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.

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.

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.

HIERARCHICAL OBEDIENCE

Two things, both obvious, should be mentioned here.

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.

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 indeed 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, indeed, unlawful. Moreover, this approach usually backfires and creates more hard feelings, as it has done in this case.

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).

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.

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.