EXTRA CREDIT

Diogenes observes that many have failed the thought problems and the final examination questions. The Dog, therefore, sets the following problem (from an eyewitness report) to afford the slow ones an opportunity to recover some self-esteem:

A seminary instructor recounted to his class (seemingly as a practical example of some sort) how he ran short of Sacred Chrism at a place where he unexpectedly had to confirm some people. In the manner of a pantomime, he demonstrated to the seminarians how one can add unconsecrated oil in one movement without invalidating the matter, as long as the added amount does not exceed the quantity of the available Holy Oil. Generous churchman that the instructor is, he mimicked extending the Sacred Chrism by performing multiple actions: i.e., he simulated pouring in the unblessed oil, set down the vessel of unblessed oil, and then lifted it and pretended to pour it in again, etc. 

Which of the following best describe(s) the demonstrator's behavior:

A. The demonstrator does not understand that an instructor must practice what he teaches, even when it's make-believe.

B. The demonstrator does not understand the Latin of Pope Pius VI who ruled that unblessed oil could be added to blessed oil "pluribus vicibus."

C. The demonstrator does not understand authors like De Herdt who advise that the oil be poured in "guttatim."

D. The demonstrator does not understand the great sanctity of Holy Chrism, otherwise he would not have modeled irreverent praxis.

E. All of the above.

FINAL EXAMINATION

The CMRI apparatchiki ceaselessly claim they scrupulously follow the laws and teachings of the Church. In fact, whenever gainsaid, as in the case of NFP, their default answer usually implies that the questioner is out of touch and does not know what the Church really requires or teaches.


With his lamp ablaze, Diogenes, then, will put their assertion to the test. He will do so by selecting a relatively simple example: If the CMRI be the exquisite observer of law, doctrine, and praxis that it insists it is, one may consequently presume that the CMRI will observe the Church's precepts in all things Catholic.


Consider, therefore, this final problem.


Throughout sacred art, in film clips and still photos of papal Urbi et Orbi blessings, and in portraits of popes and prelates past and present, we often see the gesture known as the Latin sign of benediction: the thumb and first two fingers are open, representing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the third and fourth fingers remain closed, symbolizing the two natures of our Lord.


So well known is the gesture that the medical disorder of the hand called Depuytren's contracture (the thickening and shrinking of the layer of flesh just under the skin of the palm) is commonly called "the hand of benediction."


Diogenes stipulates that the Latin sign of benediction is an elegant attitude. Diogenes also grants that there is ample photographic documentation on the Internet to attest to its frequent usage in the pre-Vatican II Church.


But the examination question Diogenes sets is this: Is the gesture correct in the strict sense of the Church's ceremonial law?


Let us discover the answer:


The Cæremoniale Episcoporum ("The Ceremonial of Bishops") is one of the officially issued liturgical books of the Latin rite, ranking side by side with the Missal, the Breviary, the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Martyrology, and the Memoriale.


In book I, chapter IV.1, the Cæremoniale directs:

When a Bishop walks, or rides through his city, or Diocese, he blesses everyone (lit. 'each one') with an open hand. (Quando Episcopus ambulat, vel equitat per suam civitatem, vel Diœcesim, manu aperta singulis benedicit.)

Now, for our Final Exam (select A or B):


Which prelate below is observing the Church's law? Is it...

Prelate A

Or is it...

Prelate B

????


The shameless Dog knows good breeding -- and correct stacking and gaiting -- when he sees it.


He knows you do, too.

THOUGHT PROBLEM #2

Diogenes submits another exhibit for the readers' reflection:

In front of a group of young seminarians, a veteran instructor and long-time priest hurriedly delivered to an older seminarian a crash-course on the administration of the sacrament of Extreme Unction. In his customary rushed manner, the instructor modeled how and where to apply the oil. When he arrived at the anointment of the feet, he suddenly stopped. Turning to the group of younger seminarians, he asked in grave puzzlement: "Would you do the unction on the soles of the feet? Or on the top of the feet? I'm not sure! What do you think?"

Yes, indeed: What do you think? After many years in the priesthood, the instructor still did not know precisely where to anoint the feet!


You would never tolerate such amateur pedagogy in the training of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, chefs, pilots, physical therapists, veterinarians, dentists, physicians etc. You would never trust a leaky commode or major household repairs or your pet or your health and life to anyone who had received training from instructors with such imperfect professional knowledge.


Why, then, would anyone entrust his immortal soul to men who had received their priestly formation under such instruction?

THOUGHT PROBLEM #1

Diogenes proposes the following problem for contemplation:

You are a young seminarian. You have not only had formal schooling, but you have attended a high school that gave you a world-class education. You sit now in class with some reservations because you have been warned about low standards at the institutiion.

You hear read aloud in class this sentence: "The practice of placing [the corner-stone] near the entrance at the front of the church is not in accord with the implications of the rubrics."

Immediately afterward, the instructor concludes, "so the corner-stone should be near the entrance."

What would your reaction be? Would you have a robust faith in the teacher (or the institution) to deliver more complex material?

IGNORANCE IS BLISS

Like rude Athenian banqueteers, some commenters have tossed Diogenes  their ill-gnawed bones of abuse. The Dog will not drench the rascals as they deserve. Rather, Diogenes will make a stipulation of facts that are not in dispute: He accepts more or less, as the commenters assert, that the "slowness in class" and the educational deficiencies of the CMRI "professors" result, in part, from their zeal for the mission circuit. The Dog allows that the demands of travel make it impossible for the CMRI priests to keep up with the seminarians or to make up for what they never learned in the first place.

Therefore, let Diogenes propose a criterion requiring no special training or extraordinary natural gifts.  Let him measure a CMRI "professor" against an essential standard of the Church. Surely, if the "professor" fails in this respect, the Dog's tormenters will repent themselves of their misguided fervor. Diogenes has sought solely to bring to light the intellectual inadequacy of Mater Dei and its staff. Therefore, the Dog will stay on message by proposing the Church's position on intellectualism as the standard of comparison. Everybody will agree that one need not be an intellectual to reflect the orthodox viewpoint, which is Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy. That discipline should be a habit in any Catholic teacher's mind regardless of his academic preparation.

The Church affirms the primacy of the intellect and upholds the rôle of reason, illumined by faith, in both the natural and supernatural orders. Were this not the case, the formulæ of dogmatic definitions would be of no value. Theology, a true science, derives a body of truths from the undisputed data of divine revelation by making use of the process discursive reasoning. Dogmatic definitions and theological conclusions are, then, intelligible.

Diogenes now asks the viewer to read the following brief anecdote about a CMRI "professor":

In Dogmatic Theology, [the farmer priest] would quite frequently use such phrases as: "Don't understand it  -- believe it" and "it is a mystery". When asked questions, he would often shrug and answer, "I guess...I don´t know". 

This is not faith seeking understanding.  Did Diogenes not know the CMRI priests to be pious ignoramuses of the first order, he would say that their anti-intellectualism was of the same class as that condemned in Pascendi. Understand this: The CMRI ethos is fundamentally alien to Catholic thought. Their teachers are far removed from the days when professors of dogmatic theology at the humblest diocesan seminary always had a crisp and reliable Catholic answer for every seminarian's question. CMRI Catholicism is but a crude cartoon, as representative of the Church as The Simpsons is of family life.

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS...ČESKÉ BUDĚJOVICE?

From the spirited comments Diogenes has received, the defenders of Mater Dei and the CMRI are outraged, for the truth hurts. Let the shameless Dog then continue exposing the fatal ignorance of Mater Dei's faculty with yet another first-hand account of instructional incompetence:

The ["farmer priest,"] who acts as geography teacher in Mater Dei Academy, often shows his complete ignorance of this very subject he is teaching. Once he confused the Balkans with the Baltic, and when...told... that Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia no longer existed, he excused himself by saying: "I still think of the map we had in school in the 70s."

The superior general should buy this man an updated atlas  -- and then send him off to an assignment where he can do no harm to young Catholic intellects. Such men, no matter how well intentioned, cannot be stewards of the education of impressionable youth, whether in grammar school or the "seminary." 

THE REV. RIP VAN WINKLE

All right, you may say, the CMRI "professor" may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but he's a valid priest who can administer the sacraments. He's been a priest for 20 years.


Perhaps.


But, then, tell Diogenes what you make of this tale out of school, printed verbatim from an eye witness account:

While translating the Rituale in Latin class, [the Mater Dei "professor"] was wondering if "imponit manum super caput infantis...et postea manum extensam tenens dicit..." means that one should hold the hand over the head of the baptizand or one should actually touch it. 

Infant baptism is not rocket science, and in 20 years he should have gotten it right. Any priest with a year's experience (except perhaps for a certain one we have heard of in Michigan) knows the answer. Why not the seminary "professor"? The man needs his walking papers immediately, but not before undergoing a remedial course in the administration of the sacraments.


Can there be any doubt why another Mater Dei seminarian has just decided to leave this den of mediocrity?