By Henry Aloysius Barry
Infirmities in the shape of spiritual rulers give ground for tears and sighs, for prayer and compassion with the founder of the Church, and yet our respect, love and obedience to our pastors should go on in unimpaired fidelity. This obedience of course does not imply that one may not, or should not, in an humble and prudential way, after sage advice, point out to the proper charge d'affaires a scandalous abuse. I am aware that from such a path an humble man shrinks with chilling dread, yet, after all, one ought not to have an unenlightened charity nor a false idea of duty. Anything, of course, that could resemble a deliberate espionage or officiousness would imply conceit. The abuse should thrust itself upon one. There are some whose theory is to praise dumbness —which means, let evil run its course—and rebuke those who, in the interests of religion, and only after wise reflection and advice, vouchsafe, from a sense of duty, an humble protest. Such a theory is built upon an exaggeration. St. Catherine of Genoa and St. Catherine of Sienna support the theory of respectful protest as examples from their lives clearly demonstrate. It remains, however, a fact that authority is sacred and that the Holy Ghost animates it in the Church. Whether or not Savonarola in his zeal for righteousness in rulers was affected in his personal obedience to authority is rather the providence of the critical historian. If this were the fact, he was not a wise person nor a really holy man. It can never be a matter of dispute that supremacy is holy. It has without exception the right to our respect, love and fealty. What circumstances have entered into the choice of rulers in the Church or what qualities the elect may or may not have does not change the internal relationship of power. It represents to us the selection of the Holy Ghost. This is enough for us to know. A ruler's personal life may be the antipodes of the Holy Ghost's ideal and yet we are bidden by our Lord to do as the Scribes and Pharisees say, as being in their several official capacities the lamps of God.
To disobey an ex-Cathedra utterance of the Church is heresy; to disown the voice of superiors in discipline is mutiny and rebellion. The more a subject can confine and direct bis vision and intercourse within the realm of his superior's official person, the purer will be his docility, the more christian his life and the more fruitful, peaceful and suave will be his obedience.
Infirmities in the shape of spiritual rulers give ground for tears and sighs, for prayer and compassion with the founder of the Church, and yet our respect, love and obedience to our pastors should go on in unimpaired fidelity. This obedience of course does not imply that one may not, or should not, in an humble and prudential way, after sage advice, point out to the proper charge d'affaires a scandalous abuse. I am aware that from such a path an humble man shrinks with chilling dread, yet, after all, one ought not to have an unenlightened charity nor a false idea of duty. Anything, of course, that could resemble a deliberate espionage or officiousness would imply conceit. The abuse should thrust itself upon one. There are some whose theory is to praise dumbness —which means, let evil run its course—and rebuke those who, in the interests of religion, and only after wise reflection and advice, vouchsafe, from a sense of duty, an humble protest. Such a theory is built upon an exaggeration. St. Catherine of Genoa and St. Catherine of Sienna support the theory of respectful protest as examples from their lives clearly demonstrate. It remains, however, a fact that authority is sacred and that the Holy Ghost animates it in the Church. Whether or not Savonarola in his zeal for righteousness in rulers was affected in his personal obedience to authority is rather the providence of the critical historian. If this were the fact, he was not a wise person nor a really holy man. It can never be a matter of dispute that supremacy is holy. It has without exception the right to our respect, love and fealty. What circumstances have entered into the choice of rulers in the Church or what qualities the elect may or may not have does not change the internal relationship of power. It represents to us the selection of the Holy Ghost. This is enough for us to know. A ruler's personal life may be the antipodes of the Holy Ghost's ideal and yet we are bidden by our Lord to do as the Scribes and Pharisees say, as being in their several official capacities the lamps of God.
To disobey an ex-Cathedra utterance of the Church is heresy; to disown the voice of superiors in discipline is mutiny and rebellion. The more a subject can confine and direct bis vision and intercourse within the realm of his superior's official person, the purer will be his docility, the more christian his life and the more fruitful, peaceful and suave will be his obedience.
