On Psychological Testing

[Gabriela]

This is a link to an excellent article about discerning the sexual orientation of seminary students.

 

http://www.hprweb.com/2014/08/homosexuality-and-vocational-discernment-and-choice/

 

It makes many strong points about the undesirability of psychological testing in the consideration and formation of seminary students (which, given the papal and other Vatican documents cited, appears to apply also to religious life).

 

It's a long article from the Homiletics & Pastoral Review, but it's worth reading in its entirety, I think. Footnotes 19 and 20 are also relevant to those interested in the legitimacy and appropriateness of psychological testing.

[Spem in alium]

Very interested in this subject. Thank you. :)

[maximillion]

VERY interesting, since I am one of those against psychological profiling.

 

Thanks for posting.

[marigold]

"By further analogy, one would tend less to regard adultery as a dispositional “tendency,” than as a practice (that is, only those who commit adultery are termed “adulterers,” not those who simply have an inclination to commit adultery). This way of thinking underscores that seminary discernment should focus on conduct that is observable (i.e., on the practice of virtue), and not on internal dispositions. In this approach, discernment should principally be a discernment of moral character, and not of interiority and/or of psychology. Reference to psychologists may be advised for specific identified behavioral concerns. But the issue of homosexuality should principally be treated under the heading of “formation of moral character,” and should principally be addressed by evidence-based, astute priestly discernment in the external forum."

I think this is an excellent attitude that I'm surprised not to see more often, since it seems to be the more Christian one. As far as I know, it is the prevailing attitude in most Orthodox seminaries.

"We are not our sins." - deceptively simple, but the longer you meditate on it, the deeper it gets.

[BarbTherese]

"We are not our sins." - deceptively simple, but the longer you meditate on it, the deeper it gets.          

 

 

Well said

[nikita92]

Clerical culture is all male. When that culture is attracting a highly disproportionate percentage of people who have same-sex attractions, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out
that there’s going to be libidinal trouble in spades — that attraction will lead to temptation, then to giving in to temptation, and then to an entire subculture of homosexually-active priests who protect one another from scrutiny and lawsuitshomosexually-oriented celibate priests who are orthodox and obedient to Church norms, who are splendid priests, do mostly exist. But when they must function in a priestly culture that’s electric with same-sex attractions, the temptations and (let’s face it) the solicitations they must contend with will be daunting. It’s no favor to them to make them function in such an environment.

And let no one think that allowing priests to marry would solve
the problem. It would have no effect on homosexuals. The Times of
London recently indicated that priests in the (Anglican) Church of
England are dying of AIDS at a rate roughly 2 to 3 times greater than Catholic priests in the U.S. — and the Church of England has always allowed priests to marry!

No, the problem isn’t the celibacy requirement. The problem is a hideous breakdown in basic Christian faith and morality.
Actually, we have plenty of real men in the priesthood.
But when the priesthood gets characterised as a “gay profession” and sex scandals are a common occurrence, unwarranted suspicion is cast upon all our good, hard-working priests. Have we got a problem, or do we need to get real about homosexualityhttp://wisecatholic.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-catholic-priesthood-predominantly

Edited September 1, 2014 by nikita92

[marigold]

I agree, Nikita. The boilerplate answer I always hear is that permitting marriage is the solution. And I think that's really the wrong answer to the wrong question!

In my experience, sexuality is very fluid and develops over a whole lifetime. I wouldn't say it is unheard of for an otherwise straight person to experience same-sex attraction once, twice, or more in their life, especially in very intense, pressured places like seminaries and monasteries.

I think it was Auntie Seraphic who said that the Catholic priesthood, as a way of life where you don't have to marry, and can live with other men, is always going to be attractive to homosexual men.

So you can't prevent people experiencing the development of their sexuality, and you can't stop people reacting to pressured situations with various ways of 'acting out' that may include romantic attachments, and you can't stop homosexual people being present in all situations and establishments. What do you do to stop an degenerate and predatory culture emerging? You foster a strong culture of ascetic struggle (the author used the word manly but I think he meant ascetic) which is based on denying yourself, having an open conscience to at least one other person, usually a confessor, and absolute reliance on confession and Holy Communion. You also weed out troublemakers. I wouldn't think psychological testing is the way to do that, although it is useful to help people understand some of their weaknesses and strengths, including problems that may arise in the future. But in small, close-knit communities you are bound to 'figure out' who is really sincere and struggling to get better, even if they fall often, and who has less integrity and is there for reasons other than denying themselves in order to follow Christ. I don't believe for a moment that no one knows about these things happening - it's whether they are well-formed enough in their conscience, and dedication to Christ, to be able and willing to combat it.

[maximillion]

^^^^THIS!!!

 

 

Excellent post Marigold....can't prop enough.

[TIWW]

Unfortunately, the church is now reaping the results of sexual abuse and pedophilia gone unchecked for decades.

In light of the legal and canonical ramifications of sexual dysfunction and acting out, in spite of vows of celibacy and ones commitment to God and the Church community.  The church has a moral and legal obligation to protect it's members and it's leaders. Psychological testing is an aid to help those discerning and those in leadership address any issues that may arise, before commitments are made on either side. It is a pretty cold, hard fact, but the Catholic church has had  seminaries and dioceses shut down because of sexual problems ( many which happened decades ago) but financially, they have been put out of business. One way to avoid this now, are the tools ( including psychological testing) used to prepare and screen new vocations. I know many men's communities and seminaries now have ongoing workshops and retreats with psychologists and canon lawyers to help deal with these issues.

[franciscanheart]

... you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that there’s going to be libidinal trouble in spades — that attraction will lead to temptation, then to giving in to temptation, and then to an entire subculture of homosexually-active priests who protect one another from scrutiny and lawsuits. Homosexually-oriented celibate priests who are orthodox and obedient to Church norms, who are splendid priests, do mostly exist. But when they must function in a priestly culture that’s electric with same-sex attractions, the temptations and (let’s face it) the solicitations they must contend with will be daunting. It’s no favor to them to make them function in such an environment.

 

While I don't entirely object to your comments, I think this is misguided and unfair. Temptation does not always lead to giving in to temptation -- even for the gays. All it takes to make that assumption is homophobia (aka ignorance).

[nikita92]

That is true FH!! If they would tell each other "NO"(like Eve should have done) and try to focus more on Celebacity..I think temptation would greatly be reduced in any case. But then again..Im not a male..so it is easier for me to say I suppose.

[Gabriela]

While I don't entirely object to your comments, I think this is misguided and unfair. Temptation does not always lead to giving in to temptation -- even for the gays. All it takes to make that assumption is homophobia (aka ignorance).

 

It doesn't necessarily lead to it, sure, but I don't think she meant that, and if it never led to it (which is what I think she was denying), then we wouldn't have the concept of "near occasion to sin".