Introduction
Today, while many realize the absolute necessity of obedience to religious superiors, they are reluctant to follow those who either are unfaithful to their obligations to their followers or whose authority is questionable. Peter Cardinal Gasparri and Rev. Kinkead teach in their catechisms that obedience is owed only to legitimate superiors. No law binds in a case of factual doubt when one is not certain this or that superior is legitimate and the doubt s nt able to be resolved. And even in the case of obedience due to legitimate superiors, these superiors are bound to do all in their power to make such obedience as easy as possible for their subjects and set a good example. The virtue of obedience to superiors is the first among the moral virtues, and training in this virtue begins in early childhood in a truly Catholic home. All truly Catholic subjects wish to conform to the Church's teachings on obedience. But in studying the matter, it is clear that it is not enough to stress what the laity are required to do, because what they do and how well they do it are so dependent on the existence of holy pastors. Three examples come to mind that support this assumption.

1. The first is the individualism of the laity prior to V2. This heresy arose for two reasons: the decline of seminary life, resulting in tepidity and liberal mindedness among the clergy and the free-thinking outlook of the laity, necessarily incompatible with the teaching of the Church. This led to the crisis in the Church.
2. The plight of Traditionalist clergy who refused to follow V2. These priests, for the most part, were considered pearls of great price despite their obvious defects and lack of proper training. Obedience to such priests and endorsement of their policies was essential in retaining their services, resulting in a situation very much resembling emotional blackmail.
3. The total void where anything close to the interior life guided by a lawful director was concerned, a void greatly lamented by Rev. Hugo Doyle in his Guidance in Spiritual Direction. It was assumed by Traditionalists and even true Catholics struggling to keep the faith that the Mass, Sacraments and prayer were the primary means of saving one’s soul. For the average Catholic, this is likely the case, although all benefit greatly from spiritual direction. For those in positions of authority and for exceptional souls, the unavailability of direction can prove disastrous.

The faithful are the lambs and sheep of the flock; without a shepherd they are bereft of many of the advantages necessary to salvation. But they are little better off when the shepherd himself is prone to weakness and sinfulness, negligence and self-indulgence. All have seen the devastation wrought by the antipopes reigning since the death of Pope Pius XII. AntiChurch "clergy" have methodically weaned their charges away from all semblance of the faith. Antipopes have spouted heresy and apostasy. No one in possession of the truth can deny that all this began "at the top," so to speak, with the election of antipope Roncalli. Both NO believers and some Traditionalists insist that they must be obedient to the NO hierarchy, or to their own "bishops and priests" in the case of Sedevacantists. Catholics are terrified that if they question any command of a superior, they will hear the dire phrase non serviam shot in their direction, and it is useful and necessary to fear the prospect of disobedience to a legitimate superior. But here it must be pointed out, as has been proven so many times in the past, that literally none of those acting as Novus Ordo clergy today are valid at all, and if there is even one certainly valid Traditional cleric alive today I am not aware of it. It is no sin to refuse to obey those false clerics and laymen commanding sin. In fact one can, on certain occasions, even refuse to obey the commands of a legitimate superior, should circumstances require it. Had Catholics, especially priests and religious, done this consistently in the early part of the 20th century with clergy and religious who so often led them into sin by example and neglect of their duties, there would be no need today to even address this issue. For such refusal is not non serviam but an act of fidelity to God, who warned us that we must first obey Him and not men. Not only do we sin ourselves in following such false shepherds, we lead them further into the depths of Hell by cooperation in their sins.

In this time of unparalleled danger to the faith, no one that I have been able to discover has explained to the sheep the true nature of obedience required from a Catholic. Superiors past and present are afraid that somehow this knowledge would lessen the likelihood of obedience and injure their elevated status with the faithful. It is this terrible doctrinal confusion, lack of spiritual guidance and the desire of superiors of every description to unlawfully retain control of their subjects that has destroyed the Church, inside and out. The only way to reverse that destruction is to provide the Church with holy priests, bishops and religious superiors who, instead of jealously guarding their power base, will have pity on the flocks entrusted to their care. When they provide them with the spiritual food they need and the loving attention they require to exercise holy obedience, these lambs then will meekly follow these holy shepherds wherever they lead.

While lack of holiness in the superior is no excuse for not practicing perfect obedience, the Church has never ceased to teach that without said holiness it will be more difficult for Her subjects to become perfect themselves. She has consistently warned superiors that they must not overtax their subjects with commands lest bitterness and murmuring result; nor should they preach one thing and do another themselves. It is a wonder superiors should even need such admonitions, seeing that they must answer to God for every soul in their care. Still, they are human. We must pray for them, obey them in all that is lawful whether it is repugnant to our nature or not and be slow to question their commands. However, if it appears obvious that such commands are against Divine or ecclesiastical law or teaching, one must not be slow in refusing to obey, nor in bringing such a wicked command to the attention of a higher authority should the superior insist on obedience.

Sadly, the dearth of theological instruction and knowledge and the learning necessary to properly conduct the spiritual life has been absent for many decades. This dilemma makes it more likely than ever before that a superior will be unaware that a thing commanded is immoral or unlawful. It will take a deep humility on the part of both superiors and subjects, also an extended period of proper instruction in the Catholic faith to overcome this problem. If it is ignored or underestimated, it will lay dormant for a time only to reappear more prevalent than before. If true Catholics would commit themselves to offering cheerful and ready obedience to those superiors truly attempting to lead a holy life and do all in their power to support such a superior, this would mark an excellent start. But if any progress in this regard is to be maintained, it will be necessary to do as Rev. Doyle instructed concerning the interior life.

Rev. Hugo Doyle, in his work Guidance in Spiritual Direction, advised that seminarians receive no less than four years of ascetical theology in order to be fitted for direction. Yet even more important, Doyle stresses, is that directors have directors and seminarians receive direction during their time in the seminary. As the proverb reads, you can’t give what you don’t have in the first place. Doyle further observed that in the 1950s few Catholics were receiving direction, even in religious institutes, because so many priests feared the responsibilities of directing souls as a result of faulty training in the seminary. This means that not only were there few priests at all to seek direction from, but that souls had few choices concerning the director best-suited to their particular needs. In short, Catholics already were experiencing the inability to exercise certain rights in religion. As a result, Dom Chautard tells us in his The Soul of the Apostolate, that many souls lost their first fervor and reverted to a vegetative state spiritually. But as one spiritual director advises, no direction at all is better than bad direction. Several of the Saints describe their difficulties in finding the right spiritual director, and the spiritual agony — even spiritual paralysis — they suffered on account of this. It would appear that higher standards of holiness in the seminary and perhaps the incorporation of the four years of ascetical theology as Doyle suggests would be a first step to solving the problem. Or perhaps the oversight of spiritual direction should become the business of bishops, who could see to it that certain priests known to them for their holiness and dedication were assigned as directors in each parish and other specific places within their jurisdiction. Special training and retreats could be made available to these priests to help recharge their spirituality and refresh their outlook.

The laity cannot be unresponsive, self-absorbed lumps and superiors cannot be overbearing, self-righteous judges ready to pounce indiscriminately on every minor detail of their subjects’ lives. It is not enough to know what to do but how to do it so that it turns out well, St. Bonaventure said. Sanctification is a joint partnership that should be embarked upon with resignation to the Divine Will and humility of heart on both sides. Superiors should be solicitous of the needs of their subjects and subjects should realize that even though the superior is a sinner and fellow traveler like himself, he must be treated with respect and reserve. Subjects already traumatized by a lack of direction or positively bad direction could easily be driven from the faith entirely or hopelessly prejudiced against the idea of direction and perfection by a lax priest little schooled in virtue and unable to help the soul advance. Holiness is a science with its own peculiar discipline. Unless this science is made the primary goal of seminaries; unless its principles are fully understood and absorbed by future superiors/directors, a faithful conscious of their duties to the hierarchy and able to fulfill those duties to the perfection they deserve will not be forthcoming. When children turn out badly, people do not point to the children themselves as the sole reason for this unfortunate event. It is assumed that apples do not fall far from the parent tree, and this assumption is as true of religious superiors as it is of parents and children. If Church officials cannot police their own ranks and guarantee a well trained and virtuous clergy by careful selection, rigorous training, supervision and constant watchfulness, there is little hope that the faithful will reflect a light that is dim at best and non-existent more often than not.

One of the most unfortunate casualties in the subversion of Church and hierarchy is the Catholic Action movement. Pope Pius XII made it clear that in view of a shortage of clergy, Catholic Action was to supplement for that shortage and engage the faithful in the battle to defend Holy Mother Church from the onslaught of hedonism and unbelief he saw approaching. He told priests and faithful involved in the movement to "Give the very first place to the formation of the interior spirit, without which all exterior action is futile and must be looked on with suspicion," (A Guide to the Lay Apostolate, 1954). If any group needed the benefit of spiritual direction, it is those involved today in Catholic Action. That they do not have it, and in obedience to God cannot access it, may explain a great deal about the mistakes they have made and the lack of converts to the faith. Pope St. Pius X believed that what the Church most needed was small and effective Catholic Action units to keep the faith alive and well. Once the hierarchy is restored, if only one small group could begin and others model their own efforts on the pilot group, great progress could be made in a short period of time. But this is true only if these Catholic Action members see to their own spiritual formation before teaching their methods and practice to others. Until sufficient clergy can be trained and the hierarchy restructured, Catholic Action members are all that is left to help rebuild the Church.

With the exception of those references to Holy Scripture, the quotes below refer primarily to nuns and priests who have taken vows of obedience. The material presented should be understood in this vein, since if a concession is allowed to one under vow, more leniency still should be granted to those not bound by such vows. It also should be remembered, however, as Rev. Bruno Hagspiel’s work especially brings out, that religious houses already were infected with worldliness and materialism to a great degree in the 1950s. Yet the reader shall learn that even hundreds of years before, when the Church’s religious houses were still in the hands of holy superiors, those bound by vows were allowed at times to protest obedience on the grounds of conscience; so this is no modern-day concession. Superiors who fail to guide their subjects in the paths of holiness will be held to a strict accounting on the Day of Judgment. Rank may have its privileges but it also has its obligations. That these privileges have been stressed to the neglect of duties and obligations in many cases can account at least partly for the attitude of subjects to superiors today.

Holy Scripture
" Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the shepherds of Israel, that fed themselves: should not the flock be fed by the shepherds? You eat the milk and you clothed yourselves with the wool, and you killed that which was fat, but my flock you did not feed. The weak you have not strengthened, and that which was sick you have not healed; that which was broken you have not bound up, and that which was driven away you have not brought again, neither have you sought that which was lost: but you ruled over them with rigor, and with a high hand. And my sheep were scattered because there was no shepherd; and they became the prey of all the beasts of the field, and were scattered. My sheep have wandered in every mountain, and in every high hill; and my flocks were scattered upon the face of the earth, and there was none that sought them…

" Therefore ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord:…Forasmuch as my flocks have been made a spoil, and my sheep are become a prey to all the beasts of the field, because there was no shepherd; for my shepherds did not seek after my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flocks:…Behold I myself come upon the shepherds, I will require my flock at their hand, and I will cause them to cease from feeding the flock anymore; and I will deliver my flock from their mouth and it shall no more be meat for them…I will visit my sheep, and will deliver them out of all the places where they have been scattered in the dark and cloudy day…And for you O my flocks…I judge between cattle and cattle, of rams and of he-goats…" (Ezekiel 34: 1-12; 17).

Here Ezekiel points not only to those who desert the flock, but to those who neglect it as well. Commenting on this passage, Rev. George Haydock writes: "Excellent instructions are here given for all in authority…Pastors often disguise the truth to flatter the rich, or the more just souls are ruined by their negligence, (‘that which was fat’)…Pastors will not be excused by ignorance if they know not the maladies and the remedies of their flock. This was blamed in the Pharisees, and is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel…Pastors who seek only their temporal advantage are hirelings; and if they teach false doctrines, they are wolves…(But) the crimes of the pastors do not excuse the flock."

On obedience in general

St. Francis de Sales
" Many have been greatly mistaken as to this condition of obedience, believing that it consisted in doing at random whatever is commanded, even were it contrary to the Commandments of God and of Holy Church. In this they have been greatly mistaken, imagining a folly to lurk in this quality of blindness which is not there at all. In all that relates to the Commandments of God, just as Superiors have no power whatsoever to give any contrary command, so in such a case inferiors have no obligation whatever to obey — indeed if they did so, they sin," (Spiritual Conferences).

(Taken from Counselling the Catholic,
by Rev. George Hagmaier, C.S.P., and Rev. Robert Gleason, S.J.)
" The fourth commandment is surely a two-way street. The duty of parents [and superiors] to honor and respect their children [charges] seems in some way greater than the other way around, since parents should have the experience and foresight and sensitivity to see the importance of affection and understanding in the development of the child. ‘Honor thy father and mother’ implies that mother and father are ‘honor-able’ and ‘respect-able.’ It is entirely unrealistic to expect children to feel respect for parents who are two-faced, autocratic and insensitive to the needs of their children. If the philosophy of a parent is ‘Do as I say, not as I do,’ it is difficult to see how he can successfully demand respect, much less love from his child…The teenager should make an effort to communicate his point of view in family discussions and [to] compromise. If the accent is on teamwork, cooperation and mutual respect for shortcomings on both sides, then disobedience becomes less and less of a problem and family harmony more and more a pleasant objective."

(Taken from The Principles of the Religious Life by Rev. Peter Cotel, S.J.)
" [Although] obedience is inferior in dignity to the three theological virtues… St. Thomas says that [it] occupies the first place among the moral virtues…Obedience, causing us to sacrifice to God the good of our will, is by that fact the greatest and most meritorious of all moral virtues…It possesses the privilege of containing an excellent exercise of the theological virtues themselves…

" St. Gregory tells us: "This virtue is the only one which engrafts, so to say, every other virtue in our soul, as the gardener does for his trees; and which, after having thus engrafted them, also preserves them safe from all harm, in order that they may grow and successfully produce fruit." In fact, explains St. Thomas, the acts of the other virtues belong to obedience, either when God commanded directly Himself…or [commands] by means of a superior representing Him.

" Religious obedience consists in this, that man, in order to be pleasing to God, voluntarily places himself under dependence to another man in all that he may order according to the rule….[But] this obedience obliges by itself, under pain of sin, only when the superior declares that he commands in virtue of the vow, [in religious orders]…The simple power of ruling further possessed by a superior in the religious family...is justly compared with a father in the natural family…[However] the command of a father always obliges his children under pain of sin so long as its matter is just and reasonable, which does not hold good for a simple prescription of a religious superior…

" An inferior is bound to obey his superior only in those matters in which he is subject to him, and in those things in which the superior does not contradict a power above his own. If the command is unjust, it is not at all obligatory, since God does not communicate this authority to men to be used for what is improper…It might happen that a person would be bound to execute this sort of unjust command…in order to avoid scandal or some other harm. In case of doubt whether the command is unjust or not, the inferior has the duty of obeying because the right to command, which is certain in the superior, must prevail over a doubtful opinion," (unless the command is contrary to Divine law or the laws of the Church).

" Blind obedience, recommended by the Saints to religious as the most perfect and meritorious, consists, says Suarez, in the exclusion of prudence of the flesh, but not in that of true and supernatural prudence. For obedience, being so excellent a virtue, exacts no less than all the other moral virtues the direction of prudence for its act. But what belongs peculiarly to it is that the judgment of the prudence that guides it is founded rather on an extrinsic principle, namely the superior’s judgment, than on itself in things that are not evident; and it is called blind because it then puts aside its own judgment. And it excludes it insofar as it is incorrect or imperfect and not by forbidding all use of reason. Thus, for example, it should know how to examine and to see whether what is commanded is against precept or rule.

" A great difference is to be made in this matter between superiors in priestly orders and those who are not so. The former have the knowledge and grace of the priesthood, which are wanting in the latter. The former, being capable of jurisdiction [in the internal forum] and, in fact, possessing it, the religious may confide to them the secrets of his conscience under the sacramental seal…[which is] impossible with the latter. Manifestation of conscience…spoken of by the masters of the spiritual life is due in its integrity only to superiors who are priests, and the others can have right to it, if right there may be only in a very much more restricted manner, called simply direction. The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars decreed [in May and June 1860]: "On account of the abuses that have crept into this matter, it is not at all customary for the Sacred Congregation to approve manifestations of conscience to the Superioress; but this only is allowed — that the Sisters, if they so wish, may disclose their defects in the observation of the rules and their progress as regards virtues: …as to other points, they must treat them with the confessor."

" It must be known that superiors are strictly bound to keep secret all the confidences made to them in manifestation of conscience or direction, whichever it may be, and that it is not lawful for them to communicate them to any other superiors, higher or lower, without the consent of the religious…If it is not a secret of the Sacrament, they may use them themselves for their personal welfare and for the good of community…[but] doing nothing of a nature to manifest to others what has been confided in them…As the religious manifests himself, then, to his superior as a father, and not as to a judge, the latter has no right to use this as a starting point of rigorous measures toward his inferior, although it is sometimes allowed him to reprove him kindly and even to correct him by some remedial and paternal penance."

From the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, on obedience:
" By divine law, religious persons are subject to the laws of the Church; first to the Pope, then to the bishops…This hierarchy was instituted by Christ to direct the faithful not only in the way of salvation, but also in Christian perfection. The vow of obedience in the institutes approved by the Holy See is held more and more to be made equally to the pope, who communicates his authority to the Roman Congregations entrusted with the direction of religious orders. The superiors of the different orders, when they are clerics and are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, similarly receive a part of this authority…But the right to demand obedience in virtue of the vow does not necessarily belong to all superiors; it is ordinarily reserved to the head of the community. And in order to enforce the obligation, it is necessary that the superior should make known his intention to bind the conscience; in certain orders such expressions as "I will" or "I command" have not such binding force. The instructions of the Holy See require that the power of binding the conscience by command shall be employed with the utmost prudence and discretion."

How saintly superiors view the will of God in obedience
(Taken from The Holy Will of God, by Rev. Leo Pyzalski)

" Superiors are obliged to preserve and protect their authority…and on the other hand they are expected to become models of humility, of forbearance, and charity to their subjects. Since obedience is a hard virtue for everybody, they are supposed to take all possible measures to facilitate it in daily life…Perfect superiors certainly insist as they must upon submission to their directions, not because it is their own will or wish but because it is undoubtedly the will of God that all subjects comply with their orders. The form of this insistence, however, is expected to be cautious and prudent, latent and implicit rather than direct or haughty…

" The last thing a saintly superior would consider is the subjects’ favor and love, obtained by yielding to all their demands and wishes, whether justified and reasonable or not…It is impossible for the superiors to meet all the demands of their subjects. Many superiors have learned…how to refuse in so charitable a manner as to prevent at least bitter feelings in the heart of the petitioner. The practical wisdom, however, is brought about by an intensive spiritual life and true union with God. The very fact of the superior’s sanctity — a fact which is inevitably noticed by the subjects — makes submission easier and prevents excessive discontent in the case of refusal. For everybody is convinced that the saintly superior is activated by objective, sublime motives.

" Enlightened superiors are perfectly aware of their special responsibility for the obedience of subjects, aware, likewise of the difficulties the subjects have in always subordinating their will. Therefore they anxiously avoid everything that is liable to make obedience harder. Nay, they take all possible measures to ease the yoke of obedience for subjects. Unless special reasons forbid, they are wont to explain to the community the motives or the reasons for certain burdensome directions. And instead of giving harsh orders, they will make their demands in the form of requests or wishes. Of course no prudent subject will be mistaken as to the binding character of such cautious and prudent injunctions. These charitable orders will be better obeyed than ruthless demands.

" While the subjects are not obliged to inquire whether each and every command of a superior is objectively conformable to the Will of God, but have instead, to submit to all orders given them — superiors on the contrary, are not free from that obligation. They must see to the wishes of the Divine Heart. Otherwise they will be guilty of opposition to the Will of God. As the subjects are to obey because the Will of God is revealed to them in the decisions of their superior, so the latter are bound in conscience to adjust their demands, as best they can, to the objective good pleasure of God. They can ascertain the real Will of God by governing their community accurately according to the principles of holy prudence...and in strict compliance to all the directions of higher authorities…It would be an intolerable mistake on the part of a superior to fancy that he is free to present whatever he pleases as the real Will of God. He will render an account to God for every command issued at any time to his community.

" Without question, subjects are bound to obedience without regards to the shortcomings in the methods applied by their superiors…This however does not relieve the superiors of their heavy responsibility to use prudence, legality and general correctness in the orders issued and in their administration as a whole. No wonder then that many Saints have declined superiorship for as long as they possibly could, using various and ingenious means to be spared that responsibility.

" Between the religious superiors on the one hand and their subjects on the other hand, a kind of holy emulation should take place in regard to the Holy Will of God and obedience. While subjects really abandoned to God will refrain from any form of criticism in matters of obedience, except when they certainly and evidently are entitled to make opposition, perfect and saintly superiors will scrupulously examine their particular directions and their general methods as well, to make sure that they are governing their flock in the spirit of Jesus…To secure their own conscience as to this point, such superiors avail themselves of the assistance of spiritual direction. If they constantly and seriously do this, regardless of all objections launched against them, they have nothing to fear on the day of their judgment, even after many years of superiorship.

" A reliable sign of perfect superiorship consists in unrestricted and willing subordination of a superior to Canon Law and to all regulations of the higher authorities. Failing this, the unfaithful superior should not be surprised by the recalcitrant attitude of his subjects...Though the excuse of subjects is unwarranted and vain in such circumstances [assuming the superior is legitimate], still the unfaithful superiors are partly responsible for the disorders creeping into their community…The superior should be the first to practice what he teaches…Whenever a subject sees that working conditions are certainly abnormal, not consistent with the true glory of God and with spiritual welfare, or with unquestionable personal rights, the case may be placed before higher superiors."

Of obedience and the duties of superiors
(Taken from Rev. Augustine Baker’s spiritual classic Sancta Sophia)

" It is principally to the incapacity and insufficiency of superiors that we owe the present conditions of things today [1676]…Primitive conditions could be restored if superiors:
1. Practiced prayer and contemplation, and directed their subjects’ souls in the same way;
2. If they had the spirit of discretion and light to discern the several dispositions and capacities of their subjects’ souls to order their principal end;
3. If in whatsoever dispositions they laid on them…they would regard whether thereby their subjects (considering their several tempers) are likely to be advanced or hindered in their spiritual course and not esteem that it is a sufficient justification for them that the things in themselves are not ill; and their end therein is to mortify their subjects’ wills and passions. For such mortification there may be as will endanger to extinguish the light that is in their subjects’ souls by drawing them to multiplicity, so that no other impositions and mortifications are excusable but such as right reason enlightened by grace would judge necessary, and such as God Himself would ordain for them.
4. Especially if they would abstain from laying such encumbrances on their subjects as are lasting, and regard not only the exterior but the interior, distracting the memory, confounding the understanding and breeding perplexity in their minds, or in a word, that are prejudicial to internal prayer,
5. Lastly, if they did require obedience from their subjects, not to show their own authority, but only to benefit their subjects souls thereby (without which intention their office becomes merely secular)."

Obedience: its difficulty
(Taken from Rev. Aloysuius Biskupek’s Priesthood)
" The superior may not be as perfect as his office would make us suspect…Yet a superior does not on account of his weakness cease to be the superior, and obedience does not on that account lose any of its inherent excellence, but rather gains in merit. Of course we assume that the superior commands within the limits of his authority, and that carrying out his orders does not conflict with higher duties…We must obey God rather than men…In some instance conscience may forbid compliance with the will of the superior or the appeal to a higher authority may become not only justifiable but obligatory. Apart from such cases, which are extremely rare [circa the 1950s], obedience rendered to an imperfect superior will ascend to the throne of God with the odor of sweetness, so much more pleasing to God as it is more difficult."

Vow of Obedience made by members of the Third Order of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel
" The vow of obedience made by our Tertiaries at their profession obliges only to such things as are commanded by the Superiors in conformity to the rule…Grievous sin against this vow is only incurred in the case of disobedience to a written precept concerning matters pertaining to salvation and specified in the Rule, given by the Superiors in the presence of two witnesses and accompanied by a declaration of the grave nature of the obligation. Therefore no grave precept will ever be given in any other form."

A pattern to the flock
(From Rev. Bruno Hagspiel’s Live in the Holy Spirit)
" The shepherd of the flock will be a powerful influence either for the spiritual well-being or the spiritual decay of the community; As the shepherd, so the flock. Hence. paramount in appointment of superiors must be the consideration of the appointee’s ability to maintain a healthy spiritual atmosphere in the community…Where the spiritual formation has been weak and superficial in character, the threat is even more deadly. Therefore…it is imperative that the utmost care be exercised in their selection.

" There is abundant evidence from history in support of the scriptural warning that when the shepherd of the flock is derelict in the care of the sheep, the fold will soon be dispersed…The true superior shrinks from the burdens of high office, assumes its responsibilities only in obedience and fears its obligations…The worldly superior…glories in dignity and rules too often in a despotic manner or with an easy going negligence. In either case the spiritual welfare of the community suffers…The good superior is careful not to associate too closely with any one of [her subjects] but leaves herself accessible to all, lest any division separate the members of her little flock…If a superior lacks the courage to correct abuses…to face a showdown with recalcitrant members, but gives into their whims for the sake of peace, she will have to bear the responsibility of the spiritual demoralization of the house.

" Sometimes major superiors think they have fulfilled their obligation when, in a general lecture to the community, they point out prevalent disorders. Yet the individuals practicing these disorders are never separately dealt with and probably assume the harsh words were intended for others. General admonitions are necessary, but when they are not followed up with personal reprimands to the guilty ones, the community listens with something close to contempt…The major superior should prudently encourage or give an opening to the individual to manifest…difficulties, disturbances, and any other matters that might be impeding her spiritual development or health…But she must manifest to the subject an open mind, a sympathy with her difficulties, even though she knows the subject is definitely at fault. Then prudently and kindly she can point out…the subject’s failures. But if the subject feels the superior has a closed mind, that she has already formed an unfavorable judgment, the interview will have little effect and may even end disastrously…

" Though the vow of obedience is limited to the external execution of a superior's formal command, when that does not contravene God's law, the spirit of supernatural obedience demands the internal submission of the will to the authority of God as voiced by the superior. Though few superiors will command in virtue of the vow of obedience, and these but rarely, nevertheless, there are many ways less formal whereby the superior makes known her will: indeed the ordinary directives of community life are non-formal in character; yet they call for an obedience that is prompt, joyful, and complete. Were it otherwise, a community would be in a sorry state indeed, for where the spirit of obedience has fled and precept must invoke the vow, there disobedience and rebellion will soon doom a religious community to death and decay.

" Though the judgment of the superior may be impractical and imprudent, and her command may emanate from motives that are far from supernatural, obedience is concerned with neither the prudence of the superior's judgments, the purity of her motives, nor the advisability of her commands. It consists in doing what is commanded by lawful authority, simply because it is commanded, in order that one's life may fall directly under the influence of Divine Providence. This does not necessitate that one give intellectual assent to the faulty judgment of a superior, but it does necessitate that one must obey that judgment and accept it, apart from any validity or invalidity, because it is the instrument God uses to make known to the religious individual His holy will.

" The exercise of a superior's authority is a holy function directed not merely to the efficient running of the community, or the skillful execu-tion of the works of the apostolate, but primarily to the sanctification of the members of the congregation under her jurisdiction. Too few superiors, however, have this high conception of their office. They are concerned, for the most part, with the efficient management of the convent or institu-tion under their direction; they are worried over balancing the budget and seeing that the household runs smoothly and that the subjects conform to the rule, at least externally.

" Now efficiency, regularity, and good housekeeping are a necessary part of conventual life and play no small part in effecting the harmony that should characterize the convent and the institution staffed by its personnel. But they are second-ary. A community could well prosper materially and have its affairs efficiently managed, yet its activities might be devoid of any supernatural motivation, and the lives of its members might be barren of those holy fruits which it is the purpose of religious life to bring forth. Communities, as well as fig trees, can be barren, and when they are, they must suffer the same divine condemnation. When God endowed religious superiors with divine authority, He certainly intended that its proper exercise would effect a well-managed household, an excellent school, an efficient hospital, or a capably adminis-tered orphanage, but He also intended that these be the by-products of souls admirably fashioned to seek first His kingdom and its justice. If the divine presence is in the Eucharist to nourish souls, it is in the superior to guide her subjects to the accomplishment of the divine Will. Where one gives life, the other gives light.

" Superiors, therefore, should accept their office with great humility and reverence, as the priest accepts his. And as he uses his power to transform bread and wine into the most Sacred Body and Blood of Christ, so the superior must use her power to transform her subjects into the likeness of Christ. She is the instrument of God's loving Providence by which He sketches His image on those souls under her direction who have consecrated themselves to Him. The prime duty, then, of superiors is the proper exercise of the authority vested in them that their subjects may be lovingly guided to that holiness of life which it is the essential purpose of the religious state to foster. But unless the superior is herself keenly conscious of the need to strive for sanctity in her own life, unless personal holiness be the chief aspiration of her life, her government will fail to inspire others to that sanctity which their religious state demands.

" It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the decline of reli-gious life in the convents and monasteries of America is due in no small measure to the misrule of superiors. Where they look upon their office as a tribute to their personal capabilities, where self-glorification motivates their dealings with subjects, where they conduct themselves in a cold, haughty manner and surround themselves with luxuries and comforts denied to other members of the community, where harshness and lack of sympathy forbid a subject from manifesting a difficulty or in humility admitting a fault—they are using the divine authority given them, not to draw souls to Christ, but to drive them from Him. Then hatred, contempt, murmuring, and deceit will soon prevail in the household. When this comes to pass, God will hold such superiors to a terrible accounting. As the priest administers the Sacred Species with the utmost reverence, so the superior must exercise her power. She is meant to be a mother to her community, a strong and valiant woman who will maintain good discipline in her household, and whose heart, at the same time, is filled with love for her daughters. She will correct without wounding, she will be firm without compromising, and she will be strong without domineering. Somehow tenderness will shine through every rebuke. There will be love for the aged, consolation for the sick, gentleness with the mentally deficient, patience with the young, and always the approving smile and the encouraging word for the ordinary hard-working religious who is carry-ing the weight of the apostolate.

" Yet superiors are human and, like the rest of mankind, they sometimes fail. When this happens, the humble superior will acknowledge the mistake as soon as she becomes aware of it, but the proud superior will seek to justify a wrong. When this happens, the harm done is irreparable. To her everlasting credit one superior remarked of her dealings with a saintly subject, "It was for my humiliation and her sanctification that I never understood the girl." Only a humble and courageous woman, worthy of high office, could have publicly acknowledged such a mistake.

" Misrule in the convent sometimes takes the form of arro-gance and tyranny, but it usually takes the form of laxity and weakness. Not a few superiors are afraid to govern. Vacillating, irresolute and soft, they cower before the unruly but ease their conscience with a show of strength in the presence of the exemplary subject. The result is contempt for the superiors on one hand and bitterness towards her on the other. Religious rule can no more offend against justice than political rule. There is an equality among subjects just as there is an equality among citizens. And yet there is also room for difference. The good superior will insist upon the observance of the rule where health and sanity permit; she will dispense where physical and mental incapacity warrant. But she will never tolerate serious disobedience in the selfish and the willful and, at the same time, demand a strict accounting from the fervent. Nor will she grant undue liberty to the arrogant and worldly religious, while denying reasonable permission to the faithful. Yet there are superiors who dare not enforce the rule, who either cater to the demands of the troublesome and bear heavily upon the sincere, or allow widespread infraction by all because they lack the courage to curtail the few.

" The lax superior is the unfaithful shepherd. Dignified with a divine power that gives her sacramental status, she neither guides her sheep to heavenly pastures nor protects them from the wolves of worldliness. Permitting dangerous relaxation and too intimate contacts with secular persons and things, allow-ing the natural mode of life full reign while doing little to encourage the supernatural, introducing the customs and habits of the world while letting religious practices become extinct, her convent becomes, not a house of prayer and mortifications, but little more than a hostel where the residents, leading their separate lives, check in and out, and after a five-day week escape the unnerving confines of the cloister to seek week-end relaxation in atmospheres more congenial to their worldly spirit.

" The office of the superior is a sacred trust with the result that the prudent execution of its duties not infrequently entails moments of extreme anguish. But the divine Cyrenian is always there with His grace to help carry the burden. The good superior will accept the heavy weight of responsibility her office brings to her, as Christ accepted the cross, and trudging her way up Calvary's slopes will lead her subjects to the summit of supernatural life. The weak and the lax superior seeks honor without responsibility and power without purpose. Treading neither Calvary's path nor the way mapped out by the holy rule of the congregation, she leads her subjects out to the broad highways of the world where the cohorts of modern Herods can effect another slaughter of the innocents.

" If superiors are to blame for much of the worldliness in their convents, subjects are not absolved from the guilt of naturalism, secularism, disobedi-ence, and infraction of the rules. If formal disobedience is relatively rare, it may result only from the unwillingness of superiors to issue a formal command. But the government of a household can hardly be limited to the formal obedience which is the subject matter of the vow. That is the very minimum of obedience to keep the subject from sin and it will hardly suffice for the ordered existence religious life demands. The religious who keeps her consecrated life at that low level has come very close to being the dead branch on the religious vine. Yet some religious do totter perilously on the brink of the vow and scoff at all attempts on the part of superiors to maintain the discipline required in a religious institute. Impugning the authority of superiors with their bad example and bad influence, they not only undermine good government but seriously disrupt the peace and unity of the household. They are thorns in the side of the good superiors, whose patience they sorely try, and a stumbling block to the weak superior whom they force to consent to their unreasonable designs. Such religious seem to have lost all love for their divine Spouse and Master and fail utterly to see His holy will in the directives of the superior. They are a scourge to any religious house.

" Though the vast majority of religious do carry out the orders of superiors, they do so with varying degrees of obedience. There are those who limit their obedience to the mere execution of the precept. Such material obedience, while preserv-ing the subject from sin, is totall devoid of that love which should animate the souls of those who have consecrated their wills to God. It is the obedience of a slave and as such is utterly unworthy of any supernatural merit. Usually accompanied with bitterness, ill humor, murmuring, and harsh criticism of the superior, it is the type of obedience that turns the convent into a veritable hornets' nest of discontent, hostility, and unrest. Yet not a few of our convents suffer from members who refuse to submit their will to the will of the superior because they refuse to see in that will the incarnation of the divine will. God's ways are not the ways of men, and in the inscrutable designs of His Providence He has chosen to veil himself in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Religious, therefore, who jeer at the directives of superiors, while inwardly following them, are not unlike those who receive the Sacred Species while inwardly refusing to believe that concealed under the breads and wine is the substantial presence of Christ.

" Not infrequently religious give the homage of their obedience merely to the person of the superior. They will obey the superior whom they like or the superior whose order seems reasonable and in agreement with their own judgment. Such obedience is an instance of naturalism and secularism. Though not evil, it has no supernatural value for it is not directed to God. The superior is but the instrument, the means of making God’s will manifest to the subject. But instrument and means have value only if they help achieve the goals to which they are the means. To acclaim the brush and not the award-winning painting, to praise the hammer and not the world-famous statue is to exhibit a bit of insanity. Likewise to submit ones’s will to the superior because she is personable and her precepts pleasing is to worship not God, but His creature. Indeed it is a subtle form of self-adoration, for the subject sees in the superior’s will the image of her own. Obedience of this type is counterfeit: it lacks that uncompromising gift of self to the divine Spouse which the vow and the virtue intend, and the religious who practices it never truly obeys. When commanded by a superior whose personality jars, whose judgments are unacceptable, and whose directives upset the cherished patterns of her life, such a religious will soon find that her obedience has vanished, if not into disobedience then into a rebellious will and bitter complaining spirit. To the degree that obedience of this type is present in a religious household, to that degree its members are permeated with a secular and worldly spirit, which fosters uncharitableness, disunity and contention.

" Another form of naturalism in obedience is illustrated in a religious who obeys from motives of self-interest. Such a reli-gious, wishing to ingratiate herself with the superior, obeys, at least with apparent willingness, her every wish and com-mand, and thereby hopes to establish herself on a plane of preference enjoys the role of obedient subject, not because submission to God is man's crowning glory, but because she is either a spineless sycophant who lacks natural dignity or a selfish schemer who envisions her docility as leading to some outstanding post in the community. In either case her obedi-ence does not ring true, and its false character is quickly perceived by other members of the household.

" The truly obedient religious both executes the command of the superiors and submits her will, for genuine obedience is both exterior and interior. This interior acceptance by the will of what has been enjoined by authority is the soul of external obedience and an essential element of the virtue. Without this inward submission which accepts the order of the superior as the will of God, external obedience becomes an empty shell, a mechanical performance that bears no re-semblance to the humble obedience that Christ gave to the religious authority of Caiphas and the political authority of Pilate. Those who have learned to obey interiorly submit their will because they see in the ordinance of the superior the manifesta-tion of the divine Will. Nevertheless, they sometimes remain disturbed and troubled. They cannot obey promptly and cheer-fully because pride makes them prefer their own judgment to that of the superior. Such dissent of mind imperils the virtue, for one cannot remain firm and constant in obedience while doubting the prudence of the order given, or branding that order as unwise and foolish. The religious who clings tenaciously to her own point of view and who will not renounce her independence of judgment will soon find her-self manifesting a critical spirit and nurturing a rebellious pride. No religious is expected to act irrationally and assent to what is evidently against right reason. When a commanded course of action is deemed inadvisable, one may so inform the superior. If the order is not rescinded, one humbly obeys judging that God has some good reason for wanting the com-mand executed in spite of the manifest futility to achieve the desired results," (but only if such a command is not agaisnt the Commandments or the laws and teachings of Holy Mother Church. See St. Francis de Sales above.)

" If the first degree of obedience, the execution of the precept, keeps a religious from violating the vow, and the second degree, the internal submission of the will, keeps the virtue intact, the third degree of obedience effects in the religious a complete holocaust of self. Not only the command is executed, with a compliant will, but the judgment of the intellect is also bent into conformity with that of the superior. The obedience of action, mind, and will is the obedience of the whole person, and, therefore, a complete oblation of the self to God. Any-thing less than this is imperfect obedience. Nor does the renunciation of one's own judgment, in regard to the advisability of the end to be attained or the means of attaining it, mean that the subject has to be blind to the merits of the thing commanded: in her own mind she may have serious doubts both as to end and means. She may think that the end desired by the superior may not be advisable, and that the means she enjoins for the attainment of the end may be utterly inadequate, but as long as the command entails no infringement of divine or ecclesiastical law, the subject refrains from questioning the merit of the superior's judgment, or from opposing the executions of her directives. She simply judges that for some reason not clearly understood, God, in the person of the superior, wills that she should do this action, and under the circumstances it must be the best action to be done. Such an attitude does not entail shutting one's eyes to evident defects, but it does entail the refusal to con-centrate on them. The imprudence of the superior's judgment, the folly of her directives, or the intemperateness of her com-mands are of little consequence. The religious judges that the course of action mapped out by the superior is, in the set of circumstances prevailing, the will of God. It could very well be that God neither desires the end proposed by the superior, nor approves the manner of accomplishing it as the superior dictates, but He merely allows the imprudence of her judg-ment, or the inadequacy of the means she selects, to obtain something quite different, such as her own sanctification through humility or that of the subject through obedience. As God never intended the slaying of Isaac, but only the obedience of Abraham, so allowing defects in a superior may be God's way of purifying both subject and superior alike.

" Though it is doubtful that many religious live on such a high plane of obedience, it is neither unattainable nor limited to a few saintly souls or the mentally inferior. Perfect obedi-ence is the "common practice among holy men," writes St. Ignatius, and in the ranks of the "blindly obedient" men of intellectual brilliance have obeyed with the same childlike simplicity as the unlettered and the ignorant. Why, then, do so few religious achieve, or even try to achieve, the obedience of perfect oblation? Basically the reason is their refusal to see Christ in the person of the superior and the holy will of God in her precepts.

" No one understands the limitations of the human person more than God. If He chooses fallible means to guide cher-ished souls to intimate union with Himself, He must intend that those souls have complete trust in His own wise purposes. If God measures our undertakings, not so much by their results, as by the spirit in which they are executed, then the religious who obeys what appears to be an impractical com-mand will have no difficulty in judging that command to be the best way of achieving whatever divine purpose is involved in its execution. This is perfect obedience, the obedience of the whole person, wherein mind, heart, and will, offered with loving alacrity, effect a complete holocaust of self."

Duties of Catholic Christians
It is essential to a Catholic’s faith that obedience be carefully understood and observed. Rev. John Kearney writes: " A Catholic honors God by believing His word…and obeying His laws — the Ten Commandments. The laws of the Church are also God’s laws in the sense that He gave Her the power to make laws…in His name: ‘Whatsoever you (the Apostles) shall bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven,’ (Matt. 18:18)…The Pope and the Bishops are the divinely appointed rulers of the faithful in matters of faith and morals. In the exercise of authority, the prerogative of infallibility very often is not involved. In other words, sometimes the Pope and Bishops act as merely authentic i.e., authoritative teachers and rulers, without having recourse to the full weight of their authority to impose a doctrine on all the faithful. But in this, even though infallibility is not involved, the faithful have the duty of obeying and giving [firm] religious assent, owing to the fact that the competent religious authority has imposed an obligation of some kind. When, however, infallibility is involved, that is, when the Church defines a doctrine [ex cathedra — from the Chair of Peter] to be held by all the faithful, then the assent demanded is absolute and irrevocable."

Rev. Tanquerey, whose works were used internationally to instruct seminarians, notes in his Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I that only when the Roman Pontiff speaks to the entire body of the faithful (the universal Church), states that with the assistance of the Holy Ghost he is teaching a truth concerning faith and morals and uses his supreme authority to define the matter, does he then bind Catholics to believe this teaching. He says that laws concerning moral precepts "cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation. Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God." The conditions Tanquerey lists that exclude infallibility are whenever the Pope speaks as only a private doctor, the Bishop of Rome or prince of state. "Even if [these Pontiffs] did make mistakes as private individuals," he writes, "or if they explained doctrines obscurely or incompletely, [they] did not teach error while teaching ex cathedra." Tanquerey reminds us that the Pope is not impeccable; in his private life he is capable of sinning like every other man. To believe that even in his private capacity a Pope cannot sin, even in faith and especially in morals, is to elevate a mere man to the level of a god. If Saints such as Robert Bellarmine have taught that even in their private teaching capacity the Popes cannot err, still this doctrine has never been officially defined by the Church. It remains hopelessly caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, in that to define such a thing would too closely infringe on impeccability on the one hand and, should private letters or speeches become public, on infallibility on the other hand. We must abide by the principles laid down in Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, where any public heresy is automatically an indication that such heresy was held pre-election, since the opposite teaching would encourage the faithful to fall into precisely those sins that precipitated the rise of the last five antipopes.

Papal obedience and respect eroded
From the time of the Reformation to the era that immediately preceded the Vatican Council, Protestants and Freemasons worked together to impugn the doctrine of infallibility by falsifying the lives of certain Popes to make it appear that they had committed heresy while in office. They also used the lives of less than stellar Popes who were criminal and immoral in office (and pointed to weak and vacillating popes who failed to make important decisions), as proof that infallibility could not be a true doctrine of the Church. For this reason, Pope Pius IX called the Vatican Council to formally define the doctrine. During the reign of Pope Pius IX’s predecessor, Freemasons delivered documents to the Vatican known as the Alta Vendita announcing that the clergy would gradually be infiltrated and recruited to eventually destroy the Church from within. The prediction of this infiltration was fulfilled with the subversion of the Church in the 20th century. But it began with the loss of the papal states in the 1800s, resulting in the Pope’s inability to protect or properly supervise the Italian clergy. Eventually the Carbonari took over Rome and crept into government offices once Italian independence was proclaimed. Little by little the contagion insinuated itself into the highest places, even in the Vatican itself. This process is described in the December 1935 encyclical written by Pope Pius XI, ad Catholici sacerdoti: "The enemies of the Church, themselves, well know the vital importance of the priesthood; for against the priesthood in particular, as We have already had to lament in the case Our dear Mexico, they direct the point of their attacks. It is the priesthood they desire to be rid of; that they may clear the way for that destruction of the Church, which has been so often attempted yet never achieved." Following World War II, the process was nearly complete.

Popes, like every other earthly ruler are held to standards that exceed those followed by the average Catholic. And if subjects see that these standards are not followed, then such a Pope brings disrepute to the Church because he is not living up to God’s ideal. Giacomo Tommaso de Vio Gaetani, (Cardinal Cajetan — 1469-1534) teaches that the famous axiom "Where the Pope is, there also is the Church" holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as a Pope should, because Peter "is subject to the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church" (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6). Cajetan also wrote: "All this power is given to the Pope for no other end than the service of the Church. She is greater than he, not in authority but in worth and nobility. The papacy is for the Church, not the Church for the papacy; the end is always a nobler thing than the means." Cardinal Manning says basically the same thing. Speaking of the mistaken idea of a personal infallibility he wrote: "Peter cannot err in faith…No Catholic theologian ever held more than this…Infallibility [is] a charisma of indefectible faith and truth…The word charisma is used not to express a grace which makes the person acceptable in God’s eyes, but a grace the benefit of which is for others…" As Manning goes onto explain, the Popes are still capable of sinning in morals and losing the state of grace. The Popes are the servants of the servants of God, and as such they must remember that they are answerable to God for their charges. As St. Francis de Sales cautions: "If the name Peter makes us recognize him as chief, the name Simon warns us that he was not unlimited chief, but obedient and subordinate chief...Our Lord is Lord and Master in his own right: St. Peter only administers for Him."

Several Popes in the history of the Church have scandalized their subjects by leading immoral lives, although they did not teach such immorality from the Chair, nor advance anything for belief that was contrary to Faith. Other Popes have simply been weak and indecisive, as was Gregory XI in the time of St. Catherine of Siena. St. Catherine believed it was her duty to strengthen this Pope and she managed to force him to leave France and return to Rome, although she could not stop the Great Schism that quickly followed. In a letter to this Pope she once wrote, "Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation…Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you, and you did not use them!" These are very strong words, but this was a saint’s reaction to a very weak and irresolute Pope. She wrote him a total of six "intolerably dictatorial letters," author Alice Curtayne relates, and the Pope responded to these very mildly and still sought her opinion. She also wrote letters to Pope Urban VI, but died before she could learn what a true disaster his papacy had been. St. Bridget of Sweden also warned the Popes of the Great Schism concerning their duties. All must obey the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals, but none should forget that in the end, he must answer to God for his stewardship and obey God in all things, just as Christ obeyed His heavenly Father while on earth. Revs. McHugh and Callan point out that "The fact that scandal is given by a superior bound by his office to give good example adds to the violation of charity a violation of justice." Every superior, but especially the Roman Pontiff must never forget that he stands in Christ’s stead when he deals with his subjects. Christ, after all, is the invisible Head of the Church, and whatever His Vicars do must conform to His will for the Church which they govern.

Christian civic duties
Pope Leo XIII, addressing the chief duties of Christians as citizens, taught: "It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men…The Christian who is mindful of his duty…should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God…In many countries, Catholicism is either openly assailed or else secretly interfered with, with full impunity being granted to the most pernicious doctrines…Under such evil circumstances, therefore, each one is bound in conscience to watch over himself, taking all means possible to preserve the faith…In order to safeguard this virtue of faith in its integrity, We declare it to be very profitable and consistent with the requirements of the time, that each one, according to his measure of capacity and intelligence,…study Christian doctrine and imbue his mind with as perfect a knowledge as may be of those matters that are interwoven with religion and lie within the range of reason…(For) when necessity compels, not only those invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains, ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.’ To recoil before an enemy or to keep silence, when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind…Christians are born for combat…Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian, the Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

" The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power…No one must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves not indeed the office of pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they themselves have received. Such cooperation of the faithful has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it: ‘All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Savior, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate those errors from Holy Church and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith,’ (Constitution Dei Filius)."

And so it was first from the Vatican Council that the call for Catholic Action came, a call to champion the rights of the primacy, promote the faith and combat errors. There is then, so to speak, an 11th Commandment mandated by the Vatican Council and the Popes beginning with Leo XIII and ending with Pope Pius XII — the commandment to stand in the place of the clergy in preaching the Gospel to every creature. If Catholics begin their study and preaching using the guidelines laid down at the Vatican Council, their first act will be to champion the papacy, the Rock upon which Christ founded His perpetual Church. But the Council presumed something else — something that Pope Pius XII mandated for all those engaging in the evangelization of a pagan world.

Catholic Action
Catholic Action is a distinct duty from the above, one that requires a special, intense formation to exercise its desired effect. Pope Pius XII gave us the necessary formula for what must precede Catholic Action if such action is to bear fruit: "Give the very first place to the formation of the interior spirit, without which all exterior action is futile and must be looked on with suspicion." In order to receive such spiritual direction, Catholics must place themselves under the direction of a priest with the requisite jurisdiction. This has been impossible for many years, according to various authors. And even when such a thing was possible, finding a truly holy priest was very rare. As Our Lady of La Salette warned in 1846, already in those times, no priest could be found sufficiently holy to offer a pleasing sacrifice to our Lord. The absolute necessity of priestly holiness to safely guide souls is emphasized by Rev. Biskupek, in his conferences for those soon to be ordained. He writes:

" The practical working out of charity in the priest’s life will be the perfect fulfilling of his priestly duties…The gifts desired for the young priests [referred to in the ordination ceremony]… are: Fidelity to those exercises by which they grow in true spirituality, and the practice of those virtues which fit them for their dealings with men…Personal sanctification must occupy the first place in the priest’s life. What will it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul?…’Charity begins at home.’ Our Lord Himself gave the degree and manner of love for self and neighbor: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Therefore the love of ourselves comes first…A holy priest is best fitted to labor for the salvation of other men, [but] the work of an unholy man will produce little result; it may even do much harm because of the inconsistency noticed between his personal and his official attitude toward Christian perfection. St. Gregory of Nazianus writes: ‘We must first be purified, and then purify others; we must first be filled with wisdom, and then make others wise; we must be all light ourselves, and then we shall be able to give light to others; we must first be near to God ourselves, and then we may lead others to Him; in short, we must first be sanctified ourselves in order to sanctify others.’ The Imitiation of Christ says: ‘The priest must be adorned with all the virtues and set the example of a good life for others.’ In fact every one of the priest’s duties furnish a motive for him to strive after personal holiness."

After advising readers not to neglect works of zeal on the pretext that one is not advanced enough spiritually, Dom Chautard has some very sobering comments on what happens to those who neglect the development of the interior life.

" Correct doctrine and good judgment are not enough to preserve one from…errors, because the apostle with no interior life and in consequence with no true humility will be influenced by his passions…No work takes deep root, is really solid and lasting, unless the apostle has created the interior life in souls. Now, he cannot do so unless he is well nurtured on the interior life himself…It is only the really interior man who has enough life to produce other centers of fruitful life. Any lay workers can succeed in getting zealous workers capable of propaganda and influence by comradeship, brotherly spirit or rivalry. Fanaticism or competition, sectarianism or vainglory, interest or ambition are good enough for him as levers. But with what other lever than that of intensive interior life can we create apostles for our Lord, apostles partaking of His gentleness and humility, of His disinterested kindness and His exclusive zeal for the glory of His Father? As long as a work has not been able to get such results, its existence is shortlived. It is almost certain that it shall not survive its founder." Chautard's may not co