Sexuality one of several issues

Your editorial of November 12-18, “Fit for the Priesthood”, seriously misrepresents the document “Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood” issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education.

You comment that the congregation seems to be mostly preoccupied with particular difficulties relating to sexuality, and has consulted selectively. I found the tone of the document extremely positive and could resonate with its contents from my own ten years of experience in the formation of candidates for the priesthood.

The document makes it clear from the beginning it is focusing on candidates who have reached an affective maturity, where there is also an absence of mental disorder.

The document rightly notes, among other things, the importance of well trained formators and of team work and cooperation among formators. Particularly apt was the way in which the relationship of trust between formators and candidates was emphasised, and the consequences of such positive relationships spelt out.

I found the approach taken regarding recourse to psychology to be very positive, as an indicator of where assistance is needed in finalising the process of discernment.

The practice in South Africa is reflected in the document where psychological reports are made available, with the candidate’s permission, only to the bishop and seminary rector, and are to be destroyed once the person moves on to ordination or another vocation.

The document also makes an important distinction between the external forum and the internal. Any psychological report, as a professional indicator, belongs to the former and as such cannot be used to decide whether a person has a vocation or not.

You singled out homosexuality, whereas in the document its mention appears in the context of a number of areas which, due to immaturity, a candidate may be unable to face realistically.

“Such areas of immaturity would include strong affective dependencies; notable lack of freedom in relations; excessive rigidity of character; lack of loyalty; uncertain sexual identity; deep-seated homosexual tendencies; etc” (10).

I would strongly recommend that your readers read the document for themselves, because you have misrepresented its contents.

Bishop Edward Risi OMI, Keimoes-Upington