IIC 181: Roundtable Discussion: Catholic Philosophers and Therapists Take On the Tough Questions about IFS and Catholicism

[00:00:00] Dr. Peter: “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law, or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1786. In this Interior Integration for Catholics podcast, we know that there is a lot of erroneous judgment and worldly estimations of the good, and that also applies to psychology and human formation. We know that our audience here, that you, that you often struggle with moral questions and moral issues, and that many of you, most of you, take the moral life seriously when considering how best to live a life that will lead not only to flourishing and thriving in this world, but that will lead to an intimate union with God in beatific vision in heaven.

[00:00:54] Dr. Peter: But there’s often confusion along the way. As the Catechism notes in paragraph 1787, “Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgements less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good, and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.” We are here to help with the difficulties in making those moral judgements, especially in your human formation, and especially in the human formation of those whom you accompany or for whom you are responsible. And we seek what is right and good. We seek to discern the will of God. We seek to be prudent in the Catholic sense of that virtue.

[00:01:50] Dr. Peter: And today, today, I have the great honor of bringing in an entire panel together to ask, to answer, some of the most common questions about Internal Family  Systems and Catholicism, questions that center on morality, discernment, prudence, to help all of you who are considering your next right steps and who are considering whether Internal Family  Systems or other parts and systems models should be part of your human formation plan. So let’s get right to it.

[00:02:39] Dr. Peter: I am Dr. Peter Malinoski, also known as Dr. Peter. I am your host and guide in this Interior Integration for Catholics podcast, and I’m so glad to be with you. I am a clinical psychologist, a trauma therapist, a podcaster writer, the co-founder and president of  Souls and Hearts. But most of all, I am a beloved little son of God, a passionate Catholic who wants to help you to taste and see the height and depth and breadth and warmth, and the light of the love of God, especially God, your father, and also Mary your mother. God your father, Mary your mother. These are your spiritual parents, your primary parents. I am here to help you embrace your identity as a beloved little child of God and Mary.

[00:03:26] Dr. Peter: Now many of you know, all of last year, 2025, and so much of this year, in 2026, we are doing a deep dive into Internal Family  Systems, IFS. We’re examining parts work, and connecting it all to Catholicism. So we’re bringing in the insights from Internal Family  Systems developed by Dr. Richard Schwartz, other parts and systems models as well. And we are harmonizing these systems with the truths of the Catholic faith. And why? Why do we do this? We do this to help you live out the three loves in the two great commandments: to love God, to love your neighbor, and to love yourself. That’s what this is all about.

[00:04:11] Dr. Peter: And we do this by shoring up the natural foundation for your spiritual life, your human formation. St. John Paul II said that human formation is the basis of all formation, and so we really take a hard look. That’s what’s unique about  Souls and Hearts. That’s what’s unique about this podcast. This is episode 181 of the Interior Integration for Catholics podcast, and it releases on April 6th, 2026. So this is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1806. “Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it. And this is from Proverbs 14:15. The prudent man looks where he is going. Okay. Prudence is right reason in action, writes St. Thomas Aquinas following Aristotle, it is called the auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues). It guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue, we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.” 

[00:05:39] Dr. Peter: That’s what we are doing today. And going back to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, he says, “It belongs to the prudent man to judge rightly. So it is such a treat. Today, I have seven distinguished members of our panel today, four philosophers and four mental health professionals. Let’s get started with some introductions here. Elizabeth Galanti. Elizabeth is a licensed mental health counselor in Florida who has IFS Level 3 training, and after two decades in the corporate world, she experienced Internal Family  Systems as a therapy client and she fell in love with it. And IFS just rocked her world. So she pivoted. She went to grad school, she became a therapist, and she spent the last 20 years integrating IFS with the Catholic faith. You might remember her from episode 176 of this podcast titled The Catholic Catechism, IFS, and Parts Work. And so, it is so good to have you with us, Elizabeth. Thank you for being here.

[00:06:43] Elizabeth Galanti: Thank you for asking me. Thank you.

[00:06:47] Dr. Peter: Fr. Thomas Berg is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York He has a Ph.D. in philosophy. He also served for 13 years as Professor of Moral Theology and a formation advisor at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, New York. He is the co-author of Hurting in the Church: A Way Forward for Wounded Catholics, and he is also the co-author of the book, Choosing Forgiveness: Unleash the Power of God’s Grace. Fr. Tom has a particular focus on accompanying those who have experienced spiritual abuse, especially in religious life. And you might remember him from episode 179 on Parts, Subjectivity, Values and Morals, and also the last episode, episode 180, Right and Wrong: Conscience and Catholic Parts Work. And it’s great to have you back, Fr. Tom Berg. So excited to be able to spend some more time with you.

[00:07:39] Fr. Tom Berg: Thank you. Great to be with you.

[00:07:42] Dr. Peter: Dr. Andrea Messineo. Now, Dr. Andrea Messineo is both a philosopher and a therapist, which is why four plus four can equal seven. She’s completed a Licentiate in Philosophy at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas, the Angelicum, in Rome, and she’s worked for over a decade in the financial industry, initially while completing a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. But she wanted to help other people more directly, so she became licensed as a counselor, as a therapist, and she’s been in private practice for more than 14 years. She completed her IFS Level 1 training in 2023, and she’s the author of the book, Alone in Church. And she was with us in episodes 179 and 180, along with Father Thomas Berg. Andrea Messineo, it is a pleasure to have you back.

[00:08:33] Andrea Messineo: Thank you so much. I’m so glad to be here. 

[00:08:36] Dr. Peter: Dr. Anthony T. Flood is a professor of philosophy at North Dakota State University. He’s the author of two excellent books, one, The Root of Friendship, and the second one, The Metaphysical Foundations of Love, where he examines the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas on the nature of love in the life of a person. Dr. Flood has focused his career on the central role that ordered love of self performs, both in terms of integrating one’s interior life and serving as the basis for appropriately interacting with and loving others. And many of you’ll remember, he was with us for episode 171 titled Know Thyself, Love Thyself, Govern Thyself: Socrates and Plato Discuss Parts Work. He was with us for episode 173 titled Aristotle and Aquinas on Proper Self-Love. Such a critical episode. And then he was with us for episode 174, titled Richard Schwartz and IFS Meet St. Thomas Aquinas. And it has been a while, but it is so good to have you back, Dr. Anthony Flood. 

[00:09:41] Tony Flood: Thank you for having me. It’s always a pleasure.

[00:09:44] Dr. Peter: And then, of course, my next guest, you all know him, Dr. Gerry Crete, our own dear Dr. Gerry. He’s a licensed marriage and family therapist in Atlanta, Georgia. He’s the founder and owner of Transfiguration Counseling. He’s the author of the book, Litanies of the Heart by Sophia Press. He’s a leading Catholic thinker and synthesizer in this whole area of Catholic parts work, and he co-founded  Souls and Hearts with me in 2019. We’ve been going strong for more than six years now. And he has been on this podcast many times, most recently as the host of episode 177, Christopher West on IFS and the Theology of the Body: A Powerful Combo for Sexual Healing. And then episode 178, our Q&A on Ordered Self-Love, Your Body, Parts Work and Catholicism. It is always a pleasure, Dr. Gerry, when we can come together and we can connect. 

[00:10:35] Dr. Gerry: Great to be here.

[00:10:38] Dr. Peter: And now, now I have the pleasure of introducing Dr. Monty De La Torre. He is making his debut here on the podcast. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Australian Catholic University and an M.A. in theology from Christendom Graduate School of Theology, as well as a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the Catholic University of Leuven and a B.A. in music from La Sierra University. Dr. De La Torre wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on St. Thomas Aquinas’s Fourth Way. He’s passionate about the use of IFS, philosophy, and theology in the development of virtue. And he has been doing some cutting edge writing for us. Some reflections, for example, March 9th, 2026, titled The Metaphysics of Parts (Part One): the Soul, the Faculties and the Senses. And then also the reflection from March 23rd, 2026, just came out, on Intellect, Knowledge, Judgment, Reasoning, and Parts. And so yes, making your debut for the first time on the podcast. It is just lovely to have you, Dr. Monty De La Torre. 

[00:11:45] Monty De La Torre: Thank you so much, Peter. Thank you for inviting me. 

[00:11:48] Dr. Peter: So we, as I mentioned before, we have this special treat of being able to come together to address questions that come up to us. And so without any further ado, because I can create further ado even unintentionally, but without any more of that, let’s just get into it. And so I’m wondering if we can start with like two questions at once. You know, your question, Elizabeth, and then your question, Fr. Tom. So Elizabeth, what have you got for us? 

[00:12:20] Elizabeth Galanti: Yes. So a question that I can hear somewhat commonly in my office, typically after we’ve begun to start to do the work, a client will ask me a question that sounds kind of like this. What does the Catholic Church have to say about IFS? And is IFS okay for Catholics?

[00:12:44] Dr. Peter: Yeah, I get things like that all the time too. And Fr. Tom Berg, you have some additional thoughts on that or some additional aspects of that? 

[00:12:51] Fr. Tom Berg: Yeah. I mean, very similar question, like how can we be sure that IFS-informed parts work is fully Catholic? Like, how can we be sure that this is in harmony with a Catholic metaphysics, with a Catholic anthropology, in other words, a Catholic understanding of the person? So a very, very similar question.

[00:13:16] Dr. Peter: Well, I am excited to just be opening that up. So I’m just curious, like who’d like to start us off this whole question of IFS, the Catholic Church.

[00:13:25] Dr. Gerry: I feel like I kind of need to. There’s this book call Litanies of the Heart, if you haven’t heard about it. And that was actually, I wrote that book to answer those two questions. Like in part. Like I wrote it also to address post-traumatic stress and anxiety issues in general, and especially for Catholics. But this whole question. Because when I started doing parts work with people as a therapist, I was like blown away by the change. I was blown away by how much, how quickly people changed as a result. But I had that same question. I’m like, yeah, but how does this fit in with the Catholic anthropology and theology, spirituality? Like, how does it intersect? And what I ended up discovering was it does. It needs to be qualified in some areas, especially in things that Dick Schwartz says later on, right. For example, No Bad Parts. You mentioned, Fr. Tom, you mentioned Buddhism. Like that book is like very Eastern religion oriented in so many of the things it says. It’s basically pantheistic in many ways. So I took issue with that and I wanted to show how IFS could be done in a Catholic way. 

[00:14:44] Fr. Tom Berg: Yeah, and I mean, my sense is you’ve really done yeoman’s work there and you’ve really taken that a long way. And I know too, like, Monty, you know, if you wanna jump into it, but I know you’ve done some reflection on metaphysics, right? I would just say that there’s more work to be done. And kind of speaking as a philosopher and a theologian, I just think we need to do a little bit more of like the step back and reflect on this kind of theologically and look at this in a, you know, especially when we’re talking about, for example, I mean, I think one of the key issues, for example, the whole unicity of the human person versus this kind of manifold reality of inner experience of manifold parts or dimensions.

[00:15:27] Fr. Tom Berg: You know, I think there’s a good amount of work to be done there, and Catholic philosophers especially need to work together, and I think in an interdisciplinary manner with theologians, philosophers, you know, practitioners, to just kind of see, how does this fit? And I think we need more publications. I think we need more engagement and the kind of stuff too that, you know, that we do. I mean, obviously that  Souls and Hearts is doing and our like formators experiential groups. I believe the proof is in the pudding. You know, kind of like you were saying, Gerry. I mean, I think that says a lot. I do think the idea that by their fruits you will know them. I think that’s valid here as well. I think there’s work to do, just especially in terms of professional, like peer reviewed publication as well. And I think we also need to, like a number of persons, even some here on our meeting tonight have, you know, trying to find basis or at least footings, shall we say, in sacred Scripture, in the tradition. I think that’s also, you know, very, very important as well. 

[00:16:34] Monty De La Torre: Yeah. Can I say a thing or two? Yeah. I’m really, I’m really curious about the actual concern itself. What exactly is the concern? Like let’s bracket off the church. Like what’s really the concern? ‘Cause I’m not, I don’t think it has anything to do with the church or what the church says or believes, because even that question itself, what does the church have to say about IFS? It’s almost nonsensical. Well, obviously nothing, because the church doesn’t know IFS. And so it’s like, whoa, what kind of certainty is the client after when they’re confronted with IFS? And I don’t think it has anything to do with theology or philosophy or some magisterial statement from the church. Does that make sense?

[00:17:15] Elizabeth Galanti: It does, and I’ll tell you what I hear when clients ask me that question. I would say that a large number of the clients that I’ve seen, they don’t know that the church doesn’t make commentary about psychological approaches. So it’s one of the first things that I say is that the church doesn’t have any opinion on a particular modality of therapy or counseling or psychology. And then I go on to explain that what’s important is the components and the particulars that we’re doing here. The way that we talk, the way that bring in, you know, that some parts are bad or some parts are misdirected, that the components and how the therapist uses it doesn’t go against the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And that we’re not bringing in any concepts that go against the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So I take it down to, one, the Catholic church doesn’t have any opinion, and two, the pieces and parts of what we’re doing in here, they align with what the church teaches.

[00:18:27] Fr. Tom Berg: So the USCCB will not be weighing in anytime soon. 

[00:18:33] Elizabeth Galanti: Well, that’s a great short answer. Thank you.

[00:18:38] Dr. Peter: It’s up to us as clinicians to really provide that to the church. This isn’t something that I would expect the USCCB or the, you know, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or other, you know, church ecclesiastical bodies to weigh in on. It’s not their area of expertise. So this is something that, you know, the laity really need to rise up and contribute to.

[00:18:59] Dr. Gerry: I just thought I’d throw out that two major things that I hear all the time and as it relates to like a Catholic philosophy or a Catholic understanding. One is this question of self and IFS’s understanding of self and that Dick Schwartz capitalizes the S in No Bad Parts, talks about self as every individual self is just a piece of a larger SELF, as all capitalized SELF. I think that we can just name as heresy, essentially. We can just name that as problematic. And that’s why I’m very purposeful about, I use St. Paul’s term inmost self. I don’t capitalize the S. We’re not divine. We are in the image of God. And so in a sense, hopefully, yeah, we will experience theosis hopefully in some way. But we aren’t in essence divine. So that is number one. Right. And the other piece that I think is kind of important is just that parts do not have their own existence, their own essence separate. I always refer to them as a kind of a phenomenological experience, if you will. They don’t have a separate existence apart from the human person. So to me, those are the two biggies that need to be answered for most Catholics that are thinking about it. 

[00:20:17] Dr. Peter: That’s something that we’ve been covering in the podcast all of 2025, last year, and then most of 2026, we’re answering those questions. We’re actually trying to address, you know, these questions about anthropology, about metaphysics, and make sure that the way that we see IFS and the way that we adjust IFS, the way that we modify it, is to harmonize it with what we know to be true by divine revelation, what the church has given us. And I think a lot of times this question comes from, to go back to your question, Monty, it comes from worried managers. It comes from worried, you know, spiritual manager parts, sometimes Catholic standard bearers, or others that are looking at the moral aspects of this. And sometimes it’s a proxy because sometimes we’re starting to get in touch with the parts that the managers have been sort of suppressing, right? So now we’re gonna start wondering if this part that’s coming up, if that’s actually okay, because that part is furious with God, or, you know, this part, you know, believes that God has abandoned her as unlovable and is starting to speak that out. And so sometimes there can be a question about the whole modality at that point. Like this is starting to unpack or uncover things that are just very frightening to these manager parts. And so the question often comes up then.

[00:21:37] Elizabeth Galanti: And, if I could just piggy tail. Piggy tail? Piggyback or piggy tail off of that, what I’ve noticed in my own practice is that since I shifted the way that I do my intake, and when I’m talking to someone on the phone, before they even start with me, I spend a little time when I’m talking to them about me. After I’ve heard about them, I spend a little bit talking about me. What I tend to emphasize is that I’m a practicing Catholic. I follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I go to daily Mass, I go to monthly confession, I go to adoration. I pray the rosary with my husband in the evening. And if there’s anything ever in the session that makes them feel uncomfortable or that somehow we’re moving away from the faith, that they can absolutely bring that up to me. And the audible sigh that I get from the person, talking to me on the phone is like, ahhh, kind of like this, whether they say it in the words or just their expression is, is you’re safe. 

[00:22:53] Dr. Peter: Right.

[00:22:53] Elizabeth Galanti: Since I started to do that, I have never gotten during the session the question, that question that I always used to get, which is, is this okay with the Catholic Church? Because I’ve established a relationship with them of who I am at the very beginning. And it goes back to what you said, Dr. Peter, that that is our responsibility as practitioners to address that and appease that. And if I were to get the question today, one of the first words outta my mouth would be, great question. Let’s talk about this.

[00:23:28] Dr. Peter: Yeah. 

[00:23:31] Dr. Gerry: If I could also just throw out, that if anyone wants to see a very Catholic ancient parts work session, just read chapter seven and eight of St. Augustine’s Confessions. It’s amazing. Like he is literally talking to different parts and he’s having a cathartic experience and, you know, he’s a doctor of the church. I’m just gonna leave it there.

[00:23:54] Elizabeth Galanti: Okay.

[00:23:59] Dr. Peter: Well, that might lead us into this question that I get a lot. And that is, how can I tell if I’m connecting with a part or with a demon? How do we keep our parts work from creating vulnerabilities toward demonic influences? The idea is like, as I start to open this up, you know, in my system, I’m just concerned about what I’m gonna encounter, and I’m concerned that this opening up, as I turn inward and begin to connect with myself, that opening up might let demonic influences in or something like that. There’s often like this very kind of spiritualized understanding. And so I’m really curious to hear if you’ve come across that sort of thing and your ideas about that and possibilities of responding to that. Yeah, Monty, go ahead. 

[00:24:51] Monty De La Torre: Yeah, the question brought up the podcast, the IFS Talks podcast, when they interviewed Bob Faulkner. Very fascinating. They interviewed him twice. The very first one that they interviewed him with. And he specializes in unattached burdens. So this very topic. And his advice was, always assume it’s a part. Always assume it’s a part. Always assume it’s a part. And even then always assume it’s a part. Until you have, until you’re absolutely certain that what you’re experiencing really doesn’t seem to be coming from the person’s system and really wants to see that person just burn. What’s really fascinating too is how he actually deals with that part. ‘Cause he’s a kind of pseudo, like naturalistic exorcist. It’s kind of interesting, but that’s aside from this point. So I think at least to begin to answer the question, I think, in my opinion, assume it’s always a part, first and foremost. Unless it comes to a point where it’s safe to assume that this is no longer something from within their system. It just keeps attacking. And in such a way that it really does not seem to have the best or any kind of good interest of the individual in mind at all. And maybe even your own internal sense starts to pick that up as well. Like there’s something frightening that’s taking place here and that might be a good indication that this is coming from something exterior to the individual’s own individual psychodynamic.

[00:26:23] Andrea Messineo: And I think those are two really important criteria, Monty. First, that the part doesn’t seem to be part of the internal system at all, and that it doesn’t seem to have any positive intent for the client. And that takes so much teasing out. Because, as Dr. Peter was mentioning, there are parts that present very scary, very aggressive, as you said. Angry at God, rageful, self-harming. At first glance, it’s different from what comes after very patiently listening and witnessing and what is finding out what is the good that this part is trying in its distorted way to get or harm to avoid. 

[00:27:20] Dr. Peter: One of the things that, I agree, especially with the, let’s assume it’s a part. Because so many times it’s turned out to be a part. And I’m reflecting about how the church approaches this with the ruling out of natural causes before we begin to, you know, assume or act as though it were demonic. And I think that’s really important, like one of those converging lines of evidence as we practice, we’re keeping it in mind what the church teaches. And I think there’s a kind of harmony there between Robert Faulkner’s approach, to assume that it’s a part, to assume that it’s in the natural realm, even when the client comes in and is, you know, concerned that this may be demonic oppression or something. So, yeah.

[00:28:12] Elizabeth Galanti: And if I can add to that as well, because part of that question that you asked, Dr. Peter, was, is this going to open me up to demonic influence? And what I’ve said back to my clients is it’s exactly the opposite actually. Because this work gets to that deeper level, it gets to the vulnerabilities that have been there for a long time so that we can hear them, we can love them, and we can heal them. And then when that happens, behaviors also then start to change, which also have the possibility of opening us up to demonic attacks. Those behaviors are also healed and they diminish. So actually an aspect of this work is it reduces it. It makes us better and more sound and more joyful and more able to live a better, more fulfilling life. And at the same time, it gives us, in a way, it gives us a safeguard against those demonic influences.

[00:29:24] Dr. Peter: Yeah.

[00:29:25] Fr. Tom Berg: I could quickly piggyback on that, it just occurs to me. I couldn’t agree more, in my limited experience. But I think Uncle Screwtape would suggest to his nephew any number of ways to distract us from doing parts work. Just to get us away from that.

[00:29:46] Monty De La Torre: I was just gonna say all of that natural level work that leads to the healing, not to mention the introduction of the spiritual guides or intercessors into that process, and then relying on them and deepening a relationship with those spiritual guides, those saints, so that then the person develops a greater increase in the kind of defense system against any spiritual attack in a very healthy way, by relying on friendships with those saints, instead of relying on this manual book of exorcism prayers, that somehow magically is just going to take care of all of my internal problems. 

[00:30:26] Dr. Peter: You know, so my experience of this is that it’s a very, very rare where I begin to question whether there is demonic influence here. But to go to that question of, you know, opening up, when, in the very few cases, really only two cases in which I think there might have been some real authentic demonic influence, it looked like the demon was attempting to connect with the most alienated parts of the person. You know, and that even the word, you know, diabolos, in Greek, means like the scatterer or the disperser. So it makes sense that when I have encountered parts that have been either condemned as demons by other parts or who have believed that they were demons, it’s because somebody else told them that, that they were demons. They were demonized and they came to believe that about themselves. They took that on as an identity when it was the furthest thing from the truth, you know, and they just didn’t know better. So even if a part were to say, you know, I am a demon, that isn’t grounds to just automatically assume that you’re dealing with something that’s demonic. Sometimes you’re dealing with a part that’s very young and very confused and very misinformed, and has been condemned and literally demonized by other parts. 

[00:31:54] Dr. Gerry: What’s remarkable too is that when Dick Schwartz was discovering basically IFS, the method, that he encountered the self, as compassionate and calm and creative and all of that. And I believe he accidentally stumbled upon the image of God in each of those people he was working with. And so when we are helping a person connect with self, through the unblending and everything else, we’re actually helping them connect with their inmost self, which is their deepest spiritual center, which is that deepest core place where they connect with God. You couldn’t go anywhere more sacred than that in the human person. And demons will flee from that. In my mind anyway, they don’t have any hold on that. And I think there’s a bit of a corollary, like with contemplative prayer, right? Like when we look inward in IFS, we are looking inside, we’re also trying to connect with God, obviously, in contemplative prayer. But we’re looking inward. We’re looking in and discovering the beauty that God created within us. And it would have to be an exceptional circumstance to encounter a demon when you do that, in my view. I’ve not encountered it, to be honest, in the work I’ve done.

[00:33:06] Dr. Peter: Well, I’m wondering if this would be a good moment to transition to the question that was on your mind, Andrea. Share with us what you come across. 

[00:33:17] Andrea Messineo: Okay. Well, we often hear in IFS circles, right, that, as Gerry mentioned earlier, there are no bad parts. As Elizabeth mentioned, there’s even a book by Schwartz by that name. No Bad Parts. It’s also commonly repeated, all parts are welcome, all parts are welcome. I began to be curious about that from the first time I heard it because, you know, it certainly seems that there are parts that are urging us to do bad things that are not, well, we don’t welcome them. We feel that in order to be virtuous, we need to employ all our strength and all our resources, which would include the combined effort of other parts, to suppress those troublemaking parts. It seems to me, and I welcome feedback on this, that authentic Catholic anthropology gives us a way to broaden this outlook and also to reframe, to better understand that IFS principle. I have a quote from the first part of St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae where he’s talking about the sensitive appetite, question 81, that is our inclinations to pursue or avoid that are more connected with the body. He writes that, “There are two appetitive powers, one through which the soul is simply inclined to seek what is suitable according to the senses and to fly from what is hurtful, and this is called the concupiscible, and another whereby an animal resists these attacks that hinder what is suitable and inflict harm, and this is called the irascible.” So what stands out to me about this passage is that Aquinas does not right away describe our concupiscible or desiring power as seeking good or avoiding bad, but as seeking what is suitable and avoiding what is hurtful. And to me, this goes a long way towards establishing the positive intent of parts. It’s a bit like when I tried to stuff my cat into his carrier to take him to the vet to get his shots, he perceives that as totally unsuitable, as causing him pain and not at all pleasurable. And he is right, according his limited point of view of, you know, his sensory point of view. And then because his desires are being frustrated, he gets angry. His irascible power activated, causing him to resist what he perceives as my attack, what is suitable for him. And he doesn’t have any choice about that. But for Aquinas, only human beings await the command of the will, which is the superior appetite. Only human beings have will and intellect.

[00:36:30] Andrea Messineo: So to, you know, take an example from my own life. If, for example, at the end of a workday, I experience a part that’s irritated at my family members for making, you know, demands on that free time, I can choose to stifle my expression of those thoughts, which would be disordered, right? That action of arguing with family members would be a disordered action. Right? But I think it’s also very important to notice that if I just stop there, if I stop with stifling the expression of anger, to me it seems that I am neither psychologically well ordered nor fully virtuous. Because Aquinas makes another distinction between being virtuous and merely being self-controlled. The self-controlled person is one who experiences a strong desire to do evil, but resist the urge. And in IFS terms, that would be a polarization, right? Where one or more manager parts are trying very hard keep a rebellious firefighter part under control. So in order to move towards virtue, in which our parts’ desires are brought under the guidance of reason, they desire in accordance with reason, we need to become self-led. And this happens not through suppressing or repressing parts, but through our innermost self actually entering into dialogue with and witnessing and ministering to parts. 

[00:38:27] Dr. Peter: This question of bad parts is a global moral attribution given from part to another part. Like that part’s just bad. That’s just like bad. And you can almost hear how young that assessment is. You know, like, how a three-year-old might call another three-year-old, bad, that he’s a bad boy. You know, that kind of thing. And other parts might understand at some level that, yes, there’s ontological goodness in parts, given that they’re part of the creation of the human person. But yeah, there’s a moral sort of qualifier that’s put on there.

[00:39:03] Tony Flood: Yeah, and I’ll jump in real quick. You know, another way of thinking about Aquinas on this is Aquinas thinks we have the identical soul and parts in the Garden of Eden as we do now. There’s no change. I mean, it’s not as if we acquire bad parts after the fall. Human nature gets wounded, and so disorders can come in, but those disorders are not reducible to ontologically bad things within the person. So yeah, it is a matter of the rebellious, I like that word there. I mean, there can be appetites that grow too strong and oh, try to override reason. And there could be warring, there could be conflict, but at no point is there anything that’s ontologically bad, because there can’t be for Aquinas, and I think the Catholic tradition as a whole on that point. And so it’s just a matter of restoring the proper order that was meant to be there from the outset. 

[00:40:10] Andrea Messineo: Yeah. Thank you.

[00:40:13] Monty De La Torre: Anthony, could you say, look at it in terms of degrees? Degrees of goodness or lack thereof?

[00:40:18] Tony Flood: For Aquinas, the goodness is gonna be indexed to virtue. The virtue is simply going to be those habits that fully perfect the powers in question. And when I did the sessions back in August, you know, I talked about, I don’t think there’s any harm in, when Aquinas talks about powers and abilities, I think we can talk about those in terms of parts. I nuanced that a bit. I think the best way to actually look at Aquinas’s picture with IFS is through the cogitative power in Aquinas, that through experience, we have associations that we form in relation to different aspects. And those things, not in a literal way, but they sort of take a life of their own and they’re part of us as we go forward. And I think if Aquinas was looking at this, I think that’s what he would say. He’d say, yeah, this is all right. It’s just, it’s different parts are reducible to how the powers interact with the cogitative power and experience. But virtues are gonna be those habits that enable all of our parts to function as well as possible. And so, presumably in the Garden of Eden, we would have perfect virtue because everything is naturally ordered. We have original justice, as Aquinas would call it. The fall takes away original justice, leads to that disorder. And then as we cultivate virtue, both naturally and supernaturally, we’re restoring the order that would’ve been there in a pristine state. And so, yeah, there are degrees of goodness. But remember for Aquinas, and I think the Catholic tradition, goodness is simply another way of talking about being. Being and goodness are interchangeable. The more being you have, the more goodness you have, the more goodness you have, the more being you have, because they’re coextensive terms. So you’re just becoming more realized, more actualized as a person, would just be the shorthand way of what we mean by better than, right, or more good than. You’re living a fuller life. I don’t know if that answers your question, Monty.

[00:42:20] Monty De La Torre: No, no, I, I think it does.

[00:42:23] Dr. Peter: Well, and you know, in looking at this, it kind of connects back to the intentionality of parts. Even in parts that have suicidal impulses, for example, or homicidal impulses, I have not run across a part that was singularly malicious. Like there was only malice. There was like some kind of, even with suicide, it wasn’t about killing myself so much as it was about relief. Or if you look at self-mutilation, cutting, you know, there was a sense of a release of tension in that. Or alternatively, I felt so dead that I needed to see the blood flow to know I was still alive, you know? So there was some kind of perceived good that the part generated an impulse toward, is kind of how I say it. You know, I don’t think parts have their own will, for example, but they can create a movement toward, or an impulse toward something. So I think what concerns like manager parts, especially spiritual manager parts that are preoccupied or concerned about the moral aspects of this, is that when those impulses are towards sinful things, how do we understand the part? And almost always, if there’s not a sufficient degree of integration in the system, the parts don’t understand that. They just condemn the part, you know, from whence they sort of sense those impulses are coming. 

[00:43:58] Andrea Messineo: And if I could just, to what you’re saying, Dr. Peter, and I chose a passage that highlighted anger in particular because anger tends to be a very disfavored or suppressed emotion. But as we dialogue with parts that are showing anger, I find that the goods that they are trying to get for us are really genuine. I mean, in the example I gave, I really do need sufficient leisure time that’s protected from encroachments. And if I can show self-leadership in asserting that for myself, then that part that I’m dialoguing with can relax and won’t have to come out so strongly and against misdirected targets in order to protect or obtain that good for me. So I think self-leadership is really essential whether we’re talking about laying the foundation for spiritual progress or for human flourishing. 

[00:45:05] Dr. Gerry: I think also if you look at Christ himself and the way he engaged with people who were deep in sin, the bad parts of society, the prostitutes and the tax collectors and all that, he tended to meet them where they were and connect with them to effect change. He didn’t just call them bad and dismiss them or exile them. So I think he’s our example of how to connect with our own parts. 

[00:45:36] Dr. Peter: Well, I think that leads us right into this next question. And I am super excited that you are asking this one, Dr. Flood. 

[00:45:45] Tony Flood: So, yeah, my question has to do with self-love and exactly what it means. In terms of IFS and just sort of the general Catholic picture, what role does self-love play? And does self-love equal selfishness? Because that’s probably the biggest question I get. My work is on Aquinas and self-love. And it’s just like, well, it just sounds like you’re writing books on selfishness. And to which I say, well, yeah, I’ve gotta write what I know. But it’s not, obviously self-love is not selfishness. And I would probably begin my answer by saying, when Aquinas is talking about proper self-love, or I’m talking about self-love, we’re not talking about being in love with oneself, right? Because I think, that sort of Pepe le Pew approach. It’s somebody self-absorbed and they’re vain. And that’s not what we mean at all. And I think we could put it. 

[00:46:41] Fr. Tom Berg: It’s not? 

[00:46:42] Tony Flood: Well, it can be, I think we could put it this way. That negative formulation would be this, that if I don’t affirm my existence as good, then I am not going to affirm the existence of anybody else as good either, for a very simple reason, right? Other people are like me. If I see apples, and I don’t like this apple, and it looks just like all the other apples, well, I’m not gonna like the other apples either, right? Because they’re similar. Well, when we talk about the love of self, that’s shorthand for the way I’m affirming my existence as good, right? The fact that I exist at all is a good thing. And that’s what Aquinas principally means by self-love. And it’s why it’s very odd to deny that as something we should all want. Because to say, well, you shouldn’t love yourself, for Aquinas would be, well, you don’t wanna affirm your existence as good? That’s not only gonna cut you off from other people, because you’re naturally gonna be averse to the goodness of other people, but it’s also going to position you badly in relation to God because God is the cause of your being. And so if you don’t think your being is good, well then, you’re not going to like, you know, whoever caused your existence either. So we could flip that all around in a positive way to say that when you affirm yourself as good, when you love yourself properly, you’re willing your continued existence. You’re willing the goods that would contribute to your continued existence. And you’re willing the goodness of other beings like you, which are other human beings, and you’re willing the source of your existence. I’m sorry, I should say that better. You are grateful to the source of your existence. Because if I am good, well then I’m gonna have naturally, if I view myself as good, I’m gonna naturally have gratitude towards the source of my existence, right? So that’s why Aquinas think self-love is so central to the being of a person. It’s literally the first act of the will, he says, is it’s, you love yourself because you’re affirming yourself as good. And if you don’t have that fundamental self affirmation, you’re not going to have any desire for continued self-preservation. You’re not gonna have any desire to go out there and seek other sorts of things. You’re not gonna have a desire to enter into relationships with other human beings, and you’re not gonna have a desire to foster a relationship with God as the source of your existence. So that’s the centrality of the love of self. That still doesn’t answer the question yet, how does that differ from selfishness? But sometimes when I get talking, I talk too much. And if anybody has something.

[00:49:22] Elizabeth Galanti: So, wow. I would love to have been able to give a response like that. And the very simple response that I give when clients ask me that in sessions, it is about unconditional love for myself and, just like what you were emphasizing, and for others. So one is not greater than the other. They’re held with equality, and that is about the exact opposite of selfishness. 

[00:49:55] Tony Flood: Right.

[00:49:56] Dr. Gerry: I think you have to ask about what is love, also. Because you mentioned Pepe Le Pew, who seems to be in love with this cat, right? And that’s not really loving that cat that he thinks, I guess, is a skunk, right? So he has a false kind of love for others. 

[00:50:10] Tony Flood: He still seems to be in love with himself, which does what? It position him in relation to the cat as something that’s going to gratify him, so he can relate to that cat only as a means to his own pleasure versus something that’s truly like him. This is maybe going way too deep on a Looney tune. 

[00:50:34] Fr. Tom Berg: We’re making a big assumption that our listeners are familiar with Pepe le Pew.

[00:50:38] Tony Flood: Well, sure. But yeah. And so love, you know, in terms of the Thomistic picture, love is fundamentally willing the good, choosing the good, seeking the good, for the sake of a person. And we generally think that in terms of other people. And I think that’s a healthy thing to do, that I love this person. I will the good to this person. But we don’t realize maybe as clearly that that’s what we’re doing in relation to ourselves anytime we will our continued existence, anytime we do something for ourselves, even eating dinner, we’re loving ourself because we’re willing the goods, these goods that will enable our physiological state to continue functioning so that we can survive and so on and so forth with everything else. Selfishness, you know, Aquinas doesn’t use the word selfish. He just calls it wicked self-love or disordered self-love or inordinate self-love. And that would be willing goods to yourself, but minimally, you’re doing them at the expense of the goodness of other people, and maybe in those really bad days, you’re literally doing it to spite other people, right? I mean, that would be at the extreme, where I’m not merely indifferent to the goodness of others. I’m literally trying to act in spite of their goodness. But here’s where, and I know I’m gonna do more philosophy than anybody probably wants, and that’s all I know how to do. 

[00:52:08] Dr. Gerry: I love it. 

[00:52:09] Tony Flood: But Aquinas’s structure here, and what’s interesting, and I didn’t talk about this when I previously talked, Peter, but I think it actually fits well. When Aquinas is talking about the difference between proper self-love in relation to others and wicked self-love. He uses the terminology of part, whole. But this is in relation to the individual person to the common good. He says, each individual is part of society. I mean, first we’re part of a family and then we’re part of a community, and then we’re ultimately part of the universe as a whole. And because of that, our goodness is inextricably linked to this larger thing, this greater good. And that’s why we feel these natural obligations toward others, toward doing other things. It’s not because it’s in contradistinction to my own wellbeing. It’s because my wellbeing is nested in as part of this larger whole. Right? And he’ll even talk about military service, that you’re willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the protection of your family and community. And that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because you’re not acting against your good when you do it, because your good as an individual is nested in that good of that society. But what I think is interesting is you can back that up and you can, instead of talking about it merely in terms of the individual as part of a whole, you can talk about the different powers and abilities of the person as a part of that person. And you have that same relationship. That there’s no thing in you, there’s no part of you that by itself has hegemony over the role of goodness. There is no part of you that is the good and everything else. Rather it’s each part has a goodness or proper functioning that’s nested in the good of the person as a whole. And that’s why when willing goods to oneself, you have to will goods in a way that’s respectful of all of you, not just some of you. And then we’ll even talk about, you know, you could devote too much time to prayer. You know, if I’m a father and my duties in my state of life is I have to, you know, help my kids. You know, going off and doing four hours of adoration may be a circumstantially bad thing to do. Even if individually that would be good interiorly to have that long contemplation, doing it at the expense of other parts of me, in effect, that I need to be mindful of in relation to that larger picture. So in other words, the parts of you in relation to others, those actually are always making reference to these different aspects of yourself in relation to your integration.

[00:55:06] Dr. Peter: That’s what blew me away about your book I read, the Metaphysical Foundations of Love, when you wrote that, according to Aquinas, the way that we love ourselves is the template by which we’ll love others. And when I read that I was like, oh wow. That was like totally mind blowing for me. 

[00:55:26] Tony Flood: Yeah. That’s one of his favorite little expressions, that the love for self is the model for how you love others, for good or for bad.

[00:55:34] Dr. Peter: Yeah.

[00:55:34] Tony Flood: So if you don’t get it right here, you’re going to end up having unhealthy relationships, in relation to others.

[00:55:43] Dr. Peter: This emphasis on self-love and this emphasis on proper self-governance. This isn’t just about getting our own house in order. This is also like the means by which can actually carry out the second great commandment, to love our neighbor as ourself. 

[00:56:02] Tony Flood: Yes. 

[00:56:03] Dr. Gerry: Like, when you’re talking about the part in the whole and the nested in society, like all I could hear you was saying, Aquinas supports systems theory. And the idea that we are a system and whatever we do is affecting everybody else in that system, even if we may think we’re doing a good, we could be doing something that harms the system. So I loved what you had to say there.

[00:56:26] Dr. Peter: I do sometimes run across this in therapy generally. I remember, you know, moms especially of larger homeschooling families saying, I can’t take time for me to do this work. I can’t. I have so many other obligations, you know, I need to focus on my kids. I don’t have time to do therapy. And this idea that the way that we love ourselves is the form and the root of the way that we’re gonna love others. Like this has been really powerful for helping, again, manager parts, because manager parts are the ones that bring people into therapy, typically speaking. I mean, sometimes it might be so desperate that a firefighter’s bringing somebody in, you know, kind of, again, phenomenologically or possibly an exile. But most of the time it’s managers. And you know, I will often kind of talk with parts around the idea that, you know, any part of you that you reject, you know, that you exile, you’re gonna reject the counterparts of that part in other people. Because if those parts start to come up, it’s almost like two tuning forks, you know, tuned to the same frequency. You know, if one begins to vibrate, it begins to like activate or the other one starts to resonate. And when I do consultation or supervision with clinicians, what I find is that the things that they most struggle with in loving their clients, willing the highest good for their clients’ parts, are the counterparts to their own parts that have been condemned, rejected, exiled, and so forth. And there’s no amount of continuing education or no amount of professional development that’s gonna get you through that. You actually to do your own human formation work as a clinician or as a spiritual director or as a coach. So that’s the whole reason why we created the Formation for Formators Community. It’s all about formation for formators, to being able to really help those who accompany others to develop that capacity to love themselves in a more complete way so they have the capacity to love others in a more complete way. So what was so exciting about reading that book, The Metaphysical Foundations of Love, your book, Tony, was that it like gave a Thomistic rationale for that. And then your second book, which was more on self-governance or maybe that was your first book, I can’t remember the order you wrote them in. 

[00:58:57] Tony Flood: First was self-governance and then, yeah. 

[00:58:58] Dr. Peter: Right, right. The first book was on self-governance. I mean, that actually has been really helpful for me as a parent, you know, to think about how do I manage a system, as you were saying, Gerry, the system of my family, seven kids. You know, like how do I think about this in terms of governance? And I realized that the difficulties I have in appropriate governance, whether that is, you know, in leadership role in  Souls and Hearts, or whether it’s with my family, like it’s gonna reflect the difficulties I have in my own self-governance, you know. The same kind of dynamics, more at the macro level, you know, reflect the difficulties at the personal level or the micro level. 

[00:59:36] Tony Flood: Yeah. And I think Aquinas can summarize it simply. He thinks this is simply the two greatest commandments taken together. That we love God first, as the source of our existence. And then we love our neighbor as ourself. And we always say the neighbor part first because that’s how Jesus says it. But the self is logically prior, right? We love our neighbor as ourself, so it’s the fact that we love ourself. So it’s God, self, neighbor. It’s also that anchor that, you know, you never wanna lose sight of the fact that you have this primordial relationship with God, because that’s what you’re also bringing then to love of neighbor as well. And love of neighbor here, of course, just means love of other people. So that’s gonna include your family members and all the rest.

[01:00:23] Dr. Peter: Well, I wanna move on in the interest of time. So, yeah, I’m really interested in this question that Dr. Monty De La Torre is gonna bring up about parts. Because I’m really interested in hearing the answer to this. 

[01:00:36] Monty De La Torre: Yeah, so even Schwartz has alluded to this, about doing work with the part and then that part having a part, and then that part potentially having a part. And then he’s like, oh, who knows? And so, what do you do with a client who starts to create a multiplicity of parts? Like not just, oh, I have this part and I have that part and I have that part and I have that part. But then they create the multiplicity within the part itself. So it’s like, oh, and this part has a part. Oh, and then that part has a part. So I can see a potential objection to IFS. Like, well, if the person starts to create all these parts, then it’s going to lead to greater fragmentation and therefore undermine the very modality or the very theory from the get go, so to speak. And so that’s kind of more or less the objection.

[01:01:26] Dr. Peter: I call that the infinite regress of parts. You know, parts having parts. 

[01:01:30] Monty De La Torre: Yeah, the infinite regress of parts. Yeah. So my initial response is, okay, are we talking about a potential infinite or an actual infinite, ’cause I think there’s a distinction there. There’s debate about that on a philosophical level, and Anthony probably knows that pretty well. And I’m sure Fr. Tom as well. You’ve probably touched upon that in your research and reading and so forth. But two things that came to mind, and one to what you said, Peter, in response to that, in the email, was it seems like the person can only sustain so much like multiplicity within themselves. And so, at some point, it doesn’t seem like it really is feasible or possible, you only have a certain number of parts that can manifest, at the very least, at once or over a certain period of time, without causing serious damage to the individual. And I don’t think, and correct me if I’m wrong, if this is what you were implying, that it’s in the power of the individual to undermine themselves on a psychological level in that way. It seems like it’s overly too sophisticated. So that was one thing. And then number two, I wonder if that’s just the smokescreen being created by an individual part. Do you see what I mean? Yeah, if it’s a defense mechanism from an individual part to protect themselves by creating other parts so that you don’t have to deal with that part or it’s protecting certain parts. And then, what was the third? Just the third point was, do we actually see that in practice? And do you actually see someone creating this part after part and part within part, part within part in actual practice? And then, to the point where it starts to actually undermine the very practice of the therapeutic modality. It doesn’t seem like there’s some rapid case of this going on. So those were my three points.

[01:03:23] Dr. Peter: You know, I’ve never seen it in practice where, you know, people are generating more and more and more parts, parts within parts within parts. I have seen it on Reddit. I’ve seen it on Reddit. I have not seen it in practice. But if it’s on Reddit, it must be true. You know, I think this is really interesting, because when I encountered Internal Family  Systems, you know, I basically believed that that was really the only modality that I was using. And my colleague and friend, Dr. Peter Martin, when we were down in New Orleans for the Catholic Psychotherapy Association meeting, we were talking about this, and he said, no. He said, you bring in still a fair amount of psychodynamic, psychoanalytic stuff because each of the parts that you talk about has a personality. You know, you’re thinking about this in terms of personality theory. And I think that I failed to realize that, yeah, I was just basically using everything I learned about personality, personality theory, personality structure, levels of structuralization of personality. I was just bringing that into a parts level. And that folks that don’t have that might be very inclined to do more of this, you know, kind of regress and think of parts as having parts, because that’s a way that they’re trying to make sense of the experience of a part. But I mean, with the background I have in personality, I’ve never found it necessary to like think of parts having parts, ’cause even if a part is conflicted, you know, ’cause sometimes parts can be of like two minds, so you might be inclined to go to, like, well, there’s two parts in that part then, I’ve always thought about it just in terms of the way that psychoanalytic thinkers would think about conflict within a personality. So I’ve never really been troubled by it. And I think it comes pretty naturally to parts and to people to just think of it in terms of personalities or sub personalities. So, yeah, but that was kind of disturbing when I saw, you know, Richard Schwartz saying that, you know, well, he also would say every part has a soul. And he actually makes the argument in No Bad Parts. I think it’s on page 19, that every part has a body. And he recognizes that that might be hard to understand, but he basically says that phenomenologically every part experiences the body differently. So he considers every part having its own body, which, I find that hard to translate into something that would be grounded in an appropriate metaphysics or anthropology. 

[01:05:42] Tony Flood: Yeah, I’m new to this question. But it is interesting. The question goes back to Plato and I won’t bore you with details, but in one of his dialogues, he takes up what he calls the third man argument, having to do with his theory of the forms, that we participate in forms. And he says, well, wait a minute. What makes me in common with the form, the perfect form? Well, there would have to be a more general form that captures both of that. But wait a minute, what makes all three of us in common? There’s gotta be another one. And that’s the infinite regress. And he doesn’t solve it in this particular dialogue. It’s the Parmenides, I believe. Aristotle, his student, will later say, well, the problem is, is you’re thinking about forms as substances, as things that exist on their own, and let’s not do that. And without getting into the details of that, I think it actually applies here, because I think if as soon as you make the self the fundamental substance, or at least the self is that which comes out of our ontological substance, that that isn’t always a subjective experience thing. It’s a metaphysical thing that then has these conscious experiences. Then that anchors everything else. And so at that point, I don’t think it becomes an infinite regress that’s a problem, because if it’s regressing, fundamentally it’s always gonna come back to the fundamental self. If you’re regressing upwardly, and like each thing can be further analyzed, well then I think it’s just, as Monty was saying, it’s an actual versus potential thing. There’s really no danger in that. Probably wouldn’t be helpful to get to the minutia of going that direction. yeah, it potentially would be open-ended, but it doesn’t affect, it doesn’t threaten the fundamental unicity of self because that’s gonna be grounded in substance of a person.

[01:07:35] Andrea Messineo: I just wanted to chime in from a clinical standpoint. I like how it was brought up that much depends on the formation of the formator, right? The therapist, counselor, practitioner who is facilitating this work, right? And I think it’s useful to check within, right? Is there any part of ourselves that maybe is coming to the work with an agenda, an agenda to discover as many parts as possible, right? As if that were something to strive for. In my own practice, I often find it helpful to think in terms of a multiplicity of roles rather than infinitely multiplying parts. Parts can carry out different roles.

[01:08:23] Dr. Peter: And I think that’s where on Reddit, you can find folks that If they have a new feeling or a new experience, it’s a new part. You know, but their parts tend to be when they get to be multiplied the scores of parts, you know, we’re getting into 40, 50, 60, I’ve seen as many as 3000 parts, you know, claimed by people on Reddit. I think you’re getting into very, like tiny splices or splinters of experience, you know, that are now being sort of attributed to a different part. And I’ve seen that happen just in work. You know, sometimes people realize, wow, this is the same part, it’s just same part at two different phenomenological ages, or this is the same part, but it has these two roles that I didn’t know. And I assumed that they were two parts, but it’s really two roles in one part, you know? So sometimes it’s easier to identify the burdens or it’s easier to identify the extreme roles and it actually takes a little bit longer to kind of connect it to the parts that bear those burdens or that carry out those roles.

[01:09:26] Dr. Gerry: Can I just throw out something on that? I would just say that the human person is not a collection of parts. And you start to, it almost feels like that’s what’s happening. Like you’re just analyzing yourself to death, you know, finding this infinite regression of parts. And I think that I would say, the human person, at a maybe a more core level is the innermost self, right? Like that’s created in God’s image and that kind of best reflects that. It isn’t a part, it is sort of central. And I think it’s rather horrific thought to me that every part has a self and goes on and on. ‘Cause it really does destroy the unity of the human person. ‘Cause even though we’re talking about multiplicity, an inner multiplicity, a very Catholic notion is that we’re a unity. We’ve lost that, completely lose that sense of a unity. And that what unites us, I think, is our innermost self, and the fact that God has created us uniquely and also in his image. And all of our parts need to unite around that, right? And then we feel whole, we feel in harmony, we flourish that way, right? And so this exercise of exploring millions of parts and selves within parts is, in my mind, unhealthy. So I just, that would be my perspective on it.

[01:10:45] Dr. Peter: I think it happens when there is a lot of excitement in parts about just discovering the whole idea of parts. And there can be this huge emphasis on multiplicity and this huge emphasis on the fact that there are these diverse parts and they’re in relationship with each other, and that can be really compelling because it’s got so much explanatory power to help us understand what’s going on inside, that I think for a while, both clients and sometimes clinicians can lose track of the essential unity of the human person as well. You know, so that it’s sort of multiplicity at the expense of unity rather than multiplicity and unity, complementing and supporting each other.

[01:11:29] Monty De La Torre: If I may just add something to both what you’ve said, Peter and Gerry. I think that’s also what I’m trying to show in these four part series that I wrote, is that there is a metaphysical reality behind these parts, but nevertheless, they cannot exist without the substance. And so always remember there’s a single substance there and it’s you. Kind of like, I’ve spoken to Peter Martin about this, it’s kind of, like in the movie, the Sixth Sense, where he finally, have you seen the movie, the Sixth Sense? Oh, I’m gonna spoil it for you then.

[01:12:02] Dr. Gerry: Bruce Willis. And Billy Joel Osmond. 

[01:12:04] Monty De La Torre: Anyway, there’s a moment in the movie where someone realizes that it’s all coming from them, basically. It’s like the multiple personality disorder, whatever. It’s like, oh, no, no. I’m the one that’s been creating this. And so I think that’s important for the client to recognize. It’s like, yeah, these parts have a real kind of existence, but nevertheless, it’s always in a certain respect. It’s like this is still all like about you. It’s all coming from you. These aren’t other substances that are kind of controlling you like some kind of marionette puppet. It’s like it’s still you in this. And I think it’s part of it is getting them to recognize that both the one and the many, within the emphasis of the one being a single substance, made in the image from God, et cetera, et cetera.

[01:12:56] Dr. Peter: Well, yeah, and it was really helpful to me when, this was the earlier series that you wrote a while back when you discussed how parts have accidental form, but not substantial form. That, that really was helpful for me to sort of to be able to understand this because there are so many folks that do have some kind of philosophical or theological training, a lot of Thomists that get interested in this, but they really want to know like, huh, can this be squared? Because yeah, if you go on YouTube and you look up IFS you can find all sorts of, know, sort of interpretations, all sorts of anthropologies, as we were kind of talking about at the beginning. But I wanted to go to your question, Gerry. Yeah, just to kind of bring this home with this question you had. 

[01:13:43] Dr. Gerry: Yeah. So my question is, how does the Catholic understanding of conscience relate to parts in IFS? Right. Specifically, are there parts that take on functions of the conscience? And how do we distinguish a well-formed conscience from a part who merely performs the function of conscience? And I don’t know. I could say more, I suppose, like I do kind of wanna just hear people’s thoughts primarily than give my own, but especially like working with people with scrupulosity issues and so on, like they have what seems to me manager parts that are acting, performing the role of hyper conscience. And my own thought, I’d love to hear from the philosophers especially too, like would be the innermost self is like the heart, the heart of hearts, if you will, within us, is kind of conscience. It wants the good, it knows good and evil. It has a sense of what is wrong innately. And so that would be the, in my mind, the truer conscience. And so anyway, I’ll throw that out. 

[01:14:48] Fr. Tom Berg: Can I jump in? Just 2 cents, because I think we talked about this, Peter, in a previous, right? I think I said last time, and kind of using Thomas’s understanding of conscience primarily as a judgment of, prudential judgment imbued with the virtue of prudence. But it’s, I think it’s in agreement there with kind of what Gerry’s saying. I think it’s the innermost self is best placed to really kind of get in touch and formulate that judgment. So I mean, I think it’s the innermost self that’s best disposed to grasp a genuine judgment of conscience. And yes, I mean, hard agree. There’s, I think, all kinds of parts that wanna play that role. I think it’s definitely at the heart of scrupulosity. I’ve also noticed, I think in my own inner work, like a self-like part also that wants to play that role. 

[01:15:49] Dr. Peter: Yeah, I mean, and I think again, that’s out of a sense of trying to protect, to keep things safe, trying to keep things going. It’s not just a power grab for the sake of a power grab. It’s more like to try to keep unruly parts in order or, you know, other things so that one can remain acceptable to God or remain in a state of grace or whatever the framing is. But I come across that a lot. And it’s been reinforced in some ways. There was a book called Boundaries for Your Soul by two friends of mine. I really enjoy these co-authors. And it did insinuate that the conscience was like a part, and we actually discussed this in a review of that book, that the conscience was a part, in a sense. And we pushed back on that. Because yeah, I think it’s not a single faculty or it wouldn’t be a single part. 

[01:16:43] Dr. Gerry: I think it’s interesting that one of the eight Cs is not conscience, and this says a little something. But maybe conscience relates to kind of calm, clarity, whereas a part that is acting like, you know, like the conscience might be showing up as shame, flooding and threatened and harsh and rigid and urgent. And that might be a way of distinguishing. 

[01:17:10] Dr. Peter: Well, you know, I wanna bring this to a close by just inviting each of you to share with us like a key takeaway, like a, you know, one or two lines of just something you would like our audience to remember. And it could be something we’ve brought up in our time today, in this episode. Or it could be something else all along the lines of parts and morality or ethics or, you know, anything having to do with this idea of grounding IFS in a Catholic understanding of, you know, our anthropology, our metaphysics, morality, or any of that. So just anything that you would like folks to remember. 

[01:18:00] Fr. Tom Berg: I think I am moved to just keep working on this, again, kind of with those parts of me that are very philosophically curious. And I still want to keep thinking about this, you know, with Aquinas and love the work that some of you’ve done. And Tony, I look forward to, you know, reading your book. And, you know, I do wanna kind of keep playing with this sort of at an intellectual level. I think that does a lot of good. And to do that kind of in an interdisciplinary way and to keep doing things like this. But I also know that, when the day’s done, that work has to be anchored in my own inner work. I mean, I honestly, I don’t watch that many YouTube videos. Maybe I should. What I learn about IFS primarily comes from like my own inner work and then work that I’ve done, you know, kind of experientially with other colleagues and friends. And so, yeah, I’m just kind of energized to keep doing that. So thank you, Peter, for making a forum like this happen. And it’d be really fun to even, you know, to keep doing this again. 

[01:19:12] Monty De La Torre: Two things really. One, to encourage people to be vulnerable, to do the work. So much good can come from doing that interior work. So that’s one. And then number two, I’m convinced by the metaphysics of parts. And so to me, it’s like that’s already a done deal. Now the more interesting question for me is which modality actually works best on parts under certain circumstances? Is it just the IFS protocol? Is it a combination of IFS and EMDR or what have you? Or maybe even some CBT, knowing very well that the person knows that they’re talking to parts. I know, but I’m just saying, you know what I mean? It’s like once you understand the metaphysics of it, okay, we’re not gonna question anymore whether parts exist or not. That’s just a given. That’s a kind of like mute. That’s boring already. Now how do we actually best bring about healing with the parts? That becomes more interesting to me.

[01:20:02] Andrea Messineo: I was going to say I resonated with the idea of self as created in the image and likeness of God, and called to just show that love and acceptance to parts and minister to them. I find, you know, in this work, you know, encountering self sometimes is the client’s first experience of unconditional love and acceptance, whether on the human level or, because of distorted God images that have been presented or experienced, even on the spiritual level. I think, you know, many of us have had clients that initially say, well, why can’t God just heal my wounded parts? Why do I have to do this work? Why can’t he just intervene directly? And I tell them, that just doesn’t seem to be how we are made. That doesn’t seem to be the order of things. It seems that God invites and wants our participation, through self-leadership.

[01:21:14] Tony Flood: Yeah. And I would, you know, similar to that, that the most proper response we can give to anything that’s good is love, I think. Because we’re recognizing the goodness of that thing and we’re willing that it continued to be. And recognizing that ourselves as good means that we ought to love ourselves, which means we ought to affirm ourselves. And what it is to be a self is a very complex thing. I mean, yes, it is easily summed up with image and likeness of God at the deepest level, but the lived reality is a very messy thing. But all of those things have a place somewhere.

[01:21:53] Dr. Gerry: I’ll just throw out, I’ll take this like opportunity to just respond really, really quickly to what Monty said about modalities because, and what modalities to use with parts. I love that question. If you look at the common factors research in terms of where they’ve studied what works in therapy across the board, that there are two things that stand out that predict effective therapeutic gains. And that is the working alliance or the relationship between therapist and client. And number two is hope or positive expectancy, which is basically hope. And so the number one thing is that relationship. So the number one thing in terms of relating to your parts is gonna be the inmost self connecting to the part. And that relationship is going to be a predictor of healing and growth and success more than whether you were going to, you know, bow to using CBT or some other method. But, so I just throw that out. I will say, I was the most moved by what Dr. Flood said about being and goodness. And I want to explore that more. I like that. And the idea that goodness is, you know, you are more realized or actualized as a person is what he said, and that you have a fuller life. I think that speaks to human flourishing. I think that speaks to so much of the focus I’ve been working on lately. And I love that notion because we tend to think of, like we’re talking about no bad parts. Like we think in terms of good and bad and sometimes we think, oh, I have to do the good thing, when in fact, goodness leads to fullness of life, right? And I wanna explore that more. So thank you.

[01:23:31] Dr. Peter: And for me, the key takeaway is to really just grapple with these questions and to be willing to make some mistakes and to take some risks and to trust that God in his goodness will guide us. Especially if this is an effort to receive love and to love. You know, I think it all goes back to that for me. So it was really moved also by your emphasis on ordered self-love, Tony, and your follow up there, Gerry. What really is appealing IFS to me is that opens the door for me and for folks I’ve worked with, you know, in my practice, in the Resilient Catholic Community, in the FFF, to really being able to understand what it means to love oneself. You know, there’s been so much ink spilled over the two great commandments, but it’s almost all been on what it means to love God or what it means to love your neighbor. There’s been almost nothing on what it means to love yourself. Very little about that, and what little is out there isn’t well understood, as you know, Tony, ’cause you’ve spent your life really kind of bringing this to the fore. But it also gives us like the way to like help the rubber meet the road and to actually like have a way to love ourselves, a way to understand ourselves and a way to love ourselves. And so, for me, when I think about the moral questions, it’s not just about errors of commission. Usually our spiritual manager parts overweight committing errors or committing sins, where I think the greatest sins are sins of omission, where we don’t make the attempt to love. You know, we don’t try to carry out the two great commandments. It’s that omission. And so I think this really empowers us to be able to learn how to love ourselves and then that opens the door to being able to love our neighbor as ourselves. So there’s a moral question to not doing this stuff, to saying, you know, I’m not gonna make an attempt to get out of my limitations. You know, so just my takeaway is to like, yeah, try something. You know, like, let’s see if we can stretch ourselves and get outside our box and find ways, whether it’s IFS or whether it’s some other way of understanding your experience, that you actually be stretching able to do that and not just stay in the same place. 

[01:25:51] Dr. Peter: So, if you really like this episode, let us know. Give us a written review on Apple Podcasts. We haven’t gotten any reviews, written reviews, like word reviews since 2024, so we’d love to get some more reviews on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify. Subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. You can join the conversation on our YouTube channel, at Interior Integration, the number four, Catholics. Interior Integration 4 Catholics, and we can continue the conversation. Bring in the questions you might have. We will answer them. One of us will at least. And I wanna let you know that resources from each of our panel members will be available in the description of this episode on YouTube and on all the podcast platforms in the episode description. So you see how seriously we take moral questions, how much effort we put into our prudential judgment and offering human formation resources at  Souls and Hearts, especially in the Resilient Catholics Community, which is at soulsandhearts.com/rcc. And I wanna share with you the why of the Resilient Catholics Community, the RCC. Why? Why do we do what we do? Well, it’s to help you to receive love and to give love. It’s all about living out the three loves in the two great commandments. And my staff and I, we’ve pulled together so many great resources to help you toward thriving and flourishing on the way to that union with God. And the RCC provides a library of hundreds of different resources, talks, articles, blogs, podcasts, experiential exercises to support you in your inner human formation work. And we have about 270 current members, we have a structured program of 44 weekly 90 minute meetings. Okay, that’s over the course of a year, with your company of five to eight other pilgrims on this journey of human formation. It all starts with the PartsFinder Pro. And this is a set of about 23 measures, takes about two hours to complete, and at least two members of our staff generate this six to nine page report that details our understanding of your hypothesized parts and the possible ways that they interact with you. You can download a PDF as a sample fictional report for a man and a woman. And this is to get you jumpstarted in this whole adventure of connecting with your parts. We also use the PFP results to help match you with a companion for daily check-ins, accountability. And also the RCC connects you with like-minded Catholics from around the world who are committed to their human formation. It’s all informed by Internal Family  Systems and grounded in an authentic Catholic understanding of the human person. We accept new applications every February, June, and October. You can get on our interest list at soulsandhearts.com/rcc. 

[01:28:54] Dr. Peter: And then also just wanted to let Catholic formators know that there is a formator retreat, August 10th to the 13th, 2026 at the Mother of the Redeemer Retreat Center in Bloomington, Indiana. The theme for 2026 is authentic being and authentic relating, and this retreat focuses on you finding and loving more of your parts, parts you have not yet encountered, your exiles. You can find out much more at soulsandhearts.com/fff. And then finally, just wanna let folks know that you can reach me in my conversation hours, which are every Tuesday and Thursday from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time on my cell, 317-567-9594. It is just with such a great big open heart and so much gratitude to all of you for being here tonight. This has been just a lovely and wonderful conversation and an invitation to all of you in the audience to ask questions, you know, to get on the chat, into our YouTube channel, Interior Integration for Catholics. And post questions in the YouTube space for this episode. And one of us will definitely get back to you. And with that, I’d just like to bring this to a close by invoking our patroness and our patrons. Our Lady, our Mother, Untier of Knots, pray for us. St. Joseph, pray for us. St. John the Baptist, pray for us.