Neurosis and Character Disorder Are Disorders of Responsibility - Term Paper Example

Hyunduk Cho Fr. Gene Szarek Theology 193 March 5, Theology Term Paper Both neurosis and character-disorder are disorders of responsibility,i.e. someone with these disorders does not take assertive responsibility of his/her actions. Sometimes they can be found simultaneously in a person – character neurosis. However, there are some differences between the two. The basic difference between a neurotic personality and one that is character-disordered is that a neurotic personality takes too much responsibility whereas the character-disordered takes too little or none at all. Neurotic persons will, for instance, put the entire blame on themselves for anything going wrong, thinking they could have done something to avoid it and it was their own shortcomings that led the event to take place. On the other hand, persons with character-disorder will put the blame on everyone and everything other than themselves, thinking that it is their environment that caused things to go wrong and that they had no part to play in it at all. On a personal level, neurotic personalities suffer from a sense of inferiority, which leads them to become over-achieving individuals, who try to control everything around them and often over-compensate in all aspects of their lives, as they believe that they can, rather they should, always do more. Character-disordered personalities, however, have a sense of powerlessness; they feel that they cannot control anything and that no matter what they do, it is actually factors outside themselves that cause things to happen the way they do. Thus, the neurotics are constantly harming themselves by their actions, while those with character-disorder are harming those around them: the former blaming themselves and being hard on themselves, and the latter blaming those around them and being hard on others. On a grander scale of things, neurotics cause exasperation in those around them, however, with a little bit of help from their loved ones they can overcome this habit, as they are always open to growth; keeping in mind their low self-esteem, they are more open to the ideas and thoughts of others. Character-disordered people, however, are not open to criticism at all; they never apologize for their behavior as nothing is ever their fault – they always have some outside force to blame. Thus, it is very hard for the neurotics to fall in love as they find fault in themselves, whereas the character-disordered personalities simply cannot love because of their passive aggressiveness as well as due to their deflection of blame on those around them. The most marked difference, in terms of curability, between the two is that the neurotics have a chance of redemption: they are willing to change and improve themselves. Those with character-disorder always believe that the others are at fault, so they do not try to change themselves at all, thereby being above redemption. 2. Historians cite the Patristic era to be between the second to the eighth century. At the start of Christianity, it was thought that Jesus brought his message to the Jews only, with some of the Apostles holding Christianity to be a part of Judaism, with it being necessary for the Christians to follow Jewish laws and customs. However, Apostle Paul disagreed; he opined that Christianity should be open to all, without the need for observance of Jewish laws. As the Jewish community was a very insignificant one in terms of its size, it was felt that for Christianity to become popular and widely accepted, Paul’s view was better. With Paul’s view becoming popular, it was necessary for the tenets of Christianity to be, in essence, translated for the non-Jewish converts. This resulted in a Hellenistic approach to Christianity, with Christian images being slowly, but surely, adjusted to make it comprehensible to the new, gentile converts from the Roman Empire. During that era, the Roman civilization was quite unstable, with satiation of the senses to be the ultimate goal for those living therein. For the Christians, this behavior was nothing but a detraction from their real purpose: service to God. They realized that if they were only to involve themselves in wanton abandon to sensual pleasures, then they would not be able to serve God. Therefore, they adopted the Dualistic approach to life: the body versus the soul, from the Neo-Platonists, Stoics, Gnostics, Sophists etc. who held that the body and the soul are in constant struggle with one another, with the body representing all that is evil and the soul being all that is pure. All pursuits that fulfill the needs of the body were, therefore, considered to be evil, because they resulted in the body (evil) winning over the soul (good). Once adopted into Christian thought, Dualism affected Christian ideas immensely, with matters like human sexuality and an appetite thereof to be frowned upon. The pursuit of sexual pleasure was, after all, one of the needs of the body and, therefore, evil. A pursuit of this nature would result in the soul, or everything good and pure in one’s being, to lose out. The best way, therefore, it was established, was to avoid sexual pleasure of any kind. By renouncing sexual pleasure, one would actually strive to be closer to God, as one’s soul would be allowed to flourish. This resulted in eremeticism, where the hermits chose to abandon all the comforts of the body, even friendship as it created a barrier between the Christian and God. This resulted in some Christians even denouncing marriage, as they saw it to be a surrender of one’s soul to one’s body. This view, surprisingly, is also present in Christians to this day, where celibacy is taken as a sign of spiritual excellence. 3. In the past, the Christian viewpoint on marriage was that it was a contract that ensured procreation along with decreasing concupiscence. Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law defined marriage in a similar way: it was a contract whereby the partners had rights to each other’s bodies, with biological fruitfulness as its primary objective, along with alleviating concupiscence the secondary one. There was no religious, emotional or spiritual aspect attributed to marriage. There was little change in the 1930 Encyclical “Casti Conubii,” with it holding marriage to be an institution created by God in order to procreate. However, a broader goal of marriage was also described; referring to the Roman Catechism for support, Pope Pius XI stated that one of the broader purposes of marriage was for the partners to have mutual companionship and support from one another to grow spiritually and to perfect themselves. But the Pope was quick to point out that the main purpose of marriage was to procreate. In 1942, Dietrich von Hildebrand published a book on marriage. What set his work apart was the fact that not only was he a layman, but he was also married. In his book, he gave a more optimistic view of marriage; he stated that love is the inspiration and meaning of marriage just as procreation is its goal. What is even more interesting is that he defined the term “fruitfulness” in spiritual and psychological terms as well as biological. Thereby he opined that the spiritual purpose of marriage was unity between the couple. He also lay down that the couple should have the psychological and religious maturity to enter into a relationship as hard and strenuous as marriage. He construed marriage to be a sacrament, thereby claiming marriage sexuality had sacramental holiness. In 1960, the Vatican Council II changed the vocabulary relating to marriage in a positive way. Marriage was now a covenant, where the couple not only shared bodies, but their persons as well. Moreover, the secondary purpose of marriage was changed from “alleviation of concupiscence” to “mutual love,” in fact putting it on an equal footing with procreation. Additionally, family was extended to mean more than just the nuclear family and a sense of stewardship was established, with children being more than just possessions of the father. The door to birth-control was also opened, stating that the couple should make these decisions on their own based on their situation in life, calling it their duty and right. In 1983, Pope John Paul II promulgated a revision of Canon Law, whereby marriage was termed as a covenant and not a contract. The ranking of the ends of marriage as primary and secondary were removed. Moreover, the psychological maturity of a person as well as his/her personal faith are considered to be necessary for a sacramental marriage to take place. Later, Pope John Paul II, in his Short Talks about Theology of the Body, stated that human sexuality actually is a “great mystery,” as it is the only way humans can experience spirituality through their bodies. Therefore, the union of the sexes is a vocation by God, as all that He has created is good, and so is the sacrament of marriage. 4. After reading Peck’s chapter on Discipline, I have discovered that I should not be passive about what goes on in my life, but should take assertive responsibility. I have to, however, maintain a balance, as I do not want to end up thinking that I am responsible for everything, as I am prone to do regarding whatever happens in my academic life, or that I am not responsible for anything, something I have seen some people around me do often. I have learned that it is always best to face one’s problems head on. Often, when faced with some problem, my emotional side takes over; ranging from anger, to sadness to frustration with myself, I experience different emotions, which basically make it hard for me to remain objective. I have realized that though it is only natural that I should feel some emotion when some problems come in my life, however, it is not productive, or even necessary, to dwell on these emotions. Rather, I should try to solve the problems as best as I can and move on with my life. This way I will not be trapped in subjectivity, but will have an objective view of my problems and their solution. The fact that a lot of us run away from our problems makes me think that I should discipline myself in a way where I can solve my own problems without feeling the need to run away from them. Peck’s chapter on Discipline has actually made the task quite easy for me. The guidelines set therein are quite easy to follow and I feel that I will be able to change and adapt to become a more productive and fulfilled person – someone who wants to solve his problems rather than run away from them. I have also decided to inculcate these values in my children as well, when I have them. Peck makes out a very strong case for learning discipline while young, so the things that I learn now, if I had learned in childhood, would have actually made my life easier in quite a lot of ways. I would not have felt the pressure that I feel at times when I am under stress, not only due to the problem I face but by trying to over-analyze it. The lesson that I am the one responsible for solving my problems is a great one, and that is what I take with me from Peck’s chapter on Discipline. This would enable me to take a more active and assertive role in my life from now onwards. From Peck’s chapter on Love, I have learned that there is a difference between the feeling of love and falling in love; often we mistake the two, however, there are times, for instance, when it comes to my family and friends, when I am doing something for them despite not having a feeling of love, and feeling that it is my responsibility to do so. This, to me, has shown that I actually love my family a lot, and even when I do not feel a certain bond with them, I am actually loving them by taking on my familial responsibilities. After my father passed away, I truly felt that family is a very strong part of my life, and that I should always be a responsible member of my family. Sometimes I used to think that perhaps this is not the right way to go about it, as it would be better if I were there with them to tell them each day how much I love them. However, through Peck’s chapter on Love, I have discovered that by taking on a responsible role, I am actually showing them I love them through my deeds. What is more, I learned that one does not have to be “self-sacrificing” when it comes to love; thus, I do not need to go and live with them and “sacrifice” my ambitions, rather by carrying on my ambitions and making sure I meet my familial responsibilities I am showing them love through my actions. What is more, this act of love is actually, according to Peck, a proof that I am not just thinking I love my family, but am demonstrating it through my actions. The love that a family shares is very important it is necessary to have it in order to enjoy the short life that we are given to spend on this earth. Peck’s chapter on Love has made me realize that love is not demonstrated through words alone, but that it is often the deeds that show love much better than words can. Thus, I have decided to be a more responsible and loving member of my family. Hyunduk Cho Fr. Gene Szarek Theology 193 March 5, 2010 After taking this course, I feel that I have learned how to keep a positive view about things. Not everything is my fault, and, on the same note, nobody is out to get me. I can take control of a situation and become my own master. It is perhaps, among other things, this sense of power that I take with myself from this course. This has caused me not only to become a problem solver, but also a realist. I know that it is only if I know myself and my true capabilities that I will actually succeed; not only should I know when to strive harder, but I should also realize that when I have given my best shot, I should not second-guess myself and think that I could have done more. I would not say that I have a neurotic personality, however, in some situations, especially academic; I tend to think that I can always do better than I have done. However, after taking this course, I have learned that I should accept the things that I cannot change and not blame myself for their not changing. This has, of course, helped me grow as a person and I am sure it will help me immensely in my future life. Read More