Sin and Transcendence Versus Psychopathology and Emotional Wellbeing: On the Catholic Church’s Problem of Bridging Religious and Therapeutic Views of the Person Rachel B. Blass (bio) In recent decades, the Catholic Church has taken an increasingly favorable view of the fields of psychology and psychotherapy. A century ago, the Church met these fields with suspicion and aversion, mainly because of their unchristian assumptions and implications.1 Over the past fifty years, however, these reactions have been gradually dissipating. Pope Paul VI’s Gaudium et Spes is often cited as a central text of this positive turn. In that document, advances in psychology and other sciences are presented as means to attaining a profound understanding of human nature and activity—an understanding that could help promote valuable social and familial causes and even serve inherently religious ones. The document states: In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith.2 Although similar efforts had previously failed, this kind of thinking eventually led to the foundation in 1971 of the Institute of Psychology at the Gregorian University. There, it was hoped, psychology could be studied for its application to Christian formation.3 The Church also hoped to put psychology to directly psychotherapeutic uses by training Catholic doctors and pastors to counsel people with mental illness.4 Although such efforts met with early opposition, in the 1960’s matters began to change. In Germany, for example, committees were established to investigate the advancement of Church-supported psychotherapy.5 John Paul II continued this positive approach. In 1987, he spoke of how the knowledge and theories of contemporary psychology could help us evaluate “the human response to the vocation of marriage in a more precise and discriminating manner than philosophy alone or theology alone would allow.”6 [End Page 21] Click for larger view View full resolution Reflections B, Courtesy of Camil Tulcan [End Page 22] Changes within psychology and psychotherapy partly facilitated the Church’s increasingly positive reception of these fields. These changes made the disciplines seem more compatible with the Christian worldview.7 Most notably, there emerged alternatives to Freud’s supposedly atheistic, deterministic and pansexual approach. These took the form of humanistic, behaviorist, or medication models of psychotherapeutic treatment. In addition, new psychoanalytic approaches downplayed sexuality and stressed empathy and interrelatedness in ways that, at least superficially, seemed friendly or neutral towards religion. Moreover, there developed within psychology a greater awareness and tolerance of cultural differences.8 As a result, religious beliefs could be discussed without reducing them to their psychological sources (a reduction that had nullified any inherent religious value the beliefs might have). The emerging cultural acceptance of a very loose and inclusive notion of “spirituality,” which encompasses religious belief, also seems to have discouraged reductionism of this kind, thereby making psychotherapeutic approaches more accessible to believers.9 It would seem that as a result of the wave of sexual abuse scandals that has rocked the Catholic Church, the Church’s concern with psychological questions and its interest to make good use of psychological knowledge and expertise have become more urgent.10 The scandals have raised questions regarding the mental health of the clergy—the degree to which mental health considerations are taken into account in the selection of priests, and how priests’ mental health is affected by environmental and social factors. For the future, there are also questions of detection and prevention of psychological disorders among the clergy and of treatment for both perpetrators and victims. In light of these issues, psychology and psychotherapy now more than ever seem relevant to the Church. The Church’s contemporary approach to psychology and psychotherapy has not, however, been entirely unambivalent or unproblematic. For example, in the same speech in which he hoped that psychology could help us understand the human phenomenon of marriage, John Paul II expressed serious concerns about the dangers and limitations of this new openness. He pointed out that “certain trends in contemporary psychology, going beyond their own specifaic competence” offer visions...
Read full abstract
Dec 12, 2013
Natalie A Brown + 2
Open Access