Catholic Medical Quarterly

The Journal of the Catholic Medical Association (UK)

Building knowledge. Building faith. Protecting the vulnerable.

• Home
• CMA (UK) Website
• Contact us
• About Us

 

• Current Issue
• Journal by Date
• Online Only
• Articles by Topic
• Submissions
• Links

 

Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 75(4)  November 2025

Personality, Mental Health and the Concept of Evil: A Chaplain’s Response

Rev Mr Paul Green BA (Hons); BSc (Hons), MSc, PG Dip CBT, PG Cert Chaplaincy, FHEA, Parish Deacon at Corpus Christi Parish, Barnsley and Chaplain at Kendray Hospital.

The definition of evil and whether it has any place in understanding the problematic behaviours exhibited by patients diagnosed with some personality disorders, particularly in forensic mental health settings, is one which has been debated by clinicians. Welner at al present a clinical inventory of maladaptive behaviours to measure ‘everyday evil’(1) whereas Knoll argues that this ‘illusory moral concept’ is beyond objective analysis or quantification and therefore has no place in the scientific study of mental health. (2)) Mercer et al found that those deemed to be psychopaths or diagnosed with personality disorders were labelled as ‘evil’ by mental health nurses and therefore considered beyond all hope of treatment or rehabilitation. (3) Similarly, Swinton warns that demonising others may result in abhorrent behaviour on our own part. (4) Adshead cautions against explaining the conduct of patients purely in terms of illness and rejecting the concept of evil altogether, as this robs others of agency and responsibility for their behaviour. (5) It is possible, according to this view, that a person’s actions may arise both from a clinically defined syndrome and a disposition we might regard as evil.

Before exploring these arguments further, it is useful to define the concepts involved. Welner at al ascribe four characteristics to evil which include the objectification of others, denial of connectedness to them, numbing of inner experience and inability to introspect. (6)  These factors, they argue, enable some people to exhibit ‘everyday evil’ by treating others in ways that are intentionally cruel and vindictive. (7) The authors point out that diagnostic criteria for personality disorders focus on maladaptive behaviours but fail to take account of choice, motivation and the impact of a person’s actions on others. (8) The 14 item Welner Inventory of Extreme and Outrageous (WIEEO) behaviours is proposed as a screening tool in clinical settings. (9) The four categories of physical and emotional damage, exploitation, extending damage and extinguishing goodness serve as a marker for behaviours that require ‘clinical attention to intervene, treat and detoxify such situations and the motivations of such malignant behaviour before it further traumatises or damages others.’ (10)  

This contrasts with Knoll’s explicit rejection of any attempt to define or quantify evil, arguing that ‘people are led to commit acts of intentional harm by a complex interaction of biological, psychological and social forces in concert with situational variables.’ (11) He makes the valid point that evil can be a label used to disavow others and demonise enemies (12) but goes on to link the concept to a pre-scientific era in which events and behaviours were attributed to witchcraft and demons. (13) Knoll’s questionable view that religion and science are in ‘insoluble conflict’ somewhat undermines his argument which he concludes with the statement that evil can ‘never be scientifically defined because it is an illusory moral concept, it does not exist in nature and its origins and connotations are inextricably linked to religion and mythology.’ (14) The obvious answer to this rather simplistic analysis is that many concepts are subjective and hard to quantify but that does not render them irrelevant or untrue. Few people, one suspects, would reject the existence of love and goodness. If goodness exists, then surely its opposite may also be found?

Swinton defines evil as ‘the antipathy of love and goodness… the power, be it internal or external, which seeks to destroy love in all its diverse forms. (15) He adds that modern spirituality tends to emphasise self-actualisation within a positive, humanistic worldview that ignores the reality of evil. (16) However, he warns that simply labelling others as evil ‘removes them from our therapeutic horizon and leaves them stranded, alienated and vulnerable to forms of treatment which are oppressive and dehumanising.’ (17)  Mercer et al found that forensic mental health nurses tended to dismiss those diagnosed with psychopathy or a personality disorder who had committed serious crimes as evil or ‘monsters’ whereas those deemed to have psychosis were regarded as far less culpable for their actions. (18)  Hare suggested that his psychopathy checklist is a measure of evil. It has four domains including interpersonal, affective, lifestyle and anti-social. (19) Although the term is not an official diagnosis, it comprises features of anti-social, narcissistic and histrionic personality disorder. (20) Fallon explains this in more detail; ‘The interpersonal factor includes the traits of superficiality, grandiosity and deceitfulness. The affective factor includes lack of remorse, lack of empathy and refusal to accept responsibility for one’s actions. The behavioural factor includes impulsivity, lack of goals and unreliability. And the antisocial factor includes hot-headedness, a history of juvenile delinquency and a criminal record.’ (21)

The cut-off score on the psychopathy checklist in the UK is 25 and the average person would score less than 5 but there are many individuals who might score more than 15 and possess psychopathic traits such as lack of remorse or empathy, deceitful conduct in relationships and poor self-control. (22) In discussing whether such individuals are evil, Dein refers to Mark 10:18 in which Jesus declares that ‘No-one is good but God alone’ and concludes that ‘The Christian perspective is that all men (and women) are evil as opposed to God who is good.’ (23) Salvation is offered to everyone, however, through the death and resurrection of Jesus. The author refers to the problematic behaviours of some church leaders which were criticised by St Paul in 1 Timothy 4:2 and Titus 1:13. She notes ‘their defective or deficient conscience, their duplicity, their callousness and, importantly, their potential to cause great harm to congregations. Hence, St Paul introduces a category of psychopathy, namely that of the religious psychopath.’ (24)

There is no contradiction, therefore, in regarding psychopathy as both a clinical entity or disease of the mind and a collection of traits and behaviours that meet a common understanding of evil. Nevertheless, in God’s eyes, psychopaths are no more excluded from his unconditional love or the hope of redemption than the rest of us. Even Fallon’s bleak biological determinism about his own psychopathic traits allows for the possibility of change. He refers to the appreciation he received from friends and family because of his efforts to spend more time with them, asking himself, ‘Can I try to be better behaved and more empathic, even though I don’t care?’ (25)  He also notes the impact of his own positive upbringing, remarking that ‘real nurture can overcome a lousy deck of cards dealt at birth by nature.’ (26)  Adshead’s view of evil as a moral failing arising from our alienation and disconnectedness from others resulting in a lack of empathy, makes sense in this context. (27) She points out that the worst evils are committed when we fail to recognise the humanity of others, ‘the reduction of a person to an abstraction, rather than seeing each one as a spark of the divine.’ (28)

Perhaps recognising the existence of evil within all of us and our potential for improvement points the way forward. Swinton refers to the example of Jesus who would sit with those judged evil by the standards of his time; ‘When he encountered demons, barbarians and madmen, Jesus sat with them, ministered to them and in so doing resurrected their personhood and destroyed the evil persona.’ (29)  The solution is thus to sit with the evil we encounter in others in the hope of effecting reconciliation. Respect and honesty demand that we recognise the harm others may have caused but also their personhood, need for relationship and the flaws within ourselves. (30)   Compassion demands that we have empathy for the traumas others may have endured and how these contributed to the wrongs they may have done while courage requires us to defend their humanity against those who would deny it. (31) Jesus offered friendship to tax collectors, prostitutes and those considered ritually unclean. His model of friendship did not depend on others being like himself and we can emulate this. Professional boundaries need to be maintained but detachment and objectivity can prevent us from relating to patients as human beings. In recognising the essential humanity of the most challenging individuals we meet and our own share of the evil that resides in everyone, chaplains may help to move others along the path of rehabilitation and reform.