Without Reprieve adjudg'd to death,/For want of well pronouncing Shibboleth. John Milton
Ed. Note: By now it’s clear that the presence of so many young, incompetent priests working in the decimated Dolan-Cekada-Sanborn chapels is in large measure attributable to the appalling educational and spiritual conditions at Most Holy Trinity Clerical Vocational Program. Everyone agrees the place is well beyond repair or reform. Another reason for the abundance of idiocy, however, is the absence of intelligent young men who persist to ordination. We Readers know that, more than occasionally, talented men matriculate – men who are academically gifted, who think and reason closely and clearly, who possess a God-given vocation to the priesthood, and who have well informed consciences. The problem is that such men, who should be nurtured, are in fact targeted for removal. The rector prefers lumpen sycophants to supple intellects, as the following report shows:
This story stretches back eight years to February 2003. The seminarian, now a law student at a major university abroad, is a singularly able and well born young man with a keen interest in theology. (We Readers have read some of his impressive monographs, which surpass in both substance and style the vapid articles of the much older but less fortunate Anthony Cekada.)
Even in his native country, the seminarian had been impressed by the writings of the French Jesuit Louis Billot, the foremost speculative neo-Thomist of the 20th century. Eventually his enthusiasm led him to Billot’s magisterial Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (1898, 1910) and its renown thesis 29.* In sum, the thesis posits that a canonically elected Pope holding office can lose the pontificate by voluntary abdication alone and by no other means, provided that one accept as impossible a Pope’s defection from the faith through notorious heresy (a hypothesis held by Bellarmine and others). Billot then added that whether or not one accepts the hypothesis, an infallible sign of a sitting pontiff’’s legitimacy is the Universal Church’s continued adherence to his person as pope.
The talented seminarian found Billot’s thesis compelling. After all, the former cardinal was one of the great theological authors —‘author’ in the strict sense— of the late 19th and early 20thcenturies. Popes, eminent churchmen, and theologians openly praised him (Pietro Parente singles him out with Franzelin as one of the illustrious “Collegio Romano” professors of the Scholastic restoration). Billot had helped draft Pius X’s Pascendi and had served as a consultor to the Holy Office. The Church has never condemned his metaphysical and theological writings.** Indeed, Pope Pius XII, in an address to the students of the Gregorian, named Billot as a theologian who should be a model for all of the teachers of sacred doctrine.
Now, motivated in part by Anthony Cekada’s interpretation of canon 188.4 (tacit resignation of one publicly fallen from the faith), the seminarian defended Billot’s thesis to the rector's clone, who had not long been a priest. He was immediately told that the thesis was “an error,” although the clone did not provide a formal argument for his judgment, not even a demonstration that the thesis was only probable and that other competing opinions were most probable. (In fact, at no time did any faculty member refute the thesis. It was just an error. Period!) Then the clone added that Cekada’s interpretation of canon 188.4 was “contrary to the faith.”
The clone dutifully reported the conversation to the rector. The rector professed he could not ordain the seminarian if he continued to think as he did. Accordingly, he gave the young man until June to think about the matter and change his mind. In May, the seminarian confided to a priest, a fellow countryman, his concerns. He then mentioned the clone’s characterization of Cekada’s interpretation of canon 188.4 as “contrary to the faith.” The priest advised the young man to speak with the clone to clear up what must surely have been a misunderstanding. Afterward, following the priest’s advice, the seminarian did speak to the clone, who gave vague, evasive, and nonsensical answers as the young man pressed him to clarify what had meant by calling Cekada’s interpretation “contrary to the faith.” The clone then informed the seminarian he intended to talk to the rector.
A few days later, the rector summoned the seminarian. At the meeting, the rector announced that, according to his clone, the seminarian was still following Billot, so it would be best for the young man to leave the seminary. (N.B.: The seminarian's meeting with the clone really had nothing at all to do with Billot's thesis; it is therefore evident that either the rector or his clone was not truthful. Also remember: the seminarian had been given until June to change his mind.) When the seminarian then disclosed the condemnation of Cekada’s interpretation, the rector cooly replied he didn’t believe his clone had spoken those words. He neither called in the clone to sort out the facts nor did he take into account that the seminarian had nothing to gain by lying, for he would have exposed himself as a calumniator. Thereupon, the rector firmly reminded the seminarian, “This is my seminary!” The next day, the young man flew back to his native land.
The Reader neither endorses nor opposes Billot’s thesis. Frankly, we at Pistrina think that a good traditionalist can embrace the thesis and still believe Joseph Ratzinger has no authority. At the same time, we just might be able to understand in theory, at least, how as a matter of conscience a bishop might withhold holy orders from a candidate who holds opinions at odds with what he certainly knows to be right.
What happened to this young man, however, is not such a case. If the rector-bishop wants to pretend he runs a Catholic seminary, then he must follow the Church’s past practice for priestly formation. Billot has always been a sober, sound, and recommended author; his Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi was, before the crisis, an approved seminary textbook. Billot's theological manuals have always occupied a respected place in the classrooms and libraries of the finest seminaries in the world. Therefore, in this case, there could never have existed a genuine conflict of conscience. It appears as though the clone made a stupid blunder in the first place by running to the rector with something that wasn’t a problem. He then compounded his blunder with an imprudent and perhaps calumnious remark. The rector threw out a worthy young man to save the face of a fool.
Right-thinking Catholics are obliged to condemn the injustice and impoverished intellectual atmosphere at Most Holy Trinity Clerical Vocational Program. If Billot’s thesis is erroneous, then demonstrate it by formal argumentation. Just declaring it wrong is not sufficient. If faculty members are at odds over opinions, then officials may not punish students for conclusions formed as a result of embracing a teacher’s interpretation. If the interpretation is truly wrong, that is, if it is “contrary to the faith," then get rid of the teacher, not the student.
Additionally, if a seminarian does come to a conclusion the administration deems truly and dangerously erroneous, then authorities must invoke sweet reason and Catholic principles, not coercion, to change the opinion. If the seminarian is talented, then there is all the more reason to attempt to rescue a good mind for the traditional priesthood. Otherwise, the only priests who emerge from such a program will be more of the same empty-headed losers appearing in this blog.
A POST SCRIPT TO HYPOCRITICAL INJUSTICE: A few years after the seminarian’s dismissal, he learned from a priest associated with Rector Sanborn that Billot’s Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi was read aloud in the refectory at lunch time. (The dumb diners probably couldn't understand the learned Jesuit, so their mindless careers are safe.)
* Click here and go to page 622 to view thesis xxix.
** His resignation from the cardinalate was occasioned by his sympathy with the Action Française, a conservative, monarchist political movement condemned by Pius XI.
No comments:
Post a Comment