In this paper, the author introduces the case of the client who claims that he is possessed by demon. The author then inquires the phenomenon of demonic possession historically by looking at an ancient perspective and a modem perspective on the subject-matter, which provides readers to compare both perspectives critically. How does one consider the client who is labeled as a “son of the demon-possessed” or “the de-mon-possessed” individual? Should he be simply viewed as the de-mon-possessed individual from a religious perspective? Or should he be perceived as the one whose self-image has become the reflection of his victimizer or his mother who has been hurt by a majority of people or even himself? The author, in this paper, is willing to suggest an inter-disciplinary aspect regarding these two perceptions of the client from the perspective of pastoral care. In order to do so, the author examines the similarities and differences between the phenomenon of demonic possession and that of mental disorders. This, in turn, insists that there exist not only this common subject-matter in these fields of study, but also the necessity of independent research in each field.
From the perspective of pastoral care, the author concerns that reli-gious leaders’ prejudice on the phenomenon of demonic possession would abandon or even take away a chance for better treatments from clients who suffer from such phenomenon. This might result a violation of human right at its worst. The author in particular approaches demonic possession as a social prejudice and criticizes that this social prejudice functions as a scapegoat mechanism. Also, the author explains how the phenomenon of demonic possession can be considered as the projected phenomenon of the collective scapegoat complex. In so doing, the au-thor attempts to propose the ways in which those victims may be cured. The subject-matter of this paper may lapse into meaningless jargon, yet the author tries to prevent it by presenting concrete and real cases, so that the entire discussion may become more fruitful and pragmatic in reality.
The author, on the other hand, analyzes Jesus’ cure of those who suffered from the phenomenon of demonic possession. Especially, the author pays attention to Donald Capps’ understanding of Jesus’ cure. This, then, leads the author to argue that the issue of this phenomenon is not only the subject-matter of Christianity, but also that of psychiatry (that is, including psychology) which ought to be approached from an interdisciplinary perspective. Despite all these, the author acknowledges the following issues are still at stake: 1) whether Jesus’ cure is a treatment either for mental disorder or for spirituality, or for both and 2) whether how his cure is similar or different from that of modem psychoanalysis or psychiatry. After a rigorous study of Jesus’ cure in comparison with modem psychology or psychiatry, one may well find the uniqueness of pastoral care.