Questions & Answers

Profession of Faith

Question: A baptized Christian received into full communion is required to profess: "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." Does this suggest that new converts need only believe strictly infallible doctrines? Does not this formula omit infallible teaching not formally revealed by God?

Answer: The Profession of Faith for those cases required by law (canon 833) is, since 1989, more specific in precise content than what is required of all the faithful or the Profession used in the Liturgy.

Commonly, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed is used at Sunday Mass; the Apostles' Creed is used to renew baptismal promises on Easter Sunday and can be used at Children's Masses. The Rite of the Christian Initiation of Adults requires a Profession of Faith (n. 219) and, depending on which creed was used "in the presentation" (n. 186), either the Nicene or Apostles' Creed can be used.

You are correct that in the Rite of Reception of Baptized Christians into full communion with the Catholic Church (1/6/72), when the reception is within Mass, "the one to be received then recites the Nicene Creed with the faithful" (n. 15). After this the one to be received adds: "I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God" (n. 15).

In my opinion, "believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims" means just that-all that the Church believes and all that the Church teaches. I do not think that the beginning of that formula makes or requires distinctions about the precise level of infallible teaching. Thus, I do not read the end of the formula ("to be revealed by God") as a qualification of inclusion or exclusion referring to precise theological notes.

In fact, this expression-"all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims . . ."-resembles very much the Act of Faith: "I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived." That traditional Act of Faith is rooted in the definition of Vatican Council I (DS 3008) and is reflected again in the Catechism 156; 168-171.

Perhaps all do not read it my way; but it is arguable. Perhaps as well, should the question actually arise, we could follow the practice of the Roman Congregations and provide more specificity when such specificity is asked for or about.

A canonical Profession of Faith was once published in the front of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Another and extensive profession of faith and abjuration or error was published (3/28/42) and can be found in Canon Law Digest v. II, pp. 182-184. A shorter formula was published by the same Holy Office (6/13/56); cf. CLD 5:407-408.

The 1983 Code did not publish a formula for the Profession of Faith but did specify who had to take it (cn. 833). After the Council, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published (12/20/67) a new Profession of Faith that replaced the anti-Modernist Oath and reduced the profession to the symbolum fidei and a very condensed form of acceptance of the Magisterium (Code of Canon Law Annotated [1993] pp. 540-541).

The same CDF updated its 1967 text with two documents published March 1, 1989: a Profession of Faith and an Oath of Fidelity. Clearly, what was much (too much?) condensed in the 1967 text is made explicit and detailed in the 1989 Profession. Apparently, the CDF saw a genuine need to make explicit the kinds and levels of Church teaching, reflecting as it does, Vatican II's Lumen Gentium n. 25.

If a prospective convert were to raise the kinds of questions your letter raises, it seems to me, the best thing to do is to review with and explain to that convert the Profession of 1989. Otherwise, either Creed, with the added statement for full communion, seems adequate and appropriate for the Liturgy and ceremonial reception.

Does the seal of confession apply to sexual abuse cases?

Question: An American lecturer, while here in Australia, told an assembly of Religious women that in the Archdiocese of New York the seal of confession does not apply to sexual abuse cases-that confessors hearing such were obliged to report them. Would you comment?

Answer: This is false; it is not true because it can't be true. If some professional said that, he is simply and totally wrong.

I am myself a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and am fully familiar with the policy and practice of my diocese. We are not "exempt" from the universal law of the Church in this or any other discipline.

Canon 983, #1 of the Code of Canon Law is clear: "The sacramental seal is inviolate. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion."

That canon concerns the violation of the seal and the next concerns "prohibited use of knowledge" from confession: "The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent even when all danger of disclosure is excluded" (cn. 984, #1).

The penalty mentioned in the universal law clearly governs our diocese and every other diocese: "A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offense" (cn. 1388, #1).

The CDF established (9/23/88) a penalty of excommunication for those who divulge the content of a sacramental confession through means of social communication or who record it in any way on some device. The penalty applies whether the confession is true or fictitious (AAS 80 [1988] p. 1367).

Our New York diocese published (6/93) formal policy and procedures for sexual misconduct cases. These procedures are in accord with the national guidelines published by the NCCB (cf. Origins 25:20 [11/2/95] 337; 339-343). None of these policies, national or local, ever mention or even suggest any violation of the seal because they cannot. It is simply out of the question.

I, of course, am not the spokesman for my diocese. However, I know of and am involved in teaching this subject area in our seminary. No such thing has ever been taught or suggested here; indeed, we clearly teach the opposite.

If this column gets to Australia, please xerox this answer and send it to whomever said otherwise. I welcome the opportunity to refute this disinformation.

Are you listening?

Question: Your prior answers on the non-ordination of women prove that you do not listen to the genuine experience of others. Until there is honest listening, there cannot be honest discussion.

Answer: First, I do not recall any "answers" in this column on the non-ordination of women. That aside, I fully accept the teaching "that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women" and that this is to be held definitively as belonging to the deposit of faith (CDF; 10/28/95).

As to listening, I do listen. As to experience, even authentic experience, I can accept that too but I cannot accept it as normative nor necessarily inspired of God.

The supreme argument in theology is the authority of Revelation-full Revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition committed to the Church. This has been well explained by Vatican Council II: "The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" (Dei Verbum, n. 10).

This teaching office (Magisterium) is not above the word of God but serves it, explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit.

These are the "sacred sources" of Sacred Theology: Scripture is revealed by God; Tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit; the Church teaches in the name of Jesus.

I would not automatically deny nor belittle anyone's experience or felt authentication. However, I simply am not free to assert that sincere personal experience (yours or mine) is normative for the Church or inspired by God.

If the "sacred sources" (Scripture; Tradition; Magisterium) are simply trumped, or more, completely replaced by deep or sincere personal experiences, let's at least admit what we are listening to. That is no longer the voice, the principles or the sources of Sacred Theology, it is rather and only the voices of non-normative subjective experience.

Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704. n