Virtue of Obedience

[TerrorDæmonum]

The virtue of Obedience is willful compliance with a command or precept. It is a virtue under Justice. It places the will of another above our own will in directing our acts. It is opposed by the vice of disobedience which is a mortal sin.

A summary of key points:

• Obedience to God in things is absolutely necessary
• Obedience to superiors and secular authorities is necessary inasmuch as it does not conflict with obedience to God or involve a command that oversteps their authority
• Obedience is usually a very difficult virtue, especially in our modern culture, and we should be aware of the cultural resistance to the idea of obedience being a virtue and how it may influence us in exercising vice up to and including mortal sins
• Disobedience is a mortal sin, although, the severity of disobedience depends on the authority being disobeyed and the nature of the disobedience (whether it is opposing the individual in authority or the authority itself)

The virtue of obedience is often contested, because:

• It is contrary to our will or at least requires us to put the will of another above our own. Any amount of Pride can make one resistant to this, even on matters of obedience that we would otherwise do, if we thought it was a free choice of our own (resisting authority on principle)
• It is contrary to cultural values, especially in societies which have a strong sense of individualism and freedom as rights.
• We can often find disobedience to be a pursuit of a higher good, rather than recognizing that obedience is usually a higher good than whatever we were thinking

Pride is the sin of demons. It is stated that Satan wished to have dominion over creation, to be "as God" in this respect. Whereas the virtuous are happily submissive to God and those God places over us regardless of natural ability. Obedience should be highly esteemed, for indeed, the virtue of obedience is opposed by the vice of disobedience. There is no middle ground between the virtue and vice: one must be virtuous or vicious and this is determined by our acts (acts of the body and the will). As modesty and immodesty are often readily apparent, obedience and disobedience are often readily visible to others and disobedience is often a cause of scandal.

Who do we obey? We obey God in all things:

Article 4. Whether God ought to be obeyed in all things?

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 24:7): "All things that the Lord hath spoken we will do, and we will be obedient."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), he who obeys is moved by the command of the person he obeys, just as natural things are moved by their motive causes. Now just as God is the first mover of all things that are moved naturally, so too is He the first mover of all wills, as shown above (I-II:09:6). Therefore just as all natural things are subject to the divine motion by a natural necessity so too all wills, by a kind of necessity of justice, are bound to obey the divine command.

We also obey those who have authority over us:

Article 1. Whether one man is bound to obey another?

On the contrary, It is prescribed (Hebrews 13:17): "Obey your prelates and be subject to them."

I answer that, Just as the actions of natural things proceed from natural powers, so do human actions proceed from the human will. On natural things it behooved the higher to move the lower to their actions by the excellence of the natural power bestowed on them by God: and so in human affairs also the higher must move the lower by their will in virtue of a divinely established authority. Now to move by reason and will is to command. Wherefore just as in virtue of the divinely established natural order the lower natural things need to be subject to the movement of the higher, so too in human affairs, in virtue of the order of natural and divine law, inferiors are bound to obey their superiors.

And finally, we obey secular authorities:

Article 6. Whether Christians are bound to obey the secular powers?

On the contrary, It is written (Titus 3:1): "Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers," and (1 Peter 2:13-14): "Be ye subject . . . to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him."

I answer that, Faith in Christ is the origin and cause of justice, according to Romans 3:22, "The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ:" wherefore faith in Christ does not void the order of justice, but strengthens it. Now the order of justice requires that subjects obey their superiors, else the stability of human affairs would cease. Hence faith in Christ does not excuse the faithful from the obligation of obeying secular princes.

The virtue of obedience directs us to being obedient in practice, but we are not to obey superiors in all things:

Article 5. Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that, As stated above (Articles 1 and 4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter's action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, "They that resist he power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

This lack of absolute authority is the cause for many excuses for disobedience. We are bound to obey authorities acting in the sphere of their authority. We must not obey where:

• Where a higher authority is being contradicted
• Where the authority oversteps his authority and attempts to command one to do something outside of his sphere of his authority.

For this reason, a command from the government to worship idols or to believe in heresy cannot be obeyed. They are contradicting a higher authority and the government has no authority over the will of subjects. That belongs to God.

On the other hand, a command from the government to use a particular currency, to pay taxes, or do contribute labour or goods as required are all commands we should obey. And obedience is putting their will above ours, so they may be things we would not will or agree with, but obedience is required. This is virtuous.

Disobedience is a grave sin, a mortal sin, and should be avoided.

Article 1. Whether disobedience is a mortal sin?

On the contrary, The sin of disobedience to parents is reckoned (Romans 1:30; 2 Timothy 3:2) among other mortal sins.

I answer that, As stated above (II-II:24:12; I-II:72:5; I-II:88:1), a mortal sin is one that is contrary to charity which is the cause of spiritual life. Now by charity we love God and our neighbor. The charity of God requires that we obey His commandments, as stated above (II-II:24:12). Therefore to be disobedient to the commandments of God is a mortal sin, because it is contrary to the love of God.

Again, the commandments of God contain the precept of obedience to superiors. Wherefore also disobedience to the commands of a superior is a mortal sin, as being contrary to the love of God, according to Romans 13:2, "He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." It is also contrary to the love of our neighbor, as it withdraws from the superior who is our neighbor the obedience that is his due.

Disobedience is a vice and a sin, but it is important not to take it in the broadest sense: every sin is ultimately a form of "disobedience" in some way, but all sins are not considered disobedience. Venial sins are not violations of a precept:

Article 1. Whether disobedience is a mortal sin?

Reply to Objection 1. The definition given by Ambrose refers to mortal sin, which has the character of perfect sin. Venial sin is not disobedience, because it is not contrary to a precept, but beside it. Nor again is every mortal sin disobedience, properly and essentially, but only when one contemns a precept, since moral acts take their species from the end. And when a thing is done contrary to a precept, not in contempt of the precept, but with some other purpose, it is not a sin of disobedience except materially, and belongs formally to another species of sin.

We are not bound to do the impossible, so excess of precepts or contradictions are not the cause of disobedience. The virtuous in such circumstances do what is possible and good, even if they cannot "obey" everything. Every violation of a precept or command from authority is not therefore a sin, if one never intended to disobey, but was incapable of obeying due to the complexity, number, or contradictions in the precepts. Civil law is often like this on technical matters where precepts can have such complexity (due to number, contradictions, or intricacies we cannot understand) that full compliance is impossible. We do not need to become lawyers to be virtuous (and even lawyers don't have all the answers). If the authority cannot explain the law simply for us to understand, we can hardly be held to obey a particular command that is shrouded and hidden.

Article 1. Whether disobedience is a mortal sin?

Reply to Objection 3. No one is bound to do the impossible: wherefore if a superior makes a heap of precepts and lays them upon his subjects, so that they are unable to fulfil them, they are excused from sin. Wherefore superiors should refrain from making a multitude of precepts.

On the other hand, if government makes a command very simple and direct, it is very easy to know how to comply with it, and in such cases we would be bound to obey and disobedience would be a sin. We do not have to like the command or agree with the reasoning for it. To find frequently excuses for disobedience is a sign of obstinacy, which makes it a far more grave sin:

Article 2. Whether disobedience is the most grievous of sins?

Reply to Objection 2. Not every disobedience is sin against the Holy Ghost, but only that which obstinacy is added: for it is not the contempt of any obstacle to sin that constitutes sin against the Holy Ghost, else the contempt of any good would be a sin against the Holy Ghost, since any good may hinder a man from committing sin. The sin against the Holy Ghost consists in the contempt of those goods which lead directly to repentance and the remission of sins.

In closing, we can consider some specific examples where issues of this virtue are often found:

• Taxes: we are bound to comply with tax law when we are subject to the authority that issues them (usually, by jurisdiction based on geography, but not always). However, tax law is generally very complex and we are not bound to be experts on it, so the intention to comply and doing what is reasonable given one's circumstances are certainly sufficient. The more complex one's finances are, the more attention one needs to pay to the finer details.
• Other complex laws, such as copyright laws, should also be complied with, however, we are not bound to do the impossible or become lawyers: there are a lot of open questions, grey areas, and other ambiguities in the laws that we are safe just focusing on what is clear and direct and known to us. Complex laws usually also have built in complex exceptions and other provisions as well (so, obeying such a law can take many forms due to the law's own provisions).
• The government does not have to be holy to have authority: we can safely obey secular governments even ones that are corrupt and evil, if we are not complying with commands that are in violation of Divine Law or other higher authority. This authority tends to be underestimated, so we must be certain not to make excuses for disobedience because of disdain for the lawgiver.
• The examples of saints are to be used for instruction on what obedience looks like.

Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort gives us the example of his obedience (and other virtues):

Grignion's extraordinary influence was especially apparent in the matter of the calvary at Pontchateau. When he announced his determination of building a monumental calvary on a neighbouring hill, the idea was enthusiastically received by the inhabitants. For fifteen months between two and four hundred peasants worked daily without recompense, and the task had just been completed, when the king commanded that the whole should be demolished, and the land restored to its former condition. The Jansenists had convinced the Governor of Brittany that a fortress capable of affording aid to persons in revolt was being erected, and for several months five hundred peasants, watched by a company of soldiers, were compelled to carry out the work of destruction. Father de Montfort was not disturbed on receiving this humiliating news, exclaiming only: "Blessed be God!"

This is illustrative: whatever good the project would have had, obedience to authority was better and this is affirmed many times in the examples of saints. Even though the saint's project was good, and the reason for its cancellation after so much effort was erroneous and from people with unholy hostility to him, the command from a superior had to be obeyed because it was in the sphere of their authority. They could not command him to believe in the errors of heretics or to profess such a belief because that is an interior act and not within the sphere of their authority. His obedience was not an indication of agreement with their reasoning or the political motives behind the command.

A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

[nmoerbeek]

The virtue of Obedience is willful compliance with a command or precept. It is a virtue under Justice. It places the will of another above our own will in directing our acts. It is opposed by the vice of disobedience which is a mortal sin.

A summary of key points:

• Obedience to God in things is absolutely necessary
• Obedience to superiors and secular authorities is necessary inasmuch as it does not conflict with obedience to God or involve a command that oversteps their authority
• Obedience is usually a very difficult virtue, especially in our modern culture, and we should be aware of the cultural resistance to the idea of obedience being a virtue and how it may influence us in exercising vice up to and including mortal sins
• Disobedience is a mortal sin, although, the severity of disobedience depends on the authority being disobeyed and the nature of the disobedience (whether it is opposing the individual in authority or the authority itself)

The virtue of obedience is often contested, because:

• It is contrary to our will or at least requires us to put the will of another above our own. Any amount of Pride can make one resistant to this, even on matters of obedience that we would otherwise do, if we thought it was a free choice of our own (resisting authority on principle)
• It is contrary to cultural values, especially in societies which have a strong sense of individualism and freedom as rights.
• We can often find disobedience to be a pursuit of a higher good, rather than recognizing that obedience is usually a higher good than whatever we were thinking

Pride is the sin of demons. It is stated that Satan wished to have dominion over creation, to be "as God" in this respect. Whereas the virtuous are happily submissive to God and those God places over us regardless of natural ability. Obedience should be highly esteemed, for indeed, the virtue of obedience is opposed by the vice of disobedience. There is no middle ground between the virtue and vice: one must be virtuous or vicious and this is determined by our acts (acts of the body and the will). As modesty and immodesty are often readily apparent, obedience and disobedience are often readily visible to others and disobedience is often a cause of scandal.

Who do we obey? We obey God in all things:

Article 4. Whether God ought to be obeyed in all things?

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 24:7): "All things that the Lord hath spoken we will do, and we will be obedient."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), he who obeys is moved by the command of the person he obeys, just as natural things are moved by their motive causes. Now just as God is the first mover of all things that are moved naturally, so too is He the first mover of all wills, as shown above (I-II:09:6). Therefore just as all natural things are subject to the divine motion by a natural necessity so too all wills, by a kind of necessity of justice, are bound to obey the divine command.

We also obey those who have authority over us:

Article 1. Whether one man is bound to obey another?

On the contrary, It is prescribed (Hebrews 13:17): "Obey your prelates and be subject to them."

I answer that, Just as the actions of natural things proceed from natural powers, so do human actions proceed from the human will. On natural things it behooved the higher to move the lower to their actions by the excellence of the natural power bestowed on them by God: and so in human affairs also the higher must move the lower by their will in virtue of a divinely established authority. Now to move by reason and will is to command. Wherefore just as in virtue of the divinely established natural order the lower natural things need to be subject to the movement of the higher, so too in human affairs, in virtue of the order of natural and divine law, inferiors are bound to obey their superiors.

And finally, we obey secular authorities:

Article 6. Whether Christians are bound to obey the secular powers?

On the contrary, It is written (Titus 3:1): "Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers," and (1 Peter 2:13-14): "Be ye subject . . . to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him."

I answer that, Faith in Christ is the origin and cause of justice, according to Romans 3:22, "The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ:" wherefore faith in Christ does not void the order of justice, but strengthens it. Now the order of justice requires that subjects obey their superiors, else the stability of human affairs would cease. Hence faith in Christ does not excuse the faithful from the obligation of obeying secular princes.

The virtue of obedience directs us to being obedient in practice, but we are not to obey superiors in all things:

Article 5. Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that, As stated above (Articles 1 and 4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter's action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, "They that resist he power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

This lack of absolute authority is the cause for many excuses for disobedience. We are bound to obey authorities acting in the sphere of their authority. We must not obey where:

• Where a higher authority is being contradicted
• Where the authority oversteps his authority and attempts to command one to do something outside of his sphere of his authority.

For this reason, a command from the government to worship idols or to believe in heresy cannot be obeyed. They are contradicting a higher authority and the government has no authority over the will of subjects. That belongs to God.

On the other hand, a command from the government to use a particular currency, to pay taxes, or do contribute labour or goods as required are all commands we should obey. And obedience is putting their will above ours, so they may be things we would not will or agree with, but obedience is required. This is virtuous.

Disobedience is a grave sin, a mortal sin, and should be avoided.

Article 1. Whether disobedience is a mortal sin?

On the contrary, The sin of disobedience to parents is reckoned (Romans 1:30; 2 Timothy 3:2) among other mortal sins.

I answer that, As stated above (II-II:24:12; I-II:72:5; I-II:88:1), a mortal sin is one that is contrary to charity which is the cause of spiritual life. Now by charity we love God and our neighbor. The charity of God requires that we obey His commandments, as stated above (II-II:24:12). Therefore to be disobedient to the commandments of God is a mortal sin, because it is contrary to the love of God.

Again, the commandments of God contain the precept of obedience to superiors. Wherefore also disobedience to the commands of a superior is a mortal sin, as being contrary to the love of God, according to Romans 13:2, "He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." It is also contrary to the love of our neighbor, as it withdraws from the superior who is our neighbor the obedience that is his due.

Disobedience is a vice and a sin, but it is important not to take it in the broadest sense: every sin is ultimately a form of "disobedience" in some way, but all sins are not considered disobedience. Venial sins are not violations of a precept:

Article 1. Whether disobedience is a mortal sin?

Reply to Objection 1. The definition given by Ambrose refers to mortal sin, which has the character of perfect sin. Venial sin is not disobedience, because it is not contrary to a precept, but beside it. Nor again is every mortal sin disobedience, properly and essentially, but only when one contemns a precept, since moral acts take their species from the end. And when a thing is done contrary to a precept, not in contempt of the precept, but with some other purpose, it is not a sin of disobedience except materially, and belongs formally to another species of sin.

We are not bound to do the impossible, so excess of precepts or contradictions are not the cause of disobedience. The virtuous in such circumstances do what is possible and good, even if they cannot "obey" everything. Every violation of a precept or command from authority is not therefore a sin, if one never intended to disobey, but was incapable of obeying due to the complexity, number, or contradictions in the precepts. Civil law is often like this on technical matters where precepts can have such complexity (due to number, contradictions, or intricacies we cannot understand) that full compliance is impossible. We do not need to become lawyers to be virtuous (and even lawyers don't have all the answers). If the authority cannot explain the law simply for us to understand, we can hardly be held to obey a particular command that is shrouded and hidden.

Article 1. Whether disobedience is a mortal sin?

Reply to Objection 3. No one is bound to do the impossible: wherefore if a superior makes a heap of precepts and lays them upon his subjects, so that they are unable to fulfil them, they are excused from sin. Wherefore superiors should refrain from making a multitude of precepts.

On the other hand, if government makes a command very simple and direct, it is very easy to know how to comply with it, and in such cases we would be bound to obey and disobedience would be a sin. We do not have to like the command or agree with the reasoning for it. To find frequently excuses for disobedience is a sign of obstinacy, which makes it a far more grave sin:

Article 2. Whether disobedience is the most grievous of sins?

Reply to Objection 2. Not every disobedience is sin against the Holy Ghost, but only that which obstinacy is added: for it is not the contempt of any obstacle to sin that constitutes sin against the Holy Ghost, else the contempt of any good would be a sin against the Holy Ghost, since any good may hinder a man from committing sin. The sin against the Holy Ghost consists in the contempt of those goods which lead directly to repentance and the remission of sins.

In closing, we can consider some specific examples where issues of this virtue are often found:

• Taxes: we are bound to comply with tax law when we are subject to the authority that issues them (usually, by jurisdiction based on geography, but not always). However, tax law is generally very complex and we are not bound to be experts on it, so the intention to comply and doing what is reasonable given one's circumstances are certainly sufficient. The more complex one's finances are, the more attention one needs to pay to the finer details.
• Other complex laws, such as copyright laws, should also be complied with, however, we are not bound to do the impossible or become lawyers: there are a lot of open questions, grey areas, and other ambiguities in the laws that we are safe just focusing on what is clear and direct and known to us. Complex laws usually also have built in complex exceptions and other provisions as well (so, obeying such a law can take many forms due to the law's own provisions).
• The government does not have to be holy to have authority: we can safely obey secular governments even ones that are corrupt and evil, if we are not complying with commands that are in violation of Divine Law or other higher authority. This authority tends to be underestimated, so we must be certain not to make excuses for disobedience because of disdain for the lawgiver.
• The examples of saints are to be used for instruction on what obedience looks like.

Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort gives us the example of his obedience (and other virtues):

Grignion's extraordinary influence was especially apparent in the matter of the calvary at Pontchateau. When he announced his determination of building a monumental calvary on a neighbouring hill, the idea was enthusiastically received by the inhabitants. For fifteen months between two and four hundred peasants worked daily without recompense, and the task had just been completed, when the king commanded that the whole should be demolished, and the land restored to its former condition. The Jansenists had convinced the Governor of Brittany that a fortress capable of affording aid to persons in revolt was being erected, and for several months five hundred peasants, watched by a company of soldiers, were compelled to carry out the work of destruction. Father de Montfort was not disturbed on receiving this humiliating news, exclaiming only: "Blessed be God!"

This is illustrative: whatever good the project would have had, obedience to authority was better and this is affirmed many times in the examples of saints. Even though the saint's project was good, and the reason for its cancellation after so much effort was erroneous and from people with unholy hostility to him, the command from a superior had to be obeyed because it was in the sphere of their authority. They could not command him to believe in the errors of heretics or to profess such a belief because that is an interior act and not within the sphere of their authority. His obedience was not an indication of agreement with their reasoning or the political motives behind the command.

A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Hello my friend,

If you are interested in expanding this treatise you might be interested in:
Civil Law and Conscience
https://archive.org/details/questionsmoralt00slatgoog/page/n270/mode/2up

And also
Some Questions Concerning Intention, which is the essay following the first one.

[Severinus]

When discussing obedience to positive law in a democratic context, it's necessary to recognize that protest and indeed civil disobedience are long-recognized and accepted forms of democratic participation, which have not been condemned by Catholic authorities. On the contrary, our authorities have taught us to participate fully in the political processes of our nations. Being established democratic traditions introduces a new dimension to acts of protest and disobedience that theologians living in pre-modern monarchies or republics would not be equipped to analyze. They rightly taught that, e.g., positive laws which are harmful to the common good are illegitimate by that fact. But much like their thought could not encompass many other facets of the modern democratic process, as coming well after their time, so it could not encompass the idea of an act of open disobedience to a merely positive law as a legitimate form of participation in a political process. A modern treatment of obedience owed to secular authorities would need to thoughtfully navigate this.

[TerrorDæmonum]

A modern treatment of obedience owed to secular authorities would need to thoughtfully navigate this.

The principle is the same, and if one is embracing the individualistic disobedient mindset, that has to be reformed first, before one can appreciate the systemic allowances in particular political systems.

And as in the post: the sinfulness of disobedience depends on the level of authority being disobeyed, so it is not a perfect act of disobedience when one disobeys most of the time.

We need to focus on the virtue of obedience and exercising it, instead of looking for exceptions. The major issue is when this becomes habitual. People seem to easily find reasons to disobey nearly every authority these days.

Appreciating the virtue sees the good in being obedience as its own thing, rather than embracing every possible reason (good or bad) to be disobedient. If one cannot exercise the virtue because one has excused oneself from every authority, how can one be virtuous?