Arlington Diocese parishioners question need for fidelity oath

[triumphguy]

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.

Miss Sally I mentioned 5 or 10 per parish not per diocese

Conformity - great - give them a test on their knowledge of the Catechism!

Of course (like the oath) it doesn’t guarantee they will teach the Catechism, but at least you know they know it!

 

[Suudy]

How does it make you accountable?

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

Because there is clear public communication: the signed document. It is quite clear that one has communicated fealty to Church teaching.

Oversight lies in auditing the classes. I don’t know if that is taking place in the diocese('s) of the OP. I know our priest (here in the Seattle archdiocese) is quite involved–my wife is a catechist during our RE classes. And I presume (perhaps wrongly?) that our parish is audited by the diocese. Our diocese doesn’t require such documents, but if they did, it is a layer that the diocese can use as part of its audit.

But going back to the OP. When the lady in question indicates “her beliefs on the male-only priesthood and contraception put her at odds with leaders of her [sic] church,” it is clear that such documents do have an effect. If it didn’t, then she would have said nothing.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m not arguing about conformity, I’m really replying to those who think that everyone should be happy to make such an oath if they are in conformity.

This belief that only those who swear fidelity are in conformity smacks of a kind of totalitarianism.

I didn’t say IS!!! is said SMACKS of - hints at, points to, may lead to.

Test me, audit me, observe my classes, ask if I conform, ask me what I believe, pray with me,

but I balk at signing an oath.

And I will never believe an oath will FIX anything.

 

[mlz]

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.

Oh my, what an experience! I’m surprised you were able to continue going through the RCIA program.

mlz

 

[Elizabeth502]

I balk at signing an oath.

And I will never believe an oath will FIX anything.

It’s not intended to effect miracles all by its little lonesome. It’s intended to communicate and to do so formally. And talk about looking at everything in the Negative rolleyes. I would rather that the teacher be made aware of the seriousness of the job beforehand so that he or she can apply conscientious effort and ask questions when needed, to prevent teaching error and to protect himself/herself.

You can stop with the melodrama about the totalitarian state. Do you trust priests & bishops so little, that you actually think that they have nothing better to do than to wield this oath in a heavy-handed way against innocent error? That sounds like a sinister and secular way to view the clergy. I personally have no doubt (and I have met some ultra-traditional priests, including recently) that clergy will be rational and moderate in “enforcing” this. (The “enforcement,” frankly will mostly be – again-- to eliminate those teachers so high and mighty that they prefer independence to obedience. I say good riddance if that’s their attitude.)

Now, if the objection had been stated differently, such as, “I have no resistance to conforming my teaching to Roman Catholic curriculum. I have a concern about accidental error, and therefore I request some protections built in for such errror, such as…correction/re-training if a teacher is found to be in error, as opposed to immediate dismissal, and regular review of my teaching by the DRE and/or pastor.”

But that’s not what was published. What was published was that teachers objected to anyone having any control over them. That is the substance and style of what they communicated. Hardly a righteous political protest.

Absurd.

Some people in parish work seriously need an Attitude Adjustment – a realistic self-concept. (And I don’t just mean the people referenced in the article. This is not uncommon in parish work.)

 

[Suudy]

Oh my, what an experience! I’m surprised you were able to continue going through the RCIA program.

mlz

Well, to be honest, I was converted before I stepped into my first RCIA class. I went through a serious conversion where I sought with earnest where I should be. Through about 2 years of research (and one attempt at RCIA, an attempt an an Episcopal church, and a class at the LCMS) I knew where I should be. By the time I got to RCIA, I knew where I belonged.

 

[anp1215]

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.

One of the Deacons at our parish told us that not using contraception was the “best way” and using contraception was the “less good way.”

 

[triumphguy]

It’s not intended to effect miracles all by its little lonesome. It’s intended to communicate and to do so formally. And talk about looking at everything in the Negative rolleyes. I would rather that the teacher be made aware of the seriousness of the job beforehand so that he or she can apply conscientious effort and ask questions when needed, to prevent teaching error and to protect himself/herself.

You can stop with the melodrama about the totalitarian state. Do you trust priests & bishops so little, that you actually think that they have nothing better to do than to wield this oath in a heavy-handed way against innocent error? That sounds like a sinister and secular way to view the clergy. I personally have no doubt (and I have met some ultra-traditional priests, including recently) that clergy will be rational and moderate in “enforcing” this. (The “enforcement,” frankly will mostly be – again-- to eliminate those teachers so high and mighty that they prefer independence to obedience. I say good riddance if that’s their attitude.)

Now, if the objection had been stated differently, such as, “I have no resistance to conforming my teaching to Roman Catholic curriculum. I have a concern about accidental error, and therefore I request some protections built in for such errror, such as…correction/re-training if a teacher is found to be in error, as opposed to immediate dismissal, and regular review of my teaching by the DRE and/or pastor.”

But that’s not what was published. What was published was that teachers objected to anyone having any control over them. That is the substance and style of what they communicated. Hardly a righteous political protest.

Absurd.

Some people in parish work seriously need an Attitude Adjustment – a realistic self-concept. (And I don’t just mean the people referenced in the article. This is not uncommon in parish work.)

Err… I took great pains to point out that it “smacks of, hints at…” etc, not it “IS a totalitarian state.” Please don’t blow my argument up into something it is not. And it is not my view of the clergy AT ALL, so calm down

I’m not sure why on this forum a person cannot present an argument without it being taken out of context and blown up into something that it is not.

Maybe think about what I’m saying. Maybe I have a point. Maybe I have some good points, but you want me to consider your side of the argument too.

Anyhoo.

Have a good night.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I just want to say one more thing which touches on this thread.

In case anyone reading this hasn’t been paying attention during the last generation, the Roman Church is now seeing the fruits of decades of abominable catechesis. At least this is true in the U.S. And it’s true for a variety of reasons. Not all of those reasons can be attributed to oppositional interpretation of Magisterial teaching (by catechists, by religious ed teachers in Catholic schools, by theologians in Catholic institutions of higher ed, and by some outspoken & misguided clergy), but much of it is directly attributable to a suspension of fidelity to Rome. When the formators are poorly formed themselves, an institution is in deep doodoo. And I’m really talking about the most radical and most negligent stuff – not small variances in pedagogy or language.

A ‘loyalty oath’ is not a solution to this mega-sized problem. I do agree with that. It is simply a sign, a signal, that there is indeed (surprise!) a fulcrum, and that fulcrum - if you’re a catechist – is not your Self or your inventions or your creativity or your dissent. It’s a body of teaching which belongs to a community, a community into which you have been baptized and are supposed to be modeling. That community has leadership which resides in particular people, and that leadership is higher than your authority. Catechesis is not about the feelings and self-worth of the catechists, but about the formation of Catholic Christians into an authentically educated Body of Christ.

There are additional steps needed in the eventual restoration of a reliable catechesis in the Church. This is only a first one: to understand that you can’t re-create religious teaching and present it as something which it is not. And it’s a first step which is long overdue.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Miss Sally I mentioned 5 or 10 per parish not per diocese

Conformity - great - give them a test on their knowledge of the Catechism!

Of course (like the oath) it doesn’t guarantee they will teach the Catechism, but at least you know they know it!

I meant per parish also! Obviously not all parishes have that many, but some of the parishes in this area are very large.

Th priests at my parish, and those I am familar with do indeed check in with the catechists. We use approved curriculm also, so teachers aren’t making up their own lesson plans. However, someone, either through ignorance or a sense that they know more than the magesterium can still teach the wrong thing.

I doubt Bishop Louverde thinks that these oaths are going to solve any problems in and of themselves. As other said, they are likely being put into place to help deal with he said/she said issues when a catechist goes ‘rogue’. But it has also caused at least a few people to realize thatthey shouldn’t be teaching religious education if they don’t believe the same things the Church does.

 

[triumphguy]

One thing I don’t get is how people can be asked to teach kids the faith if no-one knows what the erstwhile teacher believes?

I’ve been asked to lead RCIA in fall. Last week the parish priest (who knows me already) spent 3 hours with me and a couple of other team members going through the program.

Then he took us for lunch.

He’s hands on, and he won’t have any surprises.

 

[kkollwitz]

I’m a longtime catechist and would be pleased to sign such a fidelity oath. In many ways it’s like what I agree to to have an architect’s license and be able to sign and seal drawings.

And yes, Elizabeth502, the state of catechesis in the US remains abominable.

 

[manualman]

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

Already answered. Many of these peoples (see the OP article) are NOT nefarious villians out to undermine and collapse the catholic church via deception and subterfuge. They’re just sincerely wrong, but that doesn’t make them less dangerous to the faithful.

Often times they have always been open about their defiance and never received ANY sort of correction, so they spread it to all who will listen, using the implicit endorsement of the local church via their position of catechist or teacher.

If even 5% of these types of people will read such a statement of faith and say “I’m not signing that, I don’t believe that” then the program has accomplished a significant goal. There are very few magic bullets able to solve all problems. If you refuse to use any tool unless it is a universal tool able to fix all broken items then you will shortly find yourself unable to fix anything at all.

 

[fix]

I’m a longtime catechist and would be pleased to sign such a fidelity oath. In many ways it’s like what I agree to to have an architect’s license and be able to sign and seal drawings.

Yes, and why would any Catholic shrink from signing such an oath?

 

[sw85]

It’s like saying to a decent man, we need you to sign an oath pledging not to abuse your wife and children.

He basically makes that oath when he marries, no? If it is spoken rather than signed, it is certainly implicit in his signature of the marriage documents.

*Well if you won’t abuse them anyway why not sign? *

DM: It is insulting to me to be asked to sign. I refuse.

And there’s the rub: it’s all about him, isn’t it?

A catechist who refuses to sign such an oath places his own pride above the good-faith requests of his superiors and the needs of his class. He is a sociopath, and should be kept far from any position of authority over others.

In a sense, it is really no different from signing an employment contract. It sets clear standards and expectations. Do we all imagine that what a catechist actually believes is in no way relevant to his qualifications to teach the faith?

No! The parish priests need to be in charge.

Well, you’ll get no argument from me that there’s no reason for parish priests (seminary graduates!) to be abdicating instructional responsibility to untrained laymen, but that’s a conversation for another time!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

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.

Except that when I took my Oath of Enlistment and later my oath when I was commissioned as an officer, I did so orally. I didn’t have to sign a piece of paper to that effect. Even when I was given access to highly classifed “Codeword” Sigint and Humint material, I didn’t have to sign anything.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yes, and why would any Catholic shrink from signing such an oath?

And, why would anyone shrink from signing a myriad of “loyalty oaths” back in the 1950s?

Perhaps a sense of honor or a perception that nothing was going to satisfy those anxious to put one’s hard copy loyalty oath into their file cabinet?

 

[fix]

And, why would anyone shrink from signing a myriad of “loyalty oaths” back in the 1950s?

From the Catholic Church or from other sources?

Perhaps a sense of honor or a perception that nothing was going to satisfy those anxious to put one’s hard copy loyalty oath into their file cabinet?

The bishop asks for an oath which more than reasonable. What sense of honor would find that troubling?

As far as not satisfying the bishop what evidence do you have that is the case?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

From the Catholic Church or from other sources?

Not from anyone.

The bishop asks for an oath which more than reasonable.

Those 1950s loyalty oaths were “reasonable,” too.

What sense of honor would find that troubling?

The honor of a person convinced of his or her own high sense of personal honor.

As far as not satisfying the bishop what evidence do you have that is the case?

It’s not a matter of evidence; it goes to one’s sense of personal worth and honor. It is an intangible quality IMO.

 

[sw85]

And, why would anyone shrink from signing a myriad of “loyalty oaths” back in the 1950s?

That’s a good question, since they were legitimate in themselves and a perfectly licit response to the real problem of Soviet espionage.