A reader writes:
I was wondering if you have any information about hypnosis and Catholics. As a fairly recent convert, I have areas of my faith that are still informed by my protestant background, and I like to shine the light of Catholic truth upon them when possible. It has been my belief that participating in hypnosis, by opening up the subconcious mind, may allow demons access to the soul that our concious mind would otherwise suppress. What do you think?
The Church does not have an official position on this matter, so what follows represents my personal opinion. I have done quite a bit of thinking about hypnosis from a scientific and moral perspective over the years, so I hope you will find what follows to be an informed opinion.
Unfortunately, there’s no standard answer to what hypnosis even is. If you read the American Psychological Association’s "definition and description" of hypnosis, you’ll find that it’s all description and no definition because people in the field can’t even agree on basic questions like whether hypnosis represents an altered state of consciousness or not.
Let’s suppose, though, that something like what might be called the "classic" model is correct. According to this model, hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness ("a trance") in which a person is relaxed, mentally focused on certain things (either the hypnotist’s voice or what the hypnotist tells the patient to focus on), and has a heightened suggestibility (i.e., they’re more willing to follow the hypnotist’s instructions than they would be if not hypnotized).
On it’s face, there’s nothing supernatural about any of this, and that would make me wary of claims that one is opening oneself to the demonic.
I tend to take whether someone is open or closed to the demonic at face value: You’re not inviting demons to influence you unless you’re inviting demons to influence you. Since there is nothing overtly demonic about hypnosis (e.g., each hypnotic session does not begin with a prayer to a demon) there is no overt invitation to demons to influence you through it.
What about covert demonic influence? Demons do sometimes play unseen roles in influencing things around us, but when they do so it is in order to corrupt faith or morals or at least to cause suffering. Could a demon be involved in a particular case of hypnosis?
Well, if the hypnotist is trying to induce beliefs in you that are contrary to the faith, like the idea that you have lived past lives, then I suppose that the answer is yes. But then you don’t have to posit the existence of a demon to explain that. There are all kinds of evils in the world that aren’t directly produced by the activity of a demon. The hypnotist may just believe in reincarnation and use his role as a hypnotist to foist this belief on others.
And there’s nothing unique about hypnosis here. There’s nothing intrinsically occult about hypnosis in the classical model described above, and demons can have unseen involvement (or non-involvement) in all kinds of evils in the world, not just hypnosis.
There is a tendency in many Christian circles (both Protestant and Catholic) to give too much credit to demons in my opinion. While the devil was responsible for unleashing evil in the human community, this does not mean that one of his agents is involved in every particular evil that we encounter.
The classical model of hypnosis is not supernatural, it does not address supernatural forces, and it does not attribute supernatural powers to the hypnotist.
Neither do the individual components of the classical model have obvious supernatural significance: You may relax in hypnosis but you do not thereby open yourself to demons. Relaxing is a normal thing that humans do all the time.
As part of hypnosis, you may focus your attention on the hypnotist’s voice or the fact that your legs feel limp and heavy (because you just relaxed them! duh!), but we focus our attention on our bodily states and on other people’s voices all the time (ever try listening to someone in a crowded, noisy environment?). Focusing your attention is a normal human activity that does not open us to the demonic as long as what we’re focusing on isn’t demonic in nature.
Then there’s the heightened suggestibility, and here’s where we hit a significant problem–not in regard to the demonic but in regard to hypnosis in general.
To explain, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to say what I personally believe–or at least suspect–about hypnosis.
I don’t subscribe to the classical model. I don’t think that a person is really going into "a trance" in hypnosis. I don’t think that the state of consciousness a person is in during hypnosis is substantially different from any other relaxed, focused state of consciousness we experience.
I think that hypnosis is–or is likely to be–a social construct.
In other words, I think that there is a certain social role that people are expected to play when they are "hypnotized" and that they adjust their behavior to play this role. They know from film and TV and books that a hypnotized person is supposed to relax and act sleepy and then do or imagine what the hypnotist tells them, and that’s exactly what happens: They relax, they act sleepy, and they do or imagine what the hypnotist tells them.
Or at least the "hypnotizable" people do (the ones willing to play the role and then attribute their actions to the hypnosis).
Other people either don’t play the role or, if they play it, they are aware that they’re just playing a role and that "I’m realling doing all this myself" and so they are considered poor subjects for hypnotism or even "unhypnotizable."
MORE ON THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT THEORY OF HYPNOTISM HERE.
So there is a big question in my mind about whether there is any "heightened suggestibility" in hypnosis or whether it’s just a person’s willingness to go along with the hypnotist because he’s playing an expected social role.
The fact that you supposedly can’t get a hypnotized person to do anything fundamentally contrary to his will would suggest the latter.
However that may be, the fact is that people who are hypnotized or who are playing the social role of a hypnotized person do respond to the suggestions of their hypnotists.
The moral evaluation of their actions would depend on the moral content of the suggestion they have been given. The suggestions "Cluck like a chicken" or "Raise your left arm" would seem to be morally neutral. "Stop smoking" or "Don’t eat so much" would be positive for a person who has been smoking or eating in excess. "Tell me about your past life" or "Try to remember who it was that sexually abused you (when in fact you were sexually abused by no one)" would be evil.
In none of these cases, though, do I see any opening of oneself to demons–unless the hypnotist directly suggests that you do so.
What we are "open" to is determined by our wills. If our wills are closed to the devil then we are closed to the devil.
A person undergoing hypnosis could thus say, "When I get hypnotized, I’m opening myself up to what the hypnotist wants me to do, but opening myself up to the hypnotist is simply not the same thing as opening myself to the devil. My will still remains firmly against what the devil wants me to do. I’m just letting the hypnotist give me a sleepy pep talk to help me stop smoking or something."
Even when the hypnotist does do evil, as with encouraging people to believe in past lives, that’s still him abusing his role as a moral agent and it does not involve inviting the devil to influence you.
You’re inviting the hypnotist to influence you, but since the hypnotist is an external natural influence any evil that the hypnotist does would be ascribed to "the world" rather than "the devil."
Scripture speaks of evils being produced by "the world, the flesh, and
the devil," and the devil is only one of three sources of evil in that
reckoning. Much of the time we are dealing with evils whose immediate
cause is external natural influence ("the world") or internal natural temptation ("the flesh"). It is only on occasion that we encounter an evil whose immediate cause is supernatural ("the devil").
I therefore don’t think that we should rush to attribute evils that we
encounter to the agency of demons. Sometimes they are caused by that,
but only sometimes. If we have evidence in a particular case (as in the
case of a possession) that evils are being caused by demons then it is
reasonable to attribute that case to a demonic cause, but if we don’t
have such evidence (as in the vast majority of cases) then I think we
do better not assigning a demonic cause to it.
If we allow ourselves to go too far in labelling things "demonic" that
do not have any obvious connection to a demon then we induce a kind of
paranoia that will lead to a cultural scrupulosity and personal
paralysis that is morally and psychologically unhealthy.
We should live life positively, trusting in God and his victory in
Christ, not looking over our shoulders (or under rocks) worrying about
demons. God is stronger than the devil, and we can trust him to take
care of us without having to worry about whether every little evil we
encounter had a supernatural cause or not.
This hesitancy to ascribe things to supernaturally evil causes seems to
be reflected in the Church’s policy of only performing exorcisms in
cases where other causes (like mental illness) have been ruled out first and there is no remaining natural explanation for the events that are transpiring.
We’ll simply be healthier and happier if we keep our focus on God and
trying to please him and only attribute things to the agency of the devil when his
involvement is undeniable.
Jimmy, what is your “informed opinion” about whether it would be morally advisable for a Catholic to be hypnotized, either to help curb an unhealthy habit, or just as part of a show at a fair or on a cruise or something?
I have always wondered if getting hypnotized would be similar to getting drunk in that you lose your willpower and decision-making ability to some extent.
Is that a fair comparison? I mean, if you become very suggestible, doesn’t that mean that you will do things that you otherwise would be opposed to doing? What if the hypnotist asked you do to something immoral?
And so would this make hypnotism inadvisable?
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”
Sorry. I couldn’t resist ;).
In my Catholic high school, a teacher did make the comparison between hypnosis and getting drunk/taking drugs. What I took away from it was that it is incompatible with our dignity as rational creatures to give up our control over our will just for entertainment purposes. But just as it is okay to take drugs after surgery, it can be okay to be hypnotized for a bone fide theraputic purpose.
I’ve been given to understand that a hypnotist cannot make you do something that you wouldn’t do in full consciousness.
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”
Heh. Good one.
Jimmy, as someone who has worked as a mental health professional, I’ve seen literature on hypnosis, but have never used it. (Jimmy, I was surprised at you, citing Wikipedia!)
Therefore, the only hypnosis I can begin to address in Ericksonian hypnosis, not the classical type you described. Ericksonian hypnosis is a form of family therapy theory that has been safely used by licensed mental health professionals specifically trained in that technique. It’s a technique used when “verbal therapy” has either been unsuccessful or there are the issues are too difficult to address verbally.
Any other use of “hypnosis” is suspect IMO. Hypnosis for relaxation flies in the face of the current advice to excerise and use more conventional stress management.
For an individual considering hypnosis (ie, not family therapy), there are other ways to get to difficult issues, and what I mean by difficult issues is usually post-traumatic work. EMDR is an excellent tool (with of course the standard caveat of someone specifically trained).
As I re-read your reader’s letter, it sounds more like a theoretical question than someone in search of treatment for him or herself. As such, the question seems to be more about the role of demons, which you gave a good answer.
You are correct that the position is to address mental health before an exorcism. It may be helpful for your reader to know that in any diagnostic assessment, the hierarchy is to address physical reasons first, then mental health and exorcism last. (One would not start insight oriented therapy for a thyroid deficiency when thyroid medication would solve the problem.)
That’s a rather long-winded response that basically says the same as your “keep your focus on God” statement.
//(Jimmy, I was surprised at you, citing Wikipedia!)//
The more exposure I have to Wikipedia, the less I think of it. I really wonder who funds it. If you cite a Wikipedia article, you might as well preface the information contained therein with, “A unknown person says:”
I tried hypnosis many years ago to quit smoking; it didn’t work. The set-up was rather bizarre – the hypnotist was a thin, dark-haired, intense gent who sported a goatee before goatees were fashionable. In fact, if he had had a tux and top hat on, he would have looked like a magician straight out of Central Casting. I kept expecting him to haul out a deck of cards or pull a bird out of a hat or something. He sat 5 of us would-be-non-smokers(all of us were friends) in a semi-circle and said – you know, what? – I don’t recall. Not because I think I was under any spell but because it happened about 18 years ago. I do remember trying not to giggle or look at any of my friends as he stared at us intently. At no point did any of us feel out of control, or under his sway.
The next day, we all called each other to see if it “took.” Nope. One person did quit smoking that night, but he said he doubted that the “hypnosis” had anything to do with it; he was simply good and tired of smoking and was ready to tough it out.
My experience with it was a waste of money, but I didn’t think it harmed me (other than in the pocketbook.) I assume there must be better hypnotists out there, or better methods, but, although I have met many other people who have tried hypnosis to quit smoking, I have never yet heard anyone said it did the trick for them. (I myself can vouch for Nicorette gum:-)
In my past as a pentecostal/charismatic evangelical, I have first hand experience of the damage of scrupulosity and paranoia resulting from a too-eager attitude to attribute “demonic influences” to everything.
I remember quite a few times when at church services leaders would ‘cast out’ demons of lust and masturbation from embarrassed adolescent boys, or spirits of gluttony would be cast out of embarrassed women of a ‘larger figure.’ I always thought people were perfectly capable of sinning on their own without a correspondant demon lurking around every corner.
You had to be careful, there could be demons coming at you from anywhere. Fantasy literature, songs on the radio (unless they were a Christian heavy metal band), TV, videogames, the internet, you name it. I suppose the only way to be safe would be to lock yourself in an empty room for the rest of your life, only praying and reading the bible. Which is fine for some monks and nuns and saints throughout history, but not a lifestyle for everyone.
Funny, with all those gifts of the spirit everyone is supposed to have, you would think some would offer some stronger protection!
I am much relieved to be in a church now that takes a more cautious attitude towards attributing anything to the influence of demons.
In Wikipedia’s defence: Wikipedia has a rule which prohibits original research. Among other things, this means that you are 1) not supposed to post information without citing a published source and 2) not supposed to post things which you discovered yourself (ie, you can’t use yourself as a source, unless you’re published somewhere and a recognised authority).
Unfortunately, that rule is not much observed. Wikipedia relies on the knowledge and cooperation of the general public, so it’s up to The People to enforce things. In many things, the people do well, but in this one, they don’t.
Here is the page that explains this rule: No original research
Jimmy, great post. As a trained hypnotist, I can point out that there are some folks out there practicing hypnosis who kind of inject their worldview into the work they do with clients. Some are overt and intentionally use new age methodologies (even combining hypnosis with new age practices like reiki) while others simply aren’t aware of the presuppositions they are communicating to the client. Still others, Ericksonian hypnotists in particular, are very aware of what they are communicating to the client and avoid unnecessary content and belief problems by being purposefully vague.
Hypnosis doesn’t somehow make you more susceptible to the operator’s desires. You maintain full control over your will. However, you’re still able to be persuaded just like if you were talking to a car salesman.
The ideal practice, from my point of view, is what’s known as content-free hypnosis – that is, simply setting up a focused state of relaxation that provides the ideal mindset for the client to effect change themselves, thus protecting their own belief system and ensuring safety.
If someone’s looking for a hypnotist to help them stop smoking, address anxiety, whatever- they ought to talk to the would-be hypnotist ahead of time to address any concerns.
As a newly baptized Catholic (Thank God for Catholic Answers), I am more likely to suggest making full use of the sacraments, scripture and prayer before going to hypnosis… the Eucharist and Reconcilliation are powerful ways that the Lord helps us through our difficulties.
Re: gifts of the Spirit protecting from demons
Early Christians seem to have had a short way with demons. And St. Anthony of Egypt said some downright snarky things about how they couldn’t really hurt you, so you could just blow Satan off.
Not that I’m suggesting you should go looking for any demons with your shotgun, a la Doom, but I do think people do get themselves into a lot of anxiety over demons. When indeed, the world and the flesh are at least as dangerous, and tend to be a lot more open about it.
Alas, people rely on Wikipedia
Putting your two-cents worth in can be a worthy cause, if you are suited to the work
No way would I submit to hypnosis
I have an uncle thats a psychiatrist, a brother thats a psycho analist and a sister thats a psychologist.
Hypnotism has caused far more damage than good is the opinion of 2.
The only one still using it occasionaly is the psychoanalist and he has had little long term succcess but it
“puts food on the table and money in the bank” .
I was raised catholic as were all of the above mentioned.
None of us are now.
I do read the bible and find it quite refreshing compared with the stuff catholism is made of. I think catholicism is best described as the woman in REV 17
I have found Wikipedia has lots of information AND misinformation.
From “JESUS CHRIST THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE”
* The human being: is there one universal being or are there many individuals?
Quote: “The point of New Age techniques is to reproduce mystical states at will, as if it were a matter of laboratory material. Rebirth, biofeedback, sensory isolation, holotropic breathing, hypnosis, mantras, fasting, sleep deprivation and transcendental meditation are attempts to control these states and to experience them continuously”.(70) These practices all create an atmosphere of psychic weakness (and vulnerability). When the object of the exercise is that we should re-invent our selves, there is a real question of who “I” am. “God within us” and holistic union with the whole cosmos underline this question. Isolated individual personalities would be pathological in terms of New Age (in particular transpersonal psychology). But “the real danger is the holistic paradigm. New Age is thinking based on totalitarian unity and that is why it is a danger…”.(71) More moderately: “We are authentic when we ‘take charge of’ ourselves, when our choice and reactions flow spontaneously from our deepest needs, when our behaviour and expressed feelings reflect our personal wholeness”.(72) The Human Potential Movement is the clearest example of the conviction that humans are divine, or contain a divine spark within themselves. End quote.