On the front page of yesterday’s Washington Post (and already online the night before) appeared a story about five–count ‘em, five–catechists in the Catholic diocese of Arlington, Virginia who will no longer be catechists in the next school year because they declined to make a “Profession of Faith” prescribed by Bishop Paul Loverde. There are, according to the story itself, some 5,000 teachers in the diocese, counting parochial school teachers as well as volunteer Sunday school catechists. Why this story of a few dissenters was even a story–or if a story, not one to be buried on page 5 of Metro rather than featured on page 1 of the A section (and highlighted on the paper’s website)–makes for an interesting story itself.
The Post‘s “On Faith” page editors kindly gave me some space to comment on the story. Also worth reading are:
- Matt Bowman at CatholicVote;
- Austin Ruse at The Catholic Thing;
- George Weigel at NRO; and
- Mollie Hemingway and Terry Mattingly at GetReligion
Almost as interesting as the story itself, and the story about why it’s a story, are the comments on the story at the Post’s website, both under the original article and (far fewer) under my commentary on the “On Faith” page.
July 13th, 2012 | 11:36 am
At first quick glance, I thought the five writers you list were the ones not taking the oath. Gave me quite a start!
July 13th, 2012 | 12:44 pm
I was going to say, “If Washington Post reporters were required by the paper to pledge to honestly and objectively report the basic facts of a newsworthy event, would that merit a reference to the Nazis in describing the paper’s decision to require such a pledge of them?”, but then it occurred to me that using that as an example might fall flat as I am not sure anybody still thinks the Washington Post has any such commitment to honest, objective reporting. On the contrary, it often seems as though their reporters have been instructed to spin the news such that it furthers the secular establishment’s own political and social agenda, rather than to honestly report it with objectivity. The Nazi press was like that.
July 13th, 2012 | 12:47 pm
If this is really the best story of Catholic dissent that the post can come up with for a front page story, then the Church in Arlington must be doing something correct.
On the comments:
I really find it amazing how few people cannot separate American politics from any news story. All of a sudden, the dealings between 5 Sunday school teachers and their Bishops is front page news and generates comments about the agenda of these “right wing Bishops” and comparisons to the tactics of the GW Bush administration. (Both from the On Faith comments) From the way people talk, you’d Pope Benedict, a German man living in the Vatican, is a card carrying member of the Republican party, ordering the bishops of the US to campaign for Mitt Romney.
It’s quite silly how American news cannot separate any news story from American politics. Every story must be political.
On the plus side, this story seems more directed at reaffirming the beliefs of people who already believe the RC Church is imploding and want to keep believing so. If the media needs to spend time trying to keep the true believers convinced of it’s story, things must be going well for the Church.
July 13th, 2012 | 1:54 pm
There is a wonderful irony here. Perhaps the five who resigned thought that their gesture was an effective counter-blow to the new diocesan policy; but it is actually helping the diocese achieve the goal of the policy. The policy’s goal is obviously to have teachers and catechists who actually hold to what the Church teaches. That goal can only be reached if teachers and catechists who do not in fact hold to those teachings resign or otherwise leave their posts. Faithful Catholics should therefore be grateful to these five for being honest. The real harm to the Church will come from teachers and catechists who take the oath but do not mean it.
Their going to the media, on the other hand, is reprehensible. If these five feel obligated to be true to their principles, they should respect the Church’s upholding its own principles, and not seek to harm the Church’s reputation for doing so.
It should be noted also that the words of the oath do no more than state the obligations of any faithful Catholic as taught by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 25. It is nice to see Vatican II being implemented!
July 13th, 2012 | 2:05 pm
What strikes me as odd about the loyalty oath is that it is specifically for teachers, yet it says nothing about how or what they will teach. If there needs to be an oath, why not an oath for teachers swearing that they will impart to their students only the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church?
Here is the last paragraph of the oath:
Richard R. Gaillardetz, in By What Authority?, lists four levels of Church teaching:
1. Dogma
2. Definitive Doctrine
3. Authoritative Doctrine
4. Provisional Applications of Church Doctrine, Church Discipline and Prudential Admonitions
It is not clear to me whether the paragraph I quote covers only item 3, or items 3 and 4. Can someone clarify.
I know that among conservative Catholics, these comments of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae were controversial:
Would a Catholic teacher who supported George Bush’s signing of 152 death warrants in his six years as governor be obliged to refrain from signing the oath? Or would someone who believes that punishment/retribution is a legitimate component of execution (not just protecting society from the criminal) be obliged to refrain from signing?
If all the priests in the diocese were required to sign (and why shouldn’t they be, if all the teachers are?), what percent could sign in good conscience? A 2008 study by Georgetown University found that 91% of Catholics who attended mass weekly believed in the Real Presence, but 9% did not. I would think those 9% would not be able to sign the oath in good conscience. Is it likely that, assuming the Georgetown figures are correct, virtually all of the Arlington Catholic teachers believe in the Real Presence? If 99% believed, that would still leave 50 who didn’t. What about the Church’s teachings on contraception? Is it likely that all 5000 Arlington Catholic school teachers embrace Humanae Vitae and would never dream of using contraceptives?
Is it possible that the 5 who wouldn’t sign are displaying considerable more integrity than a significantly larger number who did sign?
July 13th, 2012 | 2:21 pm
Every is to be tolerated except orthodoxy. Therefore when orthodoxy enforces itself, that always makes front page news.
July 13th, 2012 | 2:24 pm
“It’s quite silly how American news cannot separate any news story from American politics. Every story must be political”
Unfortunately, I would add American entertainment, American sports, Facebook posts from people you want to high school with, etc…..
Our politics have become quite literally, more totalitarian (not in the sense of police kicking in your door in the middle of the night to drag you away to jail if you are on the “wrong” side – but in the sense that it’s becoming harder and harder to find “safe zones” where political commentary doesn’t creep in).
July 13th, 2012 | 3:09 pm
David,
Is there any evidence at all that the thought process you are carrying out in your 2:05pm posting is the same which motivated the “Arlington Five”?? Of course, you are free to spin “what ifs” forever and a day, but the only suggestion from the article is that the would-be teachers reject oaths on principle. They demand the right of freedom of conscience within the Church under the euphemism “loving, welcoming environment”.
The best response is from another teacher in the same diocese: “If you’re struggling with something, fine, don’t teach.”
July 13th, 2012 | 4:22 pm
Is there any evidence at all that the thought process you are carrying out in your 2:05pm posting is the same which motivated the “Arlington Five”?
Darel,
I doubt it. I am not interested in defending those who wouldn’t take the oath, but I stand by my conjecture that they may very well have more integrity than many who consented to take the oath. What really interests me is the oath itself. I did a fair amount of research during the recent controversy over Sr. Margaret Farley’s book Just Love on the teaching authority of the Church, with an emphasis on authority—that is, on the Church’s requirement that the faithful “adhere with religious submission of will and intellect” to certain propositions, even if they are not infallibly taught. It is my impression—and I don’t claim anything stronger than that—that many very good Catholics do not understand or agree with the requirements for “religious submission of will and intellect.” In fact, in another forum, some of the more liberal Catholics became frankly hostile to my explanations of what kind of assent I understood the Church to require, and some of the most conservative participants, which whom I invariably agree and who invariably disagree with me, thanked me for “defending the faith.”
I think the Catholic Church is much more demanding of “religious assent of will and intellect” than the average Catholic realizes, and I think if only five out of five thousand found they could not sign the petition in good conscience, a significant number of the remaining 4995 either didn’t understand the petition or did not take it seriously enough to decline to sign it.
“If you’re struggling with something, fine, don’t teach.”
I don’t know why a personal struggle with one (or a small number) of issues would disqualify someone from teaching (or from being a priest or bishop, for that matter). It would be inappropriate for any teacher to teach his or her own personal doubts and struggles. As long as a teacher is truly committed to teaching what he or she is paid to teach, that should be sufficient.
July 13th, 2012 | 5:48 pm
David,
Gradations of authority of content is not relevant — in fact is quite the opposite of what is relevant here; the point of that paragraph in the oath is simply what it says: to affirm that the teaching authority of the Church is to be recognized as an authority regardless of the precise form it takes. It’s not about the content of what is taught at all, about which people may well have different ideas and sometimes might disagree for good reason.
I’m not sure why you’re surprised that it doesn’t cover the content. This is the way such things usually work. The oath of office for the President just says, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It would be remarkably odd to find someone puzzling over the fact that it doesn’t tell us policies the President will have in order to execute faithfully the Office of the President, for the obvious reason that that’s what the President himself (or herself) is supposed to decide in accordance with the oath, recognizing in doing so that he or she is accountable, under oath, to the Constitution. Likewise, it would be odd to be puzzled about whether an originalist or a pragmatist had more integrity in taking it.
July 13th, 2012 | 9:46 pm
Why is it anyone’s business what the Church requires of people who teach religion courses in its name? How funny that people even think it worthy of comment. And then spin out grand theories of what the Church should be doing instead and what people would do if the church did as they say. Last I heard, everyone is free to go start their own churches and require whatever their heart desires regarding levels of authority and definitions and whatnot. Let us know how it turns out.
July 13th, 2012 | 10:37 pm
Brandon,
Comparing the presidential oath of office to the oath the teachers were required to make, the oath of office actually makes reference to executing the office of president, while the teachers’ oath says nothing about the role of teachers. If you did not know what it was for, you could never tell by reading it that it is an oath for teachers.
It is very easy to say, “I believe everything the Church teaches.” However, one of the things the Church teaches is that there is a “hierarchy of truths,” and truths from different levels require different levels of assent. Also, it is not particularly easy to know what the Church teaches. If you had asked the average Catholic a few decades ago whether the Church taught that unbaptized babies went to Limbo, the answer would have been, “Yes, of course.” Now the answer is, “No, that was a theological conjecture, widely accepted, but never an official teaching of the Church.” Also, should Catholics pray for the conversion of the Jews, or actually try to convert Jews to Catholicism? What does the Church teach?
I am sure many will think I am trying to take something simple and make it complex, in which case I would like them to explain what the Church teaches on capital punishment. Signing a profession of faith under oath, it seems to me, is a serious business, and nobody should do it until they fully understand the text and can in good conscience swear to it.
If the oath had said, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully teach what the Catholic Church teaches and only what the Catholic Church teaches, and I forfeit my job should I ever offer a personal opinion in place of a teaching of the Church,” that would be an oath I could understand and would find less troubling than this one. There is something strange about loyalty oaths, however, in that unprincipled people wouldn’t have any qualms about swearing to them falsely.
July 13th, 2012 | 11:31 pm
It’s very good to see the Catholic church finally taking measures to address a problem that is quite frankly long overdue.
There’s going to be some kicking and screaming. Some of the people who’ve grown very attached to false illusions will run to the press. That’s to be expected.
July 14th, 2012 | 1:47 am
I’m hardly surprised to see your post, David, and I’m not going to work all that hard to address it in much detail (or your subsequent posts) because it’s unnecessary.
Our own pontiff has made it clear that Catholics may disagree with such modernist (my adjective, not his) views on the death penalty while remaining obedient. I’d dig up the quote for you but it has been around for so long that you’ve probably encountered it by now.
Your initial quote provides in the last sentence the basis upon which we may so disagree (or dissent, as Progressive Catholics are wont to say). The observable fact (by observation AND through multiple studies) is that failure to execute those who’ve earned the death penalty invariably leads to those same killers taking lives in prison or after escaping.
So many people have died because the state has failed to permanently remove those whose actions warrant it that the hope that “such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent” is a demonstrably empty one. Since that condition is plainly wrong there is no binding on Catholics to oppose capital punishment except when used as political oppression.
Cardinals Ratzinger & Dulles disagree with the implications of your first post. I am free to “dissent” from the Catechism on that point while signing that fidelity (NOT loyalty, as you incorrectly termed it) oath if asked to do so.
July 14th, 2012 | 3:38 am
Let us know how it turns out.
Sally Rogers,
I respect your opinion. Why so hostile? The hierarchy of truths is in the Catechism in paragraph 90: “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.” If you see my message of July 13th, 2012 | 2:05 pm listing the levels and compare it to the oath, you will see that the levels I listed form an outline for the document. For example, it opens with the creed, which is dogma.
I am truly mystified by people who believe they have the Truth (with a capital T) and seem determined to drive people who question it away instead of trying to draw them closer. Why the contempt? Wasn’t the point of Matthew J. Franck’s post and the links to lay the matter out for discussion? Why the contempt?
July 14th, 2012 | 6:13 am
David Nickol
The scope of the Magisterium’s authority is limited to questions of faith and morals. Thus, the Sixth Ecumenical Council was infallible, when it condemned the Monothelite heresy, but no one would suggest that they were infallible, when they said that Pope Honorius had held it. Thus, in the Third Council, a passage of an heretical author was quoted in defence of the doctrine defined, under the belief he was Pope Julius. Their assertion to that effect has nothing to do with faith or morals.
Thus Peronne, a distinguished 19th century theologian wrote, “”Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492.” And Billuart speaking of the Pope says, “Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible,” t. ii. p. 110”
The phrase “religious submission of will and intellect” goes back to Vineam Domini Sabaoth (16 July 1705) when Clement XI condemned those Jansenists who claimed that papal teaching had only to be received with “respectful silence” [silentium obsequiosum]. Something less than the assent of faith is required, in that such teaching does not exclude the possibility of revision. Obviously, it cannot require less than “respectful silence.”
Again, in no case is legitimate interpretation excluded.
July 14th, 2012 | 7:55 am
Why in the world were they teaching Catholic catechism to begin with if they don’t have any faith in the Catholic Church? Good riddance.
July 14th, 2012 | 10:42 am
David,
I can see how you can read my post as one of contempt. It was not so intended. It was an expression of exhaustion with posts that seem to assume that nothing can be taken at face value but must be submitted to endless analysis. The Bishop did what he thought was best, as was his duty. The Sunday School teachers did what they thought was best, as they should. Great. The Washington Post made hay out of story by fitting it into a story to attack the Church to sell papers. Fine.
The idea that we can take this one little story and spin out theories and counter-theories about the nature of authority and what Catholics really believe or know or don’t know about what the church teaches and what they would do if x,y, and z is just annoying.
Look, we want to have some assurance that people who are teaching little children on matters of faith and morals actually believe what they are teaching. That’s it. It doesn’t require a seminar on levels of authority, or reading people’s minds, or delving into ancient arguments to figure out if people are suitable to teach 4th graders about the Catholic faith for one or two hours a week. Not everything is all that complicated.
July 14th, 2012 | 3:27 pm
Let’s say I read about a controversy involving Jewish understanding of some Jewish precept. I get interested and do some “research”. I read a chapter of a book, I google around, I read a wikipedia article.
Then I decide to go on a web forum and explain to Jewish people how I know better than they do about what the controversy involves. Their religious leaders have got it wrong, and Jewish people don’t understand the real issue, and if they did they would see that their religious leaders are probably wrong too.
How would most Jewish people reading my comments react? Perhaps they would think – Wow, Slats is right!!! Thanks Slats for clarifying the issue and making it clear to us that we are all in the dark about our religion.
Or perhaps they would think to themselves = Why does Slats Grobnik think he knows more about what it means to be a Jew than we Jews? How could he think that our religious authorities don’t know more about a matter than he does after doing a ‘fair amount of research’ on the subject?
Then let’s say I do this over and over again for many months. Perhaps people might get tired of trying to respond in a civil manner to my contributions. Perhaps I might think that instead of setting forth my understanding of a controversy and taking on the role of instructing people about their faith, that it might be more constructive to ask a question rather than make challenges.
Or perhaps not.
By the way, David, in your comments you seem to suggest that the “5,000″ people we are discussing are school teachers in the traditional sense. I find that highly doubtful. In my parish, it’s just volunteer Catholics who teach CCD. There’s no certifications involved. They volunteer a couple hours a week — so no one is “losing their jobs” over this controversy. They are just resigning from a volunteer post. Unless I read the story wrong, which is quite possible.
July 15th, 2012 | 5:43 am
Slats Grobnik
To continue your example, the Liberal and Reformed movements in Judaism really did drew their inspiration very from the Biblical Criticism, carried out mainly by Lutheran scholars at the universities of Tübingen and Halle, beginning in about 1815.
Religious organizations do not exist in an intellectual or cultural vacuum.
July 15th, 2012 | 11:46 am
Our own pontiff has made it clear that Catholics may disagree with such modernist (my adjective, not his) views on the death penalty while remaining obedient.
Phil Steinacker,
I appreciate the fact that you addressed the questions I raised. This must be the quote you are referring to:
Avery Dulles lays out his own views on capital punishment in this essay from First Things.
I think you have the elements of a good case that Catholic are not obliged to accept everything in the Catechism. The question then arises as to how Catholics can assess their own views, compare them to what the Church teaches, and decide determine whether they can take the oath in good conscience. It appears that the Catechism isn’t always a definitive guide to “what the Church teaches.”
Cardinals Ratzinger & Dulles disagree with the implications of your first post. I am free to “dissent” from the Catechism on that point while signing that fidelity (NOT loyalty, as you incorrectly termed it) oath if asked to do so.
Since I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of capital punishment, I will just note that while Avery Dulles can be cited against an interpretation of Evengelium Vitae that says church doctrine opposes capital punishment, you and Cardinal Dulles disagree in the prudential matter of when capital punishment may be used. From Dulles’s essay I linked to above, we have the following:
Stephen M. Barr says above: “The real harm to the Church will come from teachers and catechists who take the oath but do not mean it.” That is one of the points I tried to make. But it seems to me that perhaps of equal concern are those who take the oath, sincerely mean it, but are mistaken because they don’t fully understand what they are swearing to. Those who know they are in dissent on certain matters may nevertheless be conscientious enough to stick to the curriculum and teach students only official Church teachings. Those who think they are in conformity with the Church when they are actually not would have no reason at all not to impart their own misunderstandings to pupils.
It’s interesting, by the way, that you seem to have suggested that Pope John Paul II had “modernist” notions! Should the Oath Against Modernism be mandatory again, including for popes?
July 15th, 2012 | 3:32 pm
Let’s say I read about a controversy involving Jewish understanding of some Jewish precept. I get interested and do some “research”. I read a chapter of a book, I google around, I read a wikipedia article.
slats grobnik,
I don’t see how this scenario is relevant, since I was baptized, raised, and educated (through high school) as a Catholic and have been participating off an on in forums like this for almost 30 years—since Prodigy (1984) had a Roman Catholic forum. It is a strange notion that researching a topic or citing authorities should count against me. If I have misrepresented Catholic teaching, I would be more than happy for someone to point out where and how.
By the way, David, in your comments you seem to suggest that the “5,000″ people we are discussing are school teachers in the traditional sense.
Matthew J. Frank in his post above says, “There are, according to the story itself, some 5,000 teachers in the diocese, counting parochial school teachers as well as volunteer Sunday school catechists.” I did not write anything that I feel is inconsistent with that, but I am happy to clarify that not all those involved had jobs in the sense of being paid Catholic school teachers in elementary and secondary schools.
July 16th, 2012 | 10:17 am
@DavidNickol
While I appreciate your attempts to see both sides of the controversy, as well as parsing the matter down to its essientials, I think you’re making the subject too difficult. Could it be that the Arlington Five are nothing more than 5 people out to get their 15 minutes of fame? Good grief, they’re Sunday School teachers and not long suffering civil rights activists.
In my neck of the woods, something similar happened when a high school teacher and coach at parish high school was fired for not being Catholic. As it turned out he lied on his application. But, it was a front page story on our local scandal sheet and several local TV stations carried the story as if the Torquemada was our local Bishop.
July 16th, 2012 | 11:24 am
Could it be that the Arlington Five are nothing more than 5 people out to get their 15 minutes of fame?
JP,
Quite possibly. I am scarcely interested in the Arlington Five at all. What really interests me is fidelity (or loyalty) oaths and this particular oath. As I said, I had been focusing on what the Church requires in terms of “religious assent of will and intellect” because of the case with Sr. Farley, and it strikes me that the Arlington oath is really rather “technical” in terms of what the Church requires, but there was little discussion of that. I really doubt that the average Catholic could explain the oath, and once you dig into what kind of assent is required by the Church for what level of Church teaching, it becomes extremely complicated. I would be fascinated, for example, to hear some informed comments as to what this paragraph of the oath binds people to assent to:
I am sorry people find it annoying that I am interested in exploring in detail what the oath itself means, but I don’t think it is illegitimate or off topic.
July 16th, 2012 | 4:54 pm
To me, the ambiguity in this oath is introduced by the last phrase, “… even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”, which opens up all kinds of possibilities for differing interpretations of any statement made by popes and/or bishops alike.
I’m all for oaths of fidelity, loyalty, and obedience to the Catholic Church (and yes, I think the Oath Against Modernism should be brought back for clergy.)
For teachers of the catechism, the oath should be that they will teach their students the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic faith according to the curriculum given to them by their local ordinary the bishop.
It is the bishops who need to be held accountable as to the fidelity of the catechetical material they authorize and pastors and parishes must be required to adhere to the materials their ordinary authorizes them to teach.
IMO, the oath that catechists take should include the sworn intent to teach the doctrines of the Catholic Church, regardless of their personal opinions (or dissent from) those doctrines and the clear understanding that sharing their own personal opinion and/or dissent with their students is a terminable offense.
What the Church needs, beyond fidelity oaths, is teachers who really believe and strive to live the Catholic faith and pass it on to future generations, without watering it down or confusing it with their own opinions or the biases of the current culture.
July 16th, 2012 | 6:39 pm
“What the Church needs, beyond fidelity oaths, is teachers who really believe and strive to live the Catholic faith and pass it on to future generations, without watering it down or confusing it with their own opinions or the biases of the current culture.”
Amen to that, skypilot777. Too often, the likes of the Washington Post express (or pretend) concern for the feelings of dissenting and disgruntled Catholics. They do not seem interested in the interests of Catholics who are obedient to the Magisterium—the kind of people who send their children to Catholic schools or CCD because they want their own orthodoxy bolstered by the religion teachers. Such enrollment can be a great sacrifice in money and time, but it is worth it because there are so many aspects of our society that distract from or undermine religious belief. Is it too much to ask that the teachers believe and teach true Catholic catechism? Don’t they owe this to us?
I suppose it is too much to expect the Post to acknowledge the existence of faithful Catholic parents, let alone write an article or blog supportive of their point of view. But it is getting tedious having church administrative measures kicked around and discussed in Post columns by non-Catholics, disgruntled members of The Church of What’s Happening Now and bitter lapsed Catholics with hazy memories of 5th grade CCD lessons.
July 17th, 2012 | 5:20 am
David Nickol
In Donum Veritatis, the CDF said this
“When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25; Code of Canon Law, can. 752.) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.”
July 20th, 2012 | 4:10 pm
[...] More on the Arlington Five Friday, July 20, 2012, 4:10 PM Matthew J. Franck Last week I blogged here about a group of former catechists in northern Virginia whom I dubbed the “Arlington [...]
July 21st, 2012 | 12:13 pm
[...] week we blogged here about a organisation of former catechists in northern Virginia whom we dubbed a “Arlington [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact