CCD Teachers Required to Take Oath of Fidelity
#11
(07-18-2012, 01:57 AM)10th_Crusader Wrote: I have a friend who taught Catechism in the north Virginia area, but not anymore. The diocese requires them to take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium if they want to teach catechism.

Good for her to leave - not that she is any better off for it - but taking an oath of fidelity to the NO Magisterium is not the same as taking an oath of fidelity to the Catholic faith........I wouldn't take it either.
Reply
#12
(07-19-2012, 11:57 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Good for her to leave - not that she is any better off for it - but taking an oath of fidelity to the NO Magisterium is not the same as taking an oath of fidelity to the Catholic faith........I wouldn't take it either.

That's what I was thinking too. The NO mass in my area is in a church that pretty much looks like a Unitarian church. I've never been there, because I go to TLM, but I can't imagine it goes well there.
Reply
#13
We've been discussing this situation in earnest on Facebook and there have definitely been some misconceptions about the nature of this "oath", not the least of which were caused by distortions in the Washington Post article that reported it (imagine that!).  I had assumed that this "oath" was essentially a promise to teach only what the Church teaches, to acknowledge the infallible teachings of the Church and to promise not to contradict it in any way as a catechist.  This is something I've tried to do for all the years I've been teaching so I have no problems with it.  The whole controversy came up because I was arguing from what I assumed it would (and should) be, whereas others were taking a more legalistic view based the precise wording and on the information from the Post, some of which was simply wrong.  It seems none of us really understood the situation but Father's due diligence has cleared things up.

Here is an explanation from Fr. Patrick McMahon, who himself had serious concerns about the nature of this:

I am really embarrassed and you should be to. We took the Washington Post at its word and swallowed the bait—hook, line, and sinker. I spoke to someone from the Arlington Diocese and was given a copy both of the Bishop’s letter and the “oath.” Well, problem number one—it isn’t an oath. It is a profession of faith –the sort of thing that I wrote yesterday that it should be. Real simple. The Creed, Scripture and Tradition (defined in the narrow theological sense of Apostolic Tradition, not mere traditions), everything definitively proposed (defined by the universal magisterium) on faith and morals, and everything proposed by the Pope or the College of Bishops (not an individual bishop and not a bishops’ conference) even when not meant to be a definitive (infallible) doctrine. I must admit that I wish it didn’t require submission of will and intellect in this last category as that moves things a bit into the “internal forum” and I think it should suffice to say that one promises to teach only that which the Church teaches and as the Church teaches but I think it is still broad enough that it need not cause problems for Catholics who in good faith accept the teaching of the Church while still having unresolved questions. In this context I don’t see this oath as binding people in the internal forum—i.e. overriding their consciences when they have done their best to form their consciences in the light of Church teaching. Note—I said, “form their consciences in the light of Church teaching” not conform their conscience to Church teaching. (Note too, I have said—done their best, i.e. made an honest effort to understand precisely what the Church teaches and form their consciences accordingly.) In other words, I don’t see this profession of faith as trumping the sovereignty of conscience in the internal forum though it clearly binds the catechist to teach as the Church teaches and not give their opinions or raise the questions to their students that continue to trouble the catechist in his or her own soul. When one reads the profession of faith it is clear that the “top doctrine official” cited in the Post article either was misquoted or grossly exaggerated this profession of faith when he allegedly said that it would include things like the recent campaign by the bishops against the HHS mandate as that policy is not part of the universal magisterium as exercised by the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, the College of Bishops referring to the entire episcopate around the world and neither an individual bishop nor a bishops’ conference. I think the profession is broad enough that any sincere Catholic who can profess the Creed and receive the Sacraments in good faith should be able to take it in good conscience without being troubled that they are still wrestling in their personal life—though not in the classroom—with some particular issues.

----

So the real news is that this seems to be a genuine and faithful attempt to try to weed out the kinds of cafeteria Catholics as was described in the original post, and not to try to turn us into puppets of the "NO magisterium" as someone else suggested.  Father had convinced me that this was problematic when I didn't originally think it was, but thanks to his legwork, he was able to get to the truth.
Reply
#14
Thanks Concept for checking into this in more detail. The oath is certainly exposing the tares, as I was shocked to find out my friend believed in the ordination of women - something expressly condemned in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and she believes in using non-natural contraception. What concerns me is how many catechists out there were unwilling to take this oath/profession.  ???

Most of them are saying, "You'll be sorry. Nobody else will want to teach catechism." It almost makes me want to go down to the NO Church in my area, and volunteer my services. I taught catechism before, but it was in a TLM community. I'm practically like a Grand Inquisitor when it comes to heresies - they won't hear it from my lips.
Reply
#15
(07-21-2012, 11:04 AM)ConceptJunkie Wrote: So the real news is that this seems to be a genuine and faithful attempt to try to weed out the kinds of cafeteria Catholics as was described in the original post, and not to try to turn us into puppets of the "NO magisterium" as someone else suggested.  Father had convinced me that this was problematic when I didn't originally think it was, but thanks to his legwork, he was able to get to the truth.

No way. Another blatant lie. This is the NO we are talking about - right?

I will gladly admit I am wrong if that be the case, but even newly ordained priests do not bother to take an oath of fidelity to the faith - only to the magisterium. Please post the oath which dictates what you posted above to prove the NO has converted.

Reply
#16
(07-19-2012, 11:07 AM)cgraye Wrote: I was a CCD teacher, and I never encountered anything like this.  Pretty much all our preparation involved keeping anyone from getting sued.

Same here. Teachers should be required to stick to the textbooks as long as the textbooks are orthodox and clearly teach the faith! Ours was some politically correct mamby pamby thing - not even Catholicism Lite. Most of the time I hid the book under the desk, pulled up a chair and told the kids stories of the saints off the top of my head. They loved them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)