Whenever my conversation descends into 'politics,' I like to steer it back to theology. I would much rather being talking about God and the unchangeable things of God than about messy human relations. Such a conversation with my students might go something like follows, Socratic style.
Student: If Pope Francis said X, I would 'disobey' him.
Mentor: You would disobey him? Isn't disobedience a sin?
Student: Well, he has no right to tell me to do X.
Mentor: No right? Hmm. Like the person on the street has no right to tell you to do something? ...And if you ignore them that is certainly not disobedience!
Student: Exactly.
Mentor: So do you mean to say it is not disobedience because Francis is not the real Pope and so he does not have authority over you?
Student: No, no! I mean he has authority - he is Pope - but he can't say that.
Mentor: I see. So even though one must obey authority, it's only about something within that person's sphere of authority. So are you saying that X is not in the Pope's sphere of authority because he is not speaking about faith and morals? Like if he told you what time to brush your teeth.
Student: Well, no, actually X is about faith and morals, so I guess it is in his sphere, but how do I even know he was speaking from authority? It was just off-the-cuff!
Mentor: Ah, that makes sense. So we only have to obey a person with authority when they are within their sphere and also are actually giving a legitimate command.
Hmm. I wonder how that would work if a person with authority told us do something sinful, I mean that is against God's command?!
Student: Well, obviously it isn't a legitimate command if it's a sin.
Mentor: Yes, that seems true, and then it would contradict a higher authority. So let's lay this out on the board. Obedience is 1) to an authority 2) that gives a command 3) within his own sphere of authority 4) subject to all higher authorities.
Does that seem right?
Student: Yes. That's exactly what I was saying!
Mentor: Now I understand. In that case, you would not be 'disobeying' the Pope at all (which would be a sin.) In fact on the contrary, to comply and do X would actually be the disobedient act, because you would be disobeying a higher authority!
So how about we say "I would not comply" instead of "I would disobey"?
Student: OK. "I would not comply."
Mentor: Noncompliance seems like an important factor in the virtue of obedience, doesn't it?!
I wonder if there is more to being a 'command.' I mean, like you were saying, is it a command for someone to say something off-the-cuff?
Student: I don't think that's a command. How can a person obey something when they don't even know if it's actually expected? I'd go crazy trying to figure out every idle comment of my parents.
Mentor: Right, I would think you'd have to know that the intention of the person is to command. That's part of laws being 'promulgated.' So if something is in writing is that enough?
Student: Yeah, if the Pope put it in writing, it would clearly be a command.
Mentor: And I think that it would have to be an 'authoritative' document, so that his intention was clear.
So then, what if what he wrote was contrary to another Pope's authoritative document? Which one would be binding, do you think?
Student: Hmm. That's a good question! Can that even happen?!
Mentor: Well, what if it's your parents and one contradicts another?
Student: I tell them what the other one said, and then they will tell me if what they are saying nullifies what the other one said. Then I would have to do it. Or maybe do both, if it didn't nullify the other one's command.
Mentor: Yes, sometimes a Pope will do that in a document. He will abrogate the previous law. Other times, he says, "Notwithstanding other laws to the contrary," which means, "not standing against" those laws, in which case both laws apply.
Another thing is that the Pope is a living breathing person, and so bishops can ask him what he meant and have it clarified. Or sometimes bishops just obey the spirit of the law and do what they judge is the right thing, especially if the document is confusing and ambiguous. After all, bishops are successors of the Apostles, and they have authority in their own dioceses... but subject to the Pope, who is the vicar of Christ.
Student: I can see why we need to have bishops and a Pope!
Mentor: So now I'm wondering if we hit all the bases on this question. Should we look and see what St. Thomas says about obedience?
Student: Sure!
Here's where I will pull out the Summa and we look at the relevant articles together. But let's leave those for another post.
ความคิดเห็น