The latest issue of Christifidelis, from the St. Joseph Foundation, is out and it's a corker! The lead article by Philip Gray, J.C.L. is a great discussion on what obedience is and when a person is required to obey a lawful authority. Obedience is a subset of the cardinal virtue of justice which requires us to give to God and neighbor what is due to them. We owe absolute obedience to God, so all other laws are subservient to and subject to God's laws. When there's a conflict between God's law and a lower law, guess what we have to do? "We must obey the higher [law] lest we sin." There are limits on human authority. "Directives that violate divine law must be ignored, and in many circumstances we have an obligation to resist them actively." Gray gives China's forced abortion laws as an example.
We must obey legitimate authority. However, if those in authority act outside the boundaries of their authority, they need not be obeyed. For example, parents have authority over their children, but don't have the right to demand that an adult child follow a particular vocation. So when St. Clare fled from home to become a nun she did not act in disobedience.
My own mom left Cleveland against her mother's will (but with her father's support) to fly to California and marry my dad before he was deployed to Pearl Harbor in 1940. Even if her father had joined in opposing the marriage, she would not have been disobedient to ignore their wishes because parents have no authority to choose the marriage partners of their children. (I guess that means I can't arrange any marriages for my grandchildren. Darn!)
Gray points out that "to develop the virtue of obedience, we must develop an adequate knowledge of divine laws and those human laws that regulate our lives. We have to know the limits of authority. If we do not know the limits of authority, we can be easily manipulated or used by lawful authority." In other words, just because someone has authority over me doesn't mean I'm obliged to follow every directive. He cannot demand unlawful obedience. Those who "when faced with a direction...neither seek to know options and consequences nor deliberate their choices" show an attitude that "is not true obedience nor is it virtuous." In other words, blind obedience is the cop-out of a lazy individual who doesn't want to take the trouble to study and understand the nature of obedience, its requirements and its limits.
Gray goes on to say that "we have an obligation to know the divine laws and what our obligations to God are. Only with knowledge of divine laws and the legitimate boundaries of lawful authority can we obey." The person who claims authority must also be able to prove it because "we are not bound to obey someone who cannot provide proof of his authority and who does not stay within the bounds of his power."
Gray uses the example of options for Communion as an example of the abuse of legitimate authority, perhaps because it's been so common over the years. In the Latin rite, the communicant has the option of kneeling or standing for Communion and the priest may not infringe on that right. "If a priest demands that a kneeling communicant stand, the communicant does not have to obey....If the communicant follows the priest's demand, this is not obedience. Obedience takes place only when we give authority its rightful due. In this case, the priest went beyond his lawful authority and the communicant allowed him that privilege....If the communicant did not follow the directive, he would not be acting in disobedience...because the priest does not have the authority to demand the standing posture during the reception of Holy Communion. The priest would be acting outside his legitimate bounds, and the communicant would have no obligation to 'obey.'" The same type of abuse of authority comes into play when a priest or religious education teacher instructs communicants they must receive in the hand and may not receive on the tongue. I know of a parish in Maryland where this was routinely demanded by the pastor for First Communicants. This is a serious violation of his authority as well as a violation of Canon Law.
More and more today it's essential for Catholics to understand the nature of obedience and legitimate authority and to know their rights. Last May when Notre Dame police ordered pro-lifers off what is an open campus, similar to a small town, simply because they were carrying signs showing aborted children or pushing baby strollers with dolls covered in stage blood, were they disobedient for refusing to comply? I don't think so. Under the first amendment of our Constitution people cannot be discriminated against due to the content of their speech. Since Notre Dame allowed others to carry pro-Obama and pro-Fr. Jenkins signs on campus they could not legitimately discriminate against others just because they found the content of their signs objectionable. It will be interesting to see what happens in court as the cases are heard, but I do not think those who refused to comply with the order to leave campus were "disobedient" according to Gray's article. Sidewalk counselors, videographers attending gay pride parades, protesters, etc. are all subject to abuse by over-vigorous authorities violating their boundaries.
I'll close with one personal example. About ten years ago I set up a pro-life table at my polling place. I was the proper distance from the entrance so I wasn't violating any election rules. However, someone complained about the graphic pictures and the fetal models and an election official came out, ordered me to put everything away, and called the police. The responding officer told me if I didn't remove the "offensive" materials, I'd be arrested. I complied, but went home and called the American Center for Law and Justice who telephoned the polling place. The election officer backed down (actually apologized) and I put my materials out again. Had I refused to comply I would not have been disobedient. Rather I would have been challenging the boundaries of their authority which they clearly abused. More and more today, Catholics in the public square need to know and understand God's law, the nature of obedience and legitimate authority, and the limits and boundaries of that authority. Only then can they make intelligent choices and act in ways that are truly just and prudent and will help us, as Gray says, "freely choose to exercise the virtue of obedience and gain merit directed to our salvation."
I always felt that I didn't have to feel guilty about obeying the commands of some clergy and to follow my conscience. Thanks for writing this. It is so true! Mary
ReplyDeleteMary Ann, You are right on! Thank you for being such a clear thinking, faithful Catholic. We love you.
ReplyDeleteJudie Brown
The latest edition of the GIRM specifically states when a bishop has liturgical discretion. For example, a bishop could mandate standing rather than kneeling during the “Lamb of God”. Most faithful Catholics didn’t like it by went along with the bishop because he was acting within his legitimate authority.
ReplyDeleteHere in California, most bishops, if not all, exceed their authority when they mandate standing after receiving Holy Communion, when the directives say that posture is optional at that time. Not even a bishop has the right to add to or subtract from the liturgical norms.
Another area where bishops in California, and most likely in other states, exceed their authority is when they forbid a deacon to kneel during the consecration. The Ceremonial of Bishops, states that the deacon should be kneeling from the “Epiclesis to the elevation of the cup” (p.57).
Many times the reason for compliance to an unlawful directive is the realization that the bishop has the authority to remove a priest or deacon who dares to confront him about his abuse of authority. They are willing to compromise for the sake of being able to continue their ministry. In othr words, they “go along to get along.”
As part of the Ordination Rite, the newly ordained priests recite the Apostle’s Creed, thus publicly professing the faith, which they will preach to the world. The newly ordained also recite a Promise of Obedience. This promise of obedience is not a vow like the vow of obedience made by religious, but it imposes upon the priest the solemn obligation to administer his office in faithful obedience to his ecclesiastical superiors. Without obedience the Church could not carry on her work. And after all, how fitting it is that the priest, who is "another Christ," should distinguish himself and merit the blessing of God for his work by the practice of that virtue which may be called the characteristic virtue of our Savior Jesus Christ, who "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:8).
Inherent in this Promise of Obedience is that the priest will do and teach what the Church ordained him to do and teach. If a priest willingly and knowingly celebrates Mass in a manner contrary to the specifics mandated by the Church, he is in violation of his oath before God and commits sacrilege, i.e. mortal sin.
Victor R, Claveau, MJ
A friend developed Gray's thoughts to read: "If forced no-fault divorce laws are not the exercise of legitimate authority by the state, then we have the obligation to disobey. Very interesting."
ReplyDeleteI replied:
Re: obligation to disobey
a "shotgun divorce"
[January 2003; Virginia] I DID JUST THAT AND HERE'S WHAT I GOT:
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays as follows:
1. That Defendant's Demurrer be overruled and dismissed; and
2. Plaintiff be awarded a final divorce from the Defendant on the grounds that the parties have lived separate and apart without cohabitation and without interruption for a period of time in excess of one year; and
3. That the Plaintiff be awarded her attorneys fees and costs expended herein; and such further and other relief that as to equity may seem meet and that the nature of the Plaintiffs cause may require.
Respectfully submitted,
[My mutinying-spouse-filing-for-no-fault-divorce]
I objected to civil divorce based upon an absolute conscientious objection founded upon Catholic teaching, beliefs, and the fact that we were married in the Catholic Faith. I counter-filed for permanent separation ["Demurrer"] in-keeping with my Catholic Faith, Holy Scripture, and the civil laws available to me.
My spouse and their attorney's petition to overrule my demurrer to their divorce petition was granted and not only were they given their divorce but I was held to threatened extortion [verbal/psychological] of losing the family residence I was paying for, facing bankruptcy and loss of equal custody/visitation rights if I continued to object, AND FORCED TO PAY THEIR ATTORNEY FEES FOR THEIR DIVORCE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF MY CONSCIENCE!
I tried to hold off as long as I could -- refusing to sign off -- when I was told by my Protestant attorney that they would get their divorce regardless and I would likely end up destitute and without the means to continue parenting our minor child, I buckled under duress and "agreed."
I believe that is grounds for an annulment in marriage -- something like a "shotgun wedding?" I had a "shotgun divorce" crammed down my throat!
For denying blind obedience to the n.f.d. law I was duly-punished!
No-fault divorce is an abomination. See http://www.marysadvocates.org/
ReplyDeleteIt is essentially a war against fathers and a way for the government to take control of the middle class family in the same way it used "welfare reform" to control the poor. Phyllis Schlafly has a number of great article on this topic. See http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/fathers/
I appreciate your acknowledgment, Mary Ann. I am aware of both Marys Advocates and Mrs. Schlafly and recommend them both. However, there are clear precedents, especially LOVING V VIRGINA, establishing already that there is a federal question in states' lawmaking regarding whom may marry. The LOVING case established the right for federally guaranteed anti-discrimination rights to supercede State laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage.
ReplyDeleteMy prior post detailed State discrimination based upon religious preference opposed to stateRELIGION!!! How is this any different than the LOVING case?
Thanks, Mary Ann!
ReplyDeleteScripture gives us the prime example of false/blind obedience vs. true obedience. St. Peter and the Apostles were arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin who commanded them to stop preaching in the name of Jesus. St. Peter responded: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). The Holy Spirit specifically gave us this example--I am firmly convinced--to help us discern genuine obedience in our present day.