Where the Rubber Hits the Road: Is religion a force for good?

19 January, 2011

Is religion a force for good?

12 comments:

Small Town Guy20 January, 2011
Tim,

Would it be possible for you to post the oath which you were required to make when you became a priest? What order do you belong to? Do all priests who are assigned to churches as a parish priest in Canada belong to the same order?
ReplyDelete
Small Town Guy21 January, 2011
Tim,

You didn't answer my question and it has scrolled down out of sight. I am hoping you can post your oath because I think you place a great deal of importance in it. Correct? It might be worth discussing.

Wayne
ReplyDelete
Fr. Tim Moyle21 January, 2011
STG: Sorry. The oath I swore prior to my ordination does not resemble the one's that circulates among evangelical churches (if that is what is stimulating your question). I think that was the oath prior to the Second Vatican Council. The oath I swore did not mention Protestantism, Kings, or many of the anachronistic references of the old one. Essentially I promised religious assent to the teachings of the Church, fidelity to my obligations to God and Church, commitment to celibacy etc.

To be honest with you, I'm not sure where I could find a copy of the modern oath. It really was a precursor to ordination and it is packed away somewhere in my boxes of seminary papers.

Is there a particular reason why your asking? I might be able to find the text somewhere if it's important.

Fr. Tim
ReplyDelete
Small Town Guy21 January, 2011
Tim,

Thank you. I don't recall seeing any RC priest oaths circulating in any evangelical church. Contrary to what you might think, I don't think most evangelical churches are interested or know much about Catholicism.

I think I did see a Jesuit oath in one or two books I have and on the internet. I wanted to see if the oath you took was something similar to some of what is in the alleged Jesuit oaths because I have no idea what yours was other than what you mentioned here. But I guess from what you say, they have removed any controversial statements from it. That would be accordance with Vatican II's new emphasis on ecumenism. It's not that important; just curious to know what you had to swear to.

If you come across it without going to any trouble, it might be interesting. Otherwise don't bother with it.

What order are you a part of?

There is one point though. I wonder how swearing allegiance to the canons of Rome would work if laws of one's country came into conflict. I can see conflict today over the sexual abuse crisis where Rome tells bishops in Ireland for example to report cases through the canonical process and maintain confidentiality and not report them to civil authorities. Rome might expect the oath they took as priests requires them to obey Rome rather than civil authorities. Could this be a problem?
ReplyDelete
Lady Janus21 January, 2011
"Rome tells bishops in Ireland for example to report cases through the canonical process and maintain confidentiality and not report them to civil authorities. Rome might expect the oath they took as priests requires them to obey Rome rather than civil authorities. Could this be a problem?"

Oh, if that's true, then that's defintiely gonna be a problem... Matter of fact, it will be a problem in any country where the church thinks its own rules are more important than the laws of that country!
ReplyDelete
Fr. Tim Moyle21 January, 2011
STG: No, I'm afraid (actually glad) you're mistaken. The Vatican NEVER said, (implied, ordered,... add verb here) that Bishops were to maintain confidentiality and not report them to civil authorities. The letter instructed the Bishops to ensure that when they established their protocol they did not compromise the canonical right to subject predators to church punishment as well. This point has been made expressly and consistently clear by further coverage (and by the letter itself). The only thing that sustains the argument that this is a 'smoking gun' is the absence of a command to report to civil authorities. Again though, this was not the subject of the letter!

Fr. Tim
ReplyDelete
Fr. Tim Moyle21 January, 2011
STG: To your other questions: I do not belong to any religious order, (Jesuit, Oblate, etc.) I am a diocesan or secular priest. This means that I am territorially based, and under the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese. Religious Order priests are under the authority of the particular communities superiors. Religious priests also take an additional vows of poverty that Diocesan priests do not take. We both take vows of celibacy and obedience.

I suspect it is this last part that you're interested in. Correct?

Fr. Tim
ReplyDelete
Small Town Guy21 January, 2011
Tim,

Thanks for that info. Wasn't sure how it worked, but I think you have answered my questions.
___________________________________

Your vow of obedience to Church hierarchy is a problem though. If your conscience told you that the Bible tells you something different that what the canons, directives from Rome, the bishop, etc., tell you, which one would you follow?

I don't think any of the apostles, disciples, elders, or deacons in the Bible ever had to make any vow of obedience.
ReplyDelete
Fr. Tim Moyle21 January, 2011
STG: There's obedience, and then there's blind obedience. Ultimately I have to stand before Christ at the end of my life, not a Bishop, politician or anyone else. I will place my trust in following where he leads in such a situation. He has never failed me before, even in times of trial, grief and sorrow. I'm certain he would lead me then.

This does remind me of a question I wanted to put to you. In your opinion, am I saved? I have expressly accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord, Savior and Redeemer. I have received the grace of baptism and the new birth of the spirit in my decision to accept Christ as Lord of my life. If I understand the essence of the evangelical proposition, these are the sole requirements for salvation. So am I, Fr. Tim Moyle, a Roman Catholic Priest, saved?

Fr. Tim
ReplyDelete
Larry Green22 January, 2011
Tim:
Wrong question.
Wrong person to ask.
Wrong time.
And
Can you after honest self examination state truthfully that in asking there is no intent to diminish or devalue ?
ReplyDelete
Fr. Tim Moyle22 January, 2011
Larry: Honestly, I cannot say that I even understand what the hell you're talking about. Diminish or devalue what? You are being too oblique.

Fr. Tim
ReplyDelete
Larry Green22 January, 2011
The evangelical proposition according to STG.
ReplyDelete