How pop psychology replaced biblical theology.
Among the many “outrages” that led to the excommunication of theologically conservative Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was his claim that a coup d’etat had taken place in the Catholic Church.
When we hear the word “coup” we usually think of a sudden, violent, and illegitimate overthrow of a government. But the coup Viganò speaks of was neither sudden nor violent — though it was certainly forcible, accomplished via the capture of power.
Viganò has used several other terms to get across his idea of what has happened in the Church: “takeover,” “infiltrate,” “penetrate,” “usurp,” “subversive,” “fifth column,” and “counterfeit.”
In addition, he often speaks of two Churches: a true Church and a false church (which he sometimes refers to as the Deep Church). Moreover, following the lead of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, he occasionally refers to the coexistence of the Catholic Church on the one hand and a counterfeit church on the other.
The Successful Shadow Church
Perhaps “counterfeit” is the most useful word to describe the “false church” because if its falsity were obvious, Catholics would reject it. The success of the shadow church lies in its ability to convincingly imitate the real thing. According to Viganò, the most convincing sign of the counterfeit church’s authenticity is that its leaders currently hold the reins of power in the institutions of the real Church. Consequently, they seem to speak with authority.
Currently, they are using that authority to sideline and silence Viganò, whom they charge with schism and various other grave ecclesiastical crimes. At the same time, they have been joined by some otherwise traditional and/or conservative Catholics who dismiss Viganò as an unhinged conspiracy theorist.
In ordinary times, of course, the overuse of terms such as “infiltration,” “subversion,” “fifth columnist,” and “counterfeit” might merit such charges. But Viganò’s point is precisely that we no longer live in ordinary times. And, as Lincoln observed of the Civil War years, “the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present … . As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew … .”
But a great many Catholics seem reluctant to think anew. Rather, they seem to prefer to believe that nothing drastic — like a coup — can ever happen in the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit, they argue, just wouldn’t allow it.
The Painful Facts
The problem with that line of thinking is that a coup of sorts has already taken place in the Church — and in relatively recent times. From the early 1960s to the 1990s and beyond, progressive Catholics effectively managed to substitute the tenets of humanistic psychology for Catholic theology.
In an amazingly short time, the pseudo-religious teachings of human potential psychologists such as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Erich Fromm became standard fare for students in Catholic colleges, seminaries, and even in K-12 religious-studies curricula. Instead of the four cardinal virtues, students learned Maslow’s five stages of self-actualization, and instead of learning to examine their consciences, youngsters learned “Values Clarification” —a completely relativistic process of choosing values based on the “nondirective” therapeutic technique developed by Carl Rogers.
The fatal flaw of the nondirective approach was that it was also nonjudgmental. Rogers found that his clients would be more likely to “open up” if he offered them “unconditional positive regard” — a sort of blanket acceptance of all their thoughts and feelings. In this way, according to the theory, clients would learn to accept themselves and eventually to love and esteem themselves. How so? Because, Rogers believed, at the inner core of the person one inevitably finds a good and trustworthy self. And in learning to love one’s self, one learns to love others as well.
It’s not surprising that Rogers’s ideas caught on so quickly among Catholics and other Christians. What he said seemed to echo scriptural themes such as “God created man in His image,” “Love your neighbor as yourself,” “Judge not,” and so forth. At first glance, Rogerian theory seemed to blend with Christian teaching. And, because of the psychological insights it offered, it seemed to many to be a more enlightened form of Christianity.
The Self as an Ersatz “God”
Although he long ago disavowed Christianity and other “dogmatic” religions, Rogers was initially drawn to Christianity and entered Union Theological Seminary in the hope of becoming a minister. He eventually left his faith behind him, but he retained in his writings the sort of reverential, awe-struck attitude toward the inner self, that devout Christians reserve for God. Indeed, for Rogers, along with Maslow and Fromm, the self became an ersatz ‘god.’
While Christian pastors devoted themselves to helping their flocks find God, Rogers’s mission was to help his followers get in touch with their true selves. For him it was akin to a religious quest, and many of his students responded in kind. Although Rogers discouraged it, many thought of themselves more as devotees than students and many described his 1961 book, On Becoming a Person, as their “Bible.”
Stealth Conquest by Infiltration
My point is that Viganò’s claim that a coup has taken place (or is taking place) under Pope Francis is not far-fetched. It’s not even news. A “coup” (of sorts) already occurred in mid-century America, when a sizable number of Catholics substituted the principles of humanistic psychology for Catholic/Christian teachings. During that period, encounter groups took the place of classroom lessons, sermons were more likely to focus on self-image than on sin, and, in California, an order of 600 nuns responded to Rogerian therapy by marching out of the convent in search of self-actualization.
It wasn’t, however, a political coup. The changes that took place in the Church involved an infiltration of ideas and assumptions rather than an overthrow of an institution. Moreover, there is no evidence that there was any plot or conspiracy to effect the change. It was more a case of moving with the times, and in the America of the 1960s, psychological explanations of life’s vicissitudes were much more in tune with the times than religious explanations. The watchword of those days was “I’m OK and you’re OK” and the focus was on self — “self-esteem,” “self-fulfillment,” “self-awareness” and self-growth.”
In Part 2 I will unpack the subtle charms and hidden moral flaws in this “humanistic” replacement for the apostolic Christianity which the Church was founded to pass along, unadulterated by the spirit of this or any age.
This article originally appeared in the August 13, 2024 edition of The Stream.
Pictured above: Church embraces diversity
Photo credit: Pixabay
