Saturday, May 28, 2016


But it must not be forgotten that training in habits of accuracy is one of the chief functions of education. W.C. Collar in Moulton's Latin Composition

Editor's Note: Some student fans from a high-school Latin II class worriedly inquired whether we'd have a DISORDRED ORDO post this month. According to our correspondents, the whole class enjoys fixing the imbecilic mistakes of "One-Hand" Dan's disgraceful ORDO 2016, and they don't want to miss out before the school year ends. Never fear. Pistrina keeps its promises.  For the Memorial Day weekend (and as a 65th birthday present to "One Hand"), here's # V in the monthly series.


Correspondents often ask how much Latin is really required for a Roman Catholic priest. The query is timely, for in Traddielandia, there are no real seminaries as contemplated by Trent (and hence no real Roman Catholic priests). There are only comical, pathetic imitations, staffed by the untutored, turning out counterfeit "clergy." Moreover, the beetle-browed trainees usually enter those sub-standard mockeries with enormously crippling educational, emotional, and intellectual deficits. So, you see, a judiciously measured answer to the question is rather tricky. But we'll try anyhow.


Our reply to these correspondents depends on what kind of "priest" they mean. In the case of a  "simplex" priest, i.e., a second-class placeholder with restricted faculties owing to inferior formation, then the amount of Latin needed isn't much. All that's demanded is enough to celebrate Low Mass, anoint the sick, baptize, bless sacramentals, hear confessions in danger of death, and perhaps scribble a liturgical phrase or two in Latinitas culinaria ("dog Latin" or, if you will, latinajo, latin de cuisine, Küchenlatein). With the right curriculum and instructor, three academic quarters of concentrated study might suffice, depending on the candidate's aptitude.

On the other hand, the Latin requirements for a "first-class" priest (as most lay people conceive of such a churchman) are much higher. Although he need not possess the proficiency of a classical scholar, he has to have enough education to (1) comprehend with ease ecclesiastical Latin and (2) write and/or transcribe basic expressions free from screaming grammatical errors. That means he unreservedly ought to recognize when something is clearly not Latin. Furthermore, he must also be able to read, without frequent recourse to a lexicon, standard theological manuals or papal documents. It goes without saying that he should have the skill to translate those texts accurately into written English.*

A Chilling Distinction

To be sure, the non-canonical, third- or even fourth-rate "priests" of Tradistan, who wantonly exercise a sacerdotal role without a commission from the Church and who attended what are essentially privately operated, unlicensed, unregulated trade schools of doubtful standards, are essentially simplex priests (but several degrees lower in status owing to the bush-league formation they received).

Come to think about it, they really aren't simplices either, for they don't possess faculties at all, not even restricted ones. Regardless, we'll willingly suspend our disbelief (for the sake of this discussion) and pretend we can talk about Tradistani laymen-in-orders as though they were honest-to-goodness Roman Catholic priests (which they can never be).


Thus, for the run-of-the-mill trad "priest" who runs an illicit "chapel" for Sunday and holy-day Masses, we wouldn't demand too much in the way of competency in Latin. As long as he can puzzle out with fair accuracy the sense of the Missal, the Ritual, and his Ordo Recitandi, the Readers wouldn't bust his chops (most of the time).

However, when a simpleton sede masquerader starts advertising himself, albeit indirectly with a wink and a nod, as a licit priest of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, then we'll hold the creep to a much higher standard. Additionally, when that impostor undertakes efforts to make himself appear to be an authentic minister of Christ's Church, say, for instance, by publishing Latin ordines, then we insist he meet the highest criteria. If he falls short, he deserves to be unmasked, shamed, and made, by dint of public ridicule, to desist.


All this brings us to May's examples of ineptitude ripped from Doofus Dannie's incompetent ORDO 2016. This month we have two juicy boners to show you how "One-Hand" cannot satisfy our very permissive requirement for a "first-class" priest to write basic Latin expressions without cringeworthy howlers. (In our day, we remember when seminarians still had to write their exams in Latin.)

In the Readers' opinion, the following huge mistakes are not the result of mistranscribing copy found in an old ordo. We suspect they are failed attempts at original composition, at least in part. How pleased that nitwit must have been with himself as he imagined the esteem in which Trad Nation would hold him as a liturgist. We can imagine a silly, sloppily smiling Wee Dan, eyes glazed over in an ego-centric trance, contentedly pausing over the ill-designed layout as he proudly reads aloud the very un-Latin Latin he had penned.

Let's put an end that fevered reverie right now, shall we?

Sizzling Error A

As every schoolboy and every schoolgirl knows, in Latin, unlike in English, a noun is not used as an adherent adjective. For instance, native Latin idiom isn't patient of noun groups like headache, train station, or insurance company, where one noun functions like an adjective for a second.  Latin would qualify ache, station, and company with a genitive (e.g., capitis  dolor, "ache of the head"), or an adjective (e.g., statio ferriviaria, "station belonging to the railway"), or a phrase (e.g., societas sarciendis damnis, "association for making good losses").

Naturally this is first year stuff. All but the slowest pupils get it by the second grading period. But Dimwit Dan, one of the slowest studies we've ever known, patently did not, as you'll see.

On p. 49, under the feast of St. Monica, we find the following note in Dumbo Dan's ORDO 2016:
Hodie post Nonam fit Processio Litaniæ Minores (very literally, "today after None the Lesser-Litanies Procession is done.")
Now that may sound kind-of OK to English speakers. But if the Latin had been correct, viz. "Processio Litaniarum minorum," then a very literal translation would read,"Procession of the Lesser Litanies."

You see, folks, Dannie's "Litaniæ Minores" is wrong because it's nominative. Here the genitive (Litaniarum minorum) is required to qualify Processio. If His Deficiency were capable of reading liturgical authors like Martinucci (II-I, c. vi, art. xviii, 9), the pea brain would have known what to write.**

Such foul Latinity reeking of the kitchen cannot be tolerated in "first-class" priests (though, to be fair, "One-Hand" might not even be a "priest" at all). It's only acceptable in a "second-class" simplex priest who hasn't had the benefit of sound sacerdotal formation. Consequently, it should be clear by now that Dannie has no business putting on airs by publishing an ordo. He along with the rest of the cult "clergy" belong in remedial education classes so they can strive to reach, one day, simplex status. ("One-Hand" may well never get there.)

Scorching Error B

Our second example equally locates "One-Hand Dan" among the ranks of a second-class (or much lower) "priesthood."  Depraved cult vermin may defend Error A as a production oversight or the result of last-minute editing (LOL), but no one in his right mind can put a smiley face on the following illiteracy found on p. 53, at Pentecost Sunday

Ad aspersionem fit aqua pridie benedicta

Plausible literal translations of this barbarity may be either "at the aspersion, it is done with the water blessed on the day before," or "the water blessed on the day before is done at the aspersion." Like Dannie's Latin original, both renderings are gibberish. Clearly the $GG sad sack tried to compose a new liturgical note on the model of the instruction found on p. 37,  at Easter:
Ad aspersionem aquæ benedictæ dicitur Ant. Vidi aquam etc. (= "at the aspersion of blessed water, the antiphon Vidi aquam is said" etc.).
In spite of his inability to understand Latin at the syntactical level, it seems His Deficiency recklessly ventured to cobble together his instruction to impress the world with his (nonexistent) liturgical finesse. Had the simpleminded featherbrain enjoyed a proper formation, he would have learned from a prose composition class to put his thoughts first into English so as to form a clear idea of what he wanted to express in Latin.

That idea in its simplest form — and we must think simple when we're dealing with cult "clergy" — may be either (1) "the aspersion is done with the water blessed yesterday" or, following the format of Error A and thereby avoiding the apparently problematic aspersio, -nis,  (2) "today the people are sprinkled with the water blessed yesterday." Even a first-year pupil of middling talent would have instantly found grammatically correct solutions, viz. (1) fit aspersio (cum) aqua heri benedicta ("aspersion" is the subject of the sentence, hence in Latin the nominative must be used, not a prepositional phrase) or (2) hodie populus aspergitur (cumaqua heri benedicta. But even these elementary constructions were far beyond Li'l Daniel's mean capacity. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.


The $GG cult "clergy" have no business compiling ordines and no business in the priesthood. To borrow a Shakespearean phrase, they haven't "so much brain as ear-wax." From the looks of it, these "clergy" probably don't understand what they're reading at Mass. Since they won't leave on their own, the only way to rid Traddielandia of these savagely miseducated charlatans is to stop funding them. Why pay for bad Latin AND dubious sacraments?

* To operationalize our standard:  a"first-class" priest would never blunder as badly as Erroneous Antonius Cekada, who perversely mistranslated Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis (see here or here, question #VI.) An error of that magnitude automatically identifies the illiterate offender as a simplex at best, and probably much lower, say, a cretin.

** We're pretty sure we know the source of Dannie's massive blunder. Up through 2006, the St. Lawrence Press (SLP) Ordo used to read "Hodie post Nonam fit Processio Litan Minor," where it employed abbreviations, a common practice in ordines. Starting in 2007, the SLP ordo began spelling out the words, and thus we now read the instruction Hodie post Nonam fit Processio Litaniarum Minorum.

We surmise that Dannie was copying either from an older edition of the SLP or perhaps from an SSPV ordo, which has adopted much of the language and format of the SLP. (At least that's what we can tell from a copy of the 2003 SSPV ordo in our library).  Why Dannie decided to spell out the abbreviated words without cross-checking newer editions of the SLP is anybody's guess. If he was using an SSPV ordo, he may have wanted to score a useless point against his old adversaries — or conceal his dependence on their text. 

What makes Dannie's botched effort so puzzling is that literate traditional priests have noticed how the English editor makes improvements from year to year to some of the boilerplate that has been around since the earliest days of the SLP enterprise. Anybody with an ounce of sense would have consulted a more recent copy. But we figure Dumbo Dan thought he had the right stuff to expand the abbreviations on his own (WRONG!).  So the pint-sized, foolish foul-up changed the abbreviations into the nominative case (LOL).  By that act of arrogant stupidity, His Inadequacy proved himself profoundly ignorant of both Latin and liturgical terminology.

Saturday, May 21, 2016


Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. Pope

We're crushed.

"Discipline Donnie" failed to return his test.

Who'd've thunk it?

And we waited all week!

Nonetheless, the Readers aim to be fair. So in lieu of his test answers, we'll post some rules said to be from the swampland "school," glossed with an in-your-face commentary purportedly from the Grand High Panjandrum himself. Credit for making these excerpts available online goes to blogger Tom Droleskey,* who posted  the  (apparently transcribed) rules way back in  2008, the year before Dannie's $GG School Scandal wrecked Sedelandia (

A thousand thanks to a well-read correspondent who sent us the selections and the link.

We're going to keep silent and let Don's text —if indeed it is Don's** speak for itself. Pistrina will simply point out by way of introduction that, in addition to cranking out obsessive, borderline-coprographic injunctions, the lawgiver is a pop-music connoisseur, a cinema critic, and an Internet savant. Of singular note is this 21st-century renaissance man's judgment that country-and-western music "is not very polished" and a "movie in itself is a very low form of recreation." 
PERSONAL EDITORIAL ASIDE: We old timers are inconsolable over this sede Solon's banning the golden "oldies" (see Rule no. 2 below under 1.5.3). The Readers wistfully recall the priests' and the nuns' ensuring the sanctioned abdominal distances between us and our demure partners with their lacquered bouffant hairdos, as we slow-danced to the Platters' timeless "The Great Pretender" at the Cherry Blossom Ball. (It's a crying shame the ban extends to a pop hit that even über-priggish Pat Boone covered: That splendid ballad could be every sede kingpin's theme song.)
Our Tradistani Mrs. Grundy has evidently never listened in admiration to the finished vocals of Emmy Lou Harris or marveled at the awesome perfectionism of Earl Scruggs' three-fingered-banjo-pickin' technique. It's apparent that Dannie and Checkie don't agree with Don's opinion of movies, for $GG just mounted what suspiciously may have been a South-West Ohio Shirley Temple Film Festival disguised as a cult-kiddie-choral recital.***  Nor for that matter would another movie-mad "prelate" of our acquaintance who, with nothing better to do during blue funks, manically produces and packages his own DVDs after ripping them from Turner Classic Movies cablecasts.

Furthermore, if "[i]dle time spent on the Internet is the devil's workshop," then someone better have a serious one-on-one with Tony Baloney as well as with the rector's tweeting wing man, Scut the Prefect — and also with that cinephile, 'Net-surfin', CD-burnin', bone-idle, chicken-hearted episcopus vagans we mentioned.

Sooooooo, while those "clerical" miscreants visit the woodshed to make reparation for their violations of the Tradistani moral code, let's let The Man talk:

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

Editor's Note:  Christ or Chaos solemnly introduced the text that follows as what "His Excellency Bishop Donald A. Sanborn, the Rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, the manual for Queen of All Saints Academy":

1.2.8. Modern culture. Modern culture is hostile to Catholic Faith and morals, and to the extent that one embraces it, to that same extent will the virtues of the faith, hope and charity in the soul be weakened. In fact, they will entirely disappear if one should embrace the modern culture totally. Modern culture is based on subjectivism and relativism, which repudiates all notion of fixed and supernatural dogmas. It denies original sin and its effects, and holds out as man's ideal the attainment of merely worldly happiness and some natural virtues. It considers impurity to be a virtue, and encourages the pursuit of sexual pleasure, whether moral or immoral, as one of the most important goals of men. Modern culture is obsessed with sex. Modern culture furthermore encourages worldliness, avarice, and disrespect for authority. It condones and even encourages divorce, adultery, abortion, birth control, fornication, and sodomy. Its music and art are sick and perverted, laden with overtones of sex, morbid violence, and devil worship. In short, the modern culture could be described as the pomps of Satan, which we all forswear as a condition for our baptism. For this reason, Queen of All Saints Academy utterly rejects the modern culture, and seeks not only to protect the children from it, but also to give them a truly Catholic culture. Since the primary sources of exposure to modern culture are the media and bad friends, the Academy insists that its students, even in the environment away from the school, be detached from the modern culture. Parents who fail [to] do so will be asked to remove their children from the Academy. . . .

1.5.3. Conditions which must be observed in the home in order to enroll children in Queen of All Saints Academy. In order to enroll their children in Queen of All Saints Academy, parents or guardians must observe the following rules in the home:

Rule no. 1All broadcast and cable television must be banned from the home.
Explanation of the rule. [italics ours] Television is not intrinsically evil. But since 95% of television programming is morally objectionable, and corrosive of Catholic Faith and morals, it is necessary that families detach themselves from this programming. Since it is nearly impossible to sift the good material from the bad, it becomes necessary to avoid it altogether. It must be banned from the home. The rule does not mean that one can never look at television, but it is saying that it must be out of the home, in order to preserve the children, especially, from its corrosive influence. The rule envisions broadcast TV, i.e., normal programming which comes over the air waves, and cable TV, what you buy from a cable company. It does not ban the watching of clean videotapes. Nor does it ban the recording of decent broadcast and cable television shows, which could be watched later if the indecent commercials could be removed.
Rule no. 2All forms of rock music must be banned from the home and the automobile.
Explanation of the rule. This means that all forms of rock music are banned, not merely the "hard" or "acid" variety, but also what is known as "soft rock" or "light rock" or "oldies." In short, it includes anything which has the unmistakable rock rhythm, and which any average person would call rock music. The ban does not include forms of popular music which are not rock, e.g., folk music, Celtic music, even Broadway shows, provided that they are clean.
Rule no. 3. All impure "Country Western" music and similar types must be banned from the home and the automobile.
Explanation of the rule. While there is some legitimate Country Western music which, if not very polished, is at least clean and culturally acceptable, most modern Country Western music is a serious occasion of sin to the listener, since it very explicitly speaks about sexual escapades. This, of course, is banned. The term "similar types" refers to groups who sing folk music apparently, but whose title is so dirty that you would not listen to them even if they were singing Gregorian Chant.
Rule no. 4. All objectionable video games must be banned from the home, and acceptable video games must be used in moderation.
Explanation of the rule. Video games are not evil in themselves, obviously, and good ones can even be a good source of [re]creation. However, there are many which are bad for one reason or another, either owing to impurity, or occult overtones, or morbidly violent themes, or because they use rock music. Furthermore, the children must not become addicted even to the good ones, and hence there is the rule about moderation.
Rule no. 5School children may not access the Internet except with special permission from the principal.
Explanation of the rule. The Internet is, clearly, not intrinsically good or bad, but becomes good or bad according to what is brought up on it. Since positively the most dreadful pictures can be easily accessed, as well as the most hellish websites and chat rooms, it is necessary that students access the internet for only serious reasons. This rule also holds for e-mail exchanges. Idle time spent on the Internet is the devil's workshop, and in most cases the student can access whatever information he needs in a relatively short amount of time.

Rule no. 6It is forbidden for students to belong to sports leagues, or anything of a similar nature.
Explanation of the rule. Years ago, before Vatican II, Catholic students were never permitted to play sports with public schools. Rather there were the Catholic leagues, like CYO, etc. The reason is that interaction with public school students was considered a danger to faith and morals. If that was true in the 1950's, how much more is it true today? Since we cannot organize our own Catholic leagues, our young people will simply have to forego the possibility of playing sports in that environment. The words "anything of a similar nature" refer to any environment or circumstance in which students, without sufficient reason, are exposed to danger in faith or morals. The school reserves the right to make a determination of these cases.
Rule no. 7It is forbidden that students recreate in places where rock music is played.
Explanation of the rule. This rule specifically excludes skating rinks and sports arenas where rock music is being played. The rule says, "is being played," since it may be possible to get the establishment to turn it off. It is true that it [is] nearly impossible to avoid rock music, since it is heard in rest rooms, restaurants, dentists' offices, etc., but in these cases there is a proportionate reasonsthat is, a necessity of being there. But there is no necessity to be in a skating rink or sports arena.

Rule no. 8It is forbidden that students enter a theater without the permission of the principal.
Explanation of the rule. Owing to the indecent posters and frequent, dirty previews, a student does not have a proportionate reason to enter a theater. A movie in itself is a very low form of recreation and does not qualify as a sufficient reason to expose oneself to such indecency. A proportionate reason would exist, for example, in the case of entering a supermarket which posted dirty magazines. You have a proportionate reason to be at the supermarket owing to the necessity of buying food. But such a necessity does not exist in going to a theater.
. . . . . . . . . .

* We no longer are sure how to address this blogger. Is it Dr., Fr., or Bp.? We hope somebody out in cyberspace can give us a definitive answer. We're sticklers around here for correct forms of address, you know. (It's that good, old-fashioned breeding from the past.)

** Stylometry argues for "Discipline Donnie's" authorship: the turgid prose ("The Internet is, clearly, not intrinsically good or bad, but becomes good or bad according to what is brought up on it."); the lumbering, spastic syntax hobbled by sophomoric hypotheticals ("The term "similar types" refers to groups who sing folk music apparently, but whose title is so dirty that you would not listen to them even if they were singing Gregorian Chant"); and moral-theology buzz words ("proportionate reason") willfully employed to terminate all thought. Yep. If we had to bet, we'd say with confidence this is authentic Donspeak.

*** From the "Bishop's (?) Corner" of May 8, 2016:
 "Our excellent secretary was away in April, and I thus had to write my report of our Spring School Program before the fact [Ed. !!! "report... before the fact"??? How, then, did he know the Forlorn Finn liked 'em all?Clairvoyance?] . How much we enjoyed it! “Cart-loads of charm,” Fr. Cekada denominated our well named Spring Fling. The innocence and enthusiasm of our young choir, little peeping voices like [= "like those of"?, Ed.] fledgling birds from the nest, found an excellent expression in the wholesome entertaining music of yesterday; classic Shirley Temple films. Fr. Cekada’s favorite was “Animal Crackers,” as they are his favorite. I liked the “At the Codfish Ball,” myself. Fr. Lehtoranta loved every single one. [Ed. What did he enjoy? Every single one of the animal crackers? Or "all the fishes still alive" dancing away in "Neptune's Hall"? We need an after-the-fact report from Wee Dan to clear up this mystery.]"
Pistrina wonders how coy Shirley, the dimpled delight of the Depression, might have remonstrated with Tony Baloney, Dirtbag Dan,  and the (incredibly still-employed!) "principal" after hearing all the cruel details of the horrific 2009 $GG School Scandal. Perhaps Curly Top might have reprised the protest she made in Wee WIllie Winkie to the Pathan rebel chieftain Khoda Khan surrounded by his guffawing, beard-stroking entourage: "I hate you! I hate you! I think you're all very, very mean!"

Saturday, May 14, 2016


Editor's Note: Our open letter continues with the last part of "Discipline Donnie's" big exam. Next week we'll post his answers. We're sure he'll reply to set the record straight once and for all.

Those essay questions were toughies, weren't they, Don? Take a breath and get ready for the third and final section of your exam. Only five items to go, Big Boy. You can do it!

C. Multiple Choice. In each numbered prompt below, you will find a statement based on reports we received about your "school," after which there follows a series of four choices, identified A, B, C, and D. Select the response that best represents your views. If none matches your opinion, you may write your response in item E.

1. One report alleges that a boy afflicted with ADD and on prescription medication for the disorder was made to stand in the hallway in his boxers after he was unable to change his clothes within the allotted three (3) minutes after recess.

A. This incident never occurred. No one at the "school" has any problems. This is an earthly paradise where no one cheats, and amity abides. In fact, the students and graduates don't even get traffic tickets.

B. ADD is not a genuine malady, and only lazy, selfish slackers and their sob-sister mothers make the claim.

C. Everybody is treated equally in the cult "school"; accordingly, this child was required to get with the program regardless of any impairment or else endure the consequences. The child broke a reasonable rule and hence brought down condign humiliating punishment upon his own head. 

D. If he had been wearing briefs, he would have been removed from the hall and expelled for indecency. In addition, he would have been exorcized for good measure. The devil's everywhere down here in the fetid swampland.

E. _____________________________________________

2.It has been calculated that the cult "school" has experienced more than a 60% turnover rate, with more than 10 families leaving to date.

A. The enrollment has stayed the same and is, in fact, growing at so swift a pace owing to the skyrocketing birth rate that the cult will soon have to demand funds for a larger facility with a more luxuriously appointed teachers' lounge.

B. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

C. A 60% or higher turnover rate is common in high-quality schools.

D. It could be a 100% rate, and the people will still keep paying, so what's the big deal?

E. _____________________________________________

3. Report after report says that the rules have become stricter and more insane over the years.

A. The rules have always been the same, with no increase in severity or scope. The mothers have simply become too permissive, while the fathers need to get their womenfolk in line. Hell beckons to moms and their snot-nosed kids who disobey me and mine.

B. The rules had to be strengthened because the students' behavior and morals had deteriorated to an alarming degree as a result of lax parenting, particularly on the part of the mothers. That's one reason there were no roses or words of recognition for these Jezabels on Mother's Day.

C. The "clergy" and "religious" are so unhappy with their empty lives in the cult that they are obliged to take out their anger and frustration on innocent children. As they discern the disconnect between authentic Catholic practice and the cult's impious absurdities, "clergy" and "religious" must have an appropriate outlet to channel their confused rage.

D. The more unreasonable rules there are in a school and the more draconian the punishments, the easier it is to control and manipulate both children and parents, since the ideal of a Catholic education is to instill groveling fear and inculcate blind obedience.

E. _________________________________________________

4. One common theme gleaned from reports and social media is that many graduates of the "school" lead double lives of hearty-partying, skimpy clothing, rock music, and keeping company with friends who don't belong to the cult, which prohibits associating with non-cult members (unless the people belong to one of the élite families, in which case they're free to associate with anyone they please).

A. All graduates of the "school" adhere to the same strict code of comportment they cheerfully followed when they were under cult supervision. They are models of modest, sober Catholic adulthood, whom everyone should emulate.

B. Whom are you going to believe: your own lying eyes when you examine the graduates' social media pages or the thundering cult "clergy"? And even if your lying eyes do spy boozy shots and snaps of chicks in revealing short-shorts, that just means the devil hacked the account of some paragons of Tradistani virtue.

C. If the graduates come from the Big 3 families, then there's nothing wrong with partying "like it's 1999," jammin' to a hip deejay, rocking revealing fashions, and hanging out with non-traddie friends. "Some animals are more equal than others" down here on the swampland cult farm.

D. The graduates' behavior is demonstrable proof that the crazy "school" rules are held in contempt by the younger generation, which knows the cult is not the Catholic Church and laughs up their sleeveless blouses at the whacky cult "clergy" who come up with nutty, intrusive rules in the first place.

E. _________________________________________________

5. According to first-hand reports, many years ago, a goofy sede "priest," who was a frequent visitor to an Ur-cult-center, had a nasty habit of entering classrooms unannounced to conduct what he smirkingly called "quality control." The chagrined teachers deeply resented the time-wasting disruptions occasioned by this moron's unwelcome, untimely appearances. They, therefore, sought and won approval to deny him entry. During one examination session, a classroom door was locked. When the good-for-nothing misfit came knocking, he was refused admittance. Our sources claim that the despicable weasel then went crying to you, and you, in turn, read the riot act to the supervisor who supported the decision to keep this idiot from annoying teachers and learners.

A. This incident never occurred, and those who reported it are dastardly liars who will burn in hell for eternity, boiling in their own excrement. If they are still connected to my cult, they are going to regret their lie, I kid you not.

B. Nothing of any educational value takes place in a cult "school" anywhere, so a loafing fellow cult "clergyman" should be able to kill some time by interrupting a "class" that didn't have anything better to do anyway.

C. A disciplined focus on teaching and learning is a perverse notion of the godless public schools and has no place in a cult "school," which exists for the financial enrichment of the "clergy" as well as an emotional safety valve for their burning resentments.

D. Women don't have the right to keep malformed cult "clergy" from interrupting their carefully planned lessons; additionally, students have no right to resent the disruption. A visit from bum "clergy" should always be welcome, notwithstanding any negative impact on the classroom environment or the visitor's obnoxiousness. 

E. _____________________________________________

. . . . . . . . . .

OK, Don, time's up. Put your pencil down. Look over your work and check for truthfulness. Then forward your responses to us ASAP. Be assured that we will publish them in toto once we have verified to the best of our ability that they are indeed yours. You need not fear our editing them or removing any denials you profess. All we will do is to make sure that everyone who reported incidents has access to your replies. Then they can take it from there.

With utmost contempt and ill wishes,

Pistrina Liturgica 

Saturday, May 7, 2016


Editor's Note: Today's post continues our open letter to "Discipline Donnie," with Part B of the exam we introduced last week.

How timely (ironic?) it is that this post occurs on Mother's Day weekend, since, as you'll soon find out, it seems that moms, not children, are the ones to be seen and not heard.

OK, Don. Stop, and put your pencil down. Now, Boy! It's time to move on to the essay section. Write as much as you wish, and take all the time you need.

B. Long Essay. In each numbered item below, you will find typed in bold-face a summary statement of one of the many reports we have about your "school" followed by prompts in plain typewriting, to which you must respond in a well-organized essay. Spelling and grammar count, Don, so do be careful: This isn't the MHT newsletter.

1. It was reported that a young girl's classmates maliciously teased her about her weight. According to the account, the "priest" in charge did not intervene to stop the cruel harassment. Moreover, his unfeeling response was something to the effect that she is fat; she should lose weight if she doesn't want people making fun of her.

(a) If, after investigation, you deny the report, you may say so and then give the reasons for your denial. If you discover that the report is true but that (1) you do not approve of the administration's failure to act and (2) you abhor its callousness, narrate the remedial steps you will take to make sure something so uncharitable never occurs again. Also describe in detail the medicinal and vindictive disciplinary actions you will initiate against the administration.
(b) If the account is accurate, and you do approve of the administration's failure to intervene and the "priest's" stone-hearted observation, explain how his reaction upholds the Church's teachings about charity, in particular the precept to be kind, helpful, and courteous to superiors, equals, and subordinates.   Specifically, be sure to address how his failure to intervene "promotes politeness in which charity flourishes," of which the moral theologians write (Dictionary of Moral Theology, p. 1205). Additionally, be sure to justify why the administration's grave failure to correct the youthful bullies' error should not be considered a violation of the parents' rights with respect to their children's moral education. Finally, cite instances from the Gospels where our Lord modeled similarly cynical, uncaring treatment of afflicted children. (E.g., in your cult copy of the New Testament [perhaps, the Do-I-Ream-'Em-Out-Or-Don't-I! version?], does Jesus tell the motionless 12-year old daughter of Jairus, "Girl, tough luck. If you had wanted to live, you shouldn't have died"?)

2. The "school" is promoted as offering a top-notch education, yet numerous reports insist three lay "teachers" have no formal background in education at all, and one of them is only a high-school "graduate" who began teaching there the summer after her graduation from your "school." (We have no confirmed reports yet on the formal educational background of the "religious" or the "priest" in charge.) As a stern caution, Don, MHT completion doesn't count as formal training for service as an educator — or a big-box-store greeter,for that matter — so don't mention it in your answer.

(a) List all the teachers at the "school," including lay, "religious," and "clerical." Next indicate the (accredited) university degree(s) they possess along with their majors and minors, the subject areas in which they teach, the certification they hold to be able to teach in those areas, and the years of experience they have in teaching children in a formal educational setting under appropriately trained and credentialed supervision. 
(b) Explain how lack of an (accredited) college degree in education and no certificate or license shows that the "teachers" are still endowed with a vocation or calling to teach, a quality that Catholic moral theology demands of a successful teacher.

3. It has been reported from several sources that many mothers have unsettling doubts about your "school," but, under the influence of cult "clergy," the dads insist their kids continue attending despite the moms' serious misgivings. Moreover, the accounts say that cult "clergy" principally target the men in an effort to keep students enrolled and the high tuition rolling in.

(a) In his Handbook of Moral Theology, Prümmer teaches that "the wife is pay careful the education of her children" (463.c). Whether or not you deny the practice of targeting spineless fathers, explain in theory how the deliberate exclusion of the mother in the decision-making process about her child's (children's) education can still enable her to fulfill her peculiar obligation as a Catholic wife and mother?
(b) Would not a one-sided strategy of targeting husbands constitute a tacit admission that there are problems with the "school"? Are you not trying to hide from "mother's intuition"? Furthermore, would not such a divisive practice undermine spousal unity and disrupt the peace of a Catholic family, "the first form of the Church on earth"? Furthermore, does not such a diabolical scheme in fact foment hellish discord in the most basic unit of the Church?
(WARNING: In framing your answers, Don, bear in mind that your cult is NOT part of the Church, while every Catholic family is part of the Church; consequently, every Catholic family is above you and your "clergy," who do not belong to the clerical state. To be brutally candid, Don, your "school" is not Catholic in the strict sense. You are therefore forbidden here to assert in the name of the Church that your cult may assume a total educational rôle or that Catholic parents are bound to send their children to your "school." We will deduct points if you even so much as intimate your cult represents the Church and has rights above those of parents.)
4. A persistent complaint, constantly repeated since your years in Michigan, is that the rules aren't for everyone, that some families and their kids get a pass while others must pay the full penalty for a rules' infraction.

(a) Explain why it is not a sin against justice to show unjust preferences.
(b) What answer do you give to those parents who question why certain students or families receive more favorable treatment than others?

5. One recurring concern coming from different parts of the nation is that parents, especially the dads, are led to believe their children will go to hell if they do not attend a cult school.

(a) If the report is true and you endorse the content of the threat, explain what authority, doctrine, or personal charism allows cult leaders outside the Church to affirm that children who do not attend the cult's "school" will suffer eternal perdition?
(b) If the report is not true, list the reasons cult "clergy" would never tell a parent his child would end up damned if he or she did not attend the cult "school."
(b) If the report is true but you acknowledge that anyone who uttered such an impious asininity is out of line (to say the least), what steps have you undertaken to re-educate and punish these adult offenders under your control?

Editor's Note: The exam will continue next week with the final section, part C, multiple choice.