Page 66 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 11

they can almost be understood as synonyms larly in its essential effect, cannot be adequately
which emphasise different aspects of one phe- resolved into reproducible algorithms or natu-
nomenon (salvation in God). If I understand ral causality. The matching or the trust which
the author correctly, he adheres to precisely this is formed between client and therapist can be
view when he outlines the close connection bet- furthered by a number of definable rules and
ween the sacrament of baptism (rebirth) and its disturbed by definable mistakes. As a result, an
(repeated) re-actualisation in far-reaching in- illusion of reproducibility and causality can be
ner changes (sanctification). A work of the Holy created. When examined more closely, however,
Spirit, who is, according to the author, also the a relationship of trust is formed by an interplay
“Sanctifier”. of mutually related (emotional & cognitive) de-
Important for me personally was the clear state- cisions in a way which makes every relationship
ment that supernatural phenomena lie beyond unique. The central effective factor, “relation-
the axiom of reproducibility and natural cause- ship”, can therefore be described to some extent
and-effect. I then found that too few grounds with means used in the humanities (phenome-
were offered explaining why they nevertheless nological methods), but cannot be defined re-
can and should have a place in a psychothera- producibly and with causal determination as in
py which seeks to maintain its scientific link: the natural sciences. Essential characteristics of
a good argumentational foundation is offered the relationship are “invisible” and only acces-
here by a relational psychological approach, as sible via introspection and exploration. But this
Cascioli also hints when he emphasises that the in turn is also true of the relationship with God,
central role of the therapist/client relationship and in a certain way true of interactions with
has in the meantime been recognised funda- demonic powers, although I deliberately avoid
mentally in all forms of professional treatment using the same term (relationship) for the latter,
of mental illness. But this relationship, particu- despite certain overlaps. If relationship – as is
generally accepted today – is central in dealing
with mental illness, and if relationship by its
very nature has invisible characteristics, this is
a substantial argument for a peer-to-peer scien-
tific dialogue between psychology/psychiatry,
which often places itself closer to natural sci-
ence, and the humanities, including philosophy
and theology, which concern themselves with
the invisible.

65