(A number of people after reading this essay have been prompted to ask me questions about psychology and their own personal situations. I appreciate that they presumably saw something they liked in this essay, or else they would not contact me for help, but I should clarify that I myself am not a psychologist or therapist of any kind. If you are looking for a good Catholic psychologist or therapist, you may wish to consult CatholicTherapists.com, which tries to list therapists who are faithful to the teachings of the Church.)
In considering the broad issue of how Catholicity and psychology can be combined or integrated, the first question that must be addressed is whether such integration is even possible. Although there may be many reservations about psychology as a field of study among devout Catholics, it must be said that at first glance it is difficult to see how there can be any incompatibility between the Catholic Church and psychology, if psychology is understood only as a field of study. After all, the Catholic tradition has consistently held that "all things are true by one primary truth," and therefore "truth cannot contradict truth."[1] Any field of study which examines anything in reality would seem to have the potential for truth, however many errors may in fact exist in any given legitimate field of study. Of course, if one understands psychology in the sense in which it seems to exist almost exclusively today in the real world, namely in the sense of modern secular psychology, the question of compatibility between Catholicity and psychology becomes more complex. This paper will look at how psychology (at least in the sense of the field of study) can be approached in a truly Catholic way, and, while necessarily not descending to the level of detailed content in such an approach, comment on some possible aspects of it.
There are basically two Christian ways of approaching psychology today, although there are almost endless variations on these two ways. These approaches will only be mentioned in a general way here. First, there is biblical counseling. This attempts to rely exclusively on truths from Scripture in the counseling process.[2] Obviously, the use of truths from Scripture is good in itself. Scripture clearly has something to say about man and his life in the world, and thus no Christian should be surprised if it provides truths which are just as applicable to the common problems of those seeking counseling as the data of modern psychology, if not more so. No Christian, and specifically no Catholic, should deny that there is some validity in this approach. Furthermore, as a practical matter this approach, or some variation thereof, is almost inevitable in some pastoral counseling, in which the counselor may be (indeed, hopefully is) very familiar with Scripture, and not as familiar with the methods of modern professional psychotherapists.
Perhaps unfortunately, biblical counseling has become closely linked to the idea that nothing that is not from Scripture should be used in counseling by any Christian. This is problematic on a very practical level, because here the supporters of biblical counseling often simply fail to recognize its limitations. Severe psychological problems will be difficult, if not impossible, to treat in any systematic way using biblical counseling. Further, Scripture was not intended specifically as a guide for psychologists.[3] It seems clear, with all due respect for the biblical counselors, that God had more important things on His mind. Therefore, the truths of Scripture, while valuable, cannot be expected to cover the field of psychology in any completeness or specificity. Catholics, fortunately, have no particular reason to accept this element of exclusivity in biblical counseling. Frankly, it betrays a Protestant distrust of all things non-Scriptural which has never been part of the Catholic tradition. As has already been said, the Catholic Church sees truth as one, and has no fear of truth from other sources, since all sources of truth ultimately originate in one Source. In this way, at least, Catholics would seem to have an advantage over Protestants in the task of engaging modern psychology (although admittedly this advantage lies only in the fact that Protestant biblical counselors do not want to engage modern psychology).
The other main approach, or set of approaches, is the integrationist view. There are many complex theories and models and systems and methods of integration, often incompatible with each other. None of these will be considered specifically here. Suffice it to say that an integrationist approach, as the name indicates, seeks to combine Christianity and modern secular psychology in some way.[4] This approach obviously contradicts the belief that there can be no such combination. Although such an integration seems desirable, there are problems with integrating Christianity, specifically Catholicity, and psychology. First of all, although many modern secular psychologists are very influenced by religion, there has been some more or less open hostility to Christianity, and indeed religion in general, in modern secular psychology. This reaches the point where religion is commonly considered a psychological problem. In most cases, the best perspective on religion that can be hoped for among the giants of secular psychology is a supposed neutrality, by which religion is considered irrelevant and simply ignored.[5] Moreover, some of the supposed truths of secular psychological theories do not seem compatible with a Christian view of the human person (which will be examined in more detail later). Indeed, psychologists themselves, the people who to one extent or another practice these theories, appear to be far less religious as a group than the general population. It is thus not unreasonable to question the compatibility of modern secular psychology with Christianity. After all, if the psychologists themselves often do not find Christianity compatible with their work, should not Christians at least ponder the question of whether psychology is compatible with the work of Christ? At the same time, if there is any truth in psychology at all, it seems wrong from a Catholic perspective to surrender the field, and the only alternative to surrender seems to be some form of integration.
The ultimate question in integration is the question of what is true in psychology. Secular psychology has brought light to certain things which seem to be relatively well-established in reality. However, there is also much in psychology which rests essentially on unproven mindsets and world views.[6] Perhaps this is to some extent inevitable in this field, but it still calls into question how much of the content of secular psychology is really true, and thus capable of integration with Catholicity. This is especially so since secular psychology must rest on secular mindsets and world views, and if one wishes to approach psychology with a Catholic world view, then in a certain sense the whole field will have to be re-thought from the ground up, and it is possible that much of secular psychology will not carry over into a Catholic world view. In this sense, then, an integration of Catholicity and secular psychology is impossible. The two cannot simply be mixed. However, this does not mean that what is true in secular psychology cannot be integrated into Catholicity. The only point here is that the Catholic must never lose sight of what is primary. It is psychology that must be integrated into the larger truth of Catholicity, not Catholicity into the smaller truth of psychology. If the opposite is done, then the result will be something like the approach of one Catholic schoolteacher, who noted that her first reaction to theft by a student would be to ask the offending student "how stealing makes them feel."[7] In other words, the result of integration will look much more like psychology than Catholicity. The Catholic must be willing to accept the possibility that, if the integration is done in the right direction, the new psychology which emerges may not look at all like secular psychology, and the integration may appear somewhat one-sided.
Rather than considering specific secular psychological theories, the focus here will be on a summary of the inherent problems with psychology as it has developed in the world. The development of modern secular psychology in western civilization, occurring as it did in a pluralistic civilization increasingly separated from its Catholic past, had almost inevitable dangerous consequences, which almost necessarily led it into opposition to Catholicity.
Psychology by its very nature is introspective. There is nothing wrong with introspection, and it can be fruitful. People who are introspective can be very good people. However, in real people the tendency to introspection can occur as part of a larger whole, and exists within the context of the whole person so to speak. As a field of study, secular psychology does not have anything into which it can integrate this introspection. Thus, introspection becomes an end in itself. Self-knowledge must be the goal, because a pluralistic secular mindset does not dare name any other goal. This quite logically leads to a subjective focus on the self. These in fact are two of the most obvious traits of modern psychology: total subjectivity and selfishness. Secular psychology cannot offer a reason to focus on anything or anyone else, and as a result cannot offer any reason outside the self to do or not do anything in particular.[8] To be fair, there have already been some efforts in mainstream psychology to overcome this intrinsic selfishness and incorporate aspects of relation to the other, and not surprisingly these end up with normative ethical content which other theories of psychology lack. However, these are generally exceptions which prove the rule, particularly since such theories are criticized within the field for entering the realm of the ethical and normative, as if this were some grave offense against the integrity of psychology.[9]
The Catholic Church provides a meaning for psychology outside of itself. Indeed, almost any religion would do this, but it just so happens that the Catholic Church can provide meaning which is true. A meaning outside of psychology prevents the slide into subjectivity which will otherwise occur in psychology. Self-knowledge, for the Catholic is always a means, never an end. Indeed the very existence of God implies that reality is never all about me. Introspection is not ultimately for its own sake. Eventually, self-knowledge is to be directed to the person's relations with other human beings and with God. This not only means that Catholicity will be at odds with much of secular psychology, but also that a specifically religious and Catholic psychology in the end can claim an important advantage over secular psychology. As William Kirk Kilpatrick points out, psychology provides "skills for living," but not a "reason for living."[10] In other words, the logical terminus of secular psychology is the task of making people feel better about having empty and meaningless lives. Catholic psychology should be able at least to direct people toward a meaning for their lives. However, beautiful as this possibility may be, it is only possible if Catholic psychology holds to the whole truth of Catholicity. There is no real beauty, nor any real meaning, without objective truth, and any tendency to retreat from certain aspects of the Catholic faith, perhaps because they are difficult to reconcile with dominant views in psychology, will only diminish the capacity of Catholic psychology to provide the meaning that secular psychology cannot provide.
If Catholic psychology should be rooted in objective truth, and the Catholic psychologist presumably believes that the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church, then there appear to be serious, and perhaps uncomfortable, consequences. It is unacceptable for a Catholic psychologist to retreat into the neutrality of counseling a person only according to that person's belief system. While it is true that one must meet people where they are, and respect the freedom of the person, this does not eliminate the necessity for truth. Indeed, real freedom, as John Paul II has repeatedly insisted, is always grounded completely in truth: "How could it be an exercise of freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization?"[11] It is therefore not true respect for the freedom of the person if the psychologist treats the person as if the false beliefs held by that person are in fact true. Obviously, this does not mean that the psychologist immediately introduces every non-Catholic patient to the Catholic faith, or openly contradicts every false belief of a patient. However, in order to be logically consistent, and truly charitable to patients, the psychologist himself should in his counseling and therapy always take all Catholic teaching for granted as true. Furthermore, he should ultimately present it to his patients as true. Clearly, this is an area which requires caution and prudence. The psychologist does not present Catholic teaching to his patients in the same way a priest presents it to his parishioners. Indeed, for the most part the truth will not be presented by the psychologist as explicitly Catholic. Furthermore, since the patient unfortunately may very well not be interested at first in objective truth as such, the psychologist must be particularly be concerned with presenting the truth as helpful, in other words as good for the person. The psychologist must present the truth as something which he wants the patient to accept because it is the road to a healthier and more fulfilling life for the patient.
The most obvious area where the issue of objective truth will arise in psychology is that of morality. Here the temptation to waver may perhaps be strongest, but it is all the more crucial to remember that the truth is for the good of the person. Again, this does not mean that a psychologist will immediately condemn every objectively immoral action mentioned by a patient. However, when the treatment process reaches a stage where it is possible and necessary to challenge the patient, the application of moral truths taught by the Catholic Church must take precedence over the subjective moral views of the person. This may lead to guilt for the person, but from a Catholic viewpoint this may be necessary. Limited guilt, when it results from real wrongdoing, reflects a healthily accurate understanding of the reality of one's life. The other side of that, of course, is forgiveness, which is also a category on which the Catholic Church can offer a unique perspective, having institutionalized it in a way that no other religion has, as a sacrament.[12]
Although morality is the most obvious area where the Catholic approach must differ sharply from widespread secular views, it is not the most fundamental area of such difference. Catholic morality, after all, is based on the reality of the person, and it is the Catholic view of the person which is most clearly at odds with, and indeed completely incompatible with, the development of secular psychology as it was described earlier. In secular psychology, subjectivity and selfishness must rule. The person, obviously, will usually be conceived entirely as an individual, and secular psychology cannot offer any objective meaning for the person beyond this. Compare this to the understanding of the human person of Pope John Paul II, in which the person is fully a person through love, by which "the person becomes a gift and--by means of this gift--fulfills the meaning of his being and existence."[13] This understanding of the person shifts the whole center of reality. All of the introspection of theology now becomes ultimately oriented toward the other, rather than the self. The journey inside the self does not end there, but continues as a journey to God and other human persons. No Catholic psychology will truly break away from the thought patterns of secular psychology without changing the understanding of the human person to conform to such a Catholic view of the person. This will mean that entire categories which are meaningless or impossible in secular psychology will become not only possible and meaningful but indeed necessary from the point of view of Catholic psychology. Self-sacrifice is sheer nonsense for the secular psychologist, but for the Catholic psychologist it goes to the heart of the meaning of the human person. Even love, in the sense of willing the good of the other above one's own, cannot be explained in terms of secular psychology, yet in Catholic psychology love must be the center of human existence. Furthermore, these ideas cannot remain on the academic level, or merely in the mind of the Catholic psychologist. Ultimately, if the Catholic psychologist is to help people in the most lasting way possible, he must lead them toward a more Catholic understanding of themselves and others as human persons. Without this, there will be no basis on which these people can proceed with lives ordered in the truth of their own human natures, and all help which they may receive will in the end become a stopgap measure, perhaps valuable in dealing with specific problems, but not ultimately effective in changing lives for the better at the deepest and most permanent level.
What has been briefly suggested here is the necessity for a truly Catholic psychology not only to hold but also to spread a Catholic view of reality. Many psychologists would no doubt object that any attempt at integration along these lines will make the Catholic psychologist a Catholic missionary. The only possible response to such an objection is an affirmation that the objection expresses the point of this approach with admirable clarity. Catholics in a pluralistic society may forget, since it is often much easier and more convenient to forget, that missionary activity is integral to the life of the Catholic, and cannot be left at the office door if a person wishes to live a fully Catholic life. In some professions, missionary activity is not as integral to the substance of the profession itself as in others. However, the field of psychology, in its dealing with the workings of the human mind, seems to touch the human soul in a special way, and one can hardly help but conclude that for a Catholic it has a particularly missionary character. In the end, if the psychologist does not help those he treats to bring their lives into a greater conformity with reality, then it is highly questionable in what sense that psychologist is doing his job. If a Catholic psychologist does not really believe that the Catholic Church provides the truth about human persons, then one wonders why he is Catholic. If, on the other hand, a Catholic psychologist does believe that the Church provides the truth about human persons, then this truth must be at the basis of all his work if he is truly devoted to the well-being of his patients. There is no logical reason to cut off his understanding of reality short of his Catholic faith. If psychology is really integrated into Catholicity, then the Catholic psychologist should be leading people closer to the fullness of truth, and in this sense he must indeed be a missionary of the Catholic Church.
Bibliography
Bobgan, Martin and Diedre. The Psychological Way / The Spiritual Way. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1978.
Browning, Don S. Religious Thought and the Modern Psychologies: A Critical Conversation in the Theology of Culture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Burke, Thomas J. Editor. Man and Mind: A Christian Theory of Personality. Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, 1987.
Clinton, Stephen M. "A Critique of Integration Models." Journal of Psychology and Theology 18 (1990), 13-20.
English, William F. "An Integrationist's Critique of and Challenge to the Bobgan's View of Counseling and Psychotherapy." Journal of Psychology and Theology 18 (1990), 228-235.
Hunter, James Davison. "When Psychotherapy Replaces Religion." The Public Interest 139 (Spring 2000).
John Paul II. Fides et Ratio. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1998.
________. "Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences." October 11, 1996. Published in L'Osservatore Romano.
________. Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997.
Kilpatrick, William Kirk. Psychological Seduction. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.
Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1948.
Vitz, Paul C. "Catholic Presuppositions for a Christian Psychology." The Catholic Social Science Review Vol. 1 (1996), 241-245.
Notes
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 16, Article 6.
John Paul II, "Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences," October 22, 1996; cf. Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus.
[2] Martin and Diedre Bobgan, The Psychological Way / The Spiritual Way (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1978), 13.
[3] William F. English, "An Integrationist's Critique of and Challenge to the Bobgan's View of Counseling and Psychotherapy," Journal of Psychology and Theology 18 (1990), 230-231.
[4] Stephen M. Clinton, "A Critique of Integration Models," Journal of Psychology and Theology 18 (1990), 13-14.
[5] Paul C. Vitz, "Secular Personality Theories: A Critical Analysis," in Man and Mind: A Christian Theory of Personality (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, 1987), 67-71.
[6] Paul C. Vitz, "A Christian Theory of Personality," in Man and Mind: A Christian Theory of Personality (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, 1987), 200.
[7] James Davison Hunter, "When Psychotherapy Replaces Religion" The Public Interest 139 (Spring 2000), 17.
[8] William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 57.
[9] Don S. Browning, Religious Thought and the Modern Psychologies: A Critical Conversation in the Theology of Culture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 220-229, 237.
[10] William Kirk Kilpatrick, "Why Secular Psychology Is Not Enough," in Man and Mind: A Christian Theory of Personality (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, 1987), 136-137.
[11] John Paul II, Fides et Ratio 23 (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1998).
[12] Paul C. Vitz, "Catholic Presuppositions for a Christian Psychology," The Catholic Social Science Review Vol. 1 (1996), 243.
[13] John Paul II, Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997), 63.