Is a catechist Catholic?

[rug]

Posted at 05:08 PM ET, 07/12/2012
By Matthew J. Franck

For a Catholic reader of the Post, it was a pretty stunning story to see so prominently on the July 12 front page. With the print headline “Parishioners question need for fidelity oaths,” one is made to wonder whether some parish priest somewhere is exacting supine obedience from the hapless folks in the pews. To Catholics who accept the teachings of the church (should that really be redundant?), the oath, it turns out, is a welcome return to orthodoxy.

The story concerned a small number—just five, it seems—of the 5,000 Sunday school teachers in the half-million-strong Catholic diocese of Arlington, who decided to hand in their resignations rather than take an oath, promulgated by Bishop Paul Loverde in May, that they affirm their own personal belief in the religious teachings they were responsible for passing on to their young charges.

From the first lines of the story, one could tell that Bishop Loverde had done the right thing. We immediately meet one of the former teachers: “Kathleen Riley knows her beliefs on the male-only priesthood and contraception put her at odds with leaders of her church.”

If Ms. Riley knows she is “at odds” with her church’s central doctrines on such matters of faith and morals, then she should not be at all surprised to find herself no longer a Sunday school teacher. Bishop Loverde’s oath is not an “alarming effort,” as “liberal Catholics” believe, to “stamp out debate” in the church. It is an effort, by the prelate responsible for the teaching of Catholic doctrine to half a million people, to control the curriculum and pedagogy when that doctrine is taught to impressionable children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/is-a-catechist-catholic/2012/07/12/gJQAnKjCgW_blog.html

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

1. I have heard the oath

Some years ago, I attended the installation of a priest as the pastor of a parish. The bishop had the priest take a loyalty oath in which the priest had to affirm that he would give both "external assent" and "internal assent" to Vatican teachings. "External assent" means that the priest will teach what he is told to teach; "internal assent" means that he will believe it. Thinking for oneself is distinctly not encouraged.

I listened very carefully to that oath, and afterwards I turned to my wife and said, "I could not have taken that oath in good conscience".

[rug]

2. I am reminded of Thomas More.

"When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again."

[hedgehog]

3. I was a catechist for many, many years.

I avoided the hot button issues mostly because i was dealing with third, fourth and fifth graders. I felt I had an obligation to the parents not to say anything against the magisterium. I was shocked when my parish was combined with another parish and I ended up " team teaching" with another woman. Her idea of team teaching was doing exactly as she always had. When she introduced the concept of Eucharist with a story of a priest who had held a Host that dripped blood, and it was type A+, I couldn't believe it! What was worse was the realization that this woman was a convert who'd heard that story from the pastor!

That was the last year I taught- I wanted no association with that kind of Catholicism!

FWIW - no one would volunteer to teach sexual morality to the Confirmation classes. I have my own specualtions why.

[rug]

4. That's a tight position to be in.

So far, I still believe the core teachings are sound. The problem, as I see it, is when they are extended into areas to bolster other, more conservative positions. The A+ blood type nonsense is just aberrant.

[superstring1]

5. It's bishopric authority--so what of bishops deciding against the oath

Many have decided against it. Are they wrong? If they have the authority, then there is no oath in their diocese, and that's perfectly proper, isn't it? So, in this case, the will of God seems to be that there can be a difference of opinion and different results in this matter.

[rug]

6. You make a good point.

Welcome to DU!