LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Pastoral Counseling between Psychology and Religion
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
10/2022
Pastoral Counseling between Psychology and Religion
What happens at the boundaries between disciplines, when they seek to collaborate? Helpful is
the metaphor, borrowed from anthropology by the historian of science, Peter Galison (1999), of
a “trading zone.” A trading zone is an area where two different cultures interact for purposes of
trade. I do not have to know your language or your customs to trade with you. What matters is
that you have something that I want, and I have something that you want. However, we do
need to communicate in some way. So in these zones, new languages arise. Galison has shown
that when sciences do collaborate and produce a hybrid science, a new hybrid language
develops, one that differs from the parent languages.
The cure of souls included the practices of confession (the sacrament of reconciliation) and
spiritual direction. Both confession and spiritual direction involve relationships between two
people: Confession is formal and sacramental. Spiritual direction can involve more informal and
personal relationships. Psychotherapy resembles both in some ways, and analogies were drawn
between them in the early twentieth century to introduce Catholics to what psychotherapy was
all about—a cure by means of speech. And at times to condemn psychoanalysis as a
replacement for confession. When psychotherapy came along in the twentieth century, it was
not received in the Catholic world with a blank slate. Psychotherapists, we might say, were
treading on sacred ground.
The care of souls was not lightly shared with psychology and psychiatry. The prominent
Catholic psychologist, Alexander Schneiders (1959), observed, after over seven years of work in
this area, that “we must remind ourselves that the Church, through its priests and hierarchy,
has for centuries regarded itself as the primary if not sole custodian of spiritual growth and
health, peace of mind, and measured happiness. Understandably, it regards with some
skepticism and even resentment the encroachment of other disciplines into the life of the
spirit” (p. 5).
Nevertheless, there were reasons to overcome the skepticism and even enter into
collaboration. Pastoral psychology saw rapid growth after World War II. Before the war, there
was very little in the Catholic world, whereas among Protestants, it had been underway since
the 1930s. That changed, beginning in the 1950s. That was when a trading zone formed,
establishing pastoral psychology as a discipline. People in psychology, psychiatry, pastoral and
moral theologies, and other fields came together to create it. In mid-century, psychiatry meant
psychoanalysis, so much of the terminology in early pastoral psychology was psychoanalytic.
Competing with it was Rogers' client-centered psychotherapy, which came to prevail in early
pastoral counseling. Pastoral and moral theologies are two applied areas of theology, because
they deal with concrete human action. The theological and philosophical partners in this
venture were largely Neoscholastic.
The trading zone was set up in the early 1950s, and the new discipline of pastoral
counseling was established by the late 1960s, producing by then its own “native speakers.”
Those native speakers continued to develop the language, leaving its early formulations behind.
From that point forward, it constituted a discipline unto itself. We shall concentrate on the
formative period of the 1950s and 60s.
In addition to the cultures that create a trading zone, there had to be a problem that the
collaboration was seeking to address. It was largely that of priests dealing with difficult pastoral
situations, especially one-to-one relationships with parishioners seeking advice, and with
mental health issues in confession and spiritual direction, such as scrupulosity. There was
recognition on the part of those collaborating in this trading zone that seminary training did not
adequately address many of the interpersonal situations that priests were facing. I must note,
moreover, that members of the clergy were active on both sides of the border in this trading
zone.
Creating the Language of Pastoral Psychology A prime example comes from Charles A.
Curran, a priest who taught in the Psychology Department at Loyola University Chicago. In
1959, he observed that members of the clergy were becoming aware of psychological aspects
of counseling, and that they could profit from learning the psychological skills: “This kind of
skilled understanding ... on the part of the clergy ... is gradually coming to be known as 'pastoral
counseling'” (p. 21). Curran asserted a distinctive feature of pastoral counseling, namely, a
concern on the part of both individuals in the counseling situation with “ultimate values,” and
that the relationship with the client extends beyond the client “to the Divine dimension” (p.
28). Curran differentiated pastoral counseling from ordinary counseling, thus indicating the
boundaries of the new field.
The 1959 book, Counselling the Catholic, by the Paulist priest, George Hagmaier, and the
Jesuit, Robert Gleason, really helped establish this trading zone. Hagmaier had a doctorate in
Marriage and Family Life from Columbia University, the first priest to do so, and he did pastoral
counseling. Gleason was chair of the theology department at Fordham. They sought to carve
out an area distinct from the traditional cure of souls and from psychotherapy, drawing upon
both but establishing a new discipline. They stated that their aim was practical—addressed to
priests who often found themselves called upon to venture beyond the skills and knowledge
obtained in seminary training.
They entered a trading zone by defining their topic such that it supplemented—but did not
replace—traditional examination of conscience and spiritual direction by focusing on the role of
emotions in life. People cannot benefit from religious instruction and guidance if they are not
emotionally available to receive them: “the emotional life of most of us is in some way stunted,
perverted, or otherwise undeveloped so that grace is not always able to work as fruitfully and
perfectly as it might” (p. 6). They expanded upon this theme, illustrating how the young child’s
limited cognitive perspective combined with parental misconceptions and often limited ability
to love their child could produce emotionally distorted adolescents and adults. This perspective
served to establish a setting where priests could see the value of learning a thing or two from
the psychologists. In other words, priests would see something of value to “buy” in this trading
zone of pastoral psychology.
What did the psychologists want, however? The answer is that most of the them were
catholics, and often members of the clergy, and they wanted their professional skills recognized
and used in Church life. What they wanted to buy was participation in the life of the church. So
we have an unusual border here, with many of the same individuals on both sides! So the
metaphor of trading zone limps a bit, I must admit.
Hagmaier and Gleason proposed a simplified common language so that priests and
psychologists could communicate. Let me cite a brief passage, emphasizing some of the words
of this shared language: “experiences and attitudes of early life determine to a significant
degree the kind of personality, the type of character, and to some extent the degree of free
choice which the adult will possess” (p. 18). While experiences ... of early life determine ... the
personality come from psychotherapy, character and free choice represent contributions from
the religious side. The text then presented the constituents of the personality, drawing
explicitly on a psychoanalytic framework. They simplified technical terms, including id,
superego, and ego. Such simplifications are not “dumbed down” versions of psychological
concepts, but terms in a new language, a language that enables disparate groups to interact. In
this instance, Hagmaier, a member of both cultures, proposed the terms, so that priests and
psychologists could discuss pastoral problems in a common discourse.
An early work in Catholic pastoral counseling was The Pastor as Counselor (1965) by the
Belgian Jesuit, André Godin, a book “that actually analyzes pastoral conversations designed to
help people,” said one reviewer (Hiltner, 1965, p. 61). Godin, in addition to having had
philosophical and theological studies, was a practicing psychoanalyst (Grom, 2012, p. 74).
Another Belgian Jesuit who helped cultivate this field was Raymond Hostie, who had a
doctorate in theology and training in psychotherapy. His 1966 book, Pastoral Counseling, shows
this field coming in to existence in the trading zone. Hostie’s wrote for priests who found
themselves being called upon to provide personal counseling. He sought “a non-technical
vocabulary,” drawn largely from humanistic psychology, in order to “to make the ideas
accessible to the reader unacquainted with psychological studies” (p. ix). For the counseling
situation, Hostie advised the priest to take a therapeutic attitude:
The priest, therefore, should have one concern: to forget about his other occupations and
duties. The client must become the center of his sympathetic attention so that he may be
given the opportunity of working everything out himself. (p. 50).
The priest must step out of his normal priestly way of interacting with others. Counseling
is not confession. The priest in this new role is not providing guidance and direction. Hostie
described pastoral counseling in these terms: “The spiritual counselor allows the counselee
freedom to express himself fully, so that he may become conscious of what he is
experiencing and thus be enabled to take an authentic stand” (p. 57). So rather than give
advice or lead (that is, be a pastor in the etymological sense of a shepherd), the priest as
counselor facilitates the person’s self- discovery—a humanistic psychological value.
Pastoral Psychology Comes of Age
John W. Stafford, a Viatorian priest who had been Chair of the Psychology Department at
Catholic University of America, wrote in 1969 that: “In our own generation there has
developed, within the framework of the general movement in counseling and clinical
psychology, something that can be called new in the area of pastoral counseling. The term
itself, 'pastoral counseling,' is new.” If pastoral psychology began in Catholic communities in the
1950s, by the mid-1960s, the field of pastoral psychology was defined: graduate programs
appeared and a new journal was founded. Both develop “native speakers” in the new language
that was created in the trading zone. At that time, because of the Second Vatican Council's
openness to ecumenism, Catholics were joining more frequently with non-Catholics, both
Protestant and Jew, in these new enterprises. The field expanded too, in increasingly bringing in
lay people.
Master's Programs in Pastoral Counseling
In the 1960s, Catholic pastoral psychology had become sufficiently defined so that master's
programs began to appear. Perhaps the earliest one was at Iona College in New York. Related
programs at the Catholic University of America and Loyola University Chicago were housed in
Psychology Departments. The Iona College master's program began in 1963, at first for priests
but, after a few years, the doors opened to women religious and lay people in separate
programs. As with similar programs, this one grew out of earlier short-term institutes on
pastoral counseling. James E. Sullivan, a Brooklyn priest, who after 16 years of parish work
entered the program, wrote:
“Finally, in the technique of counseling, we learned to counsel the person, the complete
human being, who had not only an intellect and a will but strong emotions and emotional
conflicts.” His implied criticism was aimed in part at the overly rationalistic philosophical
education of priests formation at the time. In the trading zone, there were new attitudes (more
favorable treatment of the affective life of the person and a developmental perspective) as well
as a new language.
The Iona program launched a journal, The Journal of Pastoral Psychology, which ran from
1966 until 2009. Addressed initially to the clergy, the first editorial of the journal reiterated the
need for pastoral counseling in terms we've already seen: “Physical starvation is still plaguing
some of us, but emotional starvation is plaguing more and more persons; vitamins are
abundant, but love is scarce” (Conigliaro, 1966, p. 4). This statement reflected the humanistic
orientation of many early pastoral counseling programs as well as an implicit critique of the
Church's Neoscholastic rationalism.
Information on the “Training Program for Priests” at the Catholic University of America
(Bier, 1965, p. 39) described a program run by the psychology department “to give priests a
background in psychology and an opportunity to develop attitudes and techniques which have
been found effective in pastoral counseling.” In the mid-1960s, this program was a summer
program, which admitted seminarians and priests, with women religious admitted as well in a
separate program. The director at the time was the Viatorian priest, Michael J. O'Brien, who
later was a psychology professor at Loyola University Chicago.
Loyola University Chicago opened The Institute of Pastoral Studies in 1964. The early
emphasis was religious education programs, with a master's degree in pastoral counseling
beginning in the 1980s (Gilmour, 2015, p. 563). Earlier, too, Loyola had been active in the
intersection of psychology and pastoral care. One significant project was the NIMH study of
psychological characteristics of seminarians and priests, which included the establishment of
pastoral counseling classes for seminarians, which were rare when the study began. However,
“by the end of the survey more than a hundred [seminaries] were offering classes in pastoral
counseling and mental health” (Gillespie, 2001, p. 61).
Loyola's “Training Program in Psychology for Priests” was run by two priest-psychologists in
the Psychology Department, and began in 1956. A 1961 description of the program called it a
“fully credited graduate program” (Bier, 1965, p. 39) within the Psychology Department. The
two priest-psychologists were not named, but they were possibly Curran3 and William Devlin
(Gillespie, pp. 57-58;), although there were other possibilities, Eugene Kennedy and Paul
D'Arcy. Michael O'Brien, after arriving from the Catholic University, directed the master's
program in counseling psychology “for religious workers” (O'Brien, 1984, p. 25).
