The Arlington Diocese, which includes nearly a half-million Catholics across northern and eastern Virginia, is one of a small but growing number that are starting to demand fidelity oaths. The oaths reflect a churchwide push in recent years to revive orthodoxy that has sharply divided Catholics.
Such oaths are not new for priests or nuns but extend now in some places to people like volunteer Sunday school teachers as well as workers at Catholic hospitals and parish offices.
…
The Arlington “profession of faith” asks teachers to commit to “believe everything” the bishops characterize as divinely revealed, and Arlington’s top doctrine official said it would include things like the bishops’ recent campaign against a White House mandate that most employers offer contraception coverage. Critics consider the mandate a violation of religious freedom.
Articles like this almost make me wish I was a journalist. Instead of actual research and getting quotes I could just write “critics say” followed by anything I wanted to make a point with – that done I could go home after a days work. Yes religious freedom now means you have the right to be a catechist even if you won’t swear to teach what the Church teaches.
So far, out of the diocese’s 5,000 Sunday and parochial school teachers, four are objecting to it and will not take the oath.
So what exactly is objectionable to them? The Profession of Faith simply starts with the Creed and then says:
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in tradition, which the Church, either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely inspired.
I also accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings with either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate whey the exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim theses teachings by a definitive act.
This section is pretty much a restatement of the levels of Church teaching from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium section 25. Though an actual document from Vatican II doesn’t count since as much as ye ole spirit of Vatican II.
Now as far as these four women saying they can’t take the oath. Well if their conscience seriously objects to it, than that is what they should do. This is much better than those who would swear the oath and not fully mean it. Oath-taking has fallen on hard times across the spectrum from marriages to politicians swearing to defend the Constitution.
One of the women submitted a letter explaining why she won’t take the oath and I don’t think she really explained why she won’t. One of the reasons is that she says it is not even possible to “specify ALL the teachings proposed definitively.” I find this rather lame as if you can know most of them yet the one you might not knows directly is the one you would object to. As if the Church has hidden the definitive teachings making it impossible to know them all without looking at lots of fine print. She says it is “impossible to know” what she is assenting to. Yeah that shows a lot of faith and trust in the Church. Another reason has even less substance in that the “expression of teachings have not reached their fullest expression in the present.” Well if the Magisterium’s deepening understanding in the area of faith and morals makes it so that you can no longer accept the faith at that point, well then resign at that point.
She even goes on to write that “only a person who is willing to abandon her own reason and judgment, or who is wiling to go against the dictates of her own conscience, can agree to sign such a document.” Wow so of the 5,000 catechetical teachers who will sign this document they are all willing to abandon reason and their conscience. Talk about abandoning reason and pure vanity. Being guided by the Magisterium is not abandoning reason since we must fully engage our reason to come to a fuller understanding of Church teaching.
She also says that forcing this issue she will be depriving students of teachers. Well 4 out of 5,000 is not much depriving. Though the 5,000 figure seems awfully high to me. One thing for sure this policy is already working if it keeps teachers like her from poisoning others with such a skeptical view of the Magisterium and the ability to know what she teaches. She treats this oath like a contract with the Devil where you must make sure there are no loopholes that will back-stab you later.
Via Rorate Caeli
34 comments
Unless I’m misreading, the “critics” at the end of the first quote are the critics of the HHS mandate–in which case the religious freedom thing is a perfectly fair description.
I can’t say I see exactly how “Arlington’s top doctrine official” is interpreting the oath to include the bishops’ opposition to the HHS mandate. While I certainly agree (strongly!) with the bishops in their opposition, I’m not sure the connection to core Church teaching is so *inescapable* that somebody couldn’t disagree about opposing the mandate without rejecting core Church teaching. (I’d actually include the intrinsic sinfulness of abortion in “core Church teaching” for this purpose. I don’t see how somebody could argue in good faith that *that* teaching isn’t an exercise of the authentic Magisterium.) Of course, it’s always possible that I’m missing something, particularly since it’s not a problem I face myself (since I agree with the U.S. bishops on that point, I haven’t given a ton of thought to exactly how one could disagree with them :-)).
Your fourth sentence, last paragraph–yup, it’s working. I’m wryly amused to see that of the four who resigned, one is a member of my tribe (academics) and another is a member of my profession (computer scientists).
Peace,
–Peter
As a parent, there is no way I’d consider Catholic school for any of my children if teachers were unwilling to sign. Probably why we homeschool 😉 There is one priest here who requires a profession of faith from the ccd teachers, and their religious prep program is awesome. Good for Arlington!
Some people are genuinely paralyzed by such things. “How can I know that I can know each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals? And if I can’t know that I know them, how can I swear that I accept them?”
This is a defect in their philosophy, not their theology. Oath or no oath, they’d probably be happier serving the Church in ways other than teaching CCD.
Hysterical but I guess in this day and age where the truth keeps on messing things up for theists it’s important to get everyone goosestepping to the same beat.
I was wondering when Salvage would show up.
Why not make it part of their contract or of employee policies? After all, how they behave as role models for the children is more important than what they believe in private. Working for a Catholic organization, they should uphold Catholic principles. If they don’t want to, there are always other schools.
What’s the hang up people have with the idea of doing the job you signed up for? Seriously – imagine a driving school where the teachers refuse to teach (or sign a contract to teach) the driving laws in the state?
Ok kid, I, as a matter of my personal conscience, which IS supreme, advise you to cut all the way across traffic here, no signal (that’s patriarchal) and go up that offramp (concepts of proper direction are passe), and go ahead and park this baby right across the interstate, all three lanes.
Listen kid, stop whimpering, I know what the traffic laws are, but the VAST majority of drivers routinely ignore them – it’s the laws that need to evolve. Now STEP ON IT!
@Metro: That would be funny if the majority of drivers did not act like that’s true.
As a theology teacher it saddens me that any kind of oath is required. James 3:1 says: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” There is no more solemn responsibility for a theology teacher than to pass on the truth of the faith.
If we teach it falsely, woe to us.
Sanity is best defined as a mind in conformity to reality. If a theology teacher teaches that which is known to be in error, then that teacher is literally teaching people to be insane.
Truth is truth.
>Sanity is best defined as a mind in conformity to reality. If a theology teacher teaches that which is known to be in error, then that teacher is literally teaching people to be insane.
And if the teacher doesn’t know it to be in error / doesn’t want to know it’s in error but nonetheless it is, what would you call that?
And if the teacher doesn’t know it to be in error / doesn’t want to know it’s in error but nonetheless it is, what would you call that?
Atheism?
So atheist are wrong when they say there is no such thing as Zeus or Thor or the Rainbow Serpent? How about Allah? If an atheist says there is no such thing as Allah are they correct?
Dean Steinlage,
If a theology teacher tries to teach atheism as true, then you are correct, they would be teaching error. But I would say that it is not limited to atheism.
If a theology teacher teaches that Jesus really wasn’t human, but only divine, it would be in error, but not atheism.
If they don’t know they are in error, they are still wrong, but their ignorance can be taught. But if, like our brother salvage, you don’t want to know that you are in error, then reason will have been made impenetrable by the will.
>If a theology teacher tries to teach atheism as true,
If the theology teacher tries to teach Zeus as true are they correct, incorrect or crazy?
Why won’t you answer that question? My theory is that you recognize it for the trap it is, that if you say there is no such thing as Zeus it begs the questions; “Why is your god real then?” and that leaves you stuck because whatever answer you give could be applied to Zeus or any other god.
I’m just curious if your allow yourself to even think that far or if there is some sort of mental short-circuit device that kicks in stopping it from reaching your conscious mind.
As for Jesus being a demigod, that is established in your religion’s canon, cemented in the early days as your church banished / killed anyone who went for the human Jesus theory so no worries there!
You know, I was thinking about our brother salvage and I am reminded of a story from Augustine’s Confessions.
Augustine had been living a life far from the truth of God. His mother, Monica, went to a priest and begged him to present him with books that would convince him of the truth of the faith.
And the priest said, “no.” I was at first shocked by this, but Augustine, reflecting on it years later, saw the wisdom of his choice. The priest said that the truth and reason in the books would not help because Augustine was not looking for answers. He only wanted to fight. It was only when he was ready for wisdom would answers be given.
Our brother salvage is sadly not looking for any answers to any of his questions. Some of his questions are good and are worth of addressing. But he is not ready. We should be glad that he continues posting here to remind us to lift him up to our Father for his happiness.
In Christ, his passion will be such a wonderful charism.
It’s fascinating the way you take so much care to explain why you won’t answer the question rather than y’know, answering the question.
Do you not think it’s a tad obvious what you’re actually saying by such obfuscation? Your refusal to address the one point that strips your religion clean of all pretense, gravitas and value is rather telling.
You praying to your god is no different than the Aztecs praying to theirs, or the Greek sacrificing bulls to theirs or the natives dancing for rain to theirs. It’s all quite clearly the exact same thing the differences being mere facets of culture.
Why not tell me? Why do you care how I take the answer? Why should that even be a factor? Is this your policy? You only answer questions if the person asking will accept the answer? It seems you’ll answer some of my points, why not this one? It’s a legitimate, your claim to the One True Religion is the exact same as every other religion’s so logically only one can be so or none can be.
How is it unreasonable for a skeptic to ask about it?
So why are you correct in praying to your god and the Romans incorrect when they prayed to Jupiter?
Is it because you feel it’s correct? Well I’m sure the Romans felt the same way.
Is it because a lot of people do it? Well lots of Romans did it.
See? I can’t come up with an answer and it must be because I’m an atheist so if there is an answer only a theist could provide it.
Unless of course you don’t have an answer and that’s something for whatever reason you cannot admit.
But hey, keep on saying that you won’t answer cuz I’m a jerk, that’s not school yard at all Cartman.
CS: Wise words, and we should use the reminders to also lift all others who are in the same unfortunate situation.
Roberto,
Thank you for your comments. While not to the same intensity and passion that salvage has, I was a bit of a thorn in the side of some of my theology teachers growing up on certain subjects like celibacy, ordination, contraception, homosexuality, etc.
It took a conversion of heart before I could see the blindingly clear truth of the Gospel. I pray for that grace and more for our brother salvage.
And you are right, we should pray for all those who are in the same unfortunate situation.
But, sinner that I am, I must pray for humility because I can easily fall into the trap of judging my brother salvage. Christ is the judge, not I. Love only should come from us.
Thank you, I do love it when theists prove my theories.
CS: Amen to that! Questioning is always very healthy. The problem is when the questions are based on assumptions of deep ignorance and are asked to make a self-congratulatory point, rather than reflect on the answers.
Some time ago our brother asked (not directly) for an experience similar to that of Saul: may the Lord grant him that desire.
Is it really strange to expect that teachers of the catechism believe what they teach?
How effective would a theist be in teaching atheism to the children of atheists?
>How effective would a theist be in teaching atheism to the children of atheists?
Extremely if after the class the children and parents sat down and applied critical thinking, logic and facts to what the child was told.
And you do understand that children are born atheist right? That theism is a learned condition?
Puff,
When our brother salvage says that children are born atheists, it is easier to believe if you imagine them coming out of the womb with goatees and sunglasses, smoking cigarettes crying “ennui, ennui.”
….
So.. you don’t believe that children are taught religion? If you were orphaned with no religious exposure you would be still be Catholic?
How deep does your delusion run? I’m starting to sense unimaginable depths.
Deep calls to deep
at the roar of your waterfalls;
all your breakers and your waves
have gone over me.
-Ps 42:7
“…it is easier to believe if you imagine them coming out of the womb with goatees and sunglasses, smoking cigarettes crying “ennui, ennui.”
LOL! As someone who has the priviledge of spending time with 2 to 6 year olds in a CGS atrium, I am always awed by the theological insights of these little ones.
Barefoot Mommy,
Your post reminds me of Luke 10:21…
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.”
1st reaction
If all children are born atheist and theism is a learned condition, this begs the question, where did theism come from? Or rather Who taught the concept in the 1st place.
2nd reaction
I recall hearing that Islam teaches that everyone is born Muslim, so they think of converts as reverts. Not totally positive about this though.
(belated) 3rd reaction
Aren’t language, art, math, science and potty training also learned conditions?
>If all children are born atheist and theism is a learned condition, this begs the question, where did theism come from?
Ah! An excellent question that anthropology has been studying for years and there are many theories but the simple version is we like answers even ones that don’t make sense or aren’t true.
When I was a kid I was obsessed with Jupiter and the other gas giants, the idea of a whole planet with no rocks just freaked me out. Now this was before the Internet so when I ran through all the books I would bug my dad with questions that not even NASA could answer. Heck to this day we still don’t know if it’s gas all the way or if at the heart there is some sort of solid. It could be liquid steel or a giant diamond!
My dad who knew a fair amount ran out of sensible answers he started giving goofy ones just to shut me up as all parents eventually do in response to their kid’s unending enthusiasm for certain subjects. This phenomenon was captured beautifully in “Calvin and Hobbes”.
So imagine, it’s 100,000 to 50,000 years ago, humanity is just starting to think, to figure out abstract thought, to imagine and one day one looks up at the hot sun and asks “What is it?” Well we know it gives life, it protects, it’s always there, it makes us feel well so clearly it’s a good thing. “Is it alive?” Well… yes, it moves, it must be! “Where did it come from?” Over there, in the east, and then it sleeps in the west… “No, where did it first come from?” Ummm… and thus myth is born, generation after generation adds to the tale until next thing you know you have a temple and a religion worshiping a giant ball of gas.
No, not Rush Limbaugh, a useful ball of gas.
Myth comes from our inability to answer questions and our inability to say “We don’t know.” and once a myth becomes accepted as a truth it becomes theism.
We can trace your religion all the way back to Babylon and even the Neolithic in some ways. That’s all religion is, myths decided to be real.
>I recall hearing that Islam teaches that everyone is born Muslim, so they think of converts as reverts. Not totally positive about this though.
Wouldn’t surprise me, most theists feel this way. I bet a bunch of the readers here think that I really believe in their god but I’m just angry with it and deny it out of spite. It’s part of the way the theist mind protects the delusion. It’s also way theism is always so keen on recruitment, the more people doing a silly thing the less silly it feels.
Aren’t language, art, math, science and potty training also learned conditions?
Well of course they are but I’d like to think that most of us would eventually figure out the potty deal however.
Yes, but you’re returning the favor by saying we theists know there are no gods but insist on worshiping out of spite, or stupidity. Nobody’s going to win this game.
>Yes, but you’re returning the favor by saying we theists know there are no gods
Where have I said that? What I have said is that you know there are no such things as all the OTHER gods that you don’t worship.
To be fair you actually haven’t confirmed that, I’m going on the assumption that you think Zeus and the rest are made up. Since you guys never address the point assumptions are all I can make but I feel them safe.
>but insist on worshiping out of spite, or stupidity.
No, I have said no such thing, why do you keep on saying that I say stuff that I don’t say? Why don’t you cut’n’paste things I saw above your responses that way there can be no confusion?
What I have said is you worship gods because you were taught to do so, it brings you pleasure if not comfort and security, it makes you part of a world-wide community and lets you think that death isn’t that bad and that everything works out in the end. Furthermore there is an all-powerful god that agrees with pretty much everything you agree with and is always looking out for you as a result.
The benefits of theism are undeniable both physically and mentally, that’s why it’s still around, it does good things for a lot of people.
Of course that doesn’t change the fact that there are no such things as gods and that it’s all based on very old myths and superstitions.
>Nobody’s going to win this game.
A game implies that we are playing by the same rules, you guys aren’t. You dismiss or ignore anything that doesn’t allow you to “win”.
It’s a bit like playing chess with someone who insists on yelling Yahtzee! and declaring victory every time you checkmate them.
This doesn’t answer your arguments, but I’ll give my ideas:
1. By “win” I only mean convincing the other side that you are in the right, that is, you would gratified no end if anyone here admitted, “You’re right. There are no gods and I have been a fool. Thank you for enlightening me.” From your continual annoyance at us theists, that’s the impression I get.
2. The way you put it, belief in a deity makes you healthy but delusional; that in the long run it’s better to face the truth, that there is no one there, that our lives have no meaning.
Not every theist feels that way about “our god is always watching out for us” but of course you know better. The best thing is to realize there is no hope.
3. I didn’t say anything about Zeus or the like, for all I know they do exist (if you will accept that); and I take my chances for not believing in Zeus. But as you’ve said, as no deities exist, does it matter which one I believe in?
4. You argue that theists believe in “our gods” when we have no proof. Put that way, doesn’t it make us sound insane, defying all facts and reason? Or else we theists are just being contrary, like a child who jumps in the mud just because we were told not to.
I am trying to look at both your arguments.
(I’ll probably run into you in another post.)
> By “win” I only mean convincing the other side that you are in the right, that is, you would gratified no end if anyone here admitted, “You’re right. There are no gods and I have been a fool. Thank you for enlightening me.”
Not really, I don’t care what you believe and not believing in gods is pretty easy for me so I’d hardly be impressed with anyone else doing it. At any rate you’re the ones obsessed with conversion, think you’re projecting a bit here.
> From your continual annoyance at us theists, that’s the impression I get.
I’m sorry I’m annoying you but you don’t have to read my posts. Vic annoys me so when I see his name I just scroll past. You all can do the same with me, maybe I’ll go away?
2. The way you put it, belief in a deity makes you healthy but delusional;
Yeah, that’s a great way to put it. The human mind most definitively benefits from theism. The statistics are stark, you guys on vast average are happier, healthier, wealthier, more productive, in stable relationships and generally living good lives as good people.
Atheism, it can be said without hyperbole is bad for your health.
That’s why theism is still around, clearly it’s to societies benefit to be religious.
But before you get to excited, war, persecution, yada-yada, there is as there always is, a trade-off.
> that in the long run it’s better to face the truth, that there is no one there, that our lives have no meaning.
And where did I say that?
The truth is always better, of that there is no doubt and no, there isn’t anyone there but lives have no meaning?
Nonsense.
Lives have meaning and are more than worth living the cool thing you miss is that you get to decide what that meaning is.
>Not every theist feels that way about “our god is always watching out for us”
Well perhaps some of the war gods were like that but for the most part theists claim a permanent connection to their deity and it’s usually two-way.
But you don’t feel that way?
>3. I didn’t say anything about Zeus or the like, for all I know they do exist (if you will accept that); and I take my chances for not believing in Zeus.
If all those different gods exist than we are surrounded by some very powerful liars that are never seen. It truly does not seem likely.
And chances? You believe in your god on the chance that it exists and will punish you for believing it didn’t? I never got the point of that wager.
>But as you’ve said, as no deities exist, does it matter which one I believe in?
Only to you.
>Put that way, doesn’t it make us sound insane, defying all facts and reason? Or else we theists are just being contrary, like a child who jumps in the mud just because we were told not to.
Not at all, it makes you perfectly normal. Obviously religion has been part of every culture on the planet for at least 10,000 years, we’ve already talked about the benefits, being a theist is as normal as anything humans are wont to do.
And your particular brand of theism comes from, probably, your parents, most certainly a culture you were exposed to. If you had never heard of your religion you wouldn’t be it.
No one ever spontaneously believes in Jesus, isn’t that strange? Everyone has to be told about him. What a lazy god you have, not even with the Internet can it be bothered.