CAN A PRIEST BE AN AUTHENTIC PSYCHOTHERAPIST?
Priests, by definition, are men of God and so deeply committed to their Lord that there could be no ideologic, clinical, intellectual, philosophic, empirical position for them except that which is revealed by their Master. There can be no legitimate, honest deviation from the Manifest Will of God. Such a disloyalty would result in such an inner conflict that the man of God could experience significant distress and possibly some dysfunction,
Psychotherapists, on the other hand, see themselves as professionals devoted to the alleviation of suffering and as such are not bound by religious dogma or doctrine. And rightfully so, I think, because their area is NOT morality or deciding what is right or wrong. Their role is to heal; not to establish moral criteria. Sometimes, they do overstep their rightful world of expertise. But they function according to the consensually accepted protocols of their particular school of practice. For them, (psychoanalysis is an example,) there are no traditional/creedal religious or spiritual restrictions. In effect, it would appear that, for them, there is no real absolute truth. The "Sacred Cow" dogmas of the Psych community are considered, however, to be strictly binding and even punitive if ignored.
So, does it appear that, realistically, a Catholic priest would be unable to function in the psychotherapeutic community as a bona fide psychotherapist/psychologist observing, on the one hand, scientific protocols and still, on the other hand, maintain his Priest-conscience, his standing in the religious world and his personal relationship with his God ? And isn't it true that some basic beliefs of the Catholic Church could run counter to current therapy guidelines? How could a priest be objective when a patient presents material (clearly proscribed by his Church) relating, for example, to the termination of uterine life, a woman's choice over the use her own body, same sex love and marriage, sexual expression outside of the formalities of the marriage ceremony, censorship, the religion of children of a mixed marriage and myriads of items taken for granted in modern American living ?
It is the intention of this little essay to respond to those questions in a personal and empirical manner. I am a Catholic priest of nearly 55 years duration. I am also a licensed psychotherapist, psychologist and professor. I own a PhD in psychology from a prestigious and secular University from which I graduated with honors. I am State Licensed and have taken Post doctoral certifications and seminars. I have been awarded citations from Professional organizations for my " contribution to the integration and mutual enhancement of philosophy, spirituality and psychoanalysis..." I have been practicing counseling and psychotherapy since 1965. I will challenge the implied apparently non-negotiable implications of the question as stated and will attempt to demonstrate that although the relationship between the priest in me and the " shrink" in me can be rocky, at times, by buckling the safety belt the Lord has provided, it has been a mutually satisfying and productive "team." Fr. Noel Malloux, PhD., Fr. Alexius Portz, Fr. Wm. Bier PhD., Fr. Benedict Groeschel Ed. D. and hosts of other priest psychologists have had the same satisfying experience and are mystified at the criticisms of non-priest colleagues which question their abilities as psychotherapists simply because they are Catholic priests. And by a kind of extension, the same criticism would darken the work of religious Sisters, Brothers, any committed Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim or anyone with a transcendental belief system. Interestingly enough, positive outcome data from Faith based therapeutic systems are becoming increasingly impressive.
Before I entered the world of psychotherapy, when I functioned in the world of philosophy (having trained at the renowned Catholic University at Washington, D.C.) helping young people clarify some muddled thinking processes and often puerile spiritual stances, I would refer the occasional "Unhappy" one to a psychiatrist for healing and help. More often than not he returned to me a year or so later substantially unchanged but convinced that his money and time were well spent. What happened ? What went on? What was missing ? Or what was so good about it?
In spite of my uninformed rantings and criticisms of the world of Freud and Jung, I was drawn inexorably to examine it. And such a discovery! I found the greatest buttress to my own world of caring for the hurting and perplexed children of God. I found the remarkable insight about the dynamic influence of the UNCONSCIOUS mind which, together with Freud's concept of the ID, seemed closer than farther from my own concept of Original Sin upon which so much of the Catholic Faith is based.
The notion of the alleged motivation was extremely helpful in my work of spiritual direction and spiritual/ emotional growth.
The many insights about the creative defenses of the mind with its seemingly endless ability to ward off perceived threats enlightened so much to me the famous Puck's axiom- - " what fools these mortals be." I learned that what LOOKED like spiritual problems were, at root, psychological ones which needed psychological as well as spiritual care. How this helped me in my ministry to those suffering souls we used to call "scrups" - - now known as OCDs!! I learned, also, that what LOOKED like psychological problems were, at root, spiritual ones which needed likewise dual modalities of treatment. The spiritual hungers and the huge yearnings for meaning leaped out from respected psychological leaders like Viktor Frankel and meshed once again with my own dearly loved Catholic tradition.
I gleaned eclectically so many useable " nuggets" from Freud and Jung. From Adler and his social concepts and Horney and her insights into the pitfalls of relationships. From HS Sullivan and his " power is in the hour" insight. And Erikson and his brilliant vision of the psychosocial. From Holland came the stellar Van den Aarweg with his clarity on the inferiority dimension explaining so well the sadness of Homosexuality. And Moberly from Cambridge, England with her New Christian Ethic digging deep into the unconscious to try to understand the mysterious dimension of the psychosexual formation. And Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse who so superbly complemented theology ( not accommodated) with the psychological. The list seemed huge.
One picked and chose, supermarket style, what one would find acceptable and worthwhile. The wholesale swallowing of the whole package seemed to me to be na�ve and juvenile. Much of the theorizing was speculative and reflective of personal matters. For me some discrimination was necessary.
So, I enjoyed and admired much of Sigmund Freud-even his writing style. But his weight was in the clinical area. His discoveries about human functioning were simply phenomenal. When he moved -beyond his reach-into the world of philosophy, religion and theology, I could simply dismiss him as " talking through his hat." When he became apodictic about his atheism and his negation of human freedom/will and his pan-sexuality, he and I were on opposite sides of the fence.
His symbolic interpretations seemed, to me, to be too far reaching. Yet even he when confronted about the ever present cigar, parried with his famous "...gentlemen, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." Maybe, he didn't believe all that " stuff " himself. Does EVERYTHING have some kind of unconscious link with breasts, butts and penises? I really have to respond "Balderdash." ( I could use a more colorful, streetwise term of the tauro-scatological genre but refrain because of the high level of this forum) !!!
But I learned, also, that even though these committed people had much to offer in terms of soothing human pain and resolving unnecessary suffering, there was just as much pettiness, jealousy, immaturity and truth shading as in the general unenlightened population. In my second year of my training in psychoanalysis, the highly respected Director of the Institute I was attending sent for me to tell me about HIS problem with a colleague on the Faculty who was moving TOO much, the Director felt, into power areas belonging to his exclusive Leadership. He vented in much the same manner which one would expect to find in grade 10 in the local girls' high school.
So, it was necessary, I saw very early in the psychotherapy experience, with the good fortune of a Thomistic background, to make distinctions. Some of my professors,mentors and colleagues were highly educated nitwits who occasionally spewed out such sophomoric garbage I had difficulty restraining my Jewish/Irish ire. Others, of course, were extraordinary scholars, scientists and warm, normal (?) individuals.
Yet there was some nonsense the level of which would have been hooted out of any Pre-Vatican II seminary. I recall being regaled in class with a dogmatic presentation concerning the similarity of airplane travel and penile erections. This was presented as a way of helping those with air travel phobia. We were told that it is simply another case of sexual repression.
Both airplanes and male " members" have three things in common:
1) they both fight the force of gravity
2) they both rise under their own power
3) they both are referred to as " birds."
Sitting right in front of the lecturer, I bit my lip almost to blood letting in the hope that I could contain a very loud guffaw! The presenter was very somber and made his presentation with what passed as a straight face !!! Explaining this relationship to the phobic would then ostensibly free him from the paralyzing terror he experienced whenever he flew !
From the start of my career as a therapist, I insisted stubbornly on breaking one of the Sacred Cow canons. I WORE MY CLERICAL COLLAR WHEN I DID THERAPY !!!! With the constant reminder that therapists must be authentic as much as possible, I refused to pretend that I was NOT a priest. I was told that the collar would represent a frightening authority which would prevent me and my patient from interacting without manipulation. The transference, I was told, would be ruined and real therapy could not take place.
Truth and honesty, I heard constantly, were utterly necessary. When I articulated my intuitional lights and convictions, I met unyielding, judgmental resistance. When I quoted a famous New York city therapist (Shapiro MD) who openly and boldly said: "therapy without manipulation is a mirage," my mentors adopted the famous 2,000 yard stare. If they wore thick shell eyeglasses framed by tortoise shell frames, the stare seemed 2,000 miles. They, shocked and unsmiling, were apparently stunned by my cavalier assertion that everyone manipulates everyone else ( if even unconsciously) and that there is no such "thing" as a completely Objective and non-manipulative human being. In my own years as an analysand and patient, I detected many times the attempts to make me over so that I would "think right." How assiduously the pros in the business have worked to develop a God-like stance, demanding non-verbally that patients be totally submissive and obedient ! Talk about transference! The ONLY one who can legitimately give commands is the almighty therapist who has all the answers and is never wrong. You think I'm kidding you? You oughta' see them!
In the 1970's I ran an interactional group for young people who were having difficulties in living New York style. For some reason an old retired female psychiatrist with an interesting background wished to sit on the sessions. She was Austrian Jewish and a convert to Catholicism. Living a lonely life in an Ansonia type hotel at Broadway in the 70's, she needed some human contact.
She had been analyzed by Freud for 40 months in Vienna and gave fascinating insights about the " Master." Before every session, she had to put the MONEY on the desk. She said he was "tough." But after every session he would invite her into the other office for ''coffee." This clearly violated the basic tenet of the tranference so cherished by my mentors of long ago.
Was Sigmund diluting the transference, covertly seducing her or atoning for his demands for her money? Who knows? Or cares? It is basically irrelevant.
No matter what, he was a master clinician and did his job superbly - - - - -coffee or no coffee ! To paraphrase Harry Stack Sullivan, the therapeutic work is done IN the session. Whether or not he smoked his famous cigar in the session or wore slippers or high button shoes can be irrelevant. The patient doesn't know what he looks like after a while but only senses the relationship. I wear a clerical collar and I do the job well. After a while, my patients don't know what I look like or how much or how little hair I have !!! They sense ME and my own skills and my care for them. Sig wrote to Jung suggesting that the patients get well_----- in part_-_--- to please the therapist ! They want to please me, the guy in the funny collar!
I wear a clerical collar to solidify my own identity to me and to others. People relate to me AS I AM. There is no confusion about what to expect. As many of my colleagues will readily admit, they pick and choose whom they will see for interviews. Sometimes, it is because there is no common ground. Some of them will not treat rapists. Or child molesters. Or old people. Why? Because they know their strengths and capacities to help. This, I think is really professional.
Similarly, patients want to see therapists with whom they can have rapport. The gay patient wants someone who agrees with him or accepts his personal lifestyle. The Jewish patient troubled with Faith and ethnic problems wants preferably a Jewish therapist. I used to criticize such preferences but now recognize that a truly PROFESSIONAL therapist will see his limits and will refer the patient when he, himself, does not share the self destructive or immoral goals of the person seeking therapy. This again is in terms of the therapist's own value system - - - -as HE sees things. Generally, we agree that omnipotence (i.e. I can help everyone) is nonsense. All therapists can help someone ! So can I -with my collar-and my specific moral system and my code of belief.
Objective? Non-judgmental? Deconstructionism is King ! They say that there is no real morality except that which is "relatively" constructed by the individual-in therapy. Of course, I disagree and it is a disagreement which has as much validity as the quasi Fascistic pseuodo-monlith that my colleagues try so vainly to build.
And, of course, the really big NoNO of my career was ( and is) that I did not take stipends ( money) for my work. I have worked for 37 years doing counseling and psychotherapy on a Pro Deo basis. This simply means that I serve others for God's sake - - - - in the real Catholic Tradition of seeing Jesus in everyone else. Who serves another, serves Jesus. It is the building up of the eternal Brownie points in the celestial IRA account.
This is particularly irritating when my patients have done well over the years, easily as well as the colleagues. This is difficult for them as they painstakingly explain to THEIR patients why the 45 minute hour will cost $150 and how therapeutically necessary it is that this fee be so high. Since my fee is right and my modality is what people need ( and they know it), my appointment book is jammed. Meanwhile, my colleagues, especially the MSW types, are complaining how bad " business" is.
I have been told for years that unless I charge a fee, patients will not be helped and they won't come back. The dire prophecy has not come true. God's grace, my own capability and the patient's good sense have all combined to do what the Lord commands.
"Love one another" still holds and will continue to be so !
My great gripe about my colleagues is in the area of denial and self deceit. If they will tell me that they have bills to meet, tuitions to pay, rent to meet, food to be bought and the rest, I will leap up in agreement and be the vocal champion for fee structure demands. In fact, my life situation frees me from all those legitimate stresses. But when these realities are conveniently placed on some kind of backburner and I am drowned with the same tired, old, academic clich�s, I want to up-chuck the nonsense. Is it that these guys don't really believe it themselves and must engage in unending self hypnosis to justify their milking a sick and vulnerable public? Is some one like me a rebuke or discomfort ? Whatever happened to the sacred cow canon of authenticity in the therapist? Are my colleagues willing to go with EMPIRICAL assessments?
Truly, those who wish to explore pro abortion, homosexual behavior, free use of porno and prostitutes will not seek me out.
This is correct and understandable just as many of my colleagues will not be sought out by people who seek a more godly life. Of course, there are magnificent therapists who are holy and spiritually knowledgeable. I know that. But whether I charge a fee or not, some patients will seek me out for what I can do for them with my own set of values. I can help some people whether I wear a barrel or jeans or a clerical collar because of who I am and what I represent. Similarly, I can help some whom my fee charging colleagues can never truly help. This is because of my own style and character AND the huge dimension of God in my work which is open, clear and ever present. How this ticks off my buddies in the shrink community!!
With an authentic humility which I describe as simply admitting the truth to and about oneself, both positive and negative, unvarnished, I note that with years of being a therapist behind me, I confidently say that my work is easily the equal of the slavishly, unthinkingly obedient yes men ( obedient to the god of protocol) and in most instances superior. Part of the superiority of my work is rooted in God and His Presence in my sessions. I have the advantage of offering His forgiveness and His sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and wondrous reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance. I have no hesitancy in bringing up Prayer and desires/hungers for the Divine.
I have gratefully used the insights and tools provided for me by my studies in psychology. With my work in psychoanalysis, clinical experience, research and mentored supervision, I have been able to do the work assigned to me by the Lord-even better than if I had remained the priest philosopher I had been in my youth.
Freud, my thanks, old buddy and more eloquently when we meet before the God you never really knew. Until now, that is !!!!!!