Hello, forum, and thanks for reading this message.

I have asked this question in a similar forum, got some good answers, but would like to see if I can get additional wisdom from this particular community.

I am a Scottish/Italian medical doctor and I am transitioning out of a long academic career to establish myself as a grief and bereavement counsellor. This, for me, is the natural evolution of the keen interest I've had for many years in psychical research - an interest which has led me to write a popular book ("21 Days into the Afterlife") and which inspires my "radical" approach to working with the bereaved and the dying. I am convinced that, based on the evidence, a rational person can believe in the afterlife, and I know from research that the simple fact of knowing about the evidence for an afterlife (let alone having an experience of after death communication)  is considerably more successful than traditional approaches in relieving grief.

I am seeking advice on sensible, respectful ways to approach the subject of survival (and, in particular, after-death communication) with persons of Catholic faith. I have been researching the subject for a while, but it seems to be a particularly difficult one to crack. How can one encourage a bereaved person to at least consider the evidence for an afterlife and the possibility of contacting a deceased loved one when all this is a big, explicit no-no in the Roman Catholic catechism and anyway perceived by most Catholics as sinful?

In particular, I have a potential client - a relatively young female widower - who's been consumed by serious grief for years. On the one hand, her faith is of no use in relieving her suffering. On the other, she won't consider the approach I propose (education about the evidence and possibly an attempt at ADC through the psychomanteum technique I studied with Dr Raymond Moody in the US) on grounds that this is contrary to her religious teachings. Another example is a dear friend, who, after three years of battling cancer, died an anguished man, tormented by the fear of judgement - a very catholic view of what happens after one dies, very much at odds with what we are told by Near-Death Experiencers, regressed patients and spirit communicators.

I think that, in many cases, these beliefs actually stand in the way of grief recovery and alleviation of suffering. I am looking for ways to work around them, without being disrespectful, patronising or altogether dismissive.

I apologise for this lengthy post. I thank you in advance for considering this, and look forward to any wisdom you would kindly share.

Piero Calvi-Parisetti, MD
drparisetti.com

Hello Piero,

I am a physician in NY.  I sometimes have the same difficulty in dealing with discussing death with my patients.  I have found in my interactions that keeping the grieving person open to the possibilities is important.  Many will have anecdotal family experiences with the afterlife or the paranormal which made them feel there was "something more" to life, but they pigeon-holed it away, without giving the phenomenon any more thought.  So by acknowledging that there may be more than we know from the physical world, they take the first step - being open minded to the unknown. 

I would say that a "common sense" approach to the afterlife would appeal to most people.  This removes the ritual and fear associated with it.  Bruce's methods on this forum are particularly non-threatening, as contact or exploration is not tied to any particular dogma or religion.  However, different people may need different approaches. 

Don and others on the board could likely give you specifics in Catholic theological thought which might argue against the sinfulness of believing in contact with a deceased loved one.  If your patient wants to play it "by the book," then this approach may at least show them that it is not sinful to try to open their mind to the persistence of the soul after death (and don't all catholics believe in this?)

In the end, the most difficult thing is not pushing our own belief system on the grieving person.  I choose to at least get the person to be open to the idea of the existence of an afterlife, and to be open to asking for help.  I feel with these two key underpinnings, they are less likely to become "stuck" in a belief system.


Best,

Matthew

I don't know if I add anything of value, but I think the belief can't be changed
with just another belief.

Assume you have a scientist who believes in the Big Bang theory. He wont
change his mind just for some other belief. He has to have some kind of
experience to change his belief.

Perhaps you could ask the persons if they have had any experience which
is not in complete line with their religion? If they have not had any such
experience, the will at least have the chance to remember your question
if they get such an experience which is opposite their religious belief.

I was reared Catholic but gave it up so many decades ago that I have difficulty remembering the mindset.

My only comment would be that since Christian religion in general (not just Catholic religion) instills people with an intense fear of the Afterlife, the Devil, etc, that your best approach would be to deal with the fear as your inroad. Someone who is wedded to the fear is not going to get anywhere. I also accept that this is their choice for this life, and may be serving them a purpose I know nothing about.

I've dealt with this mainly with my Baptist friends, who are all convinced I am going to Hell. I get nowhere trying to discuss any of this; their fear is so ingrained it must be what they signed up for this time around.

MA

It's true, I really dislike the Catholic religion and I really do attack the religion for many various reasons.

One of the more ridiculous reasons is simply because my parents raised me as a Jehovah's Witness, and although I am currently agnostic, a lot of the teachings that were pelted at me as a child do have some withered roots. Jehovah's Witnesses really REALLY dislike the Catholic religion.

The bottom line is that the Catholic religion was and is a huge major religion and many people did terrible things in the name of the Catholic religion.

http://www.devilthinking.com/catholic.html

Obviously, it's wrong to take the actions of a few.. or even thousands of people that are Catholic and yet perform atrocities? I mean, it's not the religions fault.

Religion tells you exactly what you are to believe. Nothing else will fit within the guidelines of the religion. (Applies to most religions.)

In my opinion, most religions, especially the Catholic, Jewish, and Christian religions can be a good influence in a persons life, yet, can in fact be a major anchor, weighing them down and holding them back from finding out the real truth. The real facts, and the real truth of human spirit and life itself.

You said a mouthful....

But, I would add that, rather than the religion itself being the anchor, as you describe...it is fear.

Without fear, religion has no power to harm anyone. It is, in my personal opinion, our projected fears as human beings which cause most harm in this world.

How we justify our actions is secondary to the fear, which always, always, always contains an illusion within it.

Ray Moody's use of mantic tachniques will strike most Catholics as far too occult and therefore Ouija board dangerous for dabbling.  But tell your Catholic contacts that 50% of Americans report ADCs within the first year of their loved one's passing.  After that, such contacts are much less infrequent.  What should they look for?  Waking visions, lucid dreams of the departed, clairaudience, odors (colognes, cigar or pipe odors characteristic of the deceased), a sense of weight on their beds indicating spirit presence, and so on.

I am not Catholic, but for 12 years I was a Theology professor at a Catholic university in New York state.  Contrary to some posts on this thread, Catholicism is not a fear-based faith, though older generations of Catholics have resorted to fear as a motivation, just as some Protestant fundamentalists have. In fact, in my observation Catholic monastics have a much deeper and richer experience of the paranormal than most New Age adepts.   

Some comments on what to do:
(1) In my view, the best but most challenging strategy is to google "Stephen Ministry," take the Stephen Ministry course and then the Stephen Ministry Leadership Training.  This course is very popular with Catholics, indeed, with most Christians.  It involves a 50-week course with manuals and books, and a first-rate set of DVDs to develop expert listening skills.  The program was created by gifted Christian clinical psychologists to develop skilled listening to a level that consistently helps grieving and hurting people work through their grief and experience a profound inflow of divine grace in the process.  I am currently in the midst of an 8-week sermon series on background principles that will prepare volunteers for this awesome care-giving ministry.

(2) One line of the Apostles Creed reads, "I believe in the communion of saints."  As you know, Catholics feel comfortable praying to the Virgin Mary as well as the saints.  This practice assumes that the departed can monitor the progress of incarnate souls and even intervene.  Thus, the best example of an EVP was received by two Catholic priests seeking to clean up a Gregorian chant tape.  The deceased father of one of the priest's interrupted the chant to respond to the priest's cry for his Dad's help: "Of course, I'll help you.  I'm always with you."  These priest-engineers brought the tape to Pope Pius XII, who declared that God may well use EVPs to establish the reality of the afterlilfe.  The Catholic doctrine of the communion of the saints is the best foundation to entice Catholics into exploring ADCs.  I have never had any trouble persuading any Catholics that such exploration is appropriate, helpful, and potentially deeply spiritual. 

(3) Another helpful ploy is to lay out the biblical case  for the ability of our beloved dead to monitor our progress and even lend us aid.  I can help you document this case.   

Don

I don't think of Catholics as a fear based religion at all. But I do feel they are a major religion based upon the old and new testament of the bible that often pushes aside the very book that the religion is supposedly based on. I am by no means an expert, but I have been to 5 or 6 Catholic churches and I find it absurd that they use alternative books which reference the bible instead of providing a bible for those that attend. ( Like Jehovah's Witnesses do. )

I just feel that if your religion is based on the Bible, the BIBLE should play a major part of your worship and should not often feel almost like a taboo book or a book that is only meant for the priest.

I am sure some Catholic churches are different? Yes no? I really am curious because I have only been to a few like I said. I am just giving my opinion like I said, and I am more than happy to hear more about Catholics, especially if I have misconceptions from the Jehovah's Witnesses teachings.


Also, I may be wrong but the only afterlife contact with a human I can recall was a kooky seance in the old testament, where the spirit being contacted was the classic, "Why have you disturbed me from my sleep?" mumbo jumbo. Written like a story with a believably of zero.

Focus27 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2012 at 1:57am:

I don't think of Catholics as a fear based religion at all.

"Don't do this or you will go to hell."

PauliEffectt wrote on Sep 14^th, 2012 at 6:20am:

Focus27 wrote on Sep 14th, 2012 at 1:57am: I don't think of Catholics as a fear based religion at all. "Don't do this or you will go to hell."

Eternall Hell

Realistically speaking, a creator has the right to set limits on his creation.


Let us think of life and humans as a computer program, and God as the computer programmer.

God creates a program and gives it free will to do things that directly oppose the original creation of the program.

God punishes all of the executed programs that decide to make those choices that oppose God, but are still acceptable choices within the program.


Whose fault is this?

The programs?

The programmer? Hmmm.......

Then there are no faults because God accepted those choices.

I have been a software programmer myself and I can tell you, if I left one error in it the program would not work.
There are also misperforming functions. You can choose to let them for what they are but then the program does not work the way you intended.
If you are ok with a certain level of disfunctioning then you choose for that. If you want it out you have to program it away.

Oh, wow, thanks a lot everybody. I am really sorry, but I've posted the same question on another couple of forums and sort of forgot about this one. Shame on me.

A lot of food for thought, indeed. I don't know, perhaps I err on the side of caution. After all, if somebody's beliefs are preventing him/her to access means to get better (Jehovah Witnesses come to mind for refusing blood transfusions...) I should not feel shy to openly challenge those beliefs. Still, in a way I see faith as something so personal, and often so cherished, that I feel uncomfortable in suggesting to people that they should abandon at least some of their beliefs. Or, which is more the case in point, openly disobey some of the prescriptions of their chosen religion.

Thanks anyway. I really appreciate you all taking the time to share your views.

Piero
drparisetti.com