Arlington Diocese parishioners question need for fidelity oath

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, from what the OP article said this part is my concern;
to submit “of will and intellect” to all of the teachings of church leaders.
So this means if the local Bishop teaches something that you don’t agree with, you’re bound by this oath?

No thanks.

I recall when Cardinal Spellman supported and promoted service in the Vietnam war.

history.com/this-day-in-history/francis-cardinal-spellman-visits-south-vietnam

So, under such and oath, a person who signed it would be in violation if they opposed the war?

Jim
 
Well, from what the OP article said this part is my concern;

So this means if the local Bishop teaches something that you don’t agree with, you’re bound by this oath?

No thanks.

I recall when Cardinal Spellman supported and promoted service in the Vietnam war.

history.com/this-day-in-history/francis-cardinal-spellman-visits-south-vietnam

So, under such and oath, a person who signed it would be in violation if they opposed the war?

Jim
It has nothing to do with Viet Nam. It has to do with sexual morality and female priests.
 
Well, from what the OP article said this part is my concern;
Code:
 Quote:
                                             to submit “of will and intellect” to all of the teachings of church leaders.
So this means if the local Bishop teaches something that you don’t agree with, you’re bound by this oath?

No thanks.
Jim, this is Canon 752.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
 
It has nothing to do with Viet Nam. It has to do with sexual morality and female priests.
The statement made no distinction on what teachings of Catholic leaders had to be followed, just that they had to be followed.

Jim
 
Jim, this is Canon 752.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
Again, the so-called oath, didn’t make distinctions on what must be followed from leaders of the Church.

Jim
 
The statement made no distinction on what teachings of Catholic leaders had to be followed, just that they had to be followed.

Jim
Did you read the statement posted above? It specified-you must believe in everything the Magisterium proclaims, not an individual Bishop’s opinion.
 
I was addressing the OP article.

Jim
I noticed the article too about submitting to the Bishop and not to the teachings. I attribute that to another example of the MSM utterly incompetence of accurately reporting the truth.
 
I expect catechists to be orthodox Catholics, otherwise they are leading innocent people into error.

However…

I can understand how one might be totally orthodox in one’s beliefs but still balk at signing an oath.

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

And the decent man (DM) might say I don’t and won’t abuse them so why should I sign. I promised my wife before God and the community to love, honour and cherish her all the days of my life. I don’t need to sign your pledge.

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

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

The way you are behaving about this it seems you have a problem with authority.

DM: I don’t have a problem with authority!

See denial - it’s the first sign. So denial, problems with authority - I bet your wife and kids are in danger too.

We don’t need oaths and pledges, we need decent and orthodox leaders, leading by example.

Also, I would be very wary of a school board asking for an oath of fidelity to Catholic teaching. A bunch of politicians (possibly with very dodgy Catholic credentials) whose only interest in getting oaths of fidelity is to prove Catholicity to a government so they can maintain their independence from the public board and so their financing? Gimme a break! (This is a Canadian example here)

Anyway - how come the parish priest doesn’t know the catechists? I would expect the parish priest to be totally in control of all catechetical programs in their parishes. They should know who is orthodox and who isn’t.

Getting someone to sign a pledge is a cop-out.

I’ve been asked to lead RCIA in the fall. The parish has asked me to go through yet another security screening.

In the past 2 years I’ve done 7 different security background checks, including fingerprints: for the diaconate program, for the school board, for the parish already, for my daughter’s school, for my hunting and firearms licences, and to volunteer at my son’s school. Security checks don’t prove you’re a good guy, they just prove you are not in the system yet! I’m sick of these useless checks and feel like saying “No, ask the diocese if I’m good to go.”

In the same way a pledge of fidelity doesn’t prove anything.

I could totally and honestly believe that the “magisterium of the faithful” supercedes all else, including the Pope and Bishops, and believe that this is a valid teaching of the church, and I could (in utter ignorance of the Truth) pledge fidelity, oblivious in my lack of knowledge. And so go on blithely teaching the kids absolute nonsense.

No! The parish priests need to be in charge.
I don’t have a problem with this and neither should any decent guy either because the scenario you bring up is different from here. Any Catholic husband who has already taken vows of marriage knows what is involved and took an oath already. To ask him to do it again would seem a little redundant but in this case no such previous oath has taken place. Its occuring for the first time.
 
I noticed the article too about submitting to the Bishop and not to the teachings. I attribute that to another example of the MSM utterly incompetence of accurately reporting the truth.
No kidding. Has a secular news source ever reported anything accurate when it comes to Catholicism?
 
The statement made no distinction on what teachings of Catholic leaders had to be followed, just that they had to be followed.

Jim
Jim, you should read the actual document. The Profession is on page 3

documentcloud.org/documents/398902-bishopletter.html
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
I am sorry you immediately took the WaPo article at its word. I know “Orthodox, conservative Bishop beats poor dissident from faith into submission” is a popular media meme at the time, but surely we can throw a smidgin of our own discernment in, or give our sheperds the benefit of the doubt (or at least occasionally try to do so)
 
I expect catechists to be orthodox Catholics, otherwise they are leading innocent people into error.

However…

I can understand how one might be totally orthodox in one’s beliefs but still balk at signing an oath.

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

And the decent man (DM) might say I don’t and won’t abuse them so why should I sign. I promised my wife before God and the community to love, honour and cherish her all the days of my life. I don’t need to sign your pledge.

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

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

The way you are behaving about this it seems you have a problem with authority.

DM: I don’t have a problem with authority!

See denial - it’s the first sign. So denial, problems with authority - I bet your wife and kids are in danger too.

We don’t need oaths and pledges, we need decent and orthodox leaders, leading by example.

Also, I would be very wary of a school board asking for an oath of fidelity to Catholic teaching. A bunch of politicians (possibly with very dodgy Catholic credentials) whose only interest in getting oaths of fidelity is to prove Catholicity to a government so they can maintain their independence from the public board and so their financing? Gimme a break! (This is a Canadian example here)

Anyway - how come the parish priest doesn’t know the catechists? I would expect the parish priest to be totally in control of all catechetical programs in their parishes. They should know who is orthodox and who isn’t.

Getting someone to sign a pledge is a cop-out.

I’ve been asked to lead RCIA in the fall. The parish has asked me to go through yet another security screening.

In the past 2 years I’ve done 7 different security background checks, including fingerprints: for the diaconate program, for the school board, for the parish already, for my daughter’s school, for my hunting and firearms licences, and to volunteer at my son’s school. Security checks don’t prove you’re a good guy, they just prove you are not in the system yet! I’m sick of these useless checks and feel like saying “No, ask the diocese if I’m good to go.”

In the same way a pledge of fidelity doesn’t prove anything.

I could totally and honestly believe that the “magisterium of the faithful” supercedes all else, including the Pope and Bishops, and believe that this is a valid teaching of the church, and I could (in utter ignorance of the Truth) pledge fidelity, oblivious in my lack of knowledge. And so go on blithely teaching the kids absolute nonsense.

No! The parish priests need to be in charge.
👍 Loyalty oaths mean nothing. Anyone can sign one, and it is insulting. I’d never sign one myself. 😦 😦
 
Anyone who is confirmed in the Catholic Church has already made a very similar profession of Faith before God and the Church. Obviously the one used during confirmation is simpler in language but, when one professes to “believe in the Holy Catholic Church”, they are stating that they believe the Church has the authority to teach authentically in areas of faith and morals. Those same people also profess that faith every Sunday during Mass, again before God and their entire parish community. Why someone would be willing to profess their faith verbally before God but not sign their name to it makes little sense to me. As if signing their name to a piece of paper is somehow more binding than professing their faith before God.

I recognize that this is likely uncomfortable for some who have been teaching the Faith for many years. However, there is an obvious need for reigning in what is being taught. The woman quoted in the article above knowingly dissented from Church teachings on Faith and Morals, yet chose to become a catechist anyway. That is a problem, and it needs to stop.
 
Jim, you should read the actual document. The Profession is on page 3

documentcloud.org/documents/398902-bishopletter.html

I am sorry you immediately took the WaPo article at its word. I know “Orthodox, conservative Bishop beats poor dissident from faith into submission” is a popular media meme at the time, but surely we can throw a smidgin of our own discernment in, or give our sheperds the benefit of the doubt (or at least occasionally try to do so)
I’d still have a problem with it, because the teaching of the Magesterium also includes being obedient to your Bishop.

Also, this from Scripture raises a red flag for me;

From the New American Bible
Teaching about Oaths.
“Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all;* not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one. Matthew 5:33-35
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top