+
JMJ
Questions:
- Is Trust Subjective?
- Is being Trustworthy objective?
- Does a Superior have to be trustworthy?
My personal perspective on whether I decide to trust (place confidence in ...) another person.
Now whether a person is trustworthy is another question altogether:
Trustworthy: worthy of confidence,able to be relied on as honest or truthful. Synonyms:reliable, dependable, honest, honorable, upright, principled, true, truthful, as good as one's word, ethical, virtuous, incorruptible, unimpeachable, above suspicion;
responsible, sensible, levelheaded;loyal, faithful, staunch, steadfast, trusty;safe, sound, reputable, discreet.
Whether a person is trustworthy is another question altogether and this could be based in facts as we have a person's external actions. For example has he exhibited actions where he betrayed a confidence or acted in an untrustworthy manner.
In this meaning the majority of the hierarchy is completely untrustworthy, Pope Francis included.
Keep in mind I'm talking objective points where someone has demonstrably betrayed a trust. Not something the results for various rumours etc.
Now does this have a bearing on whether or not we obey a superiors command?
In the Summa defines the facets of obedience as below:
So 'trust' is not in the equation.
The question is whether or not obeying someone who is not trustworthy is an occasion of sin.
Here's the key element: We don't KNOW if an untrustworthy person (such as Pope St. John Paul II, at best he was weak; Pope Benedict XVI, he tried to get Archbishop Lefebvre to compromise immediately after signing the protocol; Pope Francis, just look at the FFI) is going to betray our trust, we BELIEVE it.
As discussed earlier, belief is (in this context) subjective.
So ...
While determining if a person is 'Trustworthy' can be objective, requiring greater prudence, deciding to 'trust' the person remains subjective.
There are two issues that I have in disobeying a command that meets the criteria for obedience.
First, is that it makes obedience subjective reducing authority to the opinion of the person receiving the order.
Second, we don't know the future, God does. So when someone says "I know that he is going to betray ..." this is actually a prophecy. It is an expression of a belief as opposed to knowledge.
Rome's Invitation to Engage in Discussion
Now here's something that is interesting: the interactions between the SSPX from 2001 onwards.
When Rome wanted the SSPX to engage in discussions in 2000, they decided to add preconditions ... here's what Bishop Fellay wrote in 2008:
So how does this jive with the teaching on obedience?From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication. These two measures were not sought directly in view of gaining some advantage for ourselves, but to re-instill into the Mystical Body a breath of traditional life, and thus, indirectly, help to bring about a sound rapprochement between the Society and Rome. (Tradicat: A Look Back SUPERIOR GENERAL’S LETTER TO FRIENDS AND BENEFACTORS #73 - October 2008 )
I'm wondering which elements of obedience were present.
What was the 'order'? Was it simply an invitation?
From Rome's perspective, the SSPX does not have a canonical structure within the Catholic, so beyond the Pope, their reporting structure is in the grey area. At that point PSJP2 was in the advanced stages of parkinson's so I have no idea how much he was able to communicate.
While Cardinal Hoyos had authority to negotiate with the SSPX, I don't think he had authority over them.
So if this is the case, obedience is optional.
This does seem to be a key element as things got really interesting when it became obvious that Pope B16 was more interested in proceeding with a canonical regularization. At that point the SSPX seemed to have examined the 'command' in the light of obedience - as it was confirmed as coming from the Pope.
How about immediate or proximate sin?
Well we know that at that precise moment (2001) the FSSP was being forced to compromise by the exact same prelate.
While this had a bearing from the perspective of prudence, from obedience it does not. It simply forces you to examine and dig in deeper to determine if sin is buried somewhere in the immediate or proximate sense.
Not knowing the exact nature of the request, it is hard to determine if obedience was an object or not.
So, from a sphere of authority, it appears that obedience was optional (assumption that due to their lack of a canonical situation, the SSPX is outside of the normal lines of authority).
From a perspective of sinfulness, would it be sinfully imprudent to engage with Rome when they are persecuting an order that arose from the SSPX in 1988?
On this question I am less settled.
However, in the area of prudence, placing pre-conditions was obviously a good idea, especially as the freedom for the Tridentine Mass was earlier discussed by Archbishop Lefebvre.
In addition we find on the SSPX.ca copy of the letter that Rome attempted to impose an ultimatum on the SSPX:
Clarifying the ultimatum from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. In 2007 the traditional Mass is freed for all priests, but before the decree of excommunication is withdrawn, Cardinal Hoyos wants to impose conditions upon us. We launch a new Rosary Crusade to obtain the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication. (Source: SSPX.ca)
Well, at least we know have that played out.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment