When the Road Less Traveled Leads to the Abyss

I wrote the other day about re-reading People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck. I'm over halfway through the book now and I have to kind of shake my head to clear it. When I read it some 40 years ago I was still a bit naive and enthralled by men in white lab coats, although my pro-life activism had already dispelled the childish notion that all doctors were Albert Schweitzer.

Today, I'm reading the book with a more critical eye and, while I still find it useful, interesting, and thought-provoking; I'm much more aware of the flaws and my serious disagreements with Peck's philosophy and opinions. So here goes with a few:

• Peck was obviously Freudian in his approach to psychotherapy. Like Freud, most of his client examples go back to childhood assuming that almost all psychological problems are the result of parental abuse, neglect, and, as this book makes the case, actual parental evil. Freud believed that anything wrong with a person was the fault of upbringing, particularly problems with the mother. Many of Peck's cases exemplify this Freudian theory. Mom is a villain, in one case a spider. In several cases both parents are villains and I don't disagree, especially the case of the parents who gave their son a rifle for Christmas that his brother used to kill himself. That appears diabolical! Peck also discusses another case emphasizing the "oedipus complex," a controversial and much criticized Freudian theory. Freud attributed many mental problems to sexual issues, not surprising if you study the sexual problems he himself experienced. Freud's own colleagues, Alfred Adler and Rudolf Allers, moved away from Freud's theories and Allers, a Catholic, later also distanced from Adler. Allers taught at both Georgetown and Catholic University and wrote several highly critical books about Freud: The Successful Error: A Critique of Freudian Psychoanalysis. Sheed and Ward Inc, 1940, and What’s Wrong With Freud? A Critical Study of Freudian Psychoanalysis. Roman Catholic Books. How many psychologists today, like Peck, embrace wholeheartedly Freud's flawed theories? Freud's father was a pervert who abused his own children which may explain Freud's belief that all problems were the parents' fault. And Peck had a troubled upbringing as well. Freud was also a serious coke addict who gave us an early example of doctor assisted suicide when he urged his friend, Dr. Max Schur, to kill him using large injections of morphine to do the job. Most of Freud's papers (75,000 in fact) are locked up, so we may never know how disturbed he actually was. He's a good example of the dictum, "Physicisn, heal thyself." It would be a good first question before choosing a therapist to ask whether he's a Freudian and, if not, whose philosophy of psychotherapy he follows.

• My second criticism is that Peck's writing shows an incredible hubris,  portraying the therapist with almost miraculous healing power. His biographer, Arthur Jones, says Peck: 

...lived a life of narcissism writ large while achingly wanting to be different -- except the cost was too high.  He couldn't express the remorse that his behavior -- toward his wife and his family -- sorely and surely warranted. Had they forgiven him, he probably couldn't have handled that either.

That may explain how Peck could call himself a Christian, while seeming to  replace God with the analyst. I found this entry shockingly arrogant. Does it illustrate Jones' contention that Peck was a narcissist?:

I believe that illness and disease should be defined as any defect in the structure of our bodies or our personalities that prevents us from fulfilling our potential as human beings

Admittedly, we may have some differences of opinion as to what exactly constitutes human potential. Nonetheless, there are a sufficient number of men and women in all cultures and at all times who have achived in their full adulthood akin of gracefulness of existence so that we can generally say of them: "They have become truly human." By which we mena their lives seem almost to touch on the divine. And we can study these people and examine their characteristics. Briefly, they are wise and aware, they enjoy life with gusto, yet face and accept death; they not only work productively but creatively, and they obviously love their fellow human beings, whom they lead with a benignity of both intent and result.

Most people, however, are so crippled in body and spirit that they cannot possibly ever attain such a lofty condition even through their best efforts without massive therapeutic assistance. Among these crippled legions -- the mass of suffering humanity -- the evil reside, perhaps the most pitiable of all.

Obviously in this selection, Peck replaces the confessional with the couch and the priest with the therapist. He also has the idea that evil, through therapy can ultimately be eliminated, an idea that seems as unrealistic as the socialist's claim that he can end poverty. "The poor you will always have with you," Jesus said. The evil are obviously also going to be with us until the end. Otherwise, how could Jesus say in Matthew 25 that at the last judgment:

...when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that God allows evil for the good that only He, in His Divine Providence, can bring from it:

If evil were completely excluded from things, much good would be rendered impossible. Consequently it is the concern of Divine Providence, not to safeguard all beings from evil, but to see to it that the evil which arises is ordained to some good...good is rendered more estimable when compared with particular evils. For example, the brilliance of white is brought out more clearly when set off by the dinginess of black. And so, by permitting the existence of evil in the world, the divine goodness is more emphatically asserted in the good, just as is the divine wisdom when it forces evil to promote good. [Compendium of Theology, Chapter 142]

To reduce evil to disease or insanity, in my opinion misses the mark because it seems to eliminate the freedom of the individual, not to mention the points made by St. Thomas.  If people who choose evil are either sick or crazy, how can they be accountable for their evil actions? So is that a valid assessment? Peck doesn't mind identifying people as evil, but seems to offer a loophole. He may not have cured every client, but with more study of the problem of evil he seems to believe psychotherapy can solve the problem.

Evil came about in the Garden of Eden because of a free will rebellion against God. Adam and Eve had no inclination to evil. They weren't sick and they had unclouded intellects. They were not subject to concupiscence either so they had absolute control over their passions. What happened? They made the decision to ignore God and listen to and choose the serpent's lies with full use of their intellects and wills. It may be that, like drug addiction, evil is deliberately chosen at the beginning and, as it becomes habitual, there is less freedom of the will. But Peck's philosophy seems to me to minimize sin, a word he rarely uses. How can one talk about evil without discussing the role of temptation and the deliberate free will choice of sin. 

I'll leave the last few chapters of the book to another post. And I hope readers will pray for Scott Peck who died after living a life filled with extramarital affairs and pain inflicted on his family. While he didn't succumb to Charlene, a client intent on seduction who gets a long chapter in People of the Lie, he enjoyed many extramarital affairs. I haven't read Arthur Jones' biography of Peck, Boomer Guru: How M. Scott Peck Guided Millions but Lost Himself on the Road Less Traveled, but from the reviews it details the life of a very troubled man. I suppose one can say that about all of us in this valley of tears. Some are more troubled than others, some are more wounded, some are more wounding. We all need God's mercy and the grace to reject evil and choose good. But I have no illusions that my sins are the result of a social disease or insanity. I've never used that excuse yet in the confessional when I say, "I accuse myself of the following sins."

Lord Jesus, have mercy on us