Yes, and this is Church teaching. Denzinger S # 3514.
By a commandment of “obedience” we mean a commandment that is not simply an iteration of natural law; rather, it is a commandment that regards an act in itself neutral. Such as, “The line forms here.” There is nothing in natural law that states the line should form here. But an authority figure can lay it down that this is indeed where the line starts. Or on what side of the road we should drive, etc.
Adam and Eve were given two basic commandments: one of nature (natural law) and one of obedience or discipline. The former is intrinsically necessary; the latter intrinsically indifferent, valid only because of God’s command. This latter commandment tested whether or not they would obey God because of His word.
Now, why would God command such a thing with no intrinsic necessity? Doesn’t that imply that God is arbitrary? That he is heavy-handed? No it does not. It indicates who he is and who we are.
Interestingly, obedient humility is something good for created beings. It is right in that sense. It is also just, for it is proper for us humbly to obey God because He is God.
Now, it is true that God is good and wills only our good. Thus, he does nothing arbitrarily just to provoke us. Still, obedience is something that properly belongs to the very attitude of God’s subject: He does not obey simply because he sees the intelligibility of the command but because he is rightfully subordinate to this ruler.
Granted, given the excessive casuistry of recent centuries, it is right now to emphasize the “meaning” of the 10 Commandments. And this is what we have done for over 50 years.
But would not something deeply Christian be lost if we thought that all commands must be intelligible to us from the beginning and that, short of such intelligibility, we should withhold our consent and obedience? For it is according to the proper nature of things that the subordinate should accept the dictates of the superior, unless they violate natural law. Note that it does not say “unless they don’t understand them”. It says, “unless they violate natural law”. But God’s positive law violates no necessary law.
This truth has important social implications. The husband exercises headship. That means he takes responsibility. He must provide. It also means that his decisions go, even if someone disagrees, unless they are in violation of the natural law (human dignity, etc.). For instance, if the trip will not work out, according to the counsel he has exercised and received (from all appropriate parties, especially his wife), then when he says the trip will not happen, right order requires that the rest of the family adhere to this decision. They may disagree, and respectfully communicate this; but the decision is authoritative.
How much rebellion have we stirred up in the last 50 years on account of our excessive desire to explain every last commandment? In Church, unless someone understands all the rubrics, one feels free to omit them. How childish (not child-like) we have become. How brutish. How irrationally rationalistic!