I believe what my church teaches.

I don’t know why anyone would stay with a church if they don’t accept the church’s authority.

I don’t understand how anyone could commit such a violation of their personal integrity and still keep their self-respect.

Most other parishes in the area have not distributed the oaths to their catechists, so the bulk of those 5,000 Arlington catechists first found out about the new requirement when they read about it in the Post. In addition to Sunday school teachers, Catholic school teachers who teach religion in their jobs and youth ministers (both paid jobs) are also required to sign the document. It was only when the diocese started receiving phone calls from catechists and teachers who had read the Post article that they published something about the new oath in the diocesan newspaper. In that article, they acknowledged that this will make the already-difficult process of finding qualified volunteers for catechist positions even more difficult and may affect their ability to deliver classes.

It is very telling that the diocesan spokesman gave “Fortnight for Freedom” as an example of something that a catechist would have to assent to and support if they signed the document. FFF is a political argument about the scope of the First Amendment and has no relationship to anything in the Nicene Creed. The oath specifies that the “submission of will and intellect” applies “even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings”. This appears to make it very clear that the scope of this “submission of will and intellect” was very broad, and not limited to foundational doctrine.

Ironically, I believe that this will result in the loss of some of our best and most devoted and inspired catechists, who have great love for God, for the Church, and for the Sacraments, but who know so much about Church history and doctrine that they cannot in good conscience sign this oath. Many who sign the oath may not realize that they do not fully agree with everything covered in this document. The oath does nothing to improve catechesis, and on the contrary will do much harm to the religious education programs throughout the diocese.

I can sympathize with your position. As Lord Macaulay said, “We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical.”

For myself, I find it difficult to see how we can spread “the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” unless we know what it contains and what it demands.

We might have supposed, that a miraculous consensus of opinion would be granted to all who earnestly ask the guidance of the Holy Spirit; but the history of Christendom does not fortify us in this opinion. The alternative is some divinely appointed interpreter.

A book that made a great impression on me was Milman’s History of Latin Christianity, in which the liberal Protestant author notes the extraordinary precision with which, time after time, the Bishops of Rome managed to foresee which side the Church would eventually take in a controversy, and plumped for it beforehand. The Church fixes the date of Easter, the Church decides that heretics need not be rebaptized, the Church decides that the Incarnate combined two Natures in one Person; but each time Rome anticipates the decision. This uncanny capacity for taking the pulse of the Church is ascribed by Milman, partly to the extreme cunning of the early Pontiffs, partly to their geographically central position, and so on. A much simpler explanation suggests itself; the Church, by definition, consists of those who agreed, or came to agree, with the bishop of Rome.

How easy it was! Here was a test that dispensed with any need to judge a Church by its teaching, or Christians by their tenets. The faithful, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.

It is a test remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

According to the most recent Gallup poll, 82% of all American Catholics find contraception “morally acceptable.” As I read the Arlington Profession of Faith, anyone who takes this position cannot sign the oath in good conscience. If people take the document seriously, there will be a lot fewer catechists come September.

For those who want a smaller, “purer” Church, I’m sure that’s a fine outcome. For those who believe the Church is about spreading love and the Gospels of Jesus Christ, it’s a very sad state of affairs.

If you wish to talk towards that issue there have been a number of comments here that apply. But I haven’t the faintest idea why they are relevant to this discussion. The oath asks the catechists to consider the issue seriously. It isn’t a magical cure-all for past problems of catechesis. It reenforces for the catechists, that teaching religion is important and something they should be proud of. That’s not unlike my military oath or my oath to my wife. Neither of those prevent either cowardice or adultery in general. But they are still considered worthwhile even essential to the former profession and the later vocation.

Punishing people for not taking a loyalty oath, that’s a whole different kettle of fish. Somehow, I do not see not being allowed to teach catechism a punishment.

The question is whether that is the only valid sense of “loyalty oath,” and/or whether that association should taint our view of all professions of loyalty. It’s always a problem when a specific historical or political association co-opts a concept to the degree that all legitimate senses of that concept get driven from the discussion.

But it is not a question of belief in “thousands of propositions,” but of belief in one: the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

Practically speaking though, I just don’t think that you are really going to find enough catechists who truly and deeply believe each and every thing that is covered under the Arlington oath. As I mentioned before, it covers thousands (probably tens of thousands) of specific propositions about faith and morals if you count everything that is in the catechism, statements of ecumenical councils, encyclicals, etc.. If you think there are enough such persons who also possess the requisite skills to handle a classroom full of children, adolescents, or adults, you’re kidding yourself.

Catechetically speaking, I think it is a mistake to think such total ideological conformity is essential. I would much rather have a catechist who believed 95% of what the Church teaches and be able to convey that 95% with some conviction than someone who believes 100% of what the Church teaches but is uninspiring or unloving in how they teach. (I’ve seen too many examples of kids being really driven away from the faith by people of that type.) Catechesis is not simply a matter of getting the doctrines right. That is important, but our relationship with the student and our example of faith is even more important. Jesus demands that we exceed the scribes and Pharisees in our righteousness, not in our assent to doctrinal minutia.

That being said, there are clearly dogmatic and doctrinal disagreements that matter and should disqualify one from being a catechist. If someone agrees with everything the church teaches about morality, but does not believe in the divinity of Jesus, then that is a problem. We need to have a discussion about what is essential and what is not. My contention is that there are not thousands of essential propositions for Catholics. The Arlington oath implies that there are.

I have made it my life’s work to help improve the state of catechesis in this country. While I understand why people want them, I think oaths of the kind we have been discussing are actually counter-productive in that effort because they keep away people of conviction who could powerfully convey the faith to students.

Of course, for Catholics, loyalty to the “one true Church” should be a reasonably safe bet, although certainly “Traditionalists” (like SSPX) seem to be vary wary of loyalty to what most of us would call “the Catholic Church.”