Download PDF

Back to Previous Page

The Angry Referral

Rev. Stephen J. Rossetti, Ph.D., D.Min.
Vol. V No. 3
May/June 2001

An intervention and request by a bishop or major superior that a priest or religious go for a psychological evaluation is sometimes met with a great deal of anger. Prospective evaluees may believe that the superior has never liked them and is "out to get" them. A few announce that they are being persecuted for their theological beliefs. Some try to galvanize others into taking sides against this "unjust" or "insensitive" superior. In more public cases, letter writing campaigns and public protests can ensue.

One of the best ways to ensure that requests for evaluation are not influenced by the superior's personal biases is for the referral reasons to be reviewed by religious and/or lay professionals. In the end, the decision to recommend an evaluation should be the result of several informed opinions, thus minimizing the biases of any one person. Treatment centers often assist in this function by reviewing the information before agreeing that an evaluation is warranted.

The intense hostility and blaming of the superior that sometimes results from an intervention, no matter how sensitively it may be carried out or how obvious the need for an evaluation, tries the patience of our religious leaders. A natural impulse is the desire to strike back with their own anger, and/or to defend themselves by justifying their actions. Understanding the dynamics of the troubled person can assist the superior in responding in a compassionate way.

While intense anger may be the visible response of these troubled priests or religious, underneath this torrent of hostility is likely much fear, shame and guilt. The truths conveyed during the intervention touch deep chords within them. Usually, they have unsuccessfully tried to cope by repressing their inner problems and thus pushing them out of consciousness. The intervention by a superior is a call to face one's inner problems directly and to break through the long-standing denial. Thus, it can be the first step on the road to recovery. This critical step ultimately is a challenge for troubled persons to accept responsibility for their problems and to face what lies buried within. It is little wonder that the first response to this challenge is intense anger aimed directly at the intervening person.

In order not to respond "in kind" to the enraged person, the first step for religious superiors is to recognize that the anger focused on them is displaced. The troubled priests or religious are projecting their own feelings on the superiors. The surfacing of long buried hurts and angers may initially be too much for the troubled person to face all at once. Psychological defenses, such as projection, are ways for the psyche to deal, in manageable doses, with the inner emotions. Unfortunately, the superior usually becomes the brunt of these defenses.

Leaders should recognize that their position regularly makes them a lightning rod for the feelings of their subordinates, especially those with unresolved authority issues. Religious superiors are often targets for transferential feelings. This transference is heightened in a time of crisis, in this case, at the time of an intervention.

An understanding and compassionate demeanor, while extraordinarily difficult to maintain in the face of intense rage, is often the best response of the bishop or major superior. At the same time, this compassion must not become weakness. After the initial rage has subsided, troubled persons often engage in "bargaining." They are likely to do everything they can and promise whatever is necessary to avoid truly facing the truth. They might "bargain" for a sabbatical and promise never to have this problem again. They may "admit" that they have been lax in their spiritual life and promise to go on a retreat or engage a spiritual director. Others will plead to go into "therapy" with a friend whom they know is a counselor.

Each of these options is an attempt to avoid facing what they have long feared. Thus, superiors will not only have to be compassionate, they also have to be firm. For the good of the troubled persons, there can be no bargaining with the problems or with the need for appropriate treatment.

Conversely, if projection of blame, displacement of intense anger, and bargaining with the truth are signs of the troubled person who is being challenged, then clear signs of progress in treatment will be improvement in each of these areas. For individuals who initially respond with denial and anger, signs of progress will be the eventual calm acceptance of the truth and the dissipation of minimization and rationalization. Similarly, successful treatment will often include a moving beyond the role of casting oneself as a victim. The religious superior will be decreasingly seen as a persecutor and the person in treatment will take increasing responsibility for his/her own behaviors. Rather than bargaining to avoid facing inner conflicts and pain, the individual will now actively seek out an on-going regimen that will directly assist in the hard work of recovery.

Ultimately, one of the greatest signs of recovery is the presence of gratitude. Instead of seeing the initial intervention by the superior and subsequent treatment as a punishment, the priest or religious comes to recognize that the Christian concern expressed by the superior is genuine, and to see it as a blessing, although not an easy one. This reclaiming of a sense of gratitude is one sign of an enlivened spiritual life.

Rev. Stephen J. Rossetti is the President and CEO of Saint Luke Institute.

LUKENOTES is a bimonthly publication of Saint Luke Institute.
Permission to use these materials must be requested in writing by contacting
lukenotes@sli.org

SLI EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Saint Luke Institute
8901 New Hampshire Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20903
(301) 422-5499 • (301) 422-5519 (fax)

back to top