\nthreatening him with more of the same if he does it again. Moreover, the child\nneeds the daily, living example of parents who live a moral life. This means\nthat the child cannot be so readily left to the care of others\u2014baby-sitters,\nday-care centers, etc.\u2014for it is an individualized process requiring intimate\nacquaintance with each child\u2019s stage of development. To use some modern jargon,\nwe have to know \u201cwhere each child is at and where he is coming from,\u201d if we are\nto lead him to greater maturity. (This process is known as education.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In essence, therefore, moral education<\/em> makes every effort to safeguard the emotions\nagainst repressive influences so the will can utilize them, so to speak, in\ndoing good and avoiding evil. It cannot be stated categorically that this has\nbeen true for past moral training<\/em>\nmethods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Thank you for setting me straight on the difference between training\nand education. But I am sorry we got off the topic of past faulty notions\nregarding our emotions.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Let me now give you some examples\nof how it was possible for certain Church teachings, though good and correct in\nthemselves, to become an obstacle to emotional maturity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Church has always taught that anger,\ntogether with pride, lust, covetousness, envy, gluttony, and sloth, were the\n\u201cseven capital sins.\u201d They were called capital sins (from the Latin caput\u2014<\/em>head) not because they, in\nthemselves, were the greatest sins, but because they were considered the chief\nreasons why men commit sin. Properly speaking, they are tendencies of our will\nto go against God\u2019s will in different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is not difficult to see how a child exposed\nat a tender age to this teaching could easily interpret his own feelings of\nanger, pride and envy as being sinful. (The four other words usually were\nbeyond his comprehension and would not start to worry him until a later age.)\nAs he was frequently not advised of the need to distinguish between the feeling\nof anger and the act brought about by the angry feeling, he usually would\nconfess the number of times he had felt angry. Each time the priest absolved\nhim of his sins the notion that angry feelings were sinful would become more\ndeeply ingrained in his conscience. To this day many persons continue to suffer\nfrom a variety of ill-effects of these childhood impressions concerning one of\ntheir God-given psychological motors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An essentially similar fate befell the notion\nof love. Failure to make the necessary distinction between the feeling of love\nand the will to love\u2014willing the good of another person\u2014has caused many a\nperson to become guilt-ridden about his failure to live up to God\u2019s\ncommandments to love God, parents, neighbors and enemies. Many came to hate\nthemselves for experiencing feelings of hate and resentment toward an abusive\nparent, or a God who allowed his closest friend to die prematurely or innocent\nchildren to die of starvation or warfare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The saying, \u201cYou must love your neighbor, but\nyou don\u2019t have to like him,\u201d was one of the few attempts to help people realize\nthat God\u2019s commandments did not concern themselves explicitly with the emotion\nof love, but solely with the orientation of the will. Of course, it was an\ninadequate attempt in the absence of a comparable saying concerning hate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hate, too, has an emotional as well as a\nvolitional component. To feel hate for someone who always tries to make life\nmiserable for you is a natural emotional response. It has no moral connotation.\nHowever, it is a different matter if one proceeds to will evil toward that\nperson, to will his death, to damn him to hell. These acts of the will have a\nmoral character.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, one often made the distinction, \u201cYou\nmay hate the sin, but not the sinner,\u201d but this did even less to prevent\nunnecessary guilt feelings\u2014or even scrupulosity in sensitive souls\u2014than the\ndistinction between \u201cloving\u201d and \u201cliking.\u201d I say this because, first, it is\nmost difficult to make this distinction between sins and sinner in actual\npractice (one tried to feel<\/em> love for\nthe person while hating the things he did!) and second, because ignorance about\nemotional and volitional hate deprived him of having certainty. It would have\nbeen helpful if one had reserved the word \u201chate\u201d for the emotion, and \u201chatred\u201d\nfor the will-act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The same comments apply to the \u201csin of desire\u201d\nand the \u201csin of despair.\u201d The emotion of desire is different from the act of\nwilling. Despair can only constitute a sin if the will assents to the emotion\nof despair thereby refusing to have faith in God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, we are familiar with the effects on\nchildren in past generations of adults\u2019 attitudes toward sex, the air of\nmystery or taboo that prevailed in many homes, and the over<\/em>emphasis in religion classes on the two commandments dealing\nwith this topic. All this made it nearly impossible for young people to\ndiscover that they could learn to be chaste and develop the virtue of\ntemperance by means other than fear or emotional striving for holiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Dr. Baars, much of what you have discussed about certain\npsychologically inappropriate presentations of moral truths has not been\nforeign to those of various Protestant denominations. Is it possible that these\nfear-inspiring teachings had a common root somewhere?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A From talking with both Catholic and\nProtestant patients and listening to the comments from Pentecostals and\nfundamentalists at my conferences and lectures, I have become increasingly\nimpressed by the possibility that our common suspicion of our lower nature\ndates back to a certain interpretation of the story of original sin in Genesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In that account we read about Adam and Eve\nbeing tempted by Satan, and about their eating of the food from a tree that was\npleasing to the eyes and desirable for gaining wisdom, which then led to their\nrealization of being naked and filled with shame, followed by their banishment\nfrom the Garden of Eden. Through the ages, theologians have speculated about\nthe precise nature of this sin of our first parents, who possessed the\nsupernatural gift of integrity, i.e., the perfect control of reason and will\nover the emotions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the absence of a truly satisfying answer we\nusually have worked with the concepts of temptation, pride, disobedience,\ndesires, nakedness and shame. It seems not too far-fetched to me to assume that\nin the minds of ordinary people \u201cbad\u201d desires and feelings could be construed\nto have been responsible for the sin of Adam\u2019s disobedience. Still, how could\nthis be possible if Adam and Eve, before their sin, lived in a state of\nperfection of their human nature?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the foregoing is a pure philosophical\nspeculation on my part for the fact that many Christians have a pejorative\nattitude toward their emotions, if correct it could explain why there are so\nmany efforts in our day to discredit this part of Genesis, as well as other related\nBible passages, and to present in their place evolution as a fact rather than\nwhat it is, a mere theory. To persons in our time glorifying the importance of\nemotions and feelings beyond reason, the story of the Fall represents a\nhindrance to their philosophy that man\u2019s feeling of love determines the\nmorality of his acts (e.g., Situation\nEthics<\/em>9<\/sup><\/a>).\nThey prefer to explain the origin of man through evolution because this\neliminates the biblical revelation that man, not God, is responsible for the\nevil in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Are there also other religious teachings that have been interpreted in\nsuch a way that they contributed to our past repressive attitudes toward our\nfeelings and emotions?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A I suppose one could consider here\nthose Scripture passages which for many have served as confirmation that the\nonly proper relationship between the spirit and the flesh, between man\u2019s higher\nand lower nature, is one of struggle and combat, not of cooperation and\nenlightened guidance. It is most regrettable that certain texts in both the Old\nand New Testaments, often taken out of context or simply misinterpreted because\nof insufficient knowledge of the beautiful way God has created man, have\nexercised an unhealthy influence on countless generations of men and women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I shall quote a few of them to clarify what I\nmean. However, I do not want to imply that these passages have always been\nmisinterpreted by everyone at all times. But because of what I have heard from\nthousands of Christians with neurotic disorders in my practice, I am certain\nthat in some way or other they have played their part in preventing the\nemotional life from developing and becoming integrated with the rest of the\npersonality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I shall use here an older version of Scriptures\n(Douay-Rheims translation from the Latin Vulgate) because newer, modern\ntranslations are taking into account, at least to some extent, more advanced\npsychological insights of man and his nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explicit or implied warnings against human\nemotions and man\u2019s lower nature can be inferred from, \u201cWhen concupiscence hath\nconceived, it brings forth sin\u201d (James 1:15<\/a>); \u201cWhosoever hateth his brother is a\nmurderer\u201d (1 John 3:15<\/a>); \u201cFor when we were in the flesh, the\npassions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring\nforth fruit unto death\u201d (Rom. 7:5<\/a>); \u201c\u2026 and you shall not fulfill the lusts\nof the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against\nthe flesh\u201d (Gal. 5:16-17<\/a>); \u201cLet all bitterness, and anger, \u2026\nbe put away from you\u201d (Eph. 4:31<\/a>); \u201c\u2026 whosoever is angry with his\nbrother, shall be in danger of the judgment\u201d (Matt. 5:22<\/a>);\n\u201cBe not a friend to an angry man, and do not walk with a furious man: Lest\nperhaps thou learn his ways, and take scandal to thy soul\u201d (Prov.\n22:24-25<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLet not the sun go down upon your anger\u201d (Eph. 4:26<\/a>),\nsuggested to some that one would risk dying in a state of mortal sin, if one\nhad not confessed one\u2019s anger before the day was over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In my childhood and adolescent years I was\nalways led to believe that the first part of that same passage in Ephesians,\n\u201cBe angry, and sin not,\u201d conveyed a certain association between \u201canger\u201d and\n\u201csin.\u201d Only much later in my life did I realize how beautifully it expresses\nthe proper distinction between the emotion of anger which is good and the\nconsequent act which may be sinful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The same negative connotation concerning anger\nwas always implied in Jesus\u2019 teaching: \u201cWhen a person strikes you on the right\ncheek, turn and offer him the other\u201d (Matt. 5:39<\/a>).\nNo one ever explained to me that Jesus did not turn His cheek until His mission\non earth had been accomplished and He had been nailed to the cross by His\npersecutors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Until that moment of meek surrender had arrived\nHe had always employed all reasonable means, when aroused with anger, to\nrespond to every anger-provoking situation. For example, he used a whip on the\nmoneychangers in His Father\u2019s house, and when He heard that His disciples had\nbeen unable to cast out the spirit from a possessed boy, Jesus replied,\nundoubtedly annoyed, \u201cWhat an unbelieving and perverse lot you are! \u2026 How long\ncan I endure you?\u201d (Luke 9:41<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Are you saying that the foregoing passages should be ignored because in\nsome people they have contributed to the development of a neurotic or\npsychosomatic disorder?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Not at all. Nothing in the\nScriptures should be ignored. They contain the words of God without which we\ncan never share in His happiness. Therefore, it is fitting that we do whatever\nis reasonable to harmonize them with the greater knowledge we now possess about\nthe beautiful way our Creator fashioned man. Modern Bible scholars are doing\ntheir share by giving us better translations. Wherever indicated they should be\naided by experts in the human sciences who are convinced that there cannot be\nany discrepancy between our understanding of man, what is written in the\nScriptures, and what is taught by Tradition and the representatives of Christ\non earth. If such a discrepancy seems to exist then exegetes and experts in the\nhuman sciences should be able to come to a mutual understanding that does not\ndo violence to faith and dogma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q What is your opinion about such expressions, still used and heard to\nthis day in religion classes and the liturgy, as \u201cThe fear of the Lord is the\nbeginning of wisdom,\u201d \u201cHe will bless those who fear the Lord,\u201d and the many\nother references to fear of God and of the Lord?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A I am puzzled by the persistent use\nof these terms. It seems inconsistent with the efforts of the Magisterium\n(teaching authority of the Catholic Church) and others to make us more fully\naware of God\u2019s infinite love, kindness, mercy and desire for man\u2019s happiness.\nThe old images of a wrathful<\/em> God\nready to punish<\/em> us with sickness and\nsuffering in this life, and with hell in the hereafter, are fortunately making\nroom for more reasonable accounts of God and the realities of evil, suffering\nand hell. The use of the word \u201cfear\u201d in reference to God is, particularly for\nchildren, a reason to doubt His love, which keeps them at a distance from Him.\nIt creates in many a feeling of fear of something that is actually good. This,\nof course, is not healthy and becomes a ready source of emotional problems\nlater on, if not of actual rejection of God and everything religious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most adults know that \u201cfear of the Lord\u201d means\n\u201creverence,\u201d \u201cawe\u201d and the like. But even those who possess this intellectual\nknowledge often continue to feel fear of God, if they have been raised in homes\nand schools\u2014and have worshiped in churches\u2014where they constantly heard God\nreferred to as someone to be feared. A child lives predominantly on the\nemotional level, and for that reason cannot help but react emotionally with a feeling\nof fear to anything he is told he should fear. We do not do him any service by\nwaiting until later to inform him that, according to Aramaic scholars, \u201cfear\u201d\nmeans \u201creverence.\u201d By that time the psychological damage has been done and will\ncontinue to plague him in spite of his \u201cknowing\u201d better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Could it be that we Christians still have a\nlong way to go in loving the Lord our God with our whole<\/em> hearts? If we really<\/em>\nhad learned to love and trust Him completely, there would be no more room to\nfear Him, for \u201cLove has no room for fear; rather, perfect love casts out all\nfear\u201d (1\nJohn 4:18<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q Is it also possible to get unhealthy notions about one\u2019s emotions\nwithout exposure to actual distorted teachings from religious sources?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Yes, indeed. A child may become\nafraid of his angry feelings when a parent gives him a beating every time he\nshows his anger. And when the parent himself is often unreasonably angry and\neasily provoked and makes the atmosphere in the home unpleasant with his\nmoodiness, children often tend to suppress their angry feelings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When parents quarrel frequently between\nthemselves and hurt each other with their angry remarks, if not physical abuse,\nmany a child resolves that he will never be like them when he grows up. He\nnever wants to hurt others as his parents hurt each other when they get angry.\nSuch a child then uses his emotional energy to repress first the outward show\nof his anger, and then the feeling of anger itself. He will have to suffer much\nbecause of this later in life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parents, teachers and other adults can convey\nmistaken ideas about emotions which cause children to stifle those feelings.\nSome of those ideas may be that \u201cbig boys and girls do not cry,\u201d that it is\n\u201cchildish and immature to get mad,\u201d that you \u201cdon\u2019t show your emotions in\ncompany,\u201d and that \u201conly girls and women get emotional.\u201d The British have a\nreputation for entertaining the peculiar notion that real gentlemen and ladies\nmust be unemotional and in absolute control of their feelings. Their \u201cstiff\nupper lip\u201d and rigid, stiff, and formal relating to one another was the mark of\nclass and refinement. Boys in England learned early not to complain for fear of\nbeing considered \u201csissies.\u201d In battle their deeply ingrained emotional\nsuppression predisposed them also to great bravery by blind obedience to their\ncommanders and their readiness \u201cnot to reason why, but just to do and die.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scolding children for asking questions about\nsexual matters often creates feelings of fear, shame and guilt that become\nobstacles to the growth and integration of their sexual feelings. The same is\ntrue when the subject of sex is taboo and a hush falls over the conversation\nwhen a child happens to say something related to this topic. Of course, the\n\u201csexual revolution\u201d has put a stop to much of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also possible that in spite of a healthy\nemotional upbringing an adolescent or young adult may suddenly start to repress\nhis angry feelings and later in life suffer the consequences. I have treated\nseveral men for symptoms of severe tension (e.g., suddenly shooting a mirror\nfull of holes, or attacks of angina pectoris on the way home from a pleasant\nand good job to a nagging wife) related to the time they had almost killed a\nfriend in a fist fight in their late teens. These incidents had made them so\nintensely concerned about what their physical strength and anger could lead to,\nthat they had resolved never to get angry again in their lives. This had become\nthe beginning of a repressive process and the building up of tension-producing\nanger and resentment on the subconscious level. None of these men had been\nconsciously aware of what they had been doing with their angry feelings and\nwhy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Telling children that they are spoiled and\nselfish for desiring a toy or a pet, if in fact they are not, will also have a\ndetrimental effect on the development of their emotional life. Instead of\nmaking the child feel guilty and ashamed of himself, and forcing him to stifle\nhis natural desires, he should be told the truth, e.g., that the parents do not\nhave the money at the moment, but hope to have enough when Christmas time or\nthe child\u2019s next birthday comes around. In this way the child is encouraged to\ncontinue to desire and hope and daydream, all of which contributes to the total\ngrowth of his emotional life and its integration with reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, I should mention another, very\nimportant obstacle to a balanced development of the total person\u2014with the\nhumane emotions as the chief victim\u2014namely the Protestant ethic of \u201cwork for\nwork\u2019s sake,\u201d and \u201cone does not work to live; one lives to work.\u201d From the days\nof the Puritans and Benjamin Franklin, a growing utilitarianism has eroded\nman\u2019s capacity for spontaneous enjoyment of life. As idleness had to be avoided\nbecause it was considered the \u201cdevil\u2019s workshop,\u201d opportunities for play and\nleisure were too little, so that the humane emotions had little chance to build\na firm basis for a healthy emotional life. The drive to earn more and more\nmoney in the pursuit of happiness overstimulated man\u2019s assertive emotions,\nwhich further interfered with the need of the humane emotions to be the soul\nand center of man\u2019s emotional life. Happiness is not to be pursued or earned\u2014it\nis a gift.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But here we are back again to the adverse\ninfluence of certain religious views of human nature. \u201cFor it was Calvin who\nviewed all pure feelings and emotions, no matter how exalted they might seem to\nbe, with suspicion\u2026 . Thus Protestant asceticism turned with all its force\nagainst one thing: the spontaneous enjoyment of life and all it had to offer.\u201d10<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Chapter 4<\/p>\n\n\n\n How Our Psychological Motors Run<\/p>\n\n\n\n So much has been said and written\nabout feelings and emotions in recent years that it would seem impossible to\nsay anything on this subject that is not already known. Nevertheless, it can be\ndone, and a great deal at that, for the simple reason that quantity does not\nnecessarily mean quality. By and large current popular opinions about our\nemotions are rather superficial, if not off the mark. They seem to boil down to\nthe belief that our feelings are all good and should never be repressed. There\nis rarely a mention of the difference between emotions and feelings, between\nfeeling and acting, or between repression and restraint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, much more needs to be known about the\nreasons for calling man\u2019s emotional life good. Confusion in this area was and\nremains considerable. I see evidence of this every day in my practice and on my\nlecture engagements. Not even highly educated and intelligent persons\u2014in\nbusiness, professions, religion, education, etc.\u2014seem to know what their\nemotions are all about and what to do with them. Yet without knowing why, they\nagree with those who claim that emotions are just fine and must always be\nexpressed. They have no idea what is wrong with this assertion, or that it\nrepresents an overreaction to past unhealthy beliefs and exposes the\npseudoscientific minds of those who proclaim this and other equally wrong and\neven harmful ideas concerning emotions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When these half-truths are taught by\nprofessional persons the consequences can often be disastrous. Some new\nsyndromes of emotional disorders are already appearing among the many who\nswallow these novel concepts without prior chewing. Therefore, it is important,\nas well as urgent, that we begin to understand the fundamental principles by\nwhich our emotional life operates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q What are these fundamental principles of operation?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A In examining the claim that our\nemotions are good, not bad or to be feared, it is well to recall what I have\nsaid earlier about the need to distinguish between the emotion itself<\/em>\u2014the psychic awareness of the feeling together with\nits accompanying physiological changes\u2014and the act or actions set in motion by the emotion<\/em>, with or without the\nconsent of the will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this absolutely essential distinction it\nis correct to say that each and every human emotion in itself is good because\nit is part of our nature which is created by God. And everything that God\ncreated and continues to create is, of course, good. But this goodness is a natural<\/em> goodness, something that is good\nfor us because it is fitting to our nature as man. We cannot say that an\nemotion is a moral<\/em> good, for the\nemotion itself is not an act, and only acts can be said to be morally good or evil.\nOf course, in the past, Jansenistic and some other schools of thought implied\nthat man\u2019s emotions were morally bad, and therefore many now overreact in\nholding that emotions are morally good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When an emotion leads us to do something, and,\nof course, all emotions by their very nature tend to move us toward some kind\nof action, even if it is the decision to abstain from any external action, then\nwhat we do is subject to moral judgment. But the emotion itself never is. It is\nfor this reason that no one can validly claim that what he did is morally right\nbecause \u201chis feelings moved him to do this.\u201d This claim is most frequently made\nnowadays regarding the feeling of love. \u201cWhen you really love, everything you\ndo is right!\u201d But what is \u201creally\u201d? And who determines what other motives for\nthe action played a role in addition to the \u201creal\u201d feeling of love?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, our emotions are good just as\nour eyes, ears, fingers and legs are good. All of them\u2014emotions, brain, bodily\norgans, senses, etc.\u2014are necessary for healthy functioning. And just as every\nbodily organ has its own specific function, so has every emotion. That we are\nnot too familiar with the specific function of our human emotions is no reason\nto look at them askance, or to try to do without them as much as possible. Nor\ndoes it make sense to hold emotions responsible for immoral or antisocial\nbehavior. After all, nobody blames the hands that steal, or the mouth that\nspeaks offensive words. If hate leads to violence then it is because the person\nwilled it so, or he was handicapped in controlling his response to the feeling\nof hate. We should see this as readily as we understand that a car is not\nresponsible for a fatal accident. The blame must go to the driver, either\nbecause he willed the accident, lost control over the car, or drove\nirresponsibly. Or the manufacturer is to blame because he delivered it with a\nstructural defect. Or no one is to blame because a tire blew out or some such\nthing occurred beyond the control of the driver.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q From what you have said it would appear that it does not make sense to\nspeak of \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cbad\u201d emotions, or of \u201cpositive\u201d and \u201cnegative\u201d emotions.\nAm I right in concluding this?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A You certainly are. Our emotions are\ntools or faculties of our human nature which, when properly respected and used,\naid us in living a truly human life. They contribute in their own way to our\ncapacity for experiencing the happiness for which we have been created by God.\nIt does not make sense to distinguish between \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cbad\u201d emotions, or\n\u201cpositive\u201d and \u201cnegative\u201d ones. They are all equally essential, though, as I\nhave shown, one group of them is of a higher order than the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we had been told as children that our legs\nwere bad and negative as compared to our arms, and possible sources of sin,\nthose of us who were intent on living a good life would have become physically\ncrippled by letting our fear suppress and perhaps ultimately eliminate the\nnatural function of our legs. Of course, this was never taught and so we were\nspared the fate of becoming crippled and paralyzed. Yet, a similar thing was\ndone in regard to our emotions, however innocently and blamelessly, and some of\nus have consequently become emotionally crippled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q In spite of your explanations, I still find it difficult to see\nanything good and positive in the emotions of hate and despair.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A I have heard the same concern\nexpressed by many people in various parts of the world. Frequently they remind\nme that it is a sin to hate your fellow-man, and that it is a terrible thing,\nif not sinful, to despair. The word \u201chate\u201d seems to be inseparably associated\nwith \u201cperson,\u201d and when I point out that it is the same word as used in the\nsentence, \u201cI hate rotten food,\u201d they immediately reply with, \u201cBut that is not\nhate, that is dislike.\u201d Dislike is a milder word for hate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To see hate for what it is, a good emotion, it\nis necessary to distinguish between the emotion of hate and the will to hate\n(i.e., not to will another\u2019s well-being). It helps to compare these emotions of\nhate and despair with the feeling of pain. Nobody likes to feel pain, or is\ninclined to see it as something good, until it is realized that pain alerts us\nto the fact that something is wrong in our body and we should do something to\nright it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we feel despair we feel what at first we\nonly suspected or knew. It is then that we are absolutely certain that a given\nsituation is desperate. With this certainty, born of knowing and feeling, we\nare moved to try another solution or a new approach, in the hope that we can extricate\nourselves from that desperate situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me add a few sentences to clarify the\nnatural goodness of all human emotions. This claim pertains to all \u201cpure\u201d\nemotions, the eleven basic emotions I have described earlier, and named as such\n(e.g., anger), or with words indicating differences of degree (e.g., annoyance,\nirritation, mad, upset). It also pertains to words indicating a combination of\n\u201cpure\u201d emotions, such as compassion (love mixed with sorrow).<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, there are a number of words that seem\nto describe certain feelings (e.g., envy) which are not \u201cpure\u201d emotions, and\ntherefore cannot be said to be good. Those \u201cpartial-feeling\u201d words contain an\nelement of willing or intending a certain action to follow the feeling. For\nexample, the envious person desires something belonging to another person, and\nwills to deprive him of it if he has a chance to do so. \u201cLust\u201d is another good\nexample. It indicates that on the higher level one wills to gratify the sexual\ndesire (which in itself is a \u201cgood\u201d emotion).<\/p>\n\n\n\n I would advise the reader to subject all\nfeeling-words to a careful scrutiny in order to ascertain whether one deals\nwith a pure emotion, or not. This exercise will deepen your grasp of the\nmeaning and importance of the emotional life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, it is necessary to realize that the\nhigh intensity of an emotion does not make it \u201cbad,\u201d even though its\nconsequences may not be beneficial for that person or others around him. For\ninstance, anger that is not resolved in a reasonable manner grows into\nresentment or bitterness which can lead to a psychosomatic disorder, such as\nmigraine headaches, and may manifest itself in a most unpleasant way to the\npeople who must live with this resentful and bitter person. But this does not\njustify calling anger a \u201cbad\u201d emotion. What is \u201cbad\u201d is the failure to do\nsomething about the situation which caused the anger, thereby letting the anger\ngrow into resentment and bitterness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also incorrect to say that fear is an\nevil, as I\u2019ve heard some fundamentalists claim it is, because \u201cJesus told the\npeople repeatedly not to fear.\u201d Jesus wanted the people to put their trust in\nHim, and to rely on Him to help them in all difficult situations which they\nwere helpless to change for the better by themselves. Knowing our limitations,\nJesus tells us: \u201cWhen you are afraid and anxious, don\u2019t succumb to your\nanxieties\u2014trust me, and I\u2019ll help you. Stop looking at the waves\u2014look at me!\u201d\nAnd \u201cFear is useless, what is needed is trust\u201d (Mark 5:36<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q You seem to say we should own our emotions and focus our concern on how\nto respond to them in ways which will make our lives and relationships both\nhappy and moral. If so, who and what determines what action we should take when\na certain emotion has been aroused? And what determines whether that action is\nmoral or immoral?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A The answer to both questions is our\nreason. The better our reason is informed about the suitability and morality of\nthe various actions that are worth considering in a given situation, the easier\nit is for us to act spontaneously. The suitability or practicality is\ndetermined to a large extent by experiences in similar situations in the past.\nThe morality is determined by objective moral standards which every person, if\nhe wants to live in an intelligent and responsible manner, must acquire through\nstudy and education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Or, to say it in other words, our emotions need to be guided by reason<\/em>.\nPersons who live in constant fear and worry let their fear determine what to do\nwhen they are desperate or depressed. Yet, it is not the task of emotions to\ninterfere with one another, nor to control each other. All emotions are to\noperate on the same level, and reason alone can determine what courses of\naction are proper under the circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next step is up to the will. One\u2019s will\neither abides by the information provided by reason, or ignores it and goes\nagainst it. Depending on whether the will is free, one\u2019s action is either\nmorally right or wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q But is it not true that our emotions oppose guidance by reason and\nprefer to go their own way? In the old days one often heard about the struggle\nbetween the flesh and the spirit; or that the spirit was willing but the flesh\nwas weak. I believe that this referred to the struggle between the emotions and\nthe will informed by reason.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Yes, emotions have usually been\nviewed as opposed to reason and will, and therefore were feared or considered\nwith great caution and suspicion. Consequently, the emotions had very little\nchance to grow and remained in an undeveloped or repressed state, so that there\nwas little for reason to give guidance to. A tour guide cannot be very\neffective if the tourists, in spite of looking like adults, are actually little\nchildren and prefer to do as they please instead of allowing themselves to be\nguided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But this view is incorrect. This is not surprising,\nfor it stems from a mistaken philosophy of human nature and human existence.\nFortunately, there exists a more sensible explanation for the relationship\nbetween flesh and spirit. I discovered this during my search for a more\nsensible psychology and psychiatry back in the fifties when I realized that\nvery few, if any, of my patients with obsessive-compulsive repression responded\nto psychoanalytically-oriented therapy. Because details of this search have\nbeen described elsewhere, I shall confine myself here to an outline of the\nfundamental principles of our psychological motors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important, however, that I give credit\nwhere credit is due. My colleague, Dr. Anna Terruwe, and I would never have\narrived at a more sensible psychology had it not been for some of the teachings\nof a member of the very same Church that I have shown contributed\u2014unwittingly\nfor sure\u2014to so much confusion and unnecessary man-made emotional suffering. I\nam referring here to the anthropology (i.e., the study of man) of thirteenth-century\nphilosopher Thomas Aquinas, which enabled us to make certain clinical\ndiscoveries, in turn prompting some Dutch scholars to reexamine the writings of\nthis genius and Doctor of the Church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much to their surprise these scholars learned\nthat these writings about man, used by the Church for centuries as her official\nteachings, differed in some points from the original manuscripts. These\nmanuscripts contained certain observations on human nature which were identical\nto or confirmed what we observed seven centuries later. We do not know why\nthose observations were omitted but one could speculate that his secretaries or\ntranslators considered them so radical that they were fearful they might\nprecipitate a social and moral revolution by changing people\u2019s attitudes toward\ntheir emotions and feelings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q What were those radical observations concerning human nature?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A First of all, that man\u2019s emotions\nhave an innate need to be guided and directed by reason.11<\/a><\/sup>\nThat is to say that by their very nature they need and desire to be guided. Of\ncourse, this implies that this guidance could not be given properly unless\nreason first of all respects the emotions, listens to them, and accepts them\nfor what they are\u2014psychic motors that will provide the energy necessary for the\nmany varied situations in which man finds himself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The significance of this principle of the\nnatural relationship between emotions and reason is that when an emotion\nreceives its proper guidance, it is satisfied and is then disposed to submit to\nthe decision of the will as to what course of action should be taken.\nRegardless of what the will decides, the emotion will subside and lose its\nintensity until the normal equilibrium of calm that prevailed before the\nemotion was aroused has been restored. Let me illustrate this with a simple\nexample.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am strongly attracted by a member of the\nopposite sex\u2014let us say a beautiful brunette\u2014and desire to know her intimately.\nMy reason tells me that this feeling of attraction or love, as well as my\ndesire, are natural, because their object\u2014the brunette\u2014is a good created by\nGod. Next, my reason\u2014and faith\u2014inform me, or remind me, that the gratification\nof my desire would be in direct conflict with my vowed commitment to my wife,\nand therefore a sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are now two options for my will. I can\nchoose to ignore what my reason\u2014and faith\u2014tell me, and will to gratify my\ndesire. Once I do so my desire will subside, but I have committed an immoral\nact. More likely than not I will suffer feelings of guilt. On the other hand, I\ncan choose to abide by what reason\u2014and faith\u2014tell me is my greater good, and\nrenounce the gratification of my desire. In this case I act morally right, but\nmore than that my desire will lose its intensity and subside. This it does\nbecause I have also acted psychologically right: my desire has been gratified,\nnot as such, but insofar as it is desirous, in need of, rational guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In our day people are so fearful of repressing\ntheir emotions and becoming emotionally ill, that this latter course of action\nis seen as a repressive act. That it is not, will become evident later when one\nunderstands the nature of the repressive process. In fact, in Chapter 6<\/a>,\nI shall describe how a person with obsessive-compulsive repression acts in the\nsame situation mentioned above, and how his way makes it increasingly difficult\nfor him to do the morally right thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n