G
Gertabelle
Guest
I made some changes to that post so as not to add insult to SGM’s injury.
Thank you for pointing that out.
And your words above beautifully express the absurdity of these comparisons.
God bless you, Father!
- Status
Thank you for pointing that out.
And your words above beautifully express the absurdity of these comparisons.
God bless you, Father!
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
Again, I have asked this a couple of times with no response: To what ends or purpose would these questions be asked, assuming no criminal background?
And, if this information is, in fact, divulged by the applicant, what prevents this information from being used for illegitimate purposes? It’s a fair question to ask what safeguards are in place, is it not?
In the case of the original poster, he was allegedly denied admittance based on highly confidential, private matters he disclosed…
I understand that one would want responsible, mature individuals in these kinds of roles. Where is the red line?
If an applicant refused to divulge certain information, you publicly admit that you would personally “black-ball” the applicant?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Sure, you can choose not to share your personal info. And the person interviewing you for possible priesthood can choose to boot you out of his office and tell you not to return. Isn’t choice grand?
G
Gertabelle
Guest
It’s not just about wanting “responsible, mature individuals” – it is about discovering whether a candidate is a good fit with the community, and discerning whether he has the temperament necessary for the vocation for which he is applying.
Regarding the reasons for asking such questions in the first place… It is not so much finding out about a person’s past that is important, but learning how they relate to their past that matters.
When I considered dating a man who had an annulment, I asked about his divorce, and I listened. Did he take responsibility? Did he blame everything on his ex? Did he brush off faults of his own? Did he express regrets? Was he angry? Did he refuse to answer or change the subject?
How a person talks about their past, what they’ve learned from it, how they’ve grown from it, and so on, speaks volumes to the character of a man.
That, IMO, is why formators ask such questions. And that is why someone who refuses to answer sends the message that they do not yet possess the character/temperament to enter formation as a priest or religious.
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
Understood. There are other ways of determining one’s character and temperament without engaging in highly intrusive lines of questioning.
Reputation in the community, character references, interviews, trial periods, educational history, credit and background checks are simple examples.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
If an applicant was not being completely open and forth-coming in the initial process, I would never have admitted them.
As I would say to applicants, if I asked for information and it was subsequently shown from other sources that they had been deceptive, the consequences would be insurmountable.
If the person does not have a filial trust and confidence in the Bishop, taking the example of the diocesan priesthood, then that man has no business applying to that diocese.
As I would say to applicants, if I asked for information and it was subsequently shown from other sources that they had been deceptive, the consequences would be insurmountable.
If the person does not have a filial trust and confidence in the Bishop, taking the example of the diocesan priesthood, then that man has no business applying to that diocese.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
Hmmm…Gertabelle:
Understood. There are other ways of determining one’s character and temperament without engaging in highly intrusive lines of questioning.
Reputation in the community, character references, interviews, trial periods, educational history, credit and background checks are simple examples.
Perhaps it would help to consider that these lines of questioning usually occur within the context of a relationship. It’s not as though you’re being asked such personal questions by a total stranger, as would be the case in a job interview.
When I was being asked questions such as these, I had already been corresponding with the community by mail (it was the 1980s and snail mail was all the rage), and had visited with them. We knew one another, and I was at the point where I knew I wanted to enter the community.
When I visited once or twice with a couple other communities, nobody asked me such questions – we hadn’t established that level of relationship, and I wasn’t requesting entrance.
These conversations take place within the context of a relationship, that’s my point.
T
TradidiQuodEtAccepi
Guest
+JMJ+
Hello,
I myself am currently being considered for candidacy in joining the SSPX. To my knowledge, it is the district superior who decides whether or not one is accepted to enroll into a seminary of the Society. Also, the expectation is that you must be actively attending one of their priories/missions/parishes for at least one year, before you can even be considered. Also, it depends on how long you have been Catholic for. If I am not mistaken, Canon Law usually requires one to have been received into the Church for at least three years before you can enter into any seminary.
There really is no criteria of determining whether the rector was right or wrong. Different groups will have different rules and will looks at applicants differently. For example, my best friend was turned away from a group of Carmelites, in which they said that there is no possibility of him having a vocation with them whatsoever. When he applied to the FSSP though, the accepted him without any hassle at all.
Perhaps, you should consider talking to the district superior instead. Also, you could think about one of the SSPX’s allied religious orders, if you feel that there may be a possibility.
God bless.
Hello,
I myself am currently being considered for candidacy in joining the SSPX. To my knowledge, it is the district superior who decides whether or not one is accepted to enroll into a seminary of the Society. Also, the expectation is that you must be actively attending one of their priories/missions/parishes for at least one year, before you can even be considered. Also, it depends on how long you have been Catholic for. If I am not mistaken, Canon Law usually requires one to have been received into the Church for at least three years before you can enter into any seminary.
There really is no criteria of determining whether the rector was right or wrong. Different groups will have different rules and will looks at applicants differently. For example, my best friend was turned away from a group of Carmelites, in which they said that there is no possibility of him having a vocation with them whatsoever. When he applied to the FSSP though, the accepted him without any hassle at all.
Perhaps, you should consider talking to the district superior instead. Also, you could think about one of the SSPX’s allied religious orders, if you feel that there may be a possibility.
God bless.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The person is undergoing an interview when he us being questioned about his moral past.
You don’t seem to “get” that this is not like a normal job or roommate interview. This is about somebody who is not only going to be living permanently in a community, but is also embarking on a job involving life behavior and moral character and forming the morals of others. How this person has handled his past sex life and relationship life is critical. Furthermore, it’s important to hear how he himself presents the story. The community should not have to run around like a private detective trying to get this info from other sources.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
What you relate is indeed one aspect. But it does go far beyond
In Religious Life, as one case, a candidate with same sex attraction/has been in same sex relationships must make that known. It demands frank disclosure
Related to the vow of poverty…if a candidate for consecrated life has obligations, present or projecting in the future, these must be disclosed
I’ve worked with communities of Religious that assumed a monetary obligation/commitment of a candidate to Religious life upon the emission of life promises … taken upon itself the burdens of a situation at a parent’s end of life when the Religious was an only child … or, again, took on responsibility for a developmentally challenged only-sibling of a Religious, after the parents died …but the Prioress and Community knew these situations from the beginning, understood the implications if they accepted the candidate, and freely chose to go forward, knowing what could – and did – come to pass
It’s another thing entirely to find such news in a crisis and when the person has actively concealed the fact from discovery by not being forthcoming
In the case of the less structured life of the secular priesthood, issues such as previous problems with alcohol consumption, as one example, would need to be disclosed
There are profound implications when it turns out that a relationship earlier in the man’s life resulted in a child that he only finds out about years later. And had not forthrightly disclosed to the formator the full nature and details of the relationship from which the child had ensued
The bond of incardination means a priest is bound to his diocese/institute of perfection – and that diocese/institute is just as bound to him. He will devote his life to it, anywhere he is sent, until he dies. If he falls ill/is disabled, the diocese/institute has the obligation to care for him. He gave himself to the diocese/institute and they gave themselves to him
It’s therefore absolutely in no sense like a department store job or being enrolled in college. There results a mutual obligation and mutual dedication for life
With the clerical state, moreover, once the ontological character is imparted it can never be taken back or undone
This doesn’t begin to talk about the financial, which is quite real. Five to seven years or more of graduate studies do not happen by magic. To make that investment to arrive at a discernment by one or both parties that this really is not a candidate’s vocation is one thing. For it to be lost because the diocese discovers at the end that the candidate, for an undisclosed situation, is not canonically eligible for the clerical state is quite different
Many things make a candidate unsuitable for priesthood or consecrated life. Those must be addressed and determination made by those responsible for formation, according to the mandate of competent ecclesiastical authority
If a person is not prepared, with total trust, to confide themselves and their lives to the ecclesiastical authority to whom they will give themselves by solemn vow or sacred promise, they have no business initiating the process toward priesthood or consecrated life
In Religious Life, as one case, a candidate with same sex attraction/has been in same sex relationships must make that known. It demands frank disclosure
Related to the vow of poverty…if a candidate for consecrated life has obligations, present or projecting in the future, these must be disclosed
I’ve worked with communities of Religious that assumed a monetary obligation/commitment of a candidate to Religious life upon the emission of life promises … taken upon itself the burdens of a situation at a parent’s end of life when the Religious was an only child … or, again, took on responsibility for a developmentally challenged only-sibling of a Religious, after the parents died …but the Prioress and Community knew these situations from the beginning, understood the implications if they accepted the candidate, and freely chose to go forward, knowing what could – and did – come to pass
It’s another thing entirely to find such news in a crisis and when the person has actively concealed the fact from discovery by not being forthcoming
In the case of the less structured life of the secular priesthood, issues such as previous problems with alcohol consumption, as one example, would need to be disclosed
There are profound implications when it turns out that a relationship earlier in the man’s life resulted in a child that he only finds out about years later. And had not forthrightly disclosed to the formator the full nature and details of the relationship from which the child had ensued
The bond of incardination means a priest is bound to his diocese/institute of perfection – and that diocese/institute is just as bound to him. He will devote his life to it, anywhere he is sent, until he dies. If he falls ill/is disabled, the diocese/institute has the obligation to care for him. He gave himself to the diocese/institute and they gave themselves to him
It’s therefore absolutely in no sense like a department store job or being enrolled in college. There results a mutual obligation and mutual dedication for life
With the clerical state, moreover, once the ontological character is imparted it can never be taken back or undone
This doesn’t begin to talk about the financial, which is quite real. Five to seven years or more of graduate studies do not happen by magic. To make that investment to arrive at a discernment by one or both parties that this really is not a candidate’s vocation is one thing. For it to be lost because the diocese discovers at the end that the candidate, for an undisclosed situation, is not canonically eligible for the clerical state is quite different
Many things make a candidate unsuitable for priesthood or consecrated life. Those must be addressed and determination made by those responsible for formation, according to the mandate of competent ecclesiastical authority
If a person is not prepared, with total trust, to confide themselves and their lives to the ecclesiastical authority to whom they will give themselves by solemn vow or sacred promise, they have no business initiating the process toward priesthood or consecrated life
I was a Dominican Novice for a while. I do remember being asked the question at one point in the interview process. I had, of course, been in such a relationship at one point. The more important thing was how long it had been since this point.
It’s not normally a bar to priesthood/religious life. As a priest friend of mine said, “if we only accepted virgins, in this day and age, we’d be much shorter of priests than we are already.”
I have a friend who was recently ordained, but before he joined the Dominicans, he played Football for Manchester United, Norwich, and the Northern Ireland squad. He was earning big money at one point and living a “playboy” lifestyle. But he is now a priest, and actually one of the most genuinely holy and humble people I know.
I think maybe it’s a blessing in disguise that you were refused, you could probably do much more good in a traditional priestly society that is in full communion with the rest of the Church. FSSP etc.
It’s not normally a bar to priesthood/religious life. As a priest friend of mine said, “if we only accepted virgins, in this day and age, we’d be much shorter of priests than we are already.”
I have a friend who was recently ordained, but before he joined the Dominicans, he played Football for Manchester United, Norwich, and the Northern Ireland squad. He was earning big money at one point and living a “playboy” lifestyle. But he is now a priest, and actually one of the most genuinely holy and humble people I know.
I think maybe it’s a blessing in disguise that you were refused, you could probably do much more good in a traditional priestly society that is in full communion with the rest of the Church. FSSP etc.
N
nodito
Guest
Would you find these types of questions “highly intrusive” if they were being asked by a potential spouse?
Well…these questions are more often asked by a trained psychiatrist or psychologist. The reason they are asked is because it’s part of a process to filter out not only unsuitable candidates, but candidates who could potentially pose a danger to others. These checks were introduced in light of the various sex abuse scandals and they are 100% necessary.
Most young men who have “sexual experience” so to speak, and then later discern a call to religious life, should have no problem putting their past sins in perspectve and admitting that, no, they haven’t been perfect, but they live a chaste life now.
If they haven’t, then the chances are they probably aren’t mature enough just yet.
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
Listen, I get that. The way it is described above is that this is some ad-hoc process with random, intrusive questions about an applicant’s sex life, in an almost creepy manner.
I am fine with profiling by competent medical professionals, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, where there are legal and ethical bounds about what information can be disclosed to others.
Where I would have a challenge is where this information is disclosed to non-professionals and then used against that individual at a later date. Blackmail is very common in higher echelons of society, especially among our political class. This kind of private information can be and has been misused for malicious purposes.
By all means, the Church wants competent, moral, responsible leaders. I get that and I agree with that idea. There is a fine line, however, where intrusive questioning can be done for malicious intent. I believe the key is how the information is processed and safeguarded.
Black-balling applicants because they want to retain some sense of confidentiality in the process is unwarranted. No one should be forced or compelled to reveal any information if they are not comfortable or if they feel that the questions being asked are for illegitimate purposes. By the same token, the interviewer has to make sure that the applicant is suitable. Both positions are important.
Frankly, the comments in this thread about black-balling applicants is nothing short of appalling. Ostracizing a young man to diocesan superiors is just outrageous, and a vicious abuse of authority.
An applicant is entitled to confidentiality and professionalism in the process, and if the applicant elects to refuse providing information, then the decision-makers are right to take that into account as part of their evaluation. But black-balling the candidate is out of bounds. The applicant might not trust the person asking the questions, and rightfully so.
What is critical is that applicants are not mistreated or abused by the process, and that all applicants are treated with objectivity, fairness, dignity, and respect.
Last edited:
True I suppose. It occured to me that since the SSPX is not a group that is in full communion with Rome and probably doesn’t co-operate or be in communication with the local Bishops, their process for vocations is totally independent and not subject to any oversight. They may not conform to the expected norms in this matter and quite possibly their decisions in this are purely arbitrary. Maybe the priest didn’t like the fact that you were previously in a relationship. Maybe he’s looking for the Catholics who haven’t been ruined by modernism and fornication…I dunno…but it’s possible.
IMO, you should try a group that operates in cooperation with the Church.
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
A vocation is a call from God, not something we want.
God speaks through secondary causes.
If you are not in a seminary, you are where God wants you to be.
Ask of God: “What will you have me do?”
Many are infatuated with the priesthood, but few are chosen.
St. Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, said:
God speaks through secondary causes.
If you are not in a seminary, you are where God wants you to be.
Ask of God: “What will you have me do?”
Many are infatuated with the priesthood, but few are chosen.
St. Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, said:
I like it simple. God is simple.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Anyone here can offer an opinion, but as I often say, too many opinions require an additional $2.00 to get somewhere on the local transit authority. In short, no one can give anything worthwhile.
Conversion is a daily process. It is not something we go through, achieve, and then move on to other matters. One could say, flippantly, that one occasion of being unchaste is too many; but that gets into matters of morality and conscience, and as you note that you went through a conversion, that gts into an area that is/was for your confessor. Not everyone’s conversion experience causes an immediate and effective change - St Paul being the only one I am familiar with.
For whatever reason or reasons, you received an answer, and that was to that specific set of circumstances. You need to put that behind you and determine if you may have a vocation to the priesthood, either through FSSP/ICK, or other. It also is worth noting that while you may, at this point or after some period of discernment, determine that is the direction you are lead, that the entire process of going through seminary will include further discernment. That is, it is not a “one and done” process. Many people go to seminary; and many who start are not ordained. That may be that they, over the time in seminary, determine that it is not their calling, or it may be that the number of individuals who guide seminarians determine for whatever reason or reasons, that the individual is not called to ordination.
However, the only person/people who can answer any questions as to why the SSPX refused you is those who did so. And spending time pursuing that answer is not likely to further your discernment.
You don’t mention your age or how long the relationship has ended, and both issues could be matters which might give pause to when and if you enter seminary, no matter where or with whom. Finding a spiritual director as well as speaking with your diocesan vocations director might be of assistance in determining how to proceed (as opposed to necessarily determining where to proceed). Your experience of the Church as a whole appears, from your comments, to be relatively short.
And keep in mind the saying - Man plans and God laughs.
Conversion is a daily process. It is not something we go through, achieve, and then move on to other matters. One could say, flippantly, that one occasion of being unchaste is too many; but that gets into matters of morality and conscience, and as you note that you went through a conversion, that gts into an area that is/was for your confessor. Not everyone’s conversion experience causes an immediate and effective change - St Paul being the only one I am familiar with.
For whatever reason or reasons, you received an answer, and that was to that specific set of circumstances. You need to put that behind you and determine if you may have a vocation to the priesthood, either through FSSP/ICK, or other. It also is worth noting that while you may, at this point or after some period of discernment, determine that is the direction you are lead, that the entire process of going through seminary will include further discernment. That is, it is not a “one and done” process. Many people go to seminary; and many who start are not ordained. That may be that they, over the time in seminary, determine that it is not their calling, or it may be that the number of individuals who guide seminarians determine for whatever reason or reasons, that the individual is not called to ordination.
However, the only person/people who can answer any questions as to why the SSPX refused you is those who did so. And spending time pursuing that answer is not likely to further your discernment.
You don’t mention your age or how long the relationship has ended, and both issues could be matters which might give pause to when and if you enter seminary, no matter where or with whom. Finding a spiritual director as well as speaking with your diocesan vocations director might be of assistance in determining how to proceed (as opposed to necessarily determining where to proceed). Your experience of the Church as a whole appears, from your comments, to be relatively short.
And keep in mind the saying - Man plans and God laughs.
A
Augustinian
Guest
I don’t think you have respect for the fact that clergy are Professionals as well, with legal and ethical bounds. I’m sure that there have been cases in the past where discretion limits have been violated, but that’s true in the medicine and psychology professions too.
If you really don’t trust the interviewers with your information for any reason, then you really aren’t ready to go “all in” on the vocation, so being rejected should be a blessing for both you and the seminary.
S
superblue
Guest
why would you want to go down a career path where those that are supposed to help you find out if you are suited for it decide that you are not worth the investment of time and money, and tell you to go away.
There are plenty of sweet stories of candidates that failed seminary over n over and eventually became a priest and then a saint, but those are few and far in between and of a different period in history.
I’ve personally seen and heard of an overweight seminarian removed from a seminary because he was considered a health risk and couldnt lose the required weight, but for some reason was allowed to enter to begin with, it wasn’t like he became overweight in one semester. so.
Anyhow for those considering the seminary reading what athanasius has said, should clue one in that, telling everyone your entire life story isn’t necessarily the best thing to do.
I mean things to admit to, being married, having children, being addicted to drugs, having a warrant out for your arrest. An dioceses really prefer someone having been an active christian more than 2 years, who you dated and for how long is no ones business
There are plenty of sweet stories of candidates that failed seminary over n over and eventually became a priest and then a saint, but those are few and far in between and of a different period in history.
I’ve personally seen and heard of an overweight seminarian removed from a seminary because he was considered a health risk and couldnt lose the required weight, but for some reason was allowed to enter to begin with, it wasn’t like he became overweight in one semester. so.
Anyhow for those considering the seminary reading what athanasius has said, should clue one in that, telling everyone your entire life story isn’t necessarily the best thing to do.
I mean things to admit to, being married, having children, being addicted to drugs, having a warrant out for your arrest. An dioceses really prefer someone having been an active christian more than 2 years, who you dated and for how long is no ones business
- Status