Whether a Man Is Bound
to Correct His Prelate?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article:—
Objection 1. It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate (normally an abbot or bishop). For it is written (Exod. xix. 12): The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned,* and (2 Kings vi. 7) it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark. Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore prelates should not be corrected by their subjects.

Obj. 2. Further, a gloss on Gal. ii. 11, I withstood him to the face, adds: as an equal. Therefore, since a subject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him.

Obj. 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiii. 8) that one ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless one thinks better of oneself. But one ought not to think better of oneself than of one’s prelate. Therefore one ought not to correct one’s prelate.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger. But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. v. 1): An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father. Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church.

Reply Obj. 1. It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God’s condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.

Reply Obj. 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (iv. 17) tells them to admonish their prelate: Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry. (2 Tim. 4:5) It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. ii. 11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.

(from a commentator on another website)

The pope is “infallible” on next to nothing that most of these “conservatives” or “liberals” writing here wish to say he is infallible regarding. He is only “infallible” regarding formulations of faith, i.e. dogma, and almost nobody here is interested in arguing about such things as the “real presence” of Christ in the sacrament, etc.

On matters such as social justice, fair employment practices, etc. (like the things I and others are writing about–matters of daily moral practice), he is “infallible” only in terms of general moral guidance. He is NOT entitled to overrule individuals’ consciences (see Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk”). What this means is that Catholics MUST “listen” to his opinions and his moral guidance regarding general principles, but they MAY NOT be read out of the Church if they make a private decision in, say, the voting booth that–for instance–the war in Iraq is a greater offense against the “sanctity of life” than abortion, and cast their votes with that in mind.

Catholics, however, are NOT entitled to PREACH against the decision(s) of the local “ordinary” (i.e. bishop) that the sin of abortion is a GREATER sin, and, thus, a more consequential moral evil than the government’s persistence in an offense against “just war” teachings. And that is just what the Catholic laity (wisely) does all the time–as, for example, in our ignoring of the preposterous ban against contraception.

Nobody is arguing that priests should stay out of politics. Quite the contrary. But they should certainly refrain from expressing allegiance to a secular political party. As for ancient tradition, Lisante’s ode to America sounds very much like the pagan Roman civil religion that many of our Christian forefathers refused to accept– and paid the price of martydom.

Besides, the POPE has no intention of staying out of “politics”:

Indeed, he asserts himself regularly by speaking out on such topics as the sanctity of marriage, the evils of abortion, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research;
he expresses his concern over events in the Middle East and the evils of war — I would
expect no less of the Holy Father.

I beieve that, once this encyclical is published, we will have all sorts of “conservative” Catholics snorting out William F. Buckley’s famous dictum: mater, si, magister, non!

I’ll simply borrow the words of a former commentator on VN:

“Perhaps we should wait and see what the encyclical actually says — not to mention wait and see how the people being criticized actually respond to the encyclical — before we start condemning people for not abiding by it.”

??????????????????????????????????????????????

This is horrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://edouardalxandre.livejournal.com/520136.html

…and I beieve that, once this encyclical is published, we will have all sorts of “conservative” Catholics snorting out William F. Buckley’s famous dictum: mater, si, magister, non!

You can’t get politics out of the pulpit. There is no apolitical faith. No neutrality.

No politics at anytime, just Christ Him Crucified.

The crucified (i.e. executed by the state) Christ is inherently political. When we say Jesus is Lord, we are making a theo-political proclamation.

Lutherans have an understanding of the Left Hand and Right Hand Kingdoms.

There are, of course, Catholic versions of this way of thinking. But by and large, Catholics do not agree with Lutherans on this point.