Seminaries and their screening processes

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tis_Bearself

Patron
There’s a case going on in my former diocese, covered extensively in the news media, in which a priest got busted for kiddie porn and soliciting minors, many of whom were boys he knew from his assigned parish. There is pretty extensive evidence that he was heavily involved in both, so this doesn’t appear to be a one-time thing or a false/ mistaken accusation.

When I first saw it, I noticed the priest was a middle-aged graying man, so I assumed this was another case of someone ordained before seminaries cracked down on this stuff, who maybe had been transferred around rather than prosecuted. Then I found out he had been ordained just a couple years ago in 2017 when he was in his late 30s. The parish at which he allegedly committed bad acts was his first assignment as parochial vicar. The extent of the stuff the guy has allegedly done makes me doubt that he just got started with his perversions in the last couple years. At the very least, he likely had strong tendencies even if he didn’t actually start doing bad things till after ordination.

So, my question is, how do we trust all the supposed screening and psychological testing etc that the seminaries are supposed to be doing, when a guy like this is still able to get ordained in 2017? And he’s not even some young man, he’s a middle-aged pedophile who is highly likely to have been doing at least some of this stuff in his pre-seminary life as well. How did this guy get ordained?
 
Last edited:
You are correct that he is a seasoned offender. With the extent to which he was involved, he’s been doing this awhile.

When my husband first became a police officer, the agency’s selection process was vigorous and included home visits, interviews of people with whom he interacted, and psychological testing and assessment. It seems that seminaries should have a similarly rigorous application process (or do they? I don’t know).
 
I’d love to know what the seminaries actually do to weed these people out.
It seems problematic to just rely on the candidate being honest. Is a pedophile or an ephebophile really going to tell his formation directors that he has an attraction to underage boys? It seems like if he said that he should be immediately expelled, which means a smart seasoned offender won’t reveal that.
 
It’s difficult, because if someone has these paedophilic tendencies and seeks mental health treatment, he will not be helped. Rather, they are treated as criminals and demonised, even if they have not yet offended. Pre-offender paedophiles are a vastly underserved community. As mandatory reporters, psychologists and therapists MUST report any suspicions of child abuse. This leaves the paedophile no safe avenue to seek help, even when he hasn’t acted on those predilections yet (I keep using ‘he’, because although there are female offenders, it is quite comparatively rare). So if a man tells his therapist he’s tempted to abuse his child and is seeking help to prevent such an occurrence, the therapist must report him because he presents a danger to the child. Which leaves the man labelled as a criminal before any crime was committed and also leaves him without anyone in whom he can confide and seek help. The stakes are high–accusations result in loss of family, employment, one’s role in the community… It’s really a problematic situation.

I’m providing a perspective from a mental health standpoint and I believe everyone should have access to mental health and help. But please don’t read that I am on a paedophile’s side or feel sorry for them. Sexually abusing a child is a heinous and disgusting crime that creates lasting damage of the psyche of a child. But for people who have those tendencies, have not offended, and who are desperate to prevent themselves from offending, they really have no where to turn for help.
 
Perhaps, but moving forward to improve the process is surely better than doing nothing and remaining stagnant, no? Perfection will never be achieved, but we still should strive to get as close to the ideal as possible.
 
It’s really tough. I have no idea how you actually screen these people out. Obviously, you can ask “are you a pedo?” but no one who is is going to say so. Polygraph maybe?
 
Many psychological assessments are specifically designed to suss out such things. I can’t see it going this far, but there are neuropsychological procedures that can indicate one’s predilections…for example, studies have been done measuring physiological responses to various stimuli to determine what a person responds sexually. This is done for research and I’m sure it would be an ethical quagmire to try to use it to screen candidates for seminary, police, community leaders with close contact with children, etc.
 
One factor which could reduce the possibility of paedophiles getting over sympathetic treatment from their superiors is to ensure that they are not attracted to the same sex, since thatcrules out the possibility of mutual attraction between clergymen leading to biased and overindulgent handling of their cases.
 
I’m not sure what you are asking or referring to here.
 
Well, you must either make the entire process more thorough than it already is (which could be helpful in certain places around the world, it is true), or you must see more things as red flags, or both. The former means much more work for both the applicant and those receiving him, work which neither might have it in them to do (so some men will just not bother applying due to the intimidation, and some dioceses/orders/seminaries will simply lack the resources to do this anyway); the latter means taking fewer risks altogether, in which case many (more!) men will be turned away without a reasonable justification. While the motivation is good to “make the process tougher!” the reality is that in the USA (and other places too), in most cases, the screening process is already exorbitantly difficult and strenuous, and plenty of men are turned away for minimal concerns, bordering on or entering into the neurotic. In seminaries and houses of formation themselves, well, to put it mildly, the more rigorous the process is, the more likely things are to be buried, meanwhile creating hostility toward what is authentically good in the formation program. Men need room to breathe and a safe place to mess up.

So, without knowing what diocese the OP is talking about. and what seminary this man went to and during which years, it is hard to say much more. (There are pockets of problems - and there are some older priests with a lot of influence who have some laxity or negligence, and even some younger priests too, though it’s generally those of a certain generation that have strange ideas about sexuality and psychology…) But in general, things in the USA are already maybe a bit too rigorous… If you don’t think so, start asking younger priests their opinion about it (men who went to different seminaries).

-K
 
Last edited:
I have no argument with what you’ve said. I know nothing of the screening process or path to becoming a priest. I was just offering my perspective as a psychologist on the issue of the challenges in trying to identify potentially nefarious candidates. A balance must be struck somewhere between extreme rigidity and neglectful allowances. Perhaps part of the process should include building systems within the church to maintain accountability and regular monitoring in general. For example, law enforcement usually begins with having a university degree, applying to an academy, completing the academy, working with an FTO (field training officer), and then continuing assessments, reviews, in service, and so on.

Edited to add: I just realised that my example of law enforcement might not be well received given the current situation… the process I delineated was my husband’s experience at his particular agency. Obviously, no amount of prescreening or continued monitoring can prevent LEOs or priests from doing wrong if they choose that path.
 
Last edited:
NevermoreLenore said:
Perhaps part of the process should include building systems within the church to maintain accountability and regular monitoring in general.
Click to expand...
This is the key, but it is haaaaaard… as we have been seeing. The hierarchical Church is neither a business nor a family - it is somewhere in between… so it can easily become like something else which is in between business and family, called “the mafia.” And just like with many power structures, not infrequently the worst get on top - because they are willing to be two-faced, to cheat, to lie, to bribe, to compromise illegitimately… and it perpetuates itself.

What you say about law enforcement is correct. But with seminary it is much, much more rigorous. (I know this directly from observation… It’s much easier to become a cop - and I would say probably even secret service, or CIA, NSA, FBI, at least at an entry-level position…)

What do you think are the 5 or 6 most important red flags for predators - within the standard personality tests? What about observable behavior with other men when living together?
 
Who exactly do these mandatory reporters report to, if no crime of any sort has been committed?
 
kapp19 said:
What about observable behavior with other men when living together?
Click to expand...
I’m not seeing how a man’s behavior with other adult men is going to throw up a red flag if he prefers young boys, or young girls.

As the old “To Catch a Predator” series showed, those who prey on the young often come off as Joe Normal, even sometimes having wives and kids. A guy who likes boys is often not going to be interested in adult men.

It would be more helpful if there was a way to check their computer activity. It seems like a lot of priests nowadays (two from the diocese I’m in now and this guy from the other diocese, just in the last several years) make online accounts under fake identities or even in one case under a real identity, and use those for immoral purposes. Two of the three priests I mention were posing as women and catfishing young people to send nude pictures. In one case the priest was posing as a teenage lesbian to catfish young girls and in the most recent case I mention he was posing as a woman to catfish boys from his parish.
 
Yikes.

Well, the screening process is pretty extensive, both with psychological tests and criminal background checks. At least, it is in my diocese, and I’m pretty sure there’s set standards for the dioceses in the US. Religious orders, I’m not as sure about since they’re governed internally.

How does someone like that get ordained? I guess it depends on different factors in each case. Psychological tests are highly valuable in weeding out unfit candidates. However, they aren’t an exact science and people can fall through the cracks. While the psychological testing we currently have is not perfect, the alternative is nothing.

I can’t say what the guy was or wasn’t involved with in the past, but if he didn’t have a criminal record or any evidence of wrongdoing, or any complaints against him, there’s not much keeping him from being ordained in that respect. Maybe people at the seminary didn’t notice or ignored red flags. I can’t make that accusation because I have no knowledge of this guy’s formation, but it’s one of many possible factors. In reality, there’s probably a number factors in this case.

The reforms made by the Church and the advent of psychological screening has been highly helpful and have made cases like this a rarity, which I’m highly thankful for. This case is the exception. People ask when these types of things will end, and the sad reality is that it never will end completely. I know people will be bothered to no end by hearing this, but it’s true. To say that things will ever be absolutely perfect is wishful thinking.
 
CTBcin said:
This case is the exception.
Click to expand...
I’d like to be able to say that.
But how many times can we keep saying that?
Especially when we are only ordaining maybe 2 to 10 guys per diocese most years. This latest guy was one of a class of only 8 guys getting ordained. You’d think with so few guys they could screen better.
 
When I went through Reformed seminary, we had a criminal background check and one day of psychological tests and assessment. That one day was a bit short, I think, and it would have been relatively easy for a manipulative individual to succeed and get through. The real test, though, was the practicum in a parish where we were constantly evaluated during 18 months. I’m not sure if a pathological individual could remain undetected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top