If Francis's Faith is based on Psychology then it's possible his Faith is based on the Drug Fantasies of Freud's "Devil" Cocaine Addiction
therapeutic assumptions and starting points have supplanted the
faith in many Francis dioceses and fueled sexual deviancy and clerical
Francis said he went to therapy with a psychoanalyst to "clarify some things."
He, also, revealed to the French sociologist author Dominique Wolton his views on objective morality:
"Morality is... a consequence of faith, for us Catholics. And for others, morality is the consequence of an encounter with an ideal, or with God, or with oneself."
-"The temptation is always the uniformity of rules."
-"Whenever I run into a rigid person, especially if young. I tell myself that he's sick.
Francis appears to be saying what therapeutic psychology say:
It's not a matter of sin and making oneself sick with guilt about hurting others and God, but the therapeutic health of feeling good even if you sin against others and God's laws.
There is no real objective intrinsic right or wrong, only opinions of the self.
There is no objective sin against God which you need to repent of to be reunited with your Father who is God.
Your only need, if you are coming from a "faith perspective," is to use God as a means to subjectively feel good and reach the fullness of oneself.
If Francis's faith is based on psychology then it's possible his faith is based on the drug fantasies of Sigmund Freud's cocaine addiction which appeared to have a "devil" connection.
Paul C. Vitz, Professor of Psychology at New York University, in his
book "Sigmund Freud’s Christian Unconscious" clearly states that Freud
was a cocaine addict. I finished E. M. Thornton's book "The
Freudian Fallacy." It shows in my opinion very effectively that Freudian
Psychology of which our secular sexual society is formed is a fraud and
Dr. Vitz says "At times, cocaine may have distorted his reactions; for example, it may have made his depressions darker and harder to fight. But cocaine did not create the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought. (The question of whether Freud’s theories are correct is also one that Thornton addresses extensively. This issue, however important in its own right, is not of concern here).
I disagree with Vitz's view that cocaine didn't effect "the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought." After finishing "The Freudian Fallacy," I thought it destroyed Freud the so-called scientist:
Cocaine and the Devil
We need now to develop a deeper understanding of Faust by showing the story’s connection to Freud’s use of cocaine. Freud’s important, rather lengthy involvement with cocaine is now being widely recognized.26 (Jones discusses cocaine briefly as an episode, but he plays down the subject to the point of distorting the record.27) Quite recently, both Swales,28 to whom this section owes much, and Thornton29 have made clear the pervasive effects of cocaine on Freud’s thoughts, moods, and fantasies.
Freud began experimenting with the drug in 1884, when he was 28, at a time when cocaine was almost unknown in scientific circles.30 During the period 1884-1887, Freud took cocaine frequently, sometimes in heavy doses.31 After taking the drug himself and getting some preliminary reports from others, Freud published glowing descriptions of cocaine. Not only did Freud think at the time that the drug had anti-morphine effects; he was enthusiastic as well about its contributions to mental well-being. It was an antidote to his frequent depressions, and also provided increased physical strength and sexual potency. Like Faust, Freud was enamored of the idea of a drug-induced rejuvenation. Freud’s initial involvement with cocaine thoroughly captured both his emotional and intellectual interests. He enthusiastically recommended it to others, including his fiancée.32 He administered the drug (very likely via hypodermic needle) to his friend and colleague Ernst Fleischl, who was suffering from a drawn-out, terminal nerve condition that required the use of morphine to ease his pain.33 Freud got Fleischl to take cocaine, which he thought would cure his friend’s morphine addiction and have no undesirable effects of its own. Instead, after a brief period of benefit from the drug, Fleischl became addicted to cocaine as well as to morphine, and suffered particularly from cocaine-induced hallucinations
(e.g., crawling “cocaine bugs”) and delirium tremens.34 Freud later bitterly acknowledged that he might have hastened his friend’s death, saying it was “the result of trying to cast out the devil with Beelzebub.”35
In the eyes of many, Freud was soon seen as a public menace: One prominent doctor wrote of Freud as having unleashed “the third great scourge of mankind,” the first two having been alcohol and opium...
... Now the Devil comes into all this through two facts, whose importance
Peter Swales has recognized and which he brought to my attention.45 The
Swalesian theory is thus the third published interpretation of a
Freudian pact with the Devil.46 Freud first took cocaine on the night of
April 30, 1884—that is, Walpurgisnacht.47 In doing this, Freud, who
took the drug in liquid form (as a “brew”), was clearly imitating Faust
in his pact with Mephistopheles.48 The whole affair could easily have
been primed by the fact that Goethe’s Faust was the talk of Vienna in
early 1884, following a series of well-publicized performances at the
The yellow smoke gets thicker when another aspect of the situation is considered: Freud obtained his cocaine, which was expensive, from the drug company of Merck in Darmstadt, Germany. He got a local chemist to contact Emanuel Merck, the head of the company. Later, Freud and Fleischl corresponded with Merck personally.50 (An example of the Merck bottle of cocaine, and of a prescription, written by Freud to Merck for cocaine, is available. This particular prescription is from a later date, June 1893; it proves Freud’s continued connection with the drug.51) What Swales has pointed out is that the Merck who founded the company was Goethe’s model for Mephistopheles when he wrote Faust. Goethe, in his well-known autobiographical work Dichtung und Wahrheit, not only referred to Merck as a “great negator” and as a man of the world “who had the greatest influence on me”52; more significantly, he compared Merck to Mephistopheles at least three times.53 Freud knew Goethe’s work well, and was presumably familiar with this text. In writing to the great-grandson of the first Merck, Merck’s “revenant,” he was, psychologically speaking, contacting the Devil.
It is remotely possible that in 1884 Freud had not yet read Goethe’s famous autobiography, in the second half of which Merck figures so prominently. Freud certainly did read Dichtung und Wahrheit at some time, though, since in 1917 he published an analysis of a childhood memory of Goethe cited in this work.54 The memory in question, which Freud interpreted as an expression of sibling rivalry, was one he said he had long known but had only written about for publication when he had come to a psychoanalytic understanding of its meaning.55
Freud also pointed out in his review of the history of cocaine, published in July 1884, that the Spaniards, who first wrote of the use of the coca plant by South American Indians, suspected that it was the work of the Devi1.56
In conclusion, it is clear that cocaine for Freud was thoroughly linked to the Devil, and, indeed, was connected from the beginning to some kind of pact. Thus, while Freud was still a young physician—years before the beginning of psychoanalysis, and some 10-12 years before the psychological “pact” that Bakan proposes—he was already very strongly involved with the Devil. The exact nature of the pact is still not clear, but it appears to have been modeled on Faust’s pact, and it was certainly precipitated by Freud’s admittedly “severe” depressions, his longing for Martha, and his “pathological ambition.” [Pages 113 to 115, http://www.paulvitz.com/FreudsXtnUncon/113.html to http://www.paulvitz.com/FreudsXtnUncon/115.html]