Bridgman and Carter (1989) propose that original sin is preoedipal and based on primary narcissism. They also comment upon and criticize Vitz and Gartner's oedipal interpretation of original sin. This reply to Bridgman and Carter makes the following points: We accept the proposal that original sin has its psychological origin in primary narcissism; however, we assume that original sin expresses itself quite differently at different developmental stages in life; oedipally based sinfulness we propose is one of these distinct expressions of original sin. A number of other issues and criticisms raised by Bridgman and Carter are also addressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BridgmanL.P., & CarterJ.D. (1989). Christianity and psychoanalysis: Original sin—oedipal or preoedipal?Journal of Psychology and Theology, 17, 3–8.
2.
FenichelO. (1945). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis.New York: Norton.
3.
FreudS. (1913). Totem und Tabu, Gesammelte Werke, 9. London: Imago.
4.
VitzP.C. (1977). Psychology as religion: The cult of self-worship.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
5.
VitzP.C. (1983). Sigmund Freud's attraction to Christianity: Biographical evidence.Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 6, 173–183.
6.
VitzP.C. (1985). The dilemma of narcissism.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 9–14.
7.
VitzP.C. (1988). Sigmund Freud's Christian unconscious.New York: Guilford.
8.
VitzP.C., & GartnerJ. (1984a). Christianity and psychoanalysis, Part 1: Jesus as the anti-Oedipus.Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12, 4–14.
9.
VitzP.C., & GartnerJ. (1984b). Christianity and psychoanalysis, Part 2: Jesus the transformer of the super-ego.Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12, 82–90.
10.
von HildebrandD. (1963). Transformation in Christ.Garden City, NY: Doubleday-Image.
