vow of obedience -- why is it so absolute, and what if it's abused?

[PazzoGrande]

Why is there so much emphasis on priests and religious being obedient to their superiors?

I respect the notion of obeying your boss, but your boss could very well be wrong. For example, the Catholic Archbishop Milingo had priests under him when he was serving his archdiocese. But I wouldn't be surprised if the man put unfit obligations on his priests (he joined a cult, married a woman he never met, then consecrated more bishops without permission). Yet, when he was still in office, his priests were obligated to obey his orders.

I think it's wrong to disobey when you took the vow of obedience, so it's part of your job. For example I think John Corapi did a horrendous thing when he refused to obey orders even if he really were innocent of the accusations.

Around the same time the Corapi thing happened, and I was reading a bio of Padre Pio; he was suspected of faking the stigmata but he restricted his ministry, obeying his superiors' orders -- something that caused him emotional pain to add to the physical pain of the stigmata.

So, I don't question your obligation to obey when you took the vow to do so. What I am wondering about is, why is it so absolute, because it clearly can be abused? Rome is always there to save the day, but that isn't fool-proof. I read that monks obey their superiors orders as if they are orders from God. Yet in the Diary of Saint Faustina, there is a case where Faustina was given advice by a priest and Jesus said the advice was wrong (the priest said the Divine Mercy Image was meant to be painted in her heart rather than on canvas as an actual painting). Then again, there were places there too where Jesus says He would speak to her through her superiors. So it kind of goes both ways -- one superior might be right, another might be wrong.

I think Americans are trained to question authority, as that is the basis for the United States being founded and the point of a democracy. Sure Americans are obliged to obey the law, but the laws are also questioned and brought before the Supreme Court to be struck down. Complete, unquestioning obedience is an alien notion, unless if you're in the military. (Saint Katharine Drexel believed that even secular laws were laws from God -- that's something I don't understand and can't find myself agreeing with.)

That's unfortunate because then Americans tend to assume the Pope would be a dictator, which isn't true, and the Pope rarely and carefully enforces authority. And the obligation to obey just made people's understanding of the sexual abuse scandals more murky and overly presumptive of corruption and coverups.

I'm sure there is higher wisdom here than what I currently understand, so any new insights would be greatly appreciated.

[Church Militant]

Think of it this way....what good is a vow if one can set it aside when one feels like it?

Probably the best example of obedience is St. Francis of Assisi, who told his friars that the only time they could disobey was if they were ordered to do something sinful. Aside from that; You obey your superiors and the Pope right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree. That requires humility, and isn't something that modern Western Catholics are very good at...especially here in the U.S.

It requires a high level of trust in Our Lord to handle His Church.

[midori_]

"Children, obey your parents" can be abused, too. What if I teach my kids to shoplift? To hate? To bully?

Ultimately, the onus will be on me for abusing my power over a subordinate. Whether that's my power over a child, my power over those who work under me, or a bishop's power over his flock, you still ultimately have a responsibility to properly manage what you've been given in life, and a responsibility to account for your failures. Whether they're innocent failures--- suppressing the works of a great saint out of misinformation or misunderstanding--- or deliberate failures--- deliberately abusing power and mismanaging things--- is up to God to determine.

Everyone has someone they're subordinate to. It's up to us to fulfill our roles, whatever they are--- to be good subordinates to those above us, to be good managers to those beneath us. Regarding a religious' vow of obedience:

Can. 601 The evangelical counsel of obedience, undertaken in the spirit of faith and love in the following of Christ, who was obedient even unto death, obliges submission of one's will to lawful Superiors, who act in the place of God when they give commands that are in accordance with each institute's own constitutions.

[Joe 5859]

I think the above responses are great.

The question I would add is "What is the alternative?" What if priests did not make a promise/vow of obedience (religious priests make vows, diocesan priests make promises)?

The bishop would turn into a mere figurehead with no power to get his priests to do anything.

• "I want you to move from this parish to another one." "Nope, and you can't make me."
• "You cannot attempt to consecrate pizza and beer at Mass." "Nope, and you can't make me."
• "You must stop teaching that abortion, homosexual activity, cloning, in vitro fertilization, etc. are morally okay." "Nope, and you can't make me."

It would be chaos.

Are some bishops a bit wacky and ask their priests to do unreasonable things? Certainly. But the Church has a process in place (outlined in Canon Law) for priests to raise grievances to those further up the hierarchical ladder.

CM is absolutely right about our moder-day aversion to humility. We all want to think we know it all (after all, we can find the answers to all of life's questions ourselves with a little help from Google ). It is a very difficult virtue to put into practice for most of us. Which is why I think that it needs even more emphasis now.

[starsmurf]

I actually took two one-year vows of obedience as part of my vocation discernment. I found it a positive thing. Taking the vow is a sign of trust in God, not the superior to whom you make the vow. It is like the vows made in marriage. You promise to marry that person and be faithful to them "for better or worse". Yes, there are times that one partner in the marriage does not live up to that vow, and there are times that the superiors to whom religious and priests vow obedience do not listen to the will of God and pass it on to those they are supposed to lead. However, the few negative cases do not mean that the vows are worthless and should not be taken.

I had a very positive experience of obedience. Sometimes I was "ordered" to do something I didn't really want to do, like read a certain book or pray for a certain length of time. I always found afterwards that it had actually been a good idea, and that obedience was necessary to get me through the difficult times and keep me going. I nearly died when my superior ordered me to give up chocolate for Lent! I did feel a great joy at Easter though (and not just because I could get stuck into the chocolate stash she sent me!). It showed that, under obedience, you can do things that you would never think you could do or would give up halfway through.

I found that the two years I was able to take these private vows (I also vowed celibacy and poverty as fitting to my state of life) were times of great spiritual growth. It wasn't always easy, but neither is marriage. I do think that both sets of vows are worth the risks and bring great rewards.

God bless.

[JReducation]

Let’s take this in small pieces..

Obedience is the greatest act of love. Sin enters the world through disobedience and mans is redeemed through obedience. Christ did not complain, analyze or discern whether the Roman and Jewish leadership were right or wrong. He discerned that this was the will of his Father and he submitted to them, even though they were in error and what they were doing was a sin.

So too the religious and the diocesan priest submits to the authority above him, not because he’s right, but because it’s what Christ did. We vow to obey as Christ obeyed. Obedience is an act of faith, hope and love. It is the highest expression of love for God and man. St. Bernard made it very clear that unless it is evident that something is a sin or will lead to sin, one must obey, even if the command is foolish. The key word is “evident”. The spiritual masters did not tolerate speculation. You cannot disobey because you believe that this may lead people to sin. Whenever there is a “may” in a sentence, there is also a “may not”. In other words, it’s not evident. The other criteria that St. Benedict adds is that evidence is determined by the person in authority, not the person being commanded. The Church decides what is sin and what leads to sin, not the individual.

Let’s take the next step. The difference between a promise and a vow of obedience.

Diocesan priests promise to obey their bishop. The promise has parameters. They must obey him in all matters related to priestly ministry and to diocesan policies.

Religious: priests, bothers, sisters and nuns make a vow of obedience. This has no parameters. We must obey our superiors according to the rights given to him/her in the rule and the constitutions of the religious community. In the Benedictine Rule, St. Benedict applies to the abbot the words of Christ. “He who hears you hears me.” Therefore, when the abbot speaks, it is Christ speaking. If the abbot commands sin, it is not Christ speaking. It’s that simple. This became the model for every religious community that followed. Francis commands that when the superior commands you act like a corpse and allow yourself to be thrown around at his will and pleasure and to enforce it further, he curses anyone who disobeys to spend eternity in hell. There is no negotiating. For example, I can’t go out for air unless I have permission. I can’t buy a toothbrush without permission. I can’t visit my family, without permission. I can’t go to mass in any church that I like without permission. Some superiors just give a blanket permission, so that you don’t have to keep asking. Others require that you ask each time. That is his or her right. In justice, we owe him that respect.

To the final point, is the pope a dictator. It all depends on how you define a dictator. The pope is not bound by Church Law. The Fathers of the Church clarified once and for all that the pope is the Living Law. His is above all temporal, civil and ecclesial law. He makes all Church law. He can dispense with any law. He can apply it as he sees fit. All appeals ultimately end up on his desk. He has the authority to refuse to hear an appeal, leaving you with the ruling of a lower authority. He can overturn any ruling. He has total authority over all church property and assets. He can enter and leave any diocese in any of the 23 Churches without permission. He has not need to get faculties to function in any diocese or church. He cannot be denied the right to reign unless he becomes insane and that has to be proven. He does not resign to anyone. If he wants to resign, he puts it in writing and walks away from his post. No one can accept the resignation, because there is no one on earth who is above him. The Chair simply become vacant. He can also abolish every office in the Church and become the sole executive. The only thing that he cannot do is unordain. Bishops, priests and deacons remain ordained, but they hold no office. The pope can claim them all to himself. That’s probably not a wise thing to do, because the Church is too big. He answers to no civil authority on earth, not because he is the head of a sovereign state, but because he is the Vicar of Christ. Even if he’s thrown in jail for stealing an apple, those who do so can forfeit their soul. No one has the right over the Vicar other than the boss.

I think that it’s high time that we Americans learn that our constitutional system has boundaries and that we cannot Americanize the Church. It is the job of the Church to be who she is, not what we want her to be so that we can feel comfortable. That would create chaos since there are so many cultures that belong to the Church.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

[JReducation]

This statute from the admonitions of St. Francis may help.

The Lord says in the Gospel: he "that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be" a "disciple " and "he that will save his life, shall lose it." That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior's] will—is true obedience.

And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the work enjoined by the superior. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one's neighbor.

St. Benedict, who is the Theologian of Obedience says the following

But this very obedience
will be acceptable to God and pleasing to all
only if what is commanded is done
without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling, or objection.
For the obedience given to Superiors is given to God,
since He Himself has said,
"He who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16).

The great spiritual fathers and masters make it very clear. The only question you can ask is whether something IS a sin. You can't speculate that sometthing may be, can lead to. If you have certitude that an evil will result, then it woiuld be a sin to obey. If you think or believe that an evil will result, that is speculation and there is no reason to disobey.

As you can see in the Franciscan rule, Francis goes as far as saying that even if you know that authority is mistaken, simply sacrifice yourself and obey.

St. Gregory the Great said

“Obedience, is rightly placed before all other sacrifices, for in offering a victim as sacrifice, one offers a life that is not one’s own; but when one obeys one is immolating one’s own will.”

St. Thomas Aquinas separates sin from obedience. You don't obey sin, but you do obey authority.

Obedience unites us so closely to God that in a way transforms us into Him, so that we have no other will but His. If obedience is lacking, even prayer cannot be pleasing to God.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux said that something must be EVIDENTLY contrary to God's law. Again, the Cistercian tradition does not tolerate speculation or predictions.

The obedience which we render to a superior is paid to God, Who says, ‘He that hears you hears Me;’ so that whatever he who holds the place of God commands, supposing it is not evidently contrary to God's law, is to be received by us as if it came from God Himself; for it is the same thing to know His Will, either from His Own, from an Angel's, or from a man's mouth.

If you look at every spiritual master, every founder and every doctor, they all exult obedience as the highest form of charity.

I'm not pulling this out of my hat.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

[puzzleannie]

Originally Posted by PazzoGrande

Why is there so much emphasis on priests and religious being obedient to their superiors?

.

Obedience is and remains foundational to the virtue of humility, without which no advance in holiness is possible. Every rule of every religious order contains this as a promise or vow in some form for that reason. It is impossible for any Christian to advance in virtue without obedience, beginning with that owed to parents, then to other legitimate superiors, and ultimately to God and to the Church which he founded to guide those on earth to sanctity. It is a commandment of the decalogue, secondary only to those commandments governing our relationship with God.

[jochoa]

Originally Posted by PazzoGrande

Why is there so much emphasis on priests and religious being obedient to their superiors?

First, I encourage you to ponder on how is Obedience of Patience and Kindness (Love)?
I think:
One concept that may help grasp the justification of "blind" obedience is to consider the responsibilities of earthly authorities.
One of the responsibilities is accepting the just punishments for the wrongdoings committed by those, whom the authority willfully disobeys God's Word and leads astray.

Simply stated, if a parent uses a child to commit a crime for personal gain, and the child unknowingly commits the crime, God will have Perfect Mercy on the child, and God will fulfill Just Punishment on the parent.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by jochoa

First, I encourage you to ponder on how is Obedience of Patience and Kindness (Love)?
I think:
One concept that may help grasp the justification of "blind" obedience is to consider the responsibilities of earthly authorities.
One of the responsibilities is accepting the just punishments for the wrongdoings committed by those, whom the authority willfully disobeys God's Word and leads astray.

Simply stated, if a parent uses a child to commit a crime for personal gain, and the child unknowingly commits the crime, God will have Perfect Mercy on the child, and God will fulfill Just Punishment on the parent.

I think the term "blind obedience" make lay people uncomfortable. Whereas, it does not bother religious at all. We understand exactly what it means.

It means that you ask one simple question. "Is this an evident sin?"

Once you answer, "No." Then you blindly entrust yourself to your superior and to the mercy of God..

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

[jochoa]

Originally Posted by JReducation

I think the term "blind obedience" make lay people uncomfortable. Whereas, it does not bother religious at all. We understand exactly what it means.

It means that you ask one simple question. "Is this an evident sin?"

Once you answer, "No." Then you blindly entrust yourself to your superior and to the mercy of God..

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you very much for sharing the graceful method!