My Theory of Obedience

[fakename]

So I have some propositions to check for correctness (other threads touch on this but only tangentially).

So what is the principle on which the authority of a person is based?

Is it true that for every person, whether or not they have a good justification for their actions is what gives them the authority to do those things?

Is it true that for every person, that if that person is morally better then on that condition they have authority to command?

Is it true that at least one person holds their authority on divine positive right? (I have the pope in mind here).

Are there any other alternatives?

 

[fakename]

I can never find the “report post” icon.

Does it disappear after a set time?

 

[TimothyH]

So I have some propositions to check for correctness (other threads touch on this but only tangentially).

So what is the principle on which the authority of a person is based?

Is it true that for every person, whether or not they have a good justification for their actions is what gives them the authority to do those things?

Is it true that for every person, that if that person is morally better then on that condition they have authority to command?

Is it true that at least one person holds their authority on divine positive right? (I have the pope in mind here).

Are there any other alternatives?

Authority is part of the office one holds and is not based on the attributes of one who holds the office.

When the president ends his term, he no longer has authority. Authority stays with the office of the president, not the person himself. The character, intelligence, education, experience, morality, religion, theology and spirituality of a person may render him more or less fit for that office, but the authority comes from the office, not from the person.

***Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. *(Romans 13:1-2)

I have authority in my home because I am the father, not because I am Tim. Tim is a screw up, but the father has authority. God designed the family structure, and motherhood and fatherhood. I try to be worthy of being called a father to my children as Christ would want me but sometimes pride gets in the way, or my own selfish needs. I am human.

In the Church, the office gets its authority from Christ, the head of the Church, who established the office.

-Tim-

 

[fakename]

Authority is part of the office one holds and is not based on the attributes of one who holds the office.

When the president ends his term, he no longer has authority. Authority stays with the office of the president, not the person himself. The character, intelligence, education, experience, morality, religion, theology and spirituality of a person may render him more or less fit for that office, but the authority comes from the office, not from the person.

***Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. ***(Romans 13:1-2)

I have authority in my home because I am the father, not because I am Tim. Tim is a screw up, but the father has authority. God designed the family structure, and motherhood and fatherhood. I try to be worthy of being called a father to my children as Christ would want me but sometimes pride gets in the way, or my own selfish needs. I am human.

In the Church, the office gets its authority from Christ, the head of the Church, who established the office.

-Tim-

Three Questions:

Why do authorities get their power from the office?

If that were the case, then why would there be other qualifications for authority as (I assume) necessary conditions? After all, if someone says that I should not have authority because I’m unintelligent, and I am already in authority I can merely respond that I should hold office because I hold office.

Plus your very definition of authority is extrinsic to other merits and so, people should not judge authority on those merits since it would be like judging the truth of a definition by words which are outside of the essence of that definition.

And finally, how can I delete a post w/o having access to the “report” icon? Is it impossible?

 

[irishOntarian]

I think that, well authority is divinely given, it can be held null if sufficiently misused, at least in the case of secular authorities. What is the purpose of having a ruler of a state except to provide for the needs of those under his authority. If he fails to do that on a basic level, he’s nullified his authority – basically refused it by refusing the duties attached to it
Of course this can’t work the same way with ecclesiastical authorities. We just have to trust that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

 

[thistle]

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

AUTHORITY. The right of a society to direct and compel the members to co-operate toward the attainment of the end of that society. Ultimately all authority in a society comes from God but in different ways, depending on the kind of society.

In a conventional society, founded by the free agreement of men and women who set its purpose and choose its means, God is the final source of authority, but indirectly, in the sense that he is the source of everything. He created the persons who form the society and gave them the faculties by which to direct the society.

In natural societies, such as the family and state, God is the source of authority directly and immediately. He established the natural law that requires that people organize themselves. The authority passes from God directly to the society and not through the personalities of the founders.

In theocratic societies, such as the Catholic Church, God founded a particular society by supernatural revelation. He specified its structure and determined its leaders. Here God is most directly and immediately the source of authority, not only in governing but also in teaching the faithful who belong to the society. (Etym. Latin auctoritas, source, authorship; authority, weight, might, power.)

OBEDIENCE. The moral virtue that inclines the will to comply with the will of another who has the right to command. Material obedience is merely to carry out the physical action commanded; formal obedience is to perform an action precisely because it is commanded by a legitimate superior. The extent of obedience is as wide as the authority of the person who commands. Thus obedience to God is without limit, whereas obedience to human beings is limited by higher laws that must not be transgressed, and by the competency or authority of the one who gives the orders. As a virtue, it is pleasing to God because it means the sacrifice of one’s will out of love for God. (Etym. Latin obedientia, obedience.)

 

[fakename]

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

AUTHORITY. The right of a society to direct and compel the members to co-operate toward the attainment of the end of that society. Ultimately all authority in a society comes from God but in different ways, depending on the kind of society.

In a conventional society, founded by the free agreement of men and women who set its purpose and choose its means, God is the final source of authority, but indirectly, in the sense that he is the source of everything. He created the persons who form the society and gave them the faculties by which to direct the society.

In natural societies, such as the family and state, God is the source of authority directly and immediately. He established the natural law that requires that people organize themselves. The authority passes from God directly to the society and not through the personalities of the founders.

In theocratic societies, such as the Catholic Church, God founded a particular society by supernatural revelation. He specified its structure and determined its leaders. Here God is most directly and immediately the source of authority, not only in governing but also in teaching the faithful who belong to the society. (Etym. Latin auctoritas, source, authorship; authority, weight, might, power.)

OBEDIENCE. The moral virtue that inclines the will to comply with the will of another who has the right to command. Material obedience is merely to carry out the physical action commanded; formal obedience is to perform an action precisely because it is commanded by a legitimate superior. The extent of obedience is as wide as the authority of the person who commands. Thus obedience to God is without limit, whereas obedience to human beings is limited by higher laws that must not be transgressed, and by the competency or authority of the one who gives the orders. As a virtue, it is pleasing to God because it means the sacrifice of one’s will out of love for God. (Etym. Latin obedientia, obedience.)

Yes, but what does that imply about how to follow someone and etc? After all, it doesn’t follow for instance, that someone in mortal sin loses authority and yet authority is established by God. So it seems that even something that goes against God can have authority derived from God. And if that is true, then really the fact that people receive their authority from God doesn’t allow us to deduce who to follow, how and in what ways.

So again what does the divine grant of authority imply for our obedience?

 

[fakename]

I think that, well authority is divinely given, it can be held null if sufficiently misused, at least in the case of secular authorities. What is the purpose of having a ruler of a state except to provide for the needs of those under his authority. If he fails to do that on a basic level, he’s nullified his authority – basically refused it by refusing the duties attached to it
Of course this can’t work the same way with ecclesiastical authorities. We just have to trust that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

But this answer doesn’t seem to cohere with the fact that authority is only measured (according to an earlier definition) by the holding of an office, such that there is nothing that is both in office and w/o authority. They cannot both be true for then, (1) someone not having merit would mean that he would not have authority (even though popes can be evil and they still have authority and even though vicious citizens can be legitimately elected) and (2) everyone who has authority would have some office which doesn’t seem to be true since parents don’t hold an office and finally (3) if someone did have authority, that would imply that that officeholder is virtuous but that is not true for cases like Hitler or Lenin.

Perhaps there is some missing element to authority? But what?