I’ve commented before how mainstream moral injury has gotten, now it’s made it to the pages of Psychology Today. I have to give the authors credit, not only did they credit Jonathan Shay with coining the phrase, they also offered several definitions that have appeared in the literature. This is refreshing.
We have our own definition that is more encompassing than most. It includes the very real possibility that moral injury means more than just witnessing or failing to act, it is, in our opinion, inclusive of calling into question whole moral frameworks. To wit, is war ever justified?
The focus on the part of most researchers seems to be on resilience. Bouncing back to normality. In short, ignoring soul. Missing is any reflection that simply focusing on psychological symptoms somehow negates the very real soul suffering. That 10 or even 20 sessions with preprogrammed agenda suffices to alleviate soul suffering.
To reiterate, this is our definition of moral injury:
What is moral injury? We at the Moral Injury Institute define moral injury as witnessing (whether in person, through reporting, or some other means) something that causes a crisis of conscience due to a violation of one’s deeply held moral, religious, or ethical beliefs such that one psychically suffers in a materially adverse way.https://www.themoralinjuryinstitute.com/about/
Read the Psychology Today article here: