The Obedience of St. Joseph

There has been a buzz in Catholic circles surrounding a particular priest who was just defrocked. He was known for his pro-life organization (which unfortunately included committing blasphemy, blatant disobedience to the local bishop, vulgarity, misuse of human remains on an altar to campaign for preferred political candidates - which is also possibly sacrilege, and more).

If you do not know that to which I am referring, it may mean that you are in less toxic social media circles…so do not feel ignorant. All you need to know is that a priest was laicized for his continued disobedience and rejection of legitimate instructions from his bishop.

It really is not that complicated: when you make a promise, you are expected to keep that promise. When you repeatedly break that promise and repeatedly refuse to repent for said violations, there are consequences.

Priests make a promise of obedience to their bishop and successors. Pope St. John Paul II wrote in Pastores Dabo Vobis that "there can be no genuine priestly ministry except in communion with ... one's own diocesan Bishop, who deserves that 'filial respect and obedience' promised during the rite of ordination."

I should note that the obedience a priest promises to his bishop is not a blind obedience based on the subjective whim of the bishop. It presupposes that the bishop has legitimate authority and is giving a legitimate instruction. Here is a likely oversimplified, yet hopefully useful understanding of legitimate authority and legitimate instruction:

Pertaining to legitimate authority:
In my case, the bishop with legitimate authority over me is the Bishop of Harrisburg. The Bishop of Tyler, Texas, for example, does not have legitimate authority over me. This does not mean that I will blatantly disrespect any bishop that is not the Bishop of Harrisburg. I will of course respect the office that every bishop holds. It just means that other diocesan bishops do not have the legitimate authority to reassign me or give me specific instructions pertaining to my ministry - and I am not bound to obey said specific instructions from him. The legitimate authority to which I have promised obedience at my ordination is reserved to the Bishop of Harrisburg.

Pertaining to legitimate instruction:
If the Bishop of Harrisburg told me to do something that was truly morally evil that blatantly rejected the teachings of the Magisterium…or if he instructed me to change the words to the Eucharistic prayer - that would be deemed an illegitimate instruction. In such cases, my oath of fidelity to the Magisterium (made as a seminarian) would actually mandate my rejection of said illegitimate instructions (fortunately, I have never been put in that position as a priest!). On the other hand, if the Bishop of Harrisburg gives me a new assignment or asks me to cease a specific pastoral ministry (e.g. if he asked me to take down this website, for instance), that would be a legitimate instruction. I do not have to personally agree with the instruction, but I would be bound by the promise I made at my ordination to obey.

With this nuanced understanding of what this promise of obedience entails, we can add that priests do not get dismissed for being passionately pro-life. In fact, they are not even dismissed for blasphemy alone. Dismissal of a priest comes after years of flouting and disobeying legitimate instructions of his legitimate superiors. There is a thorough canonical process for such situations that requires a great deal of time and evidence. Laicization of a priest in this case happens when the priest is in an unrepentant state of defiance, and every other option to rectify the situation has been attempted.

In other words, you really have to be persistently disobedient to the local bishop to receive this kind of disciplinary action from the Holy See. This does not happen often, and when it does, it is for grave reasons.

Another way to explain this is that, in Canon Law, a number of things can be forgiven and fixed in the Church...but it is hard to have those things forgiven and fixed when there is a repeated refusal to recognize the authority of those who can do the said forgiving and fixing.

With the case of this particular priest who was defrocked, some within Church circles are yelling "what about other priests?! There are other priests who do so much worse!”

What this argument fails to point out is that those ‘other priests’ who have issues are still usually obedient to the legitimate instructions of their legitimate superiors. Pastoral imprudence/misrepresenting Church teaching is indeed a problem, but it is not the same as disobedience.

Why is disobedience such a problematic issue in Church law? Obedience is at the heart of holiness. St. Maximillian Kolbe once wrote that holiness is aligning our will to God’s. We are called to imitate Jesus in his obedience, even unto death. Moreover, God communicates His will through the legitimate authorities of the Church - not because the individuals are virtuous, but because of the office that they hold. Therefore, obedience to his legitimate superior is central for priests to be holy.

Before I further discuss the necessity of obedience for holiness - I would like to get back to this counterargument made by some - the argument that ‘other priests are worse.’ This argument is not only akin to a bratty eight year old protesting appropriate disciplinary actions by the parents, but it is also revealing. Those who value ideology over reality - who value cultural victories over personal conversion and growth in virtue - always say, "You're worse than me.” Notice that that the argument is rarely "I'm ‘more virtuous’ than you." It is always an argument that the other ‘side’ is worse. Remember that the pharisees in the Gospel never really made an argument based on their own goodness. Rather, though unsuccessfully, they simply sought evidence to prove that Jesus was ‘worse.’ This argument about ‘other priests’ is, in some sense, a kind modern pharisaism.

I try to avoid such controversial news headlines, because I believe such contributions on my part only add to the noise. But I made an exception today. I made an exception today because it serves, in my opinion, an important cause.

The cause is to highlight the holiness of St. Joseph.

Today, we celebrate the 4th Sunday in Advent and are one week away from Christmas. Today’s Gospel presents the dream St. Joseph encountered prior to taking Mary into his home. Only second to Mary, I’d argue that St. Joseph is the model of holiness for Christians.

What makes him holy? His obedience.

Fr. Frederick Miller, a former Mount St. Mary’s Seminary professor who passed away recently, argued that St. Joseph’s righteousness was not to divorce Mary quietly because he thought she did something wrong. Rather, Fr. Miller argued that St. Joseph saw the fulfillment of the Torah in Mary’s womb, and he knew that he was not worthy to serve as the foster father of the Mystery. That is why, according to Fr. Miller, the angel tells St. Joseph in the dream to not be afraid. The dream is a confirmation and consolation that God has indeed chosen St. Joseph for this task.

Throughout the scriptures, St. Joseph fulfills his role in silence. This is not to be overlooked. Silence is what keeps St. Joseph perpetually open to God’s will, and is the condition for his humility and action.

In other words, silence is what fuels the obedience of St. Joseph.

In the Rule of Life, St. Benedict instructs the reader to listen to his instructions with the ear of the heart. The latin word to “listen” is audire. The latin word of “obedience” is obaudire, which means to “listen attentively” To obey is to listen attentively, and one can only listen in silence.

We are in an ideological age in which this kind of silent listening is oppressed. In this age, many Catholics attempt to respond to ideology with their own ideology. In a world that screams for justice, we find no silence. But St. Joseph shows us that it is silent obedience, not ideology, that leads to true freedom and justice.

Today’s second reading from the beginning of St. Paul’s letter to the Romans highlights this truth. Every human being, whether they know it or not, subjects themselves to the authority of someone or something in their life. It is only when we adhere to the authority of Christ that we find true freedom. To submit ourselves to that authority, we need to listen - to obey. And to listen/obey, we need silence.

We need to be like St. Joseph.

The silence in our hearts that we permit will enable this listening of St. Joseph - a listening that will enable us to see the world sacramentally - that is, reality as a sign that points to another. What is beautiful about St. Joseph’s response to the dream is that he sees it as a sign and not a mere appearance. That is what ideology does - it reduces signs to mere appearances. It blinds us from seeing the world - things, people, etc. - as signs that point to another.

When we embrace this listening of St. Joseph - we can then see our local bishop as a sign that points us to the authority of Christ. The bishop being a sign has nothing to do with the bishop’s own merits or virtues. We do not become a sign that points to Christ because we do the right things and hold the right beliefs. It should be very telling that St. Joseph saw himself as unworthy to be a sign to the sign. But God, in His goodness and power, is able to use every person and thing in the world as a sign through the merits of the Incarnation and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. God is the one who makes the world full of signs, not us. We simply have to pay attention, just as St. Joseph did.

We simply have to obey.