Arlington Diocese parishioners question need for fidelity oath

[curlycool89]

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.

I can see a couple of points in your argument.

However, I think that for someone who has been asked to teach catechism to Catholics (which is a privilege, not a right), they should be required to sign such an oath out of fidelity and obedience. The Church has the responsibility to look out for the people to make sure that they are not being led astray by wolves among the sheep.

I don’t think your example of the not-wife-beater husband is a fair one, because such an oath would be implicit in marital vows. In that case, it would be redundant, but in this case there is good reason to be cautious with respect to teachers of the faith.

A more apt example is a priest actually. After a priest is ordained (or a deacon) they still need to receive faculties, which in a way is an implicit contract that you will authentically pass on the Catholic and apostolic faith. Just because you’re a cleric doesn’t mean you have a “inherent right” to teach, you still have to profess your obedience to the Church and your bishop, and if you don’t then you can be suspended (your faculties can be suspended).

 

[scipio337]

Well, maybe the Church can start offerering an “opt out clause” for the Nicene Creed (which I noted was the old form in the letter, odd).

Following the Magesterium? How dare they!

 

[Dale_M]

I
I guess **if you stick to the material **and the material is faithful
there shouldn’t be a problem./

(Bold texting by me)

I think the central issue is not sticking to the material, and presenting a more personal take on the faith.

 

[Dale_M]

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.

hmmm… here is the relevant sentence from the article
Washington Post:

Last month, Riley joined at least four other Sunday school teachers and resigned from her post at St. Ann’s parish after a letter arrived at her home requiring her — and all teachers in the Arlington Catholic Diocese — to submit “of will and intellect” to all of the teachings of church leaders.

I don’t think that is misleading, especially since the text of the actual Profession of Faith was provided. That statement begins with the Nicene Creed and ends with a paraphrase of Canon 752. Perhaps wasn’t clear from the article is that the “submission of will and intellect” is to “the Roman Pontiff or College of Bishops” “when they exercise their authentic Magisterium”

 

[jwinch2]

A good reason why NOT to sign some “loyalty oath.”

One could just as easily argue that if one has no problem professing their faith before God and His Church, then they should have no issue at all in signing a piece of paper that says the same. If one has no problem standing up and professing their faith but balks at signing a paper that says the same, I cannot help but wonder how seriously they took the first profession, particularly if they are going to be responsible for passing that faith on to others.

If one does not wish to reaffirm their faith in this manner then they have the the choice to not be a catechist. Pretty simple really.

 

[scipio337]

hmmm… here is the relevant sentence from the article

I don’t think that is misleading, especially since the text of the actual Profession of Faith was provided. That statement begins with the Nicene Creed and ends with a paraphrase of Canon 752. Perhaps wasn’t clear from the article is that the “submission of will and intellect” is to “the Roman Pontiff or College of Bishops” “when they exercise their authentic Magisterium”

BUT…the teaching of the Magesterium also includes being obedient to your Bishop.

And we all know that the Bishops (and Pope) are rigid and unnuanced in their views! The Bishops are practically an extension of the Tea Party.

 

[Neofight]

I get the feeling some of you folks would be happy to see the Swiss Guard replaced with the KGB, and that Senator J. McCarthy was around and was made a Bishop!

 

[manualman]

No! The parish priests need to be in charge.

A nice thought, but not currently practical. Maybe if we actually had a priest per thousand parishioners or so this would be feasible. But we don’t, we have less than a third of that many priests usually.

The fact is that there are a LOT of people like the person cited in this article that have substituted their own opinions for church teaching and many of them don’t shy away from teaching those opinions in religious ed. Most of them feel they are morally superior to the Magisterium. Why not let them weed themselves out?

IMO you’re allowing your own pride to interefere with BADLY needed reforms.

 

[PaulinVA]

So, the question boils down to, “Are you a cafeteria Catholic or are you a faithful Catholic?”

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If one does not wish to reaffirm their faith in this manner then they have the the choice to not be a catechist. Pretty simple really.

I don’t think a signature on a piece of paper “reaffirms one’s faith.” An atheist could sign such a paper, too. But, you’re right about one thing. I’d never choose to be a catechist if that were a requirement of being one. But, never mind; there are probably dozens of others who’d jump at the chance to become one.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I get the feeling some of you folks would be happy to see the Swiss Guard replaced with the KGB, and that Senator J. McCarthy was around and was made a Bishop!

So it would seem.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So, the question boils down to, “Are you a cafeteria Catholic or are you a faithful Catholic?”

In regards to what? A rather vague question, I think.

 

[manualman]

In regards to what? A rather vague question, I think.

Context, Rich. The statement has been linked to, it’s not vague at all. Is it a wolf-proof security device? No way.

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.

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!

 

[fix]

IMO you’re allowing your own pride to interefere with BADLY needed reforms.

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.

 

[Pug]

I’d be far more interested in the local priest actually knowing what the catechist believes, teaches, knows, and practices.

Is the hope that a person who is a holdout on some doctrine will feel so unwelcome by the request to sign the oath that they will quit as a catechist in a huff? I figure many people, regardless of what they believe, would sign it. I wonder if this is a token effort so that a committee can point to a document in a file somewhere and say, “See? We tried real hard to be sure the person was a good catechist. We went above and beyond and made them take an oath.”

Why not do something like interview the potential catechist at length? Why not make them give a sample class or presentation? Why not make them take a simple test and use the results as a springboard to assist them to learn more? At least do *something *so that you have an actual clue what the person knows and teaches.

 

[jwinch2]

I’d be far more interested in the local priest actually knowing what the catechist believes, teaches, knows, and practices.

I wonder if this is a token effort so that a committee can point to a document in a file somewhere and say, “See? We tried real hard to be sure the person was a good catechist. We went above and beyond and made them take an oath.”

These are fair points. I see it as a way to give someone the boot with a minimum of backlash if something comes to light down the road in terms of lack of acceptance to Church teaching. There have been times on here where we have seen articles posted about such and such youth minister or music minister, etc. being let go for a lack of adherence to Church teaching only for the pastor to experience resistance on the part of some in his parish. A document such as this gives the pastor and the bishop something additional to point to in such situations, which I see as a good thing.

Why not do something like interview the potential catechist at length? Why not make them give a sample class or presentation? Why not make them take a simple test and use the results as a springboard to assist them to learn more? At least do *something *so that you have an actual clue what the person knows and teaches.

All of those are excellent ideas. I would have no problem with any of that. In fact, I would love to see all those things happen and ask them to sign the profession.

I think if we also assume some good will on the part of the bishop, which might be a good idea, he may be trying to give those who do disagree with Church teaching but have never really been held accountable for it and easy out to leave gracefully, rather than being forced out down the road.

Finally, while I am disappointed that the lady quoted in the original article dissents in such key areas of Church teaching, and that she decided to become a catechist in the first place while knowing that she dissents, and by the manner in which she chose to go to the press; I am heartened by the fact that she had the intellectual honesty to resign the position rather than signing the profession of faith with no intent to live up to what it contained.

 

[anp1215]

Context, Rich. The statement has been linked to, it’s not vague at all. Is it a wolf-proof security device? No way.

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.

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!

Obviously, per the article, it’s already done some good. This woman, who has heretical beliefs, is no longer teaching children. Good.

I get the feeling some of you folks would be happy to see the Swiss Guard replaced with the KGB, and that Senator J. McCarthy was around and was made a Bishop!

Oh brother. My eyes just got stuck in the back of my head.

 

[Pug]

I see it as a way to give someone the boot with a minimum of backlash if something comes to light down the road in terms of lack of acceptance to Church teaching. There have been times on here where we have seen articles posted about such and such youth minister or music minister, etc. being let go for a lack of adherence to Church teaching only for the pastor to experience resistance on the part of some in his parish. A document such as this gives the pastor and the bishop something additional to point to in such situations, which I see as a good thing.

Ah, a legal means to more easily remove an unwanted employee or volunteer. :idea: Yes, I can see this as a response to legal issues. I’m not a lawyer, but perhaps it is legally advisable.

EDIT: Oh, I see I missed part of your post! Yes, it could be a way to create an opportunity for some current catechists to decide to retire or to rethink their commitment. I am glad that some who ought not sign are not signing. Perhaps they will change their hearts and truthfully sign at a later date. That could be a very pastoral move by the bishop.

 

[jwinch2]

Ah, a legal means to more easily remove an unwanted employee or volunteer. :idea: Yes, I can see this as a response to legal issues. I’m not a lawyer, but perhaps it is legally advisable.

I wasn’t thinking about the legal angle, though you could be right. I was thinking about the court of public opinion both within and outside of the parish and the Church.

For example, I know of a director of religious education for youth who openly dissents from Church teaching on women’s ordination and abortion, yet she is very popular within the parishes she serves. If you combine that with the fact that she also serves as a music minster at one of the Masses, and that the school had a difficult time finding someone to serve in the DRE position the last time it was open, it makes it difficult for the pastors overseeing this school to remove this person despite the fact that they desire to do so. The signing of a document like this could make it a bit less painful for the priests to do the things which need to be done.

Peace,

 

[Pug]

For example, I know of a director of religious education for youth who openly dissents from Church teaching on women’s ordination and abortion, yet she is very popular within the parishes she serves. If you combine that with the fact that she also serves as a music minster at one of the Masses, and that the school had a difficult time finding someone to serve in the DRE position the last time it was open, it makes it difficult for the pastors overseeing this school to remove this person despite the fact that they desire to do so. The signing of a document like this could make it a bit less painful for the priests to do the things which need to be done.

Oooh, yes another good idea. Having defined steps and criteria for becoming a catechist and removing a catechist may well help with the emotionally very difficult step of refusing a volunteer or helper, especially one who is beloved. I wonder, does this oath sort of remove the refusing to somewhere more remote (the diocese)? If so, it would help by being more distant.