THE FINGER OF PROVIDENCE: RELIGION AND MORALITY IN MEDICINE – Peter Morrell

Main

‘Medicine, once an art and now a science, has roots extending to the
very dawn of history, to that dark domain of magic where faith healing was supreme and the
witch doctor was the physician.’ [Maple, 1968, p.9]

‘The philosophy of ancient medicine is…closely related to ancient
religions.’ [Maple, 1968, p.15]

From a superficial glance at modern medicine it is very hard to see any
strong connection to religion or morality. But the harder one looks, the more this theme
crops up and bedevils the alleged scientific nature of medical practice and medical theory.

‘People of all age groups, occupations and social classes in early
modern England knew they trod the pilgrim’s progress of life in the shadow of sickness,
disability and death…adults saw close around them massive evidence of death…in such a
society illness and death were bound to loom large in people’s minds.’ [Porter, 1986,
p.23]

‘…the personal pre-occupation with sickness…mirrored larger
concerns. Remedies against sickness, omens about death, consolations for sufferers: these
loomed large in a popular culture passed down orally, almost literally with mother’s milk,
but they were intoned from the pulpit, read in the Bible…we cannot assume that people
believed all that doctors told them about medicine, or all that preachers thundered about
the corruption of the flesh.’ [Porter, 1986, p.24]

‘…in the medical model of physical illness…disease is regarded as
an alien entity. It strikes from outside for no particular reason. It afflicts our
‘body’…and we trust the doctor to repair our body, rather as we expect the mechanic to
mend our car. Overall, illness has no particular meaning and the doctor is the active
agent, the hero even, in its conquest. Little of this would have rung true to Tudor or
Stuart sufferers [c.1500-1700], or even to most Victorians. Then illness was typically
seen not as a random accident striking from outside, but a deeply significant life-event,
integral to the sufferer’s whole being, spiritual, moral and physical…bouts of sickness,
from minor discomforts to dangerous fevers and seizures, were typically seen as integral
to the individual’s constitution and personality. This implied the opposite of today’s
‘doctor dependence’: your life was not in his hands, but in your own.’ [Porter, 1986,
pp.25-6]

An important theme here is still retained by most modern holistic
therapies: that illness does indeed contain a personal ‘hidden message’ and that it is part
of the internal life of a person rather than an invading entity which strikes from the
outside. Indeed, some would go further and even claim that we manufacture our own illness
for a reason, even though, for most of us, such reasons often remain obscured even unto the
grave. The holistic nature of these healing systems is also, arguably, one of the key
features which distinguishes them from scientific allopathy.

‘One way that people in traditional society coped with the fact that
doctors were not miracle-workers was to view their own health as ultimately their personal
responsibility…this belief had important consequences when it came to deciding what to
do when one fell sick.’ [Porter, 1986, p.26]

This raises the notion that we might be better doing nothing rather than
going to the doctor [what was often termed ‘healing power of nature’ or ‘therapeutic
nihilism’ in the last century] or even that our modern, heavy dependence upon doctors is
both unnecessary and misplaced.
Several popular theories for sickness were almost universally entertained:

‘…the airless quarters of towns were hotbeds of epidemics…people
living in marshy areas frequently got malaria…the blame lay with poisonous gases exhaled
from the earth….secondly, it was widely believed that disease might be the result of
maleficium [spells cast by witches] or of satanic or demonic possession…belief in
witchcraft, magic and demonology gradually declined during the seventeenth century –
precisely why is not clear – and it seems that attributing sickness and death to evil
spirits, and countering these by magical remedies, increasingly became confined to the
lower orders, to the countryside and to oral culture. Nevertheless survivals of medical
magic, such as passing a child with whooping cough under a donkey, still flourished in the
nineteenth century, and it long remained acceptable to attribute disease to the Devil.’
[Porter, 1986, pp.26-7]

Appearing to modern eyes to be irrational, such ‘magical cures’ were very
widespread in virtually all societies one looks at.

‘Thirdly, and extremely importantly, the fallen condition of mankind
was blamed for the ubiquity of sickness, suffering and the empire of the Grim Reaper.
Through their original sin, Adam and Eve had brought disease and death into the world as
punishments for disobedience.’ [Porter, 1986, p.27]

The theological argument here seems to be that as their descendants, we
have inherited a ‘poisoned lineage’ marked forever with ‘sin’ and so we suffer because of
them; this runs parallel to the notion that if we embrace the healing power of Christ, then
our souls will be saved and our lives radically healed. And undoubtedly many people today
still firmly believe this.

‘[They] believed the end of the world was at hand, the world was old
and decaying fast, and the proliferation of plagues, epidemics, disasters, dearth, famine
and wars was to be seen as the mark of the imminent Dissolution…such views could make
sense of the empire of disease and death. They did not, however, satisfactorily explain
the personal dilemma: why did it happen to me?…in the seventeenth century, when life was
precarious and death commonly struck in the prime of life, and the salvation of the soul
was paramount, each illness episode had to be scrutinised for its deeper
meanings…sickness was interpreted as full of moral, spiritual and religious
messages…the working of natural justice. The sins of the parents visited upon their
children…adulterers would contract venereal infections, and the idle would be punished
with melancholy…but above all sickness was regarded as the finger of Providence. God
used illness for a multitude of higher purposes…as a punishment, as a reminder of Divine
wrath, and as a warning to the wicked to mend their ways….thus sickness became one of
the many ways God revealed His will to man.’ [Porter, 1986, pp.27-8]

Predominantly, the idea that sickness is a punishment is a very powerful
one and is still held deeply within us. It might form the basis for our superstitious regard
for the medical establishment, which surfaces periodically, such as when things go wrong or
whenever their help proves useless in our hour of need.

‘The connection between religion and medicine is an ancient one and
we may draw a connection between these two domains by considering the verbs ‘to save the
soul’ and ‘to salve the body’…Christianity moralised medicine because illness was,
within a Christian framework, often seen to be either a punishment by God or a form of
instruction to the soul….we may note in any case that many of our everyday descriptions
of disease and illness carry these moral implications. For example the notions of malady
and malignancy are derived from the Latin ‘malus’ or evil.’ [Turner, p.20]

‘Traditionally, monastic diets were aimed at regulating human passion
by controlling the digestion through the restrained use of red meat and wine in order to
avoid inflaming the sexual appetite.’ [Turner, p.22]

There is a similar puritanical theme within hydrotherapy and nature cure,
which are also shot through with this notion of purification, self-denial, non-enjoyment and
self-restraint. But there is also no doubt that Christian compassion and charity, through
the centuries, has been the driving force in their establishment of hospices and hospitals
for the sick and dying. Countless acts of kindness and help have been inspired in the name
of religion. Certainly the monasteries a had a healing function as part of their ministry
work. Christians have tended to accept suffering as a lesson in patience and as a gift from
an all-merciful God. Helping the sick, the needy and the poor has always been an undeniably
central feature of their work in the world.

‘…by contrast with the naturalistic bent of Hippocratic and Galenic
medicine, healing became more spiced with religion, for the rising Church taught there was
a supernatural plan and purpose to everything…’ [Porter, 1998, pp.83-4]

‘Certain maladies were associated with the Almighty’s punishment of
sin…’ [Porter, 1998, p.84]

‘Suffering could be a godsend and a trial. ‘Blessed is the man whom
God correcteth,’ declared Job, singled out by the Lord to undergo great suffering…’
[Porter, 1998, p.85]

‘While suffering and disease could appear as chastisement of the
wicked or a trial of those the Lord loved, the Church also developed a healing
mission…it won converts among those desperate to be cured; and like a self-fulfilling
prophecy, healing miracles proliferated…’ [Porter, 1998, p.87]

‘To care for lepers and thus expose oneself to infection was a mark
of holiness…’ [Porter, 1998, p.88]

‘Cornaro [1558] had argued that the social disturbances of the time
were linked with the disorders of the human body…the solution for these social and
physical disorders was to be sought in the disciplined, regular and sober
lifestyle…mental stability was to be achieved through the regulation of the passions and
a moral order which was regulated and stable…no clear conceptual separation was
attempted between morality, religion and medicine…’ [Turner, p.23]

One presumes that there was no impulse to separate these disciplines
because there was no need to do so and, indeed, that they were regarded as aspects of the
same thing; they had not diverged and become crystallised into separate subjects within the
thoughts of people. That religion and morality were one was never questioned even into very
modern times; and healing has long been an aspect of all religious activity, in most
cultures. It is only in modern times, and especially with the complete secularisation of
medicine under science [mostly since 1900], that these topics have become separated. To what
extent it is a permanent arrangement remains to be seen.

‘In medieval European culture…Christian sacramentalism retained the
notion that the cure of souls and bodies could be brought about through the rituals of
penance…in popular medieval culture, shrines and pilgrimages were a traditional feature
of medical cure. Diseases were cured through the religious relics which were contained in
shrines along the routes followed by pilgrims. While the role of the secular physician was
recognised…certain forms of illness were the special monopoly of the priests.’ [Turner,
p.26]

Even today people still tend to regard illness, like any other visitation
by misfortune, as something one deserves or has ‘earned’ in some negative way, as if it is a
punishment meted out by God, or been delivered to our door as a result of some process of
natural justice; the backfiring of one’s ‘bad karma’.

‘…illness is regarded as part of God’s design for the individual
[bringing training and a sense of God’s mercy] then the intervention of the physician is
incompatible with the notion of God’s purpose. That is medicine is seen to interfere with
a religious plan. In any case, the Christian theologians often regarded human
maladies…as charged with spiritual powers….by stressing the educative aspect of
sickness, the Church was able to accept the role of the physician as compatible with these
Christian principles.’ [Turner, p.27]

‘To the Anglo-Saxons…unaccountable deaths or sickness in animals
and humans…were believed to be the direct result of ‘Elf-shot’…[caused by] unseen,
unheard creatures of hate and malice…we still use the word ‘stroke’…unaware that it
originally meant ‘Elf-stroke’. [Gordon, p.56]

‘England was unique in producing a medical literature in a non-Latin
tongue, Anglo-Saxon…the English healer used chants and charms, predicated on the belief
that certain diseases were caused by darts shot be elves…diseases could be cured by
prayers or by invoking saints’ names, by exorcism…Christian amulets were prescribed,
together with number magic…’ [Porter, 1998, p.91]

‘In Islam…ill health was widely attributed to spirits…the sick
had to outwit them or recruit the protection of superior magical powers…avoidance of
sickness thus demanded practical and magical precautions to ward off evil spirits.’
[Porter, 1998, p.93]

‘…some Buddhist monasteries included a sick-room, which may have
developed into a more distinct hospital, at around the same time as the emergence of
hospitals in the Christian West.’ [Porter, 1998, p.137].

In general, regardless of whether they were pantheistic or monotheistic in
their personal religious beliefs, our ancestors were very rarely content merely to passively
accept all these doctrines and beliefs, but took active steps to protect themselves and
their loved ones from attack from what they conceived as invisible hostile forces. They
employed a staggering range of amulets, charms, rituals, prayers, sacrifices, incantations
and magical practices for this precise purpose.

‘It is the magician’s duty to bring down misfortune and plagues on
the enemies of his tribe, and to guard his own people against hostile magic. For these
services he is richly paid, and by them he acquires a position of great influence and
authority.’ [Frazer, 1922, p.88]

‘Herbs used as amulets as well as medicines were employed against the
Evil Eye, a threat of the unknown against man and his cattle…Helleborus niger was dug up
with many religious ceremonies to bless the cows and sheep…many plants diverted evil by
means of their smell, such as Lilies, Artemisia and Mugwort. In some cases they were
burned as incense, in others hung at doors and windows. Onions, Garlic, Leeks and Chives
were known to be efficacious…Sandalwood was used for exorcism. The Elder [Sambucus
nigra] was thought to be a protective plant, and so was planted near houses…Misletoe was
an anti-witch plant…Rosemary was a counter-charm, used at weddings and funerals.’
[Gordon, p.57]

‘All over the world we find things of a red colour used for
protection. In China charms were tied with red string, written on red paper, or printed in
red ink. Red silk was tied round a baby’s wrist, and old and young regarded red as the
best safeguard of all against the Evil Eye.’ [Gordon, p.58]

‘…the principle that like cures like, as exemplified by the
employment of red flannel for bandaging sore throats, is supported by the well-known fact
that the colour red does indeed possess a curative value in certain medical conditions.’
[Maple, 1968, p.15]

‘…Artemisia…could be hung over the door of any house…Birthwort
[Aristolochia] was also recommended against the Evil Eye, as well as Alyssum, Horehound,
Peony, Vervain, Yarrow and Betony. William Coles said in 1656 that if the roots of
Angelica were carried about a man he would be protected from evil…Snapdragon with its
snapping jaws acted as a counter-charm, and so did Cinquefoil, Valerian and Rue…the
young scroll-like fronds of the male fern Felix mas, were sought for and treasured when
found, for they were known to be a protection against sorcery…and St. John’s Wort…the
name Hypericum meaning ‘to protect’. Hyssop too was hung in houses and used with various
ceremonials as a great cleanser…’ [Gordon, pp. 59-60]

Homeopathy

We don’t have to search very hard to find a mass of religious ideas within
homeopathy which illustrate how puritanical and moralising some homeopaths have been. The
following quotes from Kent’s Lectures and Aphorisms reveal a surprisingly rich seam of such
material:

‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way
down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural’ [p.641]

‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.’ [p.671]

‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’
[ibid., p.681]

‘Man…becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking
wrong…’ [ibid., p.664]

‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of
sin.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil
willing, is Psora.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which
finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘..had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human
race…susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible…it is the foundation
of all sickness.’ [Lectures, p.126]

‘Psora…is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’
[ibid., p.135]

‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little
better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put
it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid., p.135]

‘Psora…would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid., p.133]

‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that
which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man
remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid.,
p.134]

‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him;
therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid., p.136]

‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the
human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors…man hates his
neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state of man today.
This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid., p.136]

‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything
that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with
adultery…’ [ibid., p.137]

‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from
the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid., pp.137-8]

‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness…is the underlying
cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid., p.126]

‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the
very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness…which in turn laid
the foundation for other diseases. [ibid., p.126]

It is clear from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral
line about the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora
was equivalent to Original Sin or the Fall of Man. That is the clear implication of the
above remarks he made. He got himself into this position very largely from insisting that
homeopathy necessarily involves a religious dimension which places a moral duty upon the
practitioner, and thus the homeopath has a morally redeeming influence through cure. Thus he
viewed the homeopath as a Godly saviour who dispenses spiritual as well as physical cures;
and that illness is/stems from a corrupted state of man, which homeopathy can cure. Kent’s
logic is rather like…’all sick men are bad; Socrates is sick, therefore Socrates is bad’.
But in his case he contends:

‘all sickness originates from internal causes; internal causes are
spiritual; therefore all sickness has a spiritual basis’

And then from there he equates internal and spiritual causes as the
miasms. Thus in his view the miasms are to be viewed as internal spiritual sins, or
derivatives of them.

He also avers another line of argument:

‘all disease causes (inner world) are invisible and nebulous; all
potentised remedies are of a similar nature; thus potentised substance, and especially the
higher potencies, are the only means of curing disease (by reaching into the subtle
interior realm of disease causes)’

This also leads to his oft-repeated adage of ‘the higher the deeper’. This
probably also forms the basis for his strong advocacy and use of the very highest potencies.
In this manner we can analyse and dissect Kent’s brand of homeopathy.

Like the Mediaeval Churchmen, Kent displays a remarkable devotion to
deductive logic and an apparent ignorance of induction or of knowledge based upon
experiment, data and the evidence of the senses – to which he also remains either oblivious
or contemptuous. There are some good parallels between Kent and Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) in
that both treat their subject matter with immense reverence as received dogma which cannot
even be questioned, and then build upon that base their towers of speculation and
philosophy. Both also tend in the direction of rigid dogmatism, excessive preciousness and
zealous devotion to ‘truth’ as received knowledge – not as freedom of thought or
experimentation, towards which both seem utterly opposed.

I would contend that the puritan idea within homeopathy (and in medicine
generally) is correctly invoked by Kent, in that illness does still tend to be regarded by
many of us [if only subliminally] as an unwanted evil which must be ‘cleansed’ out of the
system by the healer. In most cultures the healer is thus assumed to be an agent of divine
assistance.

Although Hahnemann himself was of a simple religious faith [being born and
raised a Lutheran], he seems to have formulated homeopathy in a largely modern and secular
mould. I would even say ‘scientific’, what with homeopathy’s heavy reliance on
experimentation, philosophy and proof of symptoms. He seems to have abhorred fanciful
theories and made-up notions about spirits, alchemy and astrology. In that sense he seems
very like a modern scientist. Is there any evidence in his writings that he was any more
religious than the normal people of his time? To what extent he was superstitious or
believed in magic [even though he was a life-long Freemason] or the power of thought over
illness must also remain unanswered questions. Where is the evidence for any such beliefs
about him? Nor can I claim to have noticed any especially moralistic or judgmental outbursts
in his writings.

Sources
Frazer, Sir James, 1922, The Golden Bough A Study in Magic and Religion, London
Gordon, Lesley, 1993, The Mystery and Magic of Trees and Flowers, Grange Books, London
Kent, James Tyler, 1900, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, Jain reprint
Kent, James Tyler, 1890, Aphorisms, New Remedies and Lesser Writings, Jain
Maple, Eric, 1968, Magic, Medicine and Quackery, Robert Hale, London
Porter, Roy, 1986, Disease, Medicine and Society in England 1550-1860, MacMillan London
Porter, Roy, 1998, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind A Medical History of Humanity, Norton New
York
Turner, Bryan S,1995, Medical Power and Social Knowledge, Sage, London

Main