Case LXXII: A Sick Person Converted Through Hypnotic Suggestion

In the hospital at X. there was a very sick man, whom the physicians had given up. According to their diagnosis, he had at most only two more days to live. The graveness of the situation had been explained to the patient, but in spite of all the hospital chaplain found himself unable to induce the patient to receive the last Sacraments. He was stubborn and there was no use arguing. The zealous chaplain had just left the room after another vain attempt, made in the presence of the two attending physicians, to convert the unfortunate man. One of the physicians was a clever hypnotist, and had already alleviated our patient's suffering many times by hypnosis. He had just been about to put the patient once more in hypnotic sleep when the chaplain came. Hardly had the latter left the room when the physician approached the sick man's bed and put him gently to sleep. When, however, hypnosis had entered the physician suggested to the sick man, after some soothing thoughts, the firm determination in five minutes after his awakening to have the chaplain called and to receive the last Sacraments, with a sincere and contrite heart. The doctor hastened the procedure and after hardly two minutes he caused the patient to awaken. As usual after a hypnotic sleep, the latter expressed his gratification at the relief from his pains. But not only that. Exactly five minutes after waking he glanced around the room looking for the chaplain, and had him sent for. The latter responded, and the patient asked to receive the last Sacraments. The surprise and inward joy of the good priest may be imagined. Without any trouble the priest attended to the man, and by the following morning the latter had journeyed into eternity. What are we to think of this strange conversion? In other words: (1) Did the patient receive the last Sacraments validly? (2) Would the priest have been allowed to administer the Sacraments, if he had been told of the hypnotic character of the process of conversion? (3) Was the physician allowed to hypnotize the sick man and (4) was it proper to suggest the idea of conversion? We will answer these four questions one by one.

^* By P. N. Katzemich, D.D.

1. Did the patient receive the last Sacraments validly, i. e., with profit?

Unfortunately we can not answer this important question unqualifiedly in the affirmative. The objective fact is not clear enough. The chaplain had no idea of the hypnotism that had taken place, nor of the hypnotic suggestion of conversion; he therefore regarded the sick man's conversion as genuine, without examining further into the matter. The physician, however, believed that his suggestion had succeeded; he was pleased to have rendered the patient a good service in this manner, and to have enriched the science of hypnosis by an interesting experiment. He gave no thought to the question of validity of the Sacraments so received. The thought that the attitude of the patient might perhaps be independent of the suggestion of conversion did not enter his mind. Thus it happened that he, neither, examined more closely into the real facts. The sick man, feeble and exhausted, said no more about his "conversion." Had he been asked in his normal condition whether he had become converted and why, or how he came to think of sending for the chaplain, and receiving the last Sacraments, then the true condition of affairs would certainly, or at least in all probability, have been ascertained.

As the case is, there is nothing left for us but to reckon with probabilities, and to say that the patient probably, most probably, indeed, received the last Sacraments validly, that is to say with profit.

First of all, the suddenness and unexpectedness of the conversion must not be allowed to startle us. A man may be a hardened sinner and reject all priestly assistance, and nevertheless become all at once a ready penitent. God has in His power also the heart of the perverse man, and knows how to lead and stir it in such manner, that against all human expectations, it heeds the divine call to grace, and instantly forsakes the path of sin. Examples of this kind are offered us in the repentant thief upon the cross, St. Paul the apostle, and many other saints.

Against this there arises the justifiable doubt of the validity of the Sacraments as soon as we bring the sudden and unexpected conversion in connection with the preceding hypnotic state and the suggestion "to send for the chaplain five minutes after awakening, and to receive the Sacraments."

It is well-known that hypnotism transports the subject into an irresponsible state of mind; the same holds good for the so-called post-hypnotic hallucinations, i. e., for that state in which the hypnotized person at a fixed time acts upon a suggestion received during the hypnotic state. The physician, on his part, had done everything to produce just such post-hypnotic state, and it looks very much as if with success.

There arises consequently, the question whether the patient in casu was of sane mind or not when receiving the Sacraments. If he was, then he received the holy Sacraments validly, and with profit; if he was not, then his conversion was an unconscious exterior act, and an unwilling one, an actus hominis, the value of which can not be thought of. It is not impossible that through hypnotic suggestion a man may be brought even against his will to send for a priest, to request of him the last Sacraments and exteriorly to do everything that the idea suggests virtually and formally. In our patient it is of course remarkable and strange that his actions after the hypnotic sleep corresponded so exactly to the hypnotic suggestion; exactly five minutes after awakening from the hypnotism he caused the chaplain to be called and asked him for the Sacraments. Moreover, it is apparent that the suggested alleviation of pain was really accomplished, for the patient spoke of an alleviation that had taken place. The physician, however, had suggested both, the idea of alleviation and the one of conversion at one and the same time, so that the accomplishment of the one leads us to infer the attainment of the other. Furthermore, as at short terms even apathetic suggestions succeed, as experience proves, and in our case the time was only five minutes, the suggestion of conversion may actually have been considered a success. Besides, the diametrically opposed behavior within a few minutes of the patient in regard to one and the same idea is most plausibly explained by regarding his first attitude as the conscious one; the second, on the contrary, as unconscious, therefore an involuntary and irresponsible one. These are the chief arguments that can be advanced for the patient's unsound state of mind. They are not irrefutable, although we can not deny to them some probability. Let us place against these arguments the evidence that would point to a normal state of mind. First of all, it is very doubtful, and not very probable, that the suggestion of the idea of conversion actually succeeded. It is a fact vouched for by medical science, that a great number even of such subjects as are particularly good "media" are far from being susceptible to all sorts of hypnotic suggestions; for the most part they respond only to sympathetic ideas, i. e., such are agreeable to their tastes, to their sense of honor, to their conscience, or their temperament. The idea of conversion was extremely distasteful to our patient; he had obstinately resisted it all the time up to about seven minutes ago; he detested it, and would go to perdition rather than subject to it. We may, therefore, suppose that he had not received it at all. The speedy and superficial manner of the suggestion gives support to this argument. Experience teaches that the hypnotist must usually suggest an obnoxious idea repeatedly in order that it may be entertained, two, three, four times; indeed there have been instances where it was necessary to repeat fifty and sixty times before it succeeded. With our patient there was no repetition nor an attempt at special emphasis. Again, there appear as a rule more or less violent signs of reluctance as a result of distasteful suggestion; the subject resists, and struggles against it by word and demeanor, and if the suggestion is further urged, the subject not infrequently falls into fits. There was not the slightest excitement apparent in our patient. He offered no objection, he showed no displeasure. Hence it appears that he remained unresponsive to the idea of conversion, and that he was in no wise moved by it.

The suggestion as such seemed, therefore, unsuccessful; therewith, too, the injurious influence of the suggestion upon the mind was removed, or rather was not present.

Another reason for assuming a normal mind is found in the fact, that the compliance with a successful suggestion is completely prevented by a contrary psycho-physiological nature of the subject. The received suggestion operates adequately only when its original relation to the nervous system remains unchanged. With our patient, not even the reception of the suggestion as such can be shown with certainty; still less its efficaciousness.

On the other hand, however, the approach of death was probably not without a special influence upon the nervous system and ideas of the patient; so that a complete failure of the suggestion may well be supposed. In that case the patient's state of mind was, of course, not at all influenced by the idea suggested.

The efficacy of the simultaneously suggested alleviation of pain does not prove a great deal; it is not even certain that this alleviation was actually to be ascribed to the suggestion; many sick persons feel stronger and better just before death without any suggestion whatsoever. Furthermore, the idea of alleviation is distinctly different from the idea of conversion, and stands in an opposite relation to the patient; he cherishes the one idea, and hates the other; from the success and efficacy of the one does not at all follow the efficacy of the other. The experience of hypnotists confirms this.

Finally, we must remember that hypnotic, or post-hypnotic, hallucinations do not always preclude a conscious state of mind. Even in natural sleep we make a distinction between light and sound sleep, and only in the latter the conscious state of the mind is absent. It is similar in hypnotism, its influence upon the subject's mind stands in proportion to the efficacy of the idea suggested, and this again upon the disposition of the nervous system and the skill of the hypnotist. The fact of positive disobedience, righteous indignation, and open contradiction of many subjects to whom are made silly or unlawful suggestions, proves that subjects have in their hypnotic sleep a flickering of consciousness and hence a momentary sound state of mind; at least those signs of reluctance are not always and solely attributable to the "natural instinct!" Even if we would in the case of our patient acknowledge the success of the suggestion itself and of the working of the suggestion, there will still remain a well-founded doubt as to whether and to what degree consciousness was disturbed.

His action is more easily attributed to a conscious and determined change of will than to post-hypnotic hallucination. To the working of the hypnotic suggestion there were opposed considerably greater difficulties than to a sudden conscious change of mind. In the latter case it only required a motio congrua of divine grace to change the will; in the former, a motio congrua of the hypnotist, which under the circumstances was hardly possible.

In view of these reasons, speaking for the sound state of mind of our patient, we are justified in saying that the greater probability points to the intrinsic genuineness of the "conversion." It appears therefore to have been a conscious, interiorly willed and freely contemplated act rather than an only apparent and mechanical one. Did however, the sick man in those moments act as a free-willed man, then he in reality has complied with all the conditions required for the validity, i. e., the fruitful reception of the holy Sacraments; he had the intention of receiving the Sacraments; he was sorry for his sins, and confessed them formally; and, therefore, the Sacrament of Penance was validly received and consequently fruitful; the same is to be said of the Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction, as in regard to them there are offered no other difficulties.

2. Was the chaplain allowed to administer the Sacraments to the patient. had he been aware of the hypnotic suggestion of conversion?

We answer in the affirmative. Sacramenta propter homines, say the theologians. One may and must administer those Sacraments absolutely or relatively necessary for man's salvation, to the patient, so long as there is some probability for their valid reception. As we have seen, such a probability was actually present in casu. Of course the chaplain properly considering a possible invalidity and consequent danger of irreverence to the holy Sacraments, would have given absolution conditionally; for “it is certain that in a case in which there is an extreme necessity of one’s neighbor and no matter is available except doubtful matter, then the minister not only may, but is bound under grave obligation, to administer the sacrament to him conditionally,” says St. Alphonsus (Theol. Moral. I. V. Tr. I. n. 39).

The consideration that the chaplain should not thus participate consciously in a hypnotic experiment, is of little import here. For the chaplain would have participated in casu only materially, but not formally, in the hypnotic experiment, as he would not have come on account of the experiment, but in order to save, if possible, the soul of the hypnotized for heaven. Furthermore the deliberate participation in hypnotic experiments can not be condemned as absolutely unseemly or sinful. There are cases where hypnotism is lawful; and in these one may lawfully participate.

3. Was the physician allowed to hypnotize the patient?

This question can not be confirmed unconditionally. Hypnotism has been vehemently combated; it has been condemned as injurious to health, and as unlawful; in this manner it has been presented, for instance, in the Civiltà Cattolica, 1886, and in P. Franco's, S.J., L'ipnotismo tornato di moda, Roma, 1886; on the other hand, however, there have not been wanting earnest and able advocates; as for instance P. Coconnier, O.P., in L'hypnotisme franc, Paris, 1898, XIIme edition. The supreme ecclesiastical tribunal answered to the question, as to whether life-magnetism be lawful, in a rescript of June 23, 1840, that it is "not forbidden, if all deceit and superstition, expressed or silent invocation of Satan, and immoral aims are excluded." That which went under the name of life-magnetism in the middle of last century, bears in our days the name of hypnotism. The Sacred Congregation Inquis. therefore does not prohibit hypnotism as such. One should compare this with the decision of the Holy Office, of 28th July, 1847, and the papal encyclical to the bishops, of the 4th August, 1856, also the answer of the Holy Office, of 26th July, 1899, in which it is decreed in reference to a physician taking part in medical application of hypnotism in the case of sick children: With regard to new experiments, if there is question of acts which certainly exceed the powers of nature, they are not permitted; but if this is doubtful, after a prior declaration that one wishes to have no part in preternatural compacts, it may be tolerated, provided the danger of scandal is absent.

It must be conceded that in hypnotism very remarkable and strange phenomena appear, but all these are by no means a criterion of diabolical influence. Calm research and psycho-physiological science have an explanation in a purely natural way of most hypnotical phenomena hitherto known. The susceptibility of the nervous system for exterior influences, and the close alliance of soul and body, form a sphere in which the ability of the hypnotist is enabled to work amazing things, without in any manner needing the co-operation of spirits.

Unfortunately it is true, that hypnotism has many times injured the health of subjects, either through the weakening of the memory, of the reason, or of the will power, or by producing diseased conditions. The culpability for these lamentable conditions, however, rests almost always upon the imprudence and awkwardness of the hypnotist who hypnotizes persons without proper regard to their psychical and somatical condition. If hypnotists would set to work more cautiously and conscientiously, and if they would not put the subjects in sleep too often nor too long, if they would not vex them with distasteful suggestions, then the evil after effects would either altogether cease or at least grow perceptibly less. At any rate injury to health is not necessarily a result of hypnotism and it has not been proven that hypnotism as such is detrimental to health.

Although it may be advisable to be somewhat skeptical in accepting the triumphal reports of the advocates of hypnotism, yet it can not be denied that hypnotism has secured a prominent place in the medical science. It is claimed that much good has been already done with its aid and that it has either removed, or at least alleviated diseased conditions. It is argued that it would be unjust to condemn it as the sworn enemy of the human race, and to banish it from off the earth. Still, this commendation of hypnotism must be greatly modified. The injuries which hypnotism works or may work are so numerous and so great, that from the standpoint of common sense alone, it must be designated as unlawful and improper.

It is easily understood why the medical faculty of Vienna, the health boards of Milan, and of Rome, the College of Medicine at Brussels, the international Congress for experimental and therapeutical hypnotism at Paris (1889) and others, recommended to their respective governments the prohibition of public demonstrations of hypnotism, which was usually done. And it would be proper, too, if so-called scientific application of hypnotism would be entirely forbidden. Exception might be made in cases where hypnotism is employed for healing purposes, and this only on the following conditions: (1) That no other remedy was known or available; (2) That the probable harm would be exceeded by the benefit to be gained; (3) That it be applied by an experienced and conscientious physician, precluding all risk and misuse; (4) That the patient agree to it. Such case will not easily present itself. For this reason the use of hypnotism is mostly considered by the authorities as unlawful (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, Villada, Bucceroni, Aertnys, Cl. Marc, etc.); while others permit its use as a specific under the restrictions as above-mentioned (cf. Lehmkuhl, D'Annibale, Ojetti, after D'Annibale and Lapponi, Noldin).

The person who lets himself or herself be hypnotized, surrenders to the will of the hypnotist for the term of the hypnotic sleep and the latter may do as he pleases with the subject; it is also unlawful to renounce reason and free will as done in hypnotism. These are the chief arguments against hypnotism besides those dealt with above. When reading the accounts of what hypnotists have attempted with sleeping subjects, one is inclined to pray, "From the evil of hypnotism deliver us." Revolting abuses have been perpetrated in this particular. This is not the place to go into details; we refer to the authors above quoted.

The answer to the third question is thus given and supported by facts.

If the doctor had really put the patient in hypnotic state it remains to answer the last question:

4. Was the physician allowed to suggest conversion to the patient?

The physician could not know whether the suggestion of conversion would produce harmful excitement of the nervous system in our patient, and thereby an aggravated condition. He went to work with all necessary caution and gentleness, and he did not worry the sick man by repeating the suggestion. It was permissible to venture something in this case, for the salvation of the patient's soul was of more importance than his somatic condition.

Nor was consideration of the doubt of validity of the Sacraments an obstacle; for the suggestion of conversion did not surely cause invalid reception, it did not even contain an absolute danger to the validity; moreover the Church has not yet prohibited suggestions of this kind. The physician's action can thus be approved of; he was allowed to suggest to the patient in a hypnotic state, Five minutes after awakening from the hypnotic sleep to call for the chaplain and ask him for the last Sacraments.