Guidelines/rights For Discerners And Applicants?

[Sister Marie]

Okay, "bizarre" was a poor word choice. Agreed to the nth power. :notworthy:

I like your thinking. I would a lot rather find out sooner than later if I was going to be a really crappy Postulant/Novice, instead of waiting the whole next year and THEN realizing I wasn't cut out for it.

Keep in mind that your goal isn't to become a good postulant or novice but a good religious. There can be some healthy tension between the two and when you've become the best novice you can be it can be hard to transition to being the best sister you can be. It's something that often gets confusing for those in formation. Postulant and novice are stages... Sister or brother is the goal.

[TheresaThoma]

(Temporarily hijacking, but Sister it is good to see you back and active on the boards!)

[SilentJoy]

Keep in mind that your goal isn't to become a good postulant or novice but a good religious. There can be some healthy tension between the two and when you've become the best novice you can be it can be hard to transition to being the best sister you can be. It's something that often gets confusing for those in formation. Postulant and novice are stages... Sister or brother is the goal.

Yes, becoming a Sister is definitely the goal -- but I'm not going to reach that goal if I'm a crappy Postulant.  :flex2:

[SilentJoy]

Yes, becoming a Sister is definitely the goal -- but I'm not going to reach that goal if I'm a crappy Postulant.  :flex2:

...or can you be a crappy Postulant and still be a good Sister?

[beatitude]

...or can you be a crappy Postulant and still be a good Sister?

 

What is a crappy postulant?

 

I know several women who left religious communities after realising that this life was not right for them, but they were by no means crappy. They tried their best. That's enough. It's not about succeeding or failing, but trying.

 

It's not like being a doctor, where you have to pass a set of exams and attain a certain clearly defined standard before you can progress from medical student to doctor. Think about it in terms of marriage...it's unlikely that we would talk about being a crappy fiancee. If you got engaged to be married you hopefully wouldn't worry all the time about being perfect and getting dumped if you weren't good enough. When you love someone they will expect you to make mistakes and they won't love you any the less. Jesus is no different. (Well, he is - he's considerably better. ;) )

 

Peter was our first pope, and his early years of discipleship were by no means a shining success - he denied Christ and ran away! Few postulants could make a mistake to compete with that, but even if they did, they're in good company, and it doesn't mean they have no vocation.

 

There is a wonderful book by Rumer Godden (a novel, but based on true stories from a real-life religious community, the Dominican Sisters of Bethany) that I think you would enjoy reading. The Bethany community was founded to minister to women in prison and to accept as candidates women who were former prisoners, some of whom have committed violent crimes and who arrive at the convent still struggling with problems such as anger or addiction. The nuns do not talk about their history, so few sisters know who is an ex-convict and who is not. In the novel, one of the sisters (a former prisoner) is appointed as one of her convent's two missionaries to the prisons. She is stunned, as in her eyes, the other missionary is a saint. Her prioress replies, "How do you know that Soeur Marie-Alcide was not once exactly like you?"

[maximillion]

For we are all crappy and have fallen short of the glory of God..........

 

I remember when I was at uni, one of the professors asked if I wanted to be a good student.

 

I said yes.

 

"Wrong! Wrong answer......the idea is not that you are a good student but that you become a good thinker!"

 

However, in spite of other's responses, I would be a little thrown if I had a psyche eval at a live in, but maybe that's me. I know you all know I don't have great faith in the things anyways. 

A good chat about my reasons for entering? That I could go with.

[Benedictus]

None of this seems at all bizarre to me. What I would find to be more bizarre would be the sort of navel-gazing so many vocations directors keep their aspirants going through for years before allowing them to become postulants or starting the application process. I sometimes wonder if they're waiting for the discerner to have a Damascus-Road-style locution or something of that sort.

 

No, these orders are being proactive in moving immediately to weed out those candidates unsuited to their life. It is, to my mind, a most charitable way of quickly finding those out who cannot enter their life and letting them know without stringing them along for so long. Moreover, the best way to test a vocation is actually by trying it. There are so many who discover that they do not have a vocation, or who are judged unsuitable by the community, during the time of a postulancy or novitiate. It is best to let the discernment continue in the cloister, living the life, than among the enticements of the world.

 

Anyway, just my two cents. God bless.

 

I'm very skeptical about over reliance on psychological testing. I've read cases where it seems to have been misused unfairly (in religious and secular settings). I'm not discounting it entirely - if it's done by a person who is sympathetic to Catholicism, understands religious life (esp the order in question) and also understands specifically what is viewed as desirable by the community, among a host of other factors. It's fair to say that in some ways those entering religious life aren't necessarily 'typical' on the scale. So this can skew things if there's a lack of interpreting skill.

I've undergone testing prior to a vocational degree to assess suitability. It was pages and pages of closed questions, some open questions, a written autobiography and then an interview. I found it tiring and nerve wracking, but was accepted. The interview with the psychologist was also a good self insight (and affirmation). It can be good to hear the psychologist agree you aren't nuts in your thinking (esp when other people think your job or vocation choice is exactly that!). I'd want to know, or ask, if the report will be shared with you to ensure it seems to make sense or not.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Benedictus

[OnlySunshine]

I'm very skeptical about over reliance on psychological testing. I've read cases where it seems to have been misused unfairly (in religious and secular settings). I'm not discounting it entirely - if it's done by a person who is sympathetic to Catholicism, understands religious life (esp the order in question) and what they want to know specifically regarding potential suitability then it can be a good tool, among a host of other factors. It's fair to say that in some ways those entering religious life aren't necessarily 'typical' on the scale. So this can skew things if there's a lack of interreting skill.

I've undergone testing prior to a vocational degree to assess suitability. It was pages and pages of closed questions, some open questions, a written autobiography and then an interview. I found it tiring and nerve wracking, but was accepted. The interview with the psychologist was also a good self insight (and affirmation). It can be good to hear the psychologist agree you aren't nuts in your thinking (esp when other people think your job or vocation choice is exactly that!). I'd want to know, or ask, if the report will be shared with you to ensure it seems to make sense or not.

 

I kind of agree with this statement.  I would never recommend the psychologist I was referred to because he had no knowledge of religious life - just the diocesan priesthood.  As a result, some of his statements were skewed.  I really wish I had undergone testing with a Sister or someone else with an intimate knowledge of religious life.  I'm not saying the outcome would have been different, but I would have felt more comfortable.  Having a man ask you about your romantic life or lack thereof is not exactly the most comfortable thing to discuss...  :blush:

[NotreDame]

Just FYI - the topic of psych exams was also discussed at length here:

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/131248-admissions-process-for-womens-orders/

 

I don't think anybody enjoys going through a psych exam, but they do serve a number of purposes.  They aren't always there to weed people out - though they can serve that purpose in certain cases - but they help make sure the community is aware of issues if/when the person enters. 

 

Religious life can also seem very attractive to people suffering from past abuse or severe psychological illness even though actual religious life may only serve to exacerbate these wounds.  Those people need to be dealt with charitably and getting those issues out in the open before entering would be a necessary step. 

[maximillion]

Yes, I suppose so but, and for me it is a big but....this can and is only a snapshot of who you are at that moment on that day.

 

If the evaluator has little information or insight into RL it can ( and has been for some) a disaster.

 

In the past none of us had psyche evals. I would hope that any NM worth his her salt would be able to spot someone who had PTSD or the like, or even past wounds.

 

Besides this, in my postulancy I had a private conference with my NM three times a week. In the space of a few months she had my life story pretty much out of me and we got to know each other very well in the process.

 

Just because there is a (questionable) tool does not mean it is suited to the job.

I would prefer a face to face and a slow building of trust and the exposure of any worthy features during the early months of postulancy.

Some communities are over reliant on these evaluations and, sadly, some base their yea or nay on them.........

[OnlySunshine]

If I could make the rules, I would make a live-in mandatory before the psych exam came into play.  I think exams are necessary in certain situations because, if used properly (like my friend's community did), they can hint at strengths and weaknesses so the community knows what to expect when you enter.  I don't think an exam should come beforehand, though, because if that's all they have to go by, they can't make a good determination.  They really need to meet you in person and get to know you so they don't see you as a piece of paper with results.  No one is measured by paper in real life.  Communities with little experience don't know to expect this and may turn away suitable applicants (I'm not necessarily saying that was my case but I'll never know because I didn't get the chance to try).

[maximillion]

I am out of props MM but I so totally agree. Live in first, then if both sides know things will proceed from there, an eval with someone who knows RL and also accepts the limitations of the eval process.

That seems like the best way, since these tools are here to stay.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

Psych evaluations are so important. So, so, so important. Communities (and dioceses in the case of diocesan priests) need to know the psychological states of their applicants. They need to know their members, and as MM said, strengths and weaknesses. 

 

I do suggest reading Rumor Godden's book FIve for Sorrow, Ten for Joy. It's one of my favorite books and think about it often. It is a good view of religious life, how it changed, and the evolution of a vocation. 

 

 

[SilentJoy]

Since I've already started the thread, I have another question...

 

How much is appropriate to tell a community, especially in initial communication?

 

I believe that a community needs to know what kind of a person they might end up dealing with, and it seems like a significant chunk of this needs to be out in the open from the beginning (so we don't waste each other's time). Is this the right approach or are we supposed to be more familiar with one another first? Maybe the initial communication is supposed to go like "I'm interested in your community, let's talk!" rather than "I like you and here's a general idea of why you might want to be cautious about me!"

[SilentJoy]

 it seems like a significant chunk of this needs to be out in the open from the beginning (so we don't waste each other's time).

More poor word choices (I can see it coming)...by "significant chunk," I only meant that I've mentioned one, or possibly two, issues that I think could be MOST likely to cause concern. If a community is still willing to talk to me after that (a few are), then I mention other stuff. I don't just vomit out my life story in my first letter to a Vocations Directress.