Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article III. On Obedience
575. Definition. Obedience is a moral virtue which renders the will of a man prompt to fulfill the will of another, namely, of one commanding. Thus St. Thomas.974
Obedience seems to be the same as to hearken, or to be one who listens to a word, and consequently by force of the word denotes a certain inclination of the will toward the words of another, especially of a superior.
Distinction. A twofold obedience must be distinguished: one material, the other formal. Material obedience is nothing other than the execution of any commanded virtuous act; for example, if someone elicits an act of faith without intending thereby to fulfill any command. This material obedience is a circumstance of any commanded virtuous act, and consequently is not a special virtue, just as material disobedience is not a special sin but is found in every sinful act,975 since this is a transgression of the eternal law. Formal obedience is the execution of a work insofar as it is commanded by a superior. Therefore the proper motive of this obedience is the command of the superior.
Theologians dispute whether formal obedience demands a true command of the superior (although tacit and interpretive), or whether a manifestation of will short of a command suffices. For example, Peter knows the will of his father, who desires that some work be performed by him. Does Peter exercise an act of true obedience if he fulfills this work without his father having commanded it? Cajetan,976 Lehmkuhl,977 and others stand for the affirmative opinion; Lessius978 and Billuart979 for the negative. This controversy is of little importance. For that act, whether it is said to be elicited by the virtue of obedience strictly so called or not, is certainly virtuous and pertains to the spirit, so to speak, of the virtue of obedience. Certainly if Peter does not fulfill his father's will, known indeed but not joined with a manifest command, he does not commit a sin of disobedience; but the Angelic Doctor rightly says:980 "The will of a superior, in whatever manner it becomes known, is a certain tacit command, and obedience appears the more prompt, the more it anticipates the express command by obeying, once the will of the superior has been understood."
Hence ascetical authors are also accustomed to distinguish three grades of obedience: 1. to fulfill the commanded work at the determined time and in the determined manner; 2. not only to fulfill the external work, but also interiorly to submit one's own will entirely, and thus to will the same and not to will the same as the superior commanding; 3. to comply with the will of the superior, in whatever manner it is known, not only by execution of the work and submission of the will, but also by submission of judgment in simplicity of heart. This is that blind obedience which is undeservedly reproached by some. For all right obedience must be most clear-sighted and therefore keenly discern whether the thing commanded is pleasing to God and lawful in itself, since God must always be obeyed more than man.
But the most perfect obedience is blind in this sense: that it does not judge concerning the natural reason, motive, or value of the thing commanded, but leaves all these things to the prudent discretion of the superior. In this sense St. Gregory the Great says:981 "For true obedience neither examines the intention of prelates nor discriminates among commands.... For whoever has learned to obey perfectly does not know how to judge." We must render this perfect submission of judgment to God and the Church, especially when she employs her infallible magisterium; and therefore the so-called respectful silence does not suffice.982
974 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 104, a. 2 ad 3. B. Raus, C.Ss.R., has discussed De sacrae oboedientiae virtute et voto very learnedly, Lyon, 1923.
975 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 104, a. 2 ad 1.
976 Comm. in 2, 2, q. 104, a. 2.
977 Theol. mor. I, n. 924.
978 De iust. l. 2, c. 46, n. 22.
979 De relig. diss. 2, a. 1.
980 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 104, a. 2.
981 In 1 Reg. l. 2, c. 4, n. 11 (Migne, Patr. lat. 79, 131).
982 Cf. Clement XI, Bull Vineam Domini, 1713.
576. The object of obedience is a command of a superior, whether explicit, tacit, or interpretive.983 But since this object has a special aspect of good, obedience is also a special virtue, the exercise of which can indeed be commanded by diverse other virtues. For obedience proceeds from reverence, which offers homage and honor to a superior; therefore, if it proceeds from the reverence due to God, it pertains to religion and especially to devotion; if it proceeds from reverence for prelates, it is contained in a certain manner under observance.984
983 S. theol., l.c.
984 Ib., a. 3 ad 1.
577. Excellence of obedience. That obedience is a very excellent virtue is evident both from Sacred Scripture, from the praises of the holy Fathers, and from reason. In Sacred Scripture it is said: "Obedience is better than victims."985 Explaining these words, St. Gregory the Great says:986 "Obedience is rightly preferred to victims, because through victims the flesh of another is slain, but through obedience one's own will is slain." St. Thomas says:987 "Man can give nothing greater to God than that, for His sake, he subject his own will to the will of another."
Because of this excellence of its own, obedience is also accustomed to command the other virtues, causing, for example, now a fast, now an act of religion, now an act of love, etc. If obedience is compared objectively with the other virtues, then it is certainly inferior not only to the theological virtues, but also to the virtue of religion, whose object approaches much more closely to God. But if obedience is considered on the part of that which it despises in order to adhere to God, then it excels the other moral virtues. For while the other virtues despise material or bodily goods for the love of God, for example, riches and carnal pleasures, obedience binds and sacrifices one's own will in the service of God, which certainly excels material and bodily goods.988
985 1 Kings 15:22.
986 Moral. l. ult., c. 14 (Migne, Patr. lat. 76, 765).
987 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 186, a. 5 ad 5.
988 Ib., q. 104, a. 3.
578. Extent of obedience. Since obedience is limited by the authority of the superior, its extent is as great as the authority of the superior. Now the authority of God is unlimited and infinite, and His will is most holy. Hence God must be obeyed in all things, and a case in which it is lawful to resist a certainly known command of God is impossible.989
But the authority of a human superior is limited by not only divine but also human law. Hence a subject cannot obey a superior commanding something which is contrary to natural or positive divine law. For such obedience would be indiscreet, since God must be obeyed more than men.990 If a human superior indeed exceeds his competence but commands nothing unlawful, the subject can, but is not bound, to obey. But if a doubt arises concerning the liceity of an act commanded by a superior, then this doubt is to be examined according to one's ability. But if the doubt persists, the subject is bound to obey, because the presumption stands for the superior, who is not considered to have commanded something unlawful unless this is certainly established. Authors do not agree whether a human superior can command merely internal acts. This controversy was discussed above, I, n. 183, in the tract on laws. Whether parents can command their children concerning the choice of some state will be discussed in the following chapter.
989 Ib., a. 4.
990 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 104, a. 5.
579. Opposed vices. To obedience is opposed: 1. by excess, servility or indiscreet obedience, which complies even in unlawful things; 2. by defect, disobedience, which is either material, and then is not a special sin because it is found in the violation of every virtue; or formal, which arises from formal contempt either of the command or of the one commanding. Someone transgresses a command from formal contempt when his will refuses to be subjected to an ordinance and transgresses it precisely from this motive. For if someone transgresses a command because of anger, concupiscence, or another disordered passion, he sins neither from contempt nor from formal disobedience.
Formal contempt of a (particular) command is called imperfect, but contempt of the one commanding is called perfect formal contempt and is a sin much graver than formal contempt of a command.991 Indeed, it is a mortal sin in its whole genus because it is a grave injury to despise a superior and precisely from this contempt to transgress his command, although it concerns matter light in itself.992 The same holds if someone does not despise a particular command but already refuses in whole, that is, in all commands, to be subject to the superior. Formal contempt of a particular command indeed constitutes formal disobedience and therefore is a mortal sin from its genus, but admits slightness of matter.
For all formal disobedience is opposed to the charity both of God and of one's neighbor, since the charity of God demands that we comply with His commandments. Hence Christ said: "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me."993 But in the divine precepts is contained the requirement that human superiors also be obeyed. And "therefore also disobedience, whereby someone is disobedient to the commands of superiors, is a mortal sin, as contrary to divine love, according to that saying: He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.994 It is opposed moreover to the love of one's neighbor, insofar as it withdraws from a superior who is one's neighbor the obedience which is due to him."995
Disobedience admits slightness of matter and consequently can be a venial sin. In general it can be said: A sin of disobedience is the graver, the higher the one commanding and the graver the command violated.
991 Ib., q. 105, a. 2.
992 Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 2, De oboed., a. 4.
993 John 14:21.
994 Rom. 13:2.
995 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 105, a. 1.