A few days ago, the reading for morning prayer was in 1 Samuel 24. This is the time when King Saul was chasing after David trying to kill him, and David gets a chance to take Saul's life (and is encouraged to do so by some of his men) and yet refuses to harm him because "he is the Lord's anointed". In other words, he may be a bad king, but he is the king, and we need to treat him as such. In fact, when his men essentially encourage him to kill Saul, all he does it cut the corner of his cloak; but right after that David is overwhelmed with guilt for doing so and says it was wrong. That is holiness.
It is sometimes hard to obey good leaders, but when the leaders are bad it is even harder. We can often be tempted to treat them like an enemy (they might actually be enemies) and seek to bring them harm. The example, though, should be obvious to everyone reading this. How are we supposed to treat "the Lord's anointed" when he is doing things that very well might cause us harm? I am not speaking about a political leader (though that point should be clear); I am speaking about a spiritual leader. Whether it be a Deacon, Priest, Bishop, or (obviously) the Pope, they have all been literally anointed for their task. Anointing does not mean that they are being faithful to their task--some might be extremely unfaithful--but that does not relieve us from the duty of showing respect for the office that he holds.
Now, to be perfectly clear, I am not saying that when a king tries to kill you that you should not defend yourself, but look at what David did do. He tried to work it out with Saul. He spoke to him and attempted to find peace. In fact, it was David's unwillingness to repay evil for evil that taught Saul a lesson. Saul likely would not have been able to see that David was in the right without him responding in this way. It was David's humility that God used to ensure that truth be told and righteousness be evident.
Do you do things like David's "cutting off the edge" of Saul's cloak? Those "little" or "minor" comments and actions that are attacking a priest or bishop who has been unfaithful to his calling; are they really that bad? If we think like David, then we would be grieved at those "little" things. Yet, most today not only are not grieved by their bitter and spiteful words and actions, they are actually somewhat proud of them. They portray themselves as "standing for the truth" and being "holier" than the rest (I am thinking specifically of some of the traditionalist Catholic news outlets).
When we experience what appears to be a complete defection from the faith by many clergymen today, how are we supposed to respond? Or maybe I should ask first, how do we respond? It is true that we may need to run from them, as David did when he fled from Saul. In this way, the laity may need to leave a parish (or sometimes leave an entire diocese) for the well being of themselves and their loved ones. This does happen; but when it does, it should be with the same spirit that David exemplified. As David said, "the Lord forbid that I should [attack His anointed one]". There is nothing wrong with pointing out the sin of an unrepentant clergyman (especially if other's well being is in danger) but if it is done with anger and hatred, it is sinful.
Nowhere in any of David's dealings with Saul do we find him saying that Saul's disobedience means that he is not actually the king. Even though the Lord Himself said that He regretted having made Saul king, David acknowledges that the king is the king. We certainly are not to be obedient to a clergyman (or Pope) who tells us to sin or to deny the Catholic faith handed down to us. If anyone tells you to disobey God, you are not supposed to obey them. Proper obedience is always to the Lord first, and obedience to clergy is only as a means of obedience to the Lord. Yet, short of a command to sin (either morally or doctrinally) we are supposed to obey him. We are to acknowledge that the Pope is the Pope (even if he is a bad Pope). We do have the promise that the Pope will never promulgate a false teaching, but that does not mean that the Pope himself will always hold to the truth perfectly.
This whole principle helps us to find rest in Christ. It is only when we keep our true hope and faith in Him, and not in any improper devotion to one of His "anointed" clergymen, that we can find confidence in serving our Lord. When we put our confidence in any clergyman (even the best clergyman) we will always be disappointed. We are all fallen humans (yes, even priests are fallen!), and we will not always please everyone. Acknowledging our weaknesses and the Lord's strengths keeps us clear about how to trust God. This way, even when a Bishop or a Pope fails to do what is right or to hold firmly to the faith, we can know that God is still in charge and He is the One we can rely on.
I encourage you, even if you have read it before, to go read the story of David and King Saul (1 Samuel 24). Look at the spirit that David shows and what an example it is to us. Then look at your own heart, and ask yourself whether you could respond the way that David did in that instance. If not, then there is some soul-searching that needs to be done. Israel was still a nation, even with a lousy king (and she had some kings down through years that were far worse than Saul!). The Roman Catholic Church is still the Church even if we have Bishops who encourage errors and a Pope who fails to hold to the faith "once given" to us. Our faith must be in Christ Jesus and Him alone.
