Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism: A Catholic Counselor's Perspective

Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism: A Catholic Counselor’s Perspective Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon This article explores how social science literature views dogmatism and how the documents of the Catholic Church and her teachings are seldom regarded in the conceptualization of the human person, specifically focusing on the helping professions. This article examines dogmatism from a Catholic anthropological perspective and with a full appreciation for the Catholic intellectual tradition. It will be shown how through basic clinical skills, one can believe the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium and still be an effective and ethical counselor. A distinction between beliefs and actions will be made, showing how relativism is not the only acceptable belief system for helping professionals. INTRODUCTION Q uidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur. Whatever is received, is received in the manner of the receiver. This Scholastic axiom from St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the receiver of information or, perhaps, the audience of professional literature in modern times. This adage can shed some light on the struggles and nuances that can exist for devout Catholics when they consume professional social science literature. Catholic undergraduate and graduate students are frequently told that peer-reviewed journals from secular sources should be their primary—and sometimes exclusive—authorities in social science. There is a problem for Catholic students and professionals when social science literature asserts conclusions on moral, ethical, and human nature matters, which oppose Catholic teaching. Professional best-practices or professional associations’ positions on various topics may be—and often are—in conflict with Church teaching. Furthermore, the citation of Church teaching as any kind of authority seldom has a place in mainstream, professional, social science publications. How are Catholics supposed to learn to live and practice their faith in a professional setting when the majority of professional literature is forged under the auspices of an intellectual framework that is not only different, but many times in conflict with the teachings of the Church? This article’s goal is not to provide an exhaustive answer, but instead to illuminate one ©2021 The Catholic Social Science Review 26 (2021): 263–279 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon specific area of tension and shed light on the important topic of “dogma” or “dogmatism.” For those of faith committed to staying current in their social science professional literature, there are unavoidable tensions. Certain studies may be hard for Catholics to agree with fully or incorporate into their research because of a differing philosophy of the human person. Terminological divergences can also be confusing and challenging to navigate. This article will examine one term, dogmatism, and various versions of the word (dogma and dogmatic). The social scientific term, dogmatism, will be shown to have a different meaning than what the Church means by “dogma.” This can create confusion and discord for helping professionals who want both to be faithful to the Catholic Church and also to their professional obligations and mandates. SOCIAL SCIENCE’S UNDERSTANDING OF DOGMATISM Originally defined by M. Rokeach (1954, 1960) and updated by S. Shearman and T. Levine (2006), the social scientific term, dogmatism, includes four central characteristics: (a) the degree of open-mindedness versus closed-mindedness, (b) the extent that an individual believes in a single correct view, (c) the extent to which one rejects ideas or viewpoints that are in disagreement with one’s own opinion, and (d) blind respect or excessive reliance on authority. Higher ratings in these four domains indicate higher levels of dogmatism. By consolidating these four central characteristics, dogmatism is considered the relative openness or closedness of a person’s cognitive framework for receiving, understanding, evaluating, and acting on stimulus information (Shearman and Levine 2006). Having a dogmatic belief system encompasses the way a person thinks about networks of issues. Having a closed belief system directly influences the way a person can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant information received, outside its own intrinsic merit (Rokeach 1960). Rokeach was one of the first researchers to explore and examine dogmatism in 1954 and is the first to research dogmatism in detail. His research can be found in his book The Open and Closed Mind (1960). Rokeach (1954, 1960) characterized dogmatism as a relatively closed, cognitive organization of beliefs. Someone with a closed belief system regards authority as absolute and perceives the world’s differing beliefs as threatening to his or her authority. Rokeach (1960) argued “to say that a person is dogmatic or that his belief system is closed is to say something about the way he believes and the way he thinks–not only about single issues but also about networks of issues” (56). Additionally, an individual’s level of dogmatism directly 264 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism influences the extent to which the person can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant information from an outside source on its own intrinsic merit. Nearly every researcher studying dogmatism acknowledges Rokeach’s extensive contribution to the social science literature on dogmatism. J. J. Johnson (2009) provides the most current and in-depth research on dogmatism in her book, What’s So Wrong with Being Absolutely Right? Her recent work with dogmatism reflects and affirms Rokeach’s position that a dogmatic individual’s ability to appreciate others with differing beliefs is adversely influenced by the standards and beliefs they hold. Johnson (2009) believes dogmatism is an “ineffective coping style that compromises one’s cognitive, emotional, and social intelligence” (27) and that “dogmatism is a personality trait that combines cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics to personify prejudicial, closed-minded belief systems . . . pronounced with rigid certainty” (41). According to Johnson, four psychological needs set the stage for the formation of dogmatism: the need to know, the need to defend against anxiety, the need for social connection, and the need for common dignity. If these psychological needs are unfulfilled it increases the likelihood of a person embracing a dogmatic ideology. Johnson (2009) theorizes that there are thirteen characteristics that dogmatic individuals may have in common. Each of these thirteen characteristics fall into either the cognitive, emotional, or behavioral dimensions. The five cognitive characteristics of dogmatism are: an intolerance of ambiguity, defensive and cognitive closure, rigid certainty, compartmentalization, and a lack of personal insight. The three emotional characteristics are: anxiety or fear, anger, and existential despair. The final five characteristics are behavioral in nature and include: a preoccupation with power and status, glorification of the in-group and criticism of the out-group, assertive authoritarian aggression, strict authoritarian submission, and an arrogant and dismissive communication style. Johnson (2009) argues that dogmatism serves as a function similar to one’s defense mechanisms–when an individual is not having one or more psychological needs met, there is a tendency for that person frantically to meet the unmet need. For individuals with dogmatic tendencies, a closed outlook on life may serve as a frantic attempt to deal with uncertainty or a lack of knowledge. In addition, a dogmatic outlook on life may help to defend against anxiety through oversimplification, giving dogmatic persons the ability to connect with others with similar outlooks via a perceived common purpose. Further, a highly dogmatic person exhibits strong levels of closed-mindedness and this translates to a limited view of incoming information, an authoritarian perspective, a notable defensiveness regarding CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 265 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon his own point of view, and an attitude of intolerance towards those who ascribe to different views, values, or beliefs (Carlozzi, Bull, Eells, and Hurlburt 1995). It is important to note that in most social science literature dogmatism is not exclusive to a specific religion, political alignment, or ideology, nor is it confined to a specific set of values or a belief system. Dogmatism is not the what of a belief system; dogmatism is the how. In other words, the particular belief is not what makes someone dogmatic, but instead the way or earnestness in which the belief is held. Having a steadfast or resolute belief and being unwilling to change one’s stance, not the actual belief content, seems to characterize dogmatism. B. Altemeyer (2002) described dogmatism as being characterized by a “relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty” (713). Altemeyer (2002) measured levels of dogmatism in university students, and found that students who tested high for dogmatism displayed higher levels of intolerance for beliefs which conflicted with their own. These findings were diametrically opposed to students who showed low levels of dogmatism. Altemeyer (1996) emphasized how dogmatism is correlated with the characteristics of inflexibility, intolerance, and authoritarianism; his research affirms Johnson’s (2009) recent findings. V. Saroglou (2002) researched dogmatism and explored how a dogmatic belief system can impact an individual’s mental health. As is the norm in dogmatism research, Saroglou’s (2002) defining characteristics of dogmatic individuals can be traced back to the benchmark set by Rokeach. Saroglou (2002) specifically studied religion-based dogmatism and claimed individuals with dogmatic religious beliefs have a ‘need for closure,’ stating that a religiously dogmatic person will possess: a preference for order and predictability, discomfort with ambiguity, closedmindedness, and strong decisiveness. Correspondingly, Saroglou’s (2002) findings on religious dogmatic beliefs reaffirm Rokeach’s (1960) notion that dogmatic individuals often restrict themselves to people or groups with extremely similar worldviews and outlooks; these individuals isolate themselves from communities that threaten or challenge their personal perceptions of the world. Both dogmatism and rigidity are understood to be forms of resistance to change; however, dogmatism is a more intellectualized, higher-order, and complexly organized form of resistance to change. Detailing the difference between the two, Rokeach (1954) believed dogmatism refers to “total cognitive organizations of ideas and belief systems into relatively closed ideological systems” (196); whereas, rigidity refers solely to the “degree of isolation between regions” which influences the way an indi- 266 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism vidual “learns specific tasks and problems” (196). According to this stance, dogmatism seems to be far more worrisome than rigidity to the counseling profession due to its larger, more encompassing nature and scope. Dogmatism in Relation to the Helping Professions Several studies suggest an inverse relationship exists between dogmatism and effective counseling (Carlozzi, Campbell, and Ward 1982; Carlozzi, Edwards, and Ward 1978; Harris and Rosenthal 1986; Kemp 1962; Mezzano 1969; Milliken and Paterson 1967; Russo, Kelz, and Hudson 1964). High levels of dogmatism may hinder both the ability and propensity of an individual to appreciate him or herself and others, as well as the ability to appreciate another’s unique situation (Rokeach 1960). The thirteen dogmatic characteristics identified by Johnson (2009) appear to be counter-productive in counselor dispositions; this can serve as a barrier to achieving counselor effectiveness, potentially resulting in harm to the client. Using Johnson (2009) and Altemeyer’s (1996, 2002) descriptions of dogmatism suggests it may be a non-desirable personal disposition for a counselor and/or graduate level counselor-in-training (CIT) student to possess. This sort of research implies the inflexible, intolerant, and authoritarian ‘way of being’ associated with dogmatism may make development into an effective counselor unlikely. The research listed above suggests that dogmatism is a belief system or disposition that hinders the CIT in forming core counseling skills and could prevent their development into effective counselors (Carlozzi, Gaa, and Liberman 1983; Carlozzi and Hurlburt 1982; Carlozzi, Bull, Eells, and Hurlburt 1995). Carlozzi, Bull, Eells, and Hurlburt’s (1995) research supports the connection between CITs’ personalities, including belief systems, and their ability to be open and empathetic. W. Wright (1975) observed how dogmatism threatens empathy and stated “one would expect dogmatic counselors to behave more critically and less empathetically than non-dogmatic counselors” (390). G. Sasse and J. Warren (2017) found dogmatism scores in the CIT participants to be inversely correlated to two measures of openness; however, dogmatism was not found to be significantly related to empathy. Openness and empathy were positively correlated. CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING OF DOGMA AND DOGMATISM For Catholics, “dogma” has a precise, or even technical meaning such that, when well informed Catholics use the term, it means something quite distinct from the meaning found in social science literature. The Catechism of CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 267 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon the Catholic Church (CCC 1994) teaches that “The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these” (No. 88). There are a few parts to the definition given in the CCC that require unpacking in order to get a sense for what the precise meaning of “dogma” is for Catholics. First, “dogma” is not identical either with “revelation” or “doctrine.” Second, a dogma concerns only that which the Church believes was revealed by God. Third, a dogma is proposed definitively. Revelation is simply God’s communication of a truth to man (or another rational creature, like angels) in some message “beyond the ordinary course of nature,” as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Joyce 1912) puts it. God communicates all manner of things to us through the ordinary course of nature: for instance, he communicates to us through nature that we need food for sustenance by giving us appetites and corresponding hunger pangs when we need to eat. A revelation is some communication beyond those things. The Second Vatican Council teaches that Christ “is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation” (Dei Verbum #2) and that, since Christ is the fullness of revelation, there will be no new revelation beyond what he brings. Along with the various revelations God gave to his people in the Old Testament and the fullness of revelation in Christ, there also stand Scripture and Tradition as witnesses to God’s revelation. The proper response of human beings to revelation from God is faith (see Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum #5). Beyond revelation, there is the teaching of the Church, which is called doctrine (from the Latin word doctrina, which means “teaching”). “Doctrine” is a broad term encompassing anything that the Church proposes for belief. In its broadest sense, doctrine could even include Sacred Scripture, although in ordinary usage “doctrine” tends to mean the teaching of the Church beyond Scripture and distinct from revelation from God. Doctrine is also distinct from the Church’s customs, which are not divinely revealed. Church customs can have a weight of their own and have an important place in the Christian life and are often meant to form or teach the faithful in some way, but the Church does not mean to propose them to the faithful as something to be believed. One might think in this regard of the practice of assigning certain colors for liturgical seasons, or the practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays in observance of Christ’s Passion. Simply because there will be no new revelation beyond what Christ brings does not mean that the Church is done learning from revelation. 268 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism As the CCC says, “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit” (No. 66). A large portion of the work of the Church’s Magisterium is to make explicit what is left implicit in divine revelation or in prior Church teaching. Although there is nothing strictly new in the Church’s understanding after the definitive revelation of Christ, that revelation is so profound that there is and always will be much to unfold and draw out of it. The Church defines a dogma when it acts to make some teaching explicit that was previously implicit in divine revelation, proposing that teaching as definitive. An example of this would be the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Chalcedon. In Scripture and the apostolic preaching, it is clear both that Christ is God and that he is man. But how to make sense of Christ being both true God and true man at the same time is not given directly in Scripture. Over the course of centuries, through both the false starts of heresy and the work of wise and holy theologians and pastors, the Church gradually defined the Christological dogma of Chalcedon that Jesus Christ has two natures (divine and human) subsisting in one divine Person (the Person of the Word of God). The technical terms “person” and “nature” are extra-biblical terms by which the Church sought both to explain the Biblical revelation about Christ and to preserve that revelation from misconstrual. Even the term “definition” by which the Church explains what she does when she develops a dogma is illuminating. A definition defines limits of a thing, clarifying what it is and ruling out of bounds what it is not. The Church deliberately avoids saying that it “creates” or “makes” a dogma, because those verbs would imply some newness. Instead, the Church always understands herself to be acting as the steward or servant of revelation it is not authorized to change, but only to explain further. The purpose of defining dogma is to shed light for the mind beyond what it would be able to illumine for itself by virtue of its own natural powers. Dogmas give the certitude of the Church’s teaching authority to particular formulations that explain divine revelation. In social science literature, dogma has an exclusively negative connotation. But for the Catholic, when using “dogma” in its precise, technical sense, “dogma” is positive: it helps us see further and/or more clearly than we could otherwise. Far from encouraging narrowness, dogma encourages a capaciousness of thought and imagination. The Catholic novelist Flannery O’Connor would even say, “Dogma can in no way limit a limitless God. The person outside the Church attaches a different meaning to it than the person in. For me a dogma is only a gateway to contemplation and is an instrument of freedom and not of restriction. It preserves mystery for the human mind” CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 269 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon (O’Connor 1969: 92). For O’Connor the novelist, dogma helps her to penetrate below the surface of reality to see its depths. Dogma enhances the artist’s perceptions and makes them less prone to being captivated by the less important phenomena accessible only on the surface of things. Dogma opens up new depths and fields and vistas for contemplation and consideration. Catholic dogma, in other words, ought to combat the negative tendencies of “dogmatism” as understood in the social scientific literature. Other than just balancing out reason, dogma has more to contribute. Dogma is the tool the Church uses to teach the truth with her highest authority. Any increase in knowledge of the truth ought to be welcomed. Theologian Charles Journet writes, “The statements of faith concerning God and his works tell us that which is, they apply to reality, however mysterious may be its depths; they are true with an absolute truth. Whether they are revealed immediately as ‘articles of faith’ or revealed mediately as ‘dogmas’ in which these articles are made explicit, and whatever may be the context of events which have been able to determine their appearance, they are messages addressed to us by him who is the Truth” (Journet 2011: 92). It would be the height of folly to turn our back on such precious gifts. This argument may not be persuasive to non-Catholics, but Catholic institutions involved in the helping professions need to consider carefully the dimensions which dogma allows Catholics to access, dimensions that may be inaccessible through other means. O’Connor once observed, “A belief in fixed dogma cannot fix what goes on in life or blind the believer to it” (O’Connor 1969: 150). She further observes that belief in Catholic dogma may add dimensions to the believer’s perception, but it does not take any away, and that the believer is still responsible for seeing all of reality as it is. The same is true of the Catholic counselor. Belief in fixed dogma does nothing to narrow his or her perceptions, it only adds new dimensions. The Catholic counselor can still look and listen just as well, and may be able to penetrate beneath the surface in certain situations when it would be impossible without having the benefit of Catholic dogma. There is nothing that requires a Catholic counselor to impose, or even propose, the judgments of his faith to a client in a manner or at a time that frustrates the purpose of his or her counseling. If a Catholic counselor does so, the fault lies not with the dogma he holds true, but with his own judgment as a counselor. As St. Augustine counsels, “If anyone refrains from rebuking and correcting evil doers because he is waiting for a more propitious time, or for fear of making matters worse for doing so, or because he fears that, if he does so, others who are weak may be discouraged from living a good and godly life and driven and turned away from the faith: 270 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism this restraint is clearly occasioned not by greed, but by the counsel of love” (Augustine of Hippo 1998: 1.9). It is true that oftentimes both in common parlance and in social scientific discourse, critiques of dogma are simply another way of rejecting all truths, or our ability to know the truth. But in situations in which the critique of dogma is not merely a cover for relativism, Catholics and those in the helping professions can make common cause against those senses of “dogma” and “dogmatism” that connote narrow-mindedness, inflexibility, intolerance, or authoritarianism. No less an authority than Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI has spoken about “pathologies in religion” and “pathologies of reason,” which are close to what our secular neighbors mean by “dogma” and “dogmatism.” Ratzinger writes, We have seen that there exist pathologies in religion that are extremely dangerous and that make it necessary to see the divine light of reason as a ‘controlling organ.’ Religion must continually allow itself to be purified and structured by reason; and this was the view of the Church Fathers, too. However, we have also seen in the course of our reflections that there are also pathologies of reason, although mankind in general is not as conscious of this fact today. There is a hubris of reason that is no less dangerous. Indeed, bearing in mind its potential effects, it poses an even greater threat. . . . This is why reason, too, must be warned to keep within its proper limits, and it must learn a willingness to listen to the great religious traditions of mankind. (Ratzinger 2007: 80) Granted that the purification of religion by reason and the purification of reason by religion occur on quite different bases, what Ratzinger here calls to our attention is the tendency of both religion and reason, especially in the contemporary world, to (dogmatically?) regard themselves as radically self-sufficient. Religion unmoored from reason becomes dangerous fanaticism, whereas reason left without reminders from religion of its own limitations becomes dangerously reductionist, and therefore tyrannical and ideological. CATHOLIC FAITH, DOGMATISM, AND COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Dogmatism seems to be a term in some social science literature that describes a way of believing and thinking, whether conscious or subconscious. This word has a strong pejorative and negative connotation in light of current helping profession standards because counselors are charged to meet their clients in a safe and non-judgmental space. Being labeled as “dogmatic” can harm Catholic counselors, who are obliged to believe CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 271 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon and follow the teachings of the Church, whether they are dogmatic in the sense their secular colleagues mean it or not. That is why the effort to disentangle “dogmatism” as it is understood in social science literature and “dogma” as it is understood in the Catholic tradition is so important. The question is whether a counselor with strongly held beliefs—in Catholic dogma, for instance—is incapable of respecting differing beliefs and, therefore, being an ethical and effective counselor. The ethics of the counseling profession require that counselors set aside personally held beliefs and be open to diverse ways of thought to effectively help their clients (American Counseling Association [ACA] 2014; Hermann and Herlihy 2006). The ACA Code of Ethics (2014) states in the Respecting Clients Rights section (B.1.) that clients have the right to have their own beliefs, cultural meanings, values, and worldview. Counselors are to refrain from referring current or potential clients “based solely on the counselor’s personally held values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors . . . and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values . . . especially when the values are inconsistent with the client’s goals” (ACA 2014, A.11.b., p. 6). An important part of a counselor’s job is to respect “differing views toward disclosure of information” (ACA 2014: 6). The rhetoric used to describe dogmatism in some social science literature suggests an above average dogmatism score may hinder this type of respect and openness. All counselors need to be aware of their own attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors, while respecting clients’ diversity. An important standard in the counseling profession requires counselors not to impose values onto clients (ACA 2014, A.4.b., p. 5). Consequently, counselors are expected to seek training in any area in which they might be at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially if a “counselor’s values are inconsistent with a client or discriminatory in nature” (ACA 2014, A.4.b., p. 5). Catholic worldviews do fit within the clinical, legal, and ethical parameters of the counseling profession. This point might seem obvious, but needs to be plainly stated. Many higher educational institutions, for instance, leave little room for those working from a Catholic anthropology, particularly in highly controversial areas (i.e., sexuality, gender, the so-called “life issues,” marriage, etc.). No matter what one believes, clinicians are required to bracket these beliefs when working with their clients. This is an absolute necessity otherwise clinicians could try to use their authority unjustly and unethically to ‘convert’ or impose their values on a client. For Catholic counselors, bracketing one’s beliefs does not mean renouncing one’s faith or Church teaching. Catholics have every right to hold tightly to their strongly held religious beliefs. Nevertheless, a coun- 272 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism seling session is no place to pursue private religious or political agendas. The same is true for any other belief system. Even if a client asks a counselor what he or she believes, counselors are expected to try to redirect the question to understand why what the counselor believes is important to the client. If Catholic counselors learn how to use basic counseling microskills and skills, they need have no fear of worldviews that claim a counselor’s effectiveness can be hindered by deeply held Catholic beliefs. A distinction needs to be made between beliefs and actions for mental health clinicians and/or clinical educators. Making a decision to embrace Catholic doctrine does not require one to condemn those who live differently; on the contrary, the Christian faith implores us to love all. Carl Rogers asserts the necessity of the clinician being congruent (genuine) in the therapeutic relationship. Professionalism is a virtue for Catholic clinical students and clinicians and learning how to communicate beliefs respectfully and compassionately is essential. The Catholic counselor may sometimes feel like he or she is walking a tightrope because, depending on the specific circumstance, there is a possibility that his or her secular colleagues could construe the Catholic counselor’s differing beliefs as tantamount to imposing values or being discriminatory. Recognizing the potentially broad application of the term “discriminatory” and how fraught the question is between secular counselors and Catholic counselors regarding especially, matters of sex and gender can make it hard to determine the appropriate application of which “counselor’s values are inconsistent with a client or discriminatory in nature” (ACA 2014, A.4.b., p. 5). Perhaps what social science literature means by dogmatism is not the what of a belief system; dogmatism is the how these strong beliefs are communicated. In any case, the potential for ostracization may frighten those who desire to stand firm on a Catholic understanding of human nature and moral issues and can ultimately lead an intimidated Catholic counselor to make compromises in order to avoid conflict. In some academic and clinical settings there seems to be an attitude that the best policy is a relativistic one. Relativism provides a safe way to avoid offending another, but relativism should not tempt Catholic clinicians. Relativism is neither compatible with the Catholic faith, nor is a strict relativisitic attitude a desireable clinical disposition. Believing there are objective truths puts a Catholic in conflict with a relativistic culture, which can understandably make someone feel that holding any sincerely held religious belief, especially unpopular ones, is a defect of character for a clinician. Even further, there are also social science literature and professional organization endorsements, position statements, and guidelines that affirm ways of thinking and behaviors in conflict with Catholic teaching CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 273 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon (e.g., American Psychological Association 2015 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People). Professionally published guidelines can also urge the importance of understanding concepts (e.g., gender as a nonbinary construct) in conflict with Catholic doctrine (e.g., CCC No. 2333 and No. 2393). A Catholic clinician is oftentimes presented with a dilemma, compelled to choose between two opposing authorities on very controversial topics. Clinically speaking, however, it is a false dilemma. Despite the differences in belief, the use of the three basic clinical skills of unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence “provides a perspective that holds the potential for the resolution of the conflict that occurs when personal values are at odds with relevant ethical guidelines” (Elliott 2011: 41). This is just as true for Catholics as for counselors with other beliefs. There have been instances in which universities or employers have judged strongly held religious beliefs to be a reason for counselor-intraining remediation or employee termination and some have resulted in litigation (e.g., Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley 2011; Ward v. Polite 2012; Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. 2001; Walden v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010). There was debate in the courts about whether the students/employees were within their First Amendment rights or if they were in violation of the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA 2014; Hutchens, Block, and Young 2013). A take-away from the above mentioned cases was less about what the professional or in-training clinician believed, but instead about how their belief were communicated and acted upon. This directly ties back into how the social science literature views dogmatism. Namely, dogmatism is not what a person beleives, but how a person holds a belief. Again, a distinction between beliefs and actions needs to be emphasized and properly understood, as well as proper communication of beliefs. DISCUSSION What Catholics mean by “dogma” and the standard understanding of “dogmatism” in the scientific literature are very different from each other. The discrepancy can, understandably, be confusing for Catholic clinicians. There is a negative connotation of the term as derived from the literature above (e.g., Shearman and Levine 2006). The way the term is defined and used in the social scientific literature even indicates a sort of flawed character. What the Catholic Church means and intends by “dogma” is not adequately reflected in the social scientific literature. It seems that it is how dogmatic beliefs are communicated, not the actual content of the beliefs, that is being scrutinized and is labeled as dogmatism. Regardless, the 274 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism faithful Catholic’s view of dogma is quite distinct from the social scientififc category of dogmatism. Catholic clinicians must, of course, be obedient to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The CCC states that the faithful must adhere to the dogmas of the Catholic Church as they are revealed by God. But belief in Catholic dogma ought to function in a way that makes the clinician a better clinician. Genuine faith and the confidence it brings ought to make Catholics feel less threatened by encountering differing beliefs. The knowledge that their faith is something received as a gift ought to make them more sympathetic in the face of differing beliefs because the Catholic will understand the huge range of possible beliefs in the absence of supernatural faith and an authoritative, teaching Church. Someone who is, or believes himself to be, solely responsible for formulating his own beliefs may have more invested in refuting differing beliefs as potential threats than a Catholic who understands his or her faith as a grace given by God—this is perhaps an area ripe for future research. As Pope John Paul II said in his canonization homily for Edith Stein: “Truth is often mistaken for the opinion of the majority” (L’Osservatore Romano 1998). Catholic clinicians-in-training need clearly to know that holding to every doctrine of the faith is their right and they should not be held to undue scrutiny by superiors; the faith simply cannot be imposed and a clinician must bracket their personal feelings/values/beliefs for the good of the client. Because of the personal, even intimate, topics the clinician and client delve into together, it can be more difficult for the Catholic clinician than for Catholics in other professional settings to restrain that impulse to preach the Gospel to the client; but the Catholic clinician must realize that his or her immediate task is to counsel the client and that direct preaching of the Gospel would impede that immediate responsibility. Recognizing what the immediate responsibility is and what it is not does not betray the obligations Catholics have to their faith; indeed, the blurring of professional lines has the potential to undermine the clinical relationship and even to scandalize instead of helping. As previously discussed, an issue Catholic students and professionals will likely encounter is an unspoken pressure to temper, withhold, or compromise their faith because of the fear of being seen as dogmatic; in other words, pressure to be more relativistic. There is social science literature that discusses screening out potentially problematic CITs during the admissions phase of gatekeeping (Miller, Forrest, and Elman 2009; Robiner, Fuhrman, and Ristvedt 1993; Forrest, Elman, Gizara, and Vacha-Haase 1999) and depending on the screeners’ opinion of the Christian faith, potential students of strong faith could be of concern because of the misguided confusion of belief in Catholic dogma for the social scientific trait, CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 275 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon dogmatism. One who believes in Catholic dogma need not be dogmatic in the social scientific sense. But in a relativistic environment, an inappropriate interpretation of a well-meaning and necessary professional standard and ethical code (e.g., counselor’s values are inconsistent with a client or discriminatory in nature, ACA 2014, A.4.b., p. 5) can actually discriminate against those of faith. Now more than ever, precisely because of the treasures available in Catholic anthropology, it is important to encourage Catholic students to enter the helping professions. Christians believe Jesus when he said he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), not that he is one of multiple ways. Jesus established the Catholic Church and the Church gives the faithful doctrines to believe and moral law to follow. Moral Law is a “rule of conduct established by competent authority for the common good” (CCC 1951) and natural moral law is inscribed in the heart, and known by human reason (CCC 1956). The scientific method is only one source of knowledge and when students or professionals are limited to using secular sources, a Catholic’s education could be limited to siloed, narrow, or otherwise inadequate views of human nature. The Catholic intellectual tradition stands strong against the pressures of popular culture to embrace passing or faddish views and preserves the true, beautiful, and good aspects of humanity, and provides a way to avoid the pathologies of religion and reason Pope Benedict warns about. Perhaps most important for Catholic clinical students is first to have a solid understanding of what the Church teaches on specific topics before supplementing that understanding with mainstream scientific literature. The truth and wisdom passed down through the Catholic faith can be the core understanding into which new knowledge can be integrated. The dogmas of the Catholic Church are beautiful truths expanding human intellect and imagination; they are not intended to restrict, other than by ruling out mistakes. Catholic dogmas are intended to guide the faithful in their beliefs and keep them in communion with Christ the Savior in his Church. Hopefully a future generation of Catholic social scientists will reject the reduction of dogma to “dogmatism” and will not allow warped forms of rigidity to be substituted for what the Catholic knows dogma really to be. Catholic dogma and Catholic practice provide guidance, by the authority of Christ’s Church, to help humans flourish. ARTICLE LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE PAPERS Only a small amount of social science and Catholic literature on dogmatism was included in this article. The intention of this article was not to be exhaustive, but simply to show the disconnect between the social scientific 276 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism literature and Catholic theology. If one’s discipline limits the inclusion of religious thought in practice or research, it can be difficult for those formed by the Catholic Intellectual Tradition to find their voice. Future papers on how devout Catholics can best faithfully navigate the social scientific and professional literature could be beneficial. Research focusing on how to best educate and therefore protect future generations of Catholics in higher education settings that are oftentimes hostile to the faith is also needed. References Altemeyer, B. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Altemeyer, B. 2002. “Dogmatic Behavior among Students: Testing a New Measure of Dogmatism,” The Journal of Social Psychology 142(6): 713–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603931 American Counseling Association. 2014. Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: American Couseling Association. American Psychological Association. 2015. “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People,” American Psychologist 70(9): 832–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906 Augustine of Hippo. 1998 (ca. 426 CE). The City of God against the Pagans, trans. R. W. Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802300 Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. 2001. 244 F.3d 495 (5th Cir.). Carlozzi, A. F., K. S. Bull, G. T. Eells, and J. D. Hurlburt. 1995. “Empathy as Related to Creativity, Dogmatism, and Expressiveness,” Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 129: 365–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1995.9914974 Carlozzi, A. F., N. J. Campbell, and G. R. Ward. 1982. “Dogmatism and Externality in Locus of Control as Related to Counselor Trainee Skill in Facilitative Responding,” Counselor Education and Supervision 21: 227–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1982.tb01706.x Carlozzi, A. F., D. D. Edwards, and G. R. Ward. 1978. “Dogmatism as a Correlate of Ability in Facilitative Communication of Counselor Trainees,” Humanist Educator 16: 114–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-6163.1978.tb00139.x Carlozzi, A. F., J. P. Gaa, and D. B. Liberman. 1983. “Empathy and Ego Development,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 30: 113–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.30.1.113 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 277 Grant M. Sasse and Thomas P. Harmon Carlozzi, A. F., and J. D. Hurlburt. 1982. “Empathy, Expressiveness, and Instrumentality,” Humanist Educator 20: 154–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-6163.1982.tb00093.x Catholic Church. 1994. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Elliott, G. R. 2011. “When Values and Ethics Conflict: The Counselor’s Role and Responsibility,” The Alabama Counseling Association Journal 37: 39–45. Forrest, L., N. Elman, S. Gizara, and T. Vacha-Haase. 1999. “Trainee Impairment: A Review of Identification, Remediation, Dismissal, and Legal Issues,” The Counseling Psychologist 27: 627–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000099275001 Harris, M. J., and R. Rosenthal. 1986. “Counselor and Client Personality as Determinants of Counselor Expectancy Effects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 362–69. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.2.362 Hermann, M., and B. Herlihy. 2006. “Legal and Ethical Implications of Refusing to Counsel Homosexual Clients,” Journal of Counseling and Development 84: 414–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00425.x Hutchens, N., J. Block, and M. Young. 2013. “Counselor Educators’ Gatekeeping Responsibilities and Students’ First Amendment Rights,” Counselor Education and Supervision 52: 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00030.x Johnson, J. J. 2009. What’s So Wrong with Being Absolutely Right: The Dangerous Nature of Dogmatic Belief. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Journet, Charles 2011 (1963). What Is Dogma?, trans. Mark Pontifex, O.S.B. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Joyce, G. 1912. “Revelation,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley. 2011. 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir.). Kemp, C. G. 1962. “Influence of Dogmatism on the Training of Counselors,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 9: 155–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047600 L’Osservatore Romano. 1998. Pope John Paul II, St. Peter’s Square, Vatican City. Weekly edition in English, October 14. Mezzano, J. A. 1969. “A Note on Dogmatism and Counselor Effectiveness,” Counselor Education and Supervision 9: 64–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1969.tb01364.x 278 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW Catholic Dogma v. Social Science Dogmatism Miller, D. S., L. Forrest, and N. Elman. 2009. “Training Directors’ Conceptualizations of Diversity and Trainee Competence Problems,” The Counseling Psychologist 37: 482–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008316656 Milliken, R. L., and J. J. Paterson. 1967. “Relationship of Dogmatism and Prejudice to Counseling Effectiveness,” Counselor Education and Supervision 2: 125–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1967.tb00462.x O’Connor, Flannery. 1969. Mystery and Manners, ed. Sally Fitzgerald and Robert Fitzgerald. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). 2007 (2004). Europe: Today and Tomorrow, trans. Michael J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Robiner, W. N., M. Fuhrman, and S. Ristvedt. 1993. “Evaluation Difficulties in Supervising Psychology Interns,” The Clinical Psychologist 46: 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/e554872011-003 Rogers, C. R. 1957. “The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change,” Journal of Consulting Psychology 21(2): 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357 Rokeach, M. 1954. “The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,” Psychological Review 61: 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060752 Rokeach, M. 1960. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books. Russo, J. R., J. W. Kelz, and G. R. Hudson. 1964. “Are Good Counselors Open-Minded?,” Counselor Education and Supervision 3: 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1964.tb00359.x Saroglou, V. 2002. “Beyond Dogmatism: The Need for Closure as Related to Religion,” Mental Health, Religion, and Culture 5(2): 183–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670210144130 Sasse, G., and J. Warren. 2017. “Investigating the Effects of Dogmatism on Openness and Empathy in Counselors-in-Training,” American Counseling Association VISTAS (Winter Issue), Article 5. Shearman, S. M., and T. R. Levine. 2006. “Dogmatism Updated: A Scale Revision and Validation,” Communication Quarterly 54: 275–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370600877950 Walden v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. No. 1:08-cv002278-JEC (U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. Ga.). Ward v. Polite. 2012. 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir.). Wright, W. 1975. “Counselor Dogmatism, Willingness to Disclose, and Clients’ Empathy Ratings,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 22(5): 390–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077137 CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 279