R. J. Grigaitis

I’ve been following the George Tiller story, and there’s one thing I just don’t understand: Why are so many pro-abortion advocates drawing a connection between this killing and the pro-life movement? Anyone with any acquaintance with the pro-life movement will know the aim of this movement is the protection of life from conception to natural death. This means that the pro-life movement entails a lot more than just an anti-abortion agenda. The agenda also includes being anti-euthanasia, anti-human cloning, anti-human embryonic stem cells research and anti-death penalty (It should also include being anti-contraception, but I’m not going to debate that right now).

George Tiller did not die a natural death; therefore, the person responsible for his death is not pro-life. In case any pro-abortion advocates miss this, I’ll say it again. The person responsible for George Tiller’s death is not pro-life. It is a contradiction to say that a murderer is pro-life. The issue gets a little fuzzy with the just war theory and with self-defence, but in this case, the issue is clear: it was wrong for George Tiller’s killer to take Dr. Tiller’s life.

Over and over again, pro-life groups have been denouncing Dr. Tiller’s killing and demonstrating they had no involvement, but they really shouldn’t have to. When a drug lord is murdered, anti-drug advocates don’t have to denounce the killing or prove their innocence to the media. Why are pro-life groups not given the same courtesy?

The man arrested and charged with Dr. Tiller’s killing, Scott Roeder, has no connection to any legitimate pro-life organisation. His family members, however, say he does suffer from a mental illness. Why doesn’t the media and pro-abortion advocates attack the mentally ill? We (that’s right, I have a mental illness) usually don’t kill anyone, but, unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, never kill anyone, if they do, they are no longer pro-life advocates.

It is a sad fact that some mentally ill persons succeed in killing people, most commonly themselves. It is an even sadder fact that far more people are killed through abortion than through mental illness. For the most part, people involved with abortion don’t fully realise that a person is being killed. If they did, only a few mentally ill persons or the most callous of people could actually go through with it. Many times the after affects of abortion induce mental illness, sometimes resulting in suicide.

The death of babies and the suicides over their deaths are what the pro-life movement is trying to prevent. Murdering an abortionist will not achieve this goal. Even though the facts prove otherwise, it seems that George Tiller is becoming a martyr for the pro-abortion cause. People believe the lie that “it’s not really a baby,” so they’re likely to believe the lie that the pro-life movement killed George Tiller.

Last week I read and commented on Sr. Helena Burns’ review of the movie Angels & Demons. This is what I wrote:

Good review except for this one sentence: “The screenplay (which is kinder to the Catholic Church than the book) zigzags schizophrenically between insulting the Church and patting her on the head.” Schizophrenia is not the disorder you wanted to refer to. What you wanted to refer to was dissociative identity disorder, also known as multiple personality disorder. The pope made a similar mistake almost a year ago. You can read about it here:
http://blog.grigaitis.net/2008/09/humble-correction-of-the-pope/

Sr. Helena respectfully made this reply describing how she corrected her review:

Thanks! I fixed it to “rapidly.”

Today I saw the movie at a matinée and have decided that schizophrenic, though Sr. Helena used it in the wrong context, describes this movie perfectly.

A couple of times close to the beginning of the movie, I was almost offended; however, closer to the end, I could hardly keep myself from laughing out loud it was so ridiculous. Of course you shouldn’t react either way when dealing with someone delusional, and this is how I interpret the main character, Robert Langdon.

Mr. Langdon is a very ill person who believes he’s been summoned to help the Vatican. His delusions defy theology, history, and physics. This is the only rational way I can explain what goes on in this movie.

I met a guy once on the psych ward who had similar delusions. It was ten years ago, so I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember that the organisation that played the same role in his delusion as the Vatican in this movie was MTV. He believed that some evil force in this world was going to annihilate everyone of his ethic background, and was sending all sorts of e-mails to MTV for this to be stopped. Maybe Ron Howard should base his next movie on this story.

I can’t take the delusions of Angels & Demons seriously enough to be offended by them, just as I can’t be offended by the delusions of someone with schizophrenia.

Now I’m not saying that Dan Brown and Ron Howard have schizophrenia. I doubt they share the same delusions their stories suffer from, which begs the question: Why are they creating these stories?

They must have some unhealthy obsession with the Catholic Church. Maybe they should turn it into a healthy obsession. Wouldn’t it be something if both of them became devout Catholics a few years from now?

The recent story about the death of John Travolta’s son prompted me to take a very small look at Scientology; specifically, an interview with Tom Cruise that took place around the time the movie War of the Worlds came out. The media seems to dismiss most of what Tom Cruise said as absurdity; however, there is some truth to what he said, particularly concerning pharmaceuticals and mental illness.

The normal treatment of mental illnesses, not to mention most other illnesses, today is almost entirely pharmaceutical. Tom Cruise is correct when he says that pharmaceuticals are not a cure but only mask the symptoms of an illness. What is needed is to get to the root cause of the illness, which I believe is environmental toxins.

Unlike Scientology, I believe that pharmaceuticals have their place. They should be used temporarily to mask the symptoms while the root cause of the illness is investigated and treated. Pharmaceuticals may also be used in removing the toxins from the sick person.

This approach to mental health, and health in general, is relatively new. It will likely be another 20 years before it is no longer considered controversial, and another 20 years before it is common practice. Unfortunately, while environmental medicine gains creditability, so will Scientology because of a few truths that are currently considered absurd by the mass media. Hopefully more ill persons will be treated with the  true science of environmental medicine and not get sucked into the money making cult of Scientology.

June 29, 2008

Pope Benedict XVI
The Apostolic Palace,
00120 Vatican City, Europe

Your Holiness,

It is very fitting that I write this letter to you today on the great Solemnity of St. Peter and  St. Paul. It is fitting because, although I can in no way compare myself to St. Paul, I am willing to correct Peter when he is wrong. I would never question you on an issue of faith and morals, but you have erred on an issue of psychiatry, of which I have a little knowledge because I have been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.

It was in the following paragraph from your June 25, 2008 Wednesday General Audience that you erred:

However, the problem arises: Does not one end in this way in a sort of dualism? Is not one faced with affirming two complete personalities with reason, will, sentiment? How can this dualism be overcome? How can the completeness of the human being be preserved while protecting the unity of the person of Christ, who was not schizophrenic?

I believe that you did not mean to say that Christ did not have schizophrenia, but that He did not have dissociative identity disorder, also known as multiple personality disorder. Schizophrenia is often confused with dissociative identity disorder, and in some rare cases a person may have both disorders, but they are two very different disorders. A person with dissociative identity disorder will display multiple distinct identities or personalities, whereas a person with schizophrenia will have impairments in the
perception or expression of reality.

Most schizophrenics do not experience any sort of dualism in their identity or personality. My illness and the anti-psychotic drugs to control it have affected my personality; however, like most schizophrenics, I have always had one identity or personality.

All of my psychotic symptoms have been under control for a number of years, although I do suffer from the side affects of the drugs that control these symptoms. I very willingly accept my suffering by uniting it with Christ’s suffering, and it has afforded me time to devote to Christ and His Church. I have written a book about my illness, Bricks & Barbwire, and have published much of my theological work on my website
(http://grigaitis.net).

I very much appreciate your work and teaching, and I in no way want to admonish you. I just want to point out that by misusing the term schizophrenic, you may offend some people that desperately need to hear your message.

I remain your most humble servant,
R. J. Grigaitis, S.F.O.

This is an important article by Dr. Stephen J. Genuis. I recommend all mental health practitioners and clients read it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18621076