Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Jacob Arlow observed that all to frequently analysts overlook material of religious import presented by patients, thus indicating bias and analytic scotomata on their part. Regarding Dr. Lorand's presentation, he disagreed on two major points. First, that the phenomenon of the 'shared unconscious fantasy' of a religious group served only superego purposes and functions; rather, it is used by all parts of the personality and, in this regard, could be compared with art. Second, he felt that undue emphasis had been placed on the significance of religious ideas, feelings, and fantasies as manifestations of the preoedipal attachment to mother. At the root of ideas regarding God, one finds the Oedipal father.

Dr. Louis Linn doubted whether any particular diagnostic significance could be attached to the factor of religion. This would be especially true when based on a single case or even a group of cases. No qualitive differences in psychopathology seem to be present in such persons, only quantitative differences. Most of them have had some contact with religion and religious ideas and hence can use religious ideas for neurotic purposes. Freud made a distinction between religion and infantile religiosity, the latter being pertinent for psychopathology. What Dr. Lorand presented dealt with religion as resistance to analysis.

Dr. Rudolph Loewenstein considered religion a cultural entity and added that culture plays a minimal role in the genesis of neurosis. However, this would not preclude the influence of culture or religion on conflict. Freud said that religion could spare one from neurotic illness. Dr. Loewenstein agreed with the other discussants that religious ideas and feelings can be used to cloak the neurosis or serve as the framework for the expression of conflicts.

Dr. William Niederland inclined toward the idea that religious patients do present a qualitative difference in their psychopathology. He cited the special quality of submissive