Page 100 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 23

Comment

Paren� offers us a solid introduc�on to Thomis�c philosophical an-
thropology. He does so in the service of developing his “integral
psychology.” For those familiar with the Angelic Doctor, there is
nothing new here. Let me emphasize, this is in no way a nega�ve
take on the ar�cle. Quite the contrary! I was delighted to read an
apprecia�ve primer on scholas�c thought tailored to the needs
and interests of psychologists! Looking to Aquinas as the founda�-
on for Chris�an psychology raises some ques�ons for me.

Do we even need a “Chris�an” psychology?
What might St. Thomas, or at least a Thomist, say about developing a re-
search method for a clinical system of psychology based on a Chris�an phi-
losophical anthropology? Our answers are found in the scholas�c dis�nc�- V. Rev. Dr.
on between form and ma�er that the author borrows for his argument. Gregory Jensen (USA)
is a priest of the Ukraini-
The material object of a science tells us the broad area or subject studied. an Orthodox Church USA
While the psychologist and the theologian can share an intellectual interest and has a Ph.D. in spiri-
in the human person, this does not mean they have a shared material ob- tuality and spiritual for-
ject. ma�on from Duquesne
University in Pi�sburgh,
The theologian studies the human person in light of divine revela�on (e.g., PA.
the imago dei). The psychologist studies human behavior in light of specific His more than 15 years
of pastoral experience
quan�ta�ve and qualita�ve research methods. The difference between the
two disciplines is not what they study (broadly, the human person) but the with all aspects of clergy
sexual misconduct inclu-
specific understanding of the person they bring to their work. The Thomist des inves�ga�ng allega�-
would go on to further qualify the study of the human in terms of different
ons, cra�ing disciplinary
formal objects, which tells us the specific intui�on scholars bring to their plans, advoca�ng for vic-
work. �ms, and helping paris-
hes in transi�on a�er an
For example, the formal object of the Chris�an ethicist is the moral life of offending pastor is remo-
the person. The liturgical theologian looks at the same person, but now at ved. Currently, he is the
as a person at prayer in the midst of a community at prayer. Likewise, for the priest of Ss Cyril & Me-
different systems within the broad category of psychology. The Freudian stu- thodius Ukrainian Ortho-
dies human behavior as the product of unconscious desires, while the beha- dox Church and a profes-
viorist looks at the same behaviors in terms of s�mulus and response. sor at St Sophia Ukraini-
an Orthodox Theological
Seminary in South
The work of a psychologist who draws on a theologically inspired intui�on
(formal object) is inherently no less legi�mate than the work done by secu- Bound Brook, NJ. He is
also the chaplain for Or-
lar colleagues assuming both adhere to the limits imposed by the material thodox students at Wis-
object. But neither the secular nor the Chris�an psychologist can claim any
consin-Madison.
greater scien�fic or moral authority simply on the basis of the formal object
of their study; the work done stands or falls on how well or poorly it dee-
pens our quan�ta�ve or qualita�ve understanding of human behavior.
And “Chris�an psychology,” so-called?

100
100