home Biology Natalya Skuratovskaya: What we consider to be a sin sometimes has a medical reason. Psychological manipulations in the Church - how to recognize and what to do Psychologist natalia skuratovskaya

Natalya Skuratovskaya: What we consider to be a sin sometimes has a medical reason. Psychological manipulations in the Church - how to recognize and what to do Psychologist natalia skuratovskaya

Natalya Skuratovskaya does an unusual thing: conducts psychological counseling Orthodox people, including priests. In addition, she is the author of unique psychological trainings for future shepherds. Now these trainings are successfully held in the Khabarovsk Seminary. She recently delivered a public lecture, "Psychological Manipulation in the Church", which caused a great resonance in the Orthodox community. We talked with Natalia about the psychological problems that arise in the parish between priests and parishioners. Who is a “metaphysical father”, what does it mean to “laminate sins” and how can a priest protect himself from burnout and prohibition at the same time - read in the interview.

Where do neuroses hide?

- The topic “Psychological manipulations in the Church” arose for you when people began to contact you when they encountered similar things within the walls of the temple. Have you ever experienced manipulative practices?

- I had such an experience, but I was initially an unsuitable object for manipulation. This is how my childhood turned out: my parents were not authoritarian, and from the age of two or three they were ready not to demand, but to substantiate their demand, so we immediately developed a fairly mature relationship. This attitude was then preserved in communication with any authoritative people. It’s easy for me to disagree, to ask a clarifying question, I’m not afraid to be a black sheep, a “marginal”, I don’t worry that they will perceive me differently. I got a feeling of self-acceptance from my childhood, so my self-esteem does not decrease when they tell me that I am “wrong, not Orthodox enough”. I try to separate constructive criticism, which helps to work on myself, from manipulative techniques or depreciation.

I have been in the Church since the age of 18, Orthodox in the first generation, it was my own impulse. In the neophyte period, I faced different things. The end of the 1980s, church life was just being revived, there were many uncertainties and distortions. Even then I reacted to manipulations: either I retreated, or, according to youthful maximalism, I resisted. I constantly stood up for my friends, who turned out to be victims of manipulation, and, as it seemed to me, could not stand up for themselves.

Now I already understand that I did not always tactfully intervene, for example, in their relationship with the rector. The rector does not pay extra to the choir, says that you came to serve for the glory of God, how are you not ashamed to be so mercantile, they say, do not serve God, but mammon, and people, in fact, live on it. And I rushed to shame the abbot and extort money from him for this kliros — real case. Then I understood how to resolve such situations more gently, more tactfully and without conflicts. And in my youth, it turned out that the people I tried to protect fell into the category of uncomfortable along with me. This taught me a lot too.

How are priests perceived? modern people, parishioners? Whom, first of all, do they see - a demand executor, a psychotherapist, a celestial?

All of the above options are present in real life but, fortunately, priests, in addition to all of the above, are also pastors, counselors.

Indeed, someone sees in the priest a priest-executor. These are people who seek in religion a means to achieve their own pragmatic goals. I will light a candle in order to recover, so that my son will go to college. That is, I will give something to God so that God, in turn, will take care of my urgent needs and worldly affairs.

“But even here the attitude can be different. As a specialist in the service sector - if a priest refuses to bless something or baptize on demand, a stream of negativity immediately falls upon him. Or there is an attitude from the bottom up, as to some higher being. Recently I came across the wording “strong priest” somewhere on Facebook.

- Yes, when a priest is perceived as a bearer of some superpowers — this is a different distortion, and it is not useful either to the priests themselves or to those who treat them in this way. It is not useful, first of all, by the fact that a system of inflated expectations is being formed associated with the presence of holy orders. As if a priest should know the answers to all questions, should be almost a miracle worker, selflessly serve 24 hours a day, at any moment you can turn to him and demand attention. He is a holy man, he must always respond.

This is a temptation that is very difficult for pastors, especially young ones, to overcome. I want to match. As a result, we have either charm and youthfulness, or a breakdown, emotional and spiritual emptiness. — precisely because of the feeling of the futility of trying to justify these high expectations, because of the feeling of one's own duality, the discrepancy between the external image and the inner self-perception.

For parishioners who are looking for a celestial being in a priest, someone who will decide everything for them, this is also very unhelpful. They have a fixed state of spiritual infantilism and irresponsibility - a priest is seen as a metaphysical father, on whom you can blame all your problems and remain a baby spiritually until the end of your days.

It often happens that such a destructive relationship develops, but both parties are happy with it. Infantile parishioners find a priest whose pride is flattered by such an attitude, and he begins to believe that he is “not like other people”, special, that any thought that came to his mind was put in by the Lord.

If such a priest is asked about things about which he has no idea, he says any gag, but believes that it is the will of God through him that is manifested.

By and large, this is a charm. In such a relationship, both parties receive their own, including psychological, benefits. But it has rather a negative relation to the spiritual life. Such parishioners are in the illusion of the salvation of the chosen path, sometimes neuroses are hiding in these relationships, the fear of the unpredictability of life. Often it is precisely such parishes that surround themselves with a wall of hostility to everything external, worldly, a search for signs of the end of the world, an eschatological neurosis. — everything is bad, only we have salvation, enemies are all around, only with our priest or in our monastery is salvation.

How can Christians be the “salt of the world”, with such an attitude towards this very world, is completely incomprehensible.

"We can't do otherwise"

- According to my feelings, many Orthodox people like just manipulative priests. Why do people want to be manipulated?

– Here it is worth starting with what many people come to the Church for in general and what they are looking for in it. When they are looking for protection from their fears, confirmation that there is some one and only correct path, then with the priests of a certain warehouse they find it. Often people bring to the Church their own experience of co-dependent relationships, in which they are the weak side, and there is someone strong, authoritarian, psychologically aggressive, who forces them ...

“…parents, husband, or boss?”

Yes, this all happens because people who are used to such relationships easily fit into the same relationships, in a certain sense they are comfortable in them, because there is no need to change anything in themselves.

- Such people usually really do not like it when the priest says: "Think for yourself."

- Yes, for them this is evidence that this is some kind of wrong, "weak" priest, he does not want to "adopt" everyone - in the sense of recognizing them as eternal babies who need to be manipulated, who do not understand differently.

The second point: people with a penchant for co-dependent relationships habitually justify these relationships - "It is impossible with us otherwise." They already have a distorted image of themselves. In such priests, who look down on them, they see a reinforcement of this distorted image, their picture of the world is confirmed, and this is reassuring: “I knew that I was no good for anything and would not live with my mind, well, the priest tells me this and we must obey him in everything.

This is a mentality that is a consequence of historical causes. Mother Maria Skobtsova wrote about this back in the 1930s: that when the Church in Russia ceases to be persecuted and the authorities support it, the same people will come to the surface who will recognize the party line from the Pravda newspaper - whom they should hate, whom to condemn and who to approve. That is, people with non-reflexive, non-critical thinking, who believe that there is only one answer to every question, and are not able to look at the problem in all its diversity.

People with such uncritical thinking, having come to the Church, will first study - look for a mentor who will give them this “only correct answer” in the same categories, and then, when they realize that they have already mastered the basic concept, in the same spirit of “infallibility "will teach in the name of the Church, anathematizing all who disagree with them. That it will become the dominant type of ecclesiastical — it was quite logically predicted, based on the socio-psychological facts of the early twentieth century.

- Believers really identify the opinion of any priest with the opinion of the Church ...

- Here the main substitution is that the authority of the Church in the high sense of the word extends to its individual representatives, and disagreement with individual representatives of the Church is presented as a rejection of the Church as such. At the same time, we forget that in the history of Orthodoxy there were different positions and disputes within the Church. Recall at least the Ecumenical Councils — in what discussions truths were born, and the fact that in the Orthodox Church there is no dogma about anyone's infallibility. We condemn Catholics for the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, while in our country many priests (not to mention bishops) claim the same infallibility of their judgments, becoming "mini-popes" in the parishes, deaneries or dioceses entrusted to them, and any disagreement with their private opinion is perceived as an attack on the Church.

Loudest of all intolerant minority

- On the other hand, a priest who says something different from the opinion of the majority is perceived as "wrong."

“They see infallibility not in anyone, but only in those who confirm their own picture of the world and the Church.

As for the majority - here, too, everything is ambiguous. Especially in recent years, when various trends have clearly emerged within the ROC. Once, in the company of priests, teachers of theology, we counted 8 different “religions” inside the ROC, almost not intersecting with each other — from extreme fundamentalists to supporters of the Parisian school of theology. From within each faction, it is seen that “our Orthodoxy is the most correct, and those who disagree with us are not completely Orthodox.”

One's own opinion seems to be the opinion of the majority. Although we usually do not know the opinion of the majority — the voice of the intolerant minority is loudest. The same extreme fundamentalists — they are not the majority, but they are loudly declaring their position. And the hierarchy does not dispute them for various reasons, so someone begins to perceive this as the position of the entire Church. For example, some of the fundamentalists oppose certain cultural phenomena, while outsiders begin to think that the Church is interfering everywhere: theaters, schools, and so on. with their own opinions and restrictions.

“But non-church people usually see this opinion in the church press: such priests are printed, called on TV channels, and therefore they are perceived as the mouthpiece of the church. And the parishioners, as people who join the opinion of the majority, begin to believe that if you criticize all this, then you are some kind of non-church ... How unhealthy is this situation, or maybe it is natural? And what can this lead to?

- The situation is understandable, although, of course, abnormal. We observed this in Soviet times in relation to various phenomena: everything leads to the emasculation of meanings.

People in the Church do not gather to sort things out on social issues, but it is precisely through these discussions that the very concept of Christian, church life is substituted. The focus of attention shifts from salvation, deification to attempts to impose some external moral norms on the world around. Although if we return to the Gospel, the Holy Tradition, this has never been the task of the Church.

- Current seminarians, future pastors - what images are they now guided by? Do they understand what the parishioners want from them, what do they want?

- According to my observations, they understand, but not always. They come guided by a variety of considerations: from the desire to serve God and people to the perception of the seminary as a social elevator: I live in the countryside, I have no money, no prospects, and here for five years everything is free, and in general the main thing in the Church — settle down, and then somehow, you can live and earn ...

The seminary largely sets the atmosphere in which future pastors are formed. Seminaries are very different: both in terms of attitudes and methods of education. There are, in my opinion, quite destructive spiritual schools in which relationships of rigid co-dependence are brought up, where the main goal is — integration into the system of hierarchical relations.

Priests do not understand the basics of crisis psychology

- I communicate with large quantity priests, and it is easy to determine by communication: whether a person studied in a seminary or first graduated from a secular educational institution, and the seminary, perhaps in absentia. The style of public speech of young priests who have just graduated from the seminary is full of Church Slavonicisms, clichéd phrases, they absolutely do not know how to “switch registers” and speak like real people. And a person after a secular university easily switches these registers.

- Learned a certain manner of speech and behavior — this manifests one of the problems of modern spiritual education, and in general, intra-church communication. Most priests do not master the art of dialogue at all, they are monologues: he broadcasts - he is listened to. Any question (not to mention disagreement) causes an almost panicky reaction, which is often expressed in attempts to “shut up” the mouth of those who disagree.

“This is often seen in seminary teachers…

- Yes, this is where the inability to conduct a dialogue, manipulative techniques begin — using formal status as an opportunity to silence your opponent. This is then transferred to the priestly service.

When I worked with the guys at the Khabarovsk Seminary, we were developing communication skills, the ability to organize discussions, listen to the interlocutor, and speak the language of our audience. And then a project was carried out in the seminary (which, I hope, will continue further) “Pastoral Practice”: seminarians performed real church tasks, interacting not only with parishioners, but also with various non-church audiences: schoolchildren, students, boarding schools for sick children, soldiers emergency service. They organized a “landing force” from senior seminarians to rural parishes to help the local abbots: catechesis, conversations with parishioners, organization of events for schoolchildren in the village. The seminarians and I practiced communication skills in the language of the audience in order to understand the motives, interests of people, and adequately respond to objections.

We had such classes: I divided the group into "priests" and "anticlericals." The latter compiled lists of all typical claims against the Church, starting from the notorious "priests in Mercedes", and those who were in the role of "priests" had to reasonably answer these claims. — not with formal excuses, but in such a way that it corresponds to their convictions, without guile. Then the groups changed so that everyone had the opportunity to learn how to adequately respond to “controversial issues”. Fortunately, in the training format they had the opportunity to work with their own beliefs too. When an answer is given that is formally approved, but the priest himself does not believe in it, this answer does not convince anyone, it is perceived as hypocrisy. And when you manage to pull out, voice, comprehend your own doubts, the answers are already given at a different level, and there is no fear of facing questions.

Making claims against the Church is an easy task. A more difficult level of work with senior students is claims to God: why does He allow the suffering of the innocent, what to say to parents of disabled children or parents who have lost children.

In the life of a particular priest, this pops up constantly: it is grief that brings many to the Church. At the same time, the priests do not understand the basics of crisis psychology: what is grief, how it is experienced, what are the stages, how to work with it in terms of counseling - that a person can be told what is impossible in any case, which will destroy him.

(AT this moment I’m just writing an article on this topic: “The Priest and Grief.”) I think that every priest should know this, but so far practically no seminary teaches this.

Unfortunately, we have deep-rooted opinions in the Church about “what kind of sins God punishes,” although I categorically disagree with this, and the holy fathers warn against this. People replace the judgment of God with their own judgment.

“Thus, injuring people who are already injured without it ...

—Yes, and sometimes leading to such despair that it pushes away from God forever. I came across such cases as a psychologist. People tried to get comfort in the Church after the death of their children or during a difficult pregnancy, the threat of a miscarriage. Or an Orthodox woman, but not very churchly, comes to confession, and they say to her: “Ah, your marriage is not married — your baby will die or the patient will be born! Cursed be your child from God for your sins, for your life!” And such a position, which was dominant in the 90s, still exists.

How spiritual are puffed cheeks?

— What is a “good” priest for parishioners? How important is his appearance, demeanor? How does this affect your attitude towards him? According to my feelings, the simpler the priest behaves, the less reverence for him, the weaker the perception of him as a priest. And the puffier the cheeks, the longer the beard, the more shocking, manipulative behavior, the more respect for him, the more spiritual he is seen by people.

And the idea of what spirituality is different people different. Usually spirituality — it is a confirmation of their own ideas about what is good and what is bad. That is, the more the priest confirms this, the more spiritual he is. At the same time, representations can be aggressive, far from being Christian.

As for pouting cheeks, demeanor, emphasizing one's status — yes, there is a significant category of parishioners for whom this is evidence that the priest — a special person with special gifts. And if he behaves simply, it seems to them that he drops the dignity of the holy dignity, does not know how to earn authority.

At the same time, for people who think (not those who are looking for ready-made answers to all questions), the opposite is true: they will not communicate with “pompous and important”, but will look for someone who can speak normal human language. This is how the stratification of "church subcultures" occurs.

People go to different parishes, and if there are different priests in one parish, there may be internal conflict, including between priests: there is some kind of competition. It is no secret that sometimes the priests are jealous of whom, how many parishioners cost for confession, how many spiritual children someone has. This can serve as a pretext for hidden wars, often manipulative, and sometimes, unfortunately, for intrigue.

But in the long run, relying on a good-looking appearance, on “puffed out cheeks” does not justify itself. In addition to the external, there is also the internal, and if the priest leads the flock to internal desolation or embitterment, he can bring nothing but harm with his ministry.

Few people seriously dealt with this issue from the standpoint of patristic asceticism. But there is, for example, Father Gabriel (Bunge), well-known to many, who was engaged in patristics while still a Catholic monk, and then converted to Orthodoxy and joined the Russian Orthodox Church. At one time, while exploring the issue of the spiritual devastation of clergy (I was interested in this in connection with the pastoral burnout syndrome), he wrote that an attempt to compensate for internal emptiness with external activity is completely destructive for both the pastor and the flock. As a result, the priest closes himself from his spiritual problems, and also leads his parishioners from the spiritual to the external.

External activity can be expressed in very good forms - social service, for example, but it can also be the notorious "Orthodox activism" with the pogrom of impious exhibitions, etc. Anything is fine to distract oneself from the spiritual life. And at the same time feel like people engaged in church work. But behind all this lies a devastating self-justification.

Laminate your sins

— The main meeting place for a priest and a parishioner is confession. Are there discrepancies in the understanding of the sacrament of confession by priests, on the one hand, and parishioners, on the other? Could there be manipulation?

- Of course. And there are problems, and manipulations can be. Moreover, the problems are partly systemic. The very concept of repentance in the mass church perception is sometimes replaced by books like "A Thousand and One Sins." And the preparation for confession is often formal, and sometimes even manipulative, with the requirement to recognize as a sin what you do not internally consider to be a sin. The concept of repentance is replaced by some formal ritual act, which does not induce a person to internal changes.

Second substitution: confession for some parishioners — it is a substitute for psychotherapy. Under the guise of confession, they try to tell the priest about the hardships of their lives, instead of confession, they get self-justification: how bad everyone is, how I suffer from them. “Sinful with anger, but they will bring anyone!” Or they ask for advice on what to do about it, but the priest does not have the courage to say that he does not know, and he gives a standard-pious answer, which has nothing to do with the internal state of the questioner.

In my mind, a good, "strong" priest is one who is not afraid to admit that he does not know everything. Who can say to his flock: I don’t know what to answer you - let’s pray together. Who does not try to replace God for his flock.

"Father, what should I do?" is, on the one hand, manipulation of the priest, shifting responsibility to him. And most priests do not have that level of holiness and insight to reliably say whether or not to marry this person, to look for or not to look for another job (unless we are talking about something obviously criminal). But if such a question is asked, the priest often considers himself obliged to answer it. And these answers destroy fate. It turns out, on the one hand, the priest manipulated trust, his hidden fear of losing authority, as well as pride that I am so special, God gave me the right to judge everything.

Confession is not to list sins, but to change, to leave your passions. This is the recognition of their mistakes and the willingness not to return to them. But in real life, it happens that people come year after year with the same list, confession becomes a formal admission to Communion, and Communion becomes a formal procedure confirming your belonging to the Church. How one familiar priest joked bitterly: why do they come with the same list - let them laminate it, and if they get rid of something, I myself will give them a marker to cross out ...

This is one of those things that has not been fully revived in our church revival.

- And where did it have to be reborn, from what times?

– This is also a difficult question: many aspects of church life have actually been revived following the patterns of the end of the Synodal period — not the best, let's face it, the time of the existence of our Church. I think, first of all, it is necessary to revive the meanings, and look for forms in an honest open dialogue.

How is repentance different from guilt? It seems to me that people often confuse these two feelings: if a person does not feel the notorious “I am the worst of all, I am the worst of all”, it seems to him that he does not have any repentance.

- You can distinguish by the vector of application of efforts: a normal repentant feeling should encourage a person to change - not to self-destruction, not to self-flagellation, but to get rid of passions in oneself, to correct the mistakes made. It cannot be said that our feeling of guilt is always harmful, always unfounded, but one should not confuse the imposed feeling of guilt with the voice of conscience. We made a mistake, but can we fix it or not? We harmed a person: can we fix it or not?

What if we can't fix it?

- This happens if we killed a person or he himself died. But usually we think that everything, the relationship is broken and nothing can be changed, but in fact we can ask for forgiveness and fix something, do something for the person we offended. Our own fears, self-esteem interfere with this correction.

There are objective situations that we cannot correct. This begs the next question: How can we redeem this? — before God and people? Let us remember that in Orthodoxy there is no legal concept of salvation; we are saved by the grace of God. Man has done irreparable evil, but he can try to do some good. For example: a woman had an abortion, then became churched, repented, but nothing can be corrected, death is death. But everything can be redeemed with love: for your children, for strangers, for helping other women in such a difficult situation. — both psychological and material. If conscience tells you what needs to be redeemed, then you can always find opportunities.

- Penitent prayers that are served for women who have had an abortion - this is not a dead end? It is believed that this should give them some kind of support ...

— By themselves, these prayers can increase the destructive feeling of guilt, if everything is limited only to prayers, without good deeds. This leads to the realization of the incorrigibility of the deed at the same time as the realization (illusory) that God will not forgive. And it is impossible to hope for redemption through prayers: God forgives not because a person has performed certain actions a certain number of times, but because a person has changed.

Spiritual life — this is an internal rebirth, and if a woman who has had an abortion continues to live with a sense of unforgiveness, the irreparability of her deed, she will continue to bring evil into the world, she will not be able to give love to her children or her husband, she will not be able to help other people, and all her strength will be directed to self-destruction. Kill yourself even psychologically — it won't fix the evil. Our Church does not approve of suicide in any form.

The difference between repentance and guilt lies in the constructiveness or destructiveness of this feeling.

Pastoral split personality

- Friendship of a priest with parishioners: how common is the type of relationship, are there any pitfalls?

- According to my observations, this is not the most common type of relationship, precisely because it is often believed that the priest must be "special", too human relations may undermine his authority. Sometimes the priest himself considers it necessary to play a certain role in front of the parishioners, which he learned either from the models of the theological school, or from those priests who contributed to its formation. Therefore, sometimes he considers friendships not very acceptable for himself.

There are real dangers here too: the excessive familiarity of a priest with parishioners can make him an object of manipulation on their part. Is it useful or not useful — depends on the maturity of the priest. If this is an adult relationship, it is rather useful. If this friendship is to drink beer together, and sometimes to slander, then this can then complicate pastoral relations.

- Professional split personality - how often does this happen to priests? How to avoid the fact that a person in the temple is alone, but with friends, family - another?

— It happens often, because the very system of church relations dictates a certain role. The priest does not find the strength to get away from the demands of the external environment. The danger is clear — it is an internal conflict. The question arises: where is he really? If he is not real in the temple, this ultimately undermines his faith, leads to crises not only psychological, but also spiritual: to “de-Churching”, leaving the priesthood.

A person understands the objective problems of church life, and an attempt to convince himself that these problems do not exist often leads to such a bifurcation - as a clergyman, he is also related to these problems, but cannot change anything, so it is easier to ignore or justify them. There is a "Stockholm syndrome" - the emotional justification of "their" aggressors. Such a split is fraught with deep neurosis.

How to avoid it? It is necessary that there be less fear and more sincerity in the inner world. And here are the methods to achieve this — there is no universal recipe, it depends on what a particular person has now.

— What ways do priests find out of this situation, besides defrocking?

— There are several ways out, and not all of them are constructive. One of the most common — church, professional cynicism. Yes, I have such a job, a censer-aspergator, a priest-executor, I will be like that, since the parishioners and the hierarchies want it that way. On the one hand, this is a devaluation of one's ministry, one's mission, on the other — protection from absolutely destructive acts: not to sleep, for example.

As I said, another "way out" is codependency, identification with the aggressor. Or leaving in denial, in a defensive position: they say, the Church is holy, and everything in it is holy, I am wrong in everything, and the Church is right in everything. This is a neurotic position, not useful either for the priest or for the flock, but quite common.

The third position: outgrow all this, “separate the wheat from the chaff” in yourself, get out of myths, partly invented by yourself, partly imposed by the church environment, to a more objective understanding of church reality. Realize: what can I do specifically that corresponds to my beliefs, my faith. And through this to overcome duality.

Although in real life it happens that when a priest tries to follow this path - to be non-hypocritical with people and God, to be sincere - he encounters problems within the church. The system begins to squeeze him out: the authorities, the people who serve with him — and it's very hard to resist.

Mentally active burn out

- The notorious burnout: some argue that this is not a problem, not a reason for sympathy. It is a sin. Like, it happens to everyone, and whoever can’t cope is to blame, a loser, a traitor in a cassock, etc. And there is nothing to raise this topic at all.

- Usually the same people who believe that the priest — this is a superman, a fireproof terminator who, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, must be a holy miracle worker, an ascetic, giving everything to everyone that they ask. This is a manipulation with the aim of denying the priest the right to human feelings, the right to make a mistake, to be weak. Obviously, this is fundamentally wrong: the priest remains a person who finds it hard, who gets tired, he has doubts.

Emotional burnout — this is an occupational risk associated with constant communication with a large number of people. He is especially strong in "helping" professions, which include priests, doctors, psychologists. — all those to whom they go with problems, from whom they expect emotional support. Naturally, a person who conscientiously treats his ministry begins to invest in it emotionally. It's bad if there is no way to recover — both objectively and due to a lack of understanding of what an emotional resource is and how it should be restored. There is a request: must serve, come on, you have grace. And if you feel tired, empty, then you pray badly, you are a bad priest.

This is manipulation, on the one hand, love, on the other — pride, with a third — fear of depreciation. This is a very difficult situation for a priest. Many people themselves believe in this, and while they still have the strength to pull themselves out, serve, communicate with people, instead of taking a break in time, recovering and returning with renewed vigor to their service, they torture this service out of themselves and reach an extreme degree. devastation.

In the last stage of burnout, there is a physiological need for alienation from all people. So the priest feels that he has almost been “devoured”, and he goes into an extreme defensive position in order to leave at least something of his personality. Strength is running out, it is difficult to get up in the morning, not to mention more.

It's not a sin, it's an occupational hazard. Therefore, you need, firstly, to know that there is such a problem, and secondly, to stop and recover in time. But it is necessary that this be understood not only by the priests themselves, but also by the hierarchy. And the parishioners must understand that the priest is given a special power to perform the sacraments, and not superhuman abilities. Parishioners should not use the priest as a permanent "donor".

In trainings for priests, we dealt with this problem, because this is a frequent request: where to get the strength for everything? People often seek advice from the position “I can’t do it anymore”: “I’m overloaded, I can’t do anything, I don’t want to, my personal life has collapsed, I don’t see children, my mother is depressed, everything is bad.” And everything is bad because the balance between service and personal life, between bestowal and restoration is disturbed. There are high expectations that a person tries to justify. And then we need to stop and start to restore this balance.

In the Orthodox Church, this problem has been voiced literally in recent years. At the beginning of 2011, I spoke at the Christmas Readings with a report on pastoral psychology, on the results of the first school of pastors (then we held it in Kamchatka), on psychological inquiries. She touched on the topic of burnout and was literally anathematized by the indignant Orthodox community. Active women from the audience shouted to me: “How dare you! Blasphemy! You slander, the grace of the priesthood guarantees against burnout! It can not be!" At the same time, the priests who were sitting in the hall nodded, approached me, thanked that “at least someone saw people in us”, took the coordinates, saying that now, I have problems that I have no one to discuss with: “It seems that you will understand — can I come with you?"

So I began psychological counseling of priests. After that, literally a year has not passed since our Patriarch spoke about pastoral burnout and the topic ceased to be a taboo. But still, many still believe that pastoral burnout — it's about lazy priests. Although I would say that this is not about those who are spiritually lazy, but about those who are mentally active. Who strongly counted on the strength of the soul, and serving people was too long, with his head.

And the Catholic Church and Protestants have been working with this problem for more than a decade. For example, there is such a practice as “houses of gaining new strength” - in Germany there is exactly this, in my opinion, in Italy. It started with the Catholics, then united with the Protestants. This is a kind of sanatorium for clergy who have undergone pastoral burnout, a three-month course of therapy. This therapy includes time for individual prayer, and (when they have more or less recovered) participation in worship services. — the priest must liturgiss, the Eucharist is healing.

There is such a practice, but when I told our Orthodox priests about it, the reaction was bitter laughter: “I can see how my bishop will let me go to be treated for pastoral burnout, treat me with care, unload me from diocesan obediences…”

Our problem is complex. A priest can protect himself to some extent, and we figured it out at the trainings: how to organize your life so that the causes of burnout are minimized as much as possible. Find opportunities to recover both during the week and throughout the year — to include the same cyclic restoration in the cycle of liturgical life.

And one aspect — how to build a relationship with the bishop, how to defend yourself in case of refusal of some diocesan obediences, so as not to fall under the ban. It was on a self-help level. As you understand, bishops very rarely seek psychological advice.

What pushes away from the Church

- I think it's neither. The fact that the presence of priests in social networks is monitored, “every word of yours can be used against you” is very relevant in the church environment. For many, this is the only way to openly discuss some of their opinions and doubts. It happens that this is spontaneous psychotherapy — mental stress is so great that you can throw it out either in something destructive, or under a pseudonym to speak out about sore.

Unfortunately, many priests do not even allow themselves to think about psychotherapy, it seems to them that if they turn to a psychotherapist, they will drop their authority as a priest. But it's a trap — to maintain his authority at the cost of his own health and life.

But when a circle of the same people gathers with the same problems, disappointments (and since we have one system, the disappointments are similar), often, instead of awareness and understanding, this leads to mutual induction of cynicism and depreciation. From a psychological point of view, it helps, but from a spiritual point of view - if this is not a transitional stage, but the final one - it can be harmful.

— I heard that Catholics in Poland have rehabilitation centers for alcoholic priests. And how do we treat a priest, for example, with alcohol addiction?

- The attitude is different. In our trainings for priests there is such an exercise: we find out what brings people to the Church and what repels them. In most of the groups I've worked with, the number one reason most often cited is — these are the sins of the shepherd. Priests themselves are aware of how their sins and addictions can have a devastating effect on parishioners. But what they realize among themselves, in a narrow circle, does not mean that in the presence of parishioners they do not deny these sins (a common position — this is a denial of the problem). In people with addictions, in principle, denial — a very common position, and all those who try to point out the problem fall into the category of enemies, spiteful critics, and are excluded from the social circle.

The attitude of parishioners is most often judgmental. There is a category for which this is an excuse for their own sins: here, our father is not a saint, but I — so God himself commanded. But the attitude that would help the priest cope with addiction is almost never found. Understanding is needed: not to be an aggressor for him, but also not to become a “rescuer”, which helps to remain in this position.

- In my opinion, the only way we have to "help" the priest is to send him to a ban for some time ...

“I've run into exceptions a few times. The real situation: the priest serves alone in a rural parish, a difficult family situation, he began to drink out of grief and anguish. At some point, he slips into alcoholism to such an extent that the parishioners begin to complain to the bishop. The bishop does not send him into a ban, but transfers him to the city church under the guidance of the rector, who has the skills of rehabilitation.

In one diocese, there was even a joke that this is our “rehabilitation church”. The rector there was spiritually respected, and helped to cope not only with addictions, but also pulled out of despair — such a psychologist from God. And the bishop adequately assessed that there is such a treasure in the diocese, and this can be used to help priests in difficult situations. And for a year or two, such a priest was appointed to this church, and when the rector said that such and such a father was in order, he could be released, the priest received a new appointment.

But, firstly, such people are needed in the diocese, and secondly, this is possible in small dioceses, where there is at least some personal relationship between the bishop and the priests.

- How would the parishioners answer this question: what repels them from the Church? In my opinion, not the sins of the priest, but rather, hypocrisy.

— I would name two reasons for parishioners: the first — hypocrisy, and the second - "went for love, but received violence." Followed the Gospel, followed the outward promises that "God is love", Christianity — it is the way of salvation, the way of drawing near to God. But when they came to the Church, people did not see this love. On the contrary, they were quickly explained that they themselves are so bad that they do not see it, they need to work on themselves, come to terms, correct themselves. And when people realized that they had become even more unhappy than they were, that now there is even less love than it was before coming to the Church, this became one of the reasons for leaving, up to the falling away from Christianity, from faith in God.

— And people see the personal sins of the priest, while listening to his flowery sermons, in which the priest exposes these same sins in others...

- Yes, this is the same hypocrisy with which mentally normal person cannot reconcile, he has a cognitive dissonance. If the priest shows sins, but he fights with them, repents (spiritual warfare is not only among the parishioners, but also among the priest) ... Here we can recall the story told by Metropolitan Anthony of Surozh, how he had to confess to a drunkard priest in his youth, and This confession changed his life. The priest so sincerely cried with him, so empathized, realizing his unworthiness ...

Despondency or depression, father or psychotherapist?

How can a person (whether a priest or a parishioner) understand that he has a spiritual life? A person can sometimes confuse spiritual life with some kind of self-psychotherapy, which helps to cope with neuroses and depression. For example, you didn’t receive communion for a long time, a certain internal discomfort appears - you go, take communion, and the balance is restored, you live on. And then again. And a person may think: maybe this has nothing to do with spiritual life at all, only a sequence of rituals that helps a neurotic person keep himself in relative harmony.

— I believe that you can understand by the fruits. As the apostle Paul wrote, the fruits of the spirit — it is peace, joy, long-suffering, mercy, meekness, abstinence... And if a person goes to church for many years, and the fruits of the spirit do not increase, but, on the contrary, decrease, then this is a reason to think that instead of spiritual life there is some kind of illusion.

If a person in the Church learns condemnation instead of love, if instead of joy he feels depression, instead of peace — anger, then what is the quality of his spiritual life?

What is the difference between the psychological approach and the spiritual approach? How to understand in which cases you need to fast, pray and humble yourself more, and in which cases you should go to a psychotherapist?

- It is necessary to notice this not only in yourself. A wise and tactful priest should notice this in the parishioners and advise them to turn to a specialist.

One of the signs: walking in circles — the same sins, passions, situations. And it seems that a person fights with them, fasts, prays, takes on feats, they impose penances on him, but nothing helps. This may be an indication that the problem lies not only in the spiritual plane, but rather in the psychological one, and without overcoming this problem it is impossible even to begin spiritual life.

Second sign — constant self-justification. Everyone is to blame, it's not my fault. A person's inability to take responsibility for their actions — this is one of the signs of neurosis.

The same sign can be anger, aggression, the feeling that there are enemies around, fear. The whole range of negative emotions that often accompanies psychological trauma and neurotic perception of reality.

The Church often offers a different answer: these are your sins, you must fight them. But if it is a neurosis, then it is better to deal with the neurosis, and then with those consequences of deep-seated passions that darken the spiritual life as well.

And finally, it is worth paying attention to the symptoms of psychopathology and mental illness. The same endogenous depressions, which should not be confused with despondency, — it is, in a sense, the same metabolic disorder as diabetes. Only the balance is disturbed not of those hormones that affect the body, but of neurotransmitters that affect consciousness, on nervous system. And if the level of serotonin and dopamine in a person has dropped, then, of course, the Lord can heal by a miracle, but the position of the Church, nevertheless, — Do not tempt the Lord and do not refuse medical assistance.

If a depression does not go away, worsens, if attempts to fight despondency become more and more despondent, if you absolutely want to limit your social circle, do nothing to the maximum, if you don’t have the strength to get up in the morning, comb your hair, brush your teeth, you should consult a doctor to pick up the appropriate drugs . Or, if it is not depression, but there is another physiological disorder behind it, determine the cause of these problems. Such a condition, for example, may be in some diseases of the thyroid gland.

Our mental and physical states are connected, and what we perceive as sin, passion, sometimes has a medical reason.

Interviewed by Ksenia Smirnova

Reviews

Your feedback
Fields marked with an asterisk must be filled in.

Natalia Skuratovskaya- psychologist, psychotherapist, teacher of the course of practical pastoral psychology, leader of trainings for clergy and church workers, director of the consulting company "Viv Aktiv".

Good afternoon! Although there are a lot of people, we will be able not only to communicate in a lecture format, but also try to do something to resist manipulation in real life. I practical psychologist, not an academic specialist, but a practitioner, and I have been working with church topics for six years now. I work mainly in the context of pastoral psychology - counseling priests, parishioners, including victims of psychological abuse.

Is the person manipulating you? Have pity on him

This topic did not arise by chance, it arose based on many personal stories of different people, many disappointments. Of course, freedom is very important, but no less important is the love that each person expects to meet in the Church. Having read the Gospel, having learned that God is love, a person rushes with an open heart towards this love, this freedom in Christ. But very often this is not what he encounters. Not because the Church itself is bad, but because the people who are saved in this Church remain people with all their inherent weaknesses, which are not always eradicated over the years, and some even get worse.

Manipulation is a common background of human communication. Somewhere we are ready to put up with them. Suppose, when trading on the market, we expect them. Or in a business process, in negotiations. The laws of the genre assume that each of the parties is trying to shortchange the other and achieve the maximum benefit for themselves. But there are situations where, according to an inner feeling, manipulation is unacceptable for us - this is the family, and this is the Church. Because there must be places in our lives where we can be ourselves, where we can be open.

Manipulation, of course, often hurts a lot, but at the same time, we all manipulate others in one way or another.

Manipulation is any influence on another person in order to impose his will on him, to make him do what we want from him, without taking into account what he wants. I emphasize that the impact is hidden. Because if there is power to order, a person can be forced. He will be unhappy, but he will do it. If we take into account his interests, we will agree with him - perhaps he will voluntarily do what we want from him.

Manipulation is not an order, and it is not a fair deal. This is an appeal to the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that each of us has in order to gain some kind of power over a person. Manipulation can be directed to different things. You can control your actions, you can control your feelings. All of you have experienced in your life how easy it is to manipulate feelings. In fact, it is precisely because we have feelings that we become easy prey for manipulators. Just because we are alive.

Therefore, after this lecture, we will not achieve complete invulnerability, we will not live in a spacesuit, because this is not life. I just hope that we will begin to calculate such situations in advance, prevent them, not enter into them, get out of this contact in time, or turn the situation around in such a way that it is equal and honest.

The deepest level of manipulation is to change a person’s attitudes, to replace his goals with ours, to control his life intentions, to reorient his life in the direction that we consider right for him. Perhaps our intentions are the best. For example, when we raise children, we resort to manipulation regularly. We ask you to eat a spoon for mom, for dad - this is also manipulation, because mom and dad will not get anything from this, except for peace of mind. We will talk about the manipulations of childhood in just five minutes, because all of them grow.

Manipulation is in most cases not necessarily a conscious malicious act when we want to enslave someone's will. Manipulation, as a rule, is, firstly, not realized, and secondly, it is so familiar to a person that he simply does not know how to communicate differently. Because they talked to him like that in childhood, he got used to it, he learned from childhood experience: such techniques work, but such ones do not work. If I whine, my mother will allow me everything, so then I will pretend to be a victim and manipulate her weakness. On the contrary, if I always smile, I will be treated well at home and at school, so I will not show my true feelings to anyone, I will manipulate my invulnerability.

At the same time, it usually comes with some kind of provocation to take others out of peace of mind and against their background to be a standard and a model of calmness. This is done for profit. Most often, this is the easiest way to manipulate when we can open it and just calmly say: "You are doing this and that." We can use countermanipulation explicitly and openly, thus making it clear that we have seen through the game, we are ready to play it, but we suggest not to play it.

Another goal is power, not necessarily a formal one. Power over minds, power over souls is very seductive. And this is something we often deal with in a church context.

Finally, control, which is not necessarily attached to power. Power and control can go together, or they can go separately. Very often, manipulation for the purpose of control is not the fault of the person, but a misfortune. Because if a person is a neurotic, it is simply vital for him to control the situation around him. If you are part of this situation, then he will have to try to control you.

So the first thing I ask you to remember. If we meet with manipulations, then this is not a reason for aggression, for confrontation, in order to give a decisive rebuff. This is cause for sympathy.

Strong, self-confident, calm and kind people rarely need manipulation. Therefore, if you are being manipulated, take pity on this person for a start - this is both Christian and psychologically the first correct step in order to deal with manipulation. Because anger is not the best adviser in such situations.

The Lord punished - this is a trap

So what are manipulations? As I said, conscious and unconscious. With conscious, especially in a church context, we meet much less often than with unconscious ones. Because the unconscious are not only those that a person is vaguely aware of, but also the translation of those manipulations that a person himself once underwent.

If a person is sincerely sure that if you do not follow a certain set of prescriptions, then that's it, you will go to hell, he sincerely saves you from this, preventing you in every possible way. For example, if you come to church without a headscarf, you will go to hell. Or if you choose not the person advised by your confessor as your companion, then you will not see salvation, both of you will perish.

The one who uses such manipulation, in most cases, he does not calculate coldly: "Yeah, if I control the sphere of personal relationships, if I control the circle of acquaintances and all aspects of my flock's life, then he is completely in my power." There are still few such insidious manipulators. Usually this is done precisely from the idea of some kind of distortion of the spiritual life, in this example, by the pastor. Although experienced parishioners can say the same thing.

I will take an example from the experience of the person who addressed me known to me. A mother who has lost a child comes to church, not churched, just in despair. The first thing she encounters: a kind woman begins to tell her that she lost her child because she was not married to her husband, the Lord punished her, and that if she does not want the rest of the children to die, she needs to do this, then- so-and-so. It's not because the priest taught them that way. This is because such a picture of the world and such an image of God lives in their minds - God exterminates children.

The peculiarity of such manipulation is an unrelated message. Does God exterminate children in all unmarried marriages, or is this woman especially unlucky? There is also a standard answer to this - that God loves whom He punishes, so the Lord has chosen you, decided to save you. This is also one of the standard manipulative influences. But most often this does not happen in the format of conscious manipulation, and such a person himself needs to be helped to cope with the fears that keep him in this trap.

Manipulations can be verbal, that is, verbal, with the help of speech, or they can be behavioral - with the help of actions, deeds, when words are only an addition or are not present at all. For example, if we boycott a person because he did not do something, this is manipulation. If every time family members don't do what we want, we have a heart attack and everyone has to drop everything and run around us - this is a deep neurotic manipulation that has already reached the psychosomatic level. It happens.

Poor health is a great way to control others, which is used by so many..

To be absolutely immune to manipulation, one must be dead, because manipulation is based on feelings. Some of them are natural and each of us has them, and some are destructive, and in a good way we should get rid of them in ourselves. However, this is something that manipulation can rely on.

Comes from childhood

The first and foremost feeling is love. Basic human needs - food and love - this is what even a newborn baby needs. The manipulation of love is very simple - there is unconditional love, and there is love with conditions: if you do not do this and that, I will not love you.

For example, mom says, "If you get a C, I won't love you." Or a father says: “If you don’t go to college, you are not my son. There were no fools in our family.” At the same time, it is absolutely indifferent what the son wants, the main thing is that the condition is set. If the condition is not met, the person is punished by rejection, emotional isolation, or exclusion from a certain community.

Why am I citing examples from childhood? Precisely because sensitivity to these manipulations is formed precisely in childhood.

A person whose childhood was full of unconditional love is much less likely to fall for the manipulation of love.. Because he has an intuitive confidence that he is undoubtedly worthy of love.

He does not need to prove anything to anyone in order to win this love. He's just good, and they just love him. A person who was manipulated by parents in this way in childhood is very vulnerable to such manipulation, because he has a different picture of the world, he does not have basic trust in people. He has an attitude: they only love you if you live up to expectations.

In an ecclesiastical context, guilt becomes endless

When we turn to the church context, we understand that the stakes are even higher here. They threaten not only with the loss of the love of significant others, but also with the fact that God will not love you. Basic Manipulation – “God will reject you if you don’t do this and that. If you do as we say, God will love you." I'm simplifying so that the impact pattern is clear.

The second is "there is no salvation outside the Church." If you do not do the prescribed set of actions, then you are not Orthodox, we will reject you. A person who comes to church is a neophyte, he is open to everything. Calling grace and a vague search for God brought him to the church, he is ready to believe everything. If at this moment he finds himself in the conditions of manipulation, then this manipulation will become the leitmotif of his entire spiritual life for many years to come.

The next one is fear. The manipulation of fear is simple and obvious - to understand what a person is most afraid of and to scare him with this. These are threats from childhood - “if you don’t eat soup, you will grow up frail and girls won’t love you” or “if you fail your final exams, you will go to the janitors and die under the fence.” In the church context, the stake is extremely high - this is salvation, the opportunity to be with God.

Unfortunately, such a thing as the fear of God is tied to this.

The fear of God is not the fear of a punishing God, who watches over our wrong actions solely for the purpose of repaying us as we deserve. It is the fear of our own imperfection, the realization that in the face of God we are open as we are.

On the one hand, God certainly loves us. On the other hand, the feeling of whether we are worthy of this love? The fear of offending God is the fear of God. But more often the interpretation is different, literal: you have to be afraid.

The next is guilt, which is very easy to provoke in a person, especially if he has been used to it since childhood. If mom’s career didn’t work out because she devoted herself to children, then mom says: “I live all my life for the sake of the family, for you.” In parentheses, it means that you have to work it out, it's for life. Guilt is often provoked in marital relationships, because: "Because of you, I did not succeed in such and such, because of you I refused such and such opportunities." A person who is invited to feel guilty is forced to make excuses and is forced to somehow atone for his guilt.

When we move into a church context, our sense of guilt becomes endless, because none of us is without sin. The important thing in our spiritual life is repentance. The line between repentance, which is "metanoia", that is, changing oneself with God's help, and a hopeless feeling of guilt, when you understand that no matter what you do, it will always be bad, sometimes it is very imperceptible. Moreover, unfortunately, this is how our modern Orthodox subculture has developed.

Guilt is actively exploited because everyone has it, and we all know the benefits of repentance.

The next is self-doubt. When a person is not sure of himself, it is easy to make him helpless. The main thing is to explain to him more that he can’t do it without you, that he can’t do anything on his own. If this happens to a person in childhood, he grows up in a state of so-called learned helplessness: he is not able to take responsibility for his life and make decisions on his own, because life experience tells him that he himself will not cope, he will not be able to.

Imagine such a person comes to church, looking for spiritual nourishment. As often happens, if a person has psychological problems, he finds a complimentary partner for himself - someone who will make up for his incompleteness. In this case, the person is infantile, he has learned helplessness. He will find a confessor who will decide everything for him. The ideal option is some kind of young man. For him, this is an ideal parishioner - he does not decide anything, knows nothing, is afraid of his desires, is afraid to trust himself, asks for blessings even to blow his nose.

If such a person comes to a priest who perceives spiritual guidance differently, then the priest will already have the feeling that he is being manipulated. And it's true - the manipulation of pity also happens. “I’m so helpless, I’ll be lost without you, I don’t know anything, I can’t do anything, so you must take full responsibility for me and on your neck I will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I myself don’t want to think, and I myself don’t want to do anything.” In this case, the manipulation is often mutual.

The next trap is pride and vanity. I think it's too much to talk about this topic. We all know how dangerous pride and vanity are in a spiritual sense, but at the same time it is also Achilles' heel in terms of manipulation. But this manipulation is no longer forceful, but with the help of flattery. If we tell a person how wonderful he is, that no one but him can do it, that he is special, exceptional and we believe in him, and he is greedy for such flattery, he will go out of his way to justify our high expectations.

Or we can take it weakly, say: “I’m not sure that you will succeed, this is only for the strongest spiritually,” and the person begins to prove his superiority over this general mass.

A pity. Do not confuse it with compassion and empathy. Empathy is a quality that I believe every Christian should have. Because it is our ability to share the pain of another person and help him. Pity is always oriented from top to bottom. We feel strong and find the weak.

If we are manipulated with the help of pity, then they just appeal to our secret pride: "He is weak, and I am strong, I can help him, I am such a small god for someone." Manipulation with pity differs from really difficult life situations in that a person himself is not ready to do anything for himself. He needs everything done for him. Because he himself cannot do anything, or he has a reason, or there is no suitable state, or he does not understand, does not know, does not know how, and simply cannot cope without you. If you helped him once, then that's it, you have already taken responsibility for his future life, because he will disappear without you.

Many people know this manipulative triangle. Manipulation with pity is the message of the victim to the rescuer. Here, I have life circumstances or I have an enemy who is killing me from the light, and only you can save me. Manipulation with pity is impossible in relation to a person who does not have vanity - these are connected things.

Finally, the manipulation of hope. When a person is promised a reward, which in fact the manipulator cannot provide him, and certain conditions are set. In the church context, we encounter this quite often, and not only in everyday parish life, but also in the face of numerous petitioners who come and say: “You are Christians, you must help me, give me money, clothe, and put on shoes.” If you offer them, for example: "Help us sweep the yard, chop firewood." They will say: “No, no, what are you! You just have to help me. Why are you so selfish, why should I work for you? And here you can say: “Dear comrade, you are trying to arouse my pity, but you yourself are not ready to do anything for yourself, so let's think together how you can get out of this sad state.”

As for the manipulation of hope, there are different hopes in the Church: there is hope for salvation, there is hope for acceptance, for understanding, for the fact that all are brothers and sisters. No wonder they say that prayer wakes up in the most difficult life circumstances. Because while some false hopes and false paths of achievement are being formed, this prevents a person from coming to real faith. Manipulation becomes an obstacle.

We are not vulnerable to all of these manipulations. Someone, for example, is very resistant to pity, but powerless in the face of fear. Someone easily falls for a feeling of guilt, but you can’t break through it with pride and vanity. Someone is very afraid of losing love, but at the same time he controls his other fears very well, and nothing more will scare him.

I think now in real life you will train to recognize these manipulations. Let's see what we can do with them.

Manipulator techniques and protection against them

Briefly about manipulative techniques. What exactly to do when we are faced with manipulation? As we said, it is possible to manipulate information, emotions or behavior. Perhaps the most common thing in our church context is to mix information and opinions. This manifests itself even in dogmatic questions, when dogmas are mixed with theologians. And sometimes, with some fabrications, traditions are added to the Tradition, often not at all Christian, but this whole cocktail is passed off as Orthodoxy.

When we mix information and opinions, there is only one way out: focus on facts, that is, learn to distinguish between facts and interpretations of what is actually said and what is brought in by our interlocutor or someone else.

Next is the cover of authority. This has already been mentioned today - covering up with the authority of God, the readiness to speak on His behalf. For example, in the preliminary discussion of our lecture, there was a conversation about who will be saved, who will not be saved. One lady told everyone that we would not all be saved. Everyone who comes here, too (you won't be saved either, by the way, I warn you).

Her position: in general, you can never doubt anything. If you doubt something in the Church, that is, not in the Church itself, but in the fact that there are some difficult situations in the Church - if you start thinking about it, you will not be saved. People often say such things about someone's salvation: “This is God, God Himself, it is written in the Gospel that those who go to psychologists will never be saved. This is written in the Holy Scriptures.

- And the fact that there are Christian psychologists does not bother people?

– There is no competition between psychology and counseling, these are completely different activities.

– Nevertheless, there is a psychology course in theological academies.

- Yes. I think there should be even more psychology there. Understanding human psychology helps priests understand, firstly, their own inner world, their psychological obstacles. For example, their vulnerability to certain manipulations, their limitations, fears and somehow work them out so that later they do not project their psychological problems onto their parishioners.

On the other hand, psychology helps to understand your parishioners, and not to measure them by yourself. To understand that they are different people, with different values, with a different life story, and approaching them is possible not only in the style of “do as I do, or as it is written in this book.”

We act simply with authorities, especially since the holy fathers and Holy Scripture act as authorities. Without questioning the authority, we can deny the interlocutor the right to speak on behalf of this authority, because usually what is pulled out for the purpose of manipulation does not in any way reflect the source.

If John Chrysostom had known that only the phrase “Sanctify your hand with a blow” would remain in the minds of many from his heritage, he would probably have taken a vow of silence in his early youth.

Farther. A specific language is a professional feature. If you feel that the use of technical terms, even if they are church terms, but not quite clear to you, serves to make you understand how incompetent you are, switch to the language you are used to. In any situation when they try to impose on you a language that is not characteristic or not very clear to you, retell the same thing in other words.

Narrowing or substitution of context is something that is encountered very often. This is both pulling quotes out of context, and placing circumstances or spiritual advice given to completely different people in an inappropriate context for them. One of the difficulties that we encounter quite often is that the spiritual instructions that are currently used in the modern Church are not differentiated by addressees. Something was said only for monastics. And something was said in a certain situation.

Most of what was said about cutting off one's will and absolute obedience was said about very specific situations. A person who has renounced everything worldly, retires to the desert. He has an abba - this is not a random boss who was sent to him. This is not how the Patriarchate appointed a bishop, whom none of the priests chose, but everyone is obliged to remain in complete obedience. Or how the bishop, in turn, sent a new priest to the parish, and no one chose to trust this priest, but this is the only church in the village. The situation is different - as regards the freedom of the one to whom and to what extent one can entrust one's will.

Changing the context here is fraught with the fact that a person is manipulatively assigned a task that is unsolvable in principle. Now, by the way, they say about the fasts that the Typicon was written for monasteries, and how problematic this is for those living outside monasteries. I don’t know, I somehow got used to it, it seems to me that it’s normal to fast according to the Typicon, there is nothing like that.

- Tell me, please, is a lie a manipulation?

“Lying is definitely manipulation. It's so obvious that I didn't even write it down.

– How to resist it?

- Resist? If you know it's a lie, then of course you know the truth. If you suspect that this is a lie, then ask clarifying questions so that the person is confused. When we are dealing with manipulation by distorting information, the best thing we can do is to focus on the facts, clarify, concretize, tighten up, so to speak, not let us be confused. Here our assistants are logic and common sense.

And temperament.

- Yes. Temperament, of course, is innate, but the ability to deal with it, compensating for its weaknesses and squeezing the maximum out of its strengths, is acquired, so you need to work on it.

For example, if we know that we are easily irritated, there is different ways take irritation under control, up to breathing exercises. In any case, the main strategy is not to follow the manipulative path that the opponent is trying to lead us down.

Is he trying to get us to make excuses? For example: “Have you already stopped drinking cognac in the morning?” is a classic question that can be answered "yes" or "no", but still find yourself in an uncomfortable position. Or: “Yes, you are a heretic!” - and make excuses. By the way, in such situations, you can agree, or you can invite your opponent to justify his assumption. The main thing is not to get involved in this dispute.

You can say, "You're right. But do you know to what extent you are right?

- Yes, you can confuse him with an asymmetric answer, of course. If they try to crush you with questions that are asked not to listen to the answer, but to confuse you, slow down. Answer the first question: “What happened next, did I listen?”, “Can I write it down? Could you repeat?"

- And if there is no answer?

- No, there is no trial. You can manipulate not only information, but also emotions. Once you feel a strong pressure on emotions, whether positive or negative, that's a sure sign that it's time to focus on the facts.

If a tear is squeezed out of you, if they try to provoke you to anger, if you are flattered and you feel pride, tell yourself: “Stop! For some reason, I got this emotion. What does this person want from me? This is the main opposition to the very manipulations of emotions that we have already analyzed in relation to the church context.

Any manipulative phrase addressed to emotions breaks down into a clarifying question: “Why are you sure of this? Where exactly is it written that if I come to church in jeans, I will go to hell? Are you sure it's not cute?"

The Holy Fathers said: "Test every spirit." Therefore, any pressure on emotions is a signal. We take a step back, and only the facts. We are not obliged to provide our emotions to anyone in the management, therefore, with all these manipulations, we ask for concretization.

The next technique that occurs is emotional contagion. Emotions are known to be contagious. In principle, a good way to manipulate is to put yourself in such a state that it is contagious or portray it authentically. It can be delight, it will be transmitted to everyone - and all your words can be taken for granted. It may be anxiety: “Do you know that the TIN is on the products in your refrigerator ...” There are no such manipulations that work for everyone. This is selective, here you need to understand what works.

Empaths, for example, are very easily infected by other people's emotions. On the one hand, this is a good opportunity to understand other people's emotions, on the other hand, there is a constant risk that some cockroaches will be planted on you. Because rejoicing in someone else's joy, crying with someone else's tears - this is a normal natural state of a person endowed with empathy. And to be afraid of other people's fears ...

By the way, the escalation of conflicts is also very often due to the infection of anger. Therefore, if you feel that there is some kind of emotional message that you are not ready to share, you again say: “Stop! What information is given to me along with this emotional message? ”, - even if the emotion is very pleasant. That is, we share emotions and information.

Finally, the pressure on emotions is all kinds of non-verbal demonstrations, and sometimes verbal ones too. These are resentments, aggression, obvious, hidden, depreciation of what you say, demonstrative disrespect for you. In fact, those things that are designed to cause your self-doubt, your guilt. You can counter this, of course, by remaining calm. Keeping calm is much easier if you understand what is happening with your interlocutor, why he behaves this way.

In fact, this is an unfortunate person who is forced in this way - demonstrating negative emotions and luring negative emotions out of you in response - to achieve a more or less tolerable psychological existence for yourself. Therefore, it is very important to remain calm, to understand, to sympathize with the aggressor. He probably had a difficult childhood, when he was also manipulated a lot. Then he had a no less difficult adolescence and youth, and maturity. And it is unlikely that he has a happy family life, because a person cannot manipulate in one place, and not manipulate in another.

- If you say this, will it not cause even more aggression?

- No, say about yourself, of course. It was about how to calm down and not break loose. If we want it to explode before our eyes, we say it all out loud. But that would be manipulation. We simply hit the patient and bring his anger to an extreme point.

Finally, the impact on behavior. Behavior control is a very powerful thing, especially when it happens unconsciously, at the level of “you are sitting in the wrong place”, “you are standing in the wrong place”, “you are standing in the wrong way”, “you are looking in the wrong place”, “do this”, “do not do that”. ".

Dangerous when it's camouflaged. Let's say we are told: “Won't it be difficult for you to stay after the service, otherwise the bishop is coming tomorrow, you need to scrub the whole church three times and start preparing the meal already. Some gourmet dish, otherwise they won’t have time in the morning. ” It may be a normal request, or it may be manipulation.

Any manipulation can be a request, the text of the words is the same. The difference is whether you are given a choice or not. When you can be asked, you can refuse, someone else can do it, you can do it together with someone. If a person says: “There is no one else to ask, but we will be with you all the way until we do everything,” then this is less manipulation than saying: “Well, you understand what important things I have about tomorrow's event, therefore…” A very important boundary is freedom. You are left with freedom or not left with freedom.

Next is the activation of stereotypes. In religious communities, this is the most beloved, because it is a distinction based on the principle "you are ours" or "you are not ours." “A real Orthodox must…”, “we are Russians, we are Orthodox” – these are also appeals to stereotypes. On the one hand, pride, and on the other, fear: if you behave differently from ours, or dare to say that not all Russians or not all Orthodox do this, then we will not recognize you as Russian and Orthodox. You will be a Jew and a Catholic secret.

When you are faced with the fact that you are attributed to a certain community in order to force you to act in accordance with formalized laws (and these laws may not be exactly the ones that actually exist, but their interpretation that is beneficial to your interlocutor), here we always take a step back, we say: “Stop!” Are all Orthodox, for example, obligated to attend all church services, even if they are daily? Adjust your work schedule to this, or are there other options?

– And “to whom the Church is not the Mother, God is not the Father” - is this a manipulation?

– It is often used as manipulation. This is an example of church folklore that was taken out of context, changed its meaning and began to be used manipulatively. Moreover, in defining what the “Church as Mother” is, again, a set of conditions is brought in. For example, you should not notice any shortcomings, because you do not condemn your mother. If your mother is sick, you won't... Answering that if my mother is sick, I will treat her or call a doctor is useless.

“Yes, it means you don’t love your mother if you say she is ill. We have the best mother.

- Yes. Therefore, in this case, we avoid generalizations. The main opposition is that it is not necessary to do this, this and this, and “announce the whole list” in order to earn the right to belong to the Orthodox.

Farther. Status pressure. AT hierarchical structure what the Church is, this is a natural thing, especially since there are certain traditions - the attitude to the holy order, the relationship between different levels of the church hierarchy. But even if communication is built from top to bottom and from bottom to top - it's not only "you" - "you" is marked. This is marked, for example, that I can demand from you, but you cannot demand from me. I can be rude to you, but you can't tell me. There are many status markers that anchor relationships from the bottom up and from the top down.

You can get out of this only by separating the status from the meaning of statements. Easy reference to transactional analysis. Summary: if the internal state of each person is to indicate that there is a child, there is an adult and there is a parent. Top-down communication is parent-child communication. Communication on an equal footing is communication at the level of adult-adult, or child-child, or two parents. Two parents usually discuss the imperfection of their children, or in general, how bad everyone is and they don’t obey us. Adult communication is communication at the level of logic, at the level of facts. Communication between two children is communication at the level of emotions.

The simplest, but not the most effective, if for some reason we need to communicate with this person regularly, is to reduce contacts to the minimum possible. We know that we are being manipulated - we are getting out of contact, that is, we are moving away from capture. You already understood that each manipulation involves some kind of clue. Contact is established, a weak point is found or felt - for someone it is fear, for someone it is pity, for someone it is pride. They connected to this weak point of yours and applied manipulation to it.

But before that moment has come, before you are hooked, or if it is a manipulation of the presentation of information, before you are confused, you have control over the situation. If you feel that your clarity of consciousness has swam, they say something like nonsense, but there seems to be nothing to object, or they put pressure on emotions - it seems that you need to sympathize, we are Christians, we must, we are obliged, we are always to blame, but this is also at the level of feelings did not pass - at this moment it is necessary to move away from the capture.

You can get out of contact, go out for five minutes, go to the toilet: “I will go out, and you continue, continue.” You can seize the initiative - for example, start asking questions, as we have already talked about. You can, if you are sitting, get up, if you are standing, sit down - change your position in space. You can start looking at the interlocutor probingly.

Each person has their own favorite ways of manipulation. They have their own pace, they have their own rhythm, they have their own tricks. They get it, they fall for it. Each of us, of course, also has them. But if this rhythm, tempo, habitual methods get lost? Contact has just begun to be established, since it is an emotion. For example, they began to squeeze a tear out of you, and you left. Like a wall, it's useless. You have returned - already again you must first squeeze out a tear. It breaks the manipulation.

Changing the pace is also very powerful, because very often the manipulator does not give us the opportunity to focus: “Come on, come on! Faster, faster! If not now, then never, this is the last chance! Decide quickly!" Naturally, in this situation, you need to slow down as much as possible and say: “I need to think, I can’t do it right away,” that is, take a step back and postpone the decision. Sometimes, on the contrary, you are exhausted by slowing down: “Well, I don’t know,” long pauses. You can try to speed up your communication.

We filter out informational interference that masks any manipulation, get to the bottom of the essence, facts, real problems, real desires, motives of your interlocutor and use unpredictability. The less predictable you are, the more difficult it is to manipulate you. The paradox of reactions makes a person practically invulnerable. It is necessary to turn off emotions - not in the sense of blocking them completely, but in the sense of learning to separate them from the information supplied with them. Emotions separately, facts separately.

Next, you need to keep the dialogue. Human consciousness in its natural state is reflexive, that is, dialogical. We weigh pros and cons, agreement and disagreement. In the process of manipulation, we are drawn into a monologue, and this monologue is not ours. If you feel that on some issue you have the only true ultimate truth and there can be no alternative, then this is a good reason to analyze this truth - whether this confidence was the fruit of manipulation. Can you still look at the situation, at the person, at this or that idea from different angles.

It helps a lot to create an extended context or move from the context that is being imposed on you to the context that is organic for you. And alternatives. If you are told that this is the only way to be saved, you say: “Maybe there is another one?” Or: "At the holy fathers I read that one was saved in such and such a way."

When it is said about obedience, there is also a substitution of the meaning of words. Obedience is now often understood as the fulfillment of something that you do not want to do, but must.

– For example, they ask me, they talk about the importance of mercy and demand to immediately give all the money to charity, and I expand the context, saying that I have other responsibilities, I have a family and this and that. Therefore, mercy is also important, but ... About this we are talking?

- Not really. Rather, here the narrowed context will be as follows: they tell you about mercy and say that if you are a truly merciful person, then you will definitely support this dog shelter, because it is impossible to remain indifferent. Then you, for example, say that you already support sick children. Or the reverse situation: “Ah, do you value dogs more than people?”

“My way of showing mercy is the only correct way, and your ways of showing mercy are no good” – this would be a narrowing of the context. You offer alternatives or expand the context. This can apply to anything - to your family life, to raising children. It's just that there is an appeal to duty: "You must help me, you must help everyone." You can come out of this state of imposed debt and say, "I can help you, but I don't owe you anything."

Finally, with regard to the manipulation of hope, you need to separate hope and manipulation. Yes, I have hope, and I want to keep this hope, but I do not understand how the action prescribed for me is connected with my hopes.

Manipulation or neurosis?

There are situations that outwardly are very similar to manipulation. This is manipulative behavior, but the person does not have full control over it. This is a situation of deep neurosis. Very often a neurotic has a so-called system of neurotic demands. I think, after reading these requirements, you will remember such people, and sometimes there are entire parishes:

no one should criticize us
no one should doubt us
we are always right
we all must obey
we can manipulate, but you can't do it with us,
problems should be solved for us, and we can be capricious,
we can clash, but you must reconcile, you must endure,
we should be understood, but we will not understand anyone.
so that everyone, caressing us from all sides, would leave us alone and not interfere.

- This is definitely not a program of our government?

– No, these are symptoms of a deep neurosis. It happens with everyone. Therefore, if you see all this in a complex, you must understand that the response to resisting manipulation, especially to harsh, ironic, to an attempt to build a wall, will be conflicting and completely inconsistent with the strength of your influence. This is a reason to be wary, weigh every word and understand where this person has vulnerabilities, so as not to approach these vulnerabilities if possible.

If this is a characteristic of a certain community, then we can capture the features of the general church subculture in which we are. Because there are things in the Church that are more or less conducive to manipulation. What is listed here is not necessarily everywhere and always, but the stronger these parameters are, the more manipulative the environment itself becomes, that is, a person finds himself in a situation in which it is difficult for him to resist manipulation:

hierarchy, suppression by authority;
insecurity and guilt;
selectivity in the application of norms and rules (“I want - I will execute, I want - I will have mercy”);
the gap between the declared and the real;
taboo on discussing certain topics (the impossibility, often, even realizing the manipulation, to answer it with concretization of questions, clarification).

For example, “they are bullying you, but you must humble yourself, you are a Christian, you must endure.” “Why are you so not peaceful, why are you so conflicted?” And if at the same time you object to the opponent, he will say: “Oh, you are also arguing, so this is pride!” “We do not offend you, we humble you, we care about your spiritual salvation.” If the questions of the legitimacy of such actions are taboo, that is, they cannot be discussed, you can say: “Thank you for humility and for science. May I try to work on myself somehow?”

From the substitution of feelings - to the substitution of meanings

At the heart of many of the manipulations that we discussed today is the imposition of certain feelings and a certain state. It is, of course, a separate big topic. I mean this. Some feelings you should experience, and some feelings are sinful, they cannot be experienced. Therefore, the awareness of these feelings in a person is blocked.

For example, a person is sure that he is never irritated, or that he is never offended, never lies, but at the same time he sympathizes and sympathizes with everyone. Distorted awareness of their own feelings, respectively, contact with other people brings the situation out. The more manipulative the spiritual guidance is in one place or another, the more difficult it is to get out of this system.

When we talk about sects, about young elders, about those who lead not to Christ, but to themselves, we very often deal with a closed, opaque system in which a substitution initially took place at the level of feelings, then at the level of meanings, and then already - at the level of external manifestations, requirements for members of this subculture, and so on.

What to do when you are dealing with manipulations not of a single person, but of the environment, that is, you feel the restriction of freedom? For example, you came to a new parish, you try to fit in, you try to improve relations, you understand that you can’t talk about it - you don’t stand like that, you don’t look like that, you don’t dress like that, and in general it’s a sin. This is a reason to wonder if this is the spiritual guidance you need?

Once in a rigid manipulative system, sometimes it is easier not to try to prolong it, but simply to get out of it, since the possibilities of spiritual guidance are not limited to one place.

Touching big topic about manipulations, we did not have much time. The question of the psychological problems of counseling in general should be considered separately, because many questions are connected with this, which were asked in advance. I would like to point out one thing. If in spiritual nourishment, instead of feeling how you become stronger, how you become closer to God, how you receive more love, you feel more and more unfreedom - this is a sure sign that at least you need to get out of this vicious circle and consult with some other, authoritative priest for you.

What if the situation is really difficult? There are non-standard situations in the Church.

- A hypothetical case that so often happens is a civil marriage. It is clear that about Most of the clergy do not approve of it and do not even give communion to those who have unregistered relationships. Here the questioner himself should be ready to hear the answer. I don't mean the answer "You must break up because you have already sinned." The question should be: “How do we live in the current situation? How can we go to salvation? To analyze honestly what prevents the relationship from being formalized somehow, why do they remain in this status? And is it true that both spouses want to live together, or is this status convenient for one of them? For example, young man it is convenient to live in a civil marriage, and the girl would not mind formalizing the relationship, getting married, but she is afraid to insist. This is an occasion for a deeper analysis of the situation.

In general, in such situations it is worth going to a person you trust, or if you do not have such a familiar priest, ask your friends, acquaintances whom you trust, without even indicating your topic sometimes: “Is there a priest with whom you can talk candidly?" There must be at least one of these around.

Video: Vitaly Korneev

Neglecting psychological help today is absurd, and seeking it from psychologists is a trend. Expensive, fashionable, public, Orthodox, and, of course, will solve any of your problems - how not to make a mistake in choosing? On Psychologist's Day, myths about specialists are exposed by Natalia Skuratovskaya.

A good psychologist graduated from the best university in the country

Natalia Skuratovskaya

Lack of normal education is a minus. But a diploma from a good university is not a guarantee of quality. It is possible to rely on the teaching staff of the university where the psychologist studied, but this is not a panacea. There are a number educational institutions, in practical terms not inferior to Moscow State University.

Universities provide basic education, and the skills of direct work with clients are acquired in the process of additional education. It is worth finding out if the psychologist has additional training. What methods does it work with? How long? Where did you study?

Of course, education is an ambiguous criterion. I know good specialists whose basic education was not at all psychological, but they graduated with a master's degree in psychology and mastered a number of psychological methods. If a specialist has a diploma from a mediocre institution, and additional education absent, you will be very lucky if you come across a talented self-taught.

The services of a serious specialist are expensive

There is no direct correlation between "good" and "expensive". There are a lot of excellent specialists who work in charitable projects, get paid by working in government agencies, or simply choose the “not to take a lot of money” pricing policy for themselves.

Expensive or not very expensive - rather characterizes the level of claims of the psychologist himself, the skills of his self-promotion. If someone has decided that only oligarchs will be his clients, then it is not surprising that the prices will seem exorbitant to others.

But in any case, pricing affects the balance between the number of customers and the quality of work. And if a psychologist works hard, but at the same time lives from hand to mouth and does not have the opportunity to develop and improve his skills, sooner or later the quality of his work will fall, no matter how talented he may be.

A good psychologist needs only one meeting to sort out the problem and help

Clients often do not see the difference between counseling and psychotherapy.

If we are talking about a local problem, if there are no serious injuries, neurosis, other internal obstacles, if a person does not lie to himself, does not lie to the therapist, there are cases that not only understand, but also help a person get out of a problem situation in one session.

But there are a lot of examples when in one session it is only possible to roughly localize the problem, and it can take months, and sometimes even years, to get rid of the problem. If we are talking about deep personal problems, then the one who promises to help at one time is either a charlatan or inadequately assesses the situation.

Working with a psychologist for a month, six months, a year, it is important for the client to pay attention to subjective and objective improvements in his life.

For example, something was a burden - now it is not burdensome, something did not work out - it began to work out, I was in a dead end - I got out of it. The dynamics of change determines how qualified a specialist is and how his style of work suits the client. In psychotherapy, both improvements and subjective deterioration of the state for short periods are possible (a person is scared, anxious in the process of work, negative experiences are exacerbated). But most importantly, is the objective reality of the client changing for the better?

If only the mood changes for the better (there are subjective changes, but there are no objective ones), life tasks are not solved, and the problems are aggravated - this is the case when the psychologist “hooked on the needle”. By and large, the psychologist has one goal - to become unnecessary to the client until he has new life tasks and questions.

A psychologist can solve any problem

There is some confusion in understanding who is a psychotherapist and who is a psychologist.

Psychological counseling usually helps to understand a person with a specific request. For example, how to correct behavior in certain life situations how to build relationships with children, how to overcome career failures. Someone wants to use the help to navigate the priority of life goals. The result of a psychologist's consultation will be either getting rid of the problem, or reaching a qualitatively new level understanding your life.

Psychotherapy is focused on solving personal problems, not momentary, but systemic. Their causes may be developmental features, childhood in a dysfunctional family, life crises that knocked a person out of the usual rhythm of life. Lack of strength and desire to do something, inability to cope with fears, irrational problems that are difficult to formulate in words - all this is the scope of the psychotherapist.

Obviously, not every specialist can cope with such a range, because different groups of problems require different training and competencies. No one has canceled the individual characteristics of a specialist: one is good at one thing, the other is good at another. There are no universal psychologists. Life is not enough to successfully prepare for everything.

If someone undertakes to work on any problem, it usually means that the person is not very qualified.

However, the responsibility for the choice always lies with the "buyer". When acquaintances and colleagues bombard you with contacts and recommendations from psychologists, this creates a space for choice. But you have to choose yourself. Try to clearly define the problem for yourself, designate the task that you want to entrust to a psychologist. In part, this will help not to make a mistake, and to your friends it will help not to recommend you too much.

A good psychologist always gives specific and practical advice.

A psychologist should not advise at all, and even more so - make certain decisions for the client. There are different types of counseling and psychotherapy. The degree of directiveness in them will also be different.

For example, in cognitive behavioral therapy, a psychologist can give specific instructions and algorithms of actions. In psychoanalysis and other psychotherapeutic areas, giving advice is strictly prohibited. The methodology simply does not provide for this.

A good psychologist helps to make an independent decision. Bad - imposes the only correct advice. And the more categorical advice, the more doubts about the qualifications of a psychologist.

Relationships and even friendship develop with a real ace

In addition to qualifications, professional experience and good reviews about the psychologist, there is a moment of subjective, partly irrational choice. In order for the work to be productive, there must be a benevolent, trusting therapeutic alliance.

If the client experiences emotional rejection, no matter how well-deserved the psychologist is, you should listen to your intuition and leave. This does not mean that the psychologist is bad. This means that it is not suitable for this client.

The hope is often placed on the psychologist that he compensates for the lost in relations with other people, and immediately for the entire life of the client. This was noticed by the founding fathers of psychoanalysis. Freud described the mechanisms of transference, when positive or negative feelings and expectations are projected by the client onto their therapist. Often people expect that there will be a friendship, an emotional closeness with a psychologist. But in most areas of psychotherapy, friendship with the client (as long as he remains a client) is impossible. In some therapeutic paradigms, it is not even possible to communicate with the client between sessions. There are areas in which certain relationships with the client are acceptable, but in any case, mixing of roles is unacceptable.

For example, it is impossible to work with relatives, colleagues, with people with whom we enter into rather emotionally loaded relationships.

With a good psychologist, productive, friendly, trusting relationships develop, because without this work will not work. But this is not a criterion for the quality of a specialist, it is a criterion for the compatibility of a client and a therapist.

In conditions when there is no licensing of psychologists in the country, and confirmation of the qualifications of a specialist is the responsibility of the client, people want to play it safe. We turn to psychologists with sensitive, painful, confidential issues, so it is right to look for guarantees based on the experience of other clients who have been helped to solve their problems by working with this psychologist.

But friends do not always recommend psychologists they know personally. Much more often recommend those known to them by hearsay. It could be a psychologist whose lectures they watched on YouTube, heard on the radio, or simply read articles. Try to find out if your advisers have personal experience with this psychologist and how successful he is.

One must be sure that there is no place for emotional dependence in the advice of friends. Sometimes people may like their “so wonderful” psychologist because he is a master at building a codependent relationship with a client. Until people reach a crisis, when idealization is replaced by disappointment, such a psychologist will be “the best” for them.

"Word of mouth" should not be ruled out. Seeking feedback and recommendations is a normal path, especially if you are new to psychologists or have a negative experience and seek to hedge against new failures.

If you are potentially interested in a specialist who was recommended by friends, if you are considering working with him, ask friends specific questions. What is good? How long did they work? What is the result? If the work is in progress, what is objectively changing for the better?

And most importantly, to be Orthodox!

In the Orthodox environment there is a certain distrust of psychologists. I remember the times when priests perceived psychologists as "competitors for the souls of the flock." In all seriousness, I had to explain that psychology is not Satanism, not against faith, it is generally about something else. And until now, such an attitude is not uncommon, although now Christian psychology has proved its right to exist by deed, and many priests and believers are familiar with it firsthand.

Still, the religiosity of a psychologist is less important than professionalism and the ability to respect the client's values without imposing their own ideological attitudes.

"Orthodox" is not a criterion of quality. When someone rests on the fact that he is an Orthodox psychologist/lawyer/taxi driver/pediatrician, doubts immediately arise about the qualifications of this person.

Those who have been inside the Church for a long time, have worked at the parish or diocesan level, must have come across situations when, insisting on their Orthodoxy, a person simply expects that his professional imperfections will be forgiven him: “I am my own, I am Orthodox.” So far, the prefix "Orthodox" remains a pretext for manipulation.

And already in the event that the professionalism of a specialist suits us, it is worth looking at how much his belief system is in harmony with ours. A good psychologist will not impose his beliefs on the client, but he may well identify them, declare that it is personally unacceptable for him. Conflict at the level of values and beliefs is not conducive to effective counseling or psychotherapy.

If a believer, an Orthodox person is faced with the problem of “how to choose a good psychologist,” then there is only one advice - professionalism should come first, and respect for the client’s faith and beliefs and readiness not to impose anything should come second.

A good psychologist is a public person

If a person manages to blog, write books, publish articles, while actively working with clients and included in educational projects - he is a superhero! First of all, this is a sign of the ability to organize one's time, but it does not directly mean that a specialist is superior in all respects to less public specialists. We need to look at what is behind this - after all, a psychologist can spend 90% of his time on self-promotion or hire other people to write on his behalf. Publicity, as well as non-publicity, is primarily associated with the desire and skill of a specialist to be present in the public space. A high-class specialist may not do all of the above, but not because he has nothing to say, but because he has no time or he is burdened by publicity.

But do not forget that publicity is always an opportunity for the client to slightly reduce risks. Look at a specialist without advertising the desire to consult. Decide for yourself how ready he is to trust such an expert and whether he agrees with what the psychologist says and writes. How contradictory, from the point of view of the client, the psychologist's beliefs, including religious ones, can also be discovered through his public activity.

Publicity is not a criterion in choosing, but it simplifies the choice. After all, if the fruits of publicity inspire confidence, then you can first make a decision on cooperation.

Experienced all the troubles

I don't think you have to experience all the misfortunes to be able to help others. Fortunately, each person has a limited supply of troubles. Yes, and it is strange to reduce the work of a psychologist only to those troubles that he personally experienced.

A good psychologist has empathy. This means that he can feel, empathize with the pain of the client. It is important that the psychologist be resourceful, able to help the client sort out troubles without falling into his feelings.

Agree, those who only read about the problems will not undertake to work with them. It is necessary to delve into any problematics, enter, immerse yourself - through specialized training and experience in working with a certain range of problems, since personal experience is always not universal, and it will not work to tell others “do as I do”. For example, you can do pre-divorce counseling while in a happy marriage. If a specialist is familiar with family issues, family therapy techniques, has thoroughly studied the problem and knows what crises are and how they can be resolved, he does not have to start divorcing himself to see how it works in practice.

Each of us sooner or later experiences this or that grief. The experience of one's own experiences makes the psychologist more compassionate and delicate in some matters. But there is another way to become compassionate and gentle.

What to consider when choosing a psychologist

How to choose your psychologist, you can’t say in one sentence. Still, a good or bad specialist is an evaluative category. For some, a good psychologist is someone who can effectively help solve a problem. For others - who will provide maximum emotional support, carefully and delicately. For the third - the one who will play along with the client, agree with all his conclusions, say something pleasant to the ear. The fourth will prefer someone who is ruthless and tough, like a surgeon, will leave no stone unturned from his former beliefs and reassemble them in a new configuration. To choose a good specialist, you need to decide which quality criteria are important for you. But there is basic principles, which should be considered in order not to make a mistake in the choice:

- try to decide what result you want to achieve What do you want from a psychologist?

- look at open sources, ask your friends, take a chance and look for specialists on portals dedicated to psychological help;

– among selected specialists arrange "competitive selection for a vacancy";

- do not bet on one, not to be disappointed in psychology at all; talk to several specialists before deciding who to go to for a consultation;

- go for a trial consultation to understand how comfortable it is for you to work with this particular psychologist;

- trust your intuition but check it with your mind;

– do not be afraid to tell the psychologist about your doubts including at the first meeting.

Information department of the Khabarovsk diocese

From September 6 to 16, 2013, with the blessing of Metropolitan Ignatius of Khabarovsk and Amur Region, the first cycle of classes from the course "Practical Pastoral Psychology" was held at the Khabarovsk Theological Seminary. The author's program of the psychologist Natalia Stanislavovna Skuratovskaya is designed for two years, it is developed as a practical addition to the basic psychology course conducted at the seminary.

Natalia Skurotovskaya - Moscow State University them. M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Psychology, general director of the Viv AKTIV company, consultant, business coach.

The Khabarovsk Theological Seminary has become a kind of experimental platform: for the first time in the system of theological education, the seminary teaches the course "Practical Pastoral Psychology" in an active training format.

Every semester, full-time students will “immerse themselves” in a two-week intensive course, and consolidate the material they have learned through webinars. The course consists of thematic blocks: personality psychology, social Psychology, communication psychology, motivation, public performance and discussions, self-organization, time management, stress management.

- Natalia Stanislavovna, tell us how the course of practical psychology appeared?

“The idea was born three years ago, during the “ psychological school Shepherd" in the city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. When we analyzed difficult situations, many fathers said: “Oh, if only I knew this in the seminary,” after all, a lot is always expected from a priest: advice, instruction, admonition, consolation, regardless of age and experience.

-What are the features of pastoral psychology?

The Church is the mystical Body of Christ; on the other hand, it is also an organization. It has its own tasks, distribution of responsibility, hierarchy. When we approach the solution of these problems in the Church, we always mean the spiritual dimension. For practical pastoral psychology, this means that we always focus on patristic teaching, find points of contact between patristic and secular psychology, and cut off methods that are unacceptable to an Orthodox person. For example, in psychology there are many techniques for developing self-confidence that simultaneously contribute to the development of selfishness and pride. The entire path of an Orthodox Christian is aimed at combating this sin, therefore, other ways of solving the problem must be sought.

-For example, how to overcome uncertainty, so to speak, "in the Orthodox way"?

Need to figure out what undermines our confidence? Fear, vanity (the desire to impress someone better than what one actually has), inertia (the inability to resist the overwhelming will of other people).

You can develop self-confidence by overcoming your fears. You need to accept yourself the way you are. The Lord loves us as we are and accepts us, why should we despise ourselves? Get the right accents. To understand that it makes no sense to seem better than you really are, you just need to strive to actually be better. By the way, the fight against fears and passions is an important ascetic task.

-Many clergy are wary of psychologists and psychological science. Why do you think?

When the question arises why psychology is needed, if there are holy fathers, then I answer: If a person has firmly embarked on the path of spiritual perfection, if for him at this stage of life there is no goal more important than being with God, then he does not need psychology at all. But are there many such people in the parishes? In order to embark on the ascetic path, a person must grow up. Until this happens, he suffers from mental disorders that prevent him from approaching spiritual matters. To help other people, you need to clear a place from the psychological garbage that each of us carries in ourselves. The future shepherd must understand how the psyche and consciousness function, how relations between people are built, which is why conflicts arise.

-What topics were the students most interested in?

Dialogue management, discussions, public speaking.. Much depends on the personal qualities of the guys, those who had public speaking experience and teamwork skills approached the classes more consciously. With the understanding that after seminary they will need this knowledge. But for some, this is still abstract material.

It is impossible to make a person psychologically competent in a week, so my task at this stage is to arouse interest and make people think. This course is not only training, but also education, process personal growth. I hope that this will help seminarians at the beginning of their service in parish, missionary, teaching practice, that is, in any business that requires communication with people.

Psychologist Natalia Skuratovskaya comments.

“The priest killed his wife” is terrifying, but alas, not surprising. Family violence occurs in priestly families (and simply in "deeply churched") more often than "on average in the hospital." The reasons are simple: there are, to put it mildly, no less psychopaths among priests than among other citizens, but widespread ideas about marriage and marital relations are such that they actually legitimize violence and prevent a way out of a family crisis. (Moreover, these ideas are based on a false understanding of both the Gospel and the canons - another substitution that cripples, and sometimes even takes life).

I had occasion to communicate with a very young mother, beaten to the blue by her equally young husband (the offspring of a venerable priestly family "with traditions" - yes, including - with the tradition of "humble" his wife with beatings), and with large families suffering from domestic violence older mothers who have experienced more than one fracture over the years of family life, with broken kidneys, but not daring to change the situation. What do they usually hear from the confessor? “Be patient, humble yourself, this is your cross, this is for your own good, divorce is a mortal sin, let the wife be afraid of her husband ...”

And where in an ordinary family a woman would overcome fear and codependency, get to a crisis center and receive support and shelter, many mothers will endure to the last - and not only because of the above "edifications", but also because they are ashamed “defame” the husband, drop his priestly authority, “bring blasphemy on the Church” (by the way, very often these abuser priests behave completely differently in the parish - and the parishioners consider them “good shepherds”).

In some cases, family violence is not a consequence of psychopathy, but a situation of colossal pressure in which the priest finds himself due to the peculiarities of our “church system”, and if he does not deal constructively with this chronic stress, then the consequences may fall on the family (which will be “take out” all negative emotions that do not find a way out)

And I really want to remind women who find themselves in a situation of domestic violence:

1. You are not alone with this trouble.- throughout the country there is a network of crisis centers for victims of domestic violence, which will provide both psychological and legal assistance, and, if necessary, shelter (and even with 6 children, yes). It's free.

And even if you are not going to leave yet, it is worth contacting the specialists of the crisis center and discussing your situation confidentially - so that there is an adequate perception of the situation as such, and the risk to which you expose yourself and the children, and opportunities to change the situation.

2. If you decide to leave your abusive husband, then first grab the children and go to a safe place(if relatives and friends do not have such a place, then in a shelter), and then sort things out, discuss a possible divorce, etc.

3. Your departure will not "destroy the marriage"(if there is a threat to life and health, everything is already destroyed), but it can give a marriage a chance to be saved (and this chance lies in psychotherapy, in some cases with the participation of a psychiatrist, which will help the abuser to restrain aggressive impulses, and possibly to cope with those own personal problems that push him to violence). Until the wife leaves, the abusive husband has no incentive to acknowledge the problem and begin to address it.

——————
Give rest, Lord, to the newly-departed Anna and accept her into Your heavenly abodes!

And help, Lord, those who can still be saved.