Is Religious Obedience an Infallible Rule of Discernment?

Saint John Cassian

IS RELIGIOUS OBEDIENCE AN INFALLIBLE RULE OF DISCERNMENT?

Saint John Cassian is a key figure in the history of Christianity because during the fifth century C.E. he was instrumental in carrying the monastic tradition of the Desert Fathers of Egypt to Western Europe via Tours, France. He wrote the Institutes, a compendium of rules and customs of monastic life and Conferences, which deals with a book of conversations with monastic elders about important issues in ascetical and mystical theology in the monastic tradition.

One of the most enduring stories in the Conferences deals with the question of the discernment of spirits. It tells of the remarkable vision of the hermit Heron, who was deceived by the devil, and draws out monastic norms and directives for the practice of discernment of spirits as a result.  

“The gift of discretion is no earthly thing and no slight matter, but the greatest prize of divine grace. And unless a monk has pursued it with all zeal, and secured a power of discerning with unerring judgment the spirits that rise up in him, he is sure to go wrong, as if in the darkness of night and dense blackness, and not merely to fall down dangerous pits and precipices, but also to make frequent mistakes in matters that are plain and straightforward.

“…it was discussed at great length what virtue or observance could preserve a monk always unharmed by the snares and deceits of the devil, and carry him forward on a sure and right path, and with firm step to the heights of perfection.

“…so by the judgment of the blessed Antony as well as of all others it has been laid down that it is discretion which leads a fearless monk by fixed stages to God, and preserves the virtues mentioned above continually intact, by means of which one may ascend with less weariness to the extreme summit of perfection, and without which even those who toil most willingly cannot reach the heights of perfection. For discretion is the mother of all virtues, as well as their guardian and regulator.

“Of the death of the old man Heron.

“And to support this judgment delivered of old by the blessed Antony and the other fathers by a modern instance, as we promised to do, remember what you lately saw happen before your very eyes, I mean, how the old man Heron, only a very few days ago was cast down by an illusion of the devil from the heights to the depths, a man whom we remember to have lived for fifty years in this desert and to have preserved a strict continence with special severity, and who aimed at the secrecy of solitude with marvellous fervour beyond all those who dwell here. By what device then or by what method was he deluded by the deceiver after so many labours, and falling by a most grievous downfall struck with profound grief all those who live in this desert? Was it not because, having too little of the virtue of discretion he preferred to be guided by his own judgment rather than to obey the counsels and conference of the brethren and the regulations of the elders? Since he ever practised incessant abstinence and fasting with such severity, and persisted in the secrecy of solitude and a monastic cell so constantly that not even the observance of the Easter festival could ever persuade him to join in the feast with the brethren: when in accordance with the annual observance, all the brethren remained in the church and he alone would not join them for fear lest he might seem to relax in some degree from his purpose by taking only a little pulse. And deceived by this presumption he received with the utmost reverence an angel of Satan as an angel of light and with blind slavishness obeyed his commands and cast himself down a well, so deep that the eye could not pierce its depths, nothing doubting of the promise of the angel who had assured him that the merits of his virtues and labours were such that he could not possibly run any risk. And that he might prove the truth of this most certainly by experimenting on his own safety, in the dead of night he was deluded enough to cast himself into the above mentioned well, to prove indeed the great merit of his virtue if he should come out thence unhurt. And when by great efforts on the part of the brethren he had been got out already almost dead, on the third day afterward he expired, and what was still worse, persisted in his obstinate delusion so that not even the experience of his death could persuade him that he had been deceived by the craft of devils. Wherefore in spite of the merits of his great labours and the number of years which he had spent in the desert those who with compassion and the greatest kindness pitied his end, could hardly obtain from Abbot Paphnutius that he should not be reckoned among suicides, and be deemed unworthy of the memorial and oblation for those at rest.

“…Moses: True discretion, said he, is only secured by true humility. And of this humility the first proof is given by reserving everything (not only what you do but also what you think), for the scrutiny of the elders, so as not to trust at all in your own judgment but to acquiesce in their decisions in all points, [boldface mine] and to acknowledge what ought to be considered good or bad by their traditions. And this habit will not only teach a young man to walk in the right path through the true way of discretion, but will also keep him unhurt by all the crafts and deceits of the enemy. For a man cannot possibly be deceived, who lives not by his own judgment but according to the example of the elders, [boldface mine] nor will our crafty foe be able to abuse the ignorance of one who is not accustomed from false modesty to conceal all the thoughts which rise in his heart, but either checks them or suffers them to remain, in accordance with the ripened judgment of the elders. For a wrong thought is enfeebled at the moment that it is discovered: and even before the sentence of discretion has been given, the foul serpent is by the power of confession dragged out, so to speak, from his dark underground cavern, and in some sense shown up and sent away in disgrace. For evil thoughts will hold sway in us just so long as they are hidden in the heart….”

—Saint John Cassian, Second Conference of Abbot Moses, Chapters 2, 4, 5, 10

The story of the tragic deception of Heron concludes with the ascetical norm and directive that the monk should reveal their thoughts and actions to their elders and submit to the judgment of their elders in humility. Here we discover that obedience to elders—it is a type of religious obedience because it is practiced in monastic community—becomes a rule of discernment, and it maintains throughout the many centuries until the present.

In the Rule of Saint Benedict, it stipulates:

“The first step of humility is unhesitating obedience, which comes naturally to those who cherish Christ above all. …Men of this resolve unquestionably conform to the saying of the Lord: I have come not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38). …The obedience shown to superiors is given to God, as he himself said: Whoever listens to you, listens to me (Luke 10:16).” [boldface mine]

—Rule of Saint Benedict, Chapter 5

Saint Teresa of Avila pointedly relates that she obeyed her confessor even though his directives contravened her deepest spiritual instincts. Her confessor told her to make an insulting hand gesture common at the time at her visions of Jesus, which caused her “great distress.” She was consoled, however, when Jesus “told me not to worry about it and said I was quite right to obey, but He would see that my confessor learned the truth.” Saint Teresa’s account contrasts markedly with the story of Heron.

“As the visions became more numerous, one of those who had previously been in the habit of helping me and who used sometimes to hear my confessions when the minister was unable to do so, began to say that it was clear I was being deceived by the devil. So, as I was quite unable to resist it, they commanded me to make the sign of the Cross whenever I had a vision, and to snap my fingers at it so as to convince myself that it came from the devil, whereupon it would not come again: I was not to be afraid, they said, and God would protect me and take the vision away. This caused me great distress: as I could not help believing that my visions came from God, it was a terrible thing to have to do; and, as I have said, I could not possibly wish them to be taken from me. However, I did as they commanded me. I besought God often to set me free from deception; indeed, I was continually doing so and with many tears. I would also invoke Saint Peter and Saint Paul, for the Lord had told me (it was on their festival that He had first appeared to me)[227] that they would prevent me from being deluded; and I used often to see them very clearly on my left hand, though not in an imaginary vision. These glorious Saints were in a very real sense my lords.

“To be obliged to snap my fingers at a vision in which I saw the Lord caused me the sorest distress. For, when I saw Him before me, I could not have believed that the vision had come from the devil even if the alternative were my being cut to pieces. So this was a kind of penance to me, and a heavy one. In order not to have to be so continually crossing myself, I would carry a cross in my hand. This I did almost invariably; but I was not so particular about snapping my fingers at the vision, for it hurt me too much to do that. It reminded me of the way the Jews had insulted Him, and I would beseech Him to forgive me, since I did it out of obedience to him who was in His own place, and not to blame me, since he was one of the ministers whom He had placed in His Church. He told me not to worry about it and said I was quite right to obey, but He would see that my confessor learned the truth.” [boldface mine]

—Life of Saint Teresa of Jesus, Chapter 29, 5-6

It would almost appear that the obligation of obedience to religious or spiritual authority is infallible, a given of the spiritual life. Are there any exceptions?

An exception that stands out is the doctrine of the primacy of conscience.

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1790)

The doctrine of the primacy of conscience is taught by Vatican Council II.

“Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.” (Gaudium et Spes, 16)

“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.” (Dignitatis Humanae, 3)

Saint Teresa of Avila herself cites this exception when she alludes to “disobeying” her confessor in order not to contravene the law of God, presumably according to the guidance of her conscience.

“I made the proposal within myself to carry out the Lord’s request for the rest of my life, to follow Father Gratian’s opinion in everything as long as it wasn’t clearly offensive to God.”

—“The vow of obedience to Father Gratian (Beas, April, 1575),” 3

Obedience to legitimate religious and spiritual authority is sound counsel indeed in the matter of the discernment of the spirits, for the spiritual journey is easily waylaid by the devil. The Father of lies, exercising his preternatural angelic powers, would be more than capable of counterfeiting the visions and directives of God and the angels. However, religious obedience is not an infallible rule of discernment.