Psychological Testing: Seminarians

[rcwhiteh]

I, rcwhiteh, originally said: I agree that candiates for the priesthood should undergo psychological evaluation, but the evaluation should be done by professionals who are in tune with the Church’s requirements.

misericordie replied: Yes, but is still is not suffiecient justification to NOT DO A COMPLETE BATTERY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC TESTS, INCLUDING IQ TESTS.

I think you missed the second half of my posting, which I have quoted here. I do not disagree with your assertion that psychological testing would be beneficial in screening candidates for the priesthood; I merely state that such screening should be done by professionals who know and understand what the Church expects of its candidates.

I suggest you read what happened to the candidates Michael Rose describes in his book; it was unconscionable.

With regard to IQ testing, I must disagree. The only thing an IQ test really measures is how well you can take an IQ test; it is not a reliable measure of one’s intellect. Besides, I know plenty of people with very high IQs who haven’t the common sense necessary to know when to come in out of the rain. Take it from someone with an adjusted Stanford-Binet IQ score of 143: IQ scores don’t mean spit.

 

[dominicsavio]

Peace be with you!

As one who believes he is called to the religious life…I will offer a few thoughts. I am kind of on both sides of the fence on this issue though to be honest. I would have no problem being tested, but I have no problem not being tested by a particular Congregation if they didn’t require that either. On the one hand, I do see why it could be helpful and good to test them IF the psychologist was good and faithful to the Church. It would be necessary to be able to trust that they would not turn away good candidates for their own personal reasons (like not liking what that seminarian had to say on a particular moral issue).

On the other hand...I think that there are more than a few canonized saints who would never been ordained if they had to pass our modern view of who passes the psychological exam.  St. Joseph Cupertino and St. John Vianney, both great saints come to mind.  They were not smart and in the case of St. Joseph Cupertino...he certainly would not have been able to pass the test.  But Our Lord calls whom He wills and they did much more good in the Church than the others who may have been "more fit" for the job.  When Our Lord calls someone...He doesn't pick them just because of their natural qualities.  For instance, he didn't say Peter, I think you are a natural leader, full of virtue and natural abilities so I want you to lead My Church.  He often picks people like Moses, with a speach impediment to preach His Word.  Lets not let our ideas of what is best get in the way of the call of Our Lord.  Jesus did not test the apostles as He called them...He said "come and see" and they followed Him.  It was simple.  Not, "are you able to do this or that?" but a simple invitation to give their life to Him.  That is what is needed.  People who will give totally for Christ and the Church, and great psychology is not necessary to do that.  Although, sanctity is sanity in all reality.  
I say these things just to throw them out there.  I do see the value of these tests...I just think they can be overdone and get in the way at times by applying our standards to Gods.  We must be careful in this area I think.

 

[misericordie]

rcwhiteh:

I, rcwhiteh, originally said: I agree that candiates for the priesthood should undergo psychological evaluation, but the evaluation should be done by professionals who are in tune with the Church’s requirements.

misericordie replied: Yes, but is still is not suffiecient justification to NOT DO A COMPLETE BATTERY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC TESTS, INCLUDING IQ TESTS.

I think you missed the second half of my posting, which I have quoted here. I do not disagree with your assertion that psychological testing would be beneficial in screening candidates for the priesthood; I merely state that such screening should be done by professionals who know and understand what the Church expects of its candidates.

I suggest you read what happened to the candidates Michael Rose describes in his book; it was unconscionable.

With regard to IQ testing, I must disagree. The only thing an IQ test really measures is how well you can take an IQ test; it is not a reliable measure of one’s intellect. Besides, I know plenty of people with very high IQs who haven’t the common sense necessary to know when to come in out of the rain. Take it from someone with an adjusted Stanford-Binet IQ score of 143: IQ scores don’t mean spit.

Okay, but lets remember that psychology IS auesful and very important tool. Some though like belive that faith is opposed to psychology/psychiatry, it is NOT.

 

[MamaGeek]

I haven’t read over all these posts yet, but I wanted to share what I’ve recently read about the psychological tests performed on men discerning a vocation to the priesthood in the U.S. I just started reading an excellent book called Goodbye, Good Men. The contents are utterly shocking.

There exists a network of formations directors and psychologists which systematically weed out true, orthodox vocations and promote liberal seminarians who actively promote homosexuality, ordination of women, and opposition to church teaching, especially on sexual morality. Men who are professed heterosexuals and admit to devotions such as Eucharistic adoration and rosaries, and who believe in the teaching authority of the Magisterium and are loyal to the pope are labeled as “rigid,” “closed-minded,” and “sexually immature.” Many are encouraged to undergo “therapy” to correct their “traditional” perceptions which are unhealthy for priests in the “changing future Church.” Some of the most prominent and trusted psychologists used by seminaries in the U.S. are masons, non-believers, or fallen-away Catholics.

If seminarians are no longer subjected to this kind of discouragement from true vocations, then good riddance. The solution to clerical sex scandals is not more psychology, but more orthodoxy, more prayer, and a complete overhaul of the American seminary system.

My question is, why isn’t the pope doing more about this?

 

[Servant1]

MamaGeek:

There exists a network of formations directors and psychologists which systematically weed out true, orthodox vocations and promote liberal seminarians who actively promote homosexuality, ordination of women, and opposition to church teaching, especially on sexual morality. Men who are professed heterosexuals and admit to devotions such as Eucharistic adoration and rosaries, and who believe in the teaching authority of the Magisterium and are loyal to the pope are labeled as “rigid,” “closed-minded,” and “sexually immature.” Many are encouraged to undergo “therapy” to correct their “traditional” perceptions which are unhealthy for priests in the “changing future Church.” Some of the most prominent and trusted psychologists used by seminaries in the U.S. are masons, non-believers, or fallen-away Catholics.

Mama -

I don’t know of this network you mention, so I can neither attest to its existence nor deny its existence. Assuming you are correct, and your information is accurate, all I can say is this:

What needs to be fixed are the ones who are abusing the system. However, to quote a favorite Latin proverb of mine: “ABVSVS NON VSVM TOLLIT” - the abuse does not take away the use.

The fact that there are - or may be - some folks who abuse the system of psychological testing for candidates and aspirants for Holy Orders does not take away the fact that GOOD testing needs to be done on all aspirants and candidates for Holy Orders.

Another way of saying it is that one does not throw out the baby with the (dirty) bathwater.

Season’s Blessings!

 

[misericordie]

MamaGeek:

I haven’t read over all these posts yet, but I wanted to share what I’ve recently read about the psychological tests performed on men discerning a vocation to the priesthood in the U.S. I just started reading an excellent book called Goodbye, Good Men. The contents are utterly shocking.

There exists a network of formations directors and psychologists which systematically weed out true, orthodox vocations and promote liberal seminarians who actively promote homosexuality, ordination of women, and opposition to church teaching, especially on sexual morality. Men who are professed heterosexuals and admit to devotions such as Eucharistic adoration and rosaries, and who believe in the teaching authority of the Magisterium and are loyal to the pope are labeled as “rigid,” “closed-minded,” and “sexually immature.” Many are encouraged to undergo “therapy” to correct their “traditional” perceptions which are unhealthy for priests in the “changing future Church.” Some of the most prominent and trusted psychologists used by seminaries in the U.S. are masons, non-believers, or fallen-away Catholics.

If seminarians are no longer subjected to this kind of discouragement from true vocations, then good riddance. The solution to clerical sex scandals is not more psychology, but more orthodoxy, more prayer, and a complete overhaul of the American seminary system.

My question is, why isn’t the pope doing more about this?

Sounds like lots of HOOPLA too.

 

[JimG]

I agree with dominsavio that there are more than a few saints that could not have withstood modern psychological testing. They were just not normal! But they were holy!

Consider the Cure of Ars. Some people who stood in line for hours to go to confession to him were dismissed before they said a word with “Come back when you are truly sorry.” What confessor nowadays could get by with that?

 

[MamaGeek]

JimG:

I agree with dominsavio that there are more than a few saints that could not have withstood modern psychological testing. They were just not normal! But they were holy!

Consider the Cure of Ars. Some people who stood in line for hours to go to confession to him were dismissed before they said a word with “Come back when you are truly sorry.” What confessor nowadays could get by with that?

Some orders may be better suited to certain personalities, and not all Saints were priests. The psych testing system is broken, but IF it is fixed, it could be a valuable tool in determining a young man’s suitability for diocesan priesthood.