Psychological Testing: Seminarians

  • Thread starter Thread starter misericordie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Before I was accepted into formation as a deacon I had to undergo an extensive series of tests – some of which a candidate for the priesthood would not be required to take (marriage satisfaction, for example). I am in favor of doing everything we can to ensure that people selected for formation are mentally stable, mature, and comfortable with their own sexuality. Even priests have to deal with issues of sexuality and how they live out their call to celibacy, so this is an important aspect which, sadly, was not even considered 10 years ago!

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I doubt that they would take much credence with an anonymous report. If this issue isn’t great enough for you to risk your job over, why should others risk more?

And anyways, the bishop really has no power over a religious order.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not against psychological testing, I just live in the real world and realize that this, psychological testing, will not fix everything.

One must also look at the chance for “false positivies” and the possible ruined lives in men who are turned down that would never do anything wrong. Our society is not build upon the vulcan premise of “The needs of the many outway the needs of the few (or one).”

The rates of abuse in the clergy scandal were not much (if at all) greater than the rates of abuse in general society. Are we going to start psychological testing sports coaches, teachers, fathers, uncles, next door neighbors, scouting leaders, etc…

It is a complex issue. but attacking those who disagree, or those who do not think that psychological testing is the silver bullet, with you is no way to fix the issue.

I would go further that a religious order can determine things about an individual that a seminary/bishop will not as the candidate is in at least a year long pre-noviate and then moves into a year-and-a-day noviate where they are monitored closely.
Ummm, yes but with all respect you easily give to much credence to all applicants as if all and evry human being has the right intentions. I actually met a seminarian that admitted to me his original intention of entering the priesthood was to get a good education, master’s degrees etc., then drop out before ordination.
By the way, Cardinal McKarrick of Washington, D.C DOES have some say in an INSTITUTE whi he bought over to HIS Archdiocese and which is only under Diocesan right NOT PONTIFICAL.
 
40.png
frdave20:
I haven’t even applied to my prospective order and I was required to have both a psychological and a psychiatric evaluation. I thought that such protocol was required by the Church, but has, in recent days, been even more emphasized… Am I wrong?
Thanks, yes it is the reqirement of the USA Bishops but of course some NEW orders decide not to obey, but of course get these same bishops to ordain them, and provide them with other stuff.
 
Well if a man, like my friend, had gone thu years of diocean spiritual guidance, as well as other programs wouldn’t that reveal more about him then a psycological test?
You can never really tell in my opinion…but I think that if a valued spiritual director, friend or priest, could say a heck of alot more about a man than any one test.
 
40.png
Meggie:
Well if a man, like my friend, had gone thu years of diocean spiritual guidance, as well as other programs wouldn’t that reveal more about him then a psycological test?
You can never really tell in my opinion…but I think that if a valued spiritual director, friend or priest, could say a heck of alot more about a man than any one test.
Agreed. Psych testing should just be one of the methods employed.

Peace.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
And some who did abuse children were psychologically tested. Its not fool proof.

Many very good candidates have been stained by a bad psychological test as once you are labeled bad it is hard to get that fixed.

Also I would say, that this post is nothing but hear say at the best and truly unfounded.

Please provide the names of these orders. Seminaries take those who are sponsored. If a bishop or an order sponsors someone I would think that the seminary would decide that they (the bishop or the order) has found the candidate acceptable.

So please provide proof of your statement and give us the orders and seminaries you are talking about.
David - Slava Isusu Christu!

I agree - hearsay is bad. I further agree that a phychological examination is not fool proof. Neither is a parking brake on a car or a safety of a firearm. We’re still safer because of them. The abuse does not take away the use.

I sit on a diocesan committee that deals with candidates for holy orders and seminarians. I’ve seen the havoc that has been wreaked by folks who were NOT properly screened. I’ve also seen some potential havoc prevented by psychological screening. As in any human endeavor, folks can make wrong choices of whom to send these candidates to. This process, like any human process, is lacking in perfection. But it is far more dangerous to leave off all psychological evaluation of those to be entrusted with the cure of souls.

A magical silver bullet that can make sure nobody who shouldn’t be ordained is ordained? - Nah!

An instrument of the devil, hell-bent on keeping holy men our of the ranks of clerics? Absolutely not!

Christos posredi nas!
 
As a practical aspect - if you think the groups that insure churches and dioceses will underwrite a policy for clergy that have not had any psychological testing - in light of the history of the recent few years - you better think again! And don’t think that doesn’t enter into the pastoral consideration a bishop has to give to the welfare and health of his diocese.
 
40.png
Servant1:
David - Slava Isusu Christu!

I agree - hearsay is bad. I further agree that a phychological examination is not fool proof. Neither is a parking brake on a car or a safety of a firearm. We’re still safer because of them. The abuse does not take away the use.

I sit on a diocesan committee that deals with candidates for holy orders and seminarians. I’ve seen the havoc that has been wreaked by folks who were NOT properly screened. I’ve also seen some potential havoc prevented by psychological screening. As in any human endeavor, folks can make wrong choices of whom to send these candidates to. This process, like any human process, is lacking in perfection. But it is far more dangerous to leave off all psychological evaluation of those to be entrusted with the cure of souls.

A magical silver bullet that can make sure nobody who shouldn’t be ordained is ordained? - Nah!

An instrument of the devil, hell-bent on keeping holy men our of the ranks of clerics? Absolutely not!

Christos posredi nas!
Best said. One question maybe you can help me: Should I call the Papal Nuncio in the USA, AND the PRESIDENT of the United States Conferance of Catholic Bishops??? Yes, these tests MUST not be left out, no excuse valid for leaving it out.
 
40.png
misericordie:
Best said. One question maybe you can help me: Should I call the Papal Nuncio in the USA, AND the PRESIDENT of the United States Conferance of Catholic Bishops??? Yes, these tests MUST not be left out, no excuse valid for leaving it out.
Well, my friend, I don’t know enough of the specifics to give you a helpful answer, to be honest. Sorry bout that! Given the vagaries of the original post on this thread, and what I think I know about the ordination process in general, I don’t think we’re in danger of the psychological examination for potential clergy being abandoned. But I must say I don’t have knowledge of whatever is alleged in the DC area, so I can’t say. It may well be an exaggeration, or part of the story - but then given that I’ve lived long enough to see a number of things I never thought I’d see… who knows? 🙂
 
40.png
Servant1:
Well, my friend, I don’t know enough of the specifics to give you a helpful answer, to be honest. Sorry bout that! Given the vagaries of the original post on this thread, and what I think I know about the ordination process in general, I don’t think we’re in danger of the psychological examination for potential clergy being abandoned. But I must say I don’t have knowledge of whatever is alleged in the DC area, so I can’t say. It may well be an exaggeration, or part of the story - but then given that I’ve lived long enough to see a number of things I never thought I’d see… who knows? 🙂
These orders, not only are now in the DC area, they now have been given parishes in MANY dioceses in the USA, and throughout the world.
 
Psychological testing is a bunch of hooey, IMHO.

But that being said, whether or not seminarians should have to submit to this kind of thing for insurance/liability reasons is something the legal arm of the church should decide.

The psychological test results could be valuable evidence in defense of the church in civil court cases of the future, but it might be a double edged sword.
 
I am considering a vocation to the priesthood, and i have heard from many people about “psychological” testing. what are these tests, and why are they so important?

Thomas Aquinas
 
40.png
thomasaquinas:
I am considering a vocation to the priesthood, and i have heard from many people about “psychological” testing. what are these tests, and why are they so important?

Thomas Aquinas
Depends on the diocese pretty much. But likely the path will include, in the early part of your discernment process, a visit to both a licensed clinical phsycologist, who will inteview you and probably administer some well-established psychometric exam such as the MMPI, and to a psychiatrist (a physician).

Some people who articulate or personally feel a calling to ordained ministry simply may have problems that are hidden somewhat below the surface. It would take a trained, skilled professional to see it in many cases. Just a brief look at all the situations of scandal provides a very visible example that at least some misery could have been prevented by adequate screening. Is it perfect? No. No screening is. But is simply an exercise in due diligence. Just because a vocation to an ordained ministry is a holy calling does not mean that thoroughly unholy people or thoroughly unhealthy people won’t submit themselves to bishops for ordination. Due to the trust we want to be able to invest in our clergy, it only makes sense that if we put our trust in one who is not psychologically fit or able to undertake the stresses of ordained ministry, then we are asking for bad trouble.

Ask a victim of ANY kind of clerical abuse - physical, sexual, spiritual, psychological, or any other kind of abuse - if THEY would have liked the Church to afford them the chance to have been spared their grief by requiring psychological screening of the clergy.

The examinations are not “difficult” nor are they scarey. There is nothing to fear.

I have known of cases in which the requirement for psychological examination benefited both the Church AND the aspirant for Holy Orders who was initially held up after the psych exam. Some of these folks had things in their lives that had them psychologically unprepared to take on the tremendous responsiblities of being clergy, especially being parish priests. The exam showed these problematic situations, allowed the diocese to put the process on hold, the aspirants worked through the situations with professional help, and grew into candidates for Holy Orders who were ready to be wonderful clergy. These are the cases you don’t hear about - but they happen. These people didn’t just have their vocations thrown in the crapper. They were helped to address the needed issues, and then progressed on when they were ready.

The Church HAS to have processes in place as part of the discernment process. For ordination to take place, not only does the individual have to hear the “call”, but the Church has to also hear the call for that person to be an ordained minister. Ordination, among other things, is the Church’s ratification at the communal level, of what the individual initially heard as a private or personal call. But just as the Bible tells us to “test a spirit” to see if what it is telling us is true, so it is with those who offer themselves for ordination. Just because a person offers himself for ordination, it is not an automatic assumption that they should be ordained.

Hope that helps!
 
40.png
Servant1:
Depends on the diocese pretty much. But likely the path will include, in the early part of your discernment process, a visit to both a licensed clinical phsycologist, who will inteview you and probably administer some well-established psychometric exam such as the MMPI, and to a psychiatrist (a physician).

Some people who articulate or personally feel a calling to ordained ministry simply may have problems that are hidden somewhat below the surface. It would take a trained, skilled professional to see it in many cases. Just a brief look at all the situations of scandal provides a very visible example that at least some misery could have been prevented by adequate screening. Is it perfect? No. No screening is. But is simply an exercise in due diligence. Just because a vocation to an ordained ministry is a holy calling does not mean that thoroughly unholy people or thoroughly unhealthy people won’t submit themselves to bishops for ordination. Due to the trust we want to be able to invest in our clergy, it only makes sense that if we put our trust in one who is not psychologically fit or able to undertake the stresses of ordained ministry, then we are asking for bad trouble.

Ask a victim of ANY kind of clerical abuse - physical, sexual, spiritual, psychological, or any other kind of abuse - if THEY would have liked the Church to afford them the chance to have been spared their grief by requiring psychological screening of the clergy.

The examinations are not “difficult” nor are they scarey. There is nothing to fear.

I have known of cases in which the requirement for psychological examination benefited both the Church AND the aspirant for Holy Orders who was initially held up after the psych exam. Some of these folks had things in their lives that had them psychologically unprepared to take on the tremendous responsiblities of being clergy, especially being parish priests. The exam showed these problematic situations, allowed the diocese to put the process on hold, the aspirants worked through the situations with professional help, and grew into candidates for Holy Orders who were ready to be wonderful clergy. These are the cases you don’t hear about - but they happen. These people didn’t just have their vocations thrown in the crapper. They were helped to address the needed issues, and then progressed on when they were ready.

The Church HAS to have processes in place as part of the discernment process. For ordination to take place, not only does the individual have to hear the “call”, but the Church has to also hear the call for that person to be an ordained minister. Ordination, among other things, is the Church’s ratification at the communal level, of what the individual initially heard as a private or personal call. But just as the Bible tells us to “test a spirit” to see if what it is telling us is true, so it is with those who offer themselves for ordination. Just because a person offers himself for ordination, it is not an automatic assumption that they should be ordained.

Hope that helps!
This is excellent, and what I too beleive. Thank you. However, most continue to even be in denial that there is even a problem at all in the church: one nun the other day from an ultra conservative NEW INSTITUTE told me: “” ahh there in no need for any psychological testings, the novice masters and rectors of seminaries are the BEST psychologists." Seems this sister is still stuck in the middle ages, and where has she been during all the news about the scandals? Some continue to be in the POSITION of power of authoritarianism with ideas like that: the mentality that nuns and priests could NEVER do anything wrong, after all they are ABOVE the laity, and always KNOW MORE. I applaud Archbishop Flynn (of the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis) for EXPECTING that religious and all in his diocese are at the SERVICE of the people, not minniture gods.
 
I don’t know whether psychological testing works or not. (Wasn’t it the psychologists who quite often gave priest-molesters the green light to return to the ministry after they ‘cured’ them?)

But even more important to the seminaries is good spiritual discernment and spiritual direction. I find it hard to believe that with good spiritual direction, a seminarian with serious moral problems could go through four years of seminary undetected.
 
40.png
JimG:
I don’t know whether psychological testing works or not. (Wasn’t it the psychologists who quite often gave priest-molesters the green light to return to the ministry after they ‘cured’ them?)

But even more important to the seminaries is good spiritual discernment and spiritual direction. I find it hard to believe that with good spiritual direction, a seminarian with serious moral problems could go through four years of seminary undetected.
Well, I don’t disagree, lets have them gp through spiritual direction AND psychological battery tests BEFORE they are admitted to the Novitiates.
 
40.png
JimG:
I don’t know whether psychological testing works or not. (Wasn’t it the psychologists who quite often gave priest-molesters the green light to return to the ministry after they ‘cured’ them?)
Don’t forget that when the medical field thought that the molesters could simply be “cured”-- was some 20 years ago.

You can look at any subject in any field, and see much growth in 20 yrs time. Psychology is no different.

[and yes, Servant1, great post!!]

Peace.
 
Michael Rose’s book “Good-Bye, Good Men” reveals that a number of promising candidates for the priesthood were hounded out of their profession by psychologists calling them possessed of an unbalanced (meaning not gay-friendly enough) spirituality.

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.
 
40.png
rcwhiteh:
Michael Rose’s book “Good-Bye, Good Men” reveals that a number of promising candidates for the priesthood were hounded out of their profession by psychologists calling them possessed of an unbalanced (meaning not gay-friendly enough) spirituality.

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.
Yes, but is still is not suffiecient justification to NOT DO A COMPLETE BATTERY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC TESTS, INCLUDING IQ TESTS.
 
Thank you all for all your (name removed by moderator)ut: please continue.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top