Bishop asks Catholics to affirm Church teaching. Catholics freak out.

Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa, California, has done the unthinkable—nay, he has gone beyond outrageous, to a place so foreign and radical, many Catholics in his diocese are going apoplectic and having complete meltdowns (with low-fat lattes in hand, I presume). Prepare to be shocked:

The Santa Rosa Catholic Diocese is requiring its 200 schoolteachers to sign an agreement affirming that "modern errors" such as contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage and euthanasia are "matters that gravely offend human dignity."

The move is an effort by Bishop Robert Vasa to delineate specifically what it means for a Catholic-school teacher -- whether Catholic or not -- to be a "model of Catholic living" and to adhere to Catholic teaching.

That means means abiding by the Ten Commandments, going to church every Sunday and heeding God's words in thought, deed and intentions, according to a private church document that is an "addendum" to language in the current teachers' contract.

Who does he think he is? Their employer? Their bishop? Um, yeah, he is both, in fact. But, of course, some of the teachers would rather not walk the talk and be adults about the reasonable requirement:

But some teachers fear the addendum is an invasion of their private lives and a move toward imposing more rigid Catholic doctrine.

"Personally, it's probably something that I can't sign," said a teacher at Cardinal Newman High School in Santa Rosa. ...

The teacher, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions, said he has not made a final decision whether or not to sign the document.

"On my high moral days, I feel I absolutely won't sign," the teacher said. "And on my days that I think about my job, I think who will it affect if I don't sign it."

The teacher said he objects to the "whole idea that they want me to live their morals when it's my personal life what I do outside of work."

Even more depressing are the vast majority of the nearly 90 comments (as of this posting), many of which raise the question: "Were you educated in a Catholic school? Can you spell 'Catholic'?" And, "If your conscience tells you that 2+2 = 5, do I have to affirm how wonderful of a teacher you think you are?" Here are a couple of the more ridiculous comments:

Coercion of any kind is wrong. You can't say "well we aren't firing them if they choose not to sign..." That's like a armed robber saying "I didn't shoot you, you shot you by not handing over your money when I asked so very nicely the first time." I believe in God and I was raised a Catholic, but more and more I have to put my faith in what my heart believes instead of what a single man such as this one demands I believe. Shameful.

Oh my! My heart goes out to all these teachers. To force them to sign this document (and it is force) is despicable! These teachers have families, obligations, homes, etc. Wouldn't it be amazing if all the teachers refused to sign? How would this bishop run the schools without all these dedicated teachers. This is positively disgusting of this Bishop to demand this.

I suggest teachers who are opposed to this look for jobs at less discriminatory schools. For those that can't find work elsewhere, they should sign it and then be as immoral as possible in protest of this terrible agreement.

Yes: be immoral in order to show you own the moral high ground. Brilliant. Meanwhile, here is some of what the offending addendum states:

Titled "Bearing Witness," the addendum asks teachers to "acknowledge" or "recognize" that:

They are called to a "life of holiness" and that "this call is the more compelling for me since I have been entrusted, in my vocation as a teacher/administrator in a Catholic school, with the formation of souls."

As a teacher in the Santa Rosa Diocese, "I am, by that fact, also a ministerial agent of the Bishop who is the chief 'teacher' of the Diocese."

It also requires all teachers to "agree that it is my duty, to the best of my ability, to believe, teach/administer and live in accord with what the Catholic Church holds and professes.

"I am especially cognizant of the fact that modern errors -- including but not limited to matters that gravely offend human dignity and the common good such as contraception, abortion, homosexual 'marriage' and euthanasia -- while broadly accepted in society, are not consistent with the clear teachings of the Catholic Church."

Thanks for the response, brother.

I’m not going to respond to all of your points, because some have gone back and forth zillions of times here on FR and will likely be disputed for eons more.

I’ll just respond to several that 1)I believe to be in need of clarification and 2) a few where I believe you are misinterpreting or misstating what I said.

“In that same history spoken of, if it not be limited to selected cherry picking by RCC apologists, much of the present day RCC claims can be seen to be selectively and carefully exaggerated”

As a former Protestant I have to tell that it is absolutely the opposite of what you say. I personally experienced several denominations and non-denominations doing what you claim, however, in a massive scale. There are so many falsely created versions and deliberate untruths that I heard about the Catholic faith, that it is no wonder there is such angst toward Catholicism from Evangelicals and Protestants.

There is also a Protestant/Evang. ignoring of Early Church history and strong disregard for the facts of that history in relation to the Christ-Peter-Pope connection and lineage.

The Catholic Church is the church that says, “read, explore, open the light of history and immerse in that history”, both great, good, and the repugnant. There, Christianity is objectively found in its infancy and early years.

I would challenge Christians to take it upon themselves to read this history in depth.

“Though there can be some sorrow as to (in your own experience?) not having “felt” or had palpable sensory experience or discernment of the presence of the Lord in other than “Roman” churches”

I actually had a personal relationship and conversion of the spirit, when I was not involved in any church at the age of 13. I was a Christian at that moment of knowing Truth and acceptance of Christ. After that until about the age of 25, I drifted from church to church. And of course seeking Christ. In almost all of those dozen churches, I felt the Grace of God.

“Yet that same Spirit can be found outside of the Latin church”

True.

“...both fully and perfectly”

I would disagree with that. Early Church history informs me that the Catholic Church is the originally created Apostolic and Universal Church of Jesus Christ. If this be so, then the fullness and completeness is in that Church.

“despite claims to the contrary, or comparison that it be mere crumbs.”

The gift of Grace from God is never “crumbs”. It is a holy gift of love that is Christ given.

That Unity of belief in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior should be strong enough to keep all of we Christians as brothers and sisters, despite our differences in doctrine.

My conversion from Christian to Catholic Christian is one that I believe, both through faith and objective Church History...gives me the Fullest and most Complete Christianity that is to be found here on earth. Not perfect, for war are Men, not incorruptible, for we are sinners...but original Church of Jesus Christ as He walked the Earth. Peace, Brother.

Thanks for the reply, but it's going next to nowhere with me. Other than elements of personal testimony (thank you for that) it's pretty much just the same 'ol same 'ol which has all been examined previously, and found to be not quite exactly as advertised.

As a former Protestant I have to tell that it is absolutely the opposite of what you say.

Continuing, it seems to be assumed I'm depending upon what some Protestants say.

What I did say was it was examining the history myself (what I can access of it) minus the Romish spin machine, that I see the Romish claims most frequently in dispute exaggerated, if not much refuted.

In other senses...I can see some claim or application of interpretation lead to misidentifications, of just who is who. "We are not Him, and He is not us" could serve as an axiom for much remedy.

Even that word "catholic" has changed meaning, being at first an adjective, but changing into a proper noun, while loudly claiming exclusive sole authority over the descriptive adjective.

I don't believe that is what the Lord had in mind when He established the church, but I do believe He knew then what men would do with it, both the good and the bad.

That said...He can work through us, and desires to do so. He will use the office, regardless of occupant, provided that the occupant be willing.

The Lord is not a rapist...but polite. Through our worship we woo Him. Psalms 100:4 At times He responds. Sometimes it is a great surprise when He does so, catching us flat-footed upon his much hoped for but not always fully expected arrival.

There are so many falsely created versions and deliberate untruths that I heard about the Catholic faith, that it is no wonder there is such angst toward Catholicism from Evangelicals and Protestants.

In past times, I never knew much concerning Roman Catholicism, nor heard much other than vague grumblings. Nothing in my own experience, presented much as towards the differences. My own main interaction with issues of that sort have been right here on these pages, for many years now. I have grown to LOATHE more than few of those whom frequented this forum over that time. Some have grown and changed. Some not so much. Many of those (loathed) of course, have long been zotted for their behavior, the personal insults, etc. I think I've seen just about every debating tactic in the book, and then some.

But I do know the Lord--- and know what I know, if you can catch my meaning.

There is also a Protestant/Evang. ignoring of Early Church history and strong disregard for the facts of that history in relation to the Christ-Peter-Pope connection and lineage.

Who's ignoring the history? But lets not mistake some certain versions AND OPINIONS on the MEANINGS of history, for truth itself.

Meanwhile, while Christ was always pointing away from flesh and toward Spirit, we seem to have this claim that the only legitimate apostles are those which belong to the Catholic Church, despite it's own history that clearly shows that not all whom have raised to office or title within that church were Christian at all, much less apostles after the Spirit, which is the only part that counts.

I would challenge Christians to take it upon themselves to read this history in depth

And I would say to them, be careful of the sources one accesses for this "in depth" you speak of.

I'm always struck by how certain details not exactly convenient for the historical "winners" of even early church struggles over various controversy are absent from Romish accounts, rather skipped over as insignificant. It gets worse in regards to those the Western Church made war upon for holding dissimilar beliefs, murdering by the tens of thousand, taking lands not belonging to them, distributing much to those captains who took up arms in the name of Jesus--- or was that taking up arms in the name of the Roman Catholic Church? while retaining some smaller choice properties for "the church"...for the writings of those whom lost were generally burned, leaving us chiefly with the accusations of those whom did the burnings, of both writings and men.

The history is not as most RCC promoters claim it to be, I regularly find...in the history... not relying upon some Protestant, 'empty accusation'. I've confronted a few of that latter sort myself, on these pages, but confess to allowing most to pass. Silence on my part does not equal agreement, nor does lack of comment represent lack of support & agreement, in full or in part.

We (I am not alone) contend regularly against those whom pretend or try to say the way things are now, or the way things were in preceding centuries, is the way it has always been from the very onset. Such is far from true, on many levels.

What was that about "Protestants" being ignorant of history, again? Many are, that much is true. In past times, due much to residule heat of conflict associated with the Reformation, more Protestants used to study, if they had exposure to the information, or access to it, say through universities which used to produce many Divinity degrees.

Nowadays, we have at our fingertips much good information, if one can figure out where to look, or have the right search terms and be able to sift the wheat from the chaff, looking for comparisons and possible rebuttal of that which is found.

In previous times only the well settled, and those with significant money to build a library of many works (or have access to the same) could read much deeply into history. It's there, but painstakingly tracking the various threads of information and lines of development, all while attempting to weigh the information, testing it with scripture and spirit, is an arduous task.

Most are not that much up to it, or into it. The most prolific among the FRoman posters here...is a copy/paste sort of contributor...rarely ever answering questions directly (save for by well-worn apologetic) or bombarding others with full chapters of scripture, or copy/paste recitation of some creed, etc. That may salve themselves, and reach a scant few...but the rest of us, or other freepers, their eyes glaze over faster than encountering one of my own comments.

I've encountered many dozens of RCC'rs here whom can parrot the party line, but that's about it. Others may have some grounding in history, but seem to exhibit selective memory at various juncture.

I said to you, as to more positive aspects, in regards to the Lord, and his church;

Yet that same Spirit can be found outside of the Latin church ...both fully and perfectly.

You chopped it, agreeing with the first part, but disagreeing with the second, offering up the party line token speech concerning apostolic claims. The actual "history" is a mixed bag. Yet for similar mixture (even today that one can find inside the churches bowing obeisance to the Roman bishop) other churches are looked at, their failings listed, and they are declared unfit, or lacking.

As to Spirit;
I was speaking first of how the Spirit can be found fully and perfectly personally by a believer, and also, at those times the Spirit falls (upon the people, say during corporate worship, a "church service") it can be perfectly and completely...at least for some present, with most all noticing or being able to sense or discern the presence, even as it may fill individuals to differing degree...

Think of it this way...have you ever taken communion and sensed the Presence, only to look around you and see that many (but perhaps not all!) others, for whatever reason, not be exactly on the same page with you when that occurs?

So where is the fullness advertised, only available in RCC settings? Can one really indulge themselves in the belief that the Spirit of the Lord in some fashion holds Himself back, when in the presence of Christians not formally a part of the RCC? For that is what the formula much described by RCC'ers, in effect claims occurs.

Other than palpable sense of the Spirit;
One can find the same fullness, the same depth of teaching elsewhere, other than in the Latin Church, if one knows where to look...and if one has the Holy Ghost dwelling within themselves, so that deep can call unto deep.

In the Latin church itself, one must learn where to look to find the better portions also, learning in what spirit a great many things are to be approached, for those things to be useful. The same can be said for other settings...

There were times in the Latin church, where many or most of the priests were so lacking in knowledge of the Word, that those educated but not priests whom knew the word and were able to study it, and could speak of it, would at times be turned into the Inquisition, allegedly for "challenging church teachings" or some such, but upon closer examination (even if be only much after the fact historical examination) those same accused bible readers, it would become plain--- were right on the money, following from far away from such notables as Augustine.

Remember...there were centuries in which much of the populace, unless the Latin language be their native tongue, experienced all readings presented as being gibberish to them. The priest themselves didn't much know the gospel, either. It had much been turned into a works-based theology.

To this day, there are Roman Catholics far and wide whom may sort-of recognize "the milk of the word" when it is presented in a Catholic setting. Some are able to accept it, even at or should it be better said, accept it gratefully at those rare times when it isn't followed up with enough "meat" of the Word (or simply just law, which is neither milk nor meat) to choke most any typically normal human, outright.

The same milk when seen poured out to the many in other settings is called "cheap grace" or some other dismissive term for reason of it being the milk, not being the meat.

"...but original Church of Jesus Christ as He walked the Earth."

Original as He walked the earth? aye-yi-yi. There have been many changes. Those who really know the history (and know that some others know it too) rely upon the claim that the expansion, if not near wholesale creation of certain doctrines, the development of which is traceable and undeniably recognizable through careful study of history...was always there...like a seed or something, or had lay mainly hidden until it was over centuries "unpacked", all of which flys right in the face of the "believed everywhere by all" principle of test some of the "Early Church Fathers" did apply, along with early on holding to scripture as supreme, as a gauge against which precepts (and heresy) were to be thoroughly tested.

A 'civil' marriage is simply the state's recognition of a particular union between one man and one woman, or used to be, anyway. One can be married, legally, and not be joined in any sort of faith tradition. Many folks get married in a church in order to have some sort of 'blessing' on their union. They still must sign their marriage certificate, issued by the state in which they live, after having their church wedding, or they are not 'officially' married.

The Catholic Church has seven Sacraments, as part of our faith tradition, one of which is the Sacrament of Matrimony, in which two people, who have made an eyes wide open decision to join themselves together, in Covenant, forsaking all others, and keeping each other until death, stand before a priest and make that promise to each other. The priest, and any other person there is simply a witness to the promises made, and the Sacrament being conferred by God. But in order for ANY Sacrament to be 'valid' in the eyes of the Church, BOTH parties have to be fully cognizant of, and in agreement with, all of the requirements of that Sacrament. If one or both parties in the marriage has no intention of living according to the vows they are making, that Sacrament is not valid. The party who HAS made that commitment, and lives according to the Sacrament hasn't committed any sort of sin, but technically, isn't really 'married in the Church', even though that person is married, according to the laws of the government, and even though that may also not be known by any of the parties involved on the Church side of things.

When a decree of divorce is issued by the state in which a couple live, legally, their lives are now separate. Any children who may have been born of that union are still considered 'legitimate', even though, legally, their parents are no longer married. Remember, it is the government that confers 'legitimacy', by virtue of the marriage certificate issued by the state. There are some folks who were not married in a church, who have kids, and their kids are certainly 'legitimate'. This is why the idea that if there is an Annulment, the kids from that marriage are 'bastards', is so ridiculous!

Because the Sacrament of Matrimony is strictly a Catholic thing, if there is a divorce, and one of the parties wishes to marry again, there has to be an investigation into the validity of the original Sacrament. In some cases, it's found that one or both of the parties never intended to follow the rules of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony; making the decision freely and without reservations, being faithful to one another, raising kids in the Church, etc. There is a Tribunal that will study the petition, interview witnesses, and make the determination whether or not the Sacrament was, in fact, valid, or not. If the Sacrament is deemed invalid, then a Decree of Annulment is issued, and the parties are free to marry again. And those who have already married again, are now able to partake in the Sacrament of Eucharist, which is withheld if someone is re-married outside the Sacrament of Matrimony.

There are many who have been told that just simply being divorced meant they could not receive the Eucharist. This is INCORRECT! It's not the being divorced that is the issue, it is a re-marriage without the first marriage being annulled, that is the issue. I once met a woman in a parish renewal course who had stayed away from Communion for almost 20 years because some idiot priest had told her now that she was divorced she couldn't receive. When she mentioned this, several of us in the meeting told her that was wrong, but I told her I'd talk to the Pastor myself to get an answer for her. When I talked to him, he told me to have her call him. She did so, and a couple of weeks later, I saw her go up to receive Communion, and she looked so happy, I almost cried. Frankly, I was amazed that she had stayed in the Church for all those years, and attended Mass faithfully, denying herself the ability to receive Communion.

So, short story long; that's the reason behind the difference between a civil marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the mechanism behind dissolving each.

“Thanks for the reply, but it’s going next to nowhere with me. Other than elements of personal testimony (thank you for that) it’s pretty much just the same ‘ol same ‘ol which has all been examined previously, and found to be not quite exactly as advertised.”

I’m glad you appreciate the testimony. In many of the religion debates on FR and other places, we debate doctrine and Scripture to our heart’s fatigue. The stances are pretty much hardened.

But I believe where most Catholics and Protestants agree is that Jesus Christ touches our hearts and souls with his Grace and Love. If our hearts become hardened to the extent that one or the other is an evil (which I see on FR by certain posters) we are missing the Truth of Jesus Christ.

Make no mistake about my intentions. My intentions are only to explain why and how I became Christian first and then Catholic Christian after extensive study, reflection and prayer.

As I have said, I believe there is Grace in each perspective of Christianity. I can only testify as to my experience of conversion and what I’ve been shown through Grace. Each individual will choose a path to Him and by the Grace of God will select that path.

” Yet that same Spirit can be found outside of the Latin church ...both fully and perfectly”...

“You chopped it, agreeing with the first part, but disagreeing with the second”

This is true. Because I agree with the first part and disagree with the last.

“other churches are looked at, their failings listed, and they are declared unfit, or lacking”

Now those words may be attached to some, assumed to me, but they are not from me. Each church has failings, but if it is a church that believes in Jesus Christ and the basic tenets of Christianity, it cannot be unfit or lacking. Even if a priest or minister falls.

However, my understanding and I think objectively, the complete fullness of the Christian faith is not found in all churches. What started as a protest and reform movement for the good, has evolved into a massive taking away of Christian worship and Sacraments, as practiced by the Early Christian Church.

Factually, not ideologically, devolving into a relentless spin into many Christian Churches accepting practices absolutely forbidden by any truthful reading of Scripture. (I omit Tradition purposefully here, another point entirely)

Christians entering churches that espouse homosexuality, abortion, and the abomination of homosexually married priests and ministers of the Word of God...

These practices, are willfully accepted doctrine and practices of these “christian” churches. Not individual or hierarchical falling or failures.

Now, the Catholic Church has its version of this at the individual level. Individuals who practice the Catholic faith and yet, disavow their faith and agree with the above listed abominations and many other ills. But the critical distinction is the Doctrine and Faith of the Catholic Church has not only not changed towards these matters, but have been consistently reinforced by Pope’s throughout history.

Which brings us back to history. We will obviously not be selecting books to review here. But I believe it is fairly apparent that the Catholic Church has put forward its history, both great and repugnant, apologizing for the past errors. Even apologizing in a “turn the other cheek manner”, for some things not the Church’s fault. But let us not confuse real history with secular interpretation of history as happens so often with topics such as the Crusades.

There were late Crusades which took on some corruption, this is true. But the real history of the Crusades, especially the initial Crusades, was one of reaction to the Islamic hordes encroaching and conquering lands into Europe and slaughtering Christian pilgrims attempting to visit the Holy Lands.

Sorry for the deviation from my primary focus above.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.