Lawyers and most laity are familiar with oaths. Lawyers take them upon admittance to the bar and the practice of law. Those of us who have served in the military of the United States have sworn by them because or actions would be done in the solemn execution of the duties entrusted to us. For those who have served in certain other public offices, an oath is taken reminding the office holder of his or her duties to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in accordance with it. The President of the United States takes an oath of office as do Federal judges and Members of Congress. Upon my being hired by a federal regulatory agency in 1974, I had to declare in front of a public officer an oath of similar consequence. When a citizen is called as a witness in a judicial proceeding, he or she must first declare an oath swearing the evidence given shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—and in some jurisdictions complemented with the phrase “so help me God!” These oaths are a part of our lives when we consciously and mostly freely elect to do something where the oath is an integral element of the action pursued.
In virtually all of these circumstances, the objective of the oath is to serve as a reminder that the declarant has assumed a responsibility by assuming the office or activity which he or she is about to undertake in furtherance of others and often the common good. The solemnity surrounding the brief but vital moment in which the oath is taken is a powerful reminder to the declarant that he or she is doing something voluntarily in the exercise of freedom. In the religious context, those of us who are called to religious life in the men’s and women’s institutes of consecrated and religious life offer a kind of oath when we make our profession of vows—be them simple or solemn. These vows remind the vowvant of the responsibilities of the Evangelical Counsels which we embrace because we choose to accept them. Prior to a man’s ordination into the diaconate he must make two kinds of oaths—the first being the Proclamation of Faith and the second being the Oath of Fidelity, both mandated by the Church’s law. In a way, at Sunday and other certain Masses that require it, we as the faithful of the Church make an oath declaring in what we believe when we pray: “Credo in unum Deum… etc.”
Of course, oaths can be manipulated by those who may have clandestine motives. I am working on a research paper now that largely involves statutory construction of the legislation used in the indictment and trials of Sir Thomas More and John Cardinal Fisher. As one reads the underlying legislation dealing with the Act of Succession and pertinent statutes that followed, the oaths were required of everyone to compel office holders and subjects alike to comply with the will of King Henry VIII. These oaths were not exercises of free will; rather, they were mandated by the state to demand full compliance with legally questionable legislation that compromised the legitimate and natural rights of persons.
Recently, some voices in the world of matters Catholic have raised concerns about some of the faithful being required to take oaths if they are performing or are to perform some function or exercise some office in the name of the Catholic Church. For example, Fr. John Coleman, S.J. movingly presents his concerns about oaths mandated by the Oakland, CA diocese for those persons who are members of the Catholic Association for Gay and Lesbian Ministry and are or would like to be engaged in works in this diocese. [HERE] In his discussion of this oath, Fr. Coleman reminds his readers of the circumstances surrounding the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the early 1950s and the famous question posed to those brought before the Congress: are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? The Washington Post has also published a recent article presenting the concerns of some CCD teachers in the Arlington, VA diocese who are resigning their teaching posts rather than take the oath that they are being asked to make as teachers entrusted with the religious instruction of youth. [HERE] There is much sympathy surfacing for those who refuse to take these kinds of oaths. But should there be?
Unlike the historical circumstances mentioned in concerns registered by Fr. Coleman and the Post article, the oaths being complained about in the two dioceses (and others around the country) are being mandated for people who are pursuing or will pursue some kind of apostolic service in the name of the Church. If a person is elected to public office, he or she must expect to take an oath that makes a statement of record of one’s fidelity to the office and the sovereign. If one is serving the country in military or civil service, he or she must expect to take an oath that again demonstrates fidelity to the life of service to which one is responding. It logically follows that if one voluntarily elects to serve the Church in some public ministry or apostolic service, one might reasonably be expected to declare his or her fidelity to the teachings of the Church that he or she is about to serve or is serving. Prior to my diaconal ordination, I did. And when I was proposed as an Ordinary Professor of and Ecclesiastical Faculty, I had to do the same again. It needs to be clear that these oaths about which Catholics are now raising concerns and objections are not being imposed on the unwilling; rather, they are being required of those who have offered themselves to serve the Church and to uphold with fidelity what the Church teaches.
I agree with Fr. Coleman and those who contributed to the Post article that oaths are important matters and not to be taken lightly. But I also recognize that they are an expected part of ways of life and service that we as Catholics and as Americans are accustomed to proclaiming when we decide to serve the common good in some fashion that mandates fidelity—be it to the Constitution or to the Church. When we make this fee election to serve, we also need to recall that our commitment to serve must be done in good faith, and our offering a proclamation of this commitment in the making of an oath is not an unreasonable requirement that serves as a testament of our commitment. As Robert Bolt’s Thomas More reminds us, when a person takes an oath, he holds his own self, the essence of his being, in his hands; but if the person opens his hands “he needn’t hope to find himself again.” More concludes by stating that some people aren’t capable of this, yet he “loathes to think” that he would be such a person. Taking an oath is important and one enters the taking of the oath conscious of what it implies. But there is a preliminary matter that must be first acknowledged: does the person want to do something, does the person freely choose to pursue a path that will inevitably require an oath? If so, then this individual should not quarrel with the oath that will follow the path he or she has chosen in the exercise of liberty.
RJA sj
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
As Rick has kindly noted, Steve Smith has posted several interesting thoughts about religious liberty over at CLR Forum. One issue that we are considering together is the question of whether the special constitutional protection for religious liberty can be justified today, and what that justification might be. Steve has lots of important and thoughtful writing on this question. But there is a specific question I wanted to put to MOJ readers and writers. Please forgive the wind-up.
Steve notes Doug Laycock's excellent recent piece titled, Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Religion. In that article, Doug (as Steve explains) describes important sources of resistance to religious liberty as coming from the gay rights movement as well as increasing numbers of non-believers. Because religious people are often seen as the enemy by these groups, religious liberty is also seen as something to be opposed. Steve points out that the perception by Doug Laycock that religious liberty is under threat ought to carry weight for those who might otherwise be skeptical about similar claims made by other folks.
But my question actually has to do with a somewhat different issue. Steve says that the sorts of real problems described by Doug are an indication that devising new, contemporary justifications for religious liberty is not merely an academic exercise, but that it is made urgent by the very real problems we face today. I've got a little comment to Steve's post wondering about this. Is it true that what is needed are new justifications for religious liberty -- new philosophical defenses, updated for the problems and opinions of today? If the aim is to persuade those who disagree deep, deep down about all sorts of fundamental questions that religious liberty actually is important, is a new theoretical justification what is required? Or are the fundamental disagreements that we have at bottom matters of intuition, identity, group loyalty, and emotion, and therefore often largely impervious to and unconcerned with the type of high-conceptual discourse that is so central to the academic enterprise? Or is it something in between, or perhaps different altogether? Again, if the issue is persuasion, what is the most effective method of achieving it?
UPDATE: Paul Horwitz has some interesting things to say here.
