Psychology and theology: models of relationship

Forms of dialogue: The Second Vatican Council valued the contribution of the human
sciences, including psychology. In the constitution Gaudium et Spes at n.62, it states that
"there should be sufficient knowledge and good use made not only of the principles of
theology, but also of the discoveries of the human sciences, primarily psychology and
sociology." In Christus Dominus at No. 14 it is said that "Bishops should see to it that
catechists are conveniently prepared for their office and that they learn in theory and practice
the laws of psychology and pedagogical subjects. In Apostolicam Actuositatem at No. 32 it is
stated that "the laity should erect centers of documentation and study not only in the
theological field, but also in the anthropological, psychological, sociological and
methodological fields." Psychology and theology, overcoming old barriers and prejudices,
can and must pool the results of their research, respecting their autonomy and research
methods since both these disciplines operate on a common ground: man. In order, then, to
arrive at greater collaboration and integration, for the construction of a dialogue that is
urgently needed today. According to Joachim Scharfenberg, it is possible to distinguish five
different forms or models in which the interchange between theology and psychology is
articulated.

- "Conflict" model: the reliability of psychological cognitions and praxis is judged and
condemned by theology.

- "Delimitation" model: this model exalts the existing structural differences. However,
psychology is given the rank of an auxiliary science, to be used eclectically according to the
pattern of a "theological ancilla." Theology can only affirm, but not demonstrate, its
anthropological relevance.

- "Collaboration" model: theology and psychology meet on the practical ground and in caring
for those who suffer, setting aside all theoretical issues, discussions of goals and premises
related to worldview.

-Model "mediation on the philosophical level": the exchange takes place on the academic,
that is, theoretical level. However, the whole thing is likely to remain on a very theoretical
level and without concrete consequences for praxis.

-Model "mutual criticism." Theology and psychology sustain an engaged dialogue, which can
sometimes reveal new dimensions of Christian or socio-religious praxis. Mutual criticism is
not spared.

Joseph Groppo identifies three possible models of the relationship between psychology and
theology. The first is the "hierarchical model" that occurs when the devotees of each science
absolutize their own approach and devalue that of the other. The second model is the
"functional utilization" model, according to which each makes use of the other science's
findings but does not enter into dialogue with it. Finally, the "interdisciplinary dialogue" model.
The latter is based on the consideration that the two sciences differ not so much in the object
of investigation as in the method of study. In fact, both have the same common ground of
encounter constituted by man. Precisely in order to achieve a greater understanding of these
they need to dialogue with each other.

The relationship models between humanities and theology are first of all distinguished into
two broad categories: models of conflictual type and models of peaceful coexistence. The
relationship model of peaceful coexistence, in turn, encompasses within it several other
subspecies of models that could be included in two broad categories: hierarchical type
models (one science "dominates, the other is "ancilla") or models of the egalitarian (theology
and humanities relate to each other as more or less equal sciences). The egalitarian type
models are many and remarkably distinct from each other. Again, we can group them into
two broad categories: non-dialogical type models and dialogical type models. Finally, there
are basically two dialogic type models: the multidisciplinary type and the interdisciplinary
type.

The fundamental basis of dialogue: In Vergote's view, psychology remains a positive science
of man and is independent of any religious connotation. Despite this autonomy, a comparison
between psychology and religion is possible because of the impact that the religious fact has
on the whole of individual and social life. The relationship between these two disciplines has
evolved historically. The first generation of psychologists (second half of the last century)
challenged theology with the so-called "soulless psychology" in an attempt to secure
autonomy for this newly established science. For their part, theologians have often taken an
attitude of distrust against the theories expressed in religious matters by the humanities.
Today, after the Second Vatican Council, times have changed, but the controversies do not
seem to be completely extinguished. One notices, however, a new kind of relationship:
psychologists recognize that certain interpretations and generalizations made toward religion
were exaggerated. Theologians show interest in rethinking theology while also keeping in
mind the human reality into which the Word of God is dropped; in the pastoral field, then,
there has been a noticeable sensitization in the church to the various aids that the human
sciences offer. There is a need to establish a dialogue that overcomes old barriers and old
prejudices and brings together the results of their research in order to thus achieve a more
adequate knowledge of the same reality: the religious phenomenon. Theology and
psychology can be considered anthropological sciences, although theology is not reduced to
them, because in addition to dealing with man, it is primarily concerned with Revelation. The
psychology of religion like theology investigates and must investigate man in his totality, just
as psychology can also deal with religious behavior. What, however, differentiates the two
sciences is not so much the object of investigation but rather the method. Religious
psychology studies the emotional, intellectual and volitional aspects that relate to a
supernatural object and can deal with those conflicts that arise from childlike religiosity or
that disrupt its evolution and compromise its authenticity. Psychology has been tempted to
reduce religious intention to a purely human phenomenon, hence the distrust of some
theologians who reproach psychologists for wanting to take possession of the divine and
reduce it to the merely human. The element to keep in mind is the principle enunciated by T.
Flournoy that God does not belong to the psychological field, in fact no empirical method is
capable of observing God. The supernatural is open to those who can decipher the signs it
inscribes in man, but to do so requires the use of principles of interpretation other than those
of psychology. In principle, therefore, religious psychology is atheistic; its judgments are
partial and relative and can have no claim to exhaustiveness.

Dialogue between psychology and theology: We call interdisciplinary dialogue between

theology and the humanities that by which representatives of the two sciences become
listeners and informants in function of the more complete knowledge of a common field of
inquiry. Pedagogical anthropology conceives of man as a being who is formed through
education; it therefore questions his educability and the processes of maturation of his
personality. Theological anthropology, on the other hand, looks at man as the being of
absolute transcendence to God and questions his creaturality, his sinfulness, his need for
salvation, and his redemption. Thus the problem of pedagogical anthropology concerns man
as educable, while theological anthropology concerns man in his relationship with God; the
former deals with "homo educandus," the latter with "homo Dei." When neither stops on its
path but on the contrary begins a process of communication with the other, both realize
certainly the difference in their views, but also the interdependence of their research.
However, in order for such dialogue to actually take place, four other fundamental conditions
must still come true: it is necessary for theologians and representatives of the humanities to
renounce the claim that their discipline is the only scientifically valid approach to reality; it
must be kept in mind that the dialogue between theology and the humanities will always have
to take place under the sign of the provisional; the dialogue and confrontation will not must
take place on the abstract level of the two types of sciences as such but on the concrete
level of historical and disciplinary realizations; theologians and humanities scholars must be
sufficiently informed about the scientific methodology that distinguishes the other science or
sciences. When these conditions are met, the dialogue between theology and the humanities
can effectively begin.

The first studies of psychology of religion: the Psychology of Religion, as an autonomous

science, began in the second half of the last century. It can be noted that Psychology in
general, is established in the same period, but, for quite some time it was not concerned with
the religious fact. Scientific psychology believed to assert its autonomy more, raising the
banner of protest and calling itself "soulless psychology." Toward the end of the 19th century,
new avenues opened up with the emergence of religious psychology. Studies in the
Psychology of Religion arose and developed almost simultaneously in Europe and America.

In Europe: the remote origins of psychology of religion studies can be found in the
philosophical foundations marked by English empiricism (Hobbes-Locke-Hume), the French
and German Enlightenment (Voltaire- Rousseau-Spinosa-Hegel etc.) and positivism (Comte-
Durkheim-Spencer-Feuerbach etc.). The European pioneers in this field were:

FLOURNOY→ He formulated two principles, which he laid at the basis of his studies:
exclusion of the transcendent from the method of the psychology of religion, and biological
interpretation of religious experience.

HOEFFDING→ He argued that psychology could not concern itself with the spiritual fact.
BERGSON→ He thinks that science does not have the ability to penetrate the real. It can
provide practical knowledge, but not grasp reality in its truth, which is dynamism and novelty.
Bergson is therefore not in favor of a psychology of religion as an empirical science, but as
an enhancement of an intuitive psychology, neither experimental nor rationalizing, but
"understanding" phenomena.

OTTO→ is the best known and most influential in the studies of the psychology of religion. It
was he who sharpened the concept of "religious experience."

GIRGENSOHN→ he follows the method of introspection of psychic facts. The nature of

religious experience is to be sought not in a distinct faculty, but in a structured set of psychic
functions and contents of consciousness. The different groups of functions merge into a
single structure.

Milanesi thus summarizes the main features of the development of the psychology of religion
the Europe:

- A predominance of idealist thinking followed by a profound crisis in theological and

philosophical thinking. This period is marked by the prevalence, in various forms, of
rationalism and the most absolute subjectivism;

- A period of reaction that harkens back to Kantian agnosticism, overcome, however, on the
strength of rigid moralism and enthusiastic irrationalism. These are the anti-intellectualist and
sentimentalist currents, closer to the ideals of Romanticism, which try to save the concept of
religion and Christianity with considerations diametrically opposed to idealism, but which
actually reach the same conclusions: that is, the denial of the supernatural fact, of revelation,
of necessity in theology, and reduce the religious fact to the level of an individual and
personal psychological fact.

- A new scientist and positivist mentality that in turn reduces the religious fact to a pure
measurable phenomenon, the object of positive science. Religion becomes the object of
science.

Toward the end of the 19th century it is difficult in Europe to distinguish sharply currents of
religious thought, all being more or less influenced by either idealism or positivism.
Historically, in this global atmosphere, the movement of thought of Modernism appears
above all. This presents itself as ostensibly a Catholic-only phenomenon, but in reality it also
affects the broad world of Protestant thought and indeed in so many ways depends on it. In
modernism we come to the reduction of all the values of Christianity to the single
requirement of a single natural religion based on personal inner experience. From these
considerations it can be seen that already there is in such movements of thought "a certain"
religious psychology. It presents itself:
-as a science of religion, but more often with claims to exclusivity;
-as a science paradoxically understood more as theology and philosophy than psychology,
with such theoretical implications that one cannot yet speak of autonomous psychology;
-as "empirical" science though not yet "experimental"; "scientist" though not yet "scientific";
"positivist" though not yet "positive."

In America: American experimental psychology emerged in the last two decades of the 19th
century and famously linked up with European psychological currents, which just then were
at their most developed. The pioneers of Psychology of Religion studies in America are:

STARBUCK→ is believed to be the founder of religious psychology, although, in reality, he is

only the most significant representative of the school founded by Hall.

JAMES→ was the first to consider the possibility of psychological research on religiosity. He
distinguished between "objective religion" (doctrine, truths to be believed, laws, rites) and
"subjective religion" (acceptance of a supernatural Being and adherence to his will). For
James originally in religiosity the affective and emotional, irrational component prevails; then
follows a rational phase in which the insights of the previous phase are elaborated.

HALL→ In his two volumes on adolescence (1904) he regards Religious Psychology as a

branch of general psychology and argues that it must be independent of empiricist
philosophical conceptions. With Starbuck, he defends the principle of the autonomy of
religious psychology as an experimental science with its own object and methods.

The contribution of depth psychology: With the Psychoanalytic School, the Psychology of
Religion is enriched with new contributions, as religious experience is interpreted on the
basis of unconscious motivations. In addition to the thought of the founder of psychoanalysis,
Jung's and Fromm's contributions will be briefly examined.

FREUD (1856 - 1939): religion is interpreted on the basis of unconscious motivations.

showed interest in and concern for religion. In order of time, his ideas on religion can be
outlined as follows:

In a 1901 work, religion is presented as a set of psychological processes projected onto the
external world; the religious phenomenon is compared to paranoia.

In 1907 in "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices," religious practices are compared to
the ceremonials of the obsessive neurotic: there is inner compulsion with fear of falling into
disgrace or punishment if one neglects ceremonial In 1910 in "A Childhood Memory of
Leonardo da Vinci," Freud states that religion originates in the parental complex; it is an
expression of the need for protection present in childhood. The adult faced with the
difficulties of life needs a protective father: God.

In "Totem and Taboo" Freud expressed his interpretation on the origin of religion. The main
ideas of this work are: religion has a collective origin: children rebel against the father who
restricted the exercise of sexuality; they kill the father and eat him, symbolically internalizing
his prerogatives, but also his prohibitions. Thus the sons forbid to themselves what was
forbidden by their father(incest). The father figure is sacralized in the image of the "Totem";
The individual origin of religion is found in the Oedipus complex: The male son's affective
ambivalence toward his father (love-hate) makes him aggressive; in order to identify with
him, the son constructs a "dilated" father figure: an otherworldly father. God is thus the effect
of a process of sublimation and projection.

In his study "The Future of an Illusion" (1927), he explains the nature of religion and adult
religiosity. Man in the face of difficulties regresses and becomes a child again, and transfers
to God the ability to give him protection. Such projection of an unsatisfied childhood desire is
illusion and an obstacle to man's liberation and maturation. For Freud, the free man is
necessarily an "atheist."

In 1933 in his last work on religion, "The Man Moses and Monotheistic Religion," Freud
states that another cause of religion is the desire for omnipotence present in man, an
infantile desire that man tries to gratify on an imaginary level, moving further away from
reality.

JUNG→ The Swiss psychologist showed great interest in religious problems. His position
has some affinities but also profound differences with Freud's. His attitude toward religion is
undoubtedly much more positive. He recognizes the value and importance of the Christian
conception, but lives isolated in his own ideological world. At first he rejected religion; then he
recognized it, but not from theological works, but through the experience of his patients. In
contrast to Freud, Jung recognized the value of religion, first giving a naturalistic explanation
of it and then modifying it as he went along, in an obvious effort to explain Christianity as a
spiritual fact. This explains how Jung was able to arouse great interest in numerous authors,
both Catholic and Protestant. Recalling Hostie, we can distinguish three phases of Jung's
thought:

- 1st phase runs from 1905 to 1912, in which he is still partly under the influence of Freud;

- 2nd phase, which can be said to be a transitional period in which the problem of religion
preoccupies the author and closes with the 1937 volume Psychologie und Religion, in which
and outlines to him his doctrine on the nature of the religious fact;

- 3rd phase corresponds mainly to the period following World War II, in which Jung refined
his conception on the basis of new studies on religious symbolism
Among the archetypes of the collective unconscious, Jung also enumerates the religious
archetype. He sees it as a dynamic factor that must be satisfied, because religiosity is a
positive dimension of personality, and states that if this is lacking, man easily falls into
neurosis. "For Jung, the image of God is thus not produced by the experience of the
individual, as Freud argued, on the contrary, the earthly father is the first incarnation of the
archetypal image of the otherworldly Father that already pre-exists hereditarily in the child."
Jung identifies the archetypal "Self" with that of God, whereby faith and religious practice
promote the process of psychic maturation, which then itself takes on religious significance.
He states that human maturity depends on the presence of an authentic religious view of life.
Jung 5

conceived therapy as an intervention aimed at promoting or reactivating religiosity, which,

according to him, coincides with psychic normality. Jung's merit is that he valued symbolism
in the context of religiosity. He believes that only symbolic activity can help evoke the
Transcendent. Among the symbols that evoke the divine archetype, Jung gives a primary role
to the maternal symbol.

FROMM→ moves substantially along Freud's line, while also breaking away from it on
fundamental points. He argues that the religious element is always present in man, who is
characterized by the religious need he carries within himself. Religion is thus a universal fact,
rooted in human nature. Also for Fromm, as for Freud, religion is a product of the psyche, a
projection of desires and the need for dependence or freedom. He distinguishes:

-an authoritarian religion, in which man renounces freedom to satisfy instinct, accepting a
superhuman power, to which he submits with an attitude of dependence and with guilt;

-a humanistic religion, centered on the enhancement of man, who can realize himself by
developing reason and love and living religious experience with freedom and joy. According
to Fromm, man would create civilization and religion in the hope of finding an answer to
questions about the purpose and goals of existence.

The humanistic orientation: Before presenting the position that humanistic psychology takes
toward religiosity, it is worth noting the methodological turn. After World War II, psychological
publications reached very high levels. It seems to be possible to attribute this orientation to
the fact that the psychology of religion has remained almost on the margins of the field of
inquiry, simply because it does not lend itself easily to experimental and statistical treatment.
One psychological current that presents a positive and optimistic conception of the human
person is what is called "Third Force," or "Humanistic Psychology." Several of the most
significant representatives of this school openly advocate the transcendent dimension of
man. Such a conception of the person allows a discourse on religiosity, seen as a reality that
operates in harmony with psychic functions, and as a factor in mental health. According to
humanistic psychology, religiosity would represent the response to the existential need that
leads the person to question the ultimate meaning of existence. Religiosity leads man to
outline a life project oriented toward the attainment of transcendent values. The core of the
religious attitude is the perception and search for the ultimate meaning of existence, in a
transcendent You. Among the authors of this direction, who made considerable contributions
to the study of the psychology of religion, we would like to mention a few.

ALLPORT→ In agreement with James, Allport, too, denies that religiosity is an effect of
psychological immaturity, and argues that the religious phenomenon should be studied in
normal people: He explains the meaning of religiosity, stating that it originates from essential
motivations, present in mature man, who, sensing his own limitations, seeks to give meaning
to life through religion. He distinguishes between an "extrinsic religiosity," childlike in nature,
motivated by the need for defense and security, and an "intrinsic," or mature, religiosity,
which also promotes psychic maturity, with affective and cognitive components. Intrinsic
religiosity stimulates humans to move toward transcendence and is a factor in mental health.

NUTTIN→ The most specific contribution made by this author to the study of religious
psychology consists in having specified the concept of "sublimation" by applying it to the
religious fact. Starting from the observation that sexual elements are preferentially mixed with
certain religious delusions, he argues that this "linking of sexuality with religion is not
explained as a function of sublimation or a reduction of one to the other, but by virtue of
concrete conflict situations in which precisely the antithesis of the two elements and their 6

union in the human forms of the religious are the dominant factors. The religious and the
erotic possess common elements due to the fact that their dynamism originates from more
general needs, needs for contact, integration and expansion. The two phenomena are
irreducible forms, located at different psychic levels, of this complex need for protection and
contact."

FRANKL→ The Viennese psychiatrist states that there is not only an impulsive unconscious,
but also a spiritual unconscious, and that God is not the projection of the earthly father, but
that the latter is the image of God. The parent is not the archetype of divinity, but it is God
who is the archetype of all fatherhood. The natural father is the symbolic representative of
the heavenly Father. Picking up on Jung's thought, Frankl points to the lack of purpose in life
as the genesis of neurosis, and the recovery of values and meaning in life as the beginning
of healing. Through "logotherapy" he seeks to restore the neurotic's meaning in life and to
satisfy repressed spiritual needs.