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:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Count Capponi - RIP

By
+ JMJ I had heard of Count Capponi over the years and was happy to hear a voice crying in the wilderness. I suspect that his conscience was clearer than many. This part of the article caught my attention: Capponi defended the right of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to continue his work without the label “schismatic,” which term Capponi rejected, saying: “You cannot apply the standards of the new code of canon law and the mentality of the old code. According to the new code, Lefebvre could do what he did with a Catholic intention, and he did what he did in ‘sincerity’ and invoked the ‘state of emergency’ argument, which the new code permits. You might not like the new code, but it’s what governs the Church.” I know a few people who tried to stir up a fuss when the SSPX cited the New Code in one of the documents with Rome.  Yet, the truth is what it is --- the New Code was promulgated by a reigning Pope and flawed as it is ... there are some benefits to its liberality. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

By
+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...
Post a Comment
Read more

Those who return to the past are not outside the Church - Rorate Caeli

By
+ JMJ I had been thinking about putting together a post explaining some of the history of how the SSPX has arrived at its current position. Now I see that Rorate has posted a translated editorial that shows the roots of the SSPX principles. In reading these words, I see patterns and themes that were put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre decades ago. Perhaps his sight was clearer than most. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

By
 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX Transfers

By
+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...
2 comments
Read more