**Hypnotism.** From 3/1936 = sleep. This term (synonyms: animal magnetism, mesmerism) denotes a state of suspended consciousness in an individual, akin to sleep induced by various methods, most often in connection with the suggestive action of another person, the hypnotist, to whom the hypnotized subject obeys, performing—unconsciously, like an automaton—whatever is commanded by word, gesture, or acts automatically through an involuntary internal impulse, as in somnambulism.
E. Servadio defines it as “the sum of theories and phenomena relating to a special type of artificial sleep (hypnosis) that can be induced by different methods.”
The term *i.* was coined by the English physician James Braid (d. 1860) in 1842, though the phenomena were known long before; suffice it to recall the experiment published by Father Kircher in the mid-17th century, consisting in inducing a hypnotic state in a chicken through appropriate maneuvers. In the 18th century, the Austrian physician Anton Mesmer attempted a new method of treating the sick, which he called “mesmerism”; this is the same as *i.* and was also termed “animal magnetism,” almost in contrast to physical magnetism, under the belief that the phenomena were produced by a magnetic fluid emanating from every animal body. J. M. Charcot, in connection with his studies on hysteria (q.v.), devoted much attention to the manifestations of *i.* and maintained that the two are closely related, so that every form of hysteria necessarily has its foundation in hysteria. On the contrary, the Nancy school, led by Bernheim, argued that hypnotic phenomena can be induced in any subject, even a normal one, and should not be regarded as a sign of neuropathic constitution.
There is no doubt that *i.* at first sight appears as something extraordinary, capable of being interpreted as a preternatural fact. Upon closer examination, however—studied in the light of modern physiological and psychological knowledge—it is fully explicable by natural laws alone. A characteristic of *i.* is the suspension of the individual’s consciousness, brought about by the maneuvers the hypnotist performs on the subject or that the subject performs on himself. The sleep thus induced, varying in intensity, is accompanied by particular phenomena and resembles normal sleep in that it shares with it the abolition of rational control and, usually, a nearly complete sensory anesthesia.
Hypnotic sleep can take three different forms: the lethargic state or lethargy, the cataleptic state or catalepsy (q.v.), and the somnambulistic state or somnambulism. In lethargy, the individual appears to be deeply asleep: consciousness is suspended, the senses are dulled, and the muscles are relaxed. On the contrary, vegetative life remains fully intact; indeed, with the abolition of inhibition from the higher centers, there is an exaggerated irritability of the spinal cord, so that reflexes occur more rapidly and intensely. In catalepsy, while there is complete unconsciousness and abolition of general sensitivity, the subject retains the capacity to be influenced through sight and hearing, which are rendered particularly receptive. In this state, the body’s parts exhibit a peculiar flexibility and pliability, as if the individual’s muscles were made of soft wax (*flexibilitas cerea*), so that difficult and tiring poses can be passively assumed and held without effort for long periods. In somnambulism, the subject, in a state of psychic dissociation, performs coordinated actions that appear conscious but are in fact related to the automatic motor expression of subconscious ideomotor complexes that come to the fore, becoming operative in the sleeping consciousness of the individual. This can occur at the very moment the individual is placed in a hypnotic state, under the impetus of the operator’s suggestive commands, or after a lapse of time, with a more or less proximate deadline, emerging from a prior waking state.
These three forms of *i.* do not represent successive stages of increasing value but modes that usually appear irregularly, either in isolation or variously intertwined with one another in complex patterns.
During such hypnotic states, the entire complex symptomatology exhibits certain general features. There is an absolute rapport between hypnotist and subject, with abolition of the latter’s will, replaced by that of the operator who guides the individual like an automaton through verbal or visual suggestion, so that the subject, according to the commands, may walk or stop, feel hot or cold, perform this or that action, assume the most varied, uncomfortable, difficult positions—either at the moment of the command or, as in somnambulism, after a more or less long lapse of time.
The command can manifest itself through external actions and can also provoke states of consciousness and representations that give rise to illusions and hallucinations (q.v.).
In *i.*, psychic images and contents preserved in the sphere of the subconscious and unconscious play a large role; these, whether aroused, regulated, and utilized by external suggestion or grouped together spontaneously into complexes, can form small quasi-autonomous blocks of consciousness capable of becoming the cause of external phenomena, whether motor, externally projected, or sensory-perceptual.
Indeed, during the manifestations of *i.*, one may witness a kind of splitting of consciousness and personality (q.v.), whereby the individual, either spontaneously or under the impetus of suggestion, assumes the behavior, thought, and actions of a particular person, sometimes with attributes entirely opposite to his own. One may suppose that a fracture occurs in the individual’s consciousness, dividing it into a primary, so-called supraliminal personality and a secondary, subliminal one capable, under particular conditions, of acting autonomously and coherently. According to L. Luciani (*Fisiologia dell’uomo*, IV, Milan 1924, p. 499), the inconsistency and incoherence of character and conduct seen in some unbalanced, eccentric individuals may well reside in a disharmony between consciousness and subconsciousness, thus forming two almost antagonistic mentalities.
During hypnosis, phenomena may also appear on the surface of the body, such as localized or diffuse pallor or flushing, wheals, blisters, bullae, or cutaneous hemorrhages, similar to what occurs in hysterical manifestations (q.v.).
Thus, in the hypnotic state, at the operator’s will and beyond motor and secretory activities, it is possible to induce in the patient cutaneous manifestations such as spots or raised areas that may be mistakenly judged as preternatural in origin.
MORAL PRINCIPLES
1) Hypnotism exercised without reason and without safeguarding certain conditions is illicit, because it harms the hypnotized person by debilitating the nervous system; but above all, the hypnotized person is deprived of the use of reason and freedom and subjected entirely to the will—hypothetically even a bad will—of the hypnotist. Now, it is a grave sin to deprive oneself, in an unnatural way and without sufficient reason, of the use of reason and to entrust oneself entirely to the will of another; in this way, the hypnotized person gives prior approval to whatever the hypnotist may dispose concerning him. It is illicit to give others occasion to sin, for the hypnotist may abuse the hypnotized person by commanding him to perform a bad action. Moreover, if—though wrongly, since hypnotism is purely a natural phenomenon—one seeks through it to obtain knowledge of some preternatural occult fact, one also commits the sin of divination.
2) If hypnotism is practiced for a just end, such as to cure diseases or to promote scientific progress, and with due precautions, then it is licit. As a therapeutic end, the following are required: that the illness cannot be cured otherwise or as well as through hypnotism; that the hypnotism be induced by a physician truly skilled in hypnotism and that every possible harm to the patient’s health be avoided; that the hypnotized person give his consent; that the hypnotist be upright and promise not to abuse his relationship with the hypnotized person; that the suggestions be upright, necessary, or useful (excluding all curiosity) for the illness; and that an upright person, in whom the hypnotized person can place trust, be present.
The Holy Office, on July 26, 1899, when consulted on the matter, replied that experiments may be tolerated provided that: a protest is made beforehand that the desired effect is not to be obtained if it should depend on a preternatural cause (it was then believed that preternatural interventions might be possible); there is no scandal, inasmuch as bystanders might think that this is an evil thing or attributable to magical arts; and the facts do not certainly surpass the powers of nature. In case of doubt, one may posit the fact or seek the effect while making the aforesaid protest.
The evils produced by hypnotism can be avoided with due precautions, which in individual cases will be suggested by prudence. The usefulness of hypnotism extends not only to curing diseases but also to correcting bad inclinations and habits of the hypnotized person. Indeed, there have been cases of persons addicted to drunkenness who have been corrected, and of young people addicted to lust who have been improved through mental suggestion. Today, many physicians achieve the same effects without inducing hypnotism, but through suggestions given in the waking state. Yet it must be said that hypnotism is illicit if the required conditions are not observed, inasmuch as it is dangerous for both the active and passive subject and because it is not licit to deprive oneself unnaturally of reason without sufficient reason.
As regards its liceity or lack thereof in the judicial field or in police investigations, V. NARCOTICS.
With regard to canon law, after what has been said from the ethical point of view, it will suffice to observe that during true hypnotic sleep there is naturally no imputability (can. 2201 § 1), but imputability may exist indirectly, determinable on the basis of the concrete circumstances (can. 2201 § 3) of the delinquent act. It is almost superfluous to add that the imputability of the hypnotized person remains intact (cf. can. 2209 § 3 and by analogy can. 2230).