The purpose of this survey study was to investigate the policies and procedures concerning the psychological assessment of candidates to the Catholic priesthood. Diocesan and religious vocation directors and seminary rectors identified 86 different mental health professionals they usually refer to for this type of psychological evaluation. This study used a qualitative methodology comprising focus group interviews and self-reported surveys (with open-ended questions). Most of the respondents (96%) were psychologists. Questions elicited responses on psychological assessment practices of candidates to the Catholic priesthood (e.g., areas of assessment, structure of psychological report, instruments used). The results have implications for the screening of candidates to the priesthood. Ethical and multicultural considerations are discussed, and suggestions are offered for the improvement of policies and procedures, as well as for future research.

The ongoing clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has led to calls for major changes in the psychological evaluation of seminary applicants. Unfortunately, there is increasing agreement that current, standard psychological testing is not effective in ferreting out sexual difficulties in the general population, much less in seminary candidates. This article addresses both the strengths and shortcomings of the current evaluation process, as well as within the ecclesial system. We begin with a review of relevant Church documents, existing research literature on psychological evaluation and the assessments of clergy and seminary applicants, as well as the experience of experts in these evaluations. As part of this analysis, the article critically delves into both the current strengths and shortcomings of recent Church efforts. Among the major shortcomings is the lack of communication between the major stakeholders: vocation, formational personnel and psychologists and a uniformly applied, standardized battery that emphasizes “suitability” with little or no focus on the “fit” of candidates for a particular diocese or religious order. Finally, we describe realistic approaches to increase the effectiveness and predictability of such evaluations and offer an innovative plan for large-scale postdoctoral training and certification of psychologists to provide evidence-based psychological evaluations of seminary candidates. Such a plan is intended not only to better address the issues of abuse within the Church but also to build and improve the happiness and health of the clergy.

Some have argued that acturarial methods such as the RRASOR, the MNSOSTR, and the Static-99, can outperform clinical judgments when utilized at a civil commitment hearing to make a prediction. Although actuarial data can be used to identify a group of persons to be considered for possible civil commitment, at present it cannot be used to accurately predict the likelihood of future acts of sexual violence with respect to any specific individual within such a group. For that reason, it might be best to restrict the use of acturial data to the initial screening process, rather than introducing it at the commitment hearing itself.

This study was designed to examine hypothesized differences between sex offending and nonoffending Roman Catholic clergy on cognitive mediation abilities as measured by the Rorschach Inkblot Test (H. Rorschach, 1921/1942). This study compared 78 priest pedophiles and 77 priest ephebophiles with 80 nonoffending priest controls on the Inkblot test using J. E. Exner's (2003) Comprehensive System. The three groups were compared on seven variables that constitute Exner's Cognitive Mediation cluster. Additionally, the groups' coping styles were compared to examine the interaction of coping style and cognitive mediational abilities. We found interactions between coping style and offending status across most of the cognitive variables indicating impairment in the mild to pathological ranges. Moreover, significantly higher unusual thinking styles (Xu%) and significantly lower conventional thinking styles (X+%) in offenders compared to nonoffenders. Those with an Extratensive style (n=31) showed significantly higher distorted thinking when compared to the Introversive (n=81), Ambitent (n=73), and Avoidant (n=50) coping styles. This study suggests that offenders display significantly higher distorted thinking styles than do nonoffenders. Possible reasons for these discrepancies and the role of coping styles in abusive behaviors were discussed.