The mental health profession is opposed to the
teachings of the Church, especially
relating to the nature of human sexuality.

Should psychologists
choose seminarians?

By John Fraunces

n When Vatican II engaged the Church with the modern age, one consequence was an unprecedented emphasis on the behavioral sciences such as psychology in things Catholic. An obsession with the psychological has now become apparent, particularly in the selection and retention of seminarians. Prior to the Council, the Congregation of Studies and Seminaries held control in the area of priestly formation, and they had a healthy skepticism about the value of psychology in religious affairs. However, when the control of priestly formation was handed over to local authority,1 diocesan vocations committees began to rely on psychological evaluations to select seminary applicants and in many instances, they have also used psychological opinions as the basis for dismissal of those who are in formation. In this respect, the Church in the United States has chosen to follow secular institutions by placing its trust in a science that rejects deviations from the statistical norm and which tends to select as role models those who exemplify Maslow's "self actualized man."

The secular world has successfully used psychology as a means of selecting corporate leaders, supervisory personnel and to some extent even sales personnel. It has also been helpful in selecting candidates for various police agencies throughout the country, and in most states psychological testing is a mandatory requirement. Psychological evaluations enable social and economic institutions to select individuals who conform to the cultural norm, which in statistical terms is commonly referred to as the General Population. In this way, those in charge can assure themselves that they have selected a statistically normal individual whose value system is not at variance with the current cultural norms and whose behavior is predictable because it is based on those norms.

Psychological evaluations generally consist of a series of psychological tests which are usually computer scored, and a one-on-one interview with a licensed psychologist that lasts about an hour. In many instances, the most important single testing instrument to determine the acceptance or rejection of a candidate is the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory ( MMPI). This test is a tried and true measurement of psychological variances that distinguish the Clinical Population, those who are hospitalized with a mental illness, from the General Population. Without a "normal" profile from the MMPI, most psychologists would be reluctant to give a professional endorsement for any applicant.

Likewise, most American seminaries use some type of standardized psychological tests as part of an overall evaluation to screen out those men whose scores are at variance with those of the General Population and to select only those whose test scores conform to cultural norms. This is based on the assumption that any significant deviation from them would necessarily indicate that the applicant either has a mental illness or some other undesirable character trait. Perhaps now with the obvious decline in vocations, diocesan vocation directors might ask themselves: why would a man with a normal psychological profile from our hedonistic culture be interested in the celibate priesthood that offers minimal compensation, long hours, and few opportunities for promotion? An even better question might be that if such a person would apply to the seminary, why would a diocese accept him without a closer examination into his motives and religious ideals? Even a cursory view of the Catholic priesthood makes it abundantly clear that this vocation is not for the "average" man.

Christ told his followers that they were "the salt of the earth." Surely this was not a statistical norm but a deviance from the expected values and behaviors of that time and age. When he told the multitude of apparently faithful followers to believe that "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will not have life in you," almost all left him, and of the few who stayed, eleven were destined to become the first priests and bishops of the Church. Jesus offered the Bread of Life to all his followers, but for some reason known only to them and to God, most of them were not able to make that leap of faith. Statistically it makes no difference why only a few of Jesus' followers accepted his word while the vast majority did not. The empirical fact is, however, that when "the many" left discipleship, those that remained no longer represented the General Population of Israel at that time.

Many may argue that psychological screening is just one way in which men are accepted or rejected by American seminaries, and that it is just additional information used by diocesan authorities to select mentally qualified applicants. That may seem to be a very plausible argument, but in fact psychological evaluations are used for more than additional information, and in far too many cases they hold a veto power over the decisions of those in ecclesiastical authority. The fear of lawsuits arising from the professional malpractice of a small number of priests has made the Church even more dependent on psychology to screen out potential scandals and expensive litigations. Unfortunately, psychological screening for this purpose is not very useful because the testing measures used by today's practitioners do not have the sophistication necessary to identify those who will exhibit sexual perversions later in life or those who will develop addictions to alcohol or drugs, two variables with a high positive correlation with sexual misconduct and other forms of anti-social behavior.

In priestly formation, psychology is also inadequate in its approach to homosexuality and does not consider it a "focus of clinical attention." Homosexual conduct is considered a normal and healthy expression of adult sexuality for those who have this orientation. But, the Catechism of the Catholic Church2 refers to homosexual acts as ". . . acts of grave depravity . . . intrinsically disordered . . . contrary to the natural law . . . under no circumstances can they be approved." Although psychology does not screen out homosexuals of any sort, many in the Church have felt that a celibate homosexual can be ordained for the same reasons that heterosexuals are. They reason that any sex act outside of marriage is sinful regardless of the manner in which it is performed. At first glance, there appears to be a logical consistency in that argument until it is applied to actual life situations.

Homosexually oriented seminarians live in close contact with other male seminarians in an almost exclusively male institution. This can only render each day in the seminary for them a temptation against chastity. Would anyone suggest that heterosexual seminarians be placed in convents or that they live side by side with the postulants and novices? More importantly perhaps is the issue of a priest's spiritual paternity to his parishioners. Once ordained, a man is called "Father" to signify his role in the Church. How can those who are homosexually oriented ever hope to fulfill this essential role of the priest or to love men and women the way Christ did?

Besides the failure of psychology to identify and screen out homosexuals, there are other misuses of such evaluation that have occurred in the selection and retention of seminarians. In 1994 a man applying for a seminary on the East Coast was rejected because the psychologist reported that:

"The testing [results] generally suggests compulsive defenses with depressive elements . . .

Considerable emotional conflict . . . heightened by defensiveness and anxiety . . . . most specifically to sexual identity . . . these problems are denied and repressed . . ."

In an apparent contradiction, the psychologist then concludes by saying, "he . . . is not showing overt evidence of psychosis or major mental illness or dyssocial behavior."

"There does not appear to be particular sexual tension . . . [however] it is our feeling that he should undergo counseling or psychotherapy . . ." [but]

. . . in light of his somewhat rigidly utilized thinking and behavior patterns, the prognosis for significant changes is considered guarded to fair . . . ."

The vocations' committee could not see the apparent contradictions in the psychologist's findings, and they obsequiously rejected the applicant. However, what they didn't know was that the profile which the psychologist interpreted was invalid on its face and should never have been used at all. The concept of validity in psychological testing is very specific and should not be confused with philosophical or theological definitions of the same word. Most standardized psychological tests have certain questions throughout that try to determine if an individual is being truthful and realistic in his responses to the test items. If a test score indicates that a person has consistently deviated from the expected responses to these items and has been totally unrealistic about his self perceptions, the entire test, including all the clinical scores, becomes impossible to interpret, and the results should not be reported.

In this case, the applicant was so nervous because of the consequences of failing the test that he denied any emotional stress whatsoever, and by doing so invalidated his psychological profile. This applicant should have been confronted and asked to explain his responses and the reason for his defensiveness. However, the psychologist chose to interpret the clinical scales in spite of their erroneous scores and sent an invalid report to the vocations committee which they unwittingly used as the basis for rejecting a possible vocation. In addition to those seminary applicants who deviate from statistical norms because they are afraid of "doing poorly" on the exam, there are others who deviate from the norm for spiritual reasons. They are seeking spiritual perfection by explicitly following the lifestyle of Christ. These men are clearly deviants from cultural and psychological norms, but they show no symptoms of psychosis, neurosis, or personality disorders. On the contrary, their thought processes are well organized and insightful. It is their God-centered life that places them outside the norms of our egocentric culture and makes them unacceptable to those who do not want priests whom they describe as "rigidly dogmatic."

Standardized psychological tests are designed to detect cultural and behavioral deviance. One of these measurements is called a "Lie scale," a series of questions scattered throughout the test that is believed to measure an applicant's truthfulness. These questions are selected from empirical data which indicate that 98% of the General Population answers these questions in the same way. For example, one of the items asks: "Do you ever feel like swearing?" Notice that the question doesn't ask if a person swears at all, but only if he sometimes feels like swearing. The overwhelming number of people would respond yes to this question, and to the other "Lie" items in the tests. If an individual does not respond to a certain predetermined number of these "Lie " items in the same manner as the General Population, the psychological profile would be considered invalid, and that man would probably not be admitted to the seminary.

One such man who was found to be untruthful and rigidly dogmatic was told that he was an unacceptable applicant for the seminary, and that they (diocesan authorities) would prevent him from gaining admittance to any seminary in the United States. However, through perseverance, he was able to find a religious order that was willing to have him retested and a psychologist who was willing to listen to his explanation for these "untruthful and rigidly dogmatic responses." When asked about his background, the applicant said that his family lived across the street from the parish church, and every day from the time he was six years old his mother would take him to Mass. He grew up with a deep devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and a childlike innocence about the world around him. His charity towards others was based on his love of God and his desire to please him in every way. From his early childhood, he had always wanted to be a priest and to work out his salvation in that vocation. It may be difficult to understand why any diocese would not want such a person in their seminary, but the authorities were adamant in their belief that this man would not be suitable for ordination.

Another seminary applicant had been dismissed because of "emotional instability and an overly rigid personality." When he was retested for another diocese, no pathological conditions were found, and his profile fit neatly into the norms of the General Population. However, during the two hour clinical interview, the psychologist discovered that this man was expelled from that seminary because of a religious dispute he was having with the faculty rather than a mental illness or a personality disorder. Unfortunately this kind of situation has also occurred in religious communities where those with traditional beliefs are given a pejorative psychological reputation in an effort to isolate them from the community and to silence their objections to doctrinal dissent and liturgical innovations.

Psychology, like medicine, when properly used can benefit the Church in her process of priestly formation, but only if diocesan authorities assume that those who feel called to the priesthood by the Holy Spirit are both physically and mentally healthy. When a physician examines an applicant for the seminary, he is not looking for a particular body type or specific genetic characteristics. He is only concerned with physical diseases and disabilities that would prevent this man from performing his duties as a seminarian and as a priest. In the same way, psychologists should be concerned only with clearly exhibited symptoms of mental illness, personality disorders, addictions, or sexual deviance in seminary applicants. Psychology should not be used to second guess God about whom he has chosen for the priesthood or to stifle theological dissent by selecting only those applicants who conform to the norms of the General Population, or even those of the Catholic Population.

Whenever the Church uses psychological evaluations to accept or reject applicants, they should keep in mind that psychology as a modern science is hostile to the beliefs and values of the Catholic Faith. In 1907, Pope St. Pius X wrote the encyclical, Pascendi Gregis, warning the Church, ". . . it is a fixed and established principle . . . that both science and history must be atheistic; and within their boundaries there is nothing but phenomenon; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded." The Pope wrote this at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and his words ring true today in the final decade of this millennium. It is common knowledge that the mental health profession as a branch of modern science is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church especially relating to the nature of human sexuality, the inalienable right to life, and the dignity of the human person. Given the philosophical hostility of psychology to the Church and to the priesthood, vocation directors should look for spiritual ideals rather than statistical norms to determine the future priests of their dioceses. n

1 Abbot, Walter M., The Documents of Vatican II p. 438, Footnote #5, "The entire formation of priests . . . should be adapted to the various circumstances of regions. And this . . . is to be carried out according to common norms for secular clergy set up by the Bishops' Conferences . . . ."

2 p. 566, par. 2357, 258.