Background checks in Boston Archdiocese!

[fix]

katherine2:

Half right. Actually, this is the reason so many conservatives oppose these tests. All the test which supposedly test for homosexuality rarely detect a gay many with no discomfort over his orientation but frequently do give a “false positive” for a certain type of rigid, introverted personality type that are disporportianly self proclaimed “orthodox”.

Funny how you always use the word “gay”. The “gays” have a strong foothold in many places in the Church and there are reports some dioceses have used so-called psychological testing to eliminate authentic candidates. Usually it is reported the gate keeper of vocations is an old left wing heterodox liberated nun or some effete priest. Neither type is a good way to attract orthodox men.

By your standards the Pope is rigid, introverted and would not be a good candidiate for the priesthood.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

fix:

Funny how you always use the word “gay”. The “gays” have a strong foothold in many places in the Church and there are reports some dioceses have used so-called psychological testing to eliminate authentic candidates. Usually it is reported the gate keeper of vocations is an old left wing heterodox liberated nun or some effete priest. Neither type is a good way to attract orthodox men.

By your standards the Pope is rigid, introverted and would not be a good candidiate for the priesthood.

Sooo, you’re saying that the Pope is okay to be the leader of the Church, but not an American priest? Should there be a Church-wide standard? What makes American priests so special that they need to be screened this rigorously?

 

[4_marks]

fix:

Funny how you always use the word “gay”. The “gays” have a strong foothold in many places in the Church and there are reports some dioceses have used so-called psychological testing to eliminate authentic candidates. Usually it is reported the gate keeper of vocations is an old left wing heterodox liberated nun or some effete priest. Neither type is a good way to attract orthodox men.

By your standards the Pope is rigid, introverted and would not be a good candidiate for the priesthood.

fix, you are quite astute.

One of the problems on the psychological evaluation to which we were to give either a “yes” or a “no” response was the following:

“I like mannish women.”

I think that says it all.

 

[fix]

Scott_Lafrance:

Sooo, you’re saying that the Pope is okay to be the leader of the Church, but not an American priest? Should there be a Church-wide standard? What makes American priests so special that they need to be screened this rigorously?

My argument is that in America good men are turned away many times and heterodox, weak men are cultivated. The tests can be used as a weapon. Those administering the tests may have an agenda that decides how the results will be understood that may not be consistent with the truth.

It is not simply an obejective tool as it should be.

Ever been in court? Psychiatrists and psychologists can evaluate the same person and give directly contradicting results.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

fix:

Ever been in court? Psychiatrists and psychologists can evaluate the same person and give directly contradicting results.

And they have the audacity to continue calling psychology a science. Maybe L Ron Hubbard was on to something. We should have Scientology Auditors screen our seminarians!!!

 

[fix]

4 marks:

fix, you are quite astute.

One of the problems on the psychological evaluation to which we were to give either a “yes” or a “no” response was the following:

“I like mannish women.”

I think that says it all.

I can’t believe that in this day and age folks can’t see that psychological testing can be manipulated. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of mental health professionals. Deception can and does happen. On both sides of the fence. If the tests must be used they should be one tool, unless there is evidence of some major personality problem.

The old USSR used psychiatry as a weapon and a means to keep folks in check.

I have read that in one diocese the psychologist giving these tests as made public statements in support of the “gay” agenda. Is anyone not going to think he is fair and objective?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

there are reports some dioceses have used so-called psychological testing to eliminate authentic candidates.

Actually those reports are myths developed from true reports that many on the right wing verbally call for all sorts of initiatives to “clean up” seminarie sbut always choke when they have the opportunity to initiative psycholgical testing, kwoning that it is some of their favorites pets who are the most likely to flunk.

By your standards the Pope is rigid, introverted and would not be a good candidiate for the priesthood.

I doubt it. He is an intellegent, well adjusted, open minded man. He relates well to women and, if you read his actually writing rather than just the selections the New York Times chooses to print, he has a balanced view of sexuality and is not overly obessed or uncomfortable with the topic.

 

[4_marks]

fix:

I can’t believe that in this day and age folks can’t see that psychological testing can be manipulated. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of mental health professionals. Deception can and does happen. On both sides of the fence. If the tests must be used they should be one tool, unless there is evidence of some major personality problem.

The old USSR used psychiatry as a weapon and a means to keep folks in check.

I have read that in one diocese the psychologist giving these tests as made public statements in support of the “gay” agenda. Is anyone not going to think he is fair and objective?

What I do remember is that many seminarians who were percieved as too “rigid” or “pious” were intensely scrutinized. I also recall seminarians being removed immediately for allegations that they were engaging in, and or soliciting homosexual relations. There was a zero tolerance policy if and when it became known. Even so, there were certain cliques between seminarians and even between some faculty members.

And yes, the persons who were in charge of pastoral ministry were as you described in a previous post…how shall I put it, “orthodoxically challenged.”

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Actually those reports are myths developed from true reports that many on the right wing verbally call for all sorts of initiatives to “clean up” seminarie sbut always choke when they have the opportunity to initiative psycholgical testing, kwoning that it is some of their favorites pets who are the most likely to flunk.

Thanks for your opinion, not fact, but opinion.

I doubt it. He is an intellegent, well adjusted, open minded man. He relates well to women and, if you read his actually writing rather than just the selections the New York Times chooses to print, he has a balanced view of sexuality and is not overly obessed or uncomfortable with the topic.

Yes, he is against homosexual unions, of any sort, contraception within the conjugal act and female ordination. This would intend in some dioceses he would be scrutinized and perhaps denied admission to a seminary.

 

[fix]

Scott_Lafrance:

And they have the audacity to continue calling psychology a science. Maybe L Ron Hubbard was on to something. We should have Scientology Auditors screen our seminarians!!!

In some places, that may be a step up?

 

[fix]

4 marks:

What I do remember is that many seminarians who were percieved as too “rigid” or “pious” were intensely scrutinized. I also recall seminarians being removed immediately for allegations that they were engaging in, and or soliciting homosexual relations. There was a zero tolerance policy if and when it became known. Even so, there were certain cliques between seminarians and even between some faculty members.

And yes, the persons who were in charge of pastoral ministry were as you described in a previous post…how shall I put it, “orthodoxically challenged.”

Tell it to K2. Apparently you experienced a myth.