Once the post-modern account of individual and cultural identity as creative openness to change is re-construed in terms of a constructivist rendering of the semiotic theory of culture, and once inter-denominational and inter-faith hospital chaplaincy is interpreted on a model of cross-cultural communication which agrees with this theory, chaplains can conceive of their ability to fulfill their mission in offering understanding and help to the client from other faith communities only by explicitly invoking the intervention of the Holy Spirit. The (...) commentary argues that Schneider-Harpprecht’s all too generalized account of that intervention leaves chaplains with no spiritual substance for distinguishing between truely and only apparent pastoral helpfulness. (shrink)

Hospital chaplaincy, in its exposure to clients, colleagues, and care-takers from different faith backgrounds, can be understood in either generic or catholic terms. The first understanding, often merely implicit in denominationalist approaches, assumes that some “Absolute” can be prayerfully invoked through the medium of diverse rituals, confessions, and symbols. This position combines the advantage of unprejudiced acceptance of other creeds and traditions with the disadvantage of lacking resources for discriminating among the spiritualities that may be operative within those other creeds (...) and traditions. Catholicism, in linking true spirituality with the one true church as the mystical body of the Tri-une God, secures such a criterion but fails to satisfy the tolerance-of-acknowledgement in the secular sense, which is canonical in contemporary ecumenism. The Orthodox understanding of Catholicism is portrayed as imposing a non-judgemental humility and repentance which provides a solution to that spiritual-human dilemma of inter-faith cooperation in the hospital. (shrink)

In order to properly distinguish between pastoral and psychotherapeutic counseling, one must clarify both the interpretive presuppositions underlying each of these professional practices and their respective societal contexts. As a common ground for both kinds of practice, at least insofar as they maintain a distance from the usual medical-scientific model of therapeutic intervention, an ontology of playing is recommended. More precisely, in order for counseling to truly come “into play,” any latent neo-pastoral power discourses must be critically exposed. Psychoanalytic counseling (...) is characterized by rules of abstinence and neutrality as well as by attention to unconscious dynamics, especially those of transference and countertransference. Pastoral counseling, even when it takes place outside of the Ignatian exercises, can still orient itself toward the Ignatian model of spiritual accompaniment, thus requiring a discernment of spirits and a reference to transcendence. Both pastoral and psychotherapeutic counseling can profit from each other. Both must be evaluated in terms of whether, in the course of an authentic communication, they succeed in proposing what truly profits the person seeking advice. All of this applies with special urgency to bioethical decision making and conflict resolution: Persons seeking pastoral advice desire an authentic exposition of the values of the Gospel and their church community in order to reach a well-founded conclusion in conscience. Other persons (or even the same ones) seeking psychotherapeutic help in a bioethical conflict situation desire an empathetic mirroring back of the biographic background framing their decision and of possible psychic consequences that may ensue from their acting accordingly. (shrink)