In 1989 the Holy See issued a new version of the "profession of faith" required to be made before taking on various official positions in the Catholic Church. In an interview on ABC radio at the time, I was asked whether I would be willing to make the profession. My reply was that I would, provided I could take it in Latin.
This was no piece of archaism on my part. I simply wished to make a point about one word in the profession, the Latin obsequium (translated as 'submission' in the published English text). This term specifies the kind of loyalty that one gives to authoritative but not infallible church teaching.
Obsequium can be translated as submission, but it can also be translated as obedience, loyalty, or respect. My point was, and is, that I am ready to promise respect for church teaching of this kind, but not unquestioning obedience. Respect can actually mean 'submitting' your mind and desire to the teaching. Your desire is to be guided by the church, indeed to follow the teaching if you possibly can. You submit your mind to teaching by making every effort to appreciate it and the reasons that underlie it, by having the humility to admit that the church may be a lot wiser than you are. But such respect or submission is ultimately compatible with not fully accepting the teaching.
My point was also about the nature of an oath (a solemn promise). We are dealing here with a legal instrument, and it is a long tradition of the church (embodied in canon 18 of the Code of Canon Law) that such instruments are to be narrowly interpreted. That means interpreted in such a way as to keep to a reasonable minimum any limitation on your "free exercise of rights". My interpretation of obsequium and submission is minimalist in that entirely appropriate sense.
All this is relevant to the controversy surrounding the current proposal in the Archdiocese of Sydney to require the profession of faith of people in executive positions in Catholic schools.
The aim of this proposal is an admirable one — to ensure that the Catholic tradition of faith remains central to Catholic schools. This is a matter of genuine concern and the Australian church is already addressing it through a variety of formation programs.
Whether the imposition of an oath will further its aim is, on the other hand, extremely doubtful. An oath is, as I have argued, a legal instrument of a rather blunt kind, of its nature demanding only minimal compliance, whereas what is needed is a positive atmosphere in which traditions and values can be learned and appreciated.
Respect for church teaching can be fostered through such positive formation. Requiring the taking of an oath is more likely to provoke unnecessarily negative reactions, especially if one gets the false impression that what is being demanded is unthinking obedience.
The 'submission' clause is one of the controversial parts of the profession of faith. Another controversial clause involves a promise to protect the communion of the church by one’s words and ways of acting. Some have wondered whether this would exclude from executive positions in Catholic schools someone who, in good conscience, practises contraception, even though they have never publicly questioned the church’s position on the matter.
If we apply the principle of narrow interpretation, it is clear that such a person would not be excluded, that they could in good faith make the profession of faith. The behaviour that one is promising to avoid is behaviour that would involve a breach in the communion of the church, the sort of behaviour that would lead to the excommunication of a person. Such 'crimes' are listed in canons 1364 to 1398 of the Code. Many concern very serious breaches of professional standards. Others concern heresy in the strict sense or very serious crimes against human life. Any of them can lead to excommunication only if it involves grave moral culpability.
It is not only the case that a person holding a senior position in a Catholic school would be unlikely to be guilty of such crimes. There are already policies in place that are more stringent in their requirements of the behaviour of Catholic school staff. A further oath is unnecessary, and once again likely to provoke unnecessarily negative reactions.