On Obedience and Confusion

Happy sixth day of Christmas! Yesterday was the memorial of the splendid Saint Thomas Becket. Having the birth name “Thomas”, I take Becket and Aquinas as patrons, and I normally write something about the saint here each year.

Yesterday snuck up on me. In addition to working, I attended an early Mass at Saint Joseph, walked home, and then there was the unexpected visit by some house-hunting friends. As Saint Benedict says in his Holy Rule, “let all guests who arrive be received as Christ” (RB 53). So Francine my beautiful bride laid out an early dinner and feasting and merriment ensued.

In the evening, though, when I might have written something, I couldn’t find anything to say about the saint that I haven’t already said.

And then, this morning, as I was reading today’s chapter of the Holy Rule, I happened to glance at yesterday’s chapter, and it hit me.

So I beg your indulgence in posting this a day late. I also beg your indulgence in the length of these musings.

Obedience in the Holy Rule

Yesterday’s reading from the Holy Rule of Saint Benedict was the second chapter from the end, Chapter 71, which begins:

The brethren must render the service of obedience not only to the Abbot, but they must thus also obey one another, knowing that they shall go to God by this path of obedience.

This is not the first time that the Rule talks about obedience, of course. No, Saint Benedict starts right in the very first sentence of the prologue, when he says,

Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him from whom by the sloth of disobedience thou hast gone away.

And of course, there’s that famous chapter 68, titled “If a Brother Is Commanded to Do Impossible Things”. Short answer: try to do it anyway.

His most pointed discussion of obedience, however, is just before the start of the sequence of chapters where he lays out the twelve degrees (or steps) of humility. Humility, of course, is the virtue that stands against the cardinal sin of pride. Pride is not just one of the seven deadly sins, it is as Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us, “the beginning of all sins”¹, for it is the sin of Satan himself, and also the subsequent sin of Adam and Eve.

Saint Benedict tells us in chapter 5 of the Holy Rule,

The first degree of humility is obedience without delay. This becometh those who, on account of the holy subjection which they have promised, or of the fear of hell, or the glory of life everlasting, hold nothing dearer than Christ. As soon as anything hath been commanded by the Superior they permit no delay in the execution, as if the matter had been commanded by God Himself. Of these the Lord saith: “At the hearing of the ear he hath obeyed Me” (Ps 17[18]:45). And again He saith to the teachers: “He that heareth you heareth Me” (Lk 10:16).

And then again, two chapters later,

The first degree of humility, then, is that a man always have the fear of God before his eyes (cf. Ps 35[36]:2), shunning all forgetfulness and that he be ever mindful of all that God hath commanded, that he always considereth in his mind how those who despise God will burn in hell for their sins, and that life everlasting is prepared for those who fear God. And whilst he guardeth himself evermore against sin and vices of thought, word, deed, and self-will, let him also hasten to cut off the desires of the flesh.

I hasten to point out that “fear of the Lord” does not mean the “servile” or dread fear of punishment, but rather a “filial” fear of disappointing a loving Father².

Saint Benedict equates obedience with the fear of the Lord.

In our fear of disappointing our Father, we meekly obey His commandments and teachings. Why? Because Dad knows what’s best for us. We thrive when we live the life He has set out for us.

The Greatest Freedom

When I was in college, I was very much anti-Catholic. I found the whole of the faith absurd and the teachings of the Church (as I knew them) to be directly opposed to logic and common sense.

As what I considered the ultimate example of Catholicism’s Orwellian-level disconnect from reality, I obtained a used book titled Obedience – the Greatest Freedom. The person who gifted it had inscribed on the flyleaf “as history not religion”. I would show off this book whenever I wanted to prove my point.

I never actually read the book.

Had I done so, I would have discovered Saint Benedict’s argument. This was a book (published in the year I was born) written for those in religious orders.

I would have discovered a coherent, logical, and breathtakingly spiritual view of the world, perhaps summed up best in this book by Very Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S., D.D., who wrote,

Nothing is painful to him who loves, because he thinks not of the suffering undergone, but of the person for whose sake he suffers. Now, if we see Our Lord in the person of him who commands, how can we fail to offer with our whole heart the trifling sacrifice that He demands, who died a Victim of Obedience for our sake.

I would also have discovered a nuanced and thorough discussion on all the facets of obedience, including obedience to lawful authority, which by a long route brings us back to Saint Thomas Becket.

The Disobedience of Saint Thomas Becket

So, I’ve told the story of the saint’s martyrdom before, but let’s step back a moment to some of the threads that wove that tapestry.

Thomas was Chancellor of the Kingdom of England, and later Archbishop of Canterbury. He owed obedience to two earthly authorities, to the Pope and to the King.

This was further complicated by the fact that King Henry was his good friend – and indeed had appointed him Chancellor and arranged to him to be made Archbishop.

Nevertheless, Thomas as Archbishop upheld the rights of the Church against his King.

He renounced the anti-Church Constitutions of Clarendon. He fought for the rights of his priests, for the lands of the church, and for the traditional rights of the Church (and especially the Pope) in England.

In doing so, he disobeyed his King, who was determined to bring the Church to heel. It was, in fact, the reason he had secured his friend Thomas for the position in the first place.

Now, Catholic theology and common sense argue that while obedience to lawful authority is obligatory, obedience to unlawful authority may be gravely wrong.

There are, then, limits to set to the exercise of authority. It is evident that it is neither obligatory nor permissible, to obey a superior who would give a command manifestly opposed to divine or ecclesiastical laws. In this case we should have to repeat the words of St. Peter: “We ought to obey God, rather than man” (Acts 5:29) – words that proclaim and vindicate Christian liberty against all tyranny.

(Tanquerey, quoted in Obedience – the Greatest Freedom, 1966, p. 243)

There is obviously a great deal of discernment that must go on here, for obedience – even if should seem impossible – should be our first impulse.

In imitation of Christ, Thomas obeyed God rather than Man, and he paid the price with his life. It is the very reason we honour him as a martyr. It is what we are all called to do, if necessary.

But what does one do when lawful authority does not itself issue an unlawful command, but rather issues a vague command and then allows its interpretation in a way that is manifestly unlawful?

The Controversial Footnote of Amoris Lætitia

A recent document by Pope Francis has Bishops and Cardinals and Canon Lawyers and Priests and other folk in a bit of a tizzy.

Epic Pew does a good job of getting at the heart of the controversy, which essentially involves a vaguely worded footnote in Chapter 8.

Who knew footnotes were so dangerous?

There has been concern over the Pope’s apparent refusal to clarify what is meant is the 8th chapter of Amoris Laetitia. In September, a leaked letter Pope Francis sent to the bishops of Argentina praising their document on applying Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. When some cardinals became concerned with this apparent endorsement of admitting to Holy Communion some divorced and remarried Catholics who are not abstaining from sexual relations, four of the concerned cardinals presented Pope Francis with a dubia containing five straight-up yes or no questions on the controversial eight chapter.

To cut a long, dreary story short, the Pope has thus far refused to answer the questions, so the Cardinals made the questions public³.

There’s nothing groundbreaking or earth-shattering in the questions – nor, despite the hand-wringing of some in the Catholic media, is there anything wrong with the Cardinals asking these questions. It is in fact their right and their duty to do so.

Some Bishops have chosen to interpret Amoris Lætitia in a way consistent with previous magisterial teaching and tradition – Archbishop Sample of Portland, for instance.

Some have chosen to interpret it as a wholly new teaching, ignoring two thousand years of Catholic teaching and the Catechism⁴ and the words of Christ Himself⁵ – Cardinal Kasper being the chief among these.

Regardless of the positions being staked out throughout the Church, I think it’s interesting where folks think their obedience lays.

Both sides of this argument say they are obeying the Pope, but the statement of the Pope is itself what is confusing.

Ultimately, of course, our obedience is to Christ and to His commandments and to the Church His holy spouse. They cannot be in disagreement or confusion, even though the mere men of the Church may themselves disagree or walk in confusion.

The Church has lived through moments of confusion – and even the worse crises of schism and heresy – before. There is nothing new under the sun. But we are formed in our love and obedience by the twin pillars of Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition and, as Chesterton reminds us,

Whatever the men of the Church say, whether it be Truth or error, the whole of the Church through the ages dwells in the Truth of Christ.

Conclusion

So be not afraid! Dwell simply in the love of God and obedience to Him and to His Church. Cast confusion aside and live in the serene confidence that Christ has already won the war against sin and death.

Truth is never confused.

The prelates and theologians will eventually come around to the Eternal Truth – that is the very definition of the Magisterium – and if we have sat in humility and obedience, we may find that through God’s grace we have already been awaiting them there.

Saint Thomas Becket, pray for us.

Previous articles on Saint Thomas Becket:

2015: On Pilgrimage
(A deeper look into pilgrimages and why we do them)

2014: A Happy Death
(Thoughts on the saint’s martyrdom and the grace of a happy death)

2012: Becket and Chaucer
(A meditation on pilgrimage)

2011: Saint Thomas Becket
(G.K. Chesterton on Becket’s martyrdom)

2010: Becket
(Becket, More, and Henry VIII (that jerk))

2009: Saint Thomas Becket
(Becket’s martrydom, an eyewitness account)

Please pray for me and all pilgrims that walk upon the earth.

O God, who gave the Martyr Saint Thomas Becket
the courage to give up his life for the sake of justice,
grant, through his intercession,
that, renouncing our life
for the sake of Christ in this world,
we may find it in heaven.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

1. Summa Theologica, IIa-IIæ, Q. 162.
2. Summa Theologica, IIa-IIæ, Q. 19
3. cf. Matthew 18:15-17.
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.
5. Matthew 19:5-10, Mark 10:2-12