Arlington Diocese parishioners question need for fidelity oath

[fix]

Not from anyone.

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

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

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

Sorry but I cannot see your point. These people have a reponsibility to the students and to the Church. Rejecting the oath sends out red flags. Is not the measure of humility obedience?

 

[jwinch2]

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.

Because you were already accountable to your superiors under the UCMJ. Parish catechists are not legally accountable at this time. Perhaps this is nothing more worrisome than a Bishop seeking to increase the accountability of those charged with teaching in his name.

As I noted above, it is often hard for a parish priest to dismiss someone from being an RCIA teacher, EMHC, etc. because of their popularity within the parish and the perception that the priest is being heavy handed or mean. This is particularly true if the person in question has been serving in this position for many years. There was a story posted here on CAF not that long ago about a music minister who was dismissed for living an openly gay lifestyle and the resultant uproar within the parish that the person’s dismissal created. Almost inevitably, these stories end up in the mainstream media where the pastor is portrayed horribly. This is doubly true if the person in question is female, religious, or has SSA.

Having catechists sign a profession of faith could give the pastor some needed political cover if and when problems of orthodoxy arise, both within the parish, and outside of it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

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

Hah! As if a Communist would shrink from signing such an oath and as if such a piece of paper would guarantee that the signer was a true-blue American.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Having catechists sign a profession of faith could give the pastor some needed political cover if and when problems of orthodoxy arise, both within the parish, and outside of it.

Maybe the ONLY possible justification for such a document.

 

[jwinch2]

Hah! As if a Communist would shrink from signing such an oath and as if such a piece of paper would guarantee that the signer was a true-blue American.

And yet, in our current situation, we have seen, per the article linked by the OP, that four dissenters from Church teaching removed themselves from the position of teaching the Faith voluntarily, based on the enactment of this profession of faith on the part of the bishop of Arlington. Its pretty hard to argue that such documents have no effect when you have such an example to look at.

In addition, we are not talking about spies who live a life of deceit. We are talking about normal people who dissent with the teachings of the Church they profess to belong to. Such people, while misguided, are probably far less likely to see lying to their bishop as a reasonable and proper course of action.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And yet, in our current situation, we have seen, per the article linked by the OP, that four dissenters from Church teaching removed themselves from the position of teaching the Faith voluntarily, based on the enactment of this profession of faith on the part of the bishop of Arlington. Its pretty hard to argue that such documents have no effect when you have such an example to look at.

Four out of how many nationwide if that were to be the rule?

In addition, we are not talking about spies who live a life of deceit. We are talking about normal people who dissent with the teachings of the Church they profess to belong to. Such people, while misguided, are probably far less likely to see lying to their bishop as a reasonable and proper course of action.

Possibly.

 

[sw85]

Hah! As if a Communist would shrink from signing such an oath and as if such a piece of paper would guarantee that the signer was a true-blue American.

Many did sign them. Given that signatures on loyalty oaths also entailed authorization to conduct loyalty screenings, many were subsequently flagged as loyalty risks.

Nothing was ever done about that, but that’s because the government was full of leftist weaklings.

At any rate, signing a loyalty oath and then breaking it is, essentially, perjury, no? Grounds for even harsher punishments than espionage alone. Likewise, signing an oath of fidelity to the magisterium of the Church sets clear expectations re: employment, the violation of which justifies termination.

I suspect we’re all objecting to it because it’s illiberal, i.e., because it reminds us too much of “The Crucible,” which no one has read since elementary school. Since liberalism is the dominant ideology of the present age, we naturally feel offenses against liberalism as offenses against the social order. I actually want it precisely because it’s illiberal – because the only people who will refuse on principle to sign it are the ones who cannot be trusted with the care of souls.

 

[triumphguy]

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.

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?

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!

No you make a vow.

I made a vow to my wife, and I also made simple vows 5 times each for a year when I was in formation with the OFMs.

I have no problem with making a vow when entering a relationship.

An oath is different.

No one else in this thread seems to get this. Maybe it’s cultural.

I cannot ever see a Canadian Bishop asking for an oath of fidelity. And I think more Canadians would balk at it if they did.

Just had a thought - you guys make an Oath of Allegiance every day in school. We don’t ever do that… ever. Doesn’t make us less patriotic though.

My Bishop would just expect the job to be done properly, and would toss me out if it wasn’t.

 

[jwinch2]

Its not an oath and its not a vow. It is a profession of faith, just like we make every Sunday at Mass, just like we made when we were confirmed, etc… The only difference is that it is written instead of oral.

 

[_Abyssinia]

On Catholic oath of fidelity: It’s about time

washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/on-catholic-oath-of-fidelity-its-about-time/2012/07/13/gJQAW9ekiW_blog.html

 

[kkollwitz]

I’m reminded that a few years ago I had to go through Virtus training which I found…distasteful? Regardless, I attended. Then last year I signed a sort of refresher document on the same subject.

I didn’t care for either experience. But the Church is in some tough times right now, and me being a mule about what I don’t like won’t help Her get out.

 

[fix]

I suspect we’re all objecting to it because it’s illiberal, i.e., because it reminds us too much of “The Crucible,” which no one has read since elementary school. Since liberalism is the dominant ideology of the present age, we naturally feel offenses against liberalism as offenses against the social order. I actually want it precisely because it’s illiberal – because the only people who will refuse on principle to sign it are the ones who cannot be trusted with the care of souls.

Amen.

 

[scipio337]

Its not an oath and its not a vow. It is a profession of faith, just like we make every Sunday at Mass, just like we made when we were confirmed, etc… The only difference is that it is written instead of oral.

I don’t see any reference to “oath” or “vow” in the doc, either. As I pointed out before, are the people who are opposed to this in favor of some kind of “opt out” option for the Nicene Creed?

We can call it the “Autem” clause.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

the only people who will refuse on principle to sign it are the ones who cannot be trusted with the care of souls.

Nice sweeping generalization, just like saying that those who will refuse on principle to sign a loyalty oath cannot be trusted with keeping our nation’s secrets.

Funny, but I didn’t sign such oaths and the FBI never came after me.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Its not an oath and its not a vow. It is a profession of faith, just like we make every Sunday at Mass, just like we made when we were confirmed, etc… The only difference is that it is written instead of oral.

Then the affirmation we say orally should be more than adequate as it is said in front of witnesses…

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I recently sat at table with a number of Catholics and including one priest. I was surprised by the openness of their skepticism regarding women’s ordination (the subject du jour). These were active supportive members of their parishes. These were Catholics who pay their pledges, and attend mass more than once a week. These are the backbone members of their church. Yet they bristled the teaching regarding women’s ordination. One said, simply, that given the teaching on Mary, it makes no sense to not ordain women.

My point here is that within your parishes, especially in affluent, educated areas, there are many Catholics who go to mass and live the sacramental life, but are deeply dissatisfied. I suspect this catechist is one of them.

The Catholic Church ignores this at its own peril. **Note, I am not saying that it should cave and change its teaching. **

One wonders why any Catholic at all would be hesitant to sign such.

 

[jwinch2]

Then the affirmation we say orally should be more than adequate as it is said in front of witnesses…

And if we mean what we say orally, we should have no problem signing a document which says as much.

 

[fix]

I recently sat at table with a number of Catholics and including one priest. I was surprised by the openness of their skepticism regarding women’s ordination (the subject du jour). These were active supportive members of their parishes. These were Catholics who pay their pledges, and attend mass more than once a week. These are the backbone members of their church. Yet they bristled the teaching regarding women’s ordination. One said, simply, that given the teaching on Mary, it makes no sense to not ordain women.

My point here is that within your parishes, especially in affluent, educated areas, there are many Catholics who go to mass and live the sacramental life, but are deeply dissatisfied. I suspect this catechist is one of them.

All the more reason for a profession of faith.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And if we mean what we say orally, we should have no problem signing a document which says as much.

Speak for yourself. What I say aloud before witnesses counts - to me, at least - more than my scratching on a piece of paper.

 

[jwinch2]

Speak for yourself. What I say aloud before witnesses counts - to me, at least - more than my scratching on a piece of paper.

I am. What I say before witnesses counts to me as well. So much so that I see no greater gravity by putting my name to something that I have already professed before God.

However, that is not true for much of society. One thing which is obvious is that, in our culture and times, we attack greater significance to signing a document versus making the exact same statement orally. To take a look at this in our current situation, consider the persons who quit their position as catechists rather than sign this document. Then, consider the fact that they had been professing their faith orally at Mass for decades. Obviously, they had no problem dissenting from Church teaching while making oral statements to the contrary, but they immediately balked at putting their signature to a document which essentially did the same thing. Why?

This suggests to me that these particular individuals either were: A) going through the motions and had no idea what it was that they were professing to believe at Mass. When they then read the document, the reality of what they were actually professing set in and they balked; B) that they abstained from the profession during Mass and then balked at signing their name to something they knew they did not agree with; or C) that they did participate in the profession of faith during Mass and were deliberately lying when doing so and did not want to get caught in their lies by putting them to paper.

With the limited evidence we have, I am inclined to believe that A is the more likely scenario, particularly for the people who had the honesty to remove themselves from their position rather than sign the document. Regardless, in all three of the above interpretations, having them sign a document was a good thing. I am willing to bet that none of them will ever look at the profession of Faith during Mass in the same light again.