Arlington Diocese parishioners question need for fidelity oath

[Rich_Olszewski]

Will it be a useful way to filter out sincere, honest, but heretical people from spreading their errors under the imprimatur of the diocese? Yup. That makes it a good thing.

How does it filter anyone out? Who is going to vet the candidates? BTW, unless they’re printing their heterodox (not heretical) ideas, an Imprimatur (Let it be printed) doesn’t apply.

It’s hardly a paranoid fantasy to believe that there are large numbers of people within the church right now teaching ideas and principles that are blatantly wrong. I almost defy you to find me a parish where it is NOT happening!

Well, I have a higher view of our Church and our fellow Catholics than you seem to have. I don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of heresy.

 

[Elizabeth502]

How does it filter anyone out? Who is going to vet the candidates?

There are various ways. In some cases, having completed a diocesan catechetical training program would be a first level of vetting. The bishop approves these programs and would know what’s in them. Naturally, though, follow-up is necessary, since a catechist could replace that training with personal opnion.

The best way to determine what children are being taught is for the parents to investigate, in multiple ways:

~regularly ask the child what he/she learned today. At other times, occasionally (also) ask questions such as what the child has learned about particular sacraments, about Church authority in the moral realm, about conscience, about preparation for the sacraments, etc.

~ask for a syllabus or curriculum guide, or access to curriculum materials which are being used at that particular grade level. If the catechist will not share these, inquire as to why, and if the catechist indicates that “different” (or no) curriculum is being used (even though programmed to by the diocese), ask why, and if dialogue proves fruitless, go above him or her. (First to the parish priest, who may not know whether curriculum is or is not being used.)

~ask whoever is in charge of the catechesis at that parish (or school) if you can sit in on an occasional class (and arrange for that). Even if the catechist is very careful during that session, questions may arise from students as to what was said in a different session. So there’s only so much any catechist can do to shield what he or she is teaching.

 

[fix]

That is the point. It is all about pride. Why would any Catholic who desires to teach the faith to others be insulted to show his/her loyalty to Christ through His Church? It is a chance to lovingly show fidelty to Christ. Not wanting to sign it seems to be either serious pride or a rejection of Church authority which always means sexual morality and gender issues.

As I said the problem is not the oath. The problem is the negative reaction to the oath.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As I said the problem is not the oath. The problem is the negative reaction to the oath.

I remember when loyalty oaths were all the rage in the 1950s. I don’t see how any of them weeded out communists from important posts.

Current Church loyalty oaths won’t be any better. That said, if one is willing to sign a loyalty oath, let him do it. But, count me out.

 

[curlycool89]

From the New American Bible

If people have trouble with the language of oaths/vows/whatever, then let’s just make it a contract (a covenant if you will):

*I the bishop of the Diocese of X make covenant with Joe Smith to allow him to teach the faith to the people of St. Y’s Parish as a catechist.

I, Joe Smith, make covenant with the Bishop of Diocese X and will adhere to the Authentic Catholic faith in my teachings as contained in the Nicene Creed and in the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium, and that the Church is the sole authentic teacher and interpreter of the same Faith. I further recognize that if I willfully violate this covenant I will be removed as a catechist through my own fault.*

 

[Dale_M]

I remember when loyalty oaths were all the rage in the 1950s. I don’t see how any of them weeded out communists from important posts.

Current Church loyalty oaths won’t be any better. That said, if one is willing to sign a loyalty oath, let him do it. But, count me out.

I think the purpose of the Profession of Faith, and similar fidelity oaths, is the make individuals stop and think about the gravity of their responsibility. It is to make them realize they have an obligation to accurately convey Church teachings. Are such oaths or professions fail-proof? No, but but they should make an individual realize that s/he is making a promise and will be bound by conscience to uphold that promise.

In the US, federal officials and members of the military swear oaths to support the Constitution of the US. The oath acknowledges that they undertake the promise of their own free will and that they will defend the US against its enemies. I’m not sure that fidelity oaths regarding the Magisterium of the Church is much different.

 

[manualman]

1. How does it filter anyone out? Who is going to vet the candidates? BTW, unless they’re printing their heterodox (not heretical) ideas, an Imprimatur (Let it be printed) doesn’t apply.
2. Well, I have a higher view of our Church and our fellow Catholics than you seem to have. I don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of heresy.

1. Did you read the article? Right there it shows someone stubbornly opposed to defined catholic teaching who will give up her parish teaching position because she has enough integrity not to sign a document she doesn’t believe in. These aren’t malicious people. They sincerely believe that they know better than the teachings of the catholic church. It may be this simple that they’ll weed themselves out through honesty. Imprimatur isn’t just a stamp in a book. An implied Imprimatur is carried by everybody who teaches in the name of the local church: priests, deacons, religious and lay teachers. Why not lay out a minimum standard and ask people to examine themselves before allowing them to teach in the name of the church?
2. No? You don’t think that massive numbers of catholics have rebelled against God and church on lots of issues and redefined those evils as goods in their “consciences?” Fornication? Divorce/remarriage? Contraception? Necessity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? The Real Presence in the Eucharist?

Get out much?

 

[jwinch2]

Something else which we seem to be overlooking to some extent here is that it is the local Bishop who is the primary teacher of the faith in his diocese. Catechists, priests, deacons, sisters, etc, who are in positions where the faith is being taught are doing so under his authority. In my view, the Bishop has every right to expect that those who are teaching in his name do so according to the standards that he sets.

We expect our Bishops to submit in will and intellect to the Magesterium of the Roman Pontiff. Why we would not expect those who act in the name of the Bishop to do the same is beyond my understanding. The profession of faith noted above is pretty much taken right out of Lumen Gentium:

“Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a religious submission of mind. This religious submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authoritative Magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; indeed, that his supreme Magisterium be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, according to his manifest mind and intention.”

I would be very uncomfortable with my child taking religious education classes from someone who was unwilling to put their name to a document which simply restates what they are already supposed to believe. I’m supposed to teach some classes for RCIA starting this fall. If our Bishop comes out with a similar profession of faith requirement, I will gladly sign it immediately.

 

[triumphguy]

Where does it say in any Church document that we have to make an oath of fidelity in order to prove our Catholicity?

There may be thousands of people in a parish, but there are only 5 or 10 maybe who are going to teach the kids. If the priest can’t take the time to sit down with each one and establish some kind of working relationship and oversight then I don’t see how an Oath of Fidelity is going to ensure good teaching.

We’ve all taken driving lessons, and passed the driving test but how many speed and make mistakes while driving?

We can take ALL the vows required but unless someone is going to provide the oversight how does anyone know, or how can they guarantee what the kids are being taught?

Oaths prove and ensure nothing - probably why Christ enjoined the disciples not to take them.

My position has nothing to do with pride but with common sense.

Think about it.

Say I want my daughter to learn her times tables.

I can make her take an oath to learn them…

or I can teach them to her and take time with her to ensure that she does learn them.

Nine times out of ten which approach is going to be more successful?

BTW - I would be very pleased to voluntarily stand up and proclaim my fidelity both to Church teaching and to my Bishop.

But just because someone voluntarily or on request or under compulsion proclaims fidelity to Church teaching it does not guarantee that the content of the faith they teach is orthodox.

I’ve heard some awful BS taught by very sincere and faith-filled Catholic adults.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We can take ALL the vows required but unless someone is going to provide the oversight how does anyone know, or how can they guarantee what the kids are being taught

The kind of “sitting down with each [teacher]” which you suggested is a time burden to the modern Catholic priest, of which there is a shortage as it is. Second, ever hear of delegation? Even most school principals don’t “sit down with each teacher” in the way that you suggest, either. A teacher is hired; experience is reviewed at interview & verified from references & documents; and the principal sometimes receives from all teachers some (name removed by moderator)ut, in writing, as to how each plans to pace the learning requirements during the year, and what access the principal and substitute teachers will have to lesson plans. Occsionally the principal may pop into the classroom to observe, but not often, except in the rare situations in which that principal is specifically assigned to teach as well (or chooses to substitute).

But except for very micro-managed schools, the principal expects to be able to trust that the teacher will teach to that State’s standards and/or to private standards set forth by a private school. It will come to his or her attention that appropriate curriculum is not being taught mostly when parents complain or have a flood of questions about that teacher.

And by the way, if that is a Catholic school, the teacher does in fact have to sign, in the contract, that she/he will teach the approved Catholic curriculum, including but not limited to religious content, and that she/he will model to the best of ability a Catholic Christian lifestyle/attitude.

I’m too lazy to look up the poster, but which poster said this on the thread, about all dioceses in the U.S. needing this, a big

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Point of correction.

An oath is not a vow.

A Vow is made to God, before witnesses.

An Oath, as in this case so to the Church.

Priest and religious don’t make oaths, they take vows.

Jim

 

[triumphguy]

The kind of “sitting down with each [teacher]” which you suggested is a time burden to the modern Catholic priest, of which there is a shortage as it is. Second, ever hear of delegation? Even most school principals don’t “sit down with each teacher” in the way that you suggest, either. A teacher is hired; experience is reviewed at interview & verified from references & documents; and the principal sometimes receives from all teachers some (name removed by moderator)ut, in writing, as to how each plans to pace the learning requirements during the year, and what access the principal and substitute teachers will have to lesson plans. Occsionally the principal may pop into the classroom to observe, but not often, except in the rare situations in which that principal is specifically assigned to teach as well (or chooses to substitute).

But except for very micro-managed schools, the principal expects to be able to trust that the teacher will teach to that State’s standards and/or to private standards set forth by a private school. It will come to his or her attention that appropriate curriculum is not being taught mostly when parents complain or have a flood of questions about that teacher.

And by the way, if that is a Catholic school, the teacher does in fact have to sign, in the contract, that she/he will teach the approved Catholic curriculum, including but not limited to religious content, and that she/he will model to the best of ability a Catholic Christian lifestyle/attitude.

I’m too lazy to look up the poster, but which poster said this on the thread, about all dioceses in the U.S. needing this, a big

Thanks for that! Yes teachers do have to sign (as part of their contract) - and if you’ve ever spent time in a school staff-room - as I have for years - I was a teacher then a VP of a Catholic High school - then you will know exactly how well that works.

It doesn’t.

So a school administrator gets to know the teachers, and supervises and assesses the teachers, and doesn’t rely on pieces of paper.

If my area superintendent had asked me if the teachers were teaching the curriculum, and I had said, “Well they’ve signed a contract haven they?” she would have been downright miffed.

And if priests don’t have time to sit down with the 5 or 10 catechists, then yes they need to delegate, absolutely. But the buck always stops with the parish priest, so it’s probably in their interest to take a more active role.

 

[Elizabeth502]

if you’ve ever spent time in a school staff-room - as I have for years - I was a teacher then a VP of a Catholic High school - then you will know exactly how well that works.

It doesn’t.

Maybe not in Canada. But everywhere I’ve worked in the States, it works beautifully. Sorry to disappoint you.

The buck always stops with the parish priest, so it’s probably in their interest to take a more active role.

I haven’t denied that.

But I do deny that making a Catholic catechist aware of the need for conformity to Catholic views is some kind of a horrible infringement or burden. If they’re in conformity anyway, they should be more than happy to sign. (And in my experience, and the experience of other parents as well, those who are in compliance are more than happy to sign.) The ones who are not happy to sign are the ones who in fact are not in conformity and want the freedom to “interpret” according to personal taste, instead of teaching authentically.

It does not “guarantee” fidelity to teaching. It makes people aware, and it tends to weed out those (or put them on notice) who would prefer to be independent in content (as opposed to legitimate independence in style/personality/approach).

Even the most recent Prez of Catholic U, whose installment was televised on EWTN, had to publicly state allegiance to Church teaching, aloud, to Cardinal Wuerl, during the ceremony. And he is only indirectly involved in teaching.

 

[Pug]

But I do deny that making a Catholic catechist aware of the need for conformity to Catholic views is some kind of a horrible infringement or burden. If they’re in conformity anyway, they should be more than happy to sign.

I’d be thrilled to be told that the diocese wants to be sure I am in conformity with Catholic doctrine. I’d be perfectly happy to state that I am to the best of my ability and that I intend to only teach what I ought. I’d be perfectly happy to answer questions about what I believe or to make a verbal or written statement of faith. I’d love to sign “Yes, I believe” below the Nicene Creed. I am less happy to be asked to swear an oath, like somehow my word is meaningless. If my word is meaningless, I’m clearly worthless as a Catechist.

But I was raised not to swear, so someone asking me to swear just throws up red flags because I don’t understand such a request. I understand that one is allowed to swear in some contexts according to Catholic teaching. But perhaps one might possibly understand that a request to swear when the person is willing to affirm is something I don’t really “get”. Is the request to “swear” a request that the person affirm that they truly desire that God smite them dead if they lie, in addition to the ordinary penalty of mortal sin?

 

[Suudy]

It’s hardly a paranoid fantasy to believe that there are large numbers of people within the church right now teaching ideas and principles that are blatantly wrong. I almost defy you to find me a parish where it is NOT happening!

Indeed! When I went through RCIA, one of the first questions that came up was “Does the Church really teach that using contraception is a sin?” And our RCIA leader’s answer? “It’s up to each individual to reconcile their conscience with God.” That isn’t an answer! The Church clearly teaches that contraception–when used to avoid pregnancy–is wrong (see CCC 2370). So why not give a direct answer?

When I returned the following week for class, I brought printouts of the Catechism as well as EWTN recordings on CD for all in the class. The instructor refused to allow me to distribute them, since EWTN was a “clearly a right wing advocacy group” (her words). When I told her that the Catechism was clear, she told me something like: “I’m the one with a master’s in theology, not you. When you have one, you can teach the class.” I accepted her admonition (I wasn’t Catholic, and I didn’t have an MA in Theology), and quietly suffered through the rest of RCIA (long story). Essentially the parish priest showed up to support her, and I only asked questions. But it was clear the priest agreed with her. (I could tell another story about how he preached on the wearing of rainbow sashes by parishoners in support of the homosexual community was a good thing.)

During that time, I called Fr. Pacwa on Catholic Answers and asked specifically about this problem. He advised to keep quiet, and once Catholic, apply for the RCIA director position. Given that it was clear she was supported by the parish priest, I thought it was impossible to do so. I eventually moved on to another parish.

The point here is that there is indeed heterodoxy amonst parish leadership. This was one example, but I’ve seen many other, including: encouraging non-Catholics to receive communion, restructuring the order of mass, “inclusive” language during mass (“Our mother and father in heaven, hallowed you your names…”), someone other than the priest giving the homily, etc. It exists. And I see no problem with requiring people to publicly acknowledge their commitment to the Catholic faith, especially when in a teaching position.

 

[triumphguy]

Maybe not in Canada. But everywhere I’ve worked in the States, it works beautifully. Sorry to disappoint you.

No - I’m happy for you… if it’s true. But some of the least catechized people I know are teachers. And I’m sure that’s true in the Sates too (I’ve seen the threads on CAF).

I haven’t denied that.

But I do deny that making a Catholic catechist aware of the need for conformity to Catholic views is some kind of a horrible infringement or burden.

You obviously mistake me. I’m all for conformity. I’m just not for signing an oath. Tell me where signing an oath = conformity in Catholic teaching and I’ll eat my hat.

If they’re in conformity anyway, they should be more than happy to sign.

This does not necessarily follow

(And in my experience, and the experience of other parents as well, those who are in compliance are more than happy to sign.) The ones who are not happy to sign are the ones who in fact are not in conformity and want the freedom to “interpret” according to personal taste, instead of teaching authentically.

Well - I’m in conformity with my Bishop and the teachings of the Church, but would not be happy if asked to sign. But that’s just an emotion, but it’s a valid emotion and it means that you cannot make a blanket statement about who would be “happy” to sign.

It does not “guarantee” fidelity to teaching. It makes people aware, and it tends to weed out those (or put them on notice) who would prefer to be independent in content (as opposed to legitimate independence in style/personality/approach).

Awareness can be created many ways - first of all by correct teaching from the pulpit.

Even the most recent Prez of Catholic U, whose installment was televised on EWTN, had to publicly state allegiance to Church teaching, aloud, to Cardinal Wuerl, during the ceremony. And he is only indirectly involved in teaching.

So? Doesn’t mean that all catechists should. That’s between him and Cardinal Wuerl.

I just don’t see how conformity or Catholicity is guaranteed by swearing an oath.

Apparently I’m in a minority - which is fine.

You guys know my point of view.

 

[triumphguy]

Indeed! When I went through RCIA, one of the first questions that came up was “Does the Church really teach that using contraception is a sin?” And our RCIA leader’s answer? “It’s up to each individual to reconcile their conscience with God.” That isn’t an answer! The Church clearly teaches that contraception–when used to avoid pregnancy–is wrong (see CCC 2370). So why not give a direct answer?

When I returned the following week for class, I brought printouts of the Catechism as well as EWTN recordings on CD for all in the class. The instructor refused to allow me to distribute them, since EWTN was a “clearly a right wing advocacy group” (her words). When I told her that the Catechism was clear, she told me something like: “I’m the one with a master’s in theology, not you. When you have one, you can teach the class.” I accepted her admonition (I wasn’t Catholic, and I didn’t have an MA in Theology), and quietly suffered through the rest of RCIA (long story). Essentially the parish priest showed up to support her, and I only asked questions. But it was clear the priest agreed with her. (I could tell another story about how he preached on the wearing of rainbow sashes by parishoners in support of the homosexual community was a good thing.)

During that time, I called Fr. Pacwa on Catholic Answers and asked specifically about this problem. He advised to keep quiet, and once Catholic, apply for the RCIA director position. Given that it was clear she was supported by the parish priest, I thought it was impossible to do so. I eventually moved on to another parish.

The point here is that there is indeed heterodoxy amonst parish leadership. This was one example, but I’ve seen many other, including: encouraging non-Catholics to receive communion, restructuring the order of mass, “inclusive” language during mass (“Our mother and father in heaven, hallowed you your names…”), someone other than the priest giving the homily, etc. It exists. And I see no problem with requiring people to publicly acknowledge their commitment to the Catholic faith, especially when in a teaching position.

And if the parish leadership is asleep at the wheel what use is an oath of conformity???

 

[Suudy]

And if the parish leadership is asleep at the wheel what use is an oath of conformity???

Accountability to the Bishop.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

And if priests don’t have time to sit down with the 5 or 10 catechists, then yes they need to delegate, absolutely. But the buck always stops with the parish priest, so it’s probably in their interest to take a more active role.

I am in the Arlington diocese. We have about 200 volunteers involved with our k-12 CCD program. The priests do know many of them well. The DRE and her assistant do speak to each volunteer. I know many of them myself and would vouch for the ones I know.

I don’t seriously believe though that among 200 people, where there is some turnover from year to year, that there aren’t a few who may intentionally or from lack of understanding, dissent in some way from Church teaching. I doubt this letter will immediately bring each person to a perfect understanding and agreement with that teaching, but it is definately prompting questions and hopefully some revelations and a forum for teaching to the teachers.

 

[triumphguy]

How does it make you accountable?

You need lines of communication, oversight, etc etc for accountability.