Unlike some personality-type indices
the Enneagram
remains untested by any scientific study

The Enneagram and Catholic personalism

By Christopher Rees

The Enneagram is said by its enthusiasts to have originated within Sufism in Afghanistan in the centuries following the Islamic Conquest, perhaps about 800 A. D.1 The broader consensus of scholars is, however, that the Enneagram is more likely to have arisen in Sufism no earlier than 1322,2 if, indeed, it arose in Sufism at all (see below). This was the period when Sufism came to acquire “Neoplatonic and Oriental influences that provided its mode of expression . . . . It is the tendency characterized as the `Unicity of Being’ (wahdat al-wujud) in which created being annihilates itself and is transmuted into the Divine and in which the world is God-made-manifest and God-set-forth.”3 The influence of Parmenides is clear in this period, as also that of Brahmism and Avicenna.4 Gnosticism loaned dualism to Sufism, as well as Gnosticism’s characteristic antitheses such as “body/ bad, spirit/good; created/bad, Divine/good; man/bad, God/good.”5 If the Enneagram originated in Sufism (and as shown below, there are compelling reasons to believe that this is a “creation legend” the origin of which actually only dates sometime between 1925 and 1949), then its proposal to define created persona in terms of its negative “dynamisms” stands explained.

After 1322, Sufism came to borrow heavily from Gnostic traditions.6 Modern Sufism bears a Gnostic-like spiritual hierarchy: shaikhs hold a status in every respect comparable to Hindu gurus. Sufistic theology is pantheistic.7 Sufism progressively declined after 1500, leaving few adherents today.8 Twentieth-century Sufism is a form of pantheistic monism.9

The Enneagram finds no mention in Webster’s Dictionary,10 either of Melton’s works on world religions,11 and Catholic University of America’s New Catholic Encylopedia. Anecdotally, Sufi friends of mine in San Diego were unfamiliar with the term, the glyph and the concepts behind the Enneagram, and this as late as 1997.12 Enthusiasts aver that the complete silence until 1949 of Sufic literature and of literature of the West is due to the Sufis having guarded the Enneagram system as a secret oral tradition for many centuries.13 The fact is, theEnneagram makes its first historical appearance, not in Sufic, but in French literature!

Before 1925, a Russian named Georgei Ivanovich Gurdjieff 14 fled the Revolution to France, where he set up in that year a center for esoteric knowledge at Fontainebleau.15 The first book even mentioning the Enneagram actually did not appear historically until 1949, when Gurdjieff’s disciple, Peter Ouspensky, published a cursory six page account of it in his book In Search of the Miraculous. A brief eight page article about the Enneagram appeared in 1971 in the May Psychology Today, by Chilean psychiatrist Oscar Ichazo, a sometimes speaker at the avant-garde Esalen Institute in the United States. It was at the Esalen Institute in the 1970s that the Enneagram was developed by Dr. Ichazo and his collaborators by introducing the Freudian/ Jungian-sounding “types” and “indicators” along with their “descriptions.”16 Subsequently, Dr. Ichazo’s collaborator Claudio Naranjo of Esalen Institute established a nationwide network of small Enneagram groups. Among Naranjo’s early students was Father Robert Ochs, S. J., who promptly began teaching a four-lecture unit on it in his religious experience classes at Chicago’s Loyola University.17 The fad quickly spread among Jesuits and then to other religious orders.

Highlights of Enneagram: the 1984 Beesing-Nogosek-O’Leary Text

The Enneagram symbol (or glyph) is a circle surrounding a nine-pointed star, which represents the nine Gurdjieff-Ouspensky-Ichazo “personality types” into which, enthusiasts believe, all human beings can be sorted.18 The nine personality types are considered to be false personalities 19 — defense mechanisms concealing compulsive neuroses.20

The authors of a leading “Catholic” Enneagram text written in 1984 say the basic personality is and will always remain a “sin type.”21 Learning what type it is offers the “new freedom” of awakened “self-criticism.”22 This means “always having something to repent, something to confess as sin, something to make resolutions about for the future.”23 The Enneagram: A Journey of Self-Discovery 24 consists mostly of descriptions of the nine types, which, like newspaper horoscopes, each include qualities recognizable in virtually everyone. It also offers advice about how to overcome each “compulsion” as well as describing each type’s “appropriate colors”25 and “animal totems.”26 This text represents an attempt to put the Enneagram in a Catholic perspective by referring to personality fixations as “sin”27 and representing the “Enneagramic Jesus”28 as a model of wholeness who possessed all nine personality types, yet lived them without the “sin of compulsion.”29 The authors, astonishingly, fail to grasp the obvious contradiction between this last statement and the very axioms from which the Enneagram is derived: “Relating this phenomenon of ego consciousness to the nine personality types in the Enneagram is basic to the study of the compulsions in their cause.” [Emphasis added].30 Although I wrote the above analysis in 1990 in reviewing the text at the request of a friend,31 a perusal of the texts by Zuercher, Palmer, and Riso confirms there is no compelling reason to alter it.
The 1995 Nogosek text32

Robert J. Nogosek, C. S. C.33 in his 1995 text states that the Enneagram has the following axioms as origins.34

Between the ages of four and six,35 ALL children choose a stance toward the world outside themselves based on their self-concept:36

1. I am bigger than the world, a stance of INDEPENDENCE
2. I am smaller than the world, a stance of STUBBORNESS
3. I must adjust to the world, a stance of SELF-ABSORPTION

ALL children choose a mode of behavior for each stance, one of the following for each stance:37

1. aggression, against the world, a mode of COMBATIVENESS
2. compliance, with the world, a mode of CAPITULATION
3. detachment, from the world, a mode of DISCONNECTEDNESS

There are thus NINE Enneagram personality types by forming stance-mode pairs, grouped by three triads (gut, heart, head) of adjacent numbers, so that each triad receives one of the three stances:38

8. independence ................... combativeness
2. independence ........................ capitulation
5. independence ............... disconnectedness
1. 1stubborness ...................  combativeness
7. stubborness .......................... capitulation 
4. stubborness ................. disconnectedness
3. self-absorption ................. combativeness
6. self-absorption .......................capitulation
9. self-absorption ..............disconnectedness

Triad 1 thus is formed by grouping 2-3-4 as heart personalities; triad 2 by grouping 5-6-7 as head personalities; and triad 3 by grouping 8-9-1 as gut personalities. Nogosek (rightly, I think) calls each of the nine personality types an ego fixation. Before I had an opportunity to read Nogosek’s The Enneagram: Journey to a New Life (during the weekend of September 23 - 24, 2000, urged to do so by my Novice Director), I had written to my Novice Director stating that “The authors of a leading `Catholic’ Enneagram text written in 1984 39 say the basic personality is and will always remain a `sin type.’”40 I also said concerning this assessment, based on an analysis of current literature 41 on the subject of the Enneagram that “there is no compelling reason to alter it.” The personality types, the ego fixations, of the “Catholic” Enneagram systems are indeed “sin-types.”42

Enneagram enthusiasts see an Enneagram system as being at the root of ALL human behavior.43 The 1995 text by Nogosek reaffirms that NOBODY has the power to change their “sin type.”44 The question for anybody, but especially a Catholic, is “Are the preceding two assertions true? Is all this really true?”

Scientific Problems with Enneagram Systems
A person might, on superficial inspection, conclude that the varied and often widely varying “indicators,” “descriptions” and “dynamisms” proposed by different enthusiasts have a scientific ring, and further conclude thereby that some scientific method was used to arrive at them. The contrary is true. The Enneagram comes from each author full-blown, the grouping of each “description” essentially depending only on the whim, tastes and a priori prejudices of the author. Ouspensky’s 1949 (and the first historical) “indicators” are brief and sketchy to say the least. Moreover, those of only “type 4” are discussed in detail in the next historical document, the 1971 article 45 by Chilean psychiatrist Ichazo: development of the other eight was at that time “in development and review stages.” Predictably, Ichazo’s discussion does not resemble Ouspensky’s except in the use by both of the glyph.

The various Enneagram systems have each developed outside the mainstream sciences, and their originators deny the applicability of the scientific method. In the “human” (behavioral) sciences, the same basic method, proceeding from positivist empirical principles, is applied as is utilized in the natural sciences. That is a method which entails, at a minimum, the following stages: (1) a rigorous identification of researcher philosophical prejudices and a priori assumptions, (2) hypothesis formulation, (3) determination of experimental criteria designed to test the hypothesis, (4) collection of the data pursuant to the experimental criteria, (5) statistical analysis of the results and responses (including analysis of variance, explanation of outliers, establishment of error and confidence levels, etc.), (6) acceptance or rejection, on statistical or logical grounds, of the hypothesis(es) (often including sensitivity and threshold analysis), (7) what has been often styled an “examination of conscience” to determine if the trial/experiment was actually designed correctly (i. e., to isolate the hypothetical parameters), (8) peer review and (9) publicizing the study (sometime publication, but these days often it means to make the data and their interpretation available on the Internet, too). The purpose of publicizing the study, thus making it freely available to all potential critics, is not to make a name for the researcher, but, paradoxically, to make it possible for another researcher to blow the study out of the water. A study that is above scientific reproach is the ultimate objective.

Likewise missing is the use of “blind” control groups from a population to be sampled. Instead, the method employed by the Enneagram enthusiasts is one guaranteed to reinforce acceptance 46 by subjects participating in Enneagram “workshops.”47

Reinforcement is a phenomenon seen commonly enough among behavioral science practitioners, especially clinicians, and is the primary reason that publication of claimed clinical response to prescribed therapy generally is suspect in the behavioral sciences.48

The frustrating thing about talking with Enneagram enthusiasts is that the importance of mutual subject reinforcement issues, rigorous analysis, published studies and criticism by peers (especially by experts in other fields) generally is lost on them. The Enneagram, as stated before, has “descriptions” or “dynamisms” that read like those for esoteric systems like tarot, astrology, biorhythms, etc. Unlike some “personality type indices”49 the Enneagram remains untested by any scientific study.50 Like Sufism, the “dynamisms” adopted in each of the nine “types” depends on which guru or shaikh you prefer. There are as many ways of constructing groupings and interpreting the Enneagram as there are gurus. So the only apparent similarity the Enneagram shares with the behavioral sciences is its lack of a paradigm.51

What are we to make of the three stances of all those four to six years old children? As Nogosek notes in the 1995 text, Jung52 knew of four. Jean Piaget describes more than twenty, but these represent only those he empirically studied in the course of a whole lifetime; he admits to believing that there must be many, many more.53 The stances of even the youngest children are far richer and more complex than the simplistic generalizations that are axiomatic to the Enneagram enthusiasts.

What are we to make of the three modes of behavior that all those four to six years old children demonstrate? Anyone who has the opportunity to observe children playing “dress-up” or playing “house” knows better. We find, for example, behavior exhibiting responsibility, sympathy, mercy, tenderness, affection, deference, etiquette, diligence, altruism and many, many more. In short, the modes of behavior of even the youngest children, like the stances they adopt toward the world, are far richer and more complex than anything considered axiomatic by Enneagram enthusiasts.54

What about that cut-off point, “ALL four- to six- years old children?”55 Scientists know that by age two-and-a-half normal children already have mastered the rudiments of syntax including, but not exclusively limited to, the six verb persons: first person, singular and plural; second person, singular and plural; and third person, singular and plural.56 It is ridiculous, putting the cart before the horse, to postulate that a child can talk about himself, you, and others before adopting both a stance and a mode of behavior regarding each of these. Anthropological linguistics, therefore, knows many more than nine stance-mode pairs, one for every object in the child’s range of experience, and this in children younger than three years old! The Enneagram is pseudo-science.

Enneagram: Neo-Calvinistic, Neo-Jansenistic, Neo-Gnostic
Some have made the outrageous assertion that their attempts to put the Enneagram into a Catholic perspective must be seen in the same vein as the accomplishments of St. Thomas Aquinas vis-à-vis his theological synthesis of Plato, Aristotle and Catholic teaching.57 They cite the controversy that surrounded the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, and say that the criticisms of the Enneagram systems they advocate are the same as those leveled at St. Thomas. Returning the issue to the real world, it must be stated that St. Thomas was never charged with Gnosticism, and his writings register not even the slightest hint that human nature (or any created nature) is inherently and irreformably corrupt.

Enneagram enthusiasts trumpet the marvellous way that they have been able to fit the seven capital sins of the Bible into each of the nine Enneagram personality types, noting that they only have to add two more capital sins to compose a “perfect fit.”58 Like Joseph Smith, or perhaps Mohammed, Enneagram enthusiasts are able to see clearly, and to supply, what God inadvertently forgot to include in the Bible.

Some have stated that the Enneagram may be favorably compared with twelve step programs. This is not the case. Alcoholics Anonymous makes no claim that ALL people are alcoholics. If comparison must be made, then let it be with the theological systems of the Calvinists and Jansenists, systems which hold for the utter depravity of human nature.

Enneagram systems, because their “top-most” axioms are rooted in a view of human nature that is in their essence pessimistic (the stances, the modes, and the resulting ego fixations, which are “sin-types”), are by definition Gnostic.59 But human nature (indeed, every created nature) was created very good from the very beginning,60 and Catholics hold as true the teaching that even original and personal sin are incapable of utterly obliterating this goodness in the nature and in each particular.61 Enneagram enthusiasts fail to reconcile clear and convincing evidence of positive stances and modes of behavior even in the youngest children62 with the Enneagram. The Enneagram, postulated on the “roots of evil” in human behavior, cannot be reconciled with a Catholic view of the “roots of goodness” also present in human nature. Moreover, the empirical sciences and simple personal observation (which is accessible to the powers of everyone) tell us that the Catholic view (human behavior is rooted not only in “roots of evil” but also in “roots of good”) is the correct one. Isaiah 7:15-16 says that the earliest stance of any child is with respect to good and evil.63 The Catholic view is a holistic view. The Ennegram view is a Gnostic (hence truncated) view.

The opposition between the Catholic Personalist view and the Gnostic Enneagram view has clear implications for spiritual direction. 64 Catholic Personalism flows from a correct anthropology, while the Enneagram flows from a false one.

More Catholic problems with Enneagram systems
There is no commonly accepted definition of “personality.”65 The enthusiasts fail to define the term as well, even for the purposes of discussion. Confusion of “person” (a particular instantiation) and “nature” (common to all) arises from freely attributing aspects of either to the other. This then extends to a confusion of “person” and “nature” in regard both to ordinary men and to Jesus Christ, who assumed a true human nature, became a real particular person, a man, while remaining the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity fully possessing the divine nature. Confusion here in turn presents further difficulties to the Catholic mind.

Enneagram gurus use Catholic terminology in equivocal ways without distinguishing between the different senses in which words and terms may be used. Often, this equivocation begins with defining (usually implicitly) distinctively Catholic words and terms in novel ways that are nonetheless not consonant with a Catholic understanding of them. Thus, we find confusing discussions of species, nature and individual substance, accident and defect, original sin and redemption, divine energies and works, conversion and repentance, mystical consolation and desolation, sin and compulsion66 and many others. Hence, the Enneagram enthusiasts use Catholic forms and terms to express something different from what the Catholic Church has always taught. The vocabulary they use is distinctly Catholic, but they have changed the meaning, and are guilty of “perverting the meaning and force of things and words.”67

Catholics affirm Sirach 33:11, holding that God created each particular man different from every other man.68 Gurus equivocate in order to obscure the beauty contained in this Catholic belief, thereby defeating it.69 What is common to all mankind is human nature, one only species or kind. The Enneagram would superimpose an unnecessary onerous overburden of nine “personality types” upon the wonderful and awesome simplicity of the Plan born of the Divine Wisdom. Catholics affirm that the personality of each human being is “unique and irrepeatable.”70

Enneagram gurus refer to the acquisition by four years old children of the nine personality types as “original sin”71 and not as consequences of it. The nine Enneagram “compulsions” are seen by these gurus as intrinsic to human nature and, hence, to human substance. They aver that the Enneagram compulsions cannot be changed, and we carry them throughout life, to the grave. They thus at least implicitly deny the power of grace to change or obliterate a person’s “sin type.” But what perdures in a nature is in the individual substance, and what does not perdure is an accident of the individual substance (when it is not a defect). So the “sins” of compulsion are in the nature, while the good is not, according to the axioms of the Enneagram. It follows that the good that Catholicism says is in the nature, and thereby the individual human substance, is at best no more than an unimportant accident according to the Enneagram. This is akin to saying that the good in human nature has the character of mere semblance or appearance. This is borne out in practice. Even the noblest deed is seen by Enneagram enthusiasts as having a hidden sinister motivation in the background: “The fireman was gravely injured when he saved the baby from the house fire, but it was really because he craved the praise and approval he knew it would bring.”72 Ironically, one may, by the same logic, conclude that so also their strenuous efforts and writings to promote the use of the Enneagram by Catholics are motivated by the basest of intentions!

Do enthusiasts intend to present universally defective “personality” as a “psychological” version of original sin?73 But in fallen man, original sin is a flaw in nature, not a personal sin to be confessed. Are these nine “types” flaws in the nature, like original sin? Then the Enneagram partitions nine species from what Catholics (and real science) believe is only one. Are the nine “types” to be understood as accidents of a human substance, like age, hair color, or posture? Accidents are beyond the capacity of freedom to choose that human beings possess by nature (Matt. 10:30; parallel, Luke 12:7). The nine “types” then would deny freedom to repent and the freedom to sin. Personal defect is never an accident of a human substance, but a lack where there ought to be an abundance, an absence of some good where it ought to be found. And so, blindness is lack of sight in the eye, where it ought to be present. If the Enneagram seeks to set forth the “types” as species of moral defect present by nature in each human being, then the unique capacity of each human person to sin in his own peculiar and different way is denied. But there is only one partitioning into “types” of human beings that Catholics affirm, and that is human nature itself.

Generalization from particulars is a power of the human mind, but it is never used as a means of labeling, and thereby depersonalizing and dehumanizing, particular human beings. A label is always smaller than the person we stick it on. This is very clear when we say mathematician or bigot or liberal. Likewise, “I’m a ‘4’” conveys no true understanding of myself, and neither does “he is a ‘2’” convey the deep truth about what he is in se. The Enneagram is inherently a depersonalizing and dehumanizing system for “understanding” persons, in the extreme. This is so because the numeric label it sticks on persons not only is too small for a real human being, but like name-calling in the school yard, the meaning of the label is based entirely on the most derogatory and provocative possible assumptions and terminology.

If personality is defined as, or even in terms of, “compulsion” then sin cannot be seen as a free act for which the sinner is culpable. It follows that no man is free to sin and is hence sinless. Simultaneously, it follows that “personality” cannot be attributed to Jesus, who has no weaknesses and who is utterly without sin. What about the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived without sin and preserved in perfect sinlessness throughout her life? Or St. John the Baptist, who was sanctified after his conception in Elizabeth’s womb at the Visitation?74 Or the “host of ancient ones who were perfected even before the Incarnation” and who were described by St. Justin Martyr?75 Or even the saints in heaven? Likewise, it follows that an honest man who is unable to see himself in any of the Enneagram “dynamisms” would be led thereby to conclude, perhaps falsely, that he has no “sin” and, even worse, no personality! But any finite arbitrary list of human failings by necessity must fall short of listing all the possible ways in which the human heart can fall short of God’s original plan and will for our race and its nature, and every particular human (and therefore personal) being (see Jer. 17:9-10 below). 

A Catholic is unable to use Gen. 1:26-27, Gen. 1:31, Isa. 7:15-16, Jer. 17:9-10, Sir. 33:11, 1 Cor. 2:15-16, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Timothy 4:4, and Hebrews 4:15, inter alia, as premises and arrive at “Enneagram” as a conclusion. Catholics reject Gnostic dualism and its many proposals through the centuries to define or understand created/creaturely personality merely in terms of negative and arbitrary “dynamisms.”76 Catholic Personalism (as explicated, proposed and advocated by Pope John Paul II) rejects the notion espoused by Enneagram enthusiasts that “the outcome of social interactions can be controlled by an understanding of the compulsions that drive our own and others’ sinful behavior.”77

All Gnostic forms 78 share in common two characteristics (among others already mentioned): (1) the imparting to initiates of the “the words of knowledge” (_____) that lead to spiritual enlightenment and (2) the belief that non-initiates lacking this (_____) thereby lack something of the “key of knowledge” leading to enlightenment (i. e., elitism). Catholics affirm that there is only one Way, Truth and Life, that salvation lies in following and trusting him alone, and that he is the one Word given to men by which they are to be saved, and that he is the necessary and sufficient Savior of the world, and that this knowledge is freely available for all. Human knowledge, what used to be called science, does not save. The Enneagram purports to impart this kind of knowledge. Catholics might justifiably say, “not gnosis, but Logos.” The Enneagram is a Gnostic system.

There is no conflict between faith and reason. “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”79 Hence, it has been rightly said that “the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind must reject because it is false.”

One is reminded that the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion had not a Jewish, but a French Napoleonic era provenance —and that it was revived and exploited by an employee of Czarist intelligence in 1905 to harm the Jews. Likewise, the methods of historical criticism disclose that there is no way to link Sufism and Enneagram systems. Assertions to the contrary probably unfairly connect Sufism with what are essentially superstitious systems that have no basis in science.

Advocacy of the Enneagram by some Catholics is more problematic. One enthusiast has made the astonishing assertion that the Enneagram is “incarnational spirituality.”80 On the contrary, the Gnostic roots manifest in all Enneagram systems guarantee that Enneagram systems can never be reconciled with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Catholic Enneagram enthusiasts are in the same shoes as the Inquisition, which sought from Galileo adherence to its own views, clear and convincing scientific evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Enneagram enthusiasts risk bringing upon the whole Catholic Church the same lasting scandal, scorn and indignation that the Galileo Affair brought about (with effects that are still being felt even at the present time).

Caution to Novice Directors
I grant that some directors might sincerely believe in the use of the Enneagram. Sincere belief means that they also adopt the view that “dynamisms” represent “sins” and “compulsions that drive sinful behavior.” These, then, represent the matter of sacramental Confession. Canon Law (Book IV, Title IV) guarantees the right of privacy of matters occurring and transpiring between a penitent and his confessor, extending even to the right not to confess one’s sins face-to-face but from behind any obstacle that completely conceals the identity of the penitent.81 It follows that novice directors must refrain from even the slightest suggestion that their subjects “put on parade for the whole world to see” their Enneagram “types” and “dynamisms.” Needless to say, even the merest appearance of compulsion on the part of directors in this respect is to be assiduously avoided.82 

Bibliography 

1. Maria Beesing, O. P., Robert J. Nogosek, C. S. C., and Patrick H. O’Leary, S. J., The Enneagram: A Journey of Self Discovery, Denville: Dimension Books, 1984. 
2. Canon Law Society of America, translator, The Code of Canon Law, Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983. 
3. Catholic University of America (CUA) Editorial Staff, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Washington, D. C.: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
4. Robyn M. Dawes, House of Cards: Behavioral Science Built on Myth, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. 
5. Robyn M. Dawes, House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, New York: Free Press, 1994.
6. Carl Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science, Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 1966. 
7. Carl W. Hoegerl, C.Ss.R and Alicia von Stamwitz, A Life of Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos, Liguori: Liguori Books, 2000. 
8. Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994. 
9. Hubert Jedin, John Dolan, et al., Handbook of Church History, New York: Herder and Herder, 1965. 
10. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1988. 
11. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1998. 
12. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. 
13. Jules Lebreton, Jacques Zeiller, et al., The History of the Primitive Church, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1942. 
14. J. Gordon Melton, editor, et al., American Religious Creeds: An Essential Compendium, New York: Triumph Books, 1991.
15. J. Gordon Melton, editor, et al., The Encyclopedia of American Religions: A Comprehensive Study, Tarrytown: Triumph Books, 1991. 
16. Robert J. Nogosek, C. S. C., The Enneagram: Journey to a New Life, (Denville: Dimension Books, 1995. 
17. Peter D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1949. 
18. Helen Palmer, The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others in Your Life, New York: HarperCollins, 1991.
19. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Boston: St. Paul Editions, reprint of the Paulist/ Newman translation of the 1907 encyclical.
20. Don Richard Riso, Understanding the Enneagram: The Practical Guide to Personality Types, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990. 
21. Suzanne Zuercher, O. S. B., Enneagram Companions: Growing in Relationshipsand Spiritual Direction, Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 1993.

Notes

1. Palmer, p. 3; Riso, p. 14; for a corroborating chronology, see Melton, A Comprehensive Study, p. 31.
2. CUA, volume 13, p. 780.
3. CUA, volume 13, p. 780.
4. CUA, volume 13, p. 780.
5. Lebreton, Zeiller, et al., Volume 1, p. 356 and p. 359; see also Jedin, Dolan, et al., Volume 1.
6. Melton, A Comprehensive Study, p. 31. Also, it is worthwhile to mention that Gnosticism infested not only some early Christian communities and modern Islam; there are Gnostic forms of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tao, and many other mainstream world religions, too.
7. Melton, A Comprehensive Study, p. 31.
8. CUA, volume 13, p. 780.
9. Melton, An Essential Compendium, p. 150; A Comprehensive Study, p. 31.
10. Unabridged, New College II, and MicroSoft Bookshelf 95. This is readily explained by the fact that the word “Enneagram” is (1) less than twenty years old and (2) not in accepted scientific or common usage, both of these being the criteria for inclusion in the Unabridged: see Preface, p. vii.
11. See both Melton works.
12. My former clients, Abdellah and Selwa Belaissaoui, political refugees of the Russian intervention in the Afghanistan civil war.
13. Palmer, p. 4; Riso, p. 13.
14. He was also a notorious drunk who encouraged his patrons and clients to engage in heavy drinking in order to decrease their inhibitions and hesitancy to engage in his “therapies.” See Palmer, pp. 13-15, inter alia.
15. Ouspensky, p. 19.
16. Dr. Ichazo, to set the record straight, did not call them “Enneagrams” but “Enneagons.” Dr. Ichazo, by his litigiousness, caused the transformation to the terminology used here because of the fear of lawsuit other enthusiasts acquired. Hence, the term “Enneagram” was not itself born until 1984, when Beesing, et al. was published. Palmer’s text at the time it “went to press was the subject of a lawsuit brought by Mr. [sic] Ichazo” (see Palmer, the page between p. xv and p. 1).
17. Per former (and late – he died at Perryville, Missouri, October 13, 1998 – R. I. P.) student, Fr. Willis Darling, C. M. and per former (and late – he died at San Diego, California, July 4, 1992 – R. I. P.) colleague Fr. Bernard Schuerman, S. J., formerly also secretary-treasurer of Saint Louis University.
18. Beesing, et al., p. 5, inter alia. The first part of the book is even titled Discovering One’s Compulsion.
19. Beesing, et al., p. 6, inter alia.
20. Beesing, et al., p. 5, et seq.
21. Beesing, et al., p. 7, inter alia.
22. Beesing, et al., p. 8, inter alia.
23. Beesing, et al., p. 8, inter alia.
24. Beesing, et al.
25. Beesing, et al., p. 210, et seq.
26. Beesing, et al., p. 120, et seq.; p. 210, et seq.
27. Beesing, et al., p. 7, inter alia.
28. Beesing, et al., Chapter 2.
29. Beesing, et al., p. 8 and p. 50, inter alia.
30. Beesing, et al., p. 100.
31. Fr. Bernard Schuerman, S. J.
32. See the discussion in the book cited below starting (predictably at the end of the book, and not at its beginning, where one would expect to find a discussion of axioms) on page 125 et seq.
33. See Nogosek. Significantly, the Enneagram I Workshop (a second workshop will be conducted later in the year) presented by Sister Suzanne Zuercher, O. S. B., to the novices in the Chicago Area Inter-Community Novitiate program did not present these “first principles” at all. Rather, the objective was to get each novice to self-assign himself/herself to one of the nine Enneagram number groups. It is probable that these “first principles” will be revealed to the novices at the Enneagram II Workshop. Read on to discover the purpose that this sequence of presentation for the workshops conceals.
34. See also: Beesing, et al., p. 100: “Relating this phenomenon of ego consciousness to the nine personality types in the Enneagram is basic to the study of the compulsions in their cause.” [Emphasis added].
35. See also: Beesing, et al., p. 99.
36. See also: Beesing, et al., pp. 100 - 101.
37. See also: Beesing, et al., p. 101.
38. See also: Beesing, et al., p. 101.
39. Beesing, et al.
40. I actually had written this statement in 1990, as part of my review of Nogosek’s (i. e., Beesing, et al.) 1984 text.
41. Palmer, Riso, and Zuercher.
42. Beesing, et al., p. 7, inter alia.
43. The Enneagram view of the origins of human personality cannot be squared with a Catholic view. See Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici 28.
44. See also: Beesing, et al., p. 7. The Catholic perspective is best stated by the “Cheerful Ascetic” Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos, C. Ss. R., “No one was ever lost because his sin was too great, but because his trust was too small!” (Carl W. Hoegerl, C. Ss. R and Alicia von Stamwitz, A Life of Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos, (Liguori, 2000), p. 50.) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1431 - 1433.
45. See also: Sam Keen, A Conversation About Ego Destruction with Oscar Ichazo, Psychology Today (July, 1973).
46. I. e., “brainwash.”
47. Cf. Beesing, et al., pp. 7-8: “ . . . this desire to see one’s personality as characterized by positive gifts should be made use of when introducing people to the Enneagram system. Since each type is indeed identifiable by a set of good qualities, why not begin by having people try to discover their personality type by its gifts?” [Emphasis added]. This in fact is behind the tactic of meeting initially in groups, by Enneagram number, to discuss the “dynamisms” common to that number. The group meeting is a baited hook; the inherently negative and pessimistic view of “creaturely nature” is explored only after convincing people, via reinforcement (“brainwashing”) techniques, that they belong in an Enneagram number group.
48. See both Dawes texts.
49. For example, MMPI (Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory). But see both Dawes texts for strong cautions about the proper use of MMPI and other “type indicators.”
50. Despite the protests of advocates of “transpersonal psychology,” whose results predictably cannot be duplicated by mainstream scientists. Duplicability of results is the primary concern of the scientific method that mainstream scientists use. “Transpersonal psychology” is not a science at all; demonstration of this averral would take us far afield from the focus of this paper on the Enneagram and its relationship to Sufism, Catholicism, and science.
51. See the texts by Hempel and by Kuhn.
52. Only mentioned because Nogosek acknowledges the fact.
53. The Child’s Conception of the World. Also see his Genetic Epistemology.
54. See, for example, Thomas Hayden, A Sense of Self, Newsweek: Special 2000 Edition — Your Child (Fall/Winter 2000). “Every parent knows that personality is not something that comes on gradually with age, but instead seems to be present from birth . . . . Nothing scientists have turned up to date denies that your kids are what kids have always been — their own little people with all sorts of unique behaviors and wonderful potential.”
55. The Enneagram thus gives lie to, and reduces to bitter irony, Isaiah 11:6 and Psalm 8:2.
56. See, for example, Geoffrey Cowley, “For the Love of Language,” Newsweek: Special 2000 Edition Your Child (Fall/Winter 2000).
57. See, for example, Clarence Thomson, Bishops’ New Worry: the Enneagram, National Catholic Reporter (October 27, 2000).
58. Clarence Thomson, Bishops’ New Worry: the Enneagram, National Catholic Reporter (October 27, 2000).
59. See Lebreton, Zeiller, et al., Volume 1, pp. 355-359 for a concise discussion of Gnosticism and its axioms.
60. Genesis 1:31 and preceding verses; also 1 Timothy 4:4.
61. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 405, 406.
62. E. g., newborns in the maternity ward nursery exhibit empathy. See, for example, Karen Springen, “How to Raise a Moral Child,” Newsweek: Special 2000 Edition — Your Child (Fall/ Winter 2000). This article also points out that one must marvel, not at the bad kids that come from good homes, but at the good kids that come from bad and good homes.
63. See, for example, Sharon Begley, “Wired for Thought,” Newsweek: Special 2000 Edition — Your Child (Fall/Winter 2000). Before babies are eighteen months old they can form their own intentions _ and understand the intentions of others. Amazingly, babies learn to judge good and evil before the age of twelve months!
64. I. e., it is inevitable that the neo-rigorism of the Enneagram will lead to scrupulosity in a directee with respect to ALL his behaviors and their motivations, just as Jansenism did. Other probable effects include guilt, shame, pessimism, cynicism, despair, rash judgment and resignation. Moreover, since the Enneagram is pseudo-science, it is also inevitable that it will not achieve what it purports to do: attain insight that leads to a deeper spirituality.
65. The “human” or “behavioral” sciences are nonparadigmatic; hence, there are as many definitions of “personality” as there are theorists in these fields. See Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science and Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
66. This would be contrary to a Catholic understanding: cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 387. Also, a compulsion is a psychological pathology and pathologies in the Catholic understanding do not create but rather diminish culpability; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.1860.
67. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 42.2, note 23: quoting Pope Leo XIII, Motu Proprio of March 14, 1879, Ut Mysticam.
68. Cf. Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 28.2ff: “Each Christian as an individual is `unique and irrepeatable’ . . . “
69. Cf. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 18, 19. For example, 18: “In their writings and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful . . . . Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page, one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist.”
70. Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 28.2. This is also the deeper meaning of the white stone given by Jesus to each saint in Revelation 2:17, “with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.” Thus, stone, that which permanencies forever; white, the inconceivable purity of the saints in heaven; and a new name, the character, the personality, unique and irrepeatable, which perfectly expresses a person’s real identity as known only to God. At the same time it is the heavenly creature’s own perfect self-expression, contributing perfectly and forever to the glory of God in and through the heavenly creature. This special and unique quality, his personality, is the creature’s unique and special contribution to the everlasting heavenly chorus of personalities, his deeply hidden yet true personality known perfectly only to him and to God (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:15-16).
71. Zuercher, Enneagram I Workshop, September 27, 2000. When one of the novices in attendance asked her how to reconcile a Catholic view of original sin (universally transmitted to all human substance at the moment of its conception) with the Enneagram view (committed by ALL children between the ages of four and six) she replied, “I am no theologian.” This raises questions about why a non-theologian is considered qualified by novice directors to address their subjects on matters dealing with spiritual and mystical theology.
72. This is just one actual example presented by Suzanne Zuercher, Enneagram I Workshop, September 27, 2000.
73. This would be contrary to a Catholic understanding: cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 387.
74. Even if John committed sins after his birth, the question still remains about whether newborn babies exhibit a personality. To this question, science replies what every mother and every father knows: YES! Each newborn already has a unique personality. See, for example, Thomas Hayden, A Sense of Self, Newsweek: Special 2000 Edition — Your Child (Fall/Winter 2000).
75. First Apology, XLVI.
76. Beesing, et al., p. 7, inter alia.
77. Palmer, pp. 6-7; Riso, pp. 5, inter alia; Zuercher, pp. 15, inter alia.
78. Lebreton, Zeiller, et al., Volume 1, p. 356 and p. 359; see also Jedin, Dolan, et al., Volume 1.
79. Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, preamble.
80. Zuercher.
81. Cf. Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 220.
82. Cf. Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 630, 5.