Case XLIV: The Extent of Canonical Obedience

In certain circumstances the solemn promise of ecclesiastical obedience is demanded. Such promise is, in first place, by precept, made and confirmed by oath to the Pope. The cardinals take this oath of loyalty to the Pope upon their elevation to the cardinalate; the archbishops before their investure with the pallium; this oath of loyalty forms part of the ceremonies at the consecration of bishops and abbots; it is contained in the Tridentine confession of the faith, and hence is required of all who, according to ecclesiastical precept, must make the Tridentine confession of faith. In the latter the formula is: I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the vicar of Jesus Christ.

Besides this oath of loyalty to the Pope, there is at the consecration of priests a simple promise of obedience (not on oath) given by the newly ordained into the hands of the officiating bishop, to him, and his successors, if he is the diocesan bishop of the newly ordained, otherwise to the ordinary of the diocese to which the newly ordained will belong: Do you promise reverence and obedience to me and my successors (to the Pontiff or to your Ordinary Prelate for the time being). R. I promise.

Only after this solemn promise has been given, the kiss of peace is imparted to the ordained, and the latter receives full recognition as lawful priest of the Catholic Church.

What new obligations are assumed by this oath, and by this promise? That some new obligation is assumed can hardly be doubted. The oath taken binds the conscience with a new moral bond, at least that of the religio, so that disobedience is not merely disobedience but perjury as well, and related to sacrilege. The simple promise of the newly ordained priest, though not possessing the same rigor of obligation, must still be viewed, even though in lesser degree, as a vinculum religionis, or as a ratification of the vinculum created by the ordination, as the solemn elevation to the most sublime state is on the part of the Church only consummated and approved after the deliverance of this promise. Though a new bond of obligation is therefore forged, the question follows: is there a new obligation? This can, in a certain sense, be affirmed, but also just as correctly denied. An obligation ensues to something new, inasmuch as with that promise of subjection a new office is undertaken; hence there ensue new obligations of office and state of life, especially new obligations of duty toward the higher ecclesiastical superiors. But these obligations already exist independently of the oath rendered or the promise made: they are not created by the latter, only confirmed and emphasized.

In matter and extent the obligation of canonical obedience is, on the one hand, measured by the office and the state, in the assumption of which the vow of obedience and submission is rendered; on the other hand the power to impose commands and to require obedience is measured by the official position of the one to whom the vow is made.

WERNZ, in his Jus Decretalium, Vol. 2, n. 192, says correctly that, “The promise of obedience or the oath of loyalty extends for clerics only to lawful and ecclesiastical matters, especially to those specially expressed in the formula of the oath, and thereby bishop or clerics in no wise become vassals, or political subjects, of the Pope.” Special matters are referred to in the bishop’s oath; not in the oath in the Tridentine confession of faith. In this therefore, the affirmation by oath has reference only to the universal relation of submission of the Catholic Christian to the ecclesiastical precepts of the Papal See.

In regard to the priestly promise, WERNZ, loc. cit., explains: “Canonical obedience, which a cleric and beneficed person is bound to render to his bishop, consists generally in this: that he promptly comply with the bishop’s laws and precepts, sentences and corrections, teachings and admonitions. Among other things, by virtue of the canonical obedience promised, this especially is also required: that a cleric not depart into another diocese without the permission of his bishop, abandoning the service of the Church to which he had been assigned at ordination.—Therefore permission is to be given by the bishop in lawful form and cannot be denied without just cause.—A bishop cannot retain against his will a diocesan cleric who is not assigned to a definite place, lest he depart from his diocese and accept a parish elsewhere; but if, because of necessity, he wishes to retain him altogether in the diocese or recall him to it, he is not forbidden to do so, provided that he furnishes him with suitable support.”

The first and chief duty of canonical obedience is, then, not to abandon of one’s own accord the assumed office, nor to break arbitrarily the relation to the diocese.:

Then follows, as second obligation, the duty to obey, in the charge undertaken, the ecclesiastical instructions of the bishop, and to obey, still more zealously, the related higher regulations. Such higher regulations are contained, for instance, in the constitution of Leo XIII on prohibited books, and printing. Apart from par. 22, which commends a general precept specially to the clergy, par. 42 is particularly addressed to priests: “Men of the secular clergy are not even to publish books that treat of purely natural arts and sciences without consulting their Ordinaries, so that they may furnish an example of an obedient disposition toward them.—The same men are forbidden, without the permission of their Ordinaries, to undertake the direction of newspapers or periodicals.”

The last sentence touches, therefore, a third instance, i. e., non-ecclesiastical matters, in regard to which priests may owe submission and obedience to their bishop. But we see that this is a fact only in a very restricted extent. In this sentence there is reference to things which prejudice in a high degree the fulfilling of the obligations of office and state, or which endanger the reputation of the priest or the priestly state. That in such matters the bishop may exert power is evident; that such conditions be prevented is probably the reason for the general precept. Where, therefore, conditions or reasons prevail, like those which occasioned the papal precept, the bishop may act by power of his authority, and demand the priest’s obedience. In other non-ecclesiastical matters this will hardly be the fact: except where matters are concerned which also otherwise are shown to be prohibited or to be required; to an exact fulfilment of duty, in all matters, the bishop must without doubt hold his clergy in a special manner, as they should set a good example to the rest of the faithful, always and everywhere, by spotless conduct and faithful fulfilment of duty. Without question the episcopal authority remains therefore quite within the privileges of its office when it, in kindred and not necessarily ecclesiastical matters, without actual command imparts admonitions and directions, in order to prevent faulty steps, or to warn against faulty actions and ways of acting, which might give scandal, or may be unedifying. Aug. Lehmkuhl, S.J.