A document titled "Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood," was released Oct. 30 by the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education. http://www.zenit.org/article-24170?l=english
One of my friends who has seen instances of seminary candidates with psychological problems and a generalized comfort with hypocrisy showed me the document.
Happily, the document lists some traits that a candidate should have:
“Some of these qualities merit particular attention: the positive and stable sense of one's masculine identity, and the capacity to form relations in a mature way with individuals and groups of people; a solid sense of belonging, which is the basis of future communion with the presbyterium and of a responsible collaboration in the ministry of the bishop;[10] the freedom to be enthused by great ideals and a coherence in realizing them in everyday action; the courage to take decisions and to stay faithful to them; a knowledge of oneself, of one's talents and limitations, so as to integrate them within a self-esteem before God; the capacity to correct oneself; the appreciation for beauty in the sense of "splendour of the truth" as well as the art of recognizing it; the trust that is born from an esteem of the other person and that leads to acceptance; the capacity of the candidate to integrate his sexuality in accordance with the Christian vision, including in consideration of the obligation of celibacy.[11]”
The document reminded everyone that many mistakes are made in the vocations process.
Section 4 states:
“The document of this Congregation for Catholic Education, A Guide to Formation in Priestly Celibacy, recognizes that "errors in discerning vocations are not rare, and in all too many cases psychological defects, sometimes of a pathological kind, reveal themselves only after ordination to the priesthood. Detecting defects earlier would help avoid many tragic experiences."[16]”
The document also warns of eager candidates minimizing problems to psychologists or other people they encounter in the vocations process. At the same time, some people are overly scrupulous and accuse themselves too much.
“Nor must it be forgotten that there is a possible tendency of some candidates to minimize or deny their own weaknesses. Such candidates do not speak to the formators about some of their serious difficulties, as they fear they will not be understood or accepted. Thus, they nurture barely realistic expectations with respect to their own future. On the other hand, there are candidates who tend to emphasize their own difficulties, considering them insurmountable obstacles on their vocational journey.”
This is all very good.
However, here is my concern. Nothing in the process, as far as I can tell, has really changed. The same psychologists, vocations people, and other “formators,” as the document calls them, will be privately considering a person’s suitability for seminary. They will ask questions and encourage the man to be honest about his strengths and weaknesses. This isolated process can cause a problematic blind spot.
How can it be truly determined if a man’s actions are in line with his beliefs and words if people from his community are not consulted? The fear of accidentally damaging a man’s reputation, or prying too much into his life is more important than doing a thorough job of testing his word. The top secret security clearance process in the government seems slightly more rigorous than this.
Why do I care? I care because I know that as a single Catholic woman, I saw men cherry picked from the Catholic scene who had brought scandal to the community. I also met and interviewed other women with the same stories and observations. When women speak up about their observations, they are rarely taken seriously.
If we want to really reduce the number of scandals among the priesthood, it seems that we really should give people in the community a voice when they have something to contribute to the discernment process.
Menu
.jpg)