Guidelines/rights For Discerners And Applicants?

[maximillion]

For we are all crappy and have fallen short of the glory of God..........

 

I remember when I was at uni, one of the professors asked if I wanted to be a good student.

 

I said yes.

 

"Wrong! Wrong answer......the idea is not that you are a good student but that you become a good thinker!"

 

However, in spite of other's responses, I would be a little thrown if I had a psyche eval at a live in, but maybe that's me. I know you all know I don't have great faith in the things anyways. 

A good chat about my reasons for entering? That I could go with.

[Benedictus]

None of this seems at all bizarre to me. What I would find to be more bizarre would be the sort of navel-gazing so many vocations directors keep their aspirants going through for years before allowing them to become postulants or starting the application process. I sometimes wonder if they're waiting for the discerner to have a Damascus-Road-style locution or something of that sort.

 

No, these orders are being proactive in moving immediately to weed out those candidates unsuited to their life. It is, to my mind, a most charitable way of quickly finding those out who cannot enter their life and letting them know without stringing them along for so long. Moreover, the best way to test a vocation is actually by trying it. There are so many who discover that they do not have a vocation, or who are judged unsuitable by the community, during the time of a postulancy or novitiate. It is best to let the discernment continue in the cloister, living the life, than among the enticements of the world.

 

Anyway, just my two cents. God bless.

 

I'm very skeptical about over reliance on psychological testing. I've read cases where it seems to have been misused unfairly (in religious and secular settings). I'm not discounting it entirely - if it's done by a person who is sympathetic to Catholicism, understands religious life (esp the order in question) and also understands specifically what is viewed as desirable by the community, among a host of other factors. It's fair to say that in some ways those entering religious life aren't necessarily 'typical' on the scale. So this can skew things if there's a lack of interpreting skill.

I've undergone testing prior to a vocational degree to assess suitability. It was pages and pages of closed questions, some open questions, a written autobiography and then an interview. I found it tiring and nerve wracking, but was accepted. The interview with the psychologist was also a good self insight (and affirmation). It can be good to hear the psychologist agree you aren't nuts in your thinking (esp when other people think your job or vocation choice is exactly that!). I'd want to know, or ask, if the report will be shared with you to ensure it seems to make sense or not.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Benedictus

[OnlySunshine]

I'm very skeptical about over reliance on psychological testing. I've read cases where it seems to have been misused unfairly (in religious and secular settings). I'm not discounting it entirely - if it's done by a person who is sympathetic to Catholicism, understands religious life (esp the order in question) and what they want to know specifically regarding potential suitability then it can be a good tool, among a host of other factors. It's fair to say that in some ways those entering religious life aren't necessarily 'typical' on the scale. So this can skew things if there's a lack of interreting skill.

I've undergone testing prior to a vocational degree to assess suitability. It was pages and pages of closed questions, some open questions, a written autobiography and then an interview. I found it tiring and nerve wracking, but was accepted. The interview with the psychologist was also a good self insight (and affirmation). It can be good to hear the psychologist agree you aren't nuts in your thinking (esp when other people think your job or vocation choice is exactly that!). I'd want to know, or ask, if the report will be shared with you to ensure it seems to make sense or not.

 

I kind of agree with this statement.  I would never recommend the psychologist I was referred to because he had no knowledge of religious life - just the diocesan priesthood.  As a result, some of his statements were skewed.  I really wish I had undergone testing with a Sister or someone else with an intimate knowledge of religious life.  I'm not saying the outcome would have been different, but I would have felt more comfortable.  Having a man ask you about your romantic life or lack thereof is not exactly the most comfortable thing to discuss...  :blush:

[NotreDame]

Just FYI - the topic of psych exams was also discussed at length here:

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/131248-admissions-process-for-womens-orders/

 

I don't think anybody enjoys going through a psych exam, but they do serve a number of purposes.  They aren't always there to weed people out - though they can serve that purpose in certain cases - but they help make sure the community is aware of issues if/when the person enters. 

 

Religious life can also seem very attractive to people suffering from past abuse or severe psychological illness even though actual religious life may only serve to exacerbate these wounds.  Those people need to be dealt with charitably and getting those issues out in the open before entering would be a necessary step. 

[maximillion]

Yes, I suppose so but, and for me it is a big but....this can and is only a snapshot of who you are at that moment on that day.

 

If the evaluator has little information or insight into RL it can ( and has been for some) a disaster.

 

In the past none of us had psyche evals. I would hope that any NM worth his her salt would be able to spot someone who had PTSD or the like, or even past wounds.

 

Besides this, in my postulancy I had a private conference with my NM three times a week. In the space of a few months she had my life story pretty much out of me and we got to know each other very well in the process.

 

Just because there is a (questionable) tool does not mean it is suited to the job.

I would prefer a face to face and a slow building of trust and the exposure of any worthy features during the early months of postulancy.

Some communities are over reliant on these evaluations and, sadly, some base their yea or nay on them.........

[OnlySunshine]

If I could make the rules, I would make a live-in mandatory before the psych exam came into play.  I think exams are necessary in certain situations because, if used properly (like my friend's community did), they can hint at strengths and weaknesses so the community knows what to expect when you enter.  I don't think an exam should come beforehand, though, because if that's all they have to go by, they can't make a good determination.  They really need to meet you in person and get to know you so they don't see you as a piece of paper with results.  No one is measured by paper in real life.  Communities with little experience don't know to expect this and may turn away suitable applicants (I'm not necessarily saying that was my case but I'll never know because I didn't get the chance to try).

[maximillion]

I am out of props MM but I so totally agree. Live in first, then if both sides know things will proceed from there, an eval with someone who knows RL and also accepts the limitations of the eval process.

That seems like the best way, since these tools are here to stay.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

Psych evaluations are so important. So, so, so important. Communities (and dioceses in the case of diocesan priests) need to know the psychological states of their applicants. They need to know their members, and as MM said, strengths and weaknesses. 

 

I do suggest reading Rumor Godden's book FIve for Sorrow, Ten for Joy. It's one of my favorite books and think about it often. It is a good view of religious life, how it changed, and the evolution of a vocation. 

 

 

[SilentJoy]

Since I've already started the thread, I have another question...

 

How much is appropriate to tell a community, especially in initial communication?

 

I believe that a community needs to know what kind of a person they might end up dealing with, and it seems like a significant chunk of this needs to be out in the open from the beginning (so we don't waste each other's time). Is this the right approach or are we supposed to be more familiar with one another first? Maybe the initial communication is supposed to go like "I'm interested in your community, let's talk!" rather than "I like you and here's a general idea of why you might want to be cautious about me!"

[SilentJoy]

 it seems like a significant chunk of this needs to be out in the open from the beginning (so we don't waste each other's time).

More poor word choices (I can see it coming)...by "significant chunk," I only meant that I've mentioned one, or possibly two, issues that I think could be MOST likely to cause concern. If a community is still willing to talk to me after that (a few are), then I mention other stuff. I don't just vomit out my life story in my first letter to a Vocations Directress.

[NotreDame]

More poor word choices (I can see it coming)...by "significant chunk," I only meant that I've mentioned one, or possibly two, issues that I think could be MOST likely to cause concern. If a community is still willing to talk to me after that (a few are), then I mention other stuff. I don't just vomit out my life story in my first letter to a Vocations Directress.

 

Without knowing the details on what issues these might be let me offer some general advice.  I would treat it like a relationship.  People should get to know each other to form the basis of a friendly relationship and, assuming both parties are interested, more personal items can be shared relative to the trust that has been established.
 

[SilentJoy]

Without knowing the details on what issues these might be...
 

The issue *might* be that I'm very Melancholic (for whatever the "personality humors" are worth). Melancholics tend more towards introversion, including excessive introspection, which sometimes results in psychological hypochondria. Add 1 cup homeschooling, a tablespoon of emotional abuse, and a liberal sprinkling of social anxiety. Ferment.

[Gabriela]

The issue *might* be that I'm very Melancholic (for whatever the "personality humors" are worth). Melancholics tend more towards introversion, including excessive introspection, which sometimes results in psychological hypochondria. Add 1 cup homeschooling, a tablespoon of emotional abuse, and a liberal sprinkling of social anxiety. Ferment.

 

I hope you're discerning with contemplatives. ;-)

 

Seriously, SJ: I wish you much luck and even more blessings! 

[NotreDame]

The issue *might* be that I'm very Melancholic (for whatever the "personality humors" are worth). Melancholics tend more towards introversion, including excessive introspection, which sometimes results in psychological hypochondria. Add 1 cup homeschooling, a tablespoon of emotional abuse, and a liberal sprinkling of social anxiety. Ferment.

 

So basically you're normal?
 

[TheresaThoma]

I think certain things should come out early on but certain things like your personality will just naturally come out over time. Especially when you make visits, something you may think of as an issue may not actually be an issue for them at all. 

From my own experience of living a communal life (not in a religious community though) you change and grow in community. Also everyone brings their own strengths and weaknesses and things they have to work through. 

[SilentJoy]

I hope you're discerning with contemplatives. ;-)

 

Seriously, SJ: I wish you much luck and even more blessings! 

 

Thanks!

Yes, I am interested in a Contemplative vocation. I visited some contemplative/active communities a couple years ago, and I really liked the Sisters but had no desire to do what they did.
 

[SilentJoy]

So basically you're normal?
 

 

Ah ha. Ah ha ha ha ha.

[marigold]

Since I've already started the thread, I have another question...

 

How much is appropriate to tell a community, especially in initial communication?

 

I believe that a community needs to know what kind of a person they might end up dealing with, and it seems like a significant chunk of this needs to be out in the open from the beginning (so we don't waste each other's time). Is this the right approach or are we supposed to be more familiar with one another first? Maybe the initial communication is supposed to go like "I'm interested in your community, let's talk!" rather than "I like you and here's a general idea of why you might want to be cautious about me!"

 

The most safe, trouble-free way that I see to go about it is to just write and introduce yourself (name, location, and possibly age). Say that you are thinking about becoming a nun/sister/brother/priest and that you would like to come and visit to learn more about their community because they look so interesting/have a good reputation/are the community closest to home. It is possible to word this so that it doesn't sound like you are ready to jump when they say jump, and I think it's good to err on this side in initial communication. As far as wasting someone's time, I think it's reasonable to expect that they will consider you unless you are obviously ineligible, e.g. a man writing to a women's community.

 

Then, say they write back and invite you to tell some more about yourself and/or arrange a visit - at that point I would tell them my age, what I do for a living, which parish I go to, and why I'm thinking about a lifestyle like theirs. I would not tell them about my prayer life, my experience of romantic relationships (except that I'm unmarried, although that should be obvious...), or anything more than basic information about my family, in these first contacts. Good vocations people will be able to tell so much by your tone, whether you're polite, how much thought you put into answers, not to mention body language, manner, interest level, when they meet you, that there shouldn't be any worry about 'what kind of person they're dealing with'. If they really can't tell after being in touch for a while, I don't know... that would be the time to stand back and ask whether it's the right place.

 

Things like health, including mental health, in my opinion should wait until 'the right moment' after initial contact, for example if you have a private conversation while visiting, or get into an in-depth email correspondence. But I would be cautious of a community that answered a first contact with, 'Have you ever been hospitalised for mental health problems?'

 

Other than that, I think communities will quite often steer the conversation, especially if they have a lot of enquirers. There are certain things they want to know. Some will be more cautious, some will prefer to wait and see you in person before talking at depth - others will be happy to email back and forth quite a bit. The golden rule of dealing with communities: *it depends.*

 

EDIT: Do you straight-away tell them about being in a community previously? I don't know... I can see myself going either way. Maybe the point at which you talk about health and family is the safe time to talk about previous experience.

Edited March 23, 2014 by marigold

[AveMariaPurissima]

The issue *might* be that I'm very Melancholic (for whatever the "personality humors" are worth). Melancholics tend more towards introversion, including excessive introspection, which sometimes results in psychological hypochondria. Add 1 cup homeschooling, a tablespoon of emotional abuse, and a liberal sprinkling of social anxiety. Ferment.

You sound like me.

[SilentJoy]

You sound like me.

You poor thing. Insurance probably doesn't cover it, either.  :rotfl2: