Tuesday, October 5, 2010


TONY DIGIROLAMO- You know what? I have the disease called Islamophobia and I don't need a psychologist or antidepressants to help me here. What would help, is those who are Muslim religious would come out and tell us that they are not looking to kill us, change our laws, or think of the the American people as infidels. I think if there are those that wish to speak out are afraid of their own shadow. They fear beheading and violence themselves!

The left comes up with these diseases to justify calling conservatives bigots!

We have a war going on the government the Obama administration won't call it war... won't use the words win or victory over this evil religion.

"Evil religion". Those are Franklin Grahams words from a recent ABC interview. POTUS has a problem in his own so called "Christian journey" that is tainted by his Muslim background and 20 years of Jeremiah Wright's vitriol on America. This, in the United Church of Christ, that allows the ordination of Homosexuals and abortion rights to terminate a pregnancy.


"Though only constituted as a denomination in 1957, the UCC has, in fact, been consistently in favor of abortion since the early 1970s. Even before that, a number of UCC clergy participated in the Clergy Consultation Service, founded by a UCC pastor as a nationwide illegal abortion referral system."

So Barack Obama sits in a church which supports abortion rights, chooses to attend Sunday service in a like minded church too. Any questions why this man was the most liberal in the Senate and now the most liberal POTUS ever.

Well, I now step out of my closet as a Christian and tell you this ... I am Homophobic as well.

I'm Homophobic because of what they have done to infiltrate and subvert the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I'm here to tell you ... the silence is broken because of what they've done to this Jude-Christian believing, trusting in God, nation.

Anyone sitting in a mainline denomination, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian and others, you need to rise up and change the course from death and destruction to life.

Pastors nationwide are moving forward now and leading their congregations to elect leaders with the virtue of godly character and principle from Scripture.

So yes I'm phobic laden and a Christian that is at war with those who are changing the church, the government and the culture.

I think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and the Apostle Paul would do the same!

Hey, I'm in good company!

Saturday, September 4, 2010


Many have come to believe that the man who occupies the Oval Office, POTUS, leader of the free world, Commander in Chief, don't you think he should have something on his desk. You think?
Somethings gone wrong, somethings not right, he's lost in the din of the White House and he has that deer in the headlights look on his face.
The media love to show pictures of an aging President Bush but never showing the toll the office is taking on Obama.
Gray hair is supposed to be a crown of glory ...His hair gets whiter with each day but the glory never comes.
The recipient of the Noble peace prize ... but peace never arrived.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010


William R.Coulson Guest and Contributing Psychologist to Culture Shock

A career that is historical with the biggest names in psychology that changed the world, such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow.


In schools across America, time is taken from academics to provide children with drug education, suicide education, and sex education courses; the promise is to reduce or eliminate personal experimentation with drugs, sex and suicide. That promise is false. Follow up research shows increased drug use and sexual activity after the typical classroom exercises; and from the popular "death and dying courses," there are preliminary indications that this kind of education also leads to a greater likelihood of violence against the self. The education is called "nondirective" or "affective." Teachers are instructed to withdraw to the position of "facilitator," offering students "reflective listening" and nonjudgmental acceptance instead of confident instruction. Gradually the most undisciplined children begin to take over: parked in what one commercial curriculum purveyor proudly calls "conversation circles" (a kind of enforced friendship), the experimenters among the student body begin to teach the inexperienced how to become more experimental. It's like persuading the class there's no need to take the problems of drugs, violence and premarital sex very seriously: what's needed instead is principally to uncover feelings-this instead of being instructed.

W. R. Coulson was one of the initiators of the 1960s-styled contemporary movement away from classroom academics. But he long ago turned away and recanted.

A licensed psychologist, Dr. Coulson is director of the Research Council on Ethnopsychology and long-time consultant to Georgetown University Medical School in Washington. In the 1980s he served as a member of the Technical Advisory Panel on Drug Education Curricula for the U. S. Department of Education. His background includes clinical internships with the Psychotherapy Research Group of the Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute and the Neuropsychiatric Service of the U. S. Veterans Administration Hospital System. He has consulted on ethnopsychology for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and is presently a Consultant for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U. S. Department of Justice.

Holding doctorates in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame and counseling psychology from the University of California at Berkeley, in the 1960s Dr. Coulson was research associate to humanistic psychologists Abraham Maslow and Carl R. Rogers at the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla, California. He directed programs in the philosophy of science and post-doctoral clinical psychology and helped Dr. Rogers create the country's first program of facilitator training. From 1968 to 1973, the two men co-edited a series of 17 volumes on humanistic education for the Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. In 1972 Harper and Row published Dr. Coulson's preliminary analysis of the destructive effects of encounter groups in education, Groups, Gimmicks and Instant Gurus.

TMP: Too Much Psychology
By Dr. Coulson

This writer and Carl Rogers, as co-editors of the Studies of the Person textbook series, played too aggressive a role in stimulating school teachers to adopt the nonjudgmental stance of the clinical psychotherapist. In 1967 we launched a facilitator training program: we said, "In times of rapid change, teaching as to go." To "facilitate learning" is what we said teachers must do instead of teach. (This was our teaching, but we failed to notice. We wanted teachers to be nondirective, but we were not nondirective ourselves. Of course not. No one with a sense of responsibility is nondirective about one's own good ideas.) Between 1968 and 1974 we followed up by delivering our series to the C. E. Merrill Publishing Co. The first volume was on the philosophy of science and featured two great minds: Michael Polanyi and Jacob Bronowski. Most of the rest of the books, however, advocated what could be called the psychologizing of American classrooms and as such were destructive of mind.

An early work in the series, Dr. Rogers's Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become, set the standard for what followed. It offered the theory that the student is really the teacher's "client" and that in "the best of education" no less than in "optimal therapy," this client will become involved in "an exploration of increasingly strange and unknown and dangerous feelings in himself, the exploration proving possible only because he is gradually realizing that he is accepted unconditionally" (p. 280). Predictably, given Dr. Rogers's skill as a rhetorician, his personal goodness and reputation as a scientist (and the persistence of a John Dewey influence in American teacher training), Freedom to Learn became an educational best seller. The theory of the psychiatricized classroom, which had been created almost on a dare (for it was the era of valuing the spontaneous and "far out" for their own sake), became Holy Writ. In 1972 a dismayed Dr. Rogers encouraged this writer to quote his prediction that "nothing but bad" would come from the theory, given the reverence with which it had been received in colleges of education and the wild psychologizing it had stimulated among curriculum writers.

What could be done? Well, in 1977, proposing to study families and other organizations that hadn't overdosed on psychology, we started the Center for Enterprising Families. The new organization was spun off from the organization that Carl Rogers and this writer had incorporated with three colleagues nine years earlier, the Center for Studies of the Person. CSP had itself emerged from the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, where yet earlier the co-editors had launched an experiment called the Educational Innovation Project. That project was organized in the 59 schools operated by the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on the West Coast.

In the long term the project turned out to be far more destructive than anyone had expected-except, perhaps, the parents and faculty elders who'd judged the idea to be foolish in the first place. Going into the Catholic schools, we'd said we wanted to teach everyone to be "better listeners," much in the manner of Dr. Rogers's client-centered psychotherapy. But in truth, we didn't listen to the parents or the elders, didn't really want to. We wanted them to keep their place.

It was something of a shock to discover they'd been right all along. The discovery led Dr. Rogers to call the plan for Rogerian classrooms "crazy." "Why did I ever write that crazy 'Plan' paper?" he said, reflecting with project staff in 1969 on an article he'd published in Educational Leadership in 1967. In truth, he'd written it because youthful colleagues had pushed for his methods to go where they didn't belong: out of the therapy clinic and into the classroom. Calling the plan crazy and dropping the experiment with the nuns was the best we could do by way of apology at the time. (Later Dr. Rogers found himself under pressure from a new and more entrepreneurial generation of followers not to retract anything, and there are members of the new Rogerian generation today who interpret our colleague as never having admitted-or ever having needed to admit-to a mistake.)

For our part, by 1977 we'd seen the need for society to pay respect to traditional family values once more; under increasing attack in popular psychology, family continuity was being destroyed and freedom lost. Authority was being assumed by experts who possessed what the repentant humanistic psychologist A. H. Maslow, our colleague in the mid-'60s at the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, had called "an almost paranoid certainty of their own absolute virtues and correctness." Things were supposed to be getting better with each passing generation in America. That was the immigrant ideal. But they were really getting worse. Youthful under-achievement had come to be seen as almost heroic: if it was youth's own choice, it was said to witness to creativity. For their part, parents were no longer supposed to take pride in their children: it was said to witness to selfishness.

To rebut these trends we started the new Center, and by 1981 it had been recognized by the U. S. Office of Families as one of 53 outstanding national programs of outreach to families.

The Research Council on Ethnopsychology furthers the work of outreach. It responds to parents who are trying to do a good job and who realize the necessity of an intelligence operation in protecting their children. What do the theorists have in mind for our children this time? That's what parents need to know. So they collect and read the research literature and make contact with others who are trying to be equally protective and responsible.

The nation's mothers and fathers, that is, are a primary source of the documentation on drug, sex and "lifestyle" education that is collected, organized, analyzed, and circulated to policy makers by the Research Council.

A note from Tony DiGirolamo, executive producer of Culture Shock:

On August 18, 1994, Columnist Thomas Sowell wrote a thought provoking column on William R. Coulson, in The Detroit News titled, The Dangers and Distortions of American Education.

He begins, " Many of us change our general outlook on life at some point or other, but few of us go back and try to repair the damage we did during an earlier period when we thought differently. Dr. William Coulson, a psychologist who once played an important role in the movement to re-orient American education from academic to psychological goals, is now trying to get people to understand what a tragic mistake that was.

Dr. Coulson's mentor, the late psychotherapist Carl Rogers, was a major guru in the drive to get schools to downplay traditional academic subjects taught in the traditional way. Instead, they were to be permissive and tend to children's emotional needs. The effect of Rogers and others with similar views would be hard to overestimate, though their names are virtually unknown to the general public."

Bill Coulson has been a contributing guest on Culture Shock and has been a valuable assistance to the awakening of the American people today. It has been a slow process but progress non the less.

Thomas Sowell's column in the summer of 1994 speaks volumes only a decade later. Given the changes that are in the government schools today Coulson and Rogers profoundly changed it.

Sowell continues, "People who today express alarm at the supposed infiltration of "the religious right" into the public schools typically have no idea how widespread, how systematic and how persistent have been the infiltration of directly the opposite ideas which have been pushed by people like Carl Rogers and his then-disciple William Coulson."

When one recognizes the magnitude of what has been done here, it has been due to the drum beat of the secularist ideology to the reduction of religious influence.

In closing, Sowell says, "The issue in the schools today is not religion but education. It is the secular messiahs who have redirected the schools away from intellectual activity and toward psychological tinkering and ideological indoctrination.At least one of those secular messiahs has now decided to alert others to the dangers. For that, all parents owe Dr. William Coulson a debt of gratitude."

And, we at Culture Shock agree indeed.

William R. Coulson: A partial list of clients and sponsoring organizations includes: :

Today Show, NBC, New York-Family Research Council, Washington-Parents Roundtable, Westport, Connecticut-Psychology Today editorial board-Free University of Berlin, Germany-Southeast Christian Church, Louisville, Kentucky-Southwest Policy Institute, Oklahoma-Immanuel Bible Church, Springfield, Virginia-Phillis Schlafly Live and Point of View (syndicated radio)-ABC News 20/20, New York City (on death education)-the Donahue Show, New York City (death education/AIDS education)-Virginians for Family Values-Parents and Schools Together, Minneapolis-Lockheed Corp., Burbank-Bell & Howell Corp. Pasadena-University of San Diego-Porter Memorial Baptist Church, Lexington, Kentucky-Burroughs Corporation, San Diego-Berean League, St. Paul-Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation-Oregon Citizens Alliance-Delta County Public Schools, Colorado-Mendocino County Public Health Department Youth Leadership Conference, California-League of St. Michael the Archangel, Baton Rouge and New Orleans-California Task Force on Self-Esteem (counter consultant)-White House Conference on Families-Citizens for Abstinence-based Sex Education, Waco, Texas-Citizens for Better Education, Greenwich, Connecticut-Human Dimensions in Medical Education, La Jolla-Concerned Parents of Ohio-Christian Broadcasting Network-Citizens for Excellence in Education, Indianapolis-Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church, La Jolla-Family Foundation of Kentucky-Franciscan Renewal Center, Scottsdale-Constitutional Coalition, St. Louis-Citizens for Better Education, Virginia Beach-Concerned Women of America-Eagle Forum-University of California Extension, San Diego and Berkeley-Dads Foundation of Michigan-California Society of Professional Engineers-Concerned Parents of Richardson, Texas-Rohr Corp.-La Jolla Presbyterian Church-University of Kansas Medical Center.

To email Coulson: coulson@cultureshocktv.com

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Story of a Repentant Psychologist

In the following interview with Dr. William Marra, Dr. William Coulson discusses his
role in the destruction of Catholic religious orders, and his subsequent change of mind.

TLM: The story begins with your graduate education, doesn't it?

COULSON: Oh, yes. I went to Notre Dame in the late 50's, for a doctorate in
philosophy, and wrote my dissertation on Carl Rogers' theory of human nature. There
was an interesting controversy at the time, about, wether Rogers, who was probably the
most prominent American psychologist of his day, believed that every man is totally
good. So I wanted to compare Rogers with B.F. Skinner, the famous behaviorist, and
with Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis.

Stop right there. Were you a Catholic at the time?

Oh, yes.

And Notre Dame was Catholic?

Notre Dame was Catholic! I got a good education in Thomistic philosophy.

Didn't it occur to you that as a faithful Catholic you couldn't buy the idea that men are
basically good? Didn't original sin mean anything to you?

It wasn't my task then to be a critic of Rogers' theory. I wanted to find out what he
taught; and having read everything that I could get my hands on, I contacted him at the
University of Wisconsin.

I see; okay.

At the time Rogers was at the University of Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute. He had
gotten a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, to test his theory of
nondirective counseling.

Now put that in plain English.

Okay. At the University of Chicago, where Rogers had done his most significant work,
he had found that young people he was counseling didn't really need him to give them
answers - that they had answers within them. In retrospect, I understand that these
were bright, well-brought-up young people, or they couldn't have gotten into the
University of Chicago. They were able to figure things out, but they hadn't been able to
hear themselves think, so responsive had they always been to people telling them what
they should do.

So Rogers had the idea that to help these neurotics, we should refer them to the source
of authority within them - in other words, refer them to their consciences. Notice the
assumption that in fact people have consciences! Well, he was dealing with University
of Chicago students in the 40's and 50's, who had grown up in the Midwest; and, sure
enough, they had consciences.

- and therefore it would make sense for a therapist to say, "Well, what do you think?
Use your own basic convictions."

But Rogers wouldn't be so directive as to say, "Use your own convictions about ethical
law." Rather, he would say, "I guess I get the feeling that what you are saying is...."
This has become a caricature since, of course; it makes you laugh; but it really was
Rogers' locution. It worked. He could disappear for people, and leave them in the
presence of their consciences.

You see, as a practicing Catholic layman, I thought that was pretty holy; that God was
available to every person who had a decent upbringing, that he could self-consult, as it
were, and hear God speaking to him. I was thinking of William Jame's idea that the
conscience can provide access to the Holy Spirit.

How was Rogers as a person?

A terrific human being. We used to make jokes about him, though. For example, when
I arrived on Rogers' doorstep in 1963, at the University of Wisconsin, Rogers was off in
California. When he finally got back to Wisconsin, and I got a chance to shake his
hand, to tell him how pleased I was finally to make his acquaintance personally, I said,
"I'm very glad to meet you"; and he looked at me and he said, "I can see that." I mean,
in ordinary discourse you exchange greetings: "Well, I'm pleased to meet you, too."
But Rogers thought maybe I could use a little bit of therapy.

It works, you know; one tumbles pretty easily into this. We corrupted a whole raft of
religious orders on the west coast in the '60s by getting the nuns and priests to talk
about their distress.

Tell us about that. This can be the open confession of Catholic psychologist William

You don't have the power to absolve me at the end, do you?

Once I got to Wisconsin, I joined Rogers in his study of nondirective psychotherapy
with normal people. We had the idea that if it was good for neurotics, it would be
good for normals. Well, the normal people of Wisconsin proved how normal they were
by opting us out as soon as they knew what it was we wanted. Nobody wanted any
part of it. So we went to California.

That would do it.

I knew you were going to say that. That was my first mistake, looking for normal
people in California. But we found the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the
IHMs. They agreed to let us come into their schools and work with their normal
faculty, and with their normal students, and influence the development of normal
Catholic family life. It was a disaster.

Now what year are we talking about, roughly?

'66 and '67. There's a tragic book called "Lesbian Nuns: Breaking Silence", which
documents part of our effect on the IHMs and other orders that engaged in similar
experiments in what we called "sensitivity" or "encounter." In a chapter of "Lesbian
Nuns", one former Immaculate Heart nun describes the summer of 1966, when we did
the pilot study in her order -

"We" being you and Rogers?

Rogers and I and eventually 58 others: we had 60 facilitators. We inundated that
system with humanistic psychology. We called it Therapy for Normals, TFN. The
IHMs had some 60 schools when we started; at the end, they had one. There were
some 560 nuns when we began. Within a year after our first interventions, 300 of them
were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under
anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves.

Who's that on page 180 of that book?

This is Sister Mary Benjamin, IHM. Sister Mary Benjamin got involved with us in the
summer of '66, and became the victim of a lesbian seduction. An older nun in the
group, "freeing herself of who she really was internally," decided that she wanted to
make love with Sister Mary Benjamin. Well, Sister Mary Benjamin engaged in this; and
then was stricken with guilt, and wondered, to quote from her book, "Was I doing
something wrong, was I doing something terrible? I talked to a priest - "

Unfortunately, we had talked to him first. "I talked to a priest," she says, "who refused
to pass judgement on my actions. He said it was up to me to decide if they were right
or wrong. He opened a door, and I walked through the door, realizing I was on my

This is her liberation?

This is her liberation. Now, her parents had not delivered her to the IHMs in order for
her to be on her own. She was precious to them. She describes the day in 1962 when
they drove her in the station wagon to Montecito, to the IHMs novitiate. How excited
they were, to be delivering someone into God's hands! Well, instead they delivered her
into the hands of nondirective psychology.

But to mitigate your own guilt, Dr. Coulson, psychologists don't know what they are
doing when it comes to the inner depth of the human person; and one would think that
the Catholic Church, with 2000 years' experience, does know what it is doing. This
priest is the co-culprit. Had he nipped this in the bud - but he sounds like Rogers:
"Well, it seems to me that perhaps you might perhaps do this or that."

"What does this mean to you?" not "What does it mean to me?" Or to God. The priest
got confused about his role as a confessor. He thought it was personal, and he
consulted himself and said, "I can't pass judgement on you." But that's not what
Confession is. It is not about making a decision for the client; rather it's what God
says. In fact, God has already judged on this matter. You are quite right to feel guilty
about it. "Go thou and sin no more." Instead he said she should decide.

Okay. Now, why did you choose the IHM order in the first place? Or did they choose

Well, they hustled us pretty good. They were progressive to begin with. A shoestring
relative of one of Rogers' Wisconsin colleagues was a member of the community. By
then we were at the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute (WBSI) in La Jolla, which is a
suburb of San Diego; as a Catholic, I was assigned to exploit the connection. I spoke to
the California Conference of Major Superiors of Women's Religious Orders, and
showed them a film of Carl Rogers doing psychotherapy.

And Rogers' reputation had already grown.

Oh yes. Rogers had a great reputation. He was former president of the American
Psychological Association; he won its first Distinguished Scientific Contribution
Award. And WBSI was also the occasional home of Abraham Maslow, the other great
figure in humanistic psychology.

What do you mean by humanistc psychology?

Well, it's also called third-force psychology. Maslow referred to it as Psychology Three.
By that he meant to oppose it to Freud, which is Psychology One, and Skinner and
Watson, the behaviorism which is Psychology Two. We Catholics who got involved in
it thought this third force would take account of Catholic things. It would take account
of the fact that every person is precious, that we are not just corrupted as Frued would
have it, or a "tabula rasa", which is available to be conditioned in whatever way the
behaviorist chooses; but rather we have human potential, and it's glorious because we
are the children of a loving Creator who has something marvelous in mind for every
one of us.

That could be very seductive even for Catholics who reject the other two with a simple
wave of the hand. Okay, continue now with the story of the IHMs.

As I said, the IHMs were pretty progressive, but some of the leadership was a bit
nervous about the secular psychologist from La Jolla coming in; and so I met with
nearly the whole community; they were gathered in a gymnasium at Immaculate
Heart High School in Hollywood, on an April day in 1967. We've already done the
pilot study, we told them. Now we want to get everybody in the system to get
involved in nondirective self-exploration. We call it encounter groups but if that name
doesn't please you, we'll call it something else. We'll call it the person group.

So they went along with us, and they trusted us, and that is partly my responsibility,
because they thought, "These people wouldn't hurt us: the project coordinator is a
Catholic." Rogers, however, was the principal investigator. He was the brains behind
the project, and he was probably anti-Catholic; at the time I didn't recognize it because
I probably was, too. We both had a bias against hierarchy. I was flush with Vatican II,
and I thought, "I am the Church; I am as Catholic as the Pope. Didn't Pope John XXIII
want us to open the windows and let in some fresh air? Here we come!" And we did,
and within a year those nuns wanted out of their vows.

How did you do this - just with lectures?

Yes, there were lectures; and we arranged workshops for their school faculty, those
who would volunteer. We didn't want to force anybody to do this, which was a
symbol of how good we were.

But at first you had a plenary session for the community.

That was lecture. I told them what we wanted to do, and showed them a film of
an encounter group; and it looked pretty holy. The people in that film seemed to be
better people at the end of that session then they were when it began. They were more
open with one another, they were less deceitful, they didn't hide they're judgements
from one another; if they didn't like one another they were inclined to say so; and if
they were attracted to one another, they were inclined to say that, too.

Rogers and I did a tape for Bell and Howell summarizing that project; and I talked
about some of the short-term effects and said that when people do what they deeply
want to do, it isn't immoral. Well, we hadn't waited long enough. The lesbian nuns'
book, for example, hadn't come out yet; and we hadn't gotten the reports of seductions
in psychotherapy, which became virtually routine in California. We had trained people
who didn't have Rogers' innate discipline from his own fundamentalist Protestant
background, people that thought that being themselves meant unleashing libido.

Maslow did warn us about this, Maslow believed in evil, and we didn't. He said our
problem was our total confusion about evil. (This is quoting from Maslow's journals,
which came out too late to stop us. His journals came out in '79, and we had done our
damage by then.) Maslow said there was danger in our thinking and acting as if there
were no paranoids or psychopaths or SOBs in the world to mess things up.

We created a miniature utopian society, the encounter group. As long as Rogers and
those who feared Rogers' judgement were present it was okay, because nobody fooled
around in the presence of Carl Rogers. He kept people in line; he was a moral force.
People did, in fact, consult their consciences, and it looked like good things were

But once you had those 560 nuns broken down into their encounter groups, how long
did it take for the damage to set in?

Well, in the summer of '67 the IHMs were having their chapter. They had been called,
as all religious orders were, to reevaluate their mode of living, and to bring it more in
line with the charisms of their founder. So they were ready for us. They were ready
for an intensive look at themselves with the help of humanistic psychologists. We
overcame their traditions, we overcame their faith. Bud Keiser, a Paulist priest,
producer of "Insight," I think you may know him -

Enough said.

Okay. He wrote a book in 1991 called . He's got a chapter in there
about his romantic involvement with one of our nuns, with one of the IHMs. Father
Kaiser explains that as "Genevieve," as he calls her, got in the spirit of Rogerian
nondirective encounter, prepositioned him sexually. He refused her, because he didn't
see how he could have something going with her and still be a good priest; but she got
sexually involved with her Rogerian therapist. We were referring the nuns who
opened up too much in our encounter groups to therapists who were on the periphery.

At least this was a male therapist.

He got her involved with sex games, in therapy. Rogers didn't get people involved in
sex games, but he couldn't prevent his followers from doing it, because all he could say
was, "Well, don't do that." Then his followers would say, "Well of course <>
don't do that, because you grew up in an earlier era; but we do, and it's marvelous:
you have set us free to be ourselves and not carbon copies of you."

Marvelous, indeed. How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart

It took about a year and a half.

Of the 560, how many are left?

There are the retired nuns, who are living in the mother house in Hollywood; there is a
small group of radical feminists, who run a center for feminist theology in a storefront
in Hollywood -

They're hardly survivors.

No, they're not a canonical group.

But the order as a whole, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which ran all those schools?

There are a few of them in Wichita whom I visited recently, who are going to make a go
of it as traditional teaching nuns; and there are a few doing the same in Beverly Hills.
There may be a couple dozen left all together, apart from whom, <>, they're

And the college campus -

The college campus was sold. There is no more Immaculate Heart College. It doesn't
exist. It's ceased to function beacuse of our good offices. One mother pulled her
daughter out before it closed, saying, "Listen, she can lose her faith for free at the state

Our grant had been for three years, but we called off the study after two, because we
were alarmed about the results. We thought we could make the IHMs better than they
were; and we destroyed them.

Did you do this kind of program anywhere else?

We did similar programs for the Jesuits, for the Franciscans, for the Sisters of
Providence of Charity, and for the Mercy Sisters. We did dozens of Catholic religious
organizations, because as you recall, in the excitement following Vatican II, everybody
wanted to update, everybody wanted to renew; and we offered a way for people to
renew, without having to bother to study. We said, we'll help you look within. After
all, is not God in your heart? Is it not sufficient to be yourself, and wouldn't that make
you a good Catholic? And if it doesn't, then perhaps you shouldn't have been a
Catholic in the first place. Well, after a while there weren't many Catholics left.

Now, you mentioned that the religious orders had received a mandate to renew
themselves according to the original spirit of their founders, which would have been


For example, the original spirit of the Jesuits was Saint Ignatious Loyola...

That's right. Speaking of Saint Ignatius, I brought with me a letter that Carl Rogers got,
after we did a workshop at a Jesuit university in the summer of '65. One of the young
Jesuits, just about to be ordained, wrote as follows about being with Rogers at an
encounter group for five days: "It seemed like a beautiful birth to a new existence. It
was as if so many of the things that I valued in word, were now becoming true for me
in fact. It was extremely difficult to describe the experience. I had not known how
unaware I was of my deepest feelings, nor how valuble they might be to other people.
Only when I began to express what was rising somewhere deep within the center of
me, and saw the tears in the eyes of the other group members because I was saying
something so true for them, too - only then did I begin to really feel that I was deeply a
part of the human race. Never in my life before that group experience, had I
experienced <> so intently; and then to have that <> so confirmed and loved
by the group, who by this time were sensitive and reacting to my phoniness, was like
receiving a gift that I could never - "

"Reacting to my phoniness"?

"My phoniness." But what <> his phoniness? Well, his phoniness is among other
things his Catholic doctrine. Because when you look within yourself, and you find the
Creed, for example, you can imagine someone saying, "Oh, you're just being a mama's
boy, aren't you? You're just doing what you were taught to do; I want to hear from the
<> you."

The proof of authenticity on the humanistic psychology model is to go against what
you were trained to be, to call all of that phoniness, and to say what is deepest within
you. What's deepest within you, however, are certain unrequited longings. We
provoked an epidemic of sexual misconduct among clergy and therapists -

And it seemed to be justified by psychology, which is supposed to be a science. Now,
the documents of Vatican II are never read, but they include beautiful and profound
things. One can also find very naive things, including the statement that theology
should profit from the insights of contemporary social science. I don't know which
document that was, but it gave you people .

That's right. I'll tell you what Rogers came to see, and he came to see it pretty quickly,
because her really loved those women. I'm going to quote him in a tape that he and I
made in '76: "I left there feeling, Well, I started this damned thing, and look where it's
taking us; I don't even know where it's taking me. I don't have any idea what's going
to happen next. And I woke up the next morning feeling so depressed, that I could
hardly stand it. And I realized what was wrong. Yes, I started this thing, and now
look where it's carrying us. Where is it going to carry us? And did I start something
that is in some fundamental way mistaken, and will lead us off into paths that we will

That's a credit to him, that he at least had pangs of conscience; whereas these other
orders, like the Jesuits, even when they saw that the IHMs were almost extinct,
nevertheless they invited the same team in.

Oh, yes. Well, actually we started with the Jesuits before we started with the nuns. We
did our first Jesuit workshop in '65. Rogers got two honorary doctorates from Jesuit
universities. They thought we were saviors. I don't know wether you remember, but
in '67 the Jesuits had a big conference at Santa Clara, and there was a lot of talk about
the "Third Way" among the Jesuits.

You were involved with that, too? It had to do with lifestyle.

Yes, lifestyle. We did not consult directly on that conference, but we were cheerleaders.

What is this Third Way?

The first two ways are faithful marriage and celibacy. But now there was this more
humane way, a more human way - all too human as I see it today. The idea was that
priests could date. One priest, for example, defined his celibacy as, "It means I don't
have to marry the girl."

Only a Jesuit could have said that.

As a matter of fact that wasn't a Jesuit. I think the Jesuits are capable of bouncing back
because they had such strong traditions of their own, and God willing they will. A
good book to read on this whole question is Fr. Joseph Becker's . It reviews the collapse of Jesuit training between 1965 and 1975. Jesuit
formation virtually fell apart; and Father Becker knows the influence of the Rogerians
pretty well. He cites a number of Jesuit novice masters who claimed that the authority
for what they did - and didn't do - was Carl Rogers.

Later on when the Jesuits gave Rogers those honorary doctorates, I think they wanted
to credit him with his influence on the Jesuit way of life.

But do you think there were any short-term beneficial effects? Did it seem as if you
were getting somewhere in the good sense?

Well, priests and nuns became more available to the people that they worked with;
they were less remote...

But we didn't have a doctrine of evil. As I've said, Maslow saw that we failed to
understand the reality of evil in human life. When we implied to people that they
could trust their evil impulses, they also understood us to mean that they could trust
their evil impulses, that they really weren't evil.

But they really evil. This hit home again for Rogers in the 1970s, when rumors
began to circulate about a group that had spun off from ours. By then we had become
the Center for Studies of the Person in La Jolla, having spun off from WBSI; and at the
same time there spun off another group called the Center for Feeling Therapy in

Well, charges were brought against the guys at the Center for Feeling Therapy - one of
three founders of that, by the way, being a Jesuit who had left the order - and among
the things that the State of California was perceptive enough to charge them with was
killing babies. Eleven times, women who became pregnant while they were in the
compound, the Center for Feeling Therapy, were forced to abort their babies. The State
of California charged them with this crime -

Was this before ?

No, this happened after , but the State Medical Board held that it was unethical
for those men to force the women to have abortions, because these women wanted their

And this is the result of psychological feeling therapy?

Yes. The idea behind it is that you can't really listen to yourself, if you hear the baby
cry. If the baby needs to be fed, or you find yourself being distracted with what the
baby is doing, you're not going to be able to deal with yourself.

Humanistic psychotherapy, the kind that has virtually taken over the Church in
America, and dominates so many aberrant education like sex education, and drug
education, holds that the most important source of authority is within you, that you
must listen to yourself. Well, if you have a baby you're carrying under your heart, get
rid of it. Women who came into the Center for Feeling Therapy with children were
forced to put them up for adoption. The only person who was allowed to have a baby,
in an eerie preview of David Koresh, was the principal founder of the institution. All
the other babies were killed, or sent away, in the name of getting in touch with the
imperial self....

What's your experience with sex education?

We pulled our kids out of the Catholic schools when they began to be corrupted.

Even while you were still a Rogerian psychologist?

Yes, my wife Jeannie had common sense all the while. It wasn't so much that it was
there yet, as that we saw it was coming. The kids would get an experiential education
if they stayed in that setting; they would not get a Catholic education.

Who carries the day, in experiential education? If you park a group of kids in a circle
to talk about their sexual experiences, who's going to have the most interesting stories
to tell? The most experienced child.

Where is the direction of influence going to run? It's going to run - and the research
confirms this again and again - it's going to run from the experienced to the
inexperienced. The net outcome of sex education, styled as Rogerian encountering, is
more sexual experience.

I think that many reading this are beginning to understand the ravages done to
children by the so-called professionals.

Yes. You know, one sign of what happened when humanistic psychology moved into
the Catholic religious orders was that priests and nuns became bachelors and
bachelorettes. They started thinking about conquest, I'm afraid. One would be well
advised to stay away from a conference of the National Catholic Education Association,
where you get the impression that people are on the make. They see themselves now as
"whole persons," and they justify their sexualized behavior on the basis of that theory.
It was better when we were more repressed - so says the psychologist.

You don't get invited to these things anymore, I'll wager.

No, but I used to get invited to the National Federation of Priests' Councils. In 1970 I
spoke to the National Catholic Guidance Conference.

And you told them they had to be "authentic."

Yes, and I'm ashamed of that.

Saturday, July 24, 2010


TONY DIGIROLAMO- After many years of struggle the members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ELCA, are forming a new church, the North American Lutheran Church.

Breaking away from the policies followed by a culture driven doctrine, the new church will be consummated at the end of August.

Word Alone for the past ten years tried to change the minds of the presiding Bishop, Hanson and the leadership only to find walls of hindrance to their cry to return to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This from President, Jaynan Clark:
Excerpts from an Email
to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson
from Jaynan Clark, President, WordAlone Ministries

Full story at CultureShockTV.com:

"There are those of you who have ears to hear the Truth of God’s Word, eyes to see His creation through a Biblical worldview and a conscience truly captive to His Word not the sinful self. You, like a growing number of other Christians-some of them Lutheran-know what it means to be in this world but not of it. More than ever before, you don’t seem to 'fit.' The post-modern understanding that there is no absolute truth outside of the self is not understandable to you. You struggle with yourself wondering if it is just you that thinks things have radically changed and not for the better. You may be among those who don’t recognize the message of your 'church' as anything like what you grew up with. You don’t understand what happened to the basic fabric of society that seemed to be common sense and good order. You don’t have any trust in your leaders in church and society. You wonder why nobody says or does anything to push the proverbial pendulum back at least for the sake of the children who must navigate themselves through all this relativity, plurality and uncertainty. To even note your concern out loud would make you some sort of negative, judgmental, fundamentalist, fanatic fuddy-duddy. You would be labeled a sexist, racist, hate filled, homophobic, name calling 'Pharisee' or worse. You are left wondering why you, the one being called the names, the one being judged, the one being put down are accused of what you are experiencing at the hands of the loving, tolerant, accepting, non-judgmental Christians. The irony of the repeated experience confirms that you are out of sync. "

Pastor and President Clark continues,
"[I] have patiently prayed for you and others in the ELCA to come to terms with what you are doing to old pastors, young seminarians, local churches, faithful preachers and international leaders. The confusion and chaos that has resulted is your doing. However, you continue to try to point fingers at others for being the “schismatics” (myself included) while you ignore the words of the Scriptures that remind us that confusion comes from those who preach "another gospel" though there is not another gospel." (Galatians 2).

I recently met with Pastor Richard E. Boye, 81 and retired, in Farmville, Virginia to discuss the ELCA's policy on Homosexuality as pastors.

His testimony on video, is heartfelt and passionate about the direction of the church. He was told that members of the church are punishing the ELCA but he said "that is the farthest thing on his mind ... I love my church but I can not support the ELCA."

There is so much more to the failure of the ELCA with homosexuality, pro choice, and so called social justice. It is roundly taking the side of a culture gone to the extreme left. Even at the expence of the state of Israel in support of terrorists.

They follow the National and World Council of Churches the ideolgy of which is socialist.

Clark warns,
"... [W]e all should be concerned that those leading vibrant, growing Lutheran churches across the globe are in danger of being indoctrinated by those bearing a false gospel."

Unfortunately that continues as many are making a bold decision to leave the ELCA. Many of these are believers in the Word of God and stand firm and unwavering.

This is a challenge to those who need the courage of Martin Luther, founder of this church and the Protestant Reformation to see as clearly as he did the error in the present age.

It is not just an ELCA problem It has infected all mainline denominations and the culture of this world.

You know this issue is so important to me for the church to return to the Truth. There are millions of people indoctrinated into the culture of the world that the decisions they make for themselves, their family, and who they want as leaders, local and nationwide is determined by what they believe.

If the church is on this course to change the meaning of the Bible, then I'm afraid the Republic will not stand.

John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion."
... "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

So, that being said we have a work greater than ourselves to do, a work that is more than just changing the church we go to each Sunday. It's about the Gospel, America and Freedom that is threatened.

So enter the battle, make the changes that must come, step out of the comfort zone, and then you will be standing before God in all His majesty.

God bless America!