Tag: Obedience

CDXLVIII – Liturgy Wars (2)

Commenter Anon33 discusses my recent article on the Liturgy Wars. In it, he says the following:

Fr. Z has a great metaphor for the two masses. Paraphrasing, the Novus Ordo is bread. Is it a food? Yes. Can you eat it? Yes. Does it sustain you? Sure.

On the other hand, the TLM is a royal feast of rib roast, mashed potatoes with gravy, grilled asparagus, glass of Chianti, and a creme brulee to top it off. Is it food? The best! Can you eat it? How can you not! Does it sustain you? Of course!

Now imagine the Pope comes along and says, “Catholics are only allowed to eat bread.” If you’ve eaten bread your entire life, you shrug and move on with your life. However, if you’ve been nourished by roasts & such, you would be up in arms, too.

That’s what’s going on here.

As to the laity’s involvement, we do have strength in numbers, see evidence.

The following was my response (lightly edited to include back-links), which was long enough to be its own post so I am posting it here:

You highlight some really important things, and some really difficult things. Again, my hobbyhorse has been obedience and I think I take a somewhat radical view on the subject. I know this is perhaps a Scoot-specific idiosyncrasy, but it is illustrative of Whats Up With The World (TM).

Here is the important thing: The Mass Feeds. When you boil it down, that is the most important part of Mass. Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist. In an absolute pinch, Priests don’t even need an ornate Church–they have travel kits. My priest before I moved offered a Mass on a hike with the young adults of the parish. We are fed. The Desert Fathers had traveling priests visit their hermitages and offer Mass for them as well.

Here is the difficult thing: Christ frequently and repeatedly refers to us as Sheep–and not in any degrading or diminutive sense, but in the sense that we rely entirely on Christ for the provision of our needs. By entirely I don’t mean “mostly”, I mean every moment of every day, every atom in our bodies, every (good) desire in our hearts comes from God. This dependence is extremely hard to grasp. And when we are confronted with it, it is extremely difficult to be grateful.

A scriptural case study: after Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, they were sustained on Manna from Heaven. Manna was not a rich feast but it kept them going. In the desert, this was a sign that God loved them and wanted to nourish them. God could equally have sent a rib-roast banquet every morning with the dewfall, but these meager rations reminded the Hebrews who it was who delivered them and the hunger in their bellies should have reminded them what is important: that the Lord provides. We know from recent Sunday readings that they grumbled and wanted new signs and proofs that God had not abandoned them. We know that a journey that was supposed to take only 40 days ended up taking 40 years while God had to repeatedly, carefully, and lovingly teach the Hebrews that His love was unfailing.

You may have pulled out the parallel I am making now, but let me make it explicit. We are sheep that have been fed a rich, beautiful feast–like the prodigal sons brother who stayed loyally by his fathers side, and enjoyed all of the fruits of that loyalty and none of the hardships that the prodigal son endured. If our shepherd takes away some of the blessings of this feast, and we must persist on meager rations, should that not give us clarity in our minds what about the Mass is important? Should that not teach us that–hey, we can (and already know how to) offer a much more fulfilling feast than this?

You are absolutely right, that having been fed by such a feast as you describe, only to have it replaced with meager bread and water rations, you would naturally be up in arms. But what if the Holy Spirit is trying to teach us–all of us, not just those who worship at a TLM specifically–a lesson? What if the Holy Spirit is trying to get us to answer the question “What is it about the Mass that is important?”

Your video is one Hambone and I have spent a lot of time chewing over. In the one sense, yes strength in numbers–but the Church is not democratic. Christ is our King, and the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ”–Vicar shares a root with “Viceroy” and means “second in command” or “deputy”–The Pope is the steward, the King while the King is away. The subjects to the King will always have strength in numbers, but a numerical majority does not make one right. If the Pope hands down an order–any order–that is at best morally good or at worst not evil, and it is a lawful order for the Pope to give, we have a duty to obey. We ought to give wide latitude to what constitutes a lawful order, especially from the Pope.

I don’t vote, because I don’t believe in democracy (another hobbyhorse of this blog). If my bishop said unequivocally “All Catholics in the diocese must vote” then I would vote–I owe the bishop my obedience, he is the deputy to the Pope after all and the duty of obedience flows down from God.

All this to say that–the laity ought to take their cues from the priests and the other Church leaders. Barring the doors to a Church is bad. Did the bishop order it, or the government? If the bishop, shouldn’t the priests have obeyed? If the priests obeyed but winked and nodded to the laity, is that really obedience?

There is nothing–literally nothing–more countercultural in this day and age than forthright and clear-eyed obedience. The liturgy wars are, in my opinion, born out of the democratization of the laity–we think the Pope must listen to us and that just isn’t the case. He should! I hope he does! But his obligation extends to feeding his flock. The Pope was chosen by the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit must, in some way, will for us to nourish ourselves on bread for the time being.

AMDG

CDXLVII – Liturgy Wars?

Dipping into the substack well of fodder again, someone recently posted a lengthy meta-critique of the Liturgy Wars. Overall, it represented a call for civility. I commented on the article something to the extent that we ought not be having liturgy wars at all, and that we owe a duty of obedience to the Church, a fact which has become something of a hobbyhorse of mine.

The commenter replied to me suggesting there are three ancillary questions to the liturgy wars which are pertinent:

There should be no need for discussion as to the validity of either form of the mass in the Roman Rite. But, there are many other related discussions that do need to occur. Among these: 1.) The nature of Sacred Tradition, 2.) The value of aesthetics within the liturgy, 3.) The exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy, etc

Here, I will attempt to address the ancillary questions–but out of sequence because I do what I want.

3. What is the exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy?

The Pope is the highest possible authority on Earth. His is the last word on final say, when he invokes papal infallibility. On all other matters, insofar as they are not contradictory to the Dogmatic teachings of the Church–that is to say, insofar as they are true–we owe a duty of obedience. Catholic liturgy is well within the scope of Papal Authority, so in my view the Pope has the authority to modify the liturgy and provide guidance as to its conduct. He has some limitations imposed upon him by past councils and doctrine. The Pope cannot abrogate completely the Latin Mass, for example, nor can he change the Mass to something irreverent or heretical.

Let’s consider a negative example, though. Suppose the Pope did not have the authority to amend the liturgy. What is the extent of this? There are A LOT more liturgies than just the Latin and Novus Ordo. There’s the Maronite rite–an Eastern-style liturgy in communion with Rome. There’s the Ge’ez rite of Ethiopia. The Anglican Ordinariate. What shall we do with these liturgies? If you moved to Ethiopia, would you insist upon the Latin Mass among all the Ethiopians? If so–why is this different?

The core fulcrum of this whole discussion is what’s up with Traditionis Custodes which specifically plays the Latin against the Novus Ordo. While this is rude and offensive to fans of the Latin, insofar as Papal Authority is concerned it is not out of his scope. There are plenty of other liturgies in other languages that are unaffected. Would it be better to have some consistency from the top about the liturgy? Yes. Was Traditionis Custodes a poorly executed maneuver? Yes. Was it morally or doctrinally wrong? No. Not obviously, anyway.

1. What is the nature of Sacred Tradition as regards the Liturgy?

Let’s side-step the words in this question for a moment and get to the intent. The Latin Mass of the 1962 Missal is older and most Catholics for most of Catholic history would have been familiar with it. I don’t know how old the Ge’ez rite is nor the Maronite, but the fact is that Sacred Tradition does not appear to be homogeneous. When we talk tradition, the first question should be “whose tradition?”

Sacred Tradition should be changed as little as possible and as it happens, the Latin Mass has not changed in all these years. What is happening is it is being suppressed in favor of a different tradition that is from the Catholic Church and so is no less sacred.

It’s fitting here to remember that we are peasants, and that liturgical squabbles are far above and beyond the scope of our influence or reach or understanding. What would be good is to go to Mass at the Church that we like and invest deeply there. Whatever the liturgy is that is there, make sure it’s something you can stomach. Communicate with the Pastor about what you can do to help safeguard the liturgy you prefer. Give generously in the collections at the Mass that you prefer. And beyond that–stay put. Lay down roots. Don’t uproot every time a decision is made you don’t like. Only the people that weather the storms get to shape the future. The people who leave at the drop of a hat are just more debris in the wind.

2. What is the Value of Aesthetics in Liturgy?

Aesthetics is very important. Aesthetics essentially means “style” or “appearance” or “the look of things”. The liturgy should be beautiful because it is both good and true. A beautiful liturgy is a beautiful offering to God. No Catholic liturgy is truly ugly, but the liturgy that has absent many beautiful accidents is just a less ornate offering to God. It is not an unfitting offering, nor is it an ugly offering.

Here’s where it is important to be careful. The Latin Mass is objectively beautiful. It is also objectively more beautiful than the Novus Ordo. That doesn’t mean that it is better for souls because any valid Mass is good for souls. We don’t want to become aesthetic gluttons–snobs–we want to focus on what is important. What is the important thing about the Mass? It is the Holy Scriptures. It is the Eucharist. That’s really it–the two liturgies within the liturgy. Are you getting fed? If yes, nothing else matters. Nothing else should matter.

In Conclusion

Liturgy Wars are really preference wars, but we have no say and no influence and it’s all a big hubbub over nothing. Go to Mass where you like. If you prefer the Ge’ez rite, go there. If you prefer Latin, go there. If you prefer English, go there. Choose your language, choose your liturgy, and go there. Invest deeply. Focus on the things that matter. Don’t forget to love your neighbors–they are prodigal sons too, just trying to make sure they have found the right home.

AMDG

CCCLVII – Harsh Doctrines (Romans Edition)

A harsh doctrine practiced with kindness: this is not a formula for hypocrisy, but the secret of all ancient, rich, and mature civilizations.
-Nicolás Gómez Dávila (Don Colacho)
(Previously)

Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep. Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits. To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men.

If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.
– Romans 12:14-21

Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.

For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law. For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.
– Romans 13:1-10

Now we that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of you please his neighbour unto good, to edification.

For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written: The reproaches of them that reproached thee, fell upon me. For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope.
– Romans 15:1-4

Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of justice unto God.
– Romans 6:13

AMDG

CCCXXVII – Wrong Move, Bud

Unflaggingly, let us love the Lord our God and let us love his Church. Let us love Him as the Lord and the Church as his handmaid.

No one can offend the one and still be pleasing to the other. What does it avail you if you do not directly offend the Father but do offend the mother?

St. Augustine, Commentary on Psalm 89, Paragraph 41

I encountered the epigraph in a book of daily quotes by St. Augustine, and it hit me in a different way. Here I offer some reflections that came to mind upon reading this.

1- Shun Error as Error, with Holy and Righteous Fear and Wrath

Avoid Error like you avoid unsafe streets at night. Walk the long way home in order to avoid it. Bring your friends with you, so you can all make sure each other is safe. You may be able to face down whatever evil lies in the darkened spiritual pathways, but you may not. The risk to your soul is too great. Error is all that which leads away from God, those falsehoods which diminish or detract from God and His Holy Church. If you feel compelled to explore darkened spiritual alleyways, have a spiritual director–a trained professional who knows the streets and who is better equipped than you. Be afraid for your soul, because it is the most precious thing you have.

2- Avoid teaching people about Error, even to refute it.

The way to begin catechesis for a person interested in Catholicism is not to tell them about all the heresies, nor to teach them about every negative headline you may have seen or heard about. Teach them about the good news. Connect them with a spiritual director. If appropriate, talk to the spiritual director about any difficult topics and how you should approach them. For Mass evangelism (like, say, blogging), don’t open the door to Error, don’t give “both sides of the debate” equal air time. Truth is true–preach Truth, let interlocutors bring error and then minister to your interlocutors. If a pure, unblemished mind were to encounter your apologetics, would their mind depart edified or darkened by your arguments? Protect the souls of those in your care, even from yourself.

3- Trust that final justice rests with God

God knows the truth with absolute clarity. He knows what injustice has been done in this life, and any debt unpaid will be exacted at the end of all things. Pray that God make you an instrument of his Justice and Mercy, especially in evangelical or apologetical efforts. This will help ensure that you are speaking with the authority of the Father in defense of the Mother, or vice versa. A good way to ensure this also is to keep close to the sacraments, especially Eucharist.

4- We owe a duty of obedience to the Church as mother.

It is called both Holy Mother Church and the Bride of Christ. The Church is our alma mater–listen to your mother, treat her with respect and reverence. You wouldn’t curse at your mother, insult her. You wouldn’t disobey her lawful commands.

I can’t remember if I invented this memory or if I heard this from someone else. I am going to tell it as if it happened to me, but I don’t remember very well. My Mom wanted me to do something, and I was mad and insolent and disobedient. I used some words I shouldn’t have. My Dad heard and said “Don’t you speak to my wife that way.” Whether this happened to me or not, the event left an impression on me–there was a relationship between my parents which superseded my relationship with them. To her, she was my mother, to him, she was his wife. It created a divide–I shaped up, repented. Have any of your fathers had to pull out language like that? Have any of you out there had a similar experience?

That is how God will treat disobedience and disrespect to His bride. Augustine, in his commentary, goes on to say, “Suppose you have some patron, whom you court every day, whose threshold you wear with your visits, whom you daily not only salute, but even worship, to whom you pay the most loyal courtesy; if you utter one calumny against his wife, could you re-enter his house?” You could not, without great shame–or great forgiveness on the patrons part.

5- Francis is Pope

AMDG

CCCXI – Scoot and Hambone Talk About Stuff (Ep. 3)

Regarding Obedience and Authority:
(Ep 1 | Ep 2)

Hambone: There’s a video [a blogger] posts every Palm Sunday – I think we’ve talked about it before. It’s the French traditionalist congregation literally using a battering ram to remove the cinder-block wall blocking the front door of “their” church. Hundreds are singing “Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat” in the background the entire time. It’s hard not to get emotional.

Scoot: Oh Yeah! That video left a profound impression on me.

H: It touches on a vein we struggle with. Where is the line? When is it OK to disobey? (It’s my understanding the bishop had it bricked up)

S: Yeah. It’s a tough question.

H: There was a Papal Bull in the 1500s that essentially says they can’t abrogate or change the Latin Mass. That’s why they just made a new Mass and pretended the old one wasn’t allowed.

S: If I’m a peasant, the local church is my only access to the sacraments, so to be cut off from that is to be cut off from life, right?

H: I imagine there were “Novus Ordo” Churches nearby.

S: The video looked old.

H: 1987

S: Wow. So, I don’t know man, bricking up a church seems like an OK thing to undo, right? Like, if it wasn’t a bishop who ordered it, it’s a no-brainer. Can a bishop lawfully order a parish to close like that? Well–we’re getting away from peasantly considerations.

H: So my understanding is he is a prince of his diocese. They close churches all the time, you know? And the parishioners are devastated.

S: It’s very weird. What happened in the aftermath of the battering ram incident?

H: To be honest, I don’t know. I can’t imagine they were allowed access from then on. The Church probably got sold and turned into condos.

S: What were the priests telling people?

H: The priest was set up to say Mass outside the Church. I think it was grassroots indignation.

S: Because the priests are the immediate Shepherd. If they said “Tear down that wall” then it’s ok for the laity to tear it down–it becomes a conflict between Shepherds (Priest vs. Bishop). But if the Priest said “Listen to the Bishop even though it sucks” then the Laity was wrong.

H: It’s tough–like, was the American revolution “wrong”? Can a person lawfully disobey God given authority? And under what circumstances?

S: I think the American revolution was wrong, to be honest. But since it happened, we are not bound by the sins of our fathers, you know? I think we should take great pains to NOT disobey lawful authority. It’s a kind of martyrdom to obey an unjust edict from a lawful authority. Not immoral, but unjust. Saying “This Church is closed” is a valid act, exercised poorly.

H: So how do I develop my standard? “Hey, cheat on your wife” is an easy order to disobey. But am I supposed to parse hundreds (thousands) of years of Church documents to figure out what is right? How deep into shades of grey do I go, you know?

S: No–you’re supposed to trust in the apostolic succession. Bishop is the representative of the Chair of Peter, not an elected official. The Holy Spirit works in them, through good or ill. You and I are powerless. The things we must disobey will be as obvious as “hey, cheat on your wife”. The things we ought to obey might be hard and might suck but out of obedience to the Church God gave us, I think we have to bow to an unjust prince no matter what we think.

H: So disobeying an order to pinch incense to the point of death is bravery. But so much nowadays it seems like they try to empty the divine of its meaning, rather than trying to get you to abandon it. And allowing the former doesn’t feel brave.

H: It’s a unique sort of punishment.

S: That’s why home worship is equally important to public worship (Mass).

S: Yeah, it’s a poetic kind of justice. We try to empty the divine of meaning and God says “Alright, disobey me? Have fun guys.” And we have to suffer under our own ideas, until we realign with God the way He intends. All of these problems are because we took on the weight of the world. And we are finding it heavy. Give it back to God–we need to do that as a Church. But until then we can only do that as individuals. Home worship, home sacramentals, are sufficient to keep the fire alive, in conjunction with any valid Mass. It might not be bright, but it will be alive.

H: You’re right, there’s just such a predisposition to “be right” or have an image of yourself standing up for the little man or thumbing your nose at “tyrants”.

S: Modernity makes us think the Church is a democracy. But we don’t get a say. And that’s hard, in a democratic world: to be actually powerless. It’s important to get to the point of understanding that.

H: We never did, but coming to terms with it fully is demoralizing–and freeing too.

S: Yes. It’s the true meaning, in my opinion, of “I am dust and to dust I shall return.” Dust can’t vote, or form itself into pottery. Dust settles where it is and it’s on the ones with the power to clean to move the dust where it needs to be. It’s demoralizing insofar as I thought I was capable of more; freeing in that I don’t need to be capable of more.

H: And in most peoples cases, it’s truly just their ego, not their reality. The battering ram is an interesting case because the people involved actually had the power to do something.

S: Yeah. And again–it’s the priests who were responsible for managing the flock. If the shepherd closes the gates to let a field lay fallow, and the sheep ram their way in, it’s the shepherds fault for not controlling the sheep. People are allowed to feel sentimental and affectionate to their parish. The priests are in the awkward position of explaining bad news in a way that calms the parishioners and obeys the bishop. These priests seem to have not done one of those two things to avoid awkwardness.

H: No, you’re right. The only excuse I’ll give was France was and is like, peak awful. But it’s important to realize that for everyone except Joan of Arc they were just sort of expected to live up to their station in life. And those called will be given the tools to “prove” it to those of good faith.

S: Well said. God gives graces to those called to a higher purpose. He gives graces to the rest of us too, but those of us not called to be Joan of Arc just need to worry about being good sheep.

AMDG

(o) – The Call of Peter

In Luke 5, Christ tells Peter to let down his nets, and Peter brings his nets up full-to-bursting with fish. At this, Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”

This happens very early in the Gospel of Luke, and the rest of the Gospel up to his crucifixion is Christ doing more and more extraordinary things, and being believed less and less.

Christ didn’t preach a specific theology to Peter, he told him to lower his net, and Peter obeyed.

Be like Peter: Believe first, understand later. It seems to me that this is why Christ says so often: “Your faith has saved you”. Christ didn’t go around preaching theology, he preached the Faith.

AMDG

CCLXXXIII – Rules for Catholics to Grow in Obedience

I – Whom shall we obey?

1 – Obey those whom you ought to obey, even if you don’t like their instruction

2 – Obey those whom you are not obligated to obey, if what they instruct you to do is not a moral wrong. Moderate obedience with prudence and justice in the practice of obedience to these.

3 – Interpret the list of those whom you ought to obey expansively–assume you ought to obey more people than you intuitively realize.

4 – Keep your commitments as if they were instructions given from God, not resolutions made on your own accord.

II – How shall we obey?

5 – Accept any criticisms of your work as if they were guidance given from God to point out areas you need to grow.

6 – Do not complain about some work given to you–act as if you are carrying a bucket of water, and to complain is to trip and spill some over the side. Speak carefully.

7 – Do not speak about any thing achieved by you–act as if it is a fragile treasure, and speaking of it will disturb and break it. Speak carefully.

8 – Redirect any praise received to God, because God is the source of any good achieved in and through you.

III – What shall we do?

9 – Look for opportunities to serve, and minimize occasions to be served.

10 – Prepare yourself for sacrifice in the service of others, think of your possessions as not being yours, but being given to you to administer and distribute.

(e) – Afterthought about Bad Sovereigns

It is easy to be obedient to a good Sovereign. It is hard to be obedient to a bad Sovereign. But the bad Sovereign needs our obedience more because our obedience (and also our forbearance) lends itself to both social stability and our sanctification. There are many stories of Saints whose path to holiness passed through a monastery with an ill tempered superior.

Our duty of obedience goes up to and no further than the point of Tyranny, where they become an evil Sovereign by enforcing some moral evil as truth, and our duty becomes one of disobedience.

I’ll leave you to figure out how that works in a Democracy.

CXCIX – What The World Doesn’t Want to Hear

This is the fruit of a conversation with Hambone about a variety of topics. The main thrust of it was along the lines of “what would be the most effective thing the Church could preach”. Hambone phrased it differently but for my purposes that is a useful paraphrase of our conversation.

If your parish is anything like mine, you hear a lot about peace and love. Peace and Love are great, and of course should be preached. A pulpit that didn’t profess peace and love would be a poor one indeed. Of course, that is the problem: Peace and love are perfectly unobjectionable concepts. At some point The WorldTM caught on to peace and love and made it it’s own. Catholics may wonder why their brand of peace and love isn’t getting traction. The WorldTM started preaching peace and love and the Church started preaching it back, and the world just laughed at us because ours has rules.

The Church can’t compete on peace and love. It’s like negotiating to get your new brand of soda put into a vending machine: sure, it might taste better or be cheaper but you see, they’ve already got soda and it’s selling just fine. In other words, you can’t sell a different kind of the same product and expect people to change behavior: You have to sell them a different product.

So what is that different product? I don’t know, but I can tell you what I think it is.

If there’s one thing that The WorldTM likes, it is individualism. This concept has even entered into Catholic circles, and it is dangerously acidic. The Catholic answer to that should be obedience to authority. The yoke is easy and the burden is light! Christ is our King, and we owe him a duty of obedience. In that same vein, we owe a duty of obedience to truth. Christ is our King, and we accept this because it is true.

We can tie it back to peace and love if we wanted: The only way to truly have peace is to accept the laws of our King obediently. There would be no conflict if everyone was perfectly law abiding–obedience is peace. We do this because it is true, and God is the perfection of Truth, God is Truth itself, and we love God, therefore we love Truth.

If we heard from our pulpits that we must accept the yoke, I think it would pop a lot of brains. It is counter-intuitive, certainly counter-cultural. Everyone has already heard peace and love. How many people believe that Obedience and Truth are perfectly unobjectionable? That’s what would make it an effective message.

AMDG

CLXVII – The Mask is Easy

Obedience is a tricky concept. We live in an individualistic society. I am tempted to write “militant individualism” but that struck me as a conflict of terms. Militant requires group enforcement, and group enforcement is not individualism. Then again, a lot of people who claim to be “individualistic” are conforming to a particular group whose attributes they emulate, so take of that what you will. My goal here is not to write about Individualism, but obedience.

I once got in an argument with a contributor at the Orthosphere–possibly even in the comments of one of my own articles. He argued the opposite of freedom was slavery. I proposed that there is another alternative to freedom, and that is obedience. Obedience is the willful subordination to another. When my father told me to mow the lawn as a youth, rarely did I obey without some kind of protest. I was an impertinent youth and I bought into the sweet toxic nectar of individualism. Individualism says “I will mow the Lawn when I want to.” Slavery says “I must mow the lawn when I’m told to.” Obedience says “I want to mow the Lawn when you want it mowed.” There’s two differences between the former sentence and the latter. The former says “must…when I’m told”, the latter says “want…when you want”. “Must” implies an imperative. A slave has no choice in the matter. “Want” implies a free choice, an option. Both are examples of obedience, but the slave is begrudging (“I have no choice but to comply”) while the obedient one is willing (“I want what you want”).

Let’s look at another aspect of that lawn mowing example. My father is a lawful authority over me, especially when I was an impertinent youth. My neighbor could tell me to mow my own lawn and it would be charitable to comply, just as it would be charitable if my neighbor told me to mow his lawn. It might be uncharitable of my neighbor to make such a demand, but would not be uncharitable to comply. my neighbor is not a lawful authority over me, so I could say no, and be well within my rights to do so. If my father told me to mow my neighbors lawn, again it would be obedient to comply, and would only be charitable insofar as it was charitable of my father to order me to come to the assistance of my neighbor. If my neighbor was cultivating an herb garden and my father wished it to be destroyed, that would not be charitable and complying would be obedient insofar as I obeyed a lawful authority, but uncharitable insofar as I was complicit in a cruel act.

All this is on my mind because my employer, in July, posted signs all around the office mandating masks in common areas. I resented this at first blush because I had been one of the few going to the office, we made it through the worst months of Coronavirus, and now that the worst had passed, now we were being mandated to wear a mask. An executive who only comes in occasionally caught me on numerous occasions flaunting the mask-wearing policy, and threatened to send me home. This stirred my resentment even more.

The individualist part of me was inflamed by this. I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul! I will wear a mask when I, the proper authority of myself and of my own needs, deem it necessary!

But it dawned on me, slowly (two months of quiet rebellion later), that my employer is a lawful authority over me. That wearing a mask is not a moral evil. That whether I agree with the necessity or not, it is obedient for me to wear the mask. Otherwise I was being just as impertinent an adult as I was as a youth.

This is quite unlike the Romans demanding early Christians submit their pinch of incense to false gods. Paying homage to false gods was a moral evil. It would be obedient to comply, but that would not change the evil nature of the act, even under duress and evil circumstance. This is how Diocletian is responsible for so many early Christian martyrs: They refused obedience to a lawful authority and complicity with moral evil. Wearing a mask is not an evil act, it costs nothing to me or to my soul to comply.

That “the yoke is easy and the burden is light” is possibly one of my favorite passages from scripture. The full passage is in Matthew 11:28-30. It calls to my mind taming of beasts of burden. An ox in the wild must face far more dangers and far more scarcity than an ox on a farm. On the farm, an ox is provided for and fears for nothing. In exchange for these benefits, it must accept the law of the farmer in the form of a yoke. The yoke simply allows the ox’s labor to be put to some use, which only the farmer knows. It is not hard, and the burden is not heavy, but nevertheless it is a yoke. “Iron individualism” rejects all yokes.

Here’s another observation, which a friend shared with me about this passage. A yoke is typically built for two oxen to work together. Christ offers us the yoke, and through the Cross has offered to work beside us. When Christ says “pick up your Cross and follow me” he is admonishing us to accept the yoke.

AMDG