A Few Thoughts on the Fundamental Problem of Modern Psychology and How to Fix It

By: Sr. Agnes originally published @ tuesvita.com/

Recently, I read a significant article on the problems of modern psychology, and the author was kind enough to let us publish it on Missio Dei. Please check out her work, and thank you for reading and supporting Missio Dei. God Bless.

Co-Founder: Jonathon Fessenden

Those who are close to me know that I have a rather complex relationship with modern psychology. As a teenager and young adult, I was deeply fascinated by this science. I have always been naturally inclined to ask myself the “why” of my feelings, thoughts, and behaviors and to search for the hidden roots of my personal difficulties and challenges, so turning to psychology’s methods and answers seemed like an obvious choice. 

Consequently, long before I discovered I needed a Savior, I strongly believed I could “fix” my dysfunctions through the magical, mysterious wand of psychotherapy. I went all in. I spent my early twenties in a relentless pursuit of that elusive “self-knowledge” that I thought would heal me, under the guidance of several therapists of different psychological schools. 

My longest experience was with a psychoanalyst, and I am to this day still trying to work out exactly what we did during those years of sessions. The precise meaning and scope of what I experienced is still shrouded in mystery for me. But I can confidently say that I left that process still struggling with many of the same neurotic symptoms I had when I began. 

All in all, the experience left me dissatisfied. I had a greater understanding of myself, sure, but had that really helped me to resolve my issues? What was the point of it all? 

This disillusionment with psychology came at around the same time I had my conversion. The interesting thing is that, after I became a Christian, I unexpectedly perceived a serious betterment of my psychological situation through the simple fact of clearing my life of serious sin and regularly frequenting the sacraments.

I’m not saying I experienced a miraculous healing. I didn’t. I still struggle with my mental health and I think I will for the rest of my life. However, it must be said that the simple fact of living a “good life” helped my mental health more than years of intense introspection and supposedly “working on” my emotions, all while conducting a disordered life in complete ignorance of God’s commandments. 

And this is my point. My therapist, with all her high-sounding degrees and years of experience, never suggested I make common sense changes to my life that truly had a positive impact. Why didn’t she? Because she wasn’t taught any of these “common sense” truths during her long years of formation. She wasn’t trained to understand what actually promotes true health in a human being. In fact, she had been taught that many evil and immoral actions were perfectly normal and even healthy behaviors. 

At the beginning of his voluminous “Introduction to the Science of Mental Health”, Fr. Chad Ripperger makes a statement that is immensely insightful regarding the science of modern psychology and which sheds much light on my own dissatisfying experience with psychotherapy. 

The problem with the science of psychology is, according to Fr. Ripperger, that it simply does not know what a human being actually is. Of course, it’s hard to figure out how to heal a human being if you’re not sure of what it means to be a human being, fully functioning or otherwise. This ignorance produces a wealth of negative consequences and glaring mistakes that those in the field of psychology would avoid if they only understood human nature better. 

The reason for this ignorance is obvious. The founding fathers of modern psychology were not Catholics. In many cases, they actively opposed and rejected the Catholic Church. Consequently, their view of the human person was not based on the solid roots of Catholic doctrine concerning the origin and purpose of human life. In other words, they were blind leading the blind. 

Despite the considerable intelligence of these men, which allowed them to autonomously discover and formulate important truths about the human person, their spiritual ignorance led to many distortions, exaggerations, or flat-out mistakes that negatively affected the field of modern psychology. 

There are many examples of this, and it is not my intention to provide an exhaustive critique of the problem. Instead, I’d like to offer a few thoughts on the matter stemming from my own experience. 

One obvious problem with classic Psychoanalysis, for example, is its insistence on a sort of psychic determinism. It teaches that many of our behaviors are ruled by unconscious forces to the degree that we are left helpless to “choose otherwise”. This position quickly leads to negative consequences. 

I used to be friends with a young man who was studying psychology at university and dreamed of becoming a psychoanalyst himself. He had also been undergoing psychoanalytic therapy for many years for some deep-seated issues. Although we had a lively and interesting friendship, there were aspects of our relationship that were quasi-abusive and definitely unhealthy. 

When I voiced my concerns about some of his behaviors towards me, the inevitable response I would get was that he really couldn’t do otherwise because his unconscious traumas “made him” behave in an unhealthy way. In other words, he had no free will in the matter. 

Even at the time, imbued as I was with psychoanalytic thinking, I realized there was something very wrong with this statement. Of course, it is true that not everyone can be held accountable for their behavior. Some people are indeed so mentally ill that they have largely lost their ability to reason correctly and to modulate their actions. But this was certainly not my friend’s case.

The error of Psychoanalysis is to extend this state of impotence far beyond the bounds of serious mental illness, and, as a result, much immoral behavior gets explained away as an inevitable product of trauma. This infantilizes human beings and robs them of their dignity as free agents capable of controlling themselves according to a higher moral law. 

Had Freud accepted the Catholic Church’s teaching on free will, he would have seen things very differently and avoided grossly exaggerating the role of unconscious forces in determining our behaviors. Indeed, he would have seen that despite terrible internal and external pressures, human beings are capable of rising above everything to uphold Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, as is the case with the many martyrs canonized by the Church.

Another example of wrong-headed psychological thinking, somewhat on the opposite side of the spectrum to psychoanalysis, is that of humanistic psychology. I recently had the chance to get to know this branch of psychology due to my interest in the field of pastoral counseling, a discipline born in the United States aimed at accompanying people who need emotional and spiritual support in the difficulties and challenges of life. 

Counseling has its roots in humanistic psychology, particularly the work of Carl Rogers, who felt that traditional psychoanalysis was a bit too pessimistic about human nature and potential. His own views and psychological methods are instead founded on a sort of metaphysical optimism about the human person. He believed that humans are fundamentally good and that it is rather due to negative cultural and social influences that they behave badly and in dysfunctional ways. 

During a recent conversation I had with a humanistic psychologist, he stated that Rogers believed that people should just be “allowed to be themselves”. He seemed to imply that this would result in positive consequences both for the person and for society at large. He also stated that if Jesus were on Earth today, he would certainly be “on the team” of humanistic psychologists. 

But is this really true? Are people ultimately good? Should they just be allowed to “be themselves”? These are big questions that need to be answered, once again, on the solid basis of Catholic anthropology. 

Of course, there is some truth expressed here. It is true that human beings are essentially good, in the sense that they are created in the likeness and image of God, source and essence of all goodness. They are given many good qualities and gifts and are destined to be sons and daughters of God, eternally blissful in Heaven. So far, Christian anthropology is as “optimistic” as it gets concerning human nature.

But there is the other side of the coin. Human beings are also fallen creatures, and their nature is deeply wounded by original and actual sin. The great mystery of evil is precisely that reasonable creatures, made by a good and loving God, choose to thwart His designs and instead do things they know are bad, leading to ruin for themselves and others. 

Any realistic understanding of the human person cannot simply deny or underestimate the self-destructive tendency present in all of us. This darkness, which we all carry within us, is the reason why simply allowing people to “be themselves” can lead to disastrous consequences. Indeed, sometimes we must go decidedly against ourselves, and choose things which bore or repulse us. 

Of course, in a deeper sense, it is true that we are “being ourselves” when we fight our fallen flesh, if by this expression we mean a fundamental fidelity to God’s plan for our lives. Such fidelity, however, is anything but simple or obvious. We must be trained and guided in maintaining it so that we don’t risk mistaking an evil personal impulse for good and healthy self-expression. 

Rogers’ optimism about the human person risks legitimizing unhealthy and immoral behavior and relativizing values, making the person the center of all things instead of God. In the name of self-actualization, humans can become ruthless tyrants determined to annihilate anything and anyone that stands in their way. 

In the case of Rogers, like in the case of Freud, Catholic doctrine provides us with a necessary correction to errors and exaggerations that do not ultimately promote human health and true fulfillment.  Had these undoubtedly brilliant men found their home under the Church’s maternal wings, they might have tempered and purified their insights and given us reliable and effective psychological theories. Instead, we are left trying to put together various pieces of the puzzle on our own, in the post-modern landscape of a psychological science that struggles to find its identity and unity among such different currents. 

In his already mentioned book, Fr. Ripperger calls for a re-founding of psychological science on more solid roots, namely the perennial doctrine of Holy Mother Church and a Thomistic philosophy of being. I could not agree more. I would love to see this “Catholic renewal” of psychology during my lifetime, although for now it is but a seedling of hope in the minds and hearts of a few Catholic psychologists all over the world. 

Ultimately, I think the science of psychology will never truly come into its own without a true, deep, and transforming contact with the ultimate human being, the One who came to teach all of us what it means to be a fully realized person, Our Lord Jesus Christ. He will forever be the model of all true health and happiness, and any conversation about what it means to be a human person cannot take place if not in the life-giving light of His example and His teaching. 

By: Sr. Agnes originally published @ tuesvita.com/