psychology & catholicism: an evolving relationship

8/11/2019 Psychology & Catholicism: An Evolving Relationship

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psychology-catholicism-an-evolving-relationship 1/5

T he recent promulgation of Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood (Guidelines) has evoked a predictable range of responses, from total support of psychology to abject distrust of it.Psychology’s influence on Catholicism in general, and priestly formation in particular, has been controversial for a long time.

Over the years the relationship of psychology and Catholicism has evolved, despite suspicion of psychology by some Vaticanofficials, seminary personnel, Catholic college and university faculty and students, and other lay persons.

I clearly recall my first experience with such distrust. It occurred during my first psychology course. The book used in most

introductory courses at Catholic universities then was Persons and Personalities: An Introduction to Psychology by Annette Walters,Ph.D., and Kevin O’Hara, Ph.D., both psychologists and religious. In what was otherwise a standard treatment of the subject matterof scientific psychology, the authors interspersed statements and observations reflecting Catholic beliefs and values. For example, inthe chapter on personal adjustment, psychological criteria for healthy adjustment were described. Added to those criteria was the

beatific vision, described as the ultimate criteria of healthy adjustment. In the last chapters of the book on the future of psychology,the authors reflected on the distrust of psychology among Catholics: “In the past many students have avoided specializingin psychology because every major system of psychology had some objectionable features as viewed by Christians. . . . Catholicscholars have been prolific in their negative criticisms of psychology. Their research has been devoted chiefly to exposing errors inexisting systems of thought.” Fortunately, they were able to add: “But we note a new trend in Catholic circles today. . . . The timehas come, we believe, when Catholic scholars must more and more take the initiative in developing positive views” (p. 641). Many scholars, clergy, religious, and lay persons have helped foster a positive view of psychology over the ensuing years, while others havefostered a negative and distrustful view. What accounts for this phenomenon of ongoing distrust of psychology?

www.regis.edu/hd HUMAN D EVELOPMENT 3

Psychology

and CatholicismAn Evolving RelationshipLen Sperry M.D., Ph.D.



In order to better understand andappreciate this distrust of psychologyin relationship to Catholicism, it isnecessary to understand somethingabout the objections themselves, andsomething about those who continually object and distrust. The first section of this article will describe psychologicaltheories that are compatible or incom-

patible with Catholicism, particularly the past seventy years of psychology in America. The second section will reflecton the distrust of those who might becharacterized as displaying psychologicalfundamentalism.

COMPATIBLE ANDINCOMPATIBLE PSYCHOLOGIES

Distrust among Catholicsabout psychology often involves objec-tions to a theory, approach or a

specific construct that is perceived to be incompatible with the Catholic worldview. Compatible psychologicaltheories and approaches typically include the following key constructsor premises: made in the image andlikeness of God, spirit or soul, sinand grace, free will, moral behavior oractions, and a balance betweencommunal and personal needs.Incompatible psychological theoriesand approaches are ones that exclude

one or more of these constructs orpremises, or include incompatibleones. Examples of such incompatiblepremises in psychology include:scientific naturalism (the beliefthat everything is material but has nospiritual or supernatural dimension),reductionism (explanations of all

behavior, including spirituality, that arereduced to biological or biochemical

bases), determinism (belief than behavior is caused by natural processand not the result of choice), evolution

(conviction that humans evolved fromsimpler organism and are not created inGod’s image) and relativism (theassumption that there are no absolutestandards of right or moral values toguide human behavior). To date, some

would say that only one psychologicaltheory has been fully compatible withCatholicism and that was neo-scholasticpsychology (described below). Incontrast there have been theories andapproaches that are less compatible

with a Catholic worldview, such as early behaviorism and behavior therapy, andclassical psychoanalysis.

The American Catholic Psychological Association

Understanding the history andinfluence of the American Catholic

Psychological Association (ACPA) isalso useful in appreciating the warinessof distrust of Catholics towardpsychology. During its existence,from its incorporation in 1948 to itsde-incorporation in 1968, this profes-sional organization left an indelibleimprint on the face of Americanpsychology, particularly in reducingCatholics' distrust of and suspiciontoward psychology.

ACPA was founded during thetime psychology underwent a transition

from being a branch of philosophy—specifically moral philosophy—to

becoming a natural science. Forpsychology to become a science, it hadto formally and decisively divorceitself from philosophy. To accomplishthis, psychology had to stop equatingpersonality (in its scientific sense) withcharacter (in its moral sense) and relin-quish its claim to being value-based.

Accordingly, psychology became a value-free science that studied personality empirically in the 1940s and 1950s.

William Bier, S.J. , a pioneer inclinical psychology, the psychology of religion, and the psychologicalassessment of seminarians, founded

ACPA. At one of its first meetings, Sister Annette Walters is quoted as sayingan organization like ACPA was neededto alleviate the distrust of religioussuperiors toward psychology and pavethe way for it to be “respectable for areligious to be a psychologist.” Theorganization began with 220 members

and at its peak in 1965 had 840members. ACPA was formed toaccomplish two objectives. The first

was to increase participation of Catholics in scientific psychology.

Achieving this objective required theexpansion of undergraduate andgraduate psychology programs inCatholic colleges and universities.Equally important was the developmentand advocacy of psychologicalassessment in seminary and religious

Sister Annette Walters is quoted as saying an organization like ACPA was needed to alleviate the distrust of religioussuperiors toward psychology and

pave the way for it to be “respectable for a religious tobe a psychologist.”

4 VOLUME 32 NUMBER TWO SUMMER 2011



life. In 1954 there were 195 Catholiccolleges and universities, but only 31%had psychology majors while 78%offered coursework in experimentalpsychology, a good indicator thatpsychology was considered a science atthat institution. In the mid-1960s allCatholic universities and collegeshad developed psychology majors and

adopted a scientific focus. Achievementof this first objective was ACPA’s legacy.

The second objective of ACPA wasto bring the Catholic perspective to

bear on the emerging field of scientificpsychology. For Bier and others, thismeant that neo-scholastic psychology had to become dissociated with theemerging Catholic view of scientificpsychology. Accordingly, ACPAleadership actively endeavored to “leadCatholics out of a neo-scholastic ghetto

into natural scientific psychology.” Inother words, the goal was assimilationof Catholic psychology into themainstream of American psychology.This was to be accomplished bydistancing itself from neo-scholasticpsychology, by having ACPA memberspresent research papers at annualmeetings of the American Psychological

Association (APA), by advocatingfor ACPA to become a formal divisionof APA, and by outlining a scientifictheory of psychology compatible with

the Catholic worldview. This secondobjective was partially achieved, exceptfor the scientific theory.

In 1968, ACPA concluded that itsobjectives had been achieved and that itcould now reconfigure itself into anorganization that was open to otherdenominations and other worldreligions. Accordingly, in 1970 ACPA

become known as PsychologistsInterested in Religious Issues, whichthen became the Division of Psychology

and Religion of the AmericanPsychological Association in 1975.In hindsight, it may have been some-

what grandiose to expect that any organization could actually develop ascientific theory compatible with theCatholic perspective in just twenty

years. This dream has never reallydied as some Catholic psychologistscontinue to develop such a theory, pri-marily by reformulating neo-scholasticpsychology.

Neo-scholastic Psychology

Neo-scholastic psychology wasderived from neo-scholasticism which

was the dominant philosophical basisof Catholicism from 1860 to 1960.Neo-scholastic psychology would

become the intel lectual substratafor psychology from the Catholic

perspective. In 1879 Pope Leo XIIIissued the encyclical Aeternis Patristhat introduced neo-scholasticismand neo-scholastic psychology intoseminaries and Catholic universities.

Archbishop Désiré-Joseph Mercier, who would soon become acardinal, was appointed to spearheadthis development. Mercier insisted thatpsychology was no longer a branch of philosophy but was now a science, thescience of the soul. It was expected thatneo-scholasticism would infuse bothexperimental and clinical psychology. Itis noteworthy that William Wundtopened the first psychology laboratory in Germany that year, after which

William James established a similarlaboratory at Harvard University.

Presumably, the pope’s hope wasthat the Catholic worldview wouldemanate from this new focus onneo-scholastic psychology. However,the view that psychology was thescience of the soul was poorly received

by many non-Catholics, and subse-quently by an increasing number of Catholics. Efforts to make the soul the

basis for empirical research failed. Infact, ACPA as an organization didnot support the introduction ofneo-scholastic psychology in newly formed psychology programs atCatholic colleges and universities.

Because ACPA members and otherhumanistically oriented and spiritually oriented psychologists were sensitiveto self-actualization and the spiritual

domain, there was support for a broad-ened view of psychology. Accordingly,in the late 1950s though the 1970s,there was considerable support forhumanistic psychology, existentialism,and, later, transpersonal psychology andpositive psychology. Instead of usingreligious constructs like soul, theseapproaches emphasized constructslike self, person, existence. This strategy seemed to work and as a resultneo-scholastic psychology slowly faded

The secondobjective of ACPA

was to bring the Catholic perspective to bear on the emerging field ofscientific psychology.




and disappeared around 1960. Aboutthe same time, neo-scholasticismceased to be the official philosophy of Catholicism. These developments

were greeted with hopefulness by someCatholics and wariness and distrust by others.

PSYCHOLOGICAL

FUNDAMENTALISMThe term fundamental ism is

typically associated with religiousfundamentalism which can be definedas strict adherence to basic religiousdoctrines and principles. Religiousfundamentalists tend to be intolerant of other views and oppose secularism. By contrast, psychological fundamental-ism does not involve religious doctrinesand instead reflects an individual’s

basic pattern of thinking and evaluating

life. Underlying this type of fundamen-talism is the assumption that there isonly one view of reality and only one

way to understand experience.Individuals with such fundamentalist

beliefs typically reinforce their way of thinking and evaluating by seekingsupport and confirmation from those

who share the same or similar beliefs,and avoid any information that wouldcontradict their beliefs. Psychologicalfundamentalism is characterized by thinking in black/white and either/or

terms. Basic to either/or thinking isthat there can only be this position orthat position, since there can be nomiddle or midway position. This typeof fundamentalism also includes feel-ings of self-righteousness and defensive-ness, and it is often accompanied by

behavioral responses that are judgmental,domineering, or contemptuous.

Psychological fundamentalismcan be an ongoing pattern or atransitory one. That means that someindividuals consistently function in this

psychological fundamentalism fashion, while others transiently experience it insituations that are highly reactive,stressful or fear producing. The basisfor the reactivity and fear may notalways be clear in the moment, but

what is clear is that quickly taking aposition “solves” the problem orconcern and reduces fear and distress.

When individuals are in this transientstate, effective communication seldomoccurs.

Basically, religious fundamentalisminvolves specific religious content ,

while psychological fundamentalismprimarily involves a process—a rigid

way of perceiving, thinking, andevaluating—without content that isspecifically religious. Accordingly,all religious fundamentalists arepsychological fundamentalists, but not

all psychological fundamentalists arereligious fundamentalists. Obviousexceptions are atheists, agnostics andother so-called secular fundamentalists.

Atheists who rail against religiousfundamentalists may consider themselvesobjective and open-minded, however,staunch atheists and religiousfundamentalists share one thing incommon, they are both, at their roots,psychological fundamentalists.

The opposite of psychologicalfundamentalism is differentiation.

Differentiation is a term used todescribe a personality characteristicof people who are able to holdcontradictory viewpoints whilemaintaining their own beliefs. Forexample, a person who has a very low level of differentiation may not be ableto tolerate much, if any, disagreement.In contrast, a more highly differentiatedperson is able to see things from bothsides, and may even agree withanother’s criticism, but can still

maintain an allegiance to one’s own beliefs. They engage in both/andthinking instead of either/or thinking.

A model of cognitive developmentcan be helpful in understanding thisphenomenon. Jean Piaget and othershave described various stages ofcognitive development and thinkingstyles: pre-operational, concreteoperational, formal operational andpost-formal operational thinking.Pre-operational is a way of thinkingthat is ego-centric and emotionally

focused. Concrete operational is a way of thinking that is rigid andcategory-based, e.g., either/or and

black/white categories. The statement:“This psychological theory is eithercompatible with my faith or it is notcompatible” is an example of either/orthinking. Similarly, the statement:”If this psychological theory even hintsof secularism, it is not to be trusted” isan example of black/white categoricalthinking.

Formal operational or logicalthinking is a way of thinking thatinvolves the capacity to use inductiveand deductive reasoning andabstraction to make decisions and solveproblems based on logic. Post-formaloperational thinking is the highestlevel of cognitive development. Alsocalled post-formal thinking, it is

more complex than logical thinkingand involves making decisions basedon situational constraints andcircumstances, and integrating emo-tion with logic. It relies on subjectiveexperience and intuition as well aslogic, and is useful in dealing withnuances, ambiguity, contradiction, andcompromise (Commons and Richards,2003).

It is not uncommon for individuals with a limited capacity for post-formalthinking to experience more difficulty

with emotionally-charged situationsthan those with a greater capacity for it.Discussions involving emotional issuesoften reveal differing responses whichreflect the capacity for post-formalthinking. Those with little capacity forit tend to believe that there areabsolutely clear right and wrong waysfor dealing with complex situations,

while those with much more capacity for it are more capable of nuance anddealing with ambiguity. Estimates are

that 2% of adults routinely function atpost-formal operations, 20% at formaloperations, with the remainder atconcrete operations or pre-operations.However, it has been observed thatindividuals can regress back to aprior level of thinking when sufficiently stressed. That means that those whofunction as concrete, categoricalthinkers can become more pre-opera-tional and emotionally focused in theirthinking.

It is interesting to note that many

believe—insistently—that the churchhas roundly condemned psychology, orat least a particular psychologicalapproach. The fact is that there has

been no such condemnation. Althoughthe Vatican, and even a pope, hasexpressed misgivings about certaintenets of psychoanalysis, the churchhas not condemned it. It is noteworthy that in his foreword to the book,

Psychoanalysis and Catholicism , CardinalSuenens concludes: “Contrary to the

6 V OL UM E 3 2 N UM BER T WO S UM MER 2 01 1



widely held opinion amidst the CatholicChurch as well as by others, the churchhierarchy never condemned Freud orpsychoanalysis.” He quotes Pius XII,

who, while disapproving of the elementof pan-sexualism (belief that all behavioris motivated by the sexual drive) in psy-choanalysis, also declared that any psy-choanalytic approach which he

described as the “psychology of thedepths must not be condemned if it dis-covers the contents of religious psy-chism and strives toanalyze and to reduce it to a scientificsystem, even if this research is new andeven if its terminology cannot be foundin the past” (Discourse at the Congressof Psychotherapy and ClinicalPsychology, 1953). Despite the church’sstatements to the contrary, whatexplains why some continue to believethat psychoanalysis was condemned?Such a belief reflects either/or,categorical thinking that does notcomprehend nor appreciate subtle andnuanced distinctions.

More recently, Vatican IIrecognized the value of scientificpsychology. The Pastoral Constitution onthe Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) states: “In pastoralcare sufficient use should be made,not only of theological principles, butalso of secular scientific discoveries,

especially psychology and sociology: inthis way the faithful will be brought to apurer and more mature living ofthe faith” (no. 62). That this Vatican IIdocument concludes that psychology can foster psychological and spiritualmaturity is a clear and ringing endorse-ment of psychology.

More specifically, the Guidelines—approved by Pope Benedict XVI—also affirm the value and needfor psychology in both the admissionand formation process of seminarians.

In fact, Section III, the longestsection of the document, isentitled: "Contributions of Psychology to Vocational Discernment andFormation."

CONCLUSION

The relationship of psychology andCatholicism has evolved over the pastcentury such that psychology shiftedfrom having a perceived peripheral

role to a more central role in dailylife. The distrust and wariness ofpsychology that reached its peak inthe 1940s and early 1950s amongthe Catholic hierarchy, scholars, andlaity was largely resolved thereafter.Papal pronouncements, Vatican IIdocuments, and the recent Guidelineshave essentially affirmed psychology's

role in fostering psychological andspiritual maturity in both laity andpriests, even though some psychologicaltheories and approaches may not befully compatible with the Catholic

worldview. Such incompatibilit iesusually involve elements of humanisticpsychologies which emphasizeself-fulfillment and foster individualismand a narcissistic-focused spirituality.

It is reasonable and understandablefor Catholics to be wary or distrustful of such specific incompatible elements.However, it is less reasonable to roundly dismiss and be distrustful of all ormost elements of such theories andapproaches on the grounds that they represent secular humanism, socialism,psychoanalysis or similar explanationscommon among psychological funda-mentalists, whether they are religious orsecular fundamentalists.

It is noteworthy that while theChurch's stance—as depicted in papalstatements and Vatican documents—

toward psychology is generally quitepositive, some continue to believe thatthe Church has roundly condemnedpsychology. Perhaps this reflects lessdifferentiated thinking patterns, i.e.,either/or and black/white thinking,than malice. The reality is that theCatholic Church has not roundlycondemned any psychological approachin its totality, including classical psycho-analysis. Instead, the Vatican appears tohave wisely offered differentiated andnuanced criticisms of specific approaches,

while generally recognizing the valueand utility of psychology. As the role of psychology in the church continues toevolve, perhaps the Vatican's stance canserve as a positive role model for those

who are disposed to be fearful anddistrustful of the science of psychology.

RECOMMENDED READING

Suenens, Cardinal J. L. Foreword in B. Wolman (ed.), Psychoanalysis and Catholicism.New York: Jason Aronson, 1995.

Commons, M. and F. Richards. “FourPost-formal Stages” in J. Demick and C.

Andreoletti (eds.), Handbook of Adult

Development (pp. 199–219). New York:Kluwer Academic/ Plenum, (2003).

“Pastoral Constitution on the Church inthe Modern World (Gaudium et Spes).”The Basic Sixteen Documents of Vatican

II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declaration.(Austin Flannery, General Editor).Northport, NY: Costello PublishingCo., 1996.

Vatican Congregation for CatholicEducation. Guidelines for the Use of

Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the

Priesthood. 2008.http: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc.

Walters, A. and K. O’Hara. Personsand Personalities: An Introduction to

Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1953.


Len Sperry, M.D., Ph.D.,is Professor andDirector of theDoctoral Program inCounseling at FloridaAtlantic Universityand Clinical Professorof Psychiatry andBehavioral Medicineat the Medical Collegeof Wisconsin.