XII Why Religious Life Died
Before continuing
the narrative, it is necessary to say something about the state of psychology
and therapy at this time (mid- to late- sixties). While psychoanalysis had
become popular among film stars, ('terminable and interminable'), it was still
unusual as regards the general population, and certainly among religious. This
was, in part, because analysis among many people had already begun to take on
nuances of being 'guilt free' instead of 'appropriately guilty' and then
resolving that guilt to add a building block to character. In other words,
analysis was coming to be associated with license, which has degenerated into
today's 'if it feels good do it' and 'have your cake and eat it' attitudes. 'Therapy' as distinct from the full
analytic programme was just evolving; therapists and analysts who were not medical doctors
were just starting to emerge. There also was still a stigma attached to
therapy; it raised all sorts of difficult questions. To be in therapy was not
something one readily acknowledged on the more conservative East Coast.
There were very
few psychologies beyond those of Freud, Jung, William Alanson White, Melanie
Klein, and Winnicott. The Esalen Institute had not yet become well known—or
notorious, as was to be the case later in its history. Cognitive therapy
(equivalent to putting a bandaid on a compound fracture, in my view) hadn't yet
been invented, in part, I suspect, because Skinner had only recently been
discredited, and most people who sought therapy quickly learned that for it to
be effective they had to work; it wasn't a quick fix. The mechanistic view of
the human had not yet entirely taken over. But there were already deep
rumblings in the therapeutic community, along with those already breaking out
in society at large.
Among a minority
of therapists and analysts, however, there was still some concern for the
question, What makes us human?, and above all for discovering the potential
integrity in a person and building on that, along with imparting tools for living.
This approach was badly needed; women's liberation was just getting off the
ground, and many women in their twenties and upwards had led rather sheltered,
stereotyped lives. Among religious, especially women, the number going into
therapy was snowballing, although the mass exodus had not yet begun.
Suffice it to say
that I was both very lucky in the person with whom I had therapy, and also very
unlucky: lucky because he had an eclectic, lateral, interdisciplinary approach
[he taught at three institutes: Freudian, Kleinian, and William Alanson White];
unlucky because he was much too soon to show signs of early onset Alzheimer's
disease, one of which was being sexually predatory towards his patients. I had
a few of his best years; I left, much to the outrage and cries of 'betrayal' of
my colleagues in his seminars (see below), because I sensed something was going
very wrong, not only with him, but with the whole situation. He was diagnosed with dementia shortly after my departure, and died in his mid-fifties.
Along with doing
analysis he also ran some interdisciplinary seminars for professional analysts
already practicing. I was admitted to these, and they proved to be foundational
to the work I am doing now. He was one of the first to recognize the importance
of ecology to understanding the human person—the word was barely known among
the general population in those days—and of the psychological insights contained
in texts of various religions. As I was already groping in the dark in this
direction, these seminars were a godsend. He was way ahead of his time: the
majority of the books we used—now generally available, often in multiple
editions—were fabulously expensive, as in those days they had to be bought from
Ann Arbor Microfilms. In addition to reading in theology and philosophy, we
read biology, medicine, history of art, psychology, and literature. In an era
of increasing specialization, whose devastating effects we are only now in the
21st century recognising as we come to dead ends in many
specialities, and as many certifications are revealed to be less than worthless,
these seminars were definitely swimming against the cultural and analytic tide.
After six months
of therapy I realised there was no hope of a future for me in the community—and
little hope for the community in terms of the solid monastic ways it had lived
in the past, no matter how fumblingly. The pendulum was swinging wildly away
from the contemplative towards the dizzying array of options opening up for
communities, most of which were to prove to be the religious equivalent of junk
bonds, heedlessly thrown like confetti from every passing bandwagon.
I knew by then that
I was not crazy, though I was appropriately depressed and disproportionately
anxious, and needed further work to alleviate the effects of my pre-monastic life—though they would never
entirely go away—of what today would be called PTSD, a term and a problem then
entirely unknown. Finally it was presented to me, very gently, by Sister C,
that while there was no question about my vocation as far as the community was
concerned, if I wanted to continue in therapy I would have to leave for the
simple reason that the community had many professed sisters that needed therapy more than I
did, and the community was too impoverished to pay for everyone who
needed it.
By that time, even
in the lunatic aftermath of Vatican II, and the maelstrom of material that
therapy had exposed in my psyche, I had come to a kind of clarity and detachment about the
directions this particular community—and religious life in general—would go
next, and history has sadly proved these premonitions to be more
or less correct. It was a bleak vision, which I shall describe in the next
post. I dreaded leaving the context of religious life, which suited me
perfectly: the silence, the beauty, the Office, the mystery and all the rest of
it; but I also knew, that these were precisely the elements that unwisely would be discarded.
With $100 dollars,
one dress, and a very heavy heart, I left the monastery for New York City.
1 Comments:
I've been reading with great personal interest your recent blogs on the death of religious life. My own experience in the Franciscans in the late sixties and early seventies were very similar. The best lost all conviction and the worst were full of certainty and left great destruction in their path. Out of the forty or so in my class only a couple stayed and were ordained, and they were frankly not the most healthy. We're all in our mid-sixties now and have reunions every few years, good men who went on to have solid marriages and families and to do good work in the world, and mostly happy to have had the grounding and experience of a few years in the friars. I went on and lived my vocation anonymously as a psychologist-analyst, but there still is a sadness about what was lost, that the structure did not hold. But I think that was perhaps a necessary step in maturing both psychologically and spiritually.
Post a Comment
<< Home