Where Does Disagreement End And Disobedience Begin

September 18, 2003

Where Does Disagreement End And Disobedience Begin?

[Jesus said,] "What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' And he answered, I will not'; but afterward he repented and went. And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, 'I go sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" Matthew 22:28-31

The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church. Canon 212, §1

Several years ago, the archbishop of Milwaukee was involved in a lengthy exchange of communications with the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments over the order of the administration of the sacraments of first penance and first Communion. As I recall, the Congregation insisted that children receive their first Communion, "preceded by sacramental confession," as required by canon 914. Archbishop Weakland's position was that he, as diocesan bishop, could adopt different norms for pastoral reasons. In the end, the Congregation declared the discussion ended and directed the archbishop to abide by its decision. Archbishop Weakland, if my memory serves me correctly, said something like this: "Obedience is easy when we agree with the decision of higher authority; but it is not so easy when we do not share the same light." He then issued instructions to all pastors to follow the order of sacraments as stated in canon 914.

Archbishop Weakland was right. It is not easy to set aside our own will and follow the will of another, especially when we are sincerely convinced that our course is the right one. Nonetheless, obviously there are times when the common good, the rights of others, good order or our duties as citizens or as members of the Church require that we do so. There is nothing difficult here. We learned about the virtue of obedience as children. Even so, we tend to overlook simple truths and, when we consider more complex subjects, we would do well to begin by recalling the obvious.

Problems can arise when we are called upon by those who exercise authority in the Church to practice the virtue of obedience. And the circumstances can become terribly troublesome to those of us who are lay members of Christ's faithful whenever authority in the Church seems be exercised abusively, especially by one in holy orders who is a successor of the Apostles.

In general, it goes without saying that the exercise of several virtues must govern our relations with holders of ecclesiastical office, as inDouche they should govern our discourse with anyone. Common courtesy, respect for persons and offices, charity and moderation of expression are some that deserve mention. Even when we believe we are the victims of injustices of the worst kind, the good of souls and the good of the Church must come first.

In beginning a brief discussion of our obligation of obedience and consideration of some practical examples, it makes sense to start with a definition of the word. We cannot find a better source than Fr. John A. Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary (Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City, NY, 1979, pp. 383-384):

Obedience The moral virtue that inclines the will to comply with the will of another who has the right to command. ...The extent of obedience is as wide as the authority of the person who commands. Thus obedience to God is without limit, whereas obedience to human beings is limited by higher laws that must not be transgressed, and by the competency or authority of the one who gives the orders.

In the light of Fr. Hardon's definition we might take another look at canon 212, §1, first placing emphasis on the phrases conscious of their own responsibility with regard to us as subjects. This adds a qualifying condition to our obligation. We must first be aware of our responsibility to obey. Then we also need to view the phrases as representatives of Christ, as teachers of the faith and as leaders of the Church as they apply to those who hold ecclesiastical office. They circumscribe the right to command to those matters falling within the lawful authority of the one giving the orders. Therefore we can say that disobedience exists only if the subject is conscious of his responsibility and if the one issuing the command is acting within his competence. It is improper and unfair to accuse the faithful of disobedience unless these necessary conditions are present.

Hierarchial Obedience

Two things, both obvious, should be mentioned here.

First, those who exercise authority in the Church are themselves subject to ecclesiastical laws, which they must obey along with the rest of us. In a manner of speaking, this also applies to the Holy Father. To be sure, he is the supreme earthly lawgiver and can promulgate, repeal, amend or relax ecclesiastical laws as he sees fit. Although the Church cannot judge him for not observing ecclesiastical laws, he has clearly shown that he binds himself to observe them. As far as we are concerned, if there is a conflict between particular and universal law, we are bound to obey the latter.

Second, with the exception of the Holy Father, all Church authorities are themselves subject to higher ecclesiastical authorities, to which they are accountable for the exercise of their offices. If a competent authority gives a lawful command or places a lawful juridic act, those subject to it are bound to obey. However, one who feels his rights or proper procedures have been violated is free to appeal the act to the competent superior. In the case of penalties, the appeal itself suspends the effects of the act. Otherwise, for a just cause the superior can order a suspension. In any case, as long as the appellant maintains the degree of obedience that may be required while the process runs its course and is willing to abide by the final decision, an appeal can never be considered as an act of disobedience.

Whether we are talking about legislative, executive or judicial acts, the best statement of our obligation of hierarchical obedience was best expressed by the distinguished Italian canonist. Count Capponi, who said: "The first obedience of all Catholics is always to our Lord and the faith and then to the Successor of Peter, who alone can confirm his brethren. All other obedience must yield to these."

Problematic Situations

The Saint Joseph Foundation has been asked for advice and assistance by hundreds of Catholics who were uncertain about their obligations of obedience. In many cases, their uncertainty had been caused or compounded by demands that they fulfill one obligation by violating another or that they follow the edict of someone who had no right to command. The following are examples of a few commonplace misapplications of the obligation of obedience.

Liturgy It is always sad to see priests and bishops who appear to take pride in flaunting liturgical norms. We who are lay members of Christ's faithful can only watch helplessly as they unlawfully add, remove or change elements of the Mass. The eminent moral theologian. Professor Germain Grisez, gave an excellent description of the immorality of their conduct, even when the violations are relatively minor.

But even in less serious cases where abuses do not render liturgical acts invalid, bending or setting aside liturgical norms, unless for some reason sufficient to justify an exception to the Church's law, violates the rights of anyone present who intends to participate only in authentic Catholic worship. Moreover, such violations sometimes embody deviations from Catholic faith, often generate conflict, and always set an example of disobedience to the Church. Hence, the deliberate violation of liturgical norms harms the communion of charity which Jesus intended the Eucharist to perfect, and so is a grave matter. (Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus. Vol. II, Franciscan Press, Quincy, IL, 1993, p. 145).

It is even more serious when the abusers exacerbate their misdeeds by attempting to force uniformity when the Church allows freedom, forcing the faithful to do things not required by liturgical law and, worse, forcing the faithful to violate lawful norms. Then, those who resist are accused of disobedience.

For example, it is becoming commonplace for pastors of parishes and, in some cases, even diocesan bishops to declare that the people must stand for the entire Eucharistic prayer or at least some portion of it. Those who continue to kneel, as they are supposed to do, are branded as disobedient. In truth, it is those who are attempting to impose standing who are being disobedient.

I recently saw an interesting story on EWTN Catholic Q&A. When one pastor attempted to impose his own agenda on his parishioners by issuing an edict that the congregation would henceforth stand for the entire Eucharistic prayer, the people simply refused en masse. The pastor raved and ranted, but to no avail. The people remained firm and are to be congratulated for their courage. Would that more congregations might do the same.

Withholding Contributions Please refer to the last "Straw in the Wind" on page 7. I admit that this is a sensitive matter. Catholics do inDouche have a legal and moral obligation to support the Church with their temporal sacrifices. The parish is the usual means through which we receive the spiritual goods of the Church (cf. cc. 213 and 515, §1) and, as such, it normally has some claim to our support. Although canon 1262 obligates the faithful to contribute to the support of the Church, this support may take many forms and universal law sets no amount. There are a number of worthy causes in the Church and Catholics are free to use their own judgment in deciding how their contributions will be directed. In this context a pastor is challenged to use persuasion and moral arguments to solicit funds from the faithful. To wrongfully accuse good people of breaking the law and to threaten is inappropriate and, inDouche, unlawful. Moreover, this approach usually backfires and creates more hard feelings, as it has done in this case.

Fr. Suchocki is also skating on thin ice with regard to his factual claims. In regard to those "people of ill repute" coming from Ohio and Texas, the St. Francis Xavier Preservation Guild invited three speakers to address the organization on three separate occasions. The first was a gentleman from Ohio who spoke in Petoskey last winter and told the story of how he and his fellow parishioners had stopped the renovation of their church by cutting off the funds. The second speaker, who appeared in May, was yours truly. I had no knowledge of what the first had said and never suggested that people should stop supporting their parish. Most of my talk was about renovations in general. The essence of what I did say about contributions is contained in the preceding paragraph. The last of the three speakers was Michael Rose, who is from Cincinnati and is the editor of the Saint Catherine Review. Michael told me that his talk dealt with architectural issues (he has a degree in architecture) and he mentioned contributions only in passing in response to a question.

I stand by what I said. If parishioners have reason to doubt that their money will be spent wisely or efficiently, I maintain that they are free to direct their contributions elsewhere in the Church until their concerns are satisfied. To do this does not compromise one's obligations to support the work of the Church nor does it constitute disobedience to lawful pastoral authority.

Associations Of The Faithful The 1983 Code of Canon Law clearly acknowledges the right of Christ's faithful to form associations freely, to hold meetings and to conduct apostolic activities (cc. 215, 216 and 299). If the association is classified as private, then it enjoys autonomy according to c. 321, although it is subject to the vigilance of ecclesiastical authority (c. 323).

We have seen cases where diocesan authorities demanded representation on the boards of private associations and directed that all records be brought to the chancery. This goes far beyond the boundaries of vigilance and the associations were most certainly not being disobedient in rejecting the unlawful ultimatums.

A more common and less drastic tactic is to imply that private associations are being disobedient by doing such things as organizing in the first place, conducting meetings and conferences, appealing for financial support and distributing literature "without permission." When a group is first organized, it makes good sense and is simple common courtesy to inform the diocesan bishop, to keep him advised of the association's activities and to respond promptly and respectfully to any of his questions or concerns. But it is not necessary to obtain permission when the law requires none.

Clergy and Religious Painful as the preceding abuses may be to those of us who are lay members of the faithful, the sufferings endured by the clergy and religious are positively excruciating. If the laity are wrongfully accused of disobedience, they can usually stay out of the way of any further persecution. The clergy and religious may have to undergo agonizing torment as they try to reconcile their consciences and obligations of obedience to our Lord, the faith and the Successor of Peter on the one hand and a much more immediate threat in the form of an abusive religious superior or diocesan bishop on the other. Fr. Richard Gilsdorf's article, "The Plight of the Papist Priest," which appeared more than fifteen years ago in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, remains timely and is perhaps the most eloquent description of these dreadful conflicts.

The most egregious tactic employed by abusive authorities is to order the accused cleric or religious to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and to further insist that the report be given to that same authority. If the report recommends "therapy," as it often does, the accused is pressured to submit to it by being denied an assignment until he or she complies. Although such a move is blatantly illegal, diocesan bishops will sometimes deny a priest any financial support until he submits.

Real And Imagined Disobedience

I hope that this article will prove useful to our readers in drawing the distinction between real disobedience of ecclesiastical authority, which is always wrong, and imagined disobedience, which is the failure to obey an order that, for one reason or another, does not bind. Disagreement with one in authority, even when the authority is acting within his competence, is not necessarily disobedient. We are obliged to respect the office and the individual who holds that office and we must express our disagreement in a way that does not divide the Church or otherwise give rise to scandal.

With all the uncertainty and abuse of authority rampant in the Church today, it is all too easy to fall into the trap of becoming resentful, cynical and defiant. We must always have before our eyes those spiritual works of mercy, to bear wrongs patiently and to forgive all injuries.

Sometimes, a lawful command from a competent authority will, as Archbishop Weakland noted, be hard to obey. It may be burdensome, distasteful or even personally repugnant. In these situations, neither example of conduct described by our Lord in St. Matthew's Gospel will do. We must answer, "I go," and then do as we say.