Switch to english language  Passa alla lingua italiana  
Random quote
One should always be in love; that is the reason one should never marry. Oscar Wilde


July 28th, 2012 by radu stoica | Posted in Psychology | No Comments » | 129 views | Send article | Print this Article |



This work contains theorethical references about psychotherapy used for clients/pacients who come for therapy beeing influenced by religious, more or less, disfunctional ideas. We also may highlight the fact that usually, persons who encounter several problems which might be solved by using cognitive-behavioral  therapy, have a disfunctional belief that religion is the only way for solving theese problems. Usually these people are ready to try a therapeutical plan, but they also are ready to give up on therapy, so much because of their disfunctional beliefs so long because of some personality disorders which are more or less obvious. It takes a high level of knowledge and experience for the therapist, so that the therapy should work properly and also to offer good results. In order to colaborate with the client/pacient in good terms, we have apealed to the opinion of some psychotherapy classics.


Collective unconscious archetypes

In addition to the personal unconscious, there is still a level of spirit and deeper unconscious, the collective unconscious, which is universal and impersonal and that, therefore, it is the same to all of us. The collective unconscious, must emphasize again, it is not so dependent on the individual’s personal history: there is something gained by us lifetime, but rather something suprapersonal “before us”, while it bears “primary  images” of our ancestral life. It is therefore a great mistake to suppose that the psyche of the new born is a tabula rasa, in that it does not contain anything. Every child, or adult, and each is determined by influences what emanates from the collective unconscious; and these influences, which operates independently of the personal unconscious, guarantees each individual the similarity and even an identity experience and representation. By making this statement, Jung is not trying to prove  the existence of collective unconscious; He admits its existence rather than as part of its working hypothesis to explain the almost universal parallelism of imaging in children neurotic fantasies,  dreams, visions, and patient schizoid visions, ethnological, in primitive cultures of mythologies.

Jung makes the next important step  when he starts to examine more carefully the contents of the collective unconscious. The contents of the collective unconscious are called archetypes. Initially, Jung introduced the concept for the first time, speaking of the archetype of “primary images”, namely, to refer to the reasons of myths, legends and fairy tales, which denotes the universal modes of perception and the concept of human behavior, and appears again in “Two essays on analytical psychology (1916) under the term of “the collective unconscious dominants “. But not earlier than 1919, in the essay “Instinct and the unconscious” he does specifically use the term archetype.

For Jung, his concept of archetype is not singular, but is something acknowledged and named in other fields of knowledge. But whatever the underlying idea of the variety is essentially the same. Archetypes are forms of primordial types or pre-existing conditions in the most remote eras of humanity. This does not mean that they would be devoted to types or forms simply past. Archetypal images, because it emanates from the collective unconscious deeps are manifestations of nature structural expression and thus the very Psyche of common and universal substrate which is present in all human beings and operates continuously and dynamically. The implication here is that the Archetypes are not, as Freud might say, “only the symptoms of neurotic states”. As Jung reveals, “we must have in mind that the constellation of archetypal images and fantasies is not the disease itself.” Although conditions as schizophrenia may be the occasion of occurrence of archetypes in a dramatic and acute form, does not mean that only these conditions are being archetypes.

In opposition to this theory is the Freudian doctrine of causality,  which states that any fantasy product must be an unconscious repression product. However, Archetypes are components of the spirit unconsciously, and that they are essentially archaic  does not indicate a neurotical return to a form of thought out of date, but rather that “any civilized human being, no matter how high it would be its conscious  development, is still a man of profound levels of archaic Psyche”.

According to Mircea Eliade, the collective memory is non-historical. This statement does not imply any “popular origin” folklore, no epic poetry collective creation. If we strive to penetrate the significance of a genuine myth, or an archaic symbol, we are forced to state that this reveals a growing awareness of the significance of certain situations in the Cosmos, and that it involves a metaphysical position accordingly. Eliade considers it useless to look for archaic languages both in terms of laboriously create major philosophical traditions. There is every chance that we do not find in the language of the ancient historical Australians or Mesopotamians words such as: “being”, “nonentity”, “real”, “unreal”, “rising”, “illusionary” and many others. But even if there is a missing word, the fact exists, but it is revealed only in a coherent manner through symbols and myths.

If we study the behavior of archaic humans, a fact also stuns us: such as human acts themselves, objects of an external world, do not have intrinsic value. An object or an action acquired a value at the same time and become real only because it participates in one way or another to a reality and transcends them. For example, among other gems, a stone becomes a sacred and therefore is spread over of Being either because it constitutes a hierophany or contains  mana or because they accuse a certain form of symbolism or commemorates a mythical act. The subject appears as a receptacle of an external force which differentiates its environment and gives meaning and value. This force is either in substance or in form, of the object; a rock is revealed as sacred because its very existence is a hierophany: incomprehensible, invulnerable, it is what it is not human. It resists  in time, it’s reality is doubled because it is perennial. One of the most common stones becomes a gemstone that is going to become impregnated by a magical or religious force in virtue of its form either symbolic or origin. The thunderstruck stone which is believed to come from the sky; pearl because it comes from the ocean depths. Other stones will be sacralized as the residences of the ancestral spirits (India, Indonesia) or because they have been an erstwhile theophany Theatre (such as stone \”bethel\” who served as bed to James), or because a sacrifice, an oath they have spent. This is just one of the examples that support the theory of human behaviour in the archaic. Human acts, of course, those not related to a pure automatism; meaning, their value is not given a physical link to raw, but by their capacity to reproduce a primordial act of repeating, a mythical model. Nutrition is not a simple physiological operation, it renews a communion. Marriage and collective blowout send to mythical prototypes; are reiterated because it has been raised at the origin of the gods, ancestors, or heroes.  His behaviour in detail, conscious, the “primitive”, archaic man knows no acts that were not previously met and lived another, another man who, in fact, was not human. What he does, it was done before. His life is continuous repetition of hand gestures inaugurated by others.  Product by nature, the subject continuously, not human skill and find the reality, identity only if participating in a transcendent reality. The gesture does not have sense, reality, exclusive only to the extent in which the primordial action resumes. Jung’s first investigation on the topic of the existence of the deity is undeniably Freudian. Freud, of course, was delighted. In one of the letters to Jung, in 1911, its completion with a “Bravo!” he brings new evidence that his young colleague became “aware that Oedipus complex is at the origin of religious sentiment.” Within his publishing, Jung at the time, sustained Freud’s statement claims based on that premise. “The religion of the Old Testament exalts the pater familias to Jahve, the Jewish god, so that people must obey the fear. Patriarchs were stone set foot on it for the deity. Neurotic fear in Judaism, a failed or otherwise imperfect attempt to sublimation at a people quite barbaric explains the excessive severity of mosaic law, the compulsive neurotic ritual .”

After 1912, things change. Friendship is strained with Freud, and passages like the quoted one were going to be removed from subsequent editions. This change has been accelerated by the paper publication “Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido (Libido and Symbols of Transformation”). Here Jung focused on desexualisation of the concept of Freud’s libido, so that Oedipus complex could no longer operate as exclusive force generating in the formation of religious neurosis, or for any neurosis, but replaced the idea of Freud’s sexual libido  with his own, more comprehensive concept of “libido energy.” It was a totally different perception of religion, which was a conglomerate of guilty repressions and ritualised obsessions, but as a natural and legitimate psychic activity. This does not mean, of course, that religious experience can never be neurotical. Neurosis, as a symptom of libidinal imbalance, can take place in this sphere of life as any other. But it means that where there is a difference between religious neurosis, these examples may not be used to characterize all religious phenomena. Religious activity, in its quality of separate activity cathegory, can contain examples of obsessive conduct , but these examples do not give themselves the nature of her entire class.

In many ways, religion’s analysis by Jung  begins at this point. Once you remove the theories of Freud, you understand that the worship of the deity can no longer be considered as a substitute for fantasy about an earthbound father , then we must seek out the explanation of nature and content of religious faith. The problem is not that of whether religion has images of the father, as rather the explanations of their occurrence data and the fact that they continue to dominate the human imagination. Jung’s answer to these questions is something original and meaningful: the reality of God is an inevitable and irreducible reality,  lived at the level of the individual, most profoundly of his being. How to reach this conclusion, however, Jung is a complex issue.

However, Jung’s position in this regard remains somewhat ambiguous, and the appearance of it becomes especially evident when we get to the innumerable examples of archetypes from him. We have, for example, the mother archetype, noticed not only in case of deities of religion, but also in numerous symbols of fertility and fruitfulness (Horn of abundance, the ploughing, garden). We have  the spread archetype of the Child God, evident in the story miraculous births of Moses and Jesus, and the King’s son or illustrations of sorceress’ child’s demonic powers possessed. We have the hero archetype in the various cycles of heroic prevalent in almost all cultures, where he is not devoured by the monster, but defeats and thus gets the prize (David and Goliath, Hercules and the lion, Theseus and the Minotaur). There are only three examples, but Jung provides much more, often personified in the form. In addition to these figures, there are  archetypal events (birth, marriage, death, creation, betrayal, etc.) and the archetypal objects (the Dragon, the snake, the Sphinx etc.). The question is: when Jung defines “collective unconscious” levels as the archetypal he means that archetypes such as Mother or Child God are “innate ideas”, and duplicate images transmitted over generations, not vary substantially, or understands that archetype determines only the “shape” of such images acting, therefore, as a kind of template for all the representations of consequential? It is about delivering babies, or something less specific, a provision for the transmission? Jung was aware of this confusion and provide a substantive reply:  “Again and again I encounter the erroneous notion that an archetype is determined in relation to its content, in other words, it is a sort of unconscious idea (where such expression is permissible). It is necessary to emphasize once again that the Archetypes are not determined in terms of their content, but merely in terms of forms, and only a very limited extent. A paramount picture is determined in terms of content only when he became conscious and so saturated material of conscious experience. As it stands, though, as I have explained elsewhere, could be compared with that of an axial Crystal, as it says, preforms the liquid-crystalline structure, although the parent does not have his own physical existence. It appears first as the specific ions and molecules are aggregated. The archetype itself is empty and formal, nothing but a facultes praeformandi, a representation is given a priori. The figures themselves are not inherited, but only forms, and in this respect they correspond somewhat to instincts, which also are determined only in form. Instincts’ existence cannot be proven , as the existence of the archetypes, as long as they are not concretely manifested … the same is true about the archetypes. In principle, it can be called and has a nucleus of positive significance, but always only in principle, never in terms of its concrete manifestations.  In the same way, the appearance of the mother’s image at a time just cannot be inferred from the mother archetype, but depends on many other factors.”

This passage helps us, in a sense, to clear up what is an archetype. An archetype is a structure of Psyche, its’ “shape” to being an innate predisposition or a tendency of the Psyche to create an image with a uniform and universal character. This means, however, that the contents of the image thereby created – an outstanding – is similar to a uniform and universal character. After all, while form can be innate for the Psyche, the manner in which it is expressed, its concrete manifestation will be diverse and highly dependent on individual and social experience. Indeed, if things should not stay in this way, we could not explain the wide variety of ways in which the same archetypal image is shown in all periods of history, in symbol myth and ritual.

It remains a doubt with regard to the origin of the archetypes. If the shape is part of the archetypal structure of Psyche, what do we do with other remarks of Jungian archetypes in that they are psychic functioning “precipitate the ancestral line; experiences gained in the organic life in general, repeated millions of times and condensed into types”. Acknowledging that a certain archetypal “content” is the product of an outstanding experience, and we cannot say about its “form” that was gained through the experience accumulated over the centuries?  Although aware of this difficulty, Jung’s answer is always doubtful. “The pictures are of prime importance in so far as they are specific for the entire species, and even if they were ever made, their origin must be coincided with the beginning of the species at least.” It is the same with the claims that there is a priori that the archetypes and the collective unconscious are inherent and thus not affected by the rise and decline of the individual.

However, Jung did not hesitate to diverge in this issue: “If this structure and its elements, psychological archetypes, were ever generated is a metaphysical question without answer and so one.” What does not prevent to draw the conclusion that the archetype is the metaphysical because it is an “eternal presence” and because he “and transcends consciousness.”

The sentence of God in Jungian concept is that God is an archetype. This sentence immediately assigned a Deity, a private property, which is the defining of all archetypes: archetype, as God is a manifestation of the deeper layer of the unconscious, the collective unconscious mindsets. Jung’s statement on this matter raises a number of important questions. The first is that the human psyche (Psyche) there is an archetypal form of the deity which is an objective evidence of its existence? The fact that God is lived as it is a demonstration of the fact that God is the object of this experience? Jung responds: \”when I say, as a psychologist, that God is an archetype, I understand this as a “pattern” of the Psyche. The word “print” is derived from typos, “print” or “seal”; Thus, an archetype is an imprimator … Simply we do not know the archetype’s last derivation, has an outstanding, cutting edge, as we know not, nor the origin of the Psyche. Empirical psychology as a science competence is barely going so far as to establish, on the basis of comparative research, if, for example, the seal found in the Psyche may or may not be reasonably called “image of God”.  So, nothing positive or negative it was not asserted about the possible existence of God, as the archetype of the “hero” does not prove the existence of the real hero.”

Also about the image of the deity, Jung says: “We know that God’s image plays an important role in psychology, but we cannot prove the existence of God. As a responsible scientist I do not spread subjective personal beliefs, that I cannot prove … for me though, from the point of view, the question of whether God exists or does not exist, is in vain. I am  sufficiently convinced of the impact that man has always attributed to the divine being. If you should express a belief or beyond to assert the existence of God, it would be not only ineffective, but superfluous and would prove that my opinion is not based on facts. When people say that they believe in the existence of God, it never impressed me faintly. Or know a thing and then I need to believe in it, believe in it because I’m not sure that know him. I am totally satisfied with this experience that I know that you can avoid calling them numinous or divine. ”

Psychic knowledge of Divinity feature, which includes archetypal form – God as an impersonal and timeless element, does not stand alone autonomous non-mental product – explains the other notable features of the religious experience. For example, explains why some people imagine their religious faith as something came from outside, as something spontaneous and eternal value and imperative. Also explains the enormous frequency independent and autonomous personalities within the  religious imaging, personalities endowed with consciousness, intellect, freewill and finality. The most significant is the traditional representation of God as omnipotent and omniscient, a divisor of righteousness and love, forgiving father and creator of the world. It is therefore interesting to note that for Jung award of God such qualities of parental power and love is not, as for Freud, a sign of infantile and neurotic character of religious faith, but rather a reflection of the origin, mental, of God-archetype.

This fact allows us to answer the question: Why do you conceive the Christian God as a father? If the reason is not oedipal, then what is the explanation? The answer, according to Jung, is that the notion of God as father is the archetypal, which means that it has its origins in the work of native and unconscious a provision. It conceives God in these terms is so archetypal proof of archetypal operation of form of God, who determines the image of the father to be one of universal and inevitable images used by her belief in worship as God.

In “Two essays on analytical psychology” (1917) Jung gives an interesting example of the way in which Freudian analysis may misinterpret the nature of the neurosis when it comes down to no more than repression of infantile trends. He cites the case of a female patient who, in the usual terminology of Freudian suffered from an ” paternal complex.” Because of her relationship with the deceased father was extremely emotional, she tried to get rid of it by putting the intellectual side of personality – rational, thus becoming a student in philosophy. The fact it has not been acted upon, but resulted in a more serious form and imbalance of somatic disorders and psychic. Any treatment of Jung did not have immediate success. All that happened was that the woman has transferred her feelings on Jung that she had for her father, making him the substitute of her father and, consequently, another object of conflict. Neither Jung, nor the patient no longer knew what to  do. As a possible solution to the deadlock output Jung suggested to proceed with the analysis of her dreams. Most of these dreams focused on Jung himself, as her doctor and generally included a distortion worthy of note: she appeared in the dream as enormous fat and a very old woman. Sometimes she looked like her father. One of the dreams was particularly significant: “Her father (which in reality had been low) stood with her on a wheat hill. She was very small in addition to him, he seemed to her a giant. The wind blow over the grain, and the ears were swaying in the wind, he swayed her in his arms. ”

Jung has made a great discovery when he understood that his elevation to the rank of father and protector of gigantic proportions, superhuman, was not merely symbolic presentation of the “vision of God” to reactivate the old symbolism, so the wind (pneuma) in Greek and Hebrew (ruah) and Arabic (ruh) symbolizes God and spirit. Since the patient herself was totally ignorant on this link, Jung concluded that the appearance of dream do not represent, such as Freud would have presumed, reportedly from the first childhood repressions, but a picture of archaic, primordial God of course framed in her personal experience with Jung himself, but still shaped and directed by collective fantasy pattern, impersonal (i.e. archetypal force of divinity). Therefore, in spite of his agnostic tendencies, this woman gave her expression in the deeps of the unconscious desires, not related to the love of the father, but a deeper passion for God himself. At first, this explanation was unacceptable to spare, but Jung reveals that, after this diagnosis, the woman has lost gradually her fixation to him and began to assimilate what he has learned about the “guiding function of life”, which has resulted in a considerable stepping-up of relations with her fellow individuals.

“The gods are personifications of the unconscious levels, because they come from the unconscious mental activity, spontaneous … I hit often the erroneous conception that the approach or psychological explanation of God reduced everything to psychology. In fact, it is not about God, but about the representation of God, as I have always stressed. Such representations and images are created by people and belong therefore to psychology.”

“Cross means the order opposite to unordered , i.e. the chaotic amorphous crowd. It is actually one of the symbols of the order’s originating … In the field of mental processes, it performs the function of a central point that generates the order and, therefore, appears in the form of mental disorder, the mandala split in four.”

Inconsistent with the Jungian approach, Freud affirms clearly and manifest his scepticism : “During flashlights of my inspiration, I feel well again and therefore counterproductive – one  can I only confess. It occured to me the idea that the ultimate basis of human need for religion is infantile incapacity, which is much higher in humans than in animals. In the light of later childhood, he cannot conceive a world without parents and so he creates a God as a kind and benevolent, two of the worst anthropomorphic frauds that he could imagine … “  (excerpt from a letter from Freud to Jung , January 2, 1910).

Jung’s own original attitude is revealed, different from the Freudian: “Because religion is indisputably one of the earliest and most general manifestations of the human soul, it is understood by itself that any form of Psychology dealing with the psychological structure of human personality cannot avoid at least to take account of the fact that religion is not only a social and historical phenomenon, but that is for a large number of people and an important personal problem.

Although I was often called a philosopher, I am only practitioner and as such embrace the phenomenological point of view. I am of the opinion that the principles of scientific empiricism is not harmed if occasionally I formulate exceeding the mere reflections of gathering and classification of experimental materials. I think actually the experience without any reflection is not possible, because the experience is a process of assimilation, without which it is not possible for any kind of understanding. This finding shows that I do get the facts from the angle of psychological Sciences, and not from that of philosophy. To the extent that the religious aspect is important psychologically, I treat the theme of strictly empirical standpoint, i.e. myself observing phenomena and I refrain from any philosophical examination. I do not contest the validity of other modes of examination, but cannot claim that they have correctly applied these views.”


Therapeutic approaches of cases when they appear dysfunctional beliefs with religious content

In a situation where the therapy we are showing a client concerned with religion, even possibly obsessed with religious themes, you may want to turn this into a concern and a resource for therapeutic use, ignore, or using only conventional psychotherapy? Most likely, the client/patient seeks in religion which lacks the emotional stability, seek a coherent explanation, from the point of view, for the dysfunctional cognitive schemas. As a rule, the client/patient in therapy is given after he had a constant and lasting contact with the representative religious (priest, or similar), but the problem was not solved, but on the contrary, worsened. Some even receive accurate information from such representatives, not to come to therapy, the therapist may use different tools and methods shamed by religion (hypnosis – the Devil’s tool, the psychologist may enter into the mind of the client/patient changing his/her thoughts, etc.). In such a situation, we may use religion as a possible resource? It is quite difficult to work with a client/patient who has such mystical and rejecting attitude,  that constantly wonders what is going to make the therapist, which in reality, his real intentions are, what is the link with the evil forces presented by religion. In order to be able to work with such a client/patient, it is necessary to introduce a certain kind of attitude in order to achieve something in the field of highlighting dysfunctional cognitive schemas  and their modifcation or replacement.

In a situation where we are dealing with a client/patient who has a personality disorder, it is necessary to take into account the specific features of unrest, the personality of the rigidity of cognitive schemas, the tendency to avoid the difficulties that may arise in the context of interpersonal relationships, the therapist will have to anticipate changes that will have a slower character, which may last for one year therapy or even two years.

Freeman and Jackson (1998) introduced a number of changes in the cognitive-behavioral therapeutic approach, in the case of clients/patients with disorders of personality:

  1. Putting the conception of each case before determining therapeutic strategies;
  2. Adopting a collaborative approach, with clear objectives and identified of whom agree the therapist and the client/patient;
  3. The use of techniques to reduce anxiety and the motivation of patients;
  4. Focus on therapeutic approach to identify and change core dysfunctional cognitive schemas;
  5. The stability and consistency of methodological framework in psychotherapy;
  6. Intensify therapist’s efforts during the meetings of  psychotherapy;
  7. Increasing the therapist’s capacity to tolerate  negative transfer from the client/patient;
  8. Stability of a link between the actions of the client/patient and his/her emotional states;
  9. The use of strategies designed to minimise the effect of the gratificant of the self-destructive conducts .

10.  Blocking the behavior of theatrical type;

11.  Focus on aspects and interpretations of present classifications (“here and now”);

12.  Special attention to feelings of contratransfer occurring during psychotherapy.


Freeman and Jackson(1980) also emphasize a number of factors which hinders therapeutic approach to  clients/patients with disorders of personality:

Factors related to client/patient:

  1. The absence of the client/patient skills to comply with the requests and requirements of the psychotherapist;
  2. Client/patient has accumulated negative experiences regarding the failures of the therapeutic work carried out earlier ;
  3. Client/patient may harbor the belief that if he/she will change, it will depart from those close to him/her or will make them suffer;
  4. A secondary benefit of the client/patient from maintaining their appearance (the advantage of being sick or invalid shall be positioned in the center of attention of others);
  5. Client/patient  can fear the change because a bad one is preferably known unknown;
  6. The absence of motivation: the client/patient does not appreciate the fact that you will get enough benefit from therapy, benefits are worth the efforts made;
  7. Client/patient may consider his/her social status to be lower than psychotherapy (will be considered sick, unhinged, or mad);
  8. Client/patient may have reduced skills in regards to self-monitoring thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that hinders the therapeutic approach ;
  9. Client/patient may have difficulty in observing and understanding the behavior of others, ignoring what  are obvious and important information for others;
  10. Client/patient has adopted a narcissistic style  and blaming others, believing that the problems facing are not related to his personality structure.



Factors of pathological findings:

  1. Mental rigidity of the client/patient, and the need to keep things unchanged represents an obstacle to change.
  2. The existence of intercurrent medical problems;
  3. The difficulties in identifying the truth creates problems in establishing and maintaining therapeutic relationship;
  4. Excessive need for independence and autonomy of clients/patients with disorders of personality prevents or causes the therapeutic alliance;
  5. Clients/patients impulsiveness is at odds referred with the character of the deliberately planned and directive psychotherapeutic approach;
  6. Some personality disorder clients/patients, especially to those schizotypal and borderline, may occur during therapy as a state of confusion;
  7. Limited cognitive abilities, which can occur when clients/patients with mental disabilities as a result of cranio-cerebral trauma, excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs, or may be the consequence of depressive, also constitute an obstacle to the evolution of psychotherapy;
  8. The complexity and depth of the symptoms;
  9. Excessive dependency can result in maintaining client’s/patient’s symptoms encompassed by the fear of being abandoned by the therapist;
  10. The common tendency to self devaluation, especially the depressives, but also avoiding and dependent personalities, can, in turn, hinders therapy;
  11. The lack of vital energy and strength, specific to schizoid depressives and schizotypals shall prevent the client/patient to engage in sustained efforts to change;
  12. Another factor that hampers the therapeutic approach of dissociating behavior characteristic, especially of disorder personality type “borderline”.



Natural factors:

  1. Stressful situations professionally, family environment, social may prevent the client/patient to participate in therapy;
  2. Significant persons in the  client/patient’s entourage may be open or imply therapy sabotage and undermining the prestige of the therapist;
  3. The loss of material arising from the mental health status of the client/patient (may lose medical pension);
  4. Certain cultural or religious groups may rule against therapy, trying to control the lives of their members;
  5. The family is in homeostatic balance, a balance that could be disrupted by a possible change;
  6. The existence of a collective pathologies in the family will make change difficult or even impossible.

Factors related to the therapist:


  1. Insufficient skills and experience of the therapist in the work with clients/patients with disorders of personality which are among the most challenging subjects;
  2. The therapist and the client/patient present the same type of cognitive distortions (such as client/patient’s chances can be mistrustful of healing, and the therapist approve by default);
  3. The therapist was unable to explain to the patient/client the utility and cognitive-behavioral therapy principles;
  4. Poor therapeutic alliance or the absence thereof;
  5. The therapist doesn’t have enough information about the client/patient problems and fixes the therapy by successive beadings ;
  6. Psychotherapist’s narcissism , who is so convinced of his power, that objective could not be attained lays out for the client/patient, putting the failures on the second;
  7. Faulty planning of the time granted the therapy may have a counterproductive impact on it;
  8. The goals of therapy are not specified, are vague or unrealistic;
  9. The absence of mutual agreement on the objectives and strategies of intervention therapy.


Having regard to the factors listed, we can point out a more specific overview of the situation in which a person comes for therapy, with ideas more or less dysfunctional, with religious content. At the outset it is necessary to seek to identify possible resources, including his/her religious beliefs. Ignoring, or worse, direct combat, not only to remove the client/patient of therapist triggering its hostility and strengthening them by using his beliefs, which are sustained by the entourage, as the only solution to its problems and only be found in religion. Excessive concern for religion  is a  detail that is part of the clinical picture overall, a peculiarity of behavior that can be used to create a therapeutic link from which to start toward solving the client/patient. To create this link, it is important that the therapist has a minimum knowledge about the religion of the client/patient and to do some research on this issue, so as to cope with a mystical discourse and to identify easily the dysfunctional beliefs of the client/patient.




  • Irina Holdevici (2003). Psihoterapia cazurilor dificile,( Difficult cases psychotherapy) Bucharest, Dual Tech Printing House;
  • C.G. Jung (2010) – Psihologia religiei vestice şi estice  (Eastern and Western psychology of religion) (vol. 11) – Bucharest, Trei Printing House;
  • Mihaela Minulescu (2001) – Introducere în analiza jungiană (Introduction to the Jungian analysis) – Bucharest, Trei Printing House;
  • Frieda Fordham (1998) – Introducere în psihologia lui C.G. Jung  (An introduction to the psychology of C.G Jung.) – Bucharest, Iri Printing House ;
  • Michael Palmer (1999) – Freud şi Jung despre religie (Freud and Jung about religion) – Bucharest, Iri Printing House ;
  • Mircea Eliade (1999) – Mitul eternei reîntoarceri (The myth of the ethernal return) – Bucharest, Univers Enciclopedic Printing House;
  • Mircea Eliade (2008) – Solilocvii – Bucharest, Humanitas Printing House;





Radu Stoica

PDF Creator    Send article as PDF   

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Reply