ELEMENTAL EDUCATION

Both of them had failed, the one who had dreamed of love, the other who had dreamed of power. What was the reason for their failure?

"It was, perhaps, the absence of a straight path," said Frédéric.

"For you, that may well be the case. I, on the contrary, sinned through excess of rectitude, without taking into account a thousand secondary things stronger than everything. I had too much logic, and you too much sentiment."

Then they blamed chance, circumstances, the age in which they were born. Flaubert

As we were reading the June MHT Newsletter, we caught a serious, unforced error that got us to rethink completely our position on sede seminary formation. Whereas before we used to lament sede institutions' weak academic standards, today we embrace their manifest limitations.   We know when we're paddling upstream against an overpowering current. 


Consequently, Pistrina now argues that (a) the sede "seminary" curriculum be further streamlined and (b) the training time be shortened to no more than two years of part-time study.

But first...let's look at the newsletter blunder that radically shook our thinking, that made us think the unthinkable.

In a section about a new Novus-Ordo catechism, the rector wrote:

The book which introduces us to this life-altering doctrine...should present itself in the utmost dignity, gravity, sanctity, respect, sacredness, and supernaturality. These very same adjectives [emphasis ours] can be applied to the Church's sacred liturgy and even to her priests and religious.

The big problem here is that the words dignity, gravity, sanctity, respect, sacredness, supernaturality are abstract nouns, not adjectives! The error (which isn't a typo) is bigger than it appears at first glance.

You see, a genuine seminary curriculum is grounded on a thorough mastery of grammar and its terminology. Indeed, a large number of the fundamental notions in scholastic logic, the mastery of which is essential to the fruitful study of philosophy and Thomistic theology, come directly from the art and science of grammar. Logic, grammar, and rhetoric compose the trivium, the three fundamental disciplines of the liberal arts. The trivium pertains to the mind, and its aim is to teach the nature and function of language.*

Consequently, within an authentic Catholic educational context, a "seminary" teacher's confusing these two parts of speech is (if we may so speak) no trivial error. It's an unmistakable sign of a grave deficiency in intellectual preparation. The rector's bumbling pal, Tony the Arch-Blunderer, is forever suggesting that priests are the only ones fit to comment on certain questions because they have supposedly "studied" formal logic.** Well, then, in minor logic, seven of the nine categories of accident are examples of abstract nouns. Therefore, the rector should know the difference between abstract nouns and adjectives, right?


Even if the rector had forgotten (or never learned) the definition of the several parts of speech, he ought to have recognized that four of the nouns in his list ending in the suffix -ty come directly from the Latin abstract nouns dignitas, gravitas, sanctitas, and (super)naturalitas, fairly common words in scholastic theology and philosophy. If he couldn't see that connection and absent a real scholar's understanding of Latin word formation -- viz., words ending in -tās = abstract nouns mostly from adjective-stems -- the plain English suffix -ness should have been clue enough that the words were definitely not adjectives.

Obviously it wasn't.


So, then, that leads us to our main point: in light of this and the other gross blunders Pistrina has exposed, it is senseless for sedes to think that their so-called seminaries can ever mirror pre-Vatican II educational standards. What's going on in sede institutions is pure make believe and bluff. The requisite human capital just isn't there to pull it off.

So why keep pretending?

When you think about it, most sedes just want a priest who possesses undoubtedly valid orders and who can say Mass correctly, hear confessions without ulterior motives or hidden agendas, conduct a decent burial service, confidently administer blessings, and deliver an intelligible, fluent, and spiritually inspiring Sunday sermon. That's it. They don't want to hear about globe-trotting wandering-bishops' excellent adventures, fine-dining capers, internecine struggles within the SSPX, wild theories about una-cum Masses, or the latest crackpot "musings" of intellectually lightweight clergy.

You don't need five to eight years to produce a priest who can meet these modest expectations. As we have documented time and again, five to eight years now isn't producing fit priests. Something's got to change.


In next week's post, we'll outline an effective competency-based, clerical vocational training program to make more priests available to independent, lay-governed chapels.

Our proposal will be shockingly bare bones, and you may be surprised, or perhaps scandalized, at some of our recommendations. However, the rector's gross blunder was too significant, too resonant for us not to revise our views about priestly formation in the face of the woeful ignorance of substandard sede trainers.  

The Traddie formation system cannot be fixed. The sede "seminaries" cannot be reformed. It's too late. They're too far gone.  The laity need to face reality squarely if they wish to preserve a minimum Catholic life until the Restoration.

For years, sede seminary honchos have suffered from what clinical psychologists call "positivity bias" -- the tendency to see oneself as smart regardless of ability. Now, however, these self-deceiving clergy can no longer dupe the laity. They are clearly not the best (as we have shown); they're not even mediocre. They are incapable of producing priests resembling in any but the most superficial way the products of pre-Vatican-II formation.

If you simply must have an authentically formed priest, then you should join an SSPX chapel today and be prepared to weather the coming storms. If, on the other hand, your conscience prohibits the affiliation, then we invite you to consider what we have to say in the coming weeks.

* In the Middle Ages, as Joseph Mullally observed in 1945, the logicians Abelard, John of Salisbury, and Peter of Spain (traditionally identified as Pope John XXI) recognized "the close relationship... between the linguistic structure of grammar and the logical content of thought." The Dominicans Conway and Ashley argued (1959) that St. Thomas's "concept of logic, with grammar understood as a necessary prerequisite" was "identical with the whole trivium."

** He's also claimed that mastery of Latin is another qualification. Yet, as Pistrina has more than amply demonstrated in numerous posts, his Latinity (as well as the rector's) leaves very much to be desired. (See our footnote where the rector used the wrong Latin word for "time" on his pompous seminary schedule or our article exposing the bad Latin of MHT ordination certificates.