Skip to main content

True Obedience: The Mark of A Faithful Catholic Part C: Summa Theologica

Image
By
+
JMJ

Summa Theologica – St. Thomas Aquinas

It should be of no surprise that the Catechism of the Council of Trent refers the reader to the Summa. After all, for hundreds of years it was the 'go-to' reference manual for understanding key areas of Catholic theology.

St. Thomas establishes that observance (question 102), rendering honor and respect to those in a position of dignity, is exercised by "rendering him service, by obeying his commands, and by repaying him, according to one's faculty, for the benefits we received from him".  Further, this service is owed to the person in a position of authority, not because of themselves, but because of the position of dignity that they occupy. Disobedience to the superior is counted by St. Thomas as a mortal sin as it is "contrary to the love of God" and the "love of our neighbor".

In article 5 of question 104, St. Thomas proceeds to define the framework for obedience due to  superiors – outside of which obedience is not obligatory and may even be sinful.

The first criteria is that the order cannot contradict the law of God, as He is the "first mover of all wills", all are bound to obey the divine command under justice (Q104, article 4 & 5).  One example employed by St. Thomas is the chain of command within a hierarchy.  In this he states:  "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul?"  Ultimately, he ends his example with an order given by the Emperor stating "... if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God".

Simply put, if at any point within the hierarchy an order is given that requires the subject to sin, the order is to be disregarded.   This sinful order can be structured in two ways.  Either the nature of the  thing commanded is sinful or the command is to disobey a legitimate order.

Sin can be divided into the immediate, proximate and remote cases. In the immediate case, the order in and of itself is directly sinful, such as a command to break the First Commandment.  In the proximate case, a command involves a situation in which  is it likely the person will fall into mortal sin, such as an order to a reformed alcholic to visit a tavern for a glass of water.  In the remote case, the occasion lacks both characteristics. Catholics are obliged to avoid the immediate and proximate occasions of sin, but have no obligation to avoid remote occasions.

The second criteria is that, the order provided by the superior must be within the "sphere of his authority". Obviously, different types of superiors have different domains in which it is licit for them to issue orders.  For example, a person's manager can only issue orders that pertain to their employment.  A religious superior can only issue orders that fall within the "mode of life" ( clerical, monastic, mendicant, military, hospitaller) as expressed by vows taken and the rule of the order.  For example, a religious superior can issue an order to transfer a member of their order to another monastery or house of the order.

St. Thomas states that a subject who obeys an order outside of the sphere of authority, but does not require sin,  practices "perfect obedience".  This is due to the lack of no obligation to obey but the submit of their will to the superior nonetheless.

St. Thomas concludes by identifying three types of obedience:
1. Sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey:
2. Perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful:
3. Indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

Therefore, following St. Thomas, we arrive at two criteria for obedience:
1. The command does not require the inferior to sin, either in the immediate or proximate case.
2. The command is within the sphere of the superior's authority

These various conditions for obedience can be summarized in a 2x2 matrix as shown below:


In summary, following St. Thomas' reasoning, if an order is within the sphere of authority and does not involve sin, then the subject has an obligation to obey and commits a mortal sin if they disobey.
If the same order is outside the sphere of authority, then St. Thomas states it is perfect obedience to submit one's will to that of their superior.

Finally, it is sinful to obey an order that involves sin (is against the law of God).

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

By
 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Church Militant TV and the SSPX - Again

By
+ JMJ The old narrative used to be that the SSPX was 'schismatic' and 'excommunicated'. Now the excommunication has been lifted for a number of years and the only ones who think it still has effect are the 'resistors'. That leaves the other opponents of the SSPX with the label 'schismatic'. Make it clear, the conservative Catholics have issues with the SSPX probably because they violate some of their assumptions about the Faith and this crisis of the Church. Church Militant TV is one of these the exists along the Catholic thought spectrum. They like the Traditional Mass but must ensure that they don't get tarred with the same 'schismatic' brush that the liberals use against the SSPX.  So what do they do, they use the same brush against the SSPX. The funny thing is that even when the Church does speak, they don't want to listen and persist in calling the SSPX 'schismatic'. Here's a transcript of the latest s...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Position of the SSPX on Canonizations by the Saint Factory

By
+ JMJ I have sometimes been criticized for including 'St' as a title for Pope John Paul II et al. I've given my reasons here  in a discussion with Alex Long. The question is one of prudence in discussions with ntCatholics and in some cases with tCatholics. In discussions with:  ntCatholics, I will use the title in order to continue the discussion and help them arrive at a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. tCatholics, I will use the title in order to broaden their perspective on the doctrine of dogmatic facts. This broader perspective is, in my opinion, essential maintaining a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. So from a doctrinal position, I have written the article Dogmatic Fact of Fancy  and includes a reference on canonizations. Now, I know the position of the SSPX is that the canonizations are doubtful (see references below) and I also know of at least one non-SSPX theologian who agrees with the level of doubt du...
Post a Comment
Read more