The Thing About Obedience

No conversation about the SSPX is complete without the word “obedience” being thrown around. And, in all fairness, the nature of obedience is really at the heart of the matter, so this makes sense. However, in the context of these conversations, the notion of obedience seems to frequently take on a character that exalts this particular virtue above all the rest. One gets the impression that modern Catholics have been formed with a Bible translation that presents St. Paul’s famous treatises on charity with the word “charity” translated as “obedience”: “And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three,” Paul writes, “but the greatest of these is obedience.”

Now, it may seem like I am caricaturing the position of commentators who oppose the Society, but I don’t think I am. Erudite commentators who oppose the Society, and do so intelligently and in good faith, generally have no issue admitting that the crisis in the Church is unique and universal—meaning that it is grave and cannot be ignored and that it touches on every aspect of the life of the Church, thus it harms the lives of Catholics. Nonetheless, no matter how bad the crisis, or how corrupt the hierarchy may be, and so on, for those who have planted their flag in the “obedience” camp, it is simply beyond the pale that the Society could be justified in its actions.

Cardinal Sarah’s intervention, written against the Society, is a perfect example. In it, he recognizes the reality of crisis and admits that there are prelates who act as false shepherds, etc. In other places, Sarah has compared the suppression of the Traditional Roman Rite to diabolical activity; and he has, at times, spoken against the most public and grave theological tendencies stemming from various Roman authorities, at least during the Francis papacy. Nevertheless, when it comes down to it, his position is that one must obey, at the expense of everything else, and it seems that this obedience will somehow cover the multitude of sins denigrating the lives of Catholics the world over.

We can only speculate, but Sarah has had a public closeness to Opus Dei, which has a policy of never criticizing the hierarchy. In addition, and I can say this from experience because I was very close to joining Opus Dei before I committed to Catholic Tradition, there is an extraordinary level of importance placed on obedience to superiors in a very distinct way in the spirituality of Opus Dei. This emphasis on obedience is not a novel thing, technically speaking, because members of religious orders have historically made specific vows of obedience, along with their other vows. In addition, Sarah holds Benedictine spirituality dear to his heart, and it is public knowledge that he strongly considered joining a Benedictine monastery. 

Now, far be it from me to criticize Benedictine spirituality, but it is worth pointing out that the monastic way of life is not the way of life for most Catholics, whether they be clerical or lay. Again, this is not a criticism, just an observation of the facts. And, the fact remains that since those who join particular religious orders must take a vow of obedience, this tells us that there is more than one way to approach the virtue of obedience. Simply put, the need for the vow in religious orders tells us that the monastic understanding of the virtue is not the normal understanding; and, therefore, it is not the standard for the vast majority of clerics and laymen.

Similarly, we find a similar distinction in the lives of regular citizens versus professional soldiers. The Chain of Command is everything in a military setting because the potential consequences of disorder and chaos in conflict scenarios can prove to be disastrous; therefore, subordinates do what they are told because the success of the mission depends on it. Those of us who are not in military orders do not make the same commitment to obey superiors, even if we demonstrate our obedience in different ways.

I am just as patriotic about my nation as a decorated member of my nation’s military, and I am, in principle, willing to die for love of country; however, I did not make the decision to obey orders the same way a soldier has. To extend the analogy, the military institutions are no more or no less a part of the country than the civilians, and the superiors of the various orders have a direct authority over their subjects; but they still must answer to both the head of state and the law. And, the head of state is also not above the law, especially Divine Law and Divine Commandments.

We know that Scripture tells us that heads of state have authority that, in principle, comes from God; so, we are to obey them, generally speaking. However, we also know that there are great heroes of Catholic history who have even led movements against their governments, with military power, because of their allegiance to a Higher Law. General Franco comes to mind. They “disobeyed” laws on the books to ensure the integrity of God’s Law as the supreme law in their nations. Because of this, they are heroes.

Even in military settings, soldiers are tested on what the limits of obedience must be in a given situation. They must be prepared to conscientiously disobey when a superior demands something that will lead to failure. Of course, it is not always the case that a subject can understand the plan of the superior fully, so, all things being equal, they should be prepared to obey. However, if it is evident that disaster will follow obedience to a particular order, they must be prepared to disobey. 

This disobedience appears, on the surface, to be immoral; however, it is done out of respect for the military as such and to keep their vows and pledges in the truest sense.

Catholics must obey the pope, all things being equal, but we must also obey God. There are times when the pope’s commands are not in line with God’s commandments. This is tragic, but it does happen. To deny that this could happen would be to conflate the will of the pope with the will of God. Of course, it is the case throughout Church history that so many holy popes have done the will of God, and we see this in the fruits of their actions. However, it is also the case that popes have erred, and the results have been destructive.

Now, it is also important to keep in mind that the papacy itself, even when considering papal infallibility, makes distinctions between what Catholics are obliged to obey in all circumstances and what may not be binding. We must follow the pope to the letter when he defines dogma for us, or when he approves of dogmatic commands from an ecumenical council. However, even within the teachings of a Council, not all are binding in the full sense because they are not presented as such.

Historic theologians from the Council of Trent wrote the following in a treatise on how we know what is defined—and, therefore, binding in conciliar teachings—and what is not of the same caliber: 

But whatever is introduced in the decrees of councils or popes by way of explanation, or to respond to an objection, or is merely taught in passing as something distinct from the main point which was the subject of controversy: these things do not pertain to the faith, that is, they cannot be considered judgments that determine what is of catholic faith…Not all, even of those things that the councils affirm simply and absolutely, is a de fide decision.(De Locis, lib. 5 cap. 5 q. 4)

If we are honest with ourselves, despite certain teachings from Vatican II, which are essentially reformulations of already defined teaching, virtually the entirety of the Council is made up of explanations or statements made in passing. Now, just because something is not pronounced de fide does not mean we shouldn’t do our best to assent to the teaching with our intellect and will; however, that there is a distinction between what is de fide and what is not makes all the difference.

Donum Veritatis, at least where it treats the matter of the nature of different levels of dogmatic pronouncements (roughly, paragraphs 20-31), expresses something similar. Interestingly, the same document says the following after it explains when a theologian could have grounds for legitimate withholding of intellect and will: 

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media” but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.

Well, to my mind, there are a host of Catholic commentators who express their disdain for the SSPX but who seem to be “disobedient” to the teachings of DV. Larry Chapp, for example—who has alleged the SSPX is “cultish” and practically sedevacantist—has made a name for himself in recent years by going after documents that came from the Francis papacy. In one article, he called Cardinal Fernandez’s document on homosexual blessings, “a waste of words.”

To my mind, I find his sentiments on the SSPX hypocritical, since he, too, demonstrates a species of disobedience to the Roman authorities, and even to the letter of a document that comes from the John Paul II papacy, written by Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I know he loves dearly.

Obedience isn’t just about Canon Law or papal authority; in the same way, any virtue can be applied to myriad circumstances. DV clearly states that when theologians, and I believe Chapp considers himself a theologian, should not go to the “mass media” to air their grievances about theological matters. That being said, I don’t fault Chapp for doing so because I agree with his intention to shed light on the issue with his expertise. I just wish he would recognize that he is, in fact, being disobedient to the letter of the law—because he understands the spirit behind it—and allow others the same grace that he affords himself.

And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)

All of this is to say that there are cases, even when we consider doctrinal pronouncements, where we can be justified in withholding our assent, which would include our obedience, at least intellectually. Governmental decisions by popes and the hierarchy are not doctrinal decisions, primarily; and, therefore, we cannot afford them a higher level of authority and a binding character that exalts doctrinal pronouncements. Therefore, that there could be disobedience in certain circumstances is not out of the question, especially when the disobedience is only apparent and, in fact, is obedience to something higher.

All people of good sense should understand that obedience is not the same thing as blind compliance, and, if obedience is a virtue, which it surely is, it must be oriented toward the good—the highest of which is the salvation of souls.

Granted, I understand men of good will disagree on the SSPX question. But please, unless you are prepared to swallow the whole Conciliar Experiment hook, line, and sinker, do not accuse the SSPX of disobedience as if it is a sin unique to them. Things are more complicated than that, so we should speak and act accordingly.