The "Catholic" Therapeutic (Part 3 of Revisiting "Triumph of the Therapeutic")

The "Catholic" Therapeutic has pivoted from the solid objectivity of the Faith into subjectivism and narcicissm, however camouflauged. Has turned, in a covert and subtle shift, to the dark side. In pursuit of the wholesome, has discarded tradition and law, the holy, dread of sin, the primacy of the supernatual. This is to be distinguished from the therapeutic Catholic, described in the previous blog, as one who incorporated the therapeutic within orthodox Catholic thought and practice. Substantially, the one is Therapeutic, the second Catholic.

The Catholic Therapeutic is not one who has rejected his Catholic faith in honesty and transparency. Rather he has emptied the inner soul of the faith and replaced it with a psychological surrogate that presents as a more enlightened, contemporary, genuine and "Catholic."

In my college seminary years (1965-9) Carl Rogers was the reiging guru. The priests in spiritual direction were all non-directive: they had nothing to say. They wanted to listen...to a fault. We students had nothing to say. Spiritual direction was one awkward,quiet hour! Eugene Kennedy, Maryknoll-priest-psychologist, was our professor and a rock star in the post-Council euphoria-confusion. He had a huge influence on many classmates as he belittled the "old" and unenlightened Church, went on to leave the priesthood and encouraged many to follow suit with disregard for the process of laicization. Flamboyant in his disdain for old fashioned obedience and chastity, he was a brilliant, gifted man with a way with words and remained prolific, influential and loved by the Chicago National Catholic Reporter set. Close to Andrew Greely, Cardinal Bernadine and others, he was a charter memeber of the "Catholic" liberal elite. Long before he disdained John Paul's catechesis of the human body, I spontaneously developed (even in my more liberal youth) a visceral distate for him. His last public lecture was at the Maryknoll Alumn Centenary Reunion in 2011. As a member of the planning committee for that event, I fiercely opposed the choice but to no avail: everyone thought the world of him. During the talk in the Maryknoll chapel, I almost shook with rage as he disparaged traditional Catholic Eucharistic piety as "cookie worship." If he hadn't been in a wheel chair I would have challenged him to a fist fight! I believe there is a section deep in purgatory for Catholic Rogerians, but it is not as bad as that for the Jungians.

As a Catholic, I agree with Philip Rieff: much better the clear, honest, straightforward atheism of Freud rather than the obtuse, convoluted religiosity of Jung. Jung continues to be a huge influence in Catholic and Christian circles as he presents a sometimes-insightful and sometimes-deceiving depth psychology as an enlightened and superior replacement for faith in God. It is simple enough: Jung does not believe in our transcendent, creator God but replaces him with "God" as the depth of our soul. This is disguised but is a total descent into narcissism: God is me, the deepest part of me. Jung is the embodiment of the Narcissism of our age. But he presents as sophisticated, scientific, enriching...entirely free of ignorance, prejudice, and traditional dependency.

Richard Rohr is the most seductive Jungian in today's Catholic world. He is my nemesis! Everyone...I mean Everyone loves him. I do not! Everyone...I mean Everyone...wants to give me articles and books by Rohr. He must be the most influential Catholic spiritual writer today: what Thomas Merton was 60 years ago. Usually, I get into the second paragraph of his article and as he condemns the established Chruch which I love I want to vomit. I cannot finish an article by him. He is Eugene Kennedy's ghost come back to haunt me! Like Kennedy, he is a brilliant and charming man. He offers an insightful, gentle, peaceful spirituality including compassion, surrender of control, thankfulness, attention to the moment, wholesomeness as he draws from psychology, 12-steps and a range of sources. In its way it is all good stuff. If it came from Oprah Winfrey or an Episcopalian psychologist I would nod approvingly. But coming from a Franciscan Friar it is soft, femmy, new-agey. No! This is not what St. Francis was talking about. I don't see here Jesus crucified! Poverty, chastity and obedience! Love for the actual, incarnate,sacramental, hierarchical Church! Filial allegiance! A supernatural sensibility! A sense of the holy! Hatred of sin!

To be fair: Rohr clearly does a lot of good for a lot of people. Not long ago I enjoyed a wise, balanced podcast given me by my nephew so maybe he and I both are mellowing. He is not saying anything so bad. But he is not my cup of tea. I am all about incorporating psychology into our faith but I take my Catholicism straight, strong, undiluted. The therapeutic has to defer to the Catholic, not viceversa!