New Notre Dame report lists 12 key proposals to improve seminary formation
University of Notre Dame released a report titled "Do You Know Them to be Worthy?" with 12 proposals to improve seminary formation. The report stresses the need for better psychological care, addressing mental health challenges among seminarians, and urges bishops to focus on quality rather than quantity of candidates. Recommendations call for more effective use of psychological services, support for special needs, and encouragement of chastity and celibacy. Authors Father Thomas Berg and Timothy G. Lock synthesized data from studies and input from seminary rectors, bishops, psychologists and formators. The report is part of the McGrath Institute’s Seminary Renewal Project, aimed at fostering a healthy seminary culture and holistic formation of future priests.
about 2 months ago
The University of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute released “Do You Know Them to be Worthy?” outlining twelve proposals aimed at strengthening seminary formation, especially through enhanced psychological care, targeted support for candidates with special needs, clearer standards for chastity, and better preparation of formators. 1
The report stresses that psychological assessment should begin at admission and be repeated before or during the early Configuration Stage, noting that a single evaluation loses relevance after three years. 1
It recommends making the initial evaluation accessible to formation advisors, appointing a full‑time in‑house director of psychological services, and distinguishing ordinary psychotherapy from intensive treatment that may pause formation. 1
A uniform national standard for psychological evaluations—including psychosexual history—is urged, calling for revision of the 2015 bishops’ Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in Seminary Admissions. 1
Three proposals address “candidates with special needs.” The institute highlights the rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and urges development of resources for seminarians with ASD or related cognitive‑empathy deficits. 1
It also calls for research and task‑force work to improve assessment and accompaniment of seminarians and priests with ASD. 1
The eighth proposal clarifies that medications effective for ADHD and OCD can be compatible with priestly ministry, even when required lifelong. 1
The ninth proposal stresses securing resources to remedy significant formative deficits—such as cognitive‑empathy gaps or persistent pornography use—before admission. 1
Proposals 10‑12 focus on sexual integrity. Men entering the Configuration Stage must have practiced sexual continence for several months; before diaconate ordination, a minimum of twelve months of continence is required. 1
The report calls for formation in virtue, healthy emotions, and coping skills to combat pornography and masturbation, noting a stark gap between bishops’ confidence (≈ 85 %) and mental‑health professionals’ confidence (≈ 35 %) in seminaries’ ability to form sexual maturity. 1
It recommends practical tools—internet safeguards, peer support, 12‑step programs—and a “psychological and theological understanding of chastity” to foster deeper sexual integration. 1
The eleventh proposal acknowledges the difficulty of discussing same‑sex attraction (SSA). While the report does not question the legitimacy of priests with SSA, it references the 2005 Vatican instruction that excludes individuals with SSA from holy orders and urges bishops to engage theologians, formators, and lay faithful in discerning a unified pastoral response. 1
The final proposal suggests defining SSA in formation programs as either “transitory” or “deep‑seated,” using terminology drawn from ecclesial documents rather than mental‑health classifications. 1
Two concluding recommendations call for respecting the informed judgment of those who form seminarians and for ongoing formation of seminary formators themselves, ensuring they are equipped to apply the twelve proposals effectively. 1
Investigate how Catholic formation guidelines address seminarians’ mental health
Catholic formation guidelines treat seminarians’ mental health as an essential dimension of vocational discernment and human formation, not as a secondary concern. They call for early recognition of psychological difficulties, access to qualified professionals, respect for privacy and consent, collaboration between psychological and spiritual formation, and careful judgment about whether a candidate can responsibly undertake priestly ministry. At the same time, the principal documents are primarily vocational and psychological-suitability guidelines, rather than a complete clinical policy for issues such as depression, anxiety, suicide prevention, or ongoing psychiatric care.
The Church understands priestly formation as involving four interconnected dimensions: human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral. The human dimension provides the foundation for the others. The psychological guidelines describe priestly ministry as requiring a degree of psychic and affective equilibrium—that is, sufficient emotional stability and relational freedom to make a genuine self-gift in celibacy and serve the faithful responsibly.
The purpose is not merely to produce emotionally well-adjusted individuals. Formation seeks a personality capable of becoming, in the document’s expression, “a bridge and not an obstacle” to others’ encounter with Christ. This includes self-knowledge, the ability to recognize personal limitations, capacity for self-correction, mature relationships, responsible decision-making, trust, and integration of sexuality according to Catholic teaching.
The guidelines also insist that the good of the candidate and the good of the Church should not be treated as competing interests. The Church’s responsibility is simultaneously to protect the mission entrusted to priests and to protect the candidate from undertaking a vocation for which he may not be adequately prepared.
The 2008 guidelines recommend that formators begin assessing a candidate’s personality and psychological history from the time he presents himself for admission. They are expected to consider his strengths, capacities, dispositions, and possible psychological wounds, including their nature and seriousness.
This early assessment is important because candidates may respond to psychological difficulties in opposite ways:
The guidelines identify several areas requiring attention:
These are not presented as a substitute for clinical diagnosis. Rather, they are examples of personal and relational patterns that may obstruct the candidate’s growth or impair his capacity to live priestly commitments.
The 2016 Ratio Fundamentalis states that, as a rule, candidates should not be admitted when they suffer from a manifest or latent pathology that could undermine judgment and therefore their ability to assume the obligations of priestly vocation and ministry. It gives examples including schizophrenia, paranoia, bipolar disorder, and paraphilias.
This norm must be read carefully. It does not say that every history of mental illness automatically excludes a person from priestly formation. The relevant question is whether a condition compromises judgment, freedom, stability, or the ability to assume the obligations of ministry. The focus is therefore functional and vocational: can the person live the demands of priesthood responsibly and freely?
The guidelines draw a clear boundary around the role of psychology. A priestly vocation is understood as a gift of God and ecclesial discernment, so it lies outside the strict competence of psychological science. Nevertheless, psychological expertise may help establish the candidate’s psychic state, assess human dispositions, support personal growth, and identify or treat psychological disturbances.
Psychology therefore serves discernment without replacing it. A psychologist can evaluate mental health and personality; the Church must still judge the candidate’s readiness for priestly ministry in light of faith, doctrine, moral life, celibacy, ecclesial communion, and pastoral responsibility.
The guidelines also recognize that psychological wounds can impede moral and spiritual development. A candidate may sincerely desire self-giving while being unable to live it because of unresolved wounds from family, professional, affective, or other experiences. Such wounds may be outside the candidate’s full awareness and may be wrongly attributed to external causes.
This produces an important Catholic synthesis:
Grace does not make psychological care unnecessary, and psychological care does not replace grace.
The document calls the assistance of a spiritual director and confessor fundamental for moral and spiritual growth, while also acknowledging that psychological treatment may be necessary when unresolved wounds block that growth.
The guidelines distinguish between psychological evaluation and psychological treatment. If it is determined that a candidate needs therapy, the stated norm is that therapy should ordinarily take place before admission to the seminary or house of formation.
The rationale is that formation itself cannot function effectively when serious psychological disturbances remain untreated. A scholarly commentary on the guidelines explains that unresolved disturbances may render the formative proposal ineffective, while expert assistance can also help design a personalized formation path for someone who has certain inconsistencies but may still be suitable for admission.
The 2008 document nevertheless allows psychological assistance both before admission and during formation in exceptional or particularly difficult cases. It says that such assistance can help candidates overcome psychological wounds and progressively interiorize the way of life represented by Christ the Good Shepherd.
Thus, the guidelines do not establish a simple rule that “any mental-health treatment disqualifies a seminarian.” Rather, they suggest:
Formators are expected to have psychological preparation sufficient to recognize motivations, barriers to maturity, serious disturbances, and the candidate’s ability to control his behavior responsibly and freely.
However, they are not to act as psychotherapists. The guidelines specifically state that formators should not use specialist psychological or psychotherapeutic techniques because of the sensitive nature of their role.
The 2016 Ratio Fundamentalis likewise recommends collaboration with psychological experts, but specifies that such experts “cannot be part of the formation team.” Their independence is intended to protect the integrity of both clinical assessment and formation.
This separation is significant. A formator exercises authority over admission, continuation, and possibly dismissal. A therapist, by contrast, should provide clinical care within a professional relationship. Combining the roles could create conflicts of interest, inhibit honesty, and make a seminarian fear that disclosure in therapy will automatically affect his status in formation.
The guidelines recommend that experts be chosen prudently and possess both professional competence and sound human and spiritual maturity. They should also understand the Church’s Christian anthropology, including its understanding of the human person, sexuality, priesthood, and celibacy.
This requirement is potentially controversial. It seeks to ensure that psychological advice is compatible with Catholic anthropology, but it must not be interpreted as permission to replace evidence-based clinical practice with spiritual or ideological judgments. The documents support cooperation between the Church and psychological science, while assigning each its proper competence.
A major strength of the guidelines is their explicit attention to consent and privacy. Psychological consultations may proceed only with the candidate’s prior, explicit, informed, and free consent.
The institution has a right and duty to assess whether a candidate is suitable for ordination, including evaluation of physical and psychic health. The guidelines refer to the canonical requirement that the bishop possess moral certainty of suitability and not proceed when there is a motivated doubt.
That institutional responsibility is limited by the candidate’s right to a good reputation and privacy. The guidelines call for:
The final point creates a real tension. The candidate cannot be physically or psychologically forced into an evaluation, but refusal may leave formators unable to reach the morally certain judgment required for admission or ordination. The result may be that formation cannot continue—not as a direct punishment for refusing therapy, but because the institution lacks sufficient grounds to establish suitability.
Mental health is not addressed only through diagnosis and therapy. Seminary formation also seeks to cultivate prayer, self-knowledge, affective maturity, community life, and interior freedom.
James Keating’s discussion of seminary formation emphasizes the Church’s traditional concern with interior silence—an inward attentiveness to God rather than mere external quiet. He notes that priests must be formed as teachers of prayer and spiritual guides.
At the same time, silence can expose anxiety, loneliness, or unresolved distress. Keating observes that some people identify silence with isolation and rejection because they have used constant activity, socializing, or technology to avoid uncomfortable thoughts and feelings. He argues that silence must therefore be integrated into spiritual direction, human formation, and communal reflection rather than imposed as an isolated discipline.
This offers a constructive mental-health insight: spiritual practices should not be used to suppress psychological suffering. Prayer, silence, confession, and spiritual direction should help a seminarian encounter reality truthfully, while clinical care addresses conditions requiring professional treatment.
The supplied documents provide substantial principles but leave several modern mental-health questions underdeveloped.
They do not offer detailed protocols for:
The documents are also more developed regarding admission and suitability than regarding long-term wellness. Their language often emphasizes pathology, psychological wounds, affective equilibrium, and possible unsuitability. This is understandable given the responsibility to protect candidates, future parishioners, and the Church. Yet a contemporary formation program would need to complement this screening approach with prevention, routine access to care, crisis intervention, healthy community structures, and protection against stigma.
A further concern is that the categories used in older guidelines can be interpreted too broadly or without adequate clinical nuance. A diagnosis alone does not determine a person’s moral character or vocational worth. The relevant Catholic question is whether the person, with appropriate treatment and support, possesses the freedom, stability, relational capacity, and responsibility required for ministry. The documents’ emphasis on evaluating the person in his totality and recognizing gradual development supports this more nuanced reading.
Catholic formation guidelines address seminarians’ mental health through five principal commitments:
In conclusion, the Catholic framework is neither a purely spiritual model that ignores mental illness nor a purely clinical model that reduces vocation to psychology. It presents priestly formation as an integrated process in which psychological care, spiritual direction, community life, moral development, and ecclesial discernment must cooperate. Its strongest emphasis is on prevention and suitability; its principal limitation, in the sources examined, is the absence of detailed contemporary standards for ongoing mental-health care and crisis response.