More than a few articles have been published in the past few years advising against the use of mindfulness meditation by Catholics. The primary reason for this is because it is a secular adaptation of a common form of Buddhist meditation where one trains awareness to the breath. This is meant to help the meditator grow in focal stability, staying present and focused. This is done despite whatever inclincations or temptations may invite the practitioner into another mode of experience, actitivty, or thought-feeling process that take one away from the practice.
Besides reservations about Buddhist thought and practice, these Catholic authors see this as problematic because of its focus on method rather than faith. However, this argument fails to take into consideration that Catholic theology recognizes the Book of Nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature), in the theological as well as other sciences, as a source of wisdom. To study the book of nature, method is essential. Psychology, for instance, studies the self using various methods.
Catholic opponents of mindfulness may say that this is well and good, however, but an incorrect interpretation of nature, insofar as it is communicated through how mindfulness is taught, can create problems. To this point I will concede. While mindfulness is typically taught in a secular fashion that doesn’t communicate, for instance, principles of Buddhist cosmology or anthropology, some principles that are at odds with Catholic (or more generally monotheistic) cosmology and anthropology can be passed on implicitly or unknowingly. This is particularly the case if the teacher subscribes to Buddhist teachings such as impermanence, karma, etc..
It can be the case, for instance, that a teacher of mindfulness will communicate things like impermanence or change as the highest truth of the practice. As Catholics, we recognize that everything that is created is both contingent and composite and thus capable of change. However, we also recognize an eternal, absolute reality, what we call the godhead. We believe that this is the ground, cause, and end of all being and that knowledge of this is based on reason, i.e. scientific. We also recognize the eternal in the self in terms of the human soul that has been created uniquely for eternal life.
There is the potential that the self is seen as mere change rather than a creature that is a unity of body and spirit, a creature for whom the soul is the form of the body. Even from a purely natural perspective, this is different than in Buddhist anthropology where the person amounts to an aggregate of skandhas that give form to incarnations based on one’s level of enlightenment or ignorance. I will call this the negative view of self. How this can be implicitly passed on in contemporary mindfulness is really dependent upon the teacher of it and their sense of the person. But if a teacher has a negative or weak sense of the person this can be communicated by emphasizing the transient and neglecting the eternal. It also falls fall short of the Catholic view that a human person is created in love and for love in communion with God and one another.
That said, Catholics (Protestants also), who are interested in science, mental health, and the practice of meditation (both natural and supernatural) ought to be looking to the present research on the benefits of mindfulness, in particular in respect to emotional regulation and improving mood state as an important opportunity to create a Catholic synthesis (not Syncretism), not unlike the Aristolelian-Thomistic synthesis of the Middle Ages. It was in that age where there was a flowering of the rapprochement between Greek philosophy, the sciences, and Christian faith. It is in our age where Hindu and Buddhist philosophy presents a similar opportunity.
It is not true that “Eastern” or “Asian” philosophies are too dissimilar from the Western (e.g. Plato and Aristotle) to be worthy of a similar synthesis. This comes from pure ignorance of the incredible similarities between Indian and Greek thought and the rapprochement that took place between those traditions. Examples are that both traditions believed in some sort of karma, reincarnation, purification leading to enlightenment and/or blessedness. They even shared a cyclical view of time to a greater or lesser degree. In fact, it could be said that all pre-Christian philosophies exuding Jewish philosophy shared these traits. These are traits that we can view as “pre-revelation”, which means prior to the direct encounter with the Logos of revelation.
Too conclude this article I am going to address the Catholic skeptics. First of all, we are in an age where inter-religious dialogue is essential if we are to exist in a pluralistic society and engage with anyone outside of the Church. It is simply integral to grow in mutual understanding to possess a posture of reverence towards the wisdom of other cultures as well as a sincere desire to learn from them, thereby discovering Logos insofar as these cultures are in relationship to Him. It’s also essential for understanding real differences.
But also, it is essential for the health of the soul. If we observe, through a meta-analysis of the existing research that, for instance, mindfulness has considerable health benefits, in particular in respect to emotional and mental health, a people who are animated by the charity of Christ ought to take interest. We, indeed, are interested in helping people heal, in this life, and unto eternal life.
One such study I will use to demonstrate the state of the scientific research is a meta-analysis of research related to Mindfulness-Based Interventions for the Treament of Substance and Behavioral Addicitions. A review that was published in Frontiers in Psychiatry (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29651257/) came to this conclusion about mindfulness-based interventions, “(t)hese treatements were successful for reducing dependence, craving, and other addition-related symptoms by also improving mood state and emotion dysregulation”(1). It is important to note that the findings also suggest that mindfulness is most effective when combined with regular treatment methodologies. In another article I will explore further what it is about the practice that is effective in improving mood and emotional dysregulation.
In a society where it is estimated that around 35% of the population suffers from Substance Abuse Disorders (adding Behavioral Additions increases this significantly) (2), Catholics, who care deeply about those who are in destructive bondage to substances or behaviors need to take note. We are stewards of a great tradition, with its own history of meditation, focal practices, and contemplation. But thus far we are hardly showing up to participate in the dialogue, except insofar as there are many treatment facilities in Catholic hospitals. It’s time to ask ourselves what natural meditation looks like from a Catholic perspective and how it can be employed to help Catholics and non-Catholics alike.