Mortality of Disobedience?

[Penitant]

What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying the Holy See?

In short, is it a mortal sin to do what you know is against Canon Law?

Thank you,
Penitant

 

[Joe_Stong]

not enough info to make a judgment as per the 3 elements of all judgment rule: act, intent & CIRCUMSTANCES.

For example. Suppose the Holy See calls people to fast for peace (as JP2 did with respect to Iraq). Now if you forgot because it wasn’t really broadcast by the MSM and virtually all your news of the world comes from secular channels, it wasn’t a big deal.

If you skipped Sunday mass because you just didn’t feel like it, that’s sinful but nothing that a good confession couldn’t heal.

If you had an abortion - or drove your girlfriend to the clinic, dragged her inside, and vociferiously insisted she kill your unborn child… all while knowing full well it’s wrong, then that’s a serious problem that needs serious attention.

Some problems (OK, “most”) seem to arise from sexual issues though: Catholics on the pill even though they’ve heard through the grape vine (almost certainly NOT from the pulpit EVER) that the Church actually teaches contraception to be immoral.

Now this is a huge problem for alot of people because their entire world view is mostly secular and the secular world has totally accepted contraception as a wonderful and totally OK blessing - no downside whatsoever. Going to Church is more a cultural habit than anything else - such that if the question is a change of lifestyle vs. status quo, the sheer force of habit and virtual blackout of Catholic teaching from the pulpit seems to push people towards cognative dissonance: knowing it’s wrong, but doing it anyway because “everyone ELSE is doing it” and some “hip” theologians or nuns claim it’s OK (just because).

But the thing is…your conscience is not your WILL. It’s the voice of reason; once you know something is wrong, it’s wrong. You might not like the conclusion, but an honest person follows the truth to its ultimate conclusion - even if this means martyrdom, out of love for the truth and He who IS TRUTH.

You think Thomas Moore wouldn’t have lept for joy to sign off on Henry VIII’s wedding? To keep his job and head? To live in peace and retire in peace? Yet he knew Henry was committing adultery and so against the entire country, the talking heads, all the “experts” virtually all the bishops and priests - he stood his ground and said “no”. He lost his head for it but he saved his soul.

 

[1ke]

What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying the Holy See?

It depends on what it is you disobey. Mortal sin requires grave matter.

In short, is it a mortal sin to do what you know is against Canon Law?

It is wrong, and if done with full knowledge and free will it’s a sin. Whether it’s mortal or venial depends upon what it is.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying the Holy See?

In short, is it a mortal sin to do what you know is against Canon Law?

Thank you,
Penitant

It depends on whether what the HOLY SEE is in line with God’s Will. Aquinas seems to suggest that we must always follow the highest will authority which is God. THus if we obey natural law, and somehow Church authority contradicts natural law, then we must usurp the Church’s position. I can’t see this happening though.

You need to properly give an example and examine what is false or true about it. Such that the morality is decided not upon your own desires but upon God’s law.

 

[EDUCE_1]

What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying the Holy See?

In short, is it a mortal sin to do what you know is against Canon Law?

Thank you,
Penitant

YES!!! When you knowingly rebel against the LORD.

 

[Penitant]

It depends on whether what the HOLY SEE is in line with God’s Will. Aquinas seems to suggest that we must always follow the highest will authority which is God. THus if we obey natural law, and somehow Church authority contradicts natural law, then we must usurp the Church’s position. I can’t see this happening though.

You need to properly give an example and examine what is false or true about it. Such that the morality is decided not upon your own desires but upon God’s law.

Simple Example:
The pastor requires the EMHCs to purify the chalices during Mass, despite knowing that it is not allowed by Canon Law. The action is not intrinsically wrong (we did have an indult in the US a few years ago), but the disobedience is there.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

Simple Example:
The pastor requires the EMHCs to purify the chalices during Mass, despite knowing that it is not allowed by Canon Law. The action is not intrinsically wrong (we did have an indult in the US a few years ago), but the disobedience is there.

I would say the disobedience is only “apparent” or subjectively present. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, if we are disobedient to a lower authority for the sake of obedience to a higher authority, then we have been quite “obedient” in general terms, and in no way was their any “true disobedience”. In other words, by being obedient to God, we are being obedient to the Church. Many times people have it in the reverse order, and in someways for practical reasons. The church has the authority to speak on such issues, et cetera. Thus, we are actually being obedient to God before the Church, and that is a law the Church enforces. Thus there is no contradiction between the Church Authority and God’s authority, though there is certainly a reasonable division. And thus, we know God’s Law through Tradition. This is why the Pope is the “servant to Tradition” rather than “Tradition serving the Pope”.

We should also distinguish between Church Law, and Divine Law. Namely Church Law has limitations accordint to natural reasoning with revelation. While divine law, is quite infinite and mysterious. For example: we cannot baptize the unborn, but that does not mean that God does not baptize such children. Thus God can work outside of Church Law, never contradicting “True-Church Law” but at times surpassing it or usurping it.

 

[Penitant]

I would say the disobedience is only “apparent” or subjectively present. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, if we are disobedient to a lower authority for the sake of obedience to a higher authority, then we have been quite “obedient” in general terms, and in no way was their any “true disobedience”. In other words, by being obedient to God, we are being obedient to the Church. Many times people have it in the reverse order, and in someways for practical reasons. The church has the authority to speak on such issues, et cetera. Thus, we are actually being obedient to God before the Church, and that is a law the Church enforces. Thus there is no contradiction between the Church Authority and God’s authority, though there is certainly a reasonable division. And thus, we know God’s Law through Tradition. This is why the Pope is the “servant to Tradition” rather than “Tradition serving the Pope”.

We should also distinguish between Church Law, and Divine Law. Namely Church Law has limitations accordint to natural reasoning with revelation. While divine law, is quite infinite and mysterious. For example: we cannot baptize the unborn, but that does not mean that God does not baptize such children. Thus God can work outside of Church Law, never contradicting “True-Church Law” but at times surpassing it or usurping it.

In the example, it is not being done in order to be obedient to God though.

Are you saying that we can disobey the Church whenever we want, so long as we think it is what God wants?

Pax Tecum,
Penitant

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

In the example, it is not being done in order to be obedient to God though.

Are you saying that we can disobey the Church whenever we want, so long as we think it is what God wants?

Pax Tecum,
Penitant

If you know that there is a law in the Church that contradicts the Law of God, then yes, you can contradict the Church. The church gets Her authority from God, not from itself. However, the question which you are posing is more along the lines: Can Church-Law contradict Divine Law.

I will give you an example. The Pope Alexander the VI was quite a corrupt Pope, and it would have been within a “True Catholics Power” to reject his creeds of violence which contradicted “TRUE CHURCH LAW”. Thus I draw a distinction between “true Church Law” and “Apparent Church Law”. Such situations have occured in the History of our Church. And one Pope commented that we should be well aware of the mistakes of our Church, so as not to forget the human dimension of it. But your question was obviously asking me “Can a human’s will contradict the Church” and the answer is no. But if a person believes in their informed conscience that God’s law contradicts the Church law, the must abide by their consciences.

Please also note, that my comments were not in reference to a particular example. Rather a principle according to St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica. He states that authority is primary to the Chief Authority - GOD - and the Church is second.

I would say with conviction that many people confuse Church-Authority With Divine Authority, and its understandable why. Because the “DIVINE AUTHORITY” is found within the Church. This a is a false conception. The Church is found within “Divine Authority” and there have been times when people “within the Church” have stepped outside of Church authority and into relativism and radical conservativism/liberalism rather than “orthodoxy”.

 

[Penitant]

If you know that there is a law in the Church that contradicts the Law of God, then yes, you can contradict the Church. The church gets Her authority from God, not from itself. However, the question which you are posing is more along the lines: Can Church-Law contradict Divine Law.

I will give you an example. The Pope Alexander the VI was quite a corrupt Pope, and it would have been within a “True Catholics Power” to reject his creeds of violence which contradicted “TRUE CHURCH LAW”. Thus I draw a distinction between “true Church Law” and “Apparent Church Law”. Such situations have occured in the History of our Church. And one Pope commented that we should be well aware of the mistakes of our Church, so as not to forget the human dimension of it. But your question was obviously asking me “Can a human’s will contradict the Church” and the answer is no. But if a person believes in their informed conscience that God’s law contradicts the Church law, the must abide by their consciences.

Please also note, that my comments were not in reference to a particular example. Rather a principle according to St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica. He states that authority is primary to the Chief Authority - GOD - and the Church is second.

I would say with conviction that many people confuse Church-Authority With Divine Authority, and its understandable why. Because the “DIVINE AUTHORITY” is found within the Church. This a is a false conception. The Church is found within “Divine Authority” and there have been times when people “within the Church” have stepped outside of Church authority and into relativism and radical conservativism/liberalism rather than “orthodoxy”.

No, I’m really not. I asking about actions that fall firmly outside of divine law. Actions that, in and of themselves, are objectively amoral.

I’m asking about the morality of actions that are contrary to Church Law, but fall outside the spectrum of morality. Or are you claiming that absolutely everything is either encouraged or discouraged by Divine Law?

Furthermore, are you claiming that each of us has a better understanding of Divine Law by ourselves than the Infallible Magisterium of the Church?

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

No, I’m really not. I asking about actions that fall firmly outside of divine law. Actions that, in and of themselves, are objectively amoral.

I’m asking about the morality of actions that are contrary to Church Law, but fall outside the spectrum of morality. Or are you claiming that absolutely everything is either encouraged or discouraged by Divine Law?

Furthermore, are you claiming that each of us has a better understanding of Divine Law by ourselves than the Infallible Magisterium of the Church?

No, you have abstracted far too much from what I’m saying. I’m namely listing the priority of categories. Such that a grape is a fruit, and a fruit is a living thing. Which is most general? “Living thing” is.

Whatever is most general is of a higher-authority. Thus a “grape” would be the individual, the “fruit” would be the Church and the “living thing” would be divine law. There is no such thing as ammorality, and I’m not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. Every action born of reason is a moral one, no exception. Yet some actions are directed towards the Divine Law, while others are Natural. For example St. Francis of Assisi was told by God to give away his “father’s things” - though according to Natural Law that would be theft. But if God owns everything, it would be no contradiction to say that he gave away such stuff, since according to Divine law all possessions are God’s. In that Case the Bishop was not to impressed, yet God revealed to this saint by a special grace what he was supposed to do.

This happens.

St. Therese became a nun at an age that went against the current law in the Church. St. John of V. did not pass the intellectual formula for becoming a priest. yet all were excepted because they had the “call” from God.

 

[Penitant]

Chris, how do you know what Divine Law is?

Obviously, we have no authority to dictate it and reason can only go so far as our assumptions allow. So, how do we know?

Also, to relate to a previous post, please state a specific instance in which the Church has taught something immoral or required something immoral.

 

[Mirdath]

Ah now, Penitant, you are asking something of Chris which he cannot, in good faith, truly answer, and you know it. However, as a non-Catholic, non-theist, I can give it a shot at least, since I do not officially recognize Rome’s authority (or anyone else’s for that matter). However, I would like to show my appreciation for Chris’ sig – while I don’t go all the way along with Aquinas, I surely appreciate him and his marvellous intellect dearly.

I neither can nor will surmise on Divine Law, since I have no idea what ‘Divine’ even means, nor do I think anyone here is qualified to do so, even if the Pope is a posting member (no disrespect intended there at all, by the way, just so you know). And as for ‘Natural Law’…well, if a thing is possible, then it’s ‘naturally’ legal. You know, like gravity, the speed of light, and so forth. But we can do better – we can think about this stuff and who WE are, and what we can do about it all. What a piece of work indeed!

Someone (Gandhi, King, lots of people really) once said that in disobedience is the seed of moral responsibility, and there is something to that, not unlike growing away from one’s parents, perhaps. Yes, that makes YOU culpable, damnable, and yes, evil, if you have not formed a proper human conscience. But oh, what a flexible shifty thing that idea is, I know, believe it, I know. It isn’t the ‘Culture of Death’ that frightens me, it’s the Culture of Hatred. If I could have the Fear of God in me, that’d do it right there…but I seem to lack this ability/disorder/whatever.

But the important point, the one that keeps me going and laughing like the happy child I am at heart, is that we CAN do better, and we DO better than we could, most of the time, and exceptionally well on occasion! Part of this ‘doing better’ seems to rest on picking out the real evils, as in, nonscrupulosity. Keeping things relatively simple, without getting on a high hobbyhorse over the results of others’ pains or differences would be a good start. And when when there is an instance of true evil, yes, weep for sinner and sinned-against alike if such is your persuasion. I think we have all been both to some degree, yes? Surely there are some monsters walking around on two legs – I have met a few in my time, and so have many of you, I fear. But I weep for them too, since I know not how to pray.

Ah, I ramble, but this subject is near to my admittedly disobedient heart.

 

[Penitant]

While that was an interesting read, I don’t think it quite pertains to the question I originally asked, as my question only really has meaning within the context of Catholic theology.

To be fair, he can answer the question, but it would be difficult to reconcile with what he has already said, and that is why I asked it. To show that much of what he said also doesn’t really answer the question.

It is a question of the gravity of disobeying LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. It is not about even questioning it, but rather express disobedience.

 

[Mirdath]

First, one must acknowledge that authority as legitimate. Also, does that legitimacy have a limit? So, while I do understand your question, I think my point about personal responsibility has a little bearing.

Hm, if I was a Catholic, I might even guess that while disobedience is sinful, it might just be the ineffable thing to do. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll manage to eff it somehow.

 

[fix]

This is from the old CE:

Everyone subject to the legislator is bound in conscience to observe the law. A violation of the law, either by omission or by act, is punishable with a penalty (q.v.). These penalties may be settled beforehand by the legislator, or they may be left to the discretion of the judge who imposes them. A violation of the moral law or what one’s conscience judges to be the moral law is a sin; a violation of the exterior penal law, in addition to the sin, renders one liable to a punishment or penalty; if the will of the legislator is only to oblige the offender to submit to the penalty, the law is said to be “purely penal”; such are some of the laws adopted by civil legislatures, and it is generally admitted that some ecclesiastical laws are of this kind. As baptism is the gate of entrance to the ecclesiastical society, all those who are baptized, even non-Catholics, are in principle subject to the laws of the Church; in practice the question arises only when certain acts of heretics and schismatics come before Catholic tribunals; as a general rule an irritant law is enforced in such a case, unless the legislator has exempted them from its observance, for instance, for the form of marriage. General laws therefore, bind all Catholics wherever they may be. In the case of particular laws as one is subject to them in virtue of one’s domicile, or even quasi-domicile, passing strangers are not subject to them, except in the case of acts performed within the territory.

newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

Quote from the Summa Theologica:

I answer that, As stated above (A1,4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter’s action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power.

Here is the only question I am posing: do you obey the Church above God, or the Church for God’s sake. And if the Church ever opposes God (is that even a possibility?) then we must oppose the Church’s position on that matter. Thought experiment: if a pope ever said, “abortion is okay”, as Catholics we would disobey such a directive, even though the authority came from the Bishop of Rome. The same with Bishops in local diocese, especially during the sex scandal, when it was hidden. People should have disobeyed their bishops even though it is in the “law” to be obedient to them, because by our “conscience” if a Bishop who has authority over you, you must obey his higher-authority" God.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

Chris, how do you know what Divine Law is?

Obviously, we have no authority to dictate it and reason can only go so far as our assumptions allow. So, how do we know?

Also, to relate to a previous post, please state a specific instance in which the Church has taught something immoral or required something immoral.

Again, when you say, “Obviously we have no authority to dictate it” I agree with you. I’m not saying “I know divine authority” and I’m a little perplexed that you would assume the worst of me. Reason can only go as far as “natural-law” and reductio absurdum arguments to support metaphysics (I’m a philosophy major, who studied Natural Law according to Aquinas for two years).

I was not speaking of Doctrine being false, but when the Church has “dictated” instruction that was decreed by the law of obedience, but went against Natural Law (morality) Catholics would be obedient to God by being disobedient to the Bishop (not doctrine).

Its funny whenever one pus the Church in its proper context, and shows the weakness that exists within it (the part of humanity in the Church) some people jump the the defence of the church as if there have “never been Popes who ordered corrupt acts”. This is a dark mischaracterization of the Church The Church is full of sinners, and by now people should recognize that bishops and popes are not exempt from that temptation.

 

[fix]

I would like to draw a distinction if possible. Yes, individuals in the Church can err and may try to bind people when such binding is contrary to God’s law. But, can the magisterium make laws that are contrary to divine or natural law?

This is from the old CE:

Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;…

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

So, in the past has a pope every madated a law that must be followed that contradicts the moral law?

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

I would like to draw a distinction if possible. Yes, individuals in the Church can err and may try to bind people when such binding is contrary to God’s law. But, can the magisterium make laws that are contrary to divine or natural law?

This is from the old CE:

So, in the past has a pope every madated a law that must be followed that contradicts the moral law?

Agreed, and I have not said anything of that sort. I do not know why people have “infered” that from what I have said, unless they naturally assume the worst? Nevertheless it is a good distinction. But also wise to note that CANON LAW has been noted to evolve and sometimes change. Again let us not forget the distinction between Church Law and Divine Law. I suspect some people (from experience) have a difficult time seeing the division. And as I said previously, “true-Church Law” is never in contradiction with the Divine. But at times, saints have had to contradict Bishop-Authorities. Which according to “Church Law” is reasonable so long as it is according to Divine Command or the “higher-authority”. As Aquinas says,

I answer that, As stated above (1), he who obeys is moved by the command of the person he obeys, just as natural things are moved by their motive causes. Now just a God is the first mover of all things that are moved naturally, so too is He the first mover of all wills, as shown above (I-II, 09, 6). Therefore just as all natural things are subject to the divine motion by a natural necessity so too all wills, by a kind of necessity of justice, are bound to obey the divine command.

A pefect exemplification of what I am speaking about is what G.K. Chesterton talks when writing about St. Francis and his father. Whether or not he was “stealing” because God commanded him (he had special knowledge from the divine) to give out his father’s clothing. The Bishop disapproved of his actions and hsi faher who is of a natural “authority”, yet he did so because God had directly commanded it. And thus without God, Francis would have stolen, but with God, Francis did not commit any injustice, because God owns all things and at any time has the right to take them away (since all we are is stewards).