The 'Resistance' and Catholic Obedience (Updated)

+

JMJ

It would appear that my articles on obedience have been noticed by some members of the 'resistance' and prompted a reply  by Fr. Edward MacDonald, or one of his followers. It was posted on a resistance blog ... here's some key excerpts:

1. "The Catholic principle is laid out as follows:
2. The person issuing the command is in a position of authority over the inferior
3. The command is within the scope of the superior's authority
4. The command does not require the inferior to sin, either in the immediate or proximate case.
5. If the above conditions are met then the person has an obligation to obey. Disobedience in this case is sinful.
6. Whereas if #3 is lacking (sinful command) then the person has an obligation to disobey
7. Whereas if #1 or #2 is lacking the person practice greater virtue in obeying a command that is not obligatory.

This is from a different article rather than the full series on St. Thomas.  I've added a link at the end of this post.

The problem with Tradicat's understanding with Aquinas' view of 'perfect' obedience is he did not clarify nor expound by what he meant 'the superior requiring the inferior to sin' viz. No. 3 of the above quote. My question then would be, if a boss in a company, for example, asked his female staff after work to have some drinks with him in his place, would it fall under his notion of "perfect obedience" for the female staff to comply since the command is not evil and sinful per se? Another question, if an evil yet lawful superior ordered his inferior not to consecrate some individuals as bishops, would it be "obligatory obedience" for the bishop to obey since the command is not evil and sinful per se?

First thought: I shouldn't have to explain what it would mean to sin ... I assumed that Catholics would understand the concept.  Anyway I did answer that question on this article: here.

As my American friends would say: "Duh!"

I believe herein lies the fissure of his critique of the 'Resistance'. In my example above, while it is true that the female staff may disobey his boss' advances without committing sin on the grounds that his authority ends after work and those things unrelated to the job. It may not be classified as "perfect obedience" but she has obeyed her boss in everything within his authority ("obligatory obedience"). But the same cannot be said with the bishop who was directed by his superior viz. the Pope (i.e. "St." John Paul II) who lawfully ordered Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate certain individuals as bishops - since the Supreme Pontiff has the full authority to command an Archbishop not to consecrate anyone. Such a command is not intrinsically evil? Not consecrating bishops by itself is not bad! Hence, using Tradicat's logic here will force us to concede that Archbishop Lefebvre "committed" mortal sin when he disobeyed the Pope! I am not sure if the said blogger would want to go down that path (since he keeps claiming that he is 'in line' with the saintly Archbishop).

Wow, haven't seen this argument for a while.  Actually, they need to read the full article series because I did respond to this objection:

That the Archbishop believed it would have been a dereliction of duty to not provide for the continuance of the Society is clear. So subjectively, he would have been obligated to disobey. Now is there an objective basis for this conclusion? Episcopal Duty: Archbishop Lefebvre had a duty, as a bishop, "preserving the true faith and a high moral tone among the people" (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia). In 1988, what were the objective conditions in the Church?

• A Pope promoting syncretism (ie: Assisi),
• A curial response to the Archbishop's Dubia, which (if memory serves) didn't respond to the questions but offered answers to what the curia thought he was asking.
• A general orientation against what the Church has always taught in both doctrine / dogma and liturgy.
• Reliance upon a non-SSPX bishop for ordinations, confirmations etc, who was hostile to everything the SSPX represented.
• The faithful who relied upon the congregation (SSPX) to provide a refuge from the heresy running amok and unchecked within the Catholic Church.
• Ordaining one bishop would leave a single point of failure for the SSPX.
• His failing health.

[Update: On reading this I realised that I forgot to include the two compromises that had been asked after signing the protocol of 1988.  Specifically, welcoming the Novus Ordo Missae in St. Nicholas de Chardonnet which represented a compromise.  I will be posting some additional records from the SSPX shortly.] 

Objectively, if the Archbishop died without leaving bishops to provide the sacraments reliant upon the episcopal character, then he would have neglected his duty as a Catholic Bishop. Why? Among other things, those people who rely upon the SSPX for the sacraments etc would have been forced to rely upon the local ordinaries - who were one of the factors creating the crisis to begin with!  

This would be a sin.

I don't think anyone would believe things have gotten better since 1988.

Based on this analysis (cursory as it may be), the Archbishop did the right thing by disobeying Pope St. John Paul II. The Pope was negligent in his duty and that meant that the Archbishop had to choose between a Pope and God.

He chose well.

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_26.html

So, instead of proving me incorrect or mistaken, the 'resistance' just keeps on proving my point, they really are grasping at straws in order to justify their position.  So ... just who is following the Catholic Truth?  Who is following the path of Archbishop Lefebvre?

P^3

References Cited by 'Resistance'

http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/05/obedience-maligned-and-misunderstood.html

http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2016/11/true-obedience-mark-of-faithful_2.html

Too bad they didn't reference the whole series where I did a deep dive into St. Thomas' teaching on obedience:

Series: Breaking Down St. Thomas' Teaching on Obedience