¹ L'Osservatore Romano, March 13, 1989, 3–4;Google ScholarPubMedOrigins 18/40 (March 16, 1989):661–63.Google ScholarPubMed The texts subsequently appeared in the United States in the AAS in mid-June.

² Coriden, James A., “Inflating the Oath: The Rule Maker Breaks the Rules,” Commonweal 116/15 (September 8, 1989): 455–56.Google Scholar

³ “The Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity,” L'Osservatore Romano, March 13, 1989, 4Google ScholarPubMed, The text of the 1967 profession of faith read: “I firmly embrace and accept all and everything which has been either defined by the church's solemn deliberations or affirmed and declared by its ordinary magisterium concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, especially those things dealing with the mystery of the holy church of Christ, its sacraments and the sacrifice of the Mass, and the primacy of the Roman pontiff.” See Origins 18/40 (March 16, 1989): 663–64.Google ScholarPubMed

⁴ “Introductory Note,” L'Osservatore Romano, March 13, 1989, 3.Google ScholarPubMed

⁵ Betti, , “The Profession of Faith,” 3.Google Scholar Coriden (“Inflating the Oath,” 455) suggests that the unusual timing of the publication of the new formulas may have been due to a desire by the CDF to “beat a deadline.” On March 1, 1989, the latest reorganization of the Roman Curia was to go into effect. The legislation for this was contained in the papal constitution Pastor Bonus of June 1988. Among other things, it established a Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts (formerly the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code). Its task was to assist the other offices and congregations of the Curia to get their official documents into proper form and to synchronize them with existing laws. (Provost, James H., “Pastor Bonus: Reflections on the Reorganization of the Roman Curia,” Jurist 48/12 [1988]: 499–535Google Scholar contains an extensive discussion of this reorganization.) Not wanting to deal with this “outside counsel,” which would have raised serious objections, the CDF rushed to get its document into print just before the deadline. Whatever truth there is to Coriden's interpretation of events, the sudden publication of the texts came as a shock. There had been no prior consultation with bishops' conferences and there were no evident signs of dissatisfaction with the 1967 formula among theologians, pastors and bishops.

⁶ See Coriden, James A., “Inflating the Oath,” 456.Google Scholar Coriden's published position is confirmed privately by other canonists.

⁷ Ibid. Editor's Note: We understand that the CDF has now corrected the procedural errors in the promulgation of the Oath of Fidelity. See Acta Apostolicae Sedis 81 (1989): 1169.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. In his recently-published book, The Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity: A Theological and Canonical Analysis (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1990), 62–63Google Scholar, Ladislas Orsy notes that the CDF “obviously became aware that a situation of legal uncertainty had been created, and acted to rectify it… by publishing a ‘rescript’ reporting on an audience of its Prefect with the Pope, duly signed by the Cardinal Prefect, Joseph Ratzinger. Such a document has a legal standing; it cannot be contested. It is dated September 19, 1989, and was published in the October 7, 1989, issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.” This means that the effective date of promulgation of the new law is January 7, 1990: “If we accept the date of the promulgation of the rescript as the day of the effective promulgation of the new law, the provisions of the Congregation entered into force on January 7, 1990. This takes into account (as probably applicable) the three months waiting period prescribed by canon 8 for the application of new laws …. Since the law is not retroactive, only persons appointed to an ecclesiastical office after January 7, 1990, are bound by it.”

⁹ Coriden, James A., Green, Thomas J., Heintschel, Donald E., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary. The Canon Law Society of America (New York: Paulist, 1985), 585.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Gallin, Alice O.S.U., “On the Road Toward a Definition of a Catholic University,” Jurist 48/2 (1988): 536–58.Google Scholar

¹² Congregatione Pro Institutions Catholica, “A Draft Document on Catholic Higher Education,” 07 21, 1989.Google Scholar A copy of this recent document was obtained from Sr. Sally Furay, R.S.C.J. See also “Summary of Responses to Draft Schema on Catholic Universities,” Origins 17/41 (03 24, 1988): 693–705;Google Scholar“A Draft Document on Catholic Higher Education,” Origins 18/28 (12 22, 1988): 446–64;Google Scholar and “Ten Recommendations,” Origins 19/1 (May 18, 1989): 15–16Google Scholar for reports on previous drafts.

¹³ There was some difference of opinion on the meaning of “any universities whatsoever.” But see The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, 571-72; 575-76.

¹⁴ Ibid., 586.

¹⁵ Ibid., 571-72.

¹⁶ Ibid., 571; and Gallin, , “On the Road,” 536–43 passim.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The Code, 571; and Gallin, , “On the Road,” 543–53 passim.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The Code, 572; and Gallin, , “On the Road,” 553–55 passim.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Origins 19/7 (06 29, 1989): 97–110;Google Scholar and “Theologians and a Climate of Fear,” Origins 19/6 (June 22, 1989): 87–89.Google Scholar

²⁰ The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, 572; and Gallin, , “On the Road,” 555–58.Google Scholar

²¹ “Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity,” America 160/14 (April 15, 1989): 346–47.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. In a letter to the CTS committee of October 3, 1989, Orsy clarifies his position still further by noting that “the issue of the applicability of the document on the profession of faith and oath of fidelity is simpler on the basis of its technical canonical analysis than it appears at its first reading.” He then explains: “The final and only official text published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis states without ambiguity that the profession and oath are prescribed in suscipiendo officio nomine ecclesiae exercendo. This is repeated word by word in the Introduction, and again in the subtitle over the section on the oath, and finally in the very text of the oath (#3). I do not see how anyone can extend (or even think of extending) the obligation beyond ‘an office exercised in the name of the church’—an injunction repeated five times! Now, to function in the name of the church is a very special expression, never used for any other office than what we technically call an ecclesiastical office. So the next question is: what is an ecclesiastical office? You will find a carefully formulated definition and a rather extensive description of it in the Code of Canon Law beginning with canon 145. One need not be a professional canonist to see that the office of a teacher in our colleges and universities is not constituted the same way that ‘ecclesial office’ is. I doubt there is one single teacher who received his or her job ‘by canonical provision.’” Quoted with permission of the author.

²³ “Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity,” 347. See also his “Magisterium: Assent and Dissent,” Theological Studies 48/3 (September 1987): 473–97;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and The Church: Learning and Teaching. Magisterium, Assent, Dissent, Academic Freedom (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987).Google Scholar

²⁴ As one canon lawyer puts it in a letter to the committee, the fundamental question about a “diocesan” college or university is, “‘Is this institution considered a legal person in Canon Law?’ Sometimes the documents alone will not give sufficient clarity. Then one must look to certain practical elements pertaining to the way the institution is run. If the administrators of the school, for example, would not be appointed by Church authorities and if the subsequent appointments needed to run the school were not made by Church authorities, the evidence would point to non-recognition as a legal person. Similarly, if property were alienated without need for ecclesiastical permission, there would be practical recognition of the action of an institution with its own autonomy, not dependent as a legal person in the eyes of Church law.” We note also that, according to the commentary on canon 833 in The Code of Canon Law, there is no penalty attached to the omission of the profession of faith in the revised Code.

²⁵ This oath, as it has been presented, is not a covenant symbol, heightening and deepening fidelity to God. In its context it is a feudal symbol, a mark of fealty to a political figure who is a source of power to the oath-taker. What is the role of such an oath in a church where authority figures are told not to lord it over others? (see Mk 10:42-44; 1 Peter 5:3.)

²⁶ Poulat, Émile, Intégrisme et Catholicisme Intégrale: Un reseau secret international antimoderniste: La “Sapinière” (1909-1921) (Paris: Casterman, 1969).Google Scholar

²⁷ Betti, , “The Profession of Faith,” 3.Google Scholar

²⁸ Coleman, John A. S.J., Who are the Catholic ‘Fundamentalists’? A Look at Their Past, Their Politics, Their Power,” Commonweal 116/2 (January 27, 1989): 42–47.Google ScholarRémond, René, “L'Intégrisme catholique: Portrait intellectuel,” Études 370 (Janvier 1989): 95–105Google Scholar offers an excellent study of the French origins and contemporary manifestations of integralism.

²⁹ Coleman, 42.

³⁰ Coleman, 46. The term “deviant insiders” is used by Lester Kurtz in his recent sociological study of the Modernist crisis, The Politics of Heresy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).Google ScholarPubMed

³¹ Coleman, 44.

³² “Disquiet at New Oath,” The Tablet (London), 243/7783 (September 16, 1989):1069;Google Scholar and John Harriott, “Snakes in the Grass,” ibid., 1072-73.

³³ Integralists are drawn to the neo-Thomistic aspects of the pope's thought, but only superficially go along with his social teaching. Historically integralists have allied themselves with fascist governments. See Coleman, 44.

³⁴ Cited by Coleman, 45. See also Häring, Bernard, “Does God Condemn Contraception? A Question for the Whole Church,” Commonweal 116/3 (February 10, 1989): 69–71.Google Scholar According to Commonweal, the event that occasioned Häring's protest was an international meeting of moral theologians, “Humanae vitae: 20 Years After.” This was organized by the John Paul II Institute at the Lateran University, of which Monsignor Carlo Caffarra is president, with the collaboration of the Roman Academic Center Santa Croce (Opus Dei). Monsignor Caffarra, who reportedly enjoys the confidence of the pope, has been widely criticized for comparing contraception to “homicide in the heart.” At the November meeting, the pope made the statement that the teaching against contraception is not a “man-made” doctrine but has been “written by the creative hand of God in the nature of the human person” and confirmed by God's hand. Häring's response was designed to deal with the “earthquake” in the church which followed the papal statement.

³⁵ “The Cologne Declaration,” Origins 18/38 (March 2, 1989): 633–34.Google Scholar There has been a good deal of discussion of the “hierarchy of truths” especially among German-speaking theologians in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. See Henn, William O.F.M.Cap., “The Hierarchy of Truths Twenty Years Later,” Theological Studies 48/3 (September 1987): 439–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 634.

³⁷ Ibid.

³⁸ We note, however, a curious statement in the commentary of Umberto Betti, O.F.M., which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano beneath the newly published texts. Betti refers to the Vatican I document Dei Filius and states: “All the truths thus proposed are equal among themselves, even if their connection with the faith is different because some are based on others as primary and are illuminated by them. All of them, therefore, precisely because they are divinely revealed, must be unreservedly ‘believed’ in the unchanging sense intended by the Church” (see First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chap. 4, can. 3: DS 3020 and 3043). The Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, takes a more positive approach: “Catholic theologians engaged in ecumenical dialogue, while standing fast by the teaching of the Church and searching together with separated brethren into the divine mysteries, should act with love for truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines they should remember that in Catholic teaching there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened for this kind of fraternal rivalry to incite all to a deeper realization and a clearer expression of the unfathomable riches of Christ” (UR #11). We note the absence of Betti's “all the truths thus proposed are equal among themselves” in the Vatican II document. Is Betti stressing the juridical equality of infallible statements?

³⁹ Coriden, , “Inflating the Oath,” 456.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Flannery translation emended; in Boyle, John, “Theologians and Bishops: Freedom and Assent,” CTSA Proceedings 44 (1989): 98.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Betti, , “The Profession of Faith,” 3.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., 4.

⁴³ Coriden, “Inflating the Oath,” 456.Google Scholar Here Betti seems to be giving extraordinary legitimacy to the strongly criticized position of a few theologians. Ford, John C. S.J., and Grisez, Germain in “Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium,” Theological Studies 39 (June 1978): 258–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar argue that the conditions articulated by Vatican II for infallibility in the exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world have been met in the case of the Church's teaching on contraception. This claim was refuted by Hallett, Garth L. S.J., in “Contraception and Prescriptive Infallibility,” Theological Studies 43 (1982): 629–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hallett argued convincingly that the uniformity of the Church's teaching on contraception has been prescriptive, not cognitive. The exchange continued in Grisez, Germain, “Infallibility and Contraception: A Reply to Garth Hallett,” Theological Studies 47 (March 1986): 134–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarHallett, responded to Grisez in “Infallibility and Contraception: The Debate Continues,” Theological Studies 49 (September 1988): 517–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar He summed up the exchange as follows: “Grisez's and my disagreement may be simply stated by saying that I contest his claim that magisterial teaching on contraception has satisfied the conditions enunciated by Vatican II. My suggested reason is that the teaching's uniformity has been prescriptive, not cognitive. Grisez maintains that it has been cognitive as well as prescriptive. However, his discussion is chiefly theoretical, not historical. To substantiate his claim, something fuller, clearer, more convincing, and more relevant is required than mere shreds of historical evidence or vague allusions to the unity underlying natural-law theory, contraceptive teachings, or Christian ethics generally. The burden of proof still rests with Grisez” (527-28).

⁴⁴ Reported by the Associated Press in The Catholic Messenger (Davenport), August 8, 1968.Google Scholar Cited in Shannon, William H., The Lively Debate: Response to Humanae Vitae (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1970), 114.Google Scholar See Kaiser, Robert Blair, The Politics of Sex and Religion (Kansas City, MO: Leaven Press, 1985), 196–97.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Coriden, , “Inflating the Oath,” 456.Google Scholar He continues: “Either Betti was woefully mistaken, or the Holy Office is trying to expand this theological category to include particular applications of the moral law and thus to consider them ‘definitively proposed.’”

⁴⁶ Sullivan, Francis A. S.J., “Some Observations on the New Formula for the Profession of Faith,” Gregorianum 70/3 (1989): 549–58.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Acta Synodialia Concilii Vaticani Secundi, III/1: 251;Google Scholar and Mysterium Ecclesiae, cap. 3, AAS 65 (1973): 401.Google Scholar Cited in Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 552.Google ScholarPubMed

⁴⁸ Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 552.Google ScholarPubMed

⁴⁹ Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 552.Google ScholarPubMed In an earlier work, Sullivan suggests that the following could be included in the “secondary object” of the magisterium: (1) the condemnation of propositions contrary to revealed truth; (2) propositions that necessarily follow from revealed truth; (3) “dogmatic facts” (the validity of conciliar definitions depends on the ecumenicity of the council, for example); (4) the canonization of saints (although he has reservations about this). See Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (New York: Paulist, 1983): 135–36.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 553–54.Google ScholarPubMed

⁵¹ Ibid.

⁵² Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, 148-52. Sullivan refutes the position of Ford and Grisez (see note above) on 143-48.

⁵³ Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 554.Google ScholarPubMed

⁵⁴ L'Osservatore Romano (March 13, 1989): 4.Google ScholarPubMed

⁵⁵ Orsy, , “Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity,” 346.Google Scholar A comprehensive study of the various meanings given to the term can be found in Blyskal, Lucy C.S.J., “Obsequium: A Case Study,” Jurist 48 (1988): 559–89.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Orsy, Ladislaus, The Church: Learning and Teaching. Magisterium, Assent, Dissent, Academic Freedom (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987), 88–89.Google ScholarBlyskal, , “Obsequium: A Case Study,” 583–85, 588.Google Scholar Blyskal concludes that, while theologians and canonists differ on the strict or broad interpretation of the concept of “obsequium religiosum,” Rahner and Orsy seem to offer the most helpful guideline: “‘obsequium religiosum’ is not a univocal term that admits of just one specific meaning applicable in all cases.”

⁵⁷ Dignitatis Humanae, Declaration on Religious Freedom 14; Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 555.Google ScholarPubMed We note the care with which the U.S. bishops distinguished between moral principles contained in the tradition of the church and their specific applications in matters of policy in The Challenge of Peace and Economic Justice for All.

⁵⁸ Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 556.Google ScholarPubMed The type of assent accorded to the teaching of individual bishops and episcopal conferences is described in canon 753 of the 1983 Code as a “religious assent of soul.”

⁵⁹ Sullivan, , “Some Observations,” 557.Google ScholarPubMed

⁶⁰ See, however, Sullivan's, article, “Magisterium,” in Komonchak, Joseph A.et al., eds., The New Dictionary of Theology (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987), 617–23.Google Scholar Here he refers with approval to the pastoral letter of the German Bishops of September 22, 1967, which acknowledges that the ordinary, non-definitive teaching of the church “can, and on occasion actually does, fall into errors.” He agrees that it is difficult to see “how the Second Vatican Council could have arrived at a number of its innovative decisions if it had not been for the preparatory work done by the theologians who, prior to the council, had been taking a critical stance toward elements of papal teaching which they judged were in need of correction.” Given this, he somewhat cautiously concludes that “one cannot exclude the legitimacy of the expression of responsible dissent on the part of those who are particularly competent to judge the issue and to contribute to the process by which the church would arrive at a better grasp of the truth” (622-23).

⁶¹ Ibid., 558.

⁶² Orsy, Ladislaus, “Reflection on the Text of a Canon,” America 154/19 (May 17, 1986): 396–99.Google Scholar This seems to be an excessively restrictive interpretation of the canon. The complete correspondence on the “Curran Case” can be found in Curran, Charles E., Faithful Dissent (Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward, 1986).Google Scholar

⁶³ Orsy, , “Reflection on the Text of a Canon,” 399.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Gaudium et Spes 62. This section of the Council document was discussed in the light of the abuses of antimodernist integralism and was intended by the Council Fathers to open the way to freedom of theological thought, inquiry and expression.

⁶⁵ Those newly appointed to an ecclesiastical office, including seminary professors, should be allowed to make the profession of faith according to the 1967 formula approved by Pope Paul VI. The oath of fidelity should not be imposed.