Sean Johnson posted this recently. I thought it was interesting --


Anyone who has followed the bizarre evolution of Fr. Pfeiffer and the Sect for any amount of time notes at once two rather striking defects of that camp:

1) The inability to reason well;

2) The inability to judge rightly.

One might not be surprised to learn that the second defect is a product or consequence of the first, but he might be surprised to learn that both arise from a deficiency of the virtue of prudence.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the speculative intellect, he assigns to the virtue of prudence two "annexed" or "secondary" aspects of this virtue: euboulia and gnome.

1) Euboulia is the virtue of deliberating well or right counseling (Summa Theologica, II-II, 51-1):

"But euboulia (deliberating well) signifies goodness of counsel, for it is derived from the eu, good, and boule, counsel, being "a good counsel" or rather "a disposition to take good counsel." Hence it is evident that euboulia (deliberating well) is a human virtue."
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The virtues which are connected with prudence (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 51)

Now, it is a universally observed hallmark of the Pfeifferites that you can't tell them anything. They are stuck with their own thoughts (or rather, those which are imparted to them from Boston). But when has it ever been observed that they have tested those thoughts before embracing or acting upon them by seeking counsel of others first?

When have they ever manifested a "disposition to take good counsel?"

It is the peculiar quality of partisanship to accept at face value, without the benefit of counsel, whatever direction or ideas one receives.

Nowhere was this defect (total absence, really) of eboulia manifested more plainly than in the case of Mr. Moran, who was universally recognized as a fraud outside Boston, but whom the dupes -lacking good counsel, or the desire to seek any counsel at all- accepted his authenticity, and closed their eyes and ears to all the contrary evidence.

This lack of eboulia, therefore, evinces a defect of the cult in their ability to reason properly: Not receiving good counsel, not seeking good counsel, and not passing along good counsel, are the fruits of this defect attached to the virtue of prudence.

None who lack this ability to reason (or those who by force of learned habit evict from their minds the ability to reason) can come to a good end, and this absence of eboulia is one of two reasons for the present state and poor quality of mind in Boston, and its general discredit.

2) From defective reasoning and deliberation (i.e., the refusal to seek or accept good counsel) comes defective judging.

If eboulia was the virtue of making the effort to gather the truth by seeking good counsel, in order to deliberate well, the virtue of gnome is the judgment one puts upon such data, particularly in situations which are not foreseen by the common law/written law, and in which one has to act outside of these:

"Hence it is necessary to judge of such matters according to higher principles than the common laws, according to which synesis (judging according to common law) judges: and corresponding to such higher principles it is necessary to have a higher virtue of judgment, which is called gnome (judging according to general law), and which denotes a certain discrimination in judgment." (Summa Theologica II-II, 51-4)
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The virtues which are connected with prudence (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 51)

What is more lacking in Boston that "a certain discrimination in judgment?"

It is plainly evident that, if one has not the eboulia to seek and receive good counsel, to enable one to deliberate well, then gnome by which one makes good judgment in the matter at hand according to the higher principles of general law (and which comes subsequent to eboulia in the order of the intellect, and therefore in the exercise of prudence) is pre-empted or crippled.

If we return to our example of the advent of Mr. Moran in Boston, KY, in which we pointed out the fact that very few of the dupes there sought good counsel (or deliberated well on the matter), we should not be surprised that an equally paltry number of them exercised good judgment, or gnome. Having precluded sound deliberation and good counsel in the matter, their judgment, not surprisingly, was to continue to support a movement which has no future, and which was dangerous to their faith and virtue.

Thus, if we consider the virtue of prudence in relation to the annexed virtues of eboulia (good counsel and deliberation) and gnome (good judgment), we can see that the three aspects of prudence (counsel/deliberation; judgment; action) are conspicuously absent in the Boston sect, and not just in the matter of Mr. Moran, but in countless other areas as well (e.g., the matter of Pablo comes to mind; the red light; communicatio in sacris to attend SSPX Masses; BXVI being a child murdering devil worshipper; no grace from valid communions; and more recently, asserting Bishop Williamson's episcopal consecrations to be schimatic, among countless other examples of defective prudence).

It is therefore perfectly true to say of this Sect that it is generally characterized by a lack of virtue, in both leadership and discipleship, and that this lack of virtue (particularly as regards the virtue of prudence, and its annexed virtues of eboulia and gnome) is to blame for its present state.

PS: For additional information on eboulia and gnome, see also ST, II-II, Q. 57 (6).
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The intellectual virtues (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 57)

It all comes down to whether we follow God first or man. We must always be aware, lest we fall into a cult of personality, and cease to recognize the fullness of Truth, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. 

When one follows the words and actions of a man, without any question and without hesitation, then the abilities to reason and judge rightly may be compromised. The extent of this compromise may vary, depending on how dependent one becomes to this "leader" figure. This dependency may be physical, material, spiritual or emotional, or any combination therein. 

The term "Pfeifferite" has been applied to certain followers of Father Pfeiffer, especially those who vehemently defend Father's words, actions and decisions from others. The defense of Father Pfeiffer, in and of itself, should not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the defender has lost the abilities to reason and judge rightly. Father Pfeiffer is not always incorrect, and his words and actions are not always unjustified. Therefore, defense of Father Pfeiffer can be done reasonably and with right judgment, and one who defends Father in such a case should not be considered as lacking reason or right judgment. 

However, no one should be given carte blanche, and this goes for all, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Fellay, Father Pfeiffer, etc. There are those whose defense of Father Pfeiffer have drifted towards carte blanche. Those are the "Pfeifferites", who have sided entirely with a fallible man, seemingly without question and without hesitation, in what can be described as a cult of personality. Father is not always correct, and when he is incorrect, one should be able to recognize this without being labelled a traitor to Father or to Boston. 

This unfortunate scenario is not representational of all who support Boston, however, and it would be unwise to portray all those who support Boston as being "Pfeifferites". The distinction ought to be made, for clarity and charity's sake. 

The term "Pfeifferite" has been applied to certain followers of Father Pfeiffer, especially those who vehemently defend Father's words, actions and decisions from others. The defense of Father Pfeiffer, in and of itself, should not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the defender has lost the abilities to reason and judge rightly. Father Pfeiffer is not always incorrect, and his words and actions are not always unjustified. Therefore, defense of Father Pfeiffer can be done reasonably and with right judgment, and one who defends Father in such a case should not be considered as lacking reason or right judgment.

However, no one should be given carte blanche, and this goes for all, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Fellay, Father Pfeiffer, etc. There are those whose defense of Father Pfeiffer have drifted towards carte blanche. Those are the "Pfeifferites", who have sided entirely with a fallible man, seemingly without question and without hesitation, in what can be described as a cult of personality. Father is not always correct, and when he is incorrect, one should be able to recognize this without being labelled a traitor to Father or to Boston.

This unfortunate scenario is not representational of all who support Boston, however, and it would be unwise to portray all those who support Boston as being "Pfeifferites". The distinction ought to be made, for clarity and charity's sake.

Agreed.

These are precisely who I refer to when I use the term "Pfeifferite". Those who adhere to Fr. Pfeiffer as to a cult leader. "The cult leader says so, ergo it is the truth." and they shut their brains completely off. The "Leader" does all the thinking for them.
Needless to say, that is not a good turn of events for the persons involved. It is certainly not Catholic behavior.

Not Catholic is right, Mr. Matthew.  Fideism gone nuts.  Has more the putrid air of Hindu India about it than anything even remotely worthy of Roman Catholicism.
  
Nothing stinks like the stench of rotting Jansenism.