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.

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:

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

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.

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.

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.

Phil Steinacker,

I appreciate the fact that you addressed the questions I raised. This must be the quote you are referring to:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

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:

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

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?

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.