Is Narcissism the Problem Behind Pastors’ Moral Failures?

Status
Not open for further replies.

gpmj12

Active member
A good article written by a non Catholic Christian contemplating the great scandal in all religions.

Why has the church witnessed the moral failure of so many leaders in recent years? While there are many reasons for the recent rash of failures, surely the most cited reason now is narcissism.

In When Narcissism Comes to Church, Chuck DeGroat states narcissism is especially common among pastors because they often enjoy a high profile. Narcissists crave power, admiration, and a stage, and DeGroat says, churches choose narcissistic celebrity leaders because they appear in “glittering” packages, full of “confidence, strong leadership, clear vision” (see chaps. 1 and 4).

Lacking empathy, narcissists can exploit and discourage others. They charm colaborers, then dismiss them when they serve no purpose. Narcissists also think they do no wrong.

Therefore, when anyone calls a narcissistic pastor to repent, this registers as a gratuitous attack, and rage follows. Meanwhile, the church that has profited from the charm and skill of the narcissist is prone to defend him.

Has DeGroat found the culprit behind pastoral failures? Given that all men are flawed and sinful, it’s certainly true that the church attracts flawed leaders. But does the church especially attract the power-hungry and the narcissistic?

### Ego Is a Problem

Scripture decries egoists who love themselves most. Jesus recognized religious leaders often seek status and power. In Matthew 23:1–15, he says men seek the status, authority, and titles (like “rabbi” and “father”) that spiritual leadership confers.

Also, in Paul’s list of vices in 2 Timothy 3:2–4, self-love is at the top: “For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, . . . lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” Notice that the list begins and ends with false loves. People love themselves, money, and pleasure rather than God. Donald Guthrie rightly said, “Moral corruption follows from love falsely directed.” Even if you think today’s emphasis on narcissistic pastors is trendy and exaggerated, Paul does decry egoists who put themselves first because they love themselves most. The vices Paul names—pride and abusive speech—certainly sound like the fruit of egotism.

### Is It Narcissistic to Speak for God?

Narcissism is surely a vice and pastors, like everyone, can succumb to it. But does the church especially attract the narcissist? And if so, why?

DeGroat asserts that “the vast majority of ministerial candidates” test on a spectrum of “personality disorders which feature narcissistic traits most prominently.” He adds that rates of narcissism are “even higher among church planters” (19). Why is this the case? DeGroat quotes an unnamed colleague who says, “Ministry is a magnet for a narcissistic personality—who else would want to speak on behalf of God every week? While the vast majority of people struggle with public speaking, . . . pastors do it regularly [and] with ‘divine authority’” (19).

DeGroat’s work on narcissism is very helpful for people who live with narcissists or contend with narcissistic leaders. Still, we may question his claims about the prevalence of narcissism in the church. If most people who claim to speak for God have narcissistic tendencies, does that mean most prophets, apostles, teachers, and preachers in history were narcissists (Eph. 4:11–16)? When DeGroat approves a colleague who thinks one must be a narcissist to want to “speak on behalf of God,” he questions the motives of all preachers and almost makes “godly preacher” an oxymoron.

Scripture offers an alternative motive for preaching. Paul explains that people preach if God equips and calls them to it: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us” (2 Cor. 5:20). Throughout the Bible, God sets apart people to preach for him and to do so with authority (Acts 5:42; 9:15; Rom. 10:14–15). Thus Paul commands Timothy, whose fault wasn’t self-promotion but timidity, to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort.” (2 Tim. 4:2).

### Pastors Need ‘Healthy Narcissism’

To be sure, some teachers and preachers are narcissists. Mike Cosper brilliantly explicated the role of narcissism in the fall of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church. And many others have become impossibly selfish, seduced congregants, and abused power. If concerns about narcissism and moral failure lead churches to guard against promoting leaders who have more talent than character, that’s healthy. If we guard against wounding pastors with privilege on one side and relentless criticism on the other, that will also serve the church.

The “ministry is a magnet for a narcissistic personality” comment appears early in DeGroat’s book. Later, he asserts that the narcissism spectrum includes “a healthy narcissism” marked by “confidence rather than certainty” as well as empathy, humility, and curiosity (36). I wish DeGroat had mentioned healthy narcissism after asserting that the “vast majority” of pastoral candidates are narcissists. The failure to mention and explain what a number of people see as a healthy quality risks leaving readers suspicious of pastoral leadership.

Ernest Becker says, “A working level of narcissism is inseparable from self-esteem, from a basic sense of self-worth.” Psychologists link “healthy narcissism” to proper self-protection, a sense of agency, proper self-respect, and the will to make plans.

We might have doubts about the term “healthy narcissism”—we need a better term for this—but healthy self-regard is necessary for leaders. Surgeons, politicians, pro athletes, and CEOs need confidence. They need the ego strength to believe they can contribute to their world. Leaders need a sense of their competence, their voice, and their mission.

Pastors, in particular, need courage and fearlessness to endure disapproval, opposition, foot-dragging, sabotage, and whisper campaigns. If confidence is an aspect of “healthy narcissism,” preachers need it, lest they falter due to criticism.

### Let’s Revisit the Question

Late in the book, DeGroat rightly says “we swim in the waters of narcissism,” and he hopes everyone will “explore his or her own narcissism” (167–70). Various sources name medicine, entertainment, sports, media, law enforcement, politics, corporate leadership, religious leadership, and academia as fields that attract narcissists. Anyone who leads or addresses the public needs a dose of confidence and a capacity to win people.

So if we revisit the questions “Is narcissism the problem behind pastors’ moral failures?” and “Does the church attract narcissists?” we might now answer, “Healthy narcissism seems helpful in many fields” and “Most leaders are tempted to misuse their self-confidence and their ability to win people, but they can resist that temptation.”

While some preachers do love to be the center of attention, others hate it. Some leaders—like Timothy and many of the prophets (Isa. 6; Jer. 1; Amos 7)—have been reluctant to speak for God. Many pastors testify that they resisted God’s call. For them, preaching spurs self-doubt and self-criticism. But they persist because they believe God called them.

Yes, some pastors are unhealthy narcissists, but pastoral ministry has other dangers. Some young pastors constantly question themselves. In recent self-evaluations at the seminary where I lead, ministry candidates seem more likely to shun power and spotlights than to seize them. Like many pastors over the centuries, they need to find fortitude in God. For that, the confident thought, I am God’s ambassador


 
My thoughts:

It’s probable that every walk of life attracts narcissists, and no doubt, also teachers and preachers. There certainly, in some cases. seems to be evidence of that. Narcissists are persuasive and convincing, both to others and themselves. A narcissist could even have the appearance of being generally saintly, and yet can be, or develop to be a harmful influence, engaging in harmful teaching and acts, covert or otherwise.

The pastoral and moral failure of some preachers and religious or lay, may stem from ordinary human weakness and personality flaws, and inability to listen to and understand others’ differing personalities, needs, and rights. Even even loss of faith in God, or taught truths, while in a situation or profession they don’t clearly see a way to escape from, can lead teachers and preachers to act with moral ambiguity and even depravity.

There are certainly cynical narcissists who hide behind their engaging or persuasive personalities. This has been evident in some, but of course not all publicly known abuse cases.

I have known priests who wanted to leave the priesthood, but remained because they saw no clear path ahead, but also several who have left the priesthood because they can no longer hold to what the truths or the lifestyle that they to which had committed their lives. How many remain who privately have no faith or have have reached other conclusions, and offer service reluctantly for the remainder of their lives with a possible consequence of collateral harm to others, even quietly in counsel to individuals or couples, edging towards a flexibility that the Church would question?

We all have 'self-love" of course, even if it is self love twisted into self-hate, but self love at its exclusive extreme is narcissism. The mandate to love ourselves as we love others is Christ’s command, [Matthew 22:34-39] of course, but our love of self should be an instrument towards understanding and offering the love and fairness we are required (and most of us desire) to extend also to others.
 
Last edited:
(Edited)
We live in the princedom of the evil one. His malevolent influence is pervasive. He knows temptation. We know that he is permitted to test certain individuals. Who better to test than “men of the cloth”? And how better than to appeal to the self - the evil one’s specialty. It is noticeable that televangelists, in particular, are fastidious regarding their personal appearance. Almost to a grotesque degree in some cases. Is this physical perfection masking internal imperfection? History bears witness that this may be the case.

It might be good to consider the surrounding culture from which pastors come: it makes the orgy scene in the film The Ten Commandments look tame. While narcissism is certainly a flaw to be recognized and overcome, I believe that sociopathy may be the far greater risk. The justice system deals with a high percentage of sociopaths, as they have either a lack of conscience or a very poorly developed conscience - the very definition of self-centered.

In the case of the Catholic Church, narcissism or would “normally” be observed during the vetting process and later via the multi-year formation and instruction period. Since narcissism seems to be rarely self-realized, it would likely not be concealed: indeed how would one conceal such an unknown and defining trait?

Neither can sociopathy be concealed - one cannot feign conscience, for example, except on occasions of extreme need. It could go unnoticed for a few months, but for years on end in seminary? Still, in all, one must know the signs to watch for and then perhaps even test the suspected individual(s). Clearly, this was not done, as the need for it might not have been perceived.

Sociopathy might be thought of as a physical manifestation of the evil one. Its limitation is that it is influenced by free will, but such free will remains disordered. Its worst behavioral traits are reigned in by the apprehension of danger to self. It is a binary “good for me/bad for me” process of perception. For example, bank robbery may be the all-consuming desire of a sociopath, but the presence of armed security or law enforcement at the bank overrides the desire - for a time. In the sociopath, the potential for external harm to self greatly exceeds the internal pleasure of the robbery, so an internal check and balance is grudgingly employed. I recall here that the devil departed from our Lord - until an opportune time.

As it is with critical thinking, our culture seems almost devoid of the ability to test the spirits. Human nature will overcome this, but only after provocation or necessity.
 
Last edited:
In the case of the Catholic Church, narcissism or would “normally” be observed during the vetting process and later via the multi-year formation and instruction period. Since narcissism seems to be rarely self-realized, it would likely not be concealed: indeed how would one conceal such an unknown and defining trait?
There’s quite a good article by a Catholic writer which has a finger on the pulse of how they operate and slip through the cracks. Then after this section the article goes on to advise on how to penetrate the veneer (Read on here)…

Narcissists and Religion​

Narcissists, in accordance with their Machiavellian mindframe, will often appear religious, especially if they are leaders. But they may also ascribe to a religion in an effort to understand their special status, which they believe they enjoy. As Samuel Vaknin writes of the narcissist: “he is a captive of the false conviction that his uniqueness destines him to fulfill a mission of cosmic significance.”[22]

The narcissist despises authority and is totally incapable of collaboration. That is why he inevitably seeks a position of authority, even in a religious context. Should he be Catholic, he will most certainly come into conflict with the teaching authority of the Church, for he has a need to defy authority, and he refuses to be measured by anything larger than himself, even God. Vaknin describes what the narcissistic cycle of extreme valuation and devaluation looks like in a religious context. Those who are sources of narcissistic supply are highly valued by the narcissist, not for their own sake, but for what they provide him. Should that production come to a stand still, should a person ever come to discover the true nature of the narcissist hidden underneath all his colorful layers, he is quickly and thoroughly devalued and demonized. As was said above, the narcissist is initially religious in an effort to understand his own uniqueness. He is a disciple chosen by virtue of a special quality in him, and not really by virtue of the mercy and gratuitous love of God. He is incapable of genuine humility and worship of what is larger than himself, and so God is eventually devalued, for He does not remain a source of narcissistic supply for long. The true disciple delights in the law of God: “The law of your mouth is to me more precious than thousands of gold and silver pieces” (Ps 119, 72). But despite appearances, the religious narcissist personally finds that law a maddening nuisance that unnecessarily limits his sources of narcissistic supply, namely the entire secular world. Religious narcissists, thus, tend to be compromising liberals, watering down the difficult truth so as to be more inviting and inclusive. But all they ever really invite and include are sources of narcissistic supply, nothing more (this, of course, is not to suggest that all liberals are narcissists).

But religion has afforded the narcissist with a position of authority, which in turn is a reliable source of narcissistic supply. Hence, the reason some of them do not leave the Churchmuch to the dismay of some of the faithful. They are inconsistent in their leadership; for they are disloyal to the teaching magisterium, but they demand unquestioning loyalty and absolute deference to their own authority. Should this demand for obedience become too obvious, they can very cleverly appear to employ a democratic style of leadership and receive input from everyone. With a large enough number of people at hand, the clever narcissist can find fragments of his own vision in some of their ideas. If one watches carefully, one notices how he collects those very pieces and assembles them into a vision which everyone thinks was democratically determined. But the final product in no way will have differed significantly from what he had decided originally, before consulting anyone. The democratic process, which was under his control from the beginning, only lends the appearance of collaboration and democracy.

The pseudo-religious narcissist will especially identify with certain biblical imagery, such as the Good Shepherd, which depicts a human person amidst irrational animals of an inferior nature. The Parable of the Talents lends itself very well to the narcissist’s twisted mind. In this parable, some servants are given five talents, another two, to a third only one, each in proportion to his ability. The narcissist of course sees himself as a ten and everyone else as a two or a one. Only those whom he needs and who supply him with fuel qualify as a ten, but these may quickly find themselves reduced to a two or a one should their status as supplier suddenly change. Such a parable can become a useful tool of manipulation and flattery. In short, the narcissist’s use of scripture is as twisted as Satan’s in the temptation in the wilderness.

There have been a number of false norms that have been made popular over the years that have only made it easier for the depraved and pathological narcissist to continue undetected. The popular exhortation to be tolerant, positive, non-judgmental and inclusive are prime examples. If a person sees the glass half full, he is positive and optimistic, but negative and pessimistic if he sees it half empty. The problem here, though, is that evil is parasitic. As was said above, there is simply no such thing as pure evil, because evil is a lack of due being. The optimist who refuses to see the lack lest he begin to feel negative is blinding himself to evil and contributing to the creation of the kind of environment that the depraved require in order to flourish. Good is the very subject of evil. And so there will always be something good to behold in the morally depraved egotist. The half full/half empty platitude is simply useless, except for the ridiculously cynical that no one takes seriously anyway.

The biblical precept not to judge (Cf. Mt 7ff) is not and has never been an unqualified and absolute norm, as if making judgments were intrinsically evil. Rather, the biblical norm is qualified by the context in which we find it: “Why do you observe the splinter in your brother’s eye and never notice the great log in your own?..Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye” (Mt 7, 4-5). Scripture does not assert that all of us have logs in our eyes that we are forever unable to remove, thus barring us from ever having to judge that someone might have a splinter in his. The norm bears upon the hypocrisy of the morally blind passing judgment on someone much better off morally and spiritually. It is not a precept against making judgments; for as St. Paul says: "The spiritual man judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one (1 Co 2, 15). Scripture is filled with examples of negative judgments (Cf. Acts 5, 1-5; 8, 21-22; Rm 1, 1ff; Eph 4, 5). The narcissist is ever scheming to create a safe environment primarily for himself,[23]

and so what could better serve him than to be surrounded by people who are committed to an unqualified refusal to make judgments?

Narcissists will forever seek positions of power. But such positions must be forever denied them. They must never be given authority. But so few are denied positions of authority because they are so adept at disguise. They are convincing, articulate, and charismatic. But the narcissist is all about power. His entire leadership is a game played ultimately for the sake of himself. Everyone under his authority is being abused in one form or another, and the damage he can do is far reaching. The facade he uses to hide his depravity and fool the world may very well contain genuinely good things, such as religious, political, judicial, or educational principles. But most of his victims will forever associate his deception with these good things and will be unable to distinguish between what is genuinely good from the narcissist’s abuse of it. In rejecting the one, they inevitably reject the other. How many good things are irretrievably lost to others as a result of such abuse?
 
I note the longer and more personal formation of priests than of a non-Catholic pastors. In many cases, only an online degree, bible and a storefront are needed. In Catholicism, same sex attraction - narcissist or not, is the primary - but not the only - problem. If it was 50/50 male to female and pre-pubescent, it might be pedophilia, but it is not. Indeed, some of the hierarchy involved in formation may well have suffered from same sex attraction - so their judgment might have been compromised at the seminary level.

This is as complex as the individuals under scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
It is noticeable that televangelists, in particular, are fastidious regarding their personal appearance. Almost to a grotesque degree in some cases. Is this physical perfection masking internal imperfection? History bears witness that this may be the case.
Now that you mention this, yes, it is noticeable.

For all of the problems that the Catholic Church has, its leaders are not notable for cutting a dashing figure. Charitably put, the bishops tend to look like, well, unadorned men of a certain age. If one of them is very handsome — Pope John Paul II comes immediately to mind — it is due to natural endowment, not primping and fussing. Even the various lay apostles and teachers tend to look very ordinary, Michael Voris’s attention to his hair (and he does have very nice hair, must be nice 🥸) being about the only exception to this I can think of right offhand. (And as for Milo Yiannopoulos, well, he’s just Milo. Real piece of work.)
 
Well, there is an exception to every rule. Archbishop Georg Gänswein, who is Pope Emeritus’ Benedict XVI’s personal secretary. The ladies report that he is “easy on the eyes.”

Screenshot 2022-11-19 at 2.49.40 PM
 
Even the various lay apostles and teachers tend to look very ordinary
Not the perception of many and a rather unflattering assertion, dear sir. 😄
Some teachers and preachers and clergy are quite passably attractive and/or appealing, even drop-dead gorgeous without need of obvious effort. And some have their devoted, unquestioning followers.
To some clergy this adulation has no impact, their dedication to their apostolate is faultless.

However, a person does not need a high position in an organization or church. He or she can be a sociopath or narcissist in a branch or parish. After experiencing a number of many parishes over the years, and being a lay server myself in several ways, my experience led to a conclusion that a creditable number of parishes had their own little despot who was always right, whose rulings were almost law, and who were well regarded. It could be a member of the clergy, or the woman who sees the organization of the priest or the procedures as her closely guarded province, irrespective of the hurt and disrespect of others.

And having served in a lay catechist teaching capacity, a sacristan, a trusted-everything person, I didn’t neglect my appearance, still, don’t, but never could be taken for a sociopath or narcissist. Having a mischievous sense of humor, and feeling a bit of sympathy for all those so-named “various lay apostles and teachers (and clergy who )tend to look very ordinary” I couldn’t help being ‘devil’s advocate’.

Narcissists and sociopaths don’t always need a large devoted following, a smaller one might be more satisfying for some, (big frog in small pool) but care of presentation for them can come in many kinds of human packaging and from differing abilities , not excluding or including personal grooming or appearance.
 
Last edited:
Back to the heading.
“Is Narcissism the Problem Behind Pastors’ Moral Failures?”
Sometimes true, but sometimes, just human frailty.
Because I tended to give a lot of service, many a priest talked to me about their problems.
I managed to help save some priestly vocations with listening, conversation, and prayer.
There were some others that did fail, human weakness that they fought for a time but in the end, they failed. Usually by the time the news was about, it was too late.
In that kind of instance, more transparency may be needed between them and their confessors or counsellors. More support. In the end, it depends on whether the support, if received, is still enough to overcome human frailty.

I’m not a starry-eyed person. Any set life-choice or vocation will bring with it some boredom, some losses which may seem heavier with passing time, some disillusionment, some disappointment, loss of passion. Everyone is human. Not all of us can indefinitely shoulder the burdens that seem to grow heavier. If not addressed, sometimes the result will be explosive, even twisted.
Yes, some can always retain , or re-inflame their passion and dedication. Many do.

There is another factor. Is there actually anyone with a normal personality and nature) And what actually is normal? You can exclude the more obvious personality extremes and indications when assessing a candidate for priesthood or Religious life, but if we look for an absolute, safe ‘normal’, there probably wouldn’t be too many possibles.
What may appear to be narcissism in some people may simply be a development of the various strains of personality characteristics that become increasing ‘necessary’ to cope with the challenges they face.
Basically, where human beings are concerned, as we all know:
It’s complicated.
 
Last edited:
I’m not a starry-eyed person. Any set life-choice or vocation will bring with it some boredom, some losses which may seem heavier with passing time, some disillusionment, some disappointment, loss of passion. Everyone is human. Not all of us can indefinitely shoulder the burdens that seem to grow heavier. If not addressed, sometimes the result will be explosive, even twisted.
Yes, some can always retain , or re-inflame their passion and dedication. Many do.
I remember when my daughter was in highschool she told me about one religion class where the teacher talked about how at a certain age, parents can have difficult times, ie midlife crisis. I still don’t know if it was part of the curriculum or addressing the fact that there were a number of families going through marriage break up at that time.

I know it’s true of religious as well and perhaps it should be prepared for better or understood better as ‘normal’ for many people needing to recalibrate before starting on the second phase of life.
 
In the case of the Catholic Church, narcissism or would “normally” be observed during the vetting process and later via the multi-year formation and instruction period. Since narcissism seems to be rarely self-realized, it would likely not be concealed: indeed how would one conceal such an unknown and defining trait?
I suspect there’s something similar here to narcissists in marriages. My territorial parish had a narcissist priest – he pretty much destroyed it, in spite of the bishop’s best effort to limit the damage. By all reports, he was the perfect seminarian’s poster child until the day he was ordained. As soon as this day was past, he began showing his true colours.
 
Narcissism is only a negative when acted upon, being no different from any other sign of concupiscence. It is often an unrecognized cross for those who have the tendency. However, it may only be the outward sign of a far more serious underlying personality flaw. Recognizing it is one thing, while calling it to attention is something quite different.

We see this in the mass murderers roaming about today. In retrospect, they provided numerous warning signs over time - all of which were ignored by those around them. Mass sexual abuse is as deadly to the soul, and male-pattern sexual abuse has a serial nature to it, as well.

Our Lord gave us the most difficult and effective method for problem solving: Speak directly with that person. Lacking resolution, take 2-3 others with you, and after that, go to the Church. He said this for a reason. It takes courage to do this, and a willingness to be proved wrong.

I am watching a Spanish language interview with Gerhard Cardinal Müller in which he recognizes cowardice among the German Bishops in opposing the cultural demand for approval of same sex unions. Courage is a virtue and we are at the end of the age in which it was only rarely needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top