Consideraciones doctrinales en torno a la sociedad unipersonal

As we have seen, each of the pastoral theologians considered here approach the task of pastoral care and counseling for persons with intellectual disabilities from a different perspective. William Gaventa and Lowell Colston choose to include persons with disabilities under the wider area of disability theology in general. This, however, at times overlooks some of the unique needs of persons with intellectual disabilities rationally and in the communicative realm. Understood in a relational sense however, their suggestions have applicable possibility for pastoral care for persons with intellectual disabilities.

Walter Kern approaches the pastoral care of persons with intellectual disabilities more explicitly than Gaventa and Colston, often pointing out their unique gifts and needs as compared to the wider area of persons with disabilities. Kern emphasizes the importance of including persons with disabilities and intellectual disabilities in sacramental practices, such as receiving the Eucharist, and argues that creativity and community have an important role to play in this regard. Unlike Kern we will not be exploring in depth the sacramental experiences and possibilities of persons with intellectual disabilities, but rather will be focusing on pastoral care in the relational sense, as described in our opening definition of pastoral care. We will however be considering the role of creativity, non-verbal communication and the role of familial and relations in pastoral care for the intellectually disabled. This will be

undertaken largely in chapter seven where we will consider what comprises encounter and relationship with a person with an intellectual disability.

The important work of Jean Vanier then brought to mind the important point that pastoral care for persons with disabilities must be based in a relationship of openness, forgiveness and care. This type of relationship is only possible when the caregiver, as well as the caree, exist and commune in friendship, whereby each is open to the other, willing to be changed by the other. It is in the midst of this space that the possibility of knowledge of God exists. Perhaps further consideration is warranted theologically however regarding the role of Christ in this friendship or relationship; to this question we will turn in chapter six.

John Swinton also considers the question of pastoral care for persons with intellectual disabilities. Swinton suggests that relationship holds not only the possibility of the image of God, but also the possibility of a temporal love that mediates knowledge of God. This suggestion greatly deserves further development, especially theologically, which we will undertake throughout the rest of this project.

Next, in order to better understand how we will approach this work in dialogue with Barth, we will consider how Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger engages Barth’s theology to better understand the discipline of pastoral care and counseling. This review will be done so as to now focus so much on the content of her work, but rather her framework for engagement. We will seek to do something similar in considering how Barth’s “Christological analogy of being” might offer direction for pastoral care with persons with intellectual disabilities.

3.5 Toward a Barthian Framework for Pastoral Care for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: The Approach of Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger

In her book, Theology & Pastoral Counseling: A New Interdisciplinary Approach,

Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger rightly points out that pastoral counseling is essentially interdisciplinary (van Deusen Hunsinger, 1995; 1). This statement hints at the development which is to come throughout the book in developing a framework for understanding the interdisciplinary relationship between theology and depth psychology in the practice of pastoral counseling. Following the theology of Karl Barth, van Deusen Hunsinger suggests that the two might find a way of relating, modeled after the inner-relations of the Trinity. This “Chalcedonian pattern”, which suggests how best to relate the divine and human natures of Christ, van Deusen

Hunsinger suggests may also provide an analogy in how to relate theology and depth psychology in a “mutual ordering in freedom” (van Deusen Hunsinger, 1995; 63). Through a relationship involving “indissoluble differentiation,” “the inseparable unity,” and “indestructible order” (ibid., 65), theology and psychology may exist together, albeit with distinct qualifications. Similarly, I would suggest that the theology of Karl Barth might provide guidance to the pastoral care giver seeking to care for persons with intellectual disabilities. In particular, Barth’s understanding of the human person as elect in Christ (to be developed in chapter four) and Christ’s being for the other in encounter (expounded upon in chapter six), may provide an analogy or correspondence for the type of relationship possible for pastoral care givers and persons with profound and complex needs.

In this review we will consider how van Deusen Hunsinger goes about drawing from Barth’s theology in attempting to relate the disparate areas of theology and psychology in order to better understand as to how this project might develop a Barthian framework. Firstly van Deusen Hunsinger outlines the overall rationale for engaging Barth’s theology for the discipline of pastoral care. She describes three reasons why the theology of Karl Barth may be useful in this regard: 1. Barth’s noted stature as a theologian; 2. His relative neglect by professionals in the field of pastoral counseling, and 3. The promise his theology holds for pastoral counseling when conceived as a ministry of the church (van Deusen Hunsinger, 1995; 10).

Similarly, and for related reasons, Barth’s theology is appropriate in terms of pastoral care for persons with intellectual disabilities. Although the “promise” of Barth’s theology lies not in Barth’s Chalcedonian pattern, but in his unique understanding of “being for the other in covenant relationship, in co-humanity”, in gaining knowledge of God. Certainly Barth’s stature as a theologian has not lessened since the publication of van Deusen Hunsinger’s book in 1995, and there still appears to be relatively little pastoral engagement with Barth’s theology. However, as theologian Daniel Price states in regard to Barth’s understanding of “being in encounter” that “the pastoral and practical implications of this section should not be overlooked” (Price, 2002; 146). This project aims to consider the practical and pastoral implications of Barth’s theology for the pastoral care for those with profound and complex needs.

Next, van Deusen Hunsinger goes about the task of engagement, dialoguing with other thinkers in this area, pointing out how these scholars address the theological

and psychological issues of pastoral care. She also considers how Barth’s theology is being employed and where and how this work is helpful. Similarly in chapters two and three in this project, we have surveyed the works of disability theologians and considered what their works contribute to a theology of knowledge of God for the intellectually disabled person. In this exercise we have seen over again the importance of the relational category for facilitating and realizing knowledge of God in the lives of persons with intellectual disabilities.

In chapter three of van Deusen Hunsinger’s work, she takes great care to develop and detail Barth’s “Chalcedonian pattern”, considering the pattern’s three-fold content and ordering. She then goes on to apply this pattern in assessing the work of three other writers who seek to relate theology and psychology. Similarly I would propose that after developing and detailing a fully theological definition of intellectual disability based on Barth’s theological anthropology, we move in chapter five to consider a understanding Barth’s knowledge of God in co-humanity. This will be done so as to better understand and appreciate the form and content of Barth’s view of revelation. This work will also consider the “pathologies” of revelation that have led to the view by some that revelation is not possible for persons with intellectual disabilities. van Deusen Hunsinger next applies the Chalcedonian method in analyzing the theoretical question of God representations in chapter four. The purpose of this exercise is to examine and demonstrate how the internal logic of the Barthian Chalcedonian pattern operates in practice in providing care. van Deusen Hunsinger closes her book with a clinical case, considering the account of “Eva and her Black Despairs.” She thus demonstrates how the Chalcedonian pattern assists the pastoral care giver in differentiating between issues of care that are theological, and those that are psychological.

In chapters five, six and seven I suggest an approach similar to that of van Deusen Hunsinger’s. After exploring in depth the major thinkers in the field of disability theology, the embodied situation of intellectual disability and the pertinent aspects of Barth’s understanding of being for the other in covenant relationship, I suggest that Barth’s reflections may better illuminate the nature and possibility that exist for the pastoral relationship. Arguably Christ’s covenant relations with humanity have significant implications for the sort of relationships formed between pastoral care givers and person with profound disabilities. This triune, covenantal relationship will be explored, and similar to van Deusen Hunsinger’s Chalcedonian framework, will

seek to give some clarity as to the pastoral relationship between persons with intellectual disabilities and pastoral caregivers.

These suggestions will then be “put to work”, as van Deusen Hunsinger does in regard to “Eva and her Black Despairs”. We attempt a similar form of application in chapter seven with the “account of Charlie” where we will consider how the Barthian understanding of covenant relationship might enable and assist the possibility of knowledge of God in and through pastoral care for persons with intellectual disabilities. With this vision in view we will next turn to the task of better understanding the state of intellectual disability itself. In chapter four we will develop a thoroughly theological definition of disability that takes care to note the pertinent ontological and biological aspects of persons with intellectual disabilities.