Obedience To Authority Figures

[Winchester]

There are red lights I will not wait at, under certain conditions. I also frequently roll stop signs.

[Slappo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1344095685' post='2462651']
why not in the example i gave?
[/quote]
because I don't believe it is in accord with right reason that the only acceptable attire to wear to church is a shirt and tie for men. Also, I'm not sure I believe that priests have authority such matters to bind the laity to such requirements under pain of sin. We have no vow or promise of obedience to a priest.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1344222497' post='2463289']
There are red lights I will not wait at, under certain conditions. I also frequently roll stop signs.
[/quote]

[img]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png[/img]

[fides' Jack]

Wow - somehow I knew this would turn into the old "is it a sin to speed" argument. The truth is, I don't know. Logically, I think we should err on the side of caution on this. Remember that a sin, by definition, is an offense against God. That should be our first concern.

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1344025050' post='2462307']
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=2461749"][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_images/phatmass/snapback.png[/img][/url]Slappo, on Yesterday, 03:20 PM, said:

So... you believe we are morally obligated to follow unjust authority when that authority figure is not commanding us to do something sinful?

If the United States Government makes it a law that listening to music is illegal, do you believe we are required to comply with that law? Why or why not?

On a religious point: If a priest tells us that men must wear t-shirts and shorts to masses where he is the celebrant as he views those clothes to best depict the proper reverence we should show at mass do you believe we are morally obligated to wear t-shirts and shorts? Why or why not? (assume that you don't view t-shirts and shorts at mass as sinful)
[/quote]

The United States government is not an unjust authority. It has in the past (and present) abused that authority to make unjust laws, but it is not in itself unjust. Nor is the priest. The priest is here as our legitimate spiritual authority. He was ordained by the Church, and therefore, by God. Some priests may at times make bad calls.

Whether or not we should obey an unjust law will, I think, depend on circumstances. But the circumstances I'm thinking of seem to come back to committing immoral actions...

1) Listening to music is illegal - obey or disobey? This is a tough one (I think intentionally). This brings up the whole prohibition thing. Do I [b]logically [/b]think we should obey the government here? If it weren't for the liturgy, I would be leaning toward yes. Then again, music isn't required in liturgy - it just enhances it. I think I'll answer "obey", with the additional statement: "Blessed are you who suffer persecution for justice' sake, for yours is the kingdom of Heaven."

2) T-shirts and shorts to mass - obey or disobey (caveat of moral obligation)? This one is even tougher, because now you're hitting at one of my pet peeves (again I think intentionally). Of course I don't see this actually happening in a situation that can't be avoided, but that's beside the point. So - to get to the situation that you really want me to answer - I have no choice but to attend Mass at this parish, and the priest is telling me that I must wear shorts and a t-shirt to Mass. I'll assume for the moment that the act [i]isn't[/i] sinful, because I definitely think it can be. I'll answer "obey", for the simple reason that, as I said, the priest is here to act as Christ's representative - it's not a position to be taken lightly. The fact that were assuming it's not sinful changes the situation, also. It's become not as big of a deal as it was before. So, yeah, morally we should obey the priest.


I know a lot of people here won't agree, but I really don't care. This is how I roll. Now, whether or not I would actually follow through is another story. I'm a pretty big hypocrite!

Edit: I realize that you're talking about moral obligation with these. That fact doesn't change my answers.

Edited August 6, 2012 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

Found this online and thought it [b][i]very[/i] [/b]interesting and pertinent:

[url="http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX7.htm"]http://www.culturewa...hives/SSPX7.htm[/url]

[quote]
For completeness it should be added that even if one is in [i]doubt [/i]as to whether obedience to the command is or is not sinful, one is obliged to obey, because the presumption is in favor of the superior. This also applies when compliance with a command appears to be [i]probably [/i]sinful. Only when definite sin is involved is one entitled, and obliged, to disobey. The clear teaching of the Church on this point is summed up by St. Ignatius Loyola:
[i]"When, in my opinion and judgment, the Superior bids me to do something which is against my conscience or sinful, and the Superior thinks the contrary, I ought to believe him unless he is manifestly wrong[/i]." ([i]Monumenta Ignatian,[/i] series 1a, XII, 660).
[/quote]

I don't know what the site is about - I just read the above - so not sure about credibility here, but the quote from St. Ignatius has a source, so I believe he actually said that. At the very least, I agree with the conclusion the author presents: "Only when definite sin is involved is one [b]entitled[/b], and obliged, to disobey."

Edit: just wanted to add some emphasis in the last sentence.

Edited August 6, 2012 by fides' Jack

[havok579257]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1344229432' post='2463335']
because I don't believe it is in accord with right reason that the only acceptable attire to wear to church is a shirt and tie for men. Also, I'm not sure I believe that priests have authority such matters to bind the laity to such requirements under pain of sin. We have no vow or promise of obedience to a priest.
[/quote]

so are you saying the priest has no authority over the laity? that the church has authority but an individual priest does not?

[Aloysius]

I'm gonna through a tl;dr of what I said in the other thread into here regarding a priest commanding things particular to the rubrics of the liturgy: the priest has absolutely no authority to command anything that is an addition or an alteration to the rubrics of the Sacred Liturgy. he doesn't have that kind of authority over the liturgy, over you, or over your spiritual life. if he commands anything that is an addition or an alteration to the rubrics of the liturgy, that command can be safely ignored because he doesn't have the authority to make that command, in any capacity. his lack of authority over the liturgy is absolute (except where the rubrics give him legitimate options), he is a servant of the liturgy.

now, other things on this thread over here being discussed are non-liturgical, so there's a different debate going on. does what I said about liturgical actions mean he has no authority over a dress code at his Church? I'm not sure, he might. he certainly would not have the right to refuse the sacraments to anyone not following his arbitrary dress code of something like a suit and tie, that would be contrary to canon law, though he could turn people away if they were dressed immodestly in a way that could cause scandal, like the dress codes for Italian churches. if the pastor of a church actually declared a dress code and the bishop basically gave his consent by not sacking him after all the angry phone calls into the chancery, then I think it'd be prudent to follow it to the best of one's ability. would one be bound to follow it under pain of sin? I'm not sure, actually.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

double post

Edited August 6, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

triple post

Edited August 6, 2012 by Aloysius

[Winchester]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1344230530' post='2463341']
[img]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png[/img]
[/quote]
Please do not distract from my flamebait.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1344270380' post='2463475']
Please do not distract from my flamebait.
[/quote]

oh. sry. won't do it again.


[img]http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/png/laughing-lol-crazy.png[/img]

[fides' Jack]

Aloysius, I did read your post in the other thread (even though I said I wouldn't). I'm not going to argue with anyone anymore on the issue. I hold my position that I maintained there and here.

For the record - my position: We are morally obliged to obey our superiors in all things unless we are sure that the action would be sinful.

Edited August 6, 2012 by fides' Jack

[Aloysius]

I respect your position and indeed a spirit of obedience is a great tool in the path to holiness, but there is nothing wrong with recognizing who and what the proper authorities are who are due our obedience and what the limits of their authority are. indeed, it is useful to make vows of obedience to help us in the pursuit of humility, to religious superiors for those who enter religious life or to spiritual directors for laymen who need guidance in their spiritual life; but merely being a layman does not make every priest your "superior" in that sense.

[Slappo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1344256942' post='2463403']
Wow - somehow I knew this would turn into the old "is it a sin to speed" argument. The truth is, I don't know. Logically, I think we should err on the side of caution on this. Remember that a sin, by definition, is an offense against God. That should be our first concern.



The United States government is not an unjust authority. It has in the past (and present) abused that authority to make unjust laws, but it is not in itself unjust. Nor is the priest. The priest is here as our legitimate spiritual authority. He was ordained by the Church, and therefore, by God. Some priests may at times make bad calls.

Whether or not we should obey an unjust law will, I think, depend on circumstances. But the circumstances I'm thinking of seem to come back to committing immoral actions...

1) Listening to music is illegal - obey or disobey? This is a tough one (I think intentionally). This brings up the whole prohibition thing. Do I [b]logically [/b]think we should obey the government here? If it weren't for the liturgy, I would be leaning toward yes. Then again, music isn't required in liturgy - it just enhances it. I think I'll answer "obey", with the additional statement: "Blessed are you who suffer persecution for justice' sake, for yours is the kingdom of Heaven."

2) T-shirts and shorts to mass - obey or disobey (caveat of moral obligation)? This one is even tougher, because now you're hitting at one of my pet peeves (again I think intentionally). Of course I don't see this actually happening in a situation that can't be avoided, but that's beside the point. So - to get to the situation that you really want me to answer - I have no choice but to attend Mass at this parish, and the priest is telling me that I must wear shorts and a t-shirt to Mass. I'll assume for the moment that the act [i]isn't[/i] sinful, because I definitely think it can be. I'll answer "obey", for the simple reason that, as I said, the priest is here to act as Christ's representative - it's not a position to be taken lightly. The fact that were assuming it's not sinful changes the situation, also. It's become not as big of a deal as it was before. So, yeah, morally we should obey the priest.


I know a lot of people here won't agree, but I really don't care. This is how I roll. Now, whether or not I would actually follow through is another story. I'm a pretty big hypocrite!

Edit: I realize that you're talking about moral obligation with these. That fact doesn't change my answers.
[/quote]

I never stated that the United States is an unjust authority although I'm sure many might argue that point. Whether I would is outside the scope of this thread though. A just authority can still attempt to enact unjust laws. Unjust laws enacted by a just authority are not binding.

Again from new advent:

[quote]Law is first a regulation, i.e. a practical principle, which aims at ordering the actions of the members of the community. To obtain in any community a unified and systematized co-operation of all there must be an authority that has the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm"][color="#888888"]right[/color][/url] to issue binding rules as to the manner in which the members of the community are to act. The law is such a binding rule and draws its constraining or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm"][color="#888888"]obligatory[/color][/url] force from the will of the superior. Both because the superior wills and so far as he wills, is law binding. [b]Not every regulation of the superior, however, is binding, but only those in accordance with reason[/b]. Law is the criterion of reasonable action and must, therefore, itself be reasonable. [b]A law not in accordance with reason is a contradiction.[/b]
[/quote]

St. Augustine says an unjust law is [b]no law at all[/b]. I would say the same thing is true of an unjust directive given by a preist (no kneeling for communion, must wear shorts and t-shirt to mass). As the directive is unjust and therefore no directive at all, it cannot be morally binding.

Drinking age, speed limits etc, many would say those are debatable as to whether or not they are just laws and they would have various arguments as to why or why not the law is within right reason. There is nothing reasonable about a complete ban on listening to music though, and therefore the law is unreasonable and unjust. We would be under no obligation to follow such a law even if enacted by an authority with the ability to enact laws.



To add to my comment about a priest requiring a dress shirt and tie for men, again I would think that is unjust and unreasonable because of how restrictive it is. There are certainly other dress clothes that would be appropriate for Sunday, and many parishioners may not have a dress shirt and tie available. If one wakes up Sunday morning and realizes he has no clean dress shirt does he then not attend mass because he cannot meet the dress code? I do think it would be within the authority of a priest or pastor to require a certain level of dress such as no shorts or t-shirts, no flip flops, etc.

[fides' Jack]

I think someone already brought up that passage - maybe you.

I'm sure that St. Augustine knew what he was talking about.


As for the dress code - please clarify your last sentence. You [i]do[/i] or do [i]not[/i] think it would be within the pastor's authority? You wrote "do" but that seems to conflict with the previous 3 sentences. Typo or intentional?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1344025050' post='2462307']
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=2461749"][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_images/phatmass/snapback.png[/img][/url]Slappo, on Yesterday, 03:20 PM, said:

So... you believe we are morally obligated to follow unjust authority when that authority figure is not commanding us to do something sinful?

If the United States Government makes it a law that listening to music is illegal, do you believe we are required to comply with that law? Why or why not?

On a religious point: If a priest tells us that men must wear t-shirts and shorts to masses where he is the celebrant as he views those clothes to best depict the proper reverence we should show at mass do you believe we are morally obligated to wear t-shirts and shorts? Why or why not? (assume that you don't view t-shirts and shorts at mass as sinful)



fides, on Today, 10:41 AM, said:
Start a new thread and I'll entertain your argument.
[/quote]

God's laws supersede man's laws. If it is ok by God then it is ok. The only things we need to obey are the teachings of the Catholic Church. If a member of the Catholic Church tells you to do something i.e. go wash your car then you are not morally obligated to follow the command. The truth is...the Catholic Church does not really have any authority, other than the authority to administer the sacraments, over it's members. If someone attempts to act as though they do have authority over you in anyway then they are acting outside of the authority of the Catholic Church. God wants us to be free so long as we are not harming other people. The only laws that government should have are laws that protect people from harming other people. Thats it. Any more than that and the government is becoming more and more fascist while stealing away our liberties. All for more power of course. Which I think is going on right now in our government.

[Mark of the Cross]

Mysterious prequil double post


And an even greater mystery that I propped a post that Socrates propped!

Edited August 6, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1344136676' post='2462818']
what does this all have to do with receiving tacos in the hand?
[/quote]
You should receive tacos on the tongue while kneeling to show your appreciation for something that is so good and tasty for you.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1344026610' post='2462347']
[b]A legitimate authority, i.e., an authority which has the power to enact laws over a particular group of people, must be obeyed. Not to do so is sinful.[/b] Of course, the gravity of the law, which depends on the objective of the law and the possible scandal which could be caused by disobedience to the law, would determine how sinful violating the law actually is.

Now, in your first example, we have a problem. While the government COULD outlaw listening to certain types of music (for example, music with explicit lyrics, music with seditious intentions, music that encouraged violence, etc.), if the government outlawed listening to ALL types of music, without discrimination, it would, in fact, be trying to legislate against the Church herself and her practices. This is not within the proper scope of the secular authority. Ergo, such a law would be invalid. It would be a matter of judgment as to whether the law in its entirety were invalid (which is what I would think), or the law as applied to Christian worship and recreation were invalid.

In your second example, there is an issue of conscience. T-shirt and shorts might be o.k. in certain contexts to wear to Mass, for example a Mass said while out hiking, but T-shirt and shorts have generally not been seen as acceptable for Church by many authorities. Hence, the parish priest would be in the wrong to command such a practice, and, most likely, his parishioners would be justified by conscience in disobeying such an order, unless there were some practical consideration that overruled the normal guidelines. I can't really see an instance where that would be the case.

[b]So, the basic principle is that legitimate authority must be obeyed, but that legitimate authority is subject to scrutiny, especially if it goes against conscience (on objective grounds) or is being exercised in an illegitimate manner.[/b]
[/quote]
That's what I was getting at in my quote from the stations of the cross. (other thread)That [i]Jesus obeys Pilate because he is the lawful govenor even though he is unjust.[/i] But we need to consider also what happens if the law tells you to do something that is immoral/against Church teaching. An example is the discussion of a law to compel priests to report a person who confesses to Paedophilia crimes. Priests have indicated that they would defy such a law. And rightly so! However a priest generally needs to instruct confessors that he cannot forgive their sins if they are not confessing by remorse. Therefore priests should instruct people that they should not confess to a crime against the law unless they are going to also confess to the police as an act of true repentence.

[Mark of the Cross]

[[url="http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=67&ch=2&l=13#x"]1 Peter 2:13[/url]] [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=67&ch=2&l=13#x"][13][/url] Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=67&ch=2&l=14#x"][14][/url] Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good:

[[url="http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=58&ch=3&l=22#x"]Colossians 3:22[/url]] [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=58&ch=3&l=22#x"][22][/url] Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God. ] [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=58&ch=3&l=23#x"][23][/url] Whatsoever you do, do it from the heart, as to the Lord, and not to men:

[url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=13&l=17#x"][[/url][url="http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=13&l=17#x"]Hebrews 13:17[/url]][url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=13&l=17#x"][17][/url] Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

And of course
[url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=22&l=21#x"][[/url][url="http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=22&l=21#x"]Matthew 22:21[/url]][url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=22&l=21#x"][21][/url] They say to him: Caesar's. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Mark of the Cross