Comments for Obedience at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 35 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 22 May 2013 04:01:01 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11306 Giam: "The marriage vows obligate a wife to obedience." Luckily for my wife and me, we made no such arrangement. As I mentioned, such an arrangement could be voluntarily made, but would only be valid as long as the wife wanted to participate. My wife and I are co-magistrates. We do not hold powers of command over each other, but we do willingly aid each other as necessary. My wife is not bound to obey me. Rick DeLano: The contributor (i.e., me) was actually suggesting that if a woman's conscience forbids her from having an abortion, she should certainly disobey an order from her husband to obtain one. If a woman does not have such a belief and corresponding dictates of conscience, she still should not obey her husband simply out of some blind devotion to her husband. She is responsible for the decisions she makes, and obedience does not wipe out this responsibility. - Scotty Ellis Thu, 10 May 2012 06:09:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11301 "Similarly, she is not bound by her husband's demand to abort, and furthermore she is bound by her conscience in the matter." What kind of utter nonsense is this? Is the contributor actually suggesting that if the woman's conscience is comfortable with an abortion, then she must follow it? Dear God deliver us from neoCatholics. - Rick DeLano Wed, 09 May 2012 20:18:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11300 Scotty Ellis, The marriage vows obligate a wife to obedience. And as to equality Aristotle says that a man must rule his wife politically, his children monarchically and his slaves despotically. Thus wife is to be ruled in a political fashion as between equals. We are bound to obey the City Magistrates though we are their equals as citizens. - Gian Wed, 09 May 2012 18:41:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11297 Thanks for your thoughts about obedience. They seem good to me but, unfortunately, they remain on the surface of the problem. When you go deeper in the situations you see that simple obedience is enough for children but not for adults. For instance: you don't consider errors made by the church hierarchy (and we have to be humble to recognize them); you don't consider problematic issues where answers are not obvious and discernment is needed; you don't consider the different levels of obligation in terms of what the church hierarchy says or writes. In other words, there are very different levels of obedience. I also would be more careful in saying something like: "we only grow when something reaches us from outside of ourselves": that seems dangerous to me! It seems that we only have evil (or void?) in us! What kind of anthropology is that? If God lives in us - as I believe - real obedience must come (also) from our inner self! Thanks for making me think about this! - J. Delicado Wed, 09 May 2012 08:11:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11292 Gian "If a man tells his wife not to visit her mother, she is bound to obey him." Actually, no. There is no such obligation or binding between man and wife, co-equals, except inasmuch as the wife has voluntarily placed herself within such a schema (and even then the obligation persists only as long as she voluntarily continues participation in that particular view of marriage). Luckily, if he tells her not to visit her mother, she still can if she wants to; and if he attempts to use coercion, she has recourse to the law. Similarly, she is not bound by her husband's demand to abort, and furthermore she is bound by her conscience in the matter. - Scotty Ellis Wed, 09 May 2012 04:45:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11286 Dear Father Bramwell, I am a Catholic. I am entitled to test those who make claims to spiritual authority and to investigate their claims. You would expect this (surely?) of Catholics living under trendy, unorthodox bishops, not just those blessed to have Cardinal Pell. I may not be privy to the full story but I am not sure how much information I really need where the sexual abuse scandals were concerned. Various Bishops behaved abominably and no amount of information could convince me that moving sex offenders around was a right thing to do. People have suffered terribly because of these scandals and many have left the Faith because of them, surely a greater scandal than disobedience? Church spin like "This is a Church of forgiving love" is a dodge. You commenced in the article by saying I should obey bishops. You end by saying I should approach them in forgiving love. That makes no sense to me. I know your intentions are good but sometimes the hierarchy needs to be purged before anyone should be asked to obey it. RJE - RJ Elliott Tue, 08 May 2012 21:34:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11285 Scotty Ellis, If a man tells his wife not to visit her mother, she is bound to obey him. But if tells her to abort the baby, then she is not bound and in fact, must disobey - Gian Tue, 08 May 2012 19:00:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11281 "By the way there are answers for what Pell said but it would take too long to get into." Fr. Bramwell, I think you just hinted at what your next essay on TCT will concern." By all means! - Rick DeLano Tue, 08 May 2012 13:01:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11279 Gian: "Obedience has nothing to do with coercion." Sure, in theory. In practice you will note that most organizations use coercion of various forms to ensure conformity just in case their members are not as enthusiastic about obedience. The is true even for the Church (though now that it has been stripped of most of its temporal power, the Church has stepped back on this point). "Obedience is or must be freely willed, out of our recognition of a superior authority that has just claims on us." Proper authority is important, but this does not cleanse our hands of personal responsibility for our actions and beliefs. I cannot pretend that obedience makes my actions right, the orders I have received right, or the beliefs I am commanded to believe right. "Simply because we do not understand all the reasons behind a command can not be justification for not obeying." I think it would depend on the situation. If someone told me to decorate a room in a certain way, or fill out a report in a certain way, and I did not understand why, sure, I would probably do it. If I was commanded to believe something, or conform my entire life, to a command that I did not understand, this would be a far more prickly circumstance. - Scotty Ellis Tue, 08 May 2012 10:37:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11278 "By the way there are answers for what Pell said but it would take too long to get into." Fr. Bramwell, I think you just hinted at what your next essay on TCT will concern. - Manfred Tue, 08 May 2012 08:39:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11275 Scotty Wills, Obedience has nothing to do with coercion. Obedience is or must be freely willed, out of our recognition of a superior authority that has just claims on us. Naturally, we are not required to obey a manifestly unjust authority but it requires discernment. Simply because we do not understand all the reasons behind a command can not be justification for not obeying. The consent of an inferior is not required in obedience. - Gian Mon, 07 May 2012 18:57:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11271 Look RJ even the teaching of the pharisees had to be obeyed but this did not mean following their example. Matthew 23:2,3 The first thing that is being lost sight of is exactly what De lubac said in the end of the essay. There is a certain humbling that has to take place. Again I am saying obey a bishop in his teaching as he exercises his ordinary magisterium. Not when he is on TV giving off the cuff comments that are too loose for the more perfect among us. By the way there are answers for what Pell said but it would take too long to get into. Who are you to judge the bishops? Very very few have actually betrayed their office. Usually you are not privy to the full story anyway. No one has this absolute perspective on things. Don't forget how many people thought that Jesus was wrong in his time. But if a bishop is giving the teaching of the Church and 99% of them do then what is the problem? Yes people have suffered terribly because of the scandals. No doubt. But and again this is a point that has been lost sight of in the discussion today and that is that this is a Church of forgiving love. If we cannot share that with our fellow members of the Church then we must look into our own hearts. Trials come to all of us. That they come to us from inside the Church does not change that fact. This is a Church of forgiving love. That is the test of how Catholic we are. - Fr. Bramwell Mon, 07 May 2012 17:06:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11269 Father Bramwell, While I understand your point in the abstract, I think it is unreal to believe that Catholics (of any age) will, in practice, obey bishops because of their office if those Bishops are weak and/or not practising what they preach. The sex abuse scandals have eroded the trust of Catholics who still practice and was the final straw for many former Catholics (my older brother has more or less left the Church over these scandals). There is no Biblical obligation to obey leaders who are in error or who have betrayed their office. It is no answer to say “obeying bishops has nothing at all to do with whether they are saints or not”. No one asks for Bishops to be held to the standards of saints but I do expect Bishops to not engage in cover-ups or avoid investigation of scandals. RJE - RJ Elliott Mon, 07 May 2012 14:40:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11267 In response, Manfred, to your post "Fr. Bramwell: I have no anger toward the bishops and I don't much care whether they be saints; but is it too much to ask that THEY BE CATHOLIC? Cdl. Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney..." One could list off as many church officials making fallible statements to the media as they want, or reveal as many private/public scandals as they can come up with, but it does not diminish one bit the obedience that is due to the office of the Bishop. That's the long and the short of it. Fr. Bramwell is right. I think I would like to understand people's perspective because I must be missing something, else others need to understand the Church's teaching better... I hear a lot of "We can't just blindly obey Bishop X when he holds such and such an erring opinion or does such and such a sinful thing; so obedience to Bishop X must have some sort of limit". But that is far from what needs to be understood about obedience. (in my own words:) Obedience to Bishop X is due Bishop X when he teaches, disciplines, orders devotions, etc. in line with the Church Universal. If he orders you to vote for a pro-abortion politician, that's not in line with the Church (imagine examples galore following...). But what is to fear when following his word according to his office? Will he ever declare, "this is the teaching of the Church: Adam and Eve are not real!"? He cannot. Someone might say, well not everyone is a theologian, liturgist, philosopher, etc. so how are they to know? I agree that we have a desperate situation in this Church: when we, as human beings would rather spend our time on some temporal pleasure than on understanding Truth, and we are afraid to fully catechize our people with even the basics because they might get offended and leave the Church. They don't know what obedience to the Church is, what the Liturgy is really about, what life is all about, etc... So the answer seems to be: pretend to strip the leaders of authority (which in reality you can't do), so that the people who want to learn their faith through the media will... what? know their faith better? claim ignorance of the Truth when they get to Heaven's gate (something which also in reality you can't do)? Help me out here... - S. Roy Mon, 07 May 2012 14:09:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11265 Isn't this a crucial piece of why Christ had to leave someone "in charge". Credibility is essential in a leader but what human can measure up to the level needed to lead a Church teach the Truth? The first leader ran away and denied Christ 3 times. We must obey the Magisterium on the doctrines of the Faith. We can't say that one or all of the members is a hypocrit so I won't follow the teaching. We don't want to be a stiff necked people because we are hypocrits too. How many bishops and cardinals are there? I think it would be amazingly lucky to find that many people in all of history that everyone would trust and not find a reason to question and thereby justify not believing. Hopefully the bishops continue to call themselves to greater sanctity and doctrinal truth but this can't be a chicken or the egg debate. They are only human. The Truth taught by the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean that humans don't muck it up but we have to obey in trust. Obedieance is a rational thing but cognitive dissonance is a powerful tool for justifying our own actions. Judas was pretty convinced that he was doing the right thing at some level. Blind obedience is wrong I agree. Humans are not sheep. Informed/educated and formed obedience is what we must do to be holy. This is about eternity not just the next decade even. - Steve M Mon, 07 May 2012 10:17:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11264 A correction: I meant, of course, Trent, not Trident. Just a brain bleep, sorry...8( - Marius Mon, 07 May 2012 10:10:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11263 I've been sincerely trying to come to terms with Vatican II but one question doesn't stop bothering me: if VII was so good why its aftermath has been so catastrophic? None of the great councils - Nicea or Trident for example - was followed by a near-collapse of the church as it happened after VII. Blaming it on the misinterpretation of the VII documents is only half the story because then another question raises, namely, why this misinterpretation has been allowed to take place and to flourish? I will appreciate your kind response, Father. - Marius Mon, 07 May 2012 08:04:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11258 Certainly we are to obey nthe bishops in all things but sin. It were sinful to obey a bishop who denied the historical reality of Adam and Eve, and insisted you deny it too. Better to die than obey an heretic. - Rick DeLano Mon, 07 May 2012 06:47:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11257 Fr. Bramwell: I have no anger toward the bishops and I don't much care whether they be saints; but is it too much to ask that THEY BE CATHOLIC? Cdl. Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, dismissed Adam and Eve, gave a very flaccid explanation of Hell, and asserted that atheists could achieve Heaven. He is just one. Now, shall we discuss Cdl. Schoenborn or Archbishop Mueller who is being considered to head the CDF? - Manfred Mon, 07 May 2012 06:29:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/obedience.html#comment-11255 I appreciate that people are angry with bishops but obeying bishops has nothing at all to do with whether they are saints or not. It has to do with the fact that when they exercise their ordinary Magisterium they have to be obeyed. Pure and simple. So please put all the anger aside. We are all sinners here. - FR. Bramwell Mon, 07 May 2012 04:42:42 +0100