Arlington Diocese parishioners question need for fidelity oath

[Rich_Olszewski]

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.

Okay.

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.

Not so sure about that. When one is “sworn in” in court, it is an oral declaration, not a written one.

 

[scipio337]

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

But apparently, Rich, these people who are actually teaching the faith didn’t mean it.

 

[jwinch2]

Not so sure about that. When one is “sworn in” in court, it is an oral declaration, not a written one.

And a court reporter documents it in written fashion for evidence if needed later. In addition, such things are often videotaped, and statements given to police, etc. are typically signed afterwards.

Peace,

 

[scipio337]

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. **

So what exactly is your point? The Church has had those who made their own rules as they went along, even among the intelligentsia.

Should they be given more of a voice than they have, historically speaking because of their affluence, education, or other subjective measure?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And a court reporter documents it in written fashion for evidence if needed later. In addition, such things are often videotaped, and statements given to police, etc. are typically signed afterwards.

Not justification enough for me to sign a copy of the oath one makes when about to testify.

 

[jwinch2]

Not justification enough for me to sign a copy of the oath one makes when about to testify.

Then I stand by this.

jwinch2:

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

If you take offense, I am sorry. I can understand some annoyance on the part of someone who tries to be faithful who is viewed under the cloud of suspicion due to the actions of others. But I cannot help but feel that anyone who is so adamantly opposed to signing their name to a profession of their Catholic Faith that they would rather not serve as a catechist as a result, is doing so for a deeper reason.

As noted by someone else above, I have to take Virtus training as a result of the actions of others. I have had to do other similar training for years back when I was working with kids, and the Virtus program even now that I am not. OK, I find it entirely annoying but I get it and I go through with it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Then I stand by this.

Then we are agreed in principle! You, in good conscience, are willing to sign such a document, while I, in equally good conscience, am not willing to so so.

 

[Pug]

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.

Why do you say it is not an oath? The word “oath” is on the piece of paper that is in the picture attached to this thread. Look near the bottom. It says signed under oath. Surely an oath is involved, somehow. Why say that if they don’t make you swear an oath before you sign or by the act of signing the form or something?

 

[Geist]

I somewhat envy the Arlington diocese, they have Latin mass at one of their parishes, Iam part of the neighboring Richmond diocese, which alas, does not and I live too far to make the trip.

This is a good step for them, the fact it is mocked by the media is proof positive its correct in an dof itself.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

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

Jim

You are completely in the wrong. Your arguments are the same as those used to justify the Reformation and Protestantism. It seems that you have forgotten the need for obedience to your Priests, Bishop, and the Heirarchy of the Church with respect to faith and morals.
What you may not know was that When Cardinal Spellman made that statement he was head of all of the Catholic Chaplains in the US military and had an obligation to keep up their morale as well as tend to their religious needs. I think you are confusing political beliefs with Catholic beliefs. You can choose your politics, but in the Catholic Church you can’t pick and choose what you want to believe. If you want that, the Episcopalian Church is looking for members.
And, to be honest, as a Viet Nam veteran I greatly resent your dis loyal attitude to our country during that time.

 

[CatholicFireman]

I somewhat envy the Arlington diocese, they have Latin mass at one of their parishes, Iam part of the neighboring Richmond diocese, which alas, does not and I live too far to make the trip.

This is a good step for them, the fact it is mocked by the media is proof positive its correct in an dof itself.

I hate to rub it in, but…I think we have more than one latin mass now.

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

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?

No. Comparing this to the Vietnam war is a non sequitor. Spellman’s belief re the war was his opinion, that’s all. This has to do with adhering to Catholic doctrine.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Then we are agreed in principle! You, in good conscience, are willing to sign such a document, while I, in equally good conscience, am not willing to so so.

Rich, (friend ),
Our Church is a church of documents, among other things. It documents. You understand that as a lawyer. Just as in civil cases (say, contract cases) it is always (or usually! ) more immediate and substantial for a party to present written evidence of a promise made than oral recall of a promise made, so, too, the agreement to teach a particular curriculum that aligns with the institution represented, is important to document.

The alternative (since you wouldn’t mind do the same thing orally, I thought you said), is for the Church to videotape or otherwise eye-witness (and then document) the same oral declaration. That is burdening the institution unnecessarily, and even assumes that the party being contracted with is at least ambivalent, has some reservations about, or is privately antagonistic about the positions he or she is being asked to teach.

Our Church is also a confessional church, small “c,” and by that I mean we acknowledge the importance of avowal, of attesting, of witnessing with words the same truths and Truth we assent to interiorly. This is (obviously) why we publicly recite the Confiteor at the beginning of Mass, the Creed in the middle of Mass, etc. We’re not “writing it down” in that case, but we are in fact repeating, over and over, our commitment – not just to “hold a belief” (mentally), but to speak and practice that belief. But my point is the formality of it and the public aspect of it.

Catechesis, is, within the Church, a public role. In a previous era, I could agree with you as to the superfluousness of committing to paper agreement to be united in intent. But OTOH, in some previous eras, there were no, or few, lay catechists! Catechists were clergy & religious whose very vows to God presupposed union with the magisterium, and overwhelmingly demonstrated that.

What seems to have happened after V2 is a perfect storm of improperly interpreted directives from the Council (bad), + enormous widening of role of laity (good), + inadequate and even incorrect training of catechists (bad). In the last 15 years that formula has been further complicated by lack of oversight of catechetics, by the local clergy & bishops. They’ve had their hands full with legal matters + vocation crises (presenting staffing problems) + maintaining the Church’s message in an increasingly areligious and amoral world. So catechesis has continued to be compromised (non-uniform) and that non-uniformity needs finally to be addressed head-on.

Being a catechist does not give one authority (except in a disciplinary sense); it gives you a role, a role to proclaim and witness to specific teachings, regardless of whether your conscience does or does not agree with them. (One could probably question a catechist whose conscience varies from the magisterium, Why would you want to be a catechist?)

I guess an alternative would be something which I actually find a little more distasteful, which would be a mini-inquisitional questioning (softly delivered ), by which somewhat more basic questions were asked, to wit, Are you in fact in communion with the magisterium? Do you have any reservations about what you are agreeing to teach? Personally, I would find that much more offensive than signing an oath. The former is challenging my integrity merely by asking such questions. The second I see as a jurisdictional formality: I commit to writing what I confess weekly at Mass, and by doing so I make my confession public, and I make myself aware of my public role.


Your counter, Counsellor…

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The former is challenging my integrity merely by asking such questions. The second I see as a jurisdictional formality: I commit to writing what I confess weekly at Mass, and by doing so I make my confession public, and I make myself aware of my public role.


Your counter, Counsellor…

Having lived, albeit as a young teenager, through the era of Joe McCarthy and political loyalty oaths, I find them distasteful and pointless.

Like a vampire that seems to not want to stay in his coffin, “Are you now or have you ever…?” seems to be coming back even by light of day or by light of stained glass window. If my pastor (or less likely) my bishop has some suspicion that I have gone over to the dark side and am peddling shoddy theology to the unsuspecting, then fine, let him rightly ask me to take such an oath, but absent that, the proof of my loyalty will be my fidelity to the Magisterium and my demonstrated orthodoxy in the teaching tasks that I will have assumed.

If signing such a document is no more than a jurisdictional formality, then the oral confession of the Credo ought to suffice. I make it weekly and that continual and regular reinforcement of what I believe ought to outweigh a paper that will be filed and likely forgotten.

I do not oppose such written oaths; I simply would not sign one myself. Other Catholics will and do differ, and there is room in the diocese for both positions.

 

[He_Man]

Next time you’re at Mass, look to your right, to your left, in front of you, and behind you…which one(s) is the heretic! My, my!

So you don’t have an issue with them teaching contrary to Church doctrine while acting as official representatives of the Church?

Being an RCIA is a privilege, not a right, and is there for the good of the Church and the catechists, not to make the teachers feel good about themselves.

 

[He_Man]

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

And that is your right. But then you can;t teach RCIA in the Diocese. I fail to see a problem either way.

It is the right of the Diocese to ensure proper catechesis, and the right of an individual to refuse to sign and thus not be allowed to teach.

Again, there is no guaranteed right to being an RCIA instructor.

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK, Rich, I can understand your position, but the Church is not asking (unlike the McCarthy era) if the catechist has ever been in the past, or is now, a member of a dissident faction within the Church. She only cares about what the catechist in present time believes, affirms, and commits to teach. That’s because the Church models forgiveness & conversion herself, and, like Christ, is not concerned with the past but with the present.

Being a member of a group is not the same thing as what one currently publicly espouses. (One could even have in the present time private doubts or private internal conflicts about church teachings, and still be a worthy, loyal and effective catechist, depending on the nature of the doubts and severity of the conflicts, which I alluded to in my last post. ) The Church does not assume that there might be hidden doubts within a catechist, and therefore does not engage in a mini-inquisition. She knows that minor doubts would probably not influence teaching, necessarily. (And she knows that clergy and religious often struggle with particular Church teachings, privately, from time to time.) She just wants to eliminate oppositional agendas.

What you suggest would be inefficient and would probably rise to the level of injustice towards the institution. To wait until there is clear evidence of dissent on the part of a catechist would also by that time have endangered the spiritual well-being of those already catechized by him or her, not to mention have produced public scandal. The Church is within her right to protect the message before that message is compromised, given that she has ample proof of how widely that message has been compromised in the recent past.

JMO !

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And that is your right. But then you can;t teach RCIA in the Diocese. I fail to see a problem either way.

It is the right of the Diocese to ensure proper catechesis, and the right of an individual to refuse to sign and thus not be allowed to teach.

Again, there is no guaranteed right to being an RCIA instructor.

I agree. It is an office that I would not take on, so the diocese would have no problem in my absence. Interestingly, some 20 years ago, I led two friends to Catholicism without the formality of RCIA, though I understand that it is de rigeur today.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

OK, Rich, I can understand your position, but the Church is not asking (unlike the McCarthy era) if the catechist has ever been in the past, or is now, a member of a dissident faction within the Church. She only cares about what the catechist in present time believes, affirms, and commits to teach. That’s because the Church models forgiveness & conversion herself, and, like Christ, is not concerned with the past but with the present.

Being a member of a group is not the same thing as what one currently publicly espouses. (One could even have in the present time private doubts or private internal conflicts about church teachings, and still be a worthy, loyal and effective catechist, depending on the nature of the doubts and severity of the conflicts, which I alluded to in my last post. ) The Church does not assume that there might be hidden doubts within a catechist, and therefore does not engage in a mini-inquisition. She knows that minor doubts would probably not influence teaching, necessarily. (And she knows that clergy and religious often struggle with particular Church teachings, privately, from time to time.) She just wants to eliminate oppositional agendas.

What you suggest would be inefficient and would probably rise to the level of injustice towards the institution. To wait until there is clear evidence of dissent on the part of a catechist would also by that time have endangered the spiritual well-being of those already catechized by him or her, not to mention have produced public scandal. The Church is within her right to protect the message before that message is compromised, given that she has ample proof of how widely that message has been compromised in the recent past.

JMO !

I understand. Your final paragraph is certainly correct. Our differences lie in the method of assurance of orthodoxy - I’m content with relying on oral assurance, some dioceses would prefer written assurance. I know that both ways can be used to give indication of a catechist’s orthodoxy or, on the other hand, be of no assurance if the catechist doesn’t take either seriously.

 

[gerry_clark]

It would be proper to request that there be no teachings that are in conflict with the
prouncements from the Chair of Peter.

There have only been 2 such prouncements in the more than 100 years since Vatican I.
Both relate to Mary.

There has been no such prouncements about women’s ordination or priesthood celebacy.
There have been no such prouncements about the reception of the sacraments by divorced
Catholics.

It is ludicrus to expect someone to pledge allegience to something that is in debate. Issues of women’s ordination and priestly celibacy or in active debate. This oath is
nothing more than an effort to stiffle debate. It is an effort to thwart the work of the Holy
Spirit. The Pope takes a back seat to a Church Council decree. This is nothing more than
an effort to prevent the church from correcting the Church.