Page 43 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 5

Church Traditions for a Christian Psychology

Keith A. Houde (USA)
The Mystery of Persons:

Catholic Foundations for a Psychology of Persons

Within the Thought of Karol Wojtyła/Pope John Paul II

In 1936, English Dominican Aidan Elrington human condition (John Paul II, 1993, n. 30;
asked the question: “Is a Catholic psychology Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014, pp. 16-22). An
possible?” In 1950, American psychologist Gor- appropriate epistemology assumes a unity of
don Allport recognized that modern empirical truth (Aquinas, SCG I, 7; John Paul II, 1998, 16,
psychology, in its separation of itself from reli- 42) and admits knowledge from theology (re-
gion, had become “psychology without a soul” velation), philosophy (metaphysics and ethics),
(p. v). In 1995, soon to be canonized Pope Saint natural science (experimentation), and human
John Paul II recognized that: „Only a Christi- science (phenomenological description), fully
an anthropology, enriched by the contribution respecting the data and methods of each. The
of indisputable scientific data, including that of organizing framework for the present discus-
modern psychology and psychiatry, can offer a sion will be an adaptation of Rychlak’s (1981)
complete and thus realistic view of humans“ (n. structural, motivational, time-perspective, and
4). All things considered, it would appear that a individual differences dimensions of persona-
Catholic psychology, “psychology with a soul,” lity theory (p. 31), restated respectively as fol-
is both possible and necessary. lows: the nature of persons, the meaning of per-
The present article seeks to consider in a pre- sons, the formation of persons, and the mystery
liminary way certain aspects of Catholic foun- of persons (see Table 1).
dations for a psychology of persons, of what
may be called a Catholic personalist psycholo- The Mystery of Persons
gy, based primarily upon the present author’s Catholic psychology begins and ends in myste-
nascent understanding of the thought of Ka- ry. It is hidden in the mystery of the Trinity,
rol Wojtyła/Pope John Paul II . It is hoped that as a rational, free, and relational communion of
1
the present reflections will be beneficial in ge- persons. It is to some extent revealed in the my-
nerating further conversation regarding the stery of Creation as an outpouring of that com-
2
following question: What are the distinctive munion of persons:
features or distinguishing characteristics of a Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the
Catholic psychology of persons? An “adequate Father, „that all may be one…as we are one“
anthropology” (John Paul II, 1984/2006, 13:2) (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to hu-
seeks to answer the enduring questions of the man reason, for He implied a certain likeness
between the union of the divine Persons, and
1 The present author remains an earnest and eager stu- the unity of God‘s sons in truth and charity. This
dent of the thought of Karol Wojtyła/Pope John Paul II, likeness reveals that man, who is the only crea-
readily recognizes that there is much more depth to his ture on earth which God willed for itself, cannot
thought than can begin to be communicated here, and
welcomes further conversation with those who may have fully find himself except through a sincere gift
greater understanding of his teaching about the human of himself (cf. Luke 17:33). (Gaudium et spes,
person. 24:3)
2 The author gratefully acknowledges conversation on Catholic psychology is thus a mystical psycho-
this subject with the following friends and colleagues logy, rooted in the deep mystery of the “person
who have offered theological, philosophical, and/or psy-
chological insight and inspiration along the way: Stefanie and gift” structure of reality: “The dimension of
Dorough, Maria Fedoryka, Greg Kolodziejczak, Fr. Ro- gift…. stands…at the very heart of the myste-
bert McTeigue, Michael Pakaluk, Joshua Potrykus, Craig ry of creation…” (John Paul II, 1984/2006, 13:2;
Titus, Paul Vitz, Michael Waldstein, and Susan Wald- cf. 58:7; see Ephesians 1:3-10; Salas, 2010). Its
stein. Any limitations of the present project remain the principle of interpretation is the “hermeneutics
responsibility of the author.

043