Mon Jan 6 00:16:49 2003

By Tony DiGirolamo

There needs to be a preface to the story you are about to read.

The Catholic sex scandal had its roots deep in those enlightened years of the gay sixties.

Psychology was at the vanguard of this mess and the sexual revolution that our culture is now reeling from.

The guru's, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow and William R. Coulson, the latter lesser known, non the less fed the beginnings of, "If it feels good ... Do it!"

Do it ... They did!

Once again more is coming out from this horror in today's news.

After reading the Coulson interview read, "Nuns as Sexual Victims Get Little Notice", By Bill Smith Of the Post-Dispatch

Little notice indeed, because it sheds light on humanistic psychology. "Big Media" won't touch it either. Why? Because they don't want to stop the agenda to do the HBO type programming coming soon to your living room. That's right this would rain on their, "It's not TV", parade.

So this, Fire Breathing, Arch-Conservative, Editor-In-Chief, posts this article once again and again until they get it.


From the San Francisco Faith
June 2000 ARTICLES

A Diabolical Enterprise
Maslow Was the Culprit

by Eric Reslock
Two and a half years ago, George Neumayer, then editor of the Faith, interviewed William Coulson about his work during the 1960s with colleague Carl Rogers (See "Mad Scientists," November, 1997 Faith). The two were among many modern humanistic psychologists who were invited into seminaries and convents across the United States in the wake of Vatican II. From 1967-1969, they were invited to teach their theories at the Jesuit theologate near Los Gatos, the Sisters of Mercy in Burlingame, and in San Francisco, the Congregation of the Sacred Heart, which was then located at Lone Mountain.

The council inspired the American Church to teach to its seminarians the latest ideas in modern psychology, but to their later regret, Coulson and Rogers found their legacy as humanistic psychologists to be the dismantling of many convents and seminaries throughout California and elsewhere. By the mid-70s, both Rogers and Coulson had retracted their beliefs. But Coulson still believes that their ideas, and the ideas of Abraham Maslow, in particular, sowed the seeds for the moral crisis in religious life that is clearly evident today.

After receiving several queries in the past year about the November 1997 article, I called Coulson and asked him if he had reflected on his time as a teacher and lecturer to Catholic religious since then. He said he regrets that his colleague, Carl Rogers, inspired the psychological term 'Rogerian'. "Carl never intended to start his own school of thought. He never liked the term," Coulson said.

But the passing of time also caused Coulson to search out his own answers to what went wrong with the American Church in the late 60s and 70s. His research has lead him to believe that, more than the work of Carl Rogers, the influence of humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow on the American Church is under-acknowledged and poorly understood.

This was partly confirmed when Coulson examined the journals of Maslow -- not released to the public until 1979 -- which show the diabolical nature of his enterprise, and the contempt he had for religious people, some of whom, ironically, swallowed his ideas with little resistance.

A.H. Maslow is the name most often linked with Carl Rogers' as founder of the Third Force in psychology, the humanistic alternative to psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Maslow put his and his colleague's status this way in a note recorded ten months before his death in 1970: The real "seers and creators" of the "unnoticed revolution" in psychology are few -- "it's really only me and Rogers among the living."

But, according to Coulson, Carl Rogers hadn't set out to become a revolutionary. He was a psychotherapist whose approach "helping relationships" got applied to other fields, originally against his wishes. Coulson said, "Maslow was always the revolutionary, always leading the way in applying clinical techniques where the creator had insisted they didn't belong." Coulson continued, "Taking off from Rogers' early recommendation of 'nondirectiveness' -- but only in the clinic -- Maslow said life itself would benefit. He said in a Life magazine article in 1968, 'We have to teach everyone to be a therapist.'"

In a paper written for educators in 1958, Maslow offered the opinion that the average child knows "better than anyone else what is good for him" and therefore doesn't need to be told what to do; the child ought to be treated "permissively," to make it possible, that is, "to gratify his needs and to make his own choices -- let him be." Maslow went even farther in 1965, working a radical idea about children-and-sex into his book on the psychology of management, Eupsychian Management: A Journal:

"[I]t always struck me as a very wise kind of thing that the lower-class Negroes did, as reported in one study, in Cleveland, Ohio. Among those Negroes the sexual life began at puberty. It was the custom for an older brother to get a friend in his own age grade to break in his little sister sexually when she came of a suitable age. And the same thing was done on the girl's side. A girl who had a younger brother coming into puberty would seek among her own girl friends for one who would take on the job of initiating the young boy into sex in a nice way. This seems extremely sensible and wise and could also serve highly therapeutic purposes in various other ways as well. I remember talking with Alfred Adler about this in a kind of joking way, but then we both got quite serious about it, and Adler thought that this sexual therapy at various ages was certainly a very fine thing. As we both played with the thought, we envisaged a kind of social worker, in both sexes, who was very well trained for this sort of thing, sexually, but primarily as a psychotherapist in giving therapy literally on the couch, that is, for mixing in the beautiful and gentle sexual initiation with all the goals of psychotherapy.

"I suppose that for these days this is a wild thought, but ... there's no reason why it shouldn't be taken quite seriously, especially for youngsters and maybe also for the very old people. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that these interpersonal therapeutic growth-fostering relationships of all kinds which rest on intimacy, on honesty, on self-disclosure, on becoming sensitively aware of one's self -- and thereby of responsibility for feeding back one's impressions of others, etc. -- that these are profoundly revolutionary devices, in the strict sense of the word -- that is, of shifting the whole direction of a society in a more preferred direction. As a matter of fact, it might be revolutionary in another sense if something like this were done very widely. I think the whole culture would change within a decade and everything in it."

According to Coulson, when the management book was reprinted in 1998, Maslow's "wild thought" -- his naivete or idealism, if you will -- got cut out of the book, though John Wiley, the publisher, didn't mention that any cut had been needed.

"Probably he wanted to save the author's reputation," said Coulson, "But now something has to be said. Too much damage has been done, not least among Catholics, and now even a bishop. I say this because Maslow and Rogers came to Santa Rosa to lecture in August 1962, when the Santa Rosa diocese was being launched, and Maslow said some equally unfortunate things about the meaning of life. For one, he thought therapy could replace churchgoing."

Coulson continued, "I think some of the problems of the Diocese of Santa Rosa date from that occasion and others like it in the seminaries, when TMP -- Too Much Psychology -- came to call."


Close this window & return to the site.