Tonight I received an e-mail from a friend asking me what are the norms when it comes to a priests' obedience to his bishop.
This is a very interesting question, considering that some see the controversy surrounding Bishop Zurek's decision to call Father Pavone back to Amarillo as simply a matter of obedience.
I think there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this issue, and it shows in the number of articles and posts that seem to frame the debate as being centered on of Father Pavone's obedience to his Bishop.
As I understand it, a Bishop's order is not absolute - consider if a Bishop:
1. Orders a priest to break the seal of confession and reveal the sins of a public figure (without obtaining the penitent's permission).2. Orders a priest to encourage a woman to have an abortion
3. Commands the priest to run into a burning building
4. Gives a priest an order that is malicious in nature, and is harmful to the priest
I wonder if Mark Shea, Phil Lawler, and many other well meaning Catholics would say that a priest must obey his bishop in all of the aforementioned situations.
Now, this brings into context the reasoning the Bishop gave for calling Father Pavone back to Amarillo - that Fr. Pavone had disobeyed his order to provide a transparent audit of Priests for Life.
Yet, as my friend points out, it appears that Father Pavone had already done so, and that the Bishop's charge is based on a falsehood. If this is true, wouldn't this be an order that is based upon malice and deceit, and in fact in and of itself harmful to the priest?
Even if it were not, what all these folks are missing is that Father Frank has obeyed the Bishop's orders even though he is under no obligation to do so, as I understand it, since he has taken his case to Rome. Under these circumstances, he would be equally as obedient if he never showed up in Amarillo.
This is the point that people who seem to be stuck in ivory towers are missing - Father Frank need not even be in Amarillo, yet he is.
How much more obedience are people asking for?
Are they really saying Fr. Frank should just remain silent and do whatever the Bishop says? The Bishop has not ordered Father Pavone to remain silent on this situation, and in fact the Bishop himself pushed this into public arena. So are these Catholics giving more commands to Father Frank than Bishop Zurek himself has?
If people believe Father Pavone should not defend himself and Priests for Life against a seemingly unjust order, or that Father Frank feels his priesthood is a "jail sentence and a nuisance", or that he is not being respectful to his bishop on "all matters" then they have a mistaken idea of obedience - like the Pharisees, they only recognize the letter of the law, and miss the spirit of it.
