Psych evaluations are routinely required of people entering many professions.  This is a sensible move and one that, as the Holy See has noted, may help prevent future tragedies.  But just as importantly it can help to prevent young men from making a potentially really bad career decision.  Not all are called to Holy Orders.  And the Roman Church’s insistence on celibacy for its clergy makes it even more imperative that candidates be carefully screened to ensure they have the right disposition and are on an even keel emotionally and psychologically for this demanding life.

Under the mercy,
John

An Orthodox Christian

I’m disappointed to read this.  I don’t trust psych tests to the point that I would think twice before undergoing one for some requirement.  I strongly question whether psych tests have any constructive role in screening for Holy Orders.

#2, it depends a lot on what the test is, and who administers the test.  Some tests are very helpful; others are misleading.  The hard part of testing is that some people will refuse to learn anything about themselves and try to force their way further into the process - and these are the people who would do the most damage to others if ordained. 

The right tests can be very useful.  A poor test is worth less than no test.  And a stubborn applicant who lacks any self-insight can become a disaster in a number of ways - the overseers of the candidacy process have to be fair and firm no matter what.

I seem to recall that for some time many dioceses have used a battery of psychological tests on postulants and aspirants for Holy Orders.  While this might have screened out some seriously disordered folks (who probably could have been discerned as such without the tests), it plainly hasn’t prevented quite a few folks with rather obvious problems (e.g. narcissism, self-image issues, aberrant sexual inclinations, etc.) from becoming priests and even bishops.  And these tests could just as easily be used to screen out those who are deemed (by personality type, for example) to lean toward orthodox (i.e., “rigid”) beliefs.  So certainly these tests are a tool, but they have their limitations, and can also be seriously abused.

I would have agreed with #2 until I became involved for nearly a decade in the process of selecting candidates for ordination. Access to those tests was restricted so only the bishop saw the results, but on his say-so they provided a flag for us that helped us ask a more substantial array of questions of the aspirant. I suppose there are always the people who are going to be able find their way through such screening without tripping any kind of alarm, but I would rather have a broad array of the facets of a person’s life being considered than the rather inadequate process that I went through more than forty years ago.

I don’t believe Reuters captured the intent of this document at all! You might want to look at this source instead. The document is actually discouraging a battery of psychological tests in the routine evaluation of potential seminarians. These tests are a tool to be used in difficult cases.

He then stressed another aspect that the document focuses on: “the importance of divine grace in the formation of candidates to the priesthood”. The cardinal indicated that “recourse to experts in the psychological sciences should be used only ‘in some cases’ to show the assessment of a diagnosis, or eventual therapy, or psychological support in the development of the human qualities demanded by the exercise of the ministry. These should be consulted,” he insisted, “‘si casus ferat’, meaning in exceptional cases that present particular difficulties”.

All I can say is—OMG!! Why isn’t this already happening!!  Screen away!!

Thanks DJH, Reuters really didn’t get the full bit.  It was enlightening to check out the blog of Father Z (link on your comment) on the topic and to read the comments. Some of them were truly sad and bore witness to the possiblity of misuse and/or abuse of the process in the RC process.  It seems as if the Holy See and group are trying to get psychology into its proper place in the process - being one factor rather than driving the whole show.

I do believe in the value of psych testing as a part of a whole process. (A balanace between good self-assessment tools and other-administered would be nice). One problem, though, is that most folks who are bright enough to get through seminary can “read” the test and give what they perceive to be a socially desirable response.  The best scenario, IMHO, is working, for at least a year, with with a godly spiritual director who also has solid training in psychology.  There are many tests that could be helpful for assessment- the Adult Attachment Interview is one that comes to mind.
That said, going through the process, I did a battery of tests - Most of which indicated I was dandy and at one that indicated that I was crazy as heck.  Thank goodness my bishop knew me well as did my parish priest.  Together they were able to suggest that the test results might not have been fully accurate in my case, but had they not known me, that would have been that.  Twenty plus years later I am still waiting for the dire stuff to surface.  No signs yet -  TBTG!
On a related topic, our family has gone through the process of international adoption and I have to say that the screening process for that is far more rigorous than what I went through in the diocesan administered testing in the process toward priesthood.

Or this could have beed recommended by the lawyers to show due diligence the next time they are sued.

#8,  I like the way you speak.  In my chosen field of Electronic Engineering I went to college and then entered the work force.  Needless to say I just didn’t walk into a fancy office and go right to work.  Time was spent in discussion and on the job training before designing and testing equipment built by my firm.  No one wants to see a multi-thousand dollar unit go up in smoke.  Human beings are more precious and require more training to allow them to work with other human beings.