I've been a traditionalist for over two decades now. I have learned a lot in that time. Yet I have had one particular difficulty I want to confront today: that regarding obedience, or rather the vibe of obedience.
Obedience is something precious to the Catholic conscience. Christ praises the obedience of the centurion, who understands the importance (and responsibility) of command. The scriptures praise the obedience of children, want us to do likewise, and promise damnation for those who would abuse that power. For the Catholic, the ultimate virtue (in popular discourse) is to be like Christ, obedient unto death to His Fathers command.
Given the importance of obedience, it is not surprising that a lot of debate occurs on its extent, especially for those of us in the more traditionalist orbit of things. I remember vividly a discussion with a writer at the liberal Catholic blog Where Peter Is who went on a rather paranoid rant about how I, Kevin Tierney, and my brethren were very effective at leading a widespread rebellion against the pope and the Bishop in the Detroit area, since the Detroit area is a place where traditionalism flourishes. We traditionalists in Detroit (even though I have been out of that game for years since I moved to Livingston County) were apparently leading a massive disobedience to legitimate authority.
My response (outside of laughter and yes, a bit of demeaning and mockery of the individual) was that he clearly lives in a world detached from reality, as the Detroit traditionalist scene was the perfect example of a scene that was traditionalism that operated within episcopal oversight. There are few places w Yet what matters to that writer (as everyone at WPI) was not truth, but the cause. The cause requires them to believe that traditionalists are bad, ergo just look for something to tar them with. What better charge than that of "disobedience?"
Yet in light of Traditionis Custodes, "obedience" is all the rage again. Those who are critical of it need to act with "humble obedience to the Pope." What does that humble obedience entail? Nobody ever says, just that you have to be obedient. We Catholics know that in order for something to be obeyed, it has to meet certain criteria, and I'd like to unpack them.
- A lawful command
- Issued by a lawful superior
- Within the domain of that superior.
A Lawful Command
This seems simple, the command has to be something that isn't inherently sinful. A superior, even if he's a pope, can't command someone to sin. While that is pretty universally understood, the less understood part is the whole command part. Simply put, one does not obey vibes, sentiments or feelings. Furthermore, when it comes to commands, obedience is always understood in a narrow sense, not in the broadest sense possible. That's not religion, that's a cult.
In the situation of Traditionis Custodes, there is precious little that the laity must be "obedient" to. Priests do have to obey their bishop regarding the celebration of the Latin Mass. They had to obey their Bishop even in Summorum Pontificum. Yet the laity are under no such obedience. To the extent they have to obey anyone here, it is not Rome's desires, but that of the local bishop. So if one wants to say to the Bishop that TC is a really bad idea that damages the unity of the Church, and for those reasons it shouldn't be implemented? That's something well within their rights, and the Bishop's discretion. This was precisely the approach traditionalists took, and a good majority of the bishops heeded. The end result was the Pope begging people to please implement his decree now that outright suppression of the TLM has been explicitly abandoned.
The Pope clearly wanted to suppress the Latin Mass. Yet he didn't actually do it, thinking that his desire would be sufficient. It's not. That's not disobedience, that's spirited participation in the life of the Church.
Issued by a Lawful Superior Within His Domain
This also seems simple. The Pope is the lawful superior of every Catholic on earth. Yet is it that simple? And does that extend to those in his inner circle? This is not an academic exercise. The Congregation for Divine Worship, in a response to questions about Traditionis Custodes, put forth rules that, if taken seriously, would have forbidden Catholics from gathering in parish halls after Mass where a Latin Mass was celebrated, and the Prefect reserved to himself alone the authority to tell individual churches what Mass times they were allowed to print in their parish bulletin.
Is Arthur Roche a lawful superior of these individuals? Certainly not. He certainly has authority on complex matters of liturgical law, and the doctrinal questions that surround the Eucharistic sacrifice. Yet on the question of what to put in parish bulletins, or when Catholics are allowed to gather for coffee, he has zero authority. That would be the authority of the local Bishop. Not surprisingly, there have been few if any instances of local Bishops barring the advertising of the Latin Mass, or of regulating parish socials for those who worship at the Latin Mass. So even if a command is otherwise lawful, one need not heed it if the individual ordering it has clearly overstepped his authority.
Why Obedience When it Doesn't Apply
This one is a bit more speculative, but I think its something we should talk about. When we think of saints, we overwhelmingly think of priests, bishops, and religious. When we read the great Spiritual works such as The Imitation of Christ, we read the book of a religious, written for religious. In that world, obedience to superiors is more than just an academic exercise. They are part of a hierarchal command structure, where questions of obedience are a frequent if not daily occurrence. Yet since these are the great classics, it is assumed that this is not only something every Catholic can learn from (true enough), but that their circumstances must also be ours.
The laity are not that. When one reads books specifically written for the laity (such as Introduction to the Devout Life & The Spiritual Combat), one finds mention of obedience only very briefly, and it involves less esoteric aligning yourself with Rome's idea of what would be nice, and more of trying to follow your confessor or spiritual director even when it is tough and disagreeable, so long as it is possible. That doesn't make what the former said "wrong", just that one needs to consider the audience, and understand that while one can learn from them, there is a risk in misinterpreting their scope.
The hard fact is that obedience rarely plays a substantial role in the life of most Catholics. Are you going to Mass somewhere that satisfies a Sunday obligation? Are you sincere in your desire to be united to the Catholic Church? Do you make a good faith effort to understand bad decisions by leaders in the best light possible, even if that light is still pretty dark? Congratulations, you are practicing obedience. If not, then yes, we should have a sincere talk about obedience, but for what it is, what it is not. Let those who continue to talk about obedience as a vibe continue to talk, and be ignored just like the idiot blogger I ignored.
