THE MYSTERY OF GOD AND THE SUFFERING OF HUMAN BEINGS1

The proper theological response to the problem of reconciling human suffering with the Christian belief in a God of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness is not to try to solve the unsolvable, but to preserve the mystery of God. The concept ‘mystery’ as attributed to God signifies intelligibility — inexhaustible intelligibility — not contradiction. Mystery suggests the range and limits of a human being's knowledge of God. We cannot know why God permits suffering in this particular instance or the character of God's response to someone in the throes of suffering. We can know in a general way the necessary conditions of the possibility for the realization of God's purpose because we know the purpose of God's activity through revelation. This paper argues that if God created the universe so that creatures could share in the fullness of God's life, God could not have achieved God's purpose without any human suffering. This argument upholds the inexhaustible intelligibility of God's activity and thus preserves the mystery of God, for if God could have achieved God's purpose without any suffering, yet willed the suffering of creatures, then the eternal plan of providence and the actual unfolding of salvation history would be arbitrary and irrational.     

EVIL, ORIGINAL SIN, AND EVOLUTION

This article has three sections. The first discusses the problem of evil; the second, the sins of both angels and men that originally introduced evil into the world; the third, a teleological theory of evolution that clarifies the relationship between the first two sections. At present there is a great deal of discussion about the nature of the evolutionary process. Some argue that ultimately it is a strictly random one. But it is quite impossible to prove scientifically that evolution is strictly random. From a Christian point of view the best way to view it is to see it not only as the result of divine intelligence, but also as due to a ferocious conflict between superhuman powers – the biblical angels and demons to whom God in the beginning gave the power to guide and develop his creation.     

Thinking with,and about,patients too scared to think: Can non‐interpretive maneuvers stimulate refl ective thought?

Patients incapable of higher-order (symbolic) thinking can often not tolerate evidence of the analyst's separate existence, particularly when that 'otherness' becomes evident in the process of the analyst's refl ecting upon and interpreting how the patient experiences or represents the analyst. The patient's intolerance of the analyst's efforts to think (refl ect upon and interpret) renders the usual psychoanalytic maneuvers employed to stimulate refl ective thought ineffective with such patients. Such patients have to learn to tolerate multiple perspectives before they can allow the analyst, or themselves, to think in the other's presence. The author presents two clinical vignettes that illustrate how the analyst's efforts to think about the patient were experienced by the patient as both intolerably distancing and as rejecting of an aspect of the patient's subjective reality. Working psychoanalytically with such patients requires the analyst to forgo the use of narrow interpretations that elucidate unconscious meanings and motives in favor of alternate technical maneuvers capable of facilitating the development of symbolic thinking and refl ective thought (insightfulness). These maneuvers include a demonstration of the analyst's willingness and ability to withstand (rather than 'interpret away') how he is being psychically represented by the patient, without becoming destroyed by, or lost within, the patient's characterization of him. Beside modeling a tolerance of alternate perspectives of one's self, other non-interpretive maneuvers that help facilitate the development of self-refl ective thought include: stimulating the patient's curiosity about the workings of his own mind by identifying incompletely understood behaviors or reactions worthy of greater psychological understanding, and insinuating doubt about the adequacy of the patient's explanations of such phenomena.     

MICHEL DE M'UZAN AND ORIGINS OF IDENTITY

Michel de M'Uzan describes a way to think about identity in which two distinct sources of our sense of identity must be considered. His innovation is the concept of the vital‐identital, which he suggests is equally foundational with the sense of identity derived from the early human environment. The term endogenous identity is used to unify under one heading the ideas that de M'Uzan employs to build his concept of vital‐identital. The author summarizes de M'Uzan's earlier work, elaborates on his more recent ideas, and illustrates the use of de M'Uzan's ideas with a cultural and a clinical example.