QUESTION : There are many discussions on obedience-disobedience conflict within the sphere of Catholic Church. How should one understand it? – Ginson George, Bangalore
ANSWER : Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST
It is true that in Christian tradition, obedience is a central virtue which is related to the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity and the submission of Jesus on the cross is exemplified as its sublime prototype. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines obedience as “complying with a command or precept.” It is not a transitory or isolated act, rather it is seen as a virtue or principle of righteous conduct. In the literal sense, obedience is to be understood as a person (physical or moral) at a lower level carrying out the commands of the superior with a precise intent to fulfil the injection. As a moral virtue, it is not merely obeying what the superior commanded or ordered rather it is doing the “will of the authority” with a joyful heart. Theologically, by obeying the higher authority, one submits himself/herself to God, because all authorities are given by God. Therefore, everyone has to be “subject to the governing authorities” (Rom 13:1). For the smooth functioning of society or a community and to avoid anarchy and disorder, the commands of the authority are to be accepted.
However, the Catholic tradition also speaks on the individual conscience which functions as the subjective norm of a moral act. An individual may act against the command of the superior if it contradicts the will of God. For this reason, the process of decision-making is very crucial in the Church. The hierarchical structure of worldview, which is also a by-product of Hellenistic philosophy where the structures of the world, society, religion and family were formed in terms of superior-inferior, king-subject, owner-slave mode of relationship, considers people are subordinates and therefore they are obliged to obey the higher authorities blindly. However, with the rise of modern democratic thoughts, this pattern has changed drastically.
Generally, disobedience is seen as the opposite term of obedience, a rebellion, which stands as the reverse side of obedience. On the other hand, some recent studies bring out the advantages of disobedience for under some circumstances, it can function to safeguard the community against authoritarianism. When one is forced to adhere uncritically to authority, the room for constructive obedience is closed and dissatisfaction and displeasure creep within society which would further lead to rebellion and chaos. Changes occur in society only through critical thinking.
Conflict between Survival Values and Values of Self-Protection
The mode of obedience is challenged based on the attitude and worldview of people. Some people happily obey the commandments of the authority, whereas some others accept it only with a critical reflection. Various psychological studies narrate it as the conflict between ‘survival values’ and ‘values of self-protection’. While some individuals follow the hierarchical ideals of obedience, a good number of people opt for self-responsible ideals. Those who follow hierarchical ideals would like to follow the traditional values which give more importance to traditional pole-emphasise of parent-child ties and deference to authority. Whereas people who are enlightened with secular-rational values may have more openness to new visions, studies and dynamics.
While the first group absolutize power and authority, the second group challenges and criticises the wrongful doings of the authority. The propagators of survival values focus on more traditional systems, communal identity, group ethos and systems, which are external, visible and as evident in most cases, it remains only at a peripheral level. The meaning and value of an act is not seriously considered here, rather the external authority is almost equated with God and people blindly follow them even if they are wrong. From this perspective, obedience can be interpreted as ‘pure submission’ without the use of individual freedom and rationality. The role of the individual is very much minimised here and the will and wish of individuals are not considered appropriately.
People who hold values of self-expression open to diversities, differences and pluralities and they focus on the ideals of being “true to one’s unique self”. While accepting the grading, they may not be blind towards the hierarchical steps, but focus on values of equality, mutuality and collaboration. More than developing a feudal system of community, they prefer to form a collegial and life-sustaining community, where fraternity, fellowship and reciprocal sharing are prioritised. In this view, religious language is poetic, giving insights and wisdom rather than absolutizing certain modes and gestures.
In Pursuit of Ethical-Responsibility
The question of the obedience/disobedience paradigm should be understood in a broader frame of the personality traits of individuals as well. When the traits of one’s personality orient towards enhancing one’s self and group identity, s/he can be more submissive and possibly a person of blind obedience. Whereas when people focus more on personal responsibility, they may challenge or question some wrongdoings of the authority. Therefore, we should not look at all sorts of disobedience as mere rebellion, rather it can be an expression of the authenticity of a person.
Modern Philosophy speaks of authenticity of a person in terms of one’s pursuit of moral responsibility. Authenticity is identified with self-autonomy and the fulfilment of one’s moral commitments. Soren Kierkegaard explains it in relation with a Christian ethical pursuit which revolves around “one’s innermost self and the subjective ‘inwardness’ of passion.” It is a transition from external righteous behaviour of abiding by a set of rules, towards an inner transformation focusing on values. He writes; “authenticity consists in acts of willing passionately and sincerely to become a genuinely authentic individual, despite one’s awareness that becoming authentic requires a perpetual movement without definite results.” Martin Heidegger describes authenticity as a constant search to be one’s own, to overcome the arbitrary nature of one’s social existence, which he calls ‘thrownness’. The individual is not separate from the world, but engaged in it, shaped by it, and in conflict with it. Therefore, authenticity is not mere self-expression, but the formation of a responsible self, accountable for its actions. In most cases, rebellion or disobedience begins with some sort of unjust act and oppression of the authority. When the tyrannic authority uses its power to suppress the unique identity of a group, there are possibilities of group movements against atrocities and exploitations. It thus challenges the monopolistic reign of authoritarianism. It may happen in social, political and religious spheres.
Disobedience a Moral Responsibility?
Even while accepting the right of the authority, the relationship with the authority can be re-conceptualized within the context of the experience of the individual as well as society. Sometimes people who are more engaged with a system can turn to be strong critics, when a particular situation calls for it. People who follow a life pattern indifferently or passively never bother about the challenges around them. They are happy with their daily routines, and would not like to be disturbed by any events around them. However, for people who consider life seriously and sincerely, their social life is regulated by basic psychological processes expressed within the antinomies of opposing experiences like freedom/oppression, justice/injustice, equality/inequality, and right/duties. When a country or group of people strongly undergo injustice, discrimination and exploitation, they retaliate, and disobedience is considered here as a morally qualified option.
According to the classical perspective of Hannah Arendt, people can commit evil actions by obeying an authority when the meaning of such actions is rendered banal, in the sense the latter is turned into normal and inconsequential actions. The infamous story of Rudolf Höss, who was the commandant from 1940 to 1943 in the concentration camp Auschwitz, where more than one million people were killed, is an example of misdirected obedience. Though he was responsible for the deaths of nearly one million Jews and other prisoners in the camp, he never accepted it, defending, “I had received an order; I had to carry it out.” Born to devout Catholic parents in the German spa town of Baden-Baden, throughout Höss’ lonely childhood, his father’s dogmatic, overbearing influence instilled in him the belief that it was virtuous to surrender all personal independence to those in authority.
Authenticity of Authority
The modes and approach of Christian authority are to be revisited in the context of obedience -disobedience paradigm. To be authentic, the authority should always adhere to truth, justice and righteousness, the fundamental pillars of the Kingdom of God. When there was much emphasis on “blind obedience” in the past, the involvement or engagement of the members of the Church was very low. However, after Second Vatican council, it has changed drastically. Persons in authority are at the service of truth and they should ensure that it is done in sincerity with transparency and openness. Every member should have a place to articulate his or her role in the wider sphere of the Church. When there are differences of opinion and contradicting views on a same matter, it is the duty of the authority to listen patiently and to be attentive even to the minute details as a process of respecting the other.
As Pope Benedict XVI acclaims, the real program of governance in the Church is not to do one’s own will, not to pursue one’s own ideas, but to listen, together with the whole Church, to the word and the will of the Lord, to be guided by Him. The age of Synodality visualises an authority that includes diverse voices in decision-making processes, including laypeople, women, marginalized groups and minorities. While making decisions, the authority should take into account the discernment provided by participatory bodies, reflecting a collaborative spirit rather than simply imposing certain dictums. Using unethical means to execute the power may lead to the collapse of the institution and structures.
Leave a Comment