THE POISON PEN

And forthi, who that hath an hed of verre,/Fro cast of stones war hym in the werre! Chaucer*

The optics are always harsh in brutish Traddielandia. The feral cult masters never weary of beastly mischief-making and hypocrisy. For all their transparent efforts to appear benevolent, their lupine instincts ever find a way to manifest themselves. By nature, they cannot forbear from breeding dissension and alarming the laity in their manic drive for a control long ago lost to them.

Pistrina received an example of a recent effort to disturb the spiritual peace of a distant Catholic community. "One Hand Dan" sent a letter dated November 21, 2013, to a body of laymen (below we print his very words in blue). It contains a scurrilous attack on a young priest, in which a foaming Li'l Dan enviously snarled, "we should not even consider this man a valid priest." (His emphasis.) In every way, Dannie's vile letter is a classic example of the pot's calling the kettle black.

We'll revisit this nasty-gram again during 2014, but for today we limit our remarks to the reasons "One Hand" alleges for eliminating the man "from consideration as a Catholic priest." You'll see how Dannie convicts himself while he savagely struggles to impugn a Catholic priest whose possession of the priesthood is more certain than his own.

Just for laughs, we'll entertain the fiction that canon law operates. Of course, you and we know that, in the Sede Vacante, the 1917 Codex Juris Canonici has no more force than Hammurabi's code does in modern Iraq or the XII Tables** in today's Lazio. But, since "One Hand" brazenly invokes the code to legitimize his unprovoked, animalistic attack, we'll appeal to it, too, in order to expose his hypocrisy.

THE BEAST BITES ITS OWN BACK

Wee Dan charges that the young priest is canonically unfit according to c. 974.1. That's a particularly embarrassing accusation for Dannie to make considering his own track record.  In 2012, "One-Hand Dan" himself ordained to the priesthood a man (1) who “had never completed a seminary academic program which properly tested his knowledge in Latin, Philosophy or Theology according to the mind of the Church as set forth in canon law and papal documents,”*** (2) who had never followed “a seminary rule,” and (3) who had never demonstrated “the requisite regularity of life” by attending a seminary, not even the grossly deficient swampland pesthouse. The man merely studied for a while under a busy priest who runs an active chapel.

Now, folks, at best that's a tutorial, not a seminary!

This man later separated from that priest and then studied "independently" for a short time at the cult center before "One Hand" ordained him a priest at his home chapel on the East Coast. Shortly afterwards, he abandoned that chapel to return to the SW Ohio cult center. (That's an instructive story in itself, which deserves a full telling someday on this blog.)

WHAT ARE WE TO THINK?

The following questions immediately come to mind:

In light of Dannie's opinion, should this man, who now works at the cult center and its missions, not be considered a priest?

Additionally, since Dannie wrote,"a bishop who ordains such a candidate 'sins most gravely' (c. 973.3)," did Dan himself, then, sin mortally by ordaining such a man? Did he commit "a sin 'against the public good, which is harmed exceedingly by unworthy ministers' (Regatillo, Jus Sacramentum, 919)"? 

 Or, is rule-tweaking "One-Hand Dan" exempt from the severe standards by which he condemns others? 

LET'S LOOK AT THE CODE OURSELVES

Now if, in spite of the inherent absurdity, canonical fitness is to be a standard in the Sede Vacante, then we must consider Dannie’s own worthiness for the episcopacy. Canon 331 sets forth several criteria whereby we may judge his canonical fitness, four of which are:

✭ A doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred theology acquired from a school approved by
the Holy See;

✭ Good character;

✭ Zeal for souls;

✭ Prudence.

Dannie possesses no advanced degree or a license from an approved institution. He has never demonstrated in the public forum that he is well-versed in the sacred sciences or canon law. As for his character, in his own state and in the city where he resides, there are many former members of his chapels who hold him in deepest contempt, as do many clergy throughout North America, Latin America, and Europe. He did not display zealousness for souls when his meddling a few years ago in Chambéry, France, resulted in a well-loved priest's departure from the little chapel there.  Likewise, at the cult center in 2008 and 2009, he did not exercise prudence when, by refusing to discipline an errant employee, his chapel was irremediably divided in the wake of the calamitous SGG School scandal.

A MOST CONVENIENT OVERSIGHT

The letter’s most laughable charges are those leveled against the licitness and validity of the young man's priestly orders. To our great amusement, "One Hand" appears to have forgotten that his own consecration and ordination as well as the 14 ordinations he has conferred over the years are themselves, strictly speaking, illicit and hence “an act that church law considered mortally sinful.”

His episcopal candidacy in the United States was never proposed by the Holy See through the Apostolic Delegate nor approved by a vote of the Bishops in his province. Like all sedevacantist clergy, "One Hand’s" orders are illicit in the strict sense. At best, he's a mere episcopus vagans with no jurisdiction, no authority, and no mandate from the institutional Church -- that is, if he is a bishop at all: there's no guarantee that the defect of a one-handed ordination is accidental, and remember: he's never obtained conditional orders to cure the defect and end all speculation.

WHAT WAS HE THINKING WHEN HE WROTE TO THOSE PEOPLE?

If his hateful missive weren't so destructively mischievous, you'd feel sorry for such an absence of self-awareness. He sounds like a malign and embittered orphan cruelly taunting a fatherless child for having a single mother. The normal person wonders how "One Hand" cannot see his own exposure to the very charges he laid against the young priest. But, then, if he could, he wouldn't be in the predicament he is, would he? One's true character will always prevail.

Popular culture, sociology, psychology, and psychiatry all have terms to describe such lost souls. Feel free to select the one you feel most apropos, for they all capture a behavior condemned and ridiculed in the real world.

A LEOPARD CAN'T CHANGE ITS SPOTS

You'll note that we were amused at his hypocrisy, but not astonished. We know all the cult masters too well. They refuse to practice what they preach. Another pregnant example is the case of Dannie's not seeking re-ordination after the nine priests denounced his one-handed ordination. Repetition of his priestly orders should have been the first solution to his dilemma, if he had truly believed the words of the 1984 "A Statement of Principles in a Time of Crisis," to which he, Checkie, and "Big Don" subjoined their names along with those of nine other priests:

In the practical order, in the course of our pastoral activity, the Church obliges us to require the reiteration according to the traditional rites, either conditionally or absolutely, as the case may be, of any sacrament conferred in a doubtful or invalid manner. We refer the final determination of the validity or invalidity of the doubtful sacraments to the judgment of the Church when a normal state or affairs shall be restored.

If principles are truly principles in the Catholic sense, then (we're sure you'd agree) they must apply in every case that falls under the language used. In other words, principles must stand above any law of convenience.

But we know better, don't we? It's always only about the cult masters, and principles must be bent or broken or reformulated to suit their ad-hoc needs.

In Trad World's bleak and fatal woods, where dark-souled clerics prowl and brood, one law alone there rules: unprincipled expediency.

*Lit: "And, therefore, let him who has a head of glass beware of hurling stones in battle."

** A pity for chapels mismanaged by money squandering cultmasters that V.7 is not universally in force: prodigo interdicitur bonorum suorum administratio,"a spendhrift is forbidden the administration of his own goods."

*** We wonder how much philosophy Dannie himself has studied and knows. It would be nice to get him to answer that question on the record. We think older priests who know him well would be interested in his answer.