Saturday, September 16, 2017

A Woman For All Seasons

In his Bishop’s(?) Corner for August 20, 2017, Daniel Dolan happened to mention that “Tomorrow is Sr. Jeanne Marie’s feast day, and we wish Sister a blessed one, with many prayers for a speedy and secure recovery. God keep her, and all of our shut in in His loving care.”  Oh, how thoughtful of Dannie – if he had only meant it!  Dannie, Tradistan’s master of affectation, loves to name-drop and to drop “F-bombs”1 (Flattery, that is) whenever he can – token praise for his groveling cult slaves who toil for him, and who credulously swallow his weekly doses of candy-coated insincerity.

But Dannie doesn’t stop there.  His favorite use of flattery and name-dropping is for eulogizing the deceased – especially those whose memory is revered by the Gerties (and hence do him the greatest material good) – Bernie Brueggemann, for instance.  Bernie was SGG’s all-time biggest benefactor, both spiritually and materially; and hence Dannie has used every opportunity he can to resurrect his memory for “public relations” reasons.  He knows that Bernie is still remembered and revered by most of his Gerties, and that he can still get a lot of “mileage” out of using his name.

We too have invoked Bernie’s name – but not for the same reasons.  Rather, we have reported about how he was taken advantage of by Dannie, and then discarded after Dannie had drained him of his last bit of cash.  We have eulogized Bernie several times, dubbing him (in one of our articles) “a man for all seasons.”  (Click here for article.)  Well, we’d like to take this opportunity to do the same for someone else – only this time, a woman for all seasons”: Sister Gerard Vincent.  “Sister Gerard” (as she was commonly called) was an older nun who had taken her vows long before Vatican II, but who had left her order after the “changes,” and who eventually ended up at SGG.

Sister Gerard was the one bright spot in SGG’s otherwise dreary landscape, a real nun “from the old school.”  She was, as they say, “the genuine article,” not one of Dannie’s “new creations” (i.e., a “newly minted nun” from one of the fake “orders” that he invented).  Sister Gerard, too (unlike her younger counterparts) was well versed in the old Faith, and -- “old school” nun that she was --  was suited for any task, especially teaching.  A native New Yorker (from Brooklyn), she was “no-nonsense,” but also a jovial and gentle soul, always with a cheerful smile -- and who always had a kind word (and a joke to tell) for everyone.  Her only “weakness” was that, being an older nun separated from her former order (and therefore bereft of its material benefits), she was entirely dependent on Dannie and Tony for her daily sustenance (and, indeed, for all things “material”) – a vulnerable (and thus bad) situation in which to be.

And being the obedient, conscientious, trusting soul that she was, she soon found herself being exploited by Dannie  – because that’s what Dannie does: he takes advantage of people – especially the good ones; and when he can no longer “profit” by them, he discards them (as he did Bernie).  And it was no different with Sr. Gerard.  While she was “productive,” she not only taught, but helped out with SGG social functions (and everything else).  But, with age, she inevitably “slowed down.”  And as this happened, so too "did her star fall” at SGG: the younger nuns – especially the “game-players,” i.e., those who “sucked up” to Dannie, got preferential treatment, while Sr. Gerard became, by degrees, a “non-entity.”

Once having her pick of the most comfortable quarters, she was gradually relegated to smaller and smaller ones, until she ended up In a “postage-stamp” sized bedroom (that had to “double” as an office).  Her one pleasure – her pet cat – she had to give up because one of the younger nuns – one of Dannie’s “favorites” -- was “allergic” to it.2  (Yes, Dannie, who had three cats of his own, made her get rid of hers!)  The cat was taken away, and placed with a new owner.  But the cat, believe it or not, found its way back to the convent; and, climbing a tree in the convent’s front yard, it re-entered through her bedroom window.  But Dannie, when he found out, ordered it removed again.  Sr. Gerard was heartbroken; but, being the obedient soul that she was, she submitted to the mitered maggot’s will – to this impolitic act of cruelty that was so deplorably, but oh so quintessentially, so predictably “Dannie.”

Sr. Gerard, as we said, was an older nun when she came to SGG – so much older that she was, in fact, due to celebrate there her golden jubilee (fifty years) of being a nun, when she fell and broke a bone in her hip – an injury that required her to go into “rehab” for a while.  Because of that, her jubilee celebration (which was to be held in SGG’s “social hall”) was “postponed.” 3  But the celebration never came to pass.  Claiming that she was needed back at SGG, Dannie cut her recuperation short and “pressed her back into service” prematurely, whereupon she fell again.  This time, she didn’t recover.  Shortly afterward, she died.  Dannie, however, did not waste the funds earmarked for her celebration: he spent them on a party for one of those aforementioned “newly minted nuns.”  (This nun, by the way – after much mistreatment by Dannie -- later left the religious life, and returned to the lay state.)
And not only did His Expediency take advantage of Sr. Gerard’s passing to “recycle” her jubilee money for another purpose, but he also exploited it in other ways.  Because Sr. Gerard, for instance, was (as was Bernie Brueggemann) so well liked by all of SGG’s parishioners, Dannie has – you guessed it -- often invoked her memory to his advantage.  On one occasion (in his Nov. 23, 2014 ’Corner), Dannie quipped, “Only 22 years ago dear Sr. Gerard suggested we should have a parish dinner for St Gertrude’s Day, and did most of the cooking herself!  What wonderful memories, what great examples, what an enduring cause for thanks!”  [Yeah, Dannie – it’s too bad that you didn’t give her a dinner!]  And some months earlier (in his June 8, 2014 ’Corner), Dannie oozed this: “God reward the clergy, religious (Sr. Gerard Vincent especially), and laity who so generously gave of themselves in the hour of need for what needed to be done in those early days of the Catholic restoration.” 

May God indeed reward “Sr. Gerard Vincent especially” – but we can’t predict the same for Dannie!  He, so saccharine and sweet in his praise for her after her decease, yet so cruelly abusive to her during her life – but what else could one expect from His Malevolency?  That’s Dannie’s modus operandi.  That’s what he does: he uses and abuses people while they’re living -- and then, after their death, he invokes their memory for whatever advantage he can derive from it.

Did Sr. Gerard realize that Dannie was a scoundrel?  Yes indeed!  But like many, she was at first “taken in” by Dannie’s unctuous charm.  Gradually, however, she came to see him for the scoundrel that he is – and that his “mousy grin” was more that of a malevolent rat.  Certainly by the time of his cruel mistreatment of her, she knew “what was what.”  But by that time, it was too late: old and infirm, she had nowhere else to go.  Some say that, because of her cruel mistreatment, she “died of a broken heart.”  Well, it certainly saddened her.  But, being the true Catholic that she was, she realized that this world’s “vale of tears” is a transient thing, and that she would find eternal joy in the next.  She therefore resigned herself to God’s will, and died at peace with her Maker.  And we’re sure that when she met her Maker, it wasn’t long afterward that she partook of that joy.  We wish we could say the same for Dannie – but we doubt if that will be the case.


1 Not to be confused with the kind of “F-bombs” that a certain “door mouse” used to drop (back in his seminary days in Écône).

2 This younger nun, along with another nun (and a lay helper as well), did a lot of “sacristan” work for Dannie.  One of her jobs was to procure “altar flowers” and other items for Dannie’s “show.”  But, since she didn’t have a car of her own, she regularly used a parishioner woman’s car to drive to the florist (as well as to run other errands).  This parishioner says that “sister” usually returned the car with an empty tank (and, of course, with no reimbursement for the gas used) – and all strewn with flower petals.  (This parishioner also bought some of the “items” that sister got – also with no reimbursement.  It was simply “expected” of her.)

This nun, who had some “emotional issues” to begin with, eventually had some sort of “breakdown” (no doubt, too, from being overworked by Dannie), and left SGG.  She also left the religious life.  Oddly enough, however, we hear that she has since returned to SGG, but as a lay person.

3 It is interesting to note that Sr. Gerard’s golden (50-year) jubilee was set to be held in SGG’s “social hall,” i.e., SGG’s school lunchroom (with catered “sandwich” fare), while Dannie’s and Tony’s silver (25-year) jubilees were held at Cincinnati’s most prestigious venue, the Palm Court in downtown Cincinnati’s Netherland Hilton Plaza.  Note also that, though Sr. Gerard’s rehab was cut short, Dannie’s “rehab” from a sinus operation wasn’t.  After this unnecessary (and ultimately unsuccessful) operation, Dannie was given “all the time needed” for an expensive (and also unnecessary) “recuperation” at the Bishop’s Lodge in sunny Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Now you know where the cult center’s “priorities” were!

Saturday, September 9, 2017

Armchair Theologians

Editor’s Note:  As we did last year around this time, we will be posting weekly (instead of bi-weekly) while Pistrina Liturgica is away.  Then, after their return, we’ll be taking a “hiatus” ourselves.  After our last weekly posting, we’ll let our readers know how long that “hiatus” will be.

Our May 20 article, But What About SSPX and FSSP, got several comments dissenting with our attitude toward both the SSPX and FSSP – and some of which had “links” to websites with derogatory information about them.  We also got comments accusing us of not being knowledgeable about the SSPX and FSSP – especially the FSSP.  One commenter wrote: “Clearly, the author(s) of this blog are not very familiar with most traditionalists and the FSSP in particular.”  Well, that commenter is absolutely right: we don’t have a thorough, in-depth knowledge about the FSSP – nor did we ever profess to have.

But what we can assert is that, until proven otherwise, their Mass and sacraments must be assumed to be valid – and, regardless of how many “links” that the dissenters post to give the impression that the majority of FSSP clergy are liberals and radicals, that is simply not the case.  By and large, these clergy detest what Bergoglio is doing.  And what’s more, most are decent men, not money-grubbing charlatans like the SGG and MHT cult-masters.  Have we personally “checked out” each and every one of them?  Of course not!  (Nor have we personally “checked out” each and every “traddie” priest.)  It is not our business to check out each and every priest to certify whether he is “good” or “bad.”  We only claim that there are good and bad clergy in any camp, and that anyone with normal discernment can sort out which is which.  And if they “check out” okay, then go with them.  It’s as simple as that.

The dissenting commenters who flooded us with their “links” about errant FSSP or SSPX priests would have us believe that they’re all “reprobates” and heretics.  No, that’s not the case – just as showing what charlatans the SGG and MHT cult-masters are does not mean that all traditional clergy are trash.  And, in the same vein, these commenters have no business pronouncing on the validity of any SSPX or FSSP clergy (or any other clergy, for that matter).  To those who questioned the validity of these orders – especially those of the FSSP – let us ask them in return: who among you has the authority to rule on the validity of their orders?  And under whose jurisdiction do you make such a claim? 

The answer to those two questions is: under no one’s authority or jurisdiction – no one, that is, except a pope.  For Traddieland’s “armchair theologians,” let us repeat that: no one except a pope can make such a judgment.  Therefore, until a pope rules that they are invalid, we must assume their orders to be valid.  And, along with that, one must also assume that their sacraments are valid.  And, since none of us is pope, none of us can say that one cannot go to one of their priests for Mass or the sacraments.  These commenters can rant and rave all they want; but their views are only that: their views, i.e., mere opinions, carrying no weight or juridical force whatsoever.   

To these armchair theologians who, like their cult-master idols, try to pass off their private opinions as “articles of faith,” (and who try to force them on the rest of us) we have this to say: keep your opinions to yourselves.  And to these same hair-splitters who dissect every word to find fault and/or to willfully misconstrue everything one says, we also invite them to act with at least equal scrutiny toward their cult-masters heroes.  It is simply amazing how such pious Pecksniffs can ignore hard, factual evidence about bagworms such as Dannie, Tony, and Big Don, yet resort to using conjecture and baseless assertions to denounce and disqualify everyone else.

It is also amazing how all these people who have never experienced being personally victimized by the cult-masters, can rule on the testimony of those who have been victimized. All the “Robert Rawhides” and “Sal Monelas” of the world who crawl out of the woodwork to question everyone else, yet defend Dannie and Tony’s depraved justification of Terri Schiavo’s murder, for example: how can they do that, and still look at themselves in the mirror every day?  How can these men, who call themselves “Catholic,” take such a position – and still call themselves “Catholic”?  What kind of “sick puppies” are they that they can stoop to such irrational rationalizations? 

What’s more, what motivates them?  What kind of contentment or satisfaction do they get out of supporting men such as Dolan, Cekada, and Sanborn?  It must take a special breed of person to support these moral lepers, and to categorically deny the truth about them.  Perhaps if they “sign up” and join one of the cults’ leper colonies and experience firsthand what its previous victims have endured, they might gain some “perspective” – and we heartily invite them to do so.  Perhaps then, if any of their close friends or relatives ends up in the same predicament as Terri Schiavo, they can come to Dannie or Tony for “advice” on how to “cost-effectively” deal with it.

No doubt, for reiterating our position about the SSPX and FSSP, we will get another flurry of dissident “fan mail.”  And, depending on how “disruptive” they are, they’ll either be answered, or go into the “spam” file.  (And, yes, we’ll try to answer them – until they get to the point where they are being disruptive simply for disruption’s sake.)  But one thing that these disruptive efforts prove is that our efforts are working – that they’re having an effect -- and that people’s attitudes about the cult-masters are changing (regarding Schiavo, for instance).2   

People are listening, and steering clear of the cult centers.  They are no longer blindly following these imposters and swallowing their swill.  People are starting to wake up and think for themselves.  The cult centers are dying: their ranks are shrinking, and their coffers are dwindling – and that’s a good thing.  In time, leper colonies like SGG and MHT will be a thing of the past.  We urge all those who are there to wake up as well, and to hurry that process along.  Do what so many others before you have done: start by voting with your pocketbooks; and then, “with your feet”: leave the leper colony!  Either way,

Starve the beast!


1 For one thing, one can count on an SSPX or FSSP priest to be better formed, with real moral (and theological) expertise – and someone you can count on to render real moral judgments.  To repeat what we said in our original article, “one gets real Catholic morality, not some counterfeit, make-it-up-as you-go-along claptrap from one of Tradistan’s tinhorn ‘theologians.’  And that’s because their clergy are properly formed, with a real education at a real, accredited seminary – not some janitor-in-training apprenticeship from one of Tradistan’s trade schools.  And, because the SSPX and FSSP are part of the institutional Church – and thus answerable to a hierarchy – they must be fiscally accountable, and not use the collection basket as their own personal bank account, as the answerable-to-nobody cult-masters do.  They will not fleece their sheep for money to go on ‘apostolates’ to posh destinations, nor will they solicit “donations” for questionable ‘improvements.’  In short, they will ‘play by the rules’ – and not make up their own.”

2 The email traffic at Pistrina confirms this.  (We at Lay Pulpit are not set up to receive email.)  People who, for instance, heretofore agreed with Phony Tony about Schiavo (or at least remained acquiescently silent about it) are now speaking out; and more and more are sharing stories of their own personal experiences of abuses suffered at the hands of Dannie, Tony, and Big Don.  People’s attitudes are changing, and they are coming to the realization that the cult-masters are nothing more than self-seeking, self-serving hucksters.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

“Moderation in All Things”

As many of our readers will recall, sometime in June we experienced a bit of a “cyber bombardment” of “wall-to-wall spamming,” coupled with as many as thirty (exceptionally adversarial) comments in a single day (obviously “orchestrated” by one of the cult centers).  And, since such an onslaught made it difficult to answer all the comments in an orderly fashion -- and also because it was wasting the time of our regular readers having to put up with all this nonsense -- we decided to implement “moderation.” Each comment is now “moderated,” i.e., reviewed for content (by a blog administrator) before being approved for publication.  This way, comments can now be addressed in a rational, orderly fashion; and each comment can be given the attention it deserves.2  But, more importantly, it puts the blog administrator – not these disruptive “loonies” -- back in control.  The latter can no longer wreak their havoc.  It has put a fitting end to their “disruption” strategy.

And, although such an onslaught was “disruptive” -- we welcomed it, for a couple of reasons: Firstly, the comments themselves illustrated to our regular readers how completely adolescent these people are (thus reinforcing what we’ve been saying about them all along).  And secondly – because these comments were so absurd – they gave us “material” with which to expose these clowns in future articles.  One of our articles -- Say Again? (click here) -- in fact, was a direct outcome of this disruption.  It was in answer to one of these loonies’ comments about Schiavo; and, guess what?  That article brought on yet another spurious comment about Schiavo,1 which gave us – you guessed it -- yet another opportunity to talk about Schiavo again: 

The comment was as follows:  “Fr. Cekada clearly stated, that IF Terri was capable of eating via the mouth when fed, then what they did was murder. The other issue is whether a stomach tube is extraordinary means. And it is. My father revered his parish priest, who later got cancer of his arm, and he chose death rather than amputation. Amputation is a one-time-thing, and quite easy compared to a stomach tube...which is on-going. Fr. Cekada is entirely vindicated.”

Well, for starters, Checkie already knew that Terri was “capable of eating via the mouth when fed” – because, not only was it public knowledge before, during, and after the time of her ordeal, but Checkie himself was actually informed of it at the time -- by several people. 3   Hence, his statement, IF Terri was capable of eating via the mouth when fed, then what they did was murder,” is a LIE.  There was no “IF” about it.  We might also ask: what person who calls himself a “theologian” would – on such an important point – not be sure of his facts before making such a [mis]communication?  And what sort of “theologian” – when he did find out (which he indeed did), would not write a retraction of his erroneous position?  Checkie did neither of these things.  Over a decade later, he still stubbornly refuses to recant what he said.

The next lie that this commenter told was the following: “The other issue is whether a stomach tube is extraordinary means. And it is. My father revered his parish priest, who later got cancer of his arm, and he chose death rather than amputation. Amputation is a one-time-thing, and quite easy compared to a stomach tube...which is on-going. Fr. Cekada is entirely vindicated.”  Apparently, he did not read the part stating that [Cekada] “based his ‘extraordinary means’ argument on an outdated opinion of Pius XII’s that tube-feeding might be considered ‘extraordinary.’  By the time of Terri’s death, tube-feeding had for decades NOT been considered ‘extraordinary’ but routine.  So routine, in fact, that two of SGG’s parishioners had their kids on tube-feeding at the time (as we also included in one of our footnotes).

Sure, one might consider tube-feeding to be “extraordinary” in the sense that it is not a “natural” food-ingestion process; but, by that definition, any “artificial device,” such as artificial limbs, crutches, hearing aids, cataract inserts – you name it – could be considered “extraordinary means.”  And as far as tube-feeding goes, this has been considered routine for so long – even in decades-long feeding – that the term “extraordinary means” is no longer applied to it (except, in the case of (to use Checkie’s words) “a body that is obviously shutting down for good.”  The only problem here (as we also pointed out), Terri’s body was NOT “shutting down for good.”

Lastly, we must point out the idiocy of the part of the comment dealing with the “parish priest, who later got cancer of his arm, and he chose death rather than amputation. Amputation is a one-time-thing, and quite easy compared to a stomach tube...which is on-going.”  Actually, according to Catholic moral theology, someone choosing death over a life-saving amputation would be considered morally reprehensible – perhaps tantamount to suicide.  There are plenty of people who have undergone amputations to save their lives.  This priest sounds as if he’s some sort of wimp or coward.  Hasn’t he ever heard of the expression, “offering it up”?  Also, we might point out that the two aforementioned kids who were on long-term tube-feeding did not register one complaint about it being “painful” or “a burden.”  Bottom line, “Mr. Commenter”:  Checkie is NOT “entirely vindicated.”  He should, in fact, be indicted.

So, as one can see, this comment (along with the previous “onslaught”) has given us plenty of “material” about which to write.   In an ensuing comment (which, by the way, we decided to “spam”), someone added this: “You should go back to not requiring a post approval, this new way is much too slow. Ya [sic] I know some people blasted you in a similar way that you pretty much always blast others and it probably didn’t feel good, but bid deal so there are a few extra posts about how you delete comments and now you only play into that by monitoring all comments.”  (This same comment was also sent in to Pistrina, who responded to it in a succinct but decisive way, hence our decision to simply spam it and let them handle it.)4

But that ensuing comment got us to thinking:  The fact that we at Lay Pulpit (and, of course, Pistrina) allow comments at all – “moderated” or otherwise – is far and away a more liberal policy than what the cult-masters allow.  In their bulletins, newsletters, and other “communications,” they make provision for no feedback whatsoever.  Can you imagine if someone started giving Dannie, Checkie, or Big Don the kind of “feedback” that we get here – or if someone got out of his pew and started giving a “sermon within a sermon” (similar to that one lunatic’s “blog within a blog” nonsense back in June)?!  How long would Dannie (or Big Don) tolerate that?  (Dannie can’t even tolerate crying babies during his sermons!) 5

So, bottom line, we see our new “moderation” policy as an eminently good one –one that provides for feedback -- but one that spares our general readership the disruptive (and time-wasting) influence of a handful of crackpots.  It is a policy that (we think) will be here “for the duration” at Lay Pulpit (and at Pistrina).6  There is one notable difference between us and Pistrina, however: we at Lay Pulpit have decided to “spam” those comments that we feel are merely “disruptive for disruption’s sake.”  We choose not to tolerate such comments.  Pistrina, on the other hand, is more “accommodating” in their approach to such opposition – and we applaud them for it.  We feel that they have chosen the “right” strategy for them – but we feel that our strategy is “right’ for us.  We both have our reasons for our policies, and we think both are valid ones.  But beyond that, we feel no need to further explain why our policy is different from theirs.

In either case, we certainly believe that moderation of comments is a good thing, for everyone concerned.  (And, actually, it is a good policy for any publication, large or small, for it provides for two-way communication, yet still provides the right safeguards.)  The cult-center loonies have been whining loudly, complaining that moderation “slows things down too much.”  No it doesn’t (and no, it hasn’t).  We like it, and we think it’s here to stay.  And if those loonies don’t like it -- well – they’ll just have to get used to it!


1 Ironically, many of the comments we got from these trolls were accusing us of “bringing up Schiavo again” – yet it was they who actually brought it up!  So, in writing about Schiavo, we were merely responding to their taunts, not prematurely and preemptively “dredging up old news.”  But, regardless of who was “dredging it up,” according to these trolls’ logic, regularly reminding people of our Lord’s crucifixion would too be considered as “dredging up old news.”

2 And, of course, comments that are particularly absurd can be “spammed” and/or deleted if need be – and we have done a fair amount of “spamming” already, with no adverse effects.  It has, to be sure, resulted in fewer comments; but we like it that way, because the comments we now get are constructive and rational – not the insane claptrap that the loonies have been peddling.  Plus, more importantly, our new policy has not adversely affected our readership; it has actually increased since we’ve implemented the policy.

That is not to say that a more “open” toleration of comments doesn’t have its advantages.  For one thing, as we’ve already noted, it gives us more “material” for future articles; but on the other, it often turns the comments section into a three-ring circus, where the loonies can carry on an incessant dialogue about issues of interest no one but themselves (and which waste everyone’s time) -- and which, more often than not, are only read by the loonies themselves anyway.  We have chosen to be not so “open” – and that works for us.

Our colleagues at Pistrina Liturgica, by the way, were the first to implement moderation, and we followed suit shortly thereafter.   And this is what has particularly upset these “loonies”: they can no longer wreak their havoc in an unbridled and haphazard way.  “But,” as they say, “they have brought it on themselves.”  So, if they want to blame anyone for this new policy, they need only “look in the mirror.”

3 And Cekada was totally aware at the time he wrote his words that Terri could swallow – because he was informed of it by several people (including one of his own parishioners, as well as a noted neurologist).  In correspondence between this parishioner and him, she informed Checkie that Terri was – amongst other things -- able to swallow.  (For more of her correspondence with Checkie, click here.)

4 Pistrina responded thusly: “We didn't go to moderation because of the "blasts": we always allowed them, and we even enjoyed them. Even now, almost all comments but spam are published. We do delete those that offend decency.  We had to moderate because the spammer was disturbing our Readership. As it stands now, there isn't too much time before a comment is posted, except when they arrive during our night-time, so we'll stick to moderation.”

5 As we’ve reported in more than once in the past, Dannie stops his sermon if a crying baby is “interfering.”  The “offending baby’s” mother must remove it to SGG’s vestibule (because there is no crying room per se) – a vestibule that is neither heated in winter nor air-conditioned in summer.  And, once in the vestibule, mother and baby are not allowed to re-enter the church until AFTER the sermon is finished (because the “commotion” of the door being opened is too much for His Self-Importancy to bear).

6 In fact, it is a policy that should have been implemented in the first place.  We did not have the foresight to see the day when disruptive loonies would cause such harassment for both us and our readers.  Now that they have done so, we have been able to “neutralize them” by putting the right safeguards in place.  So, we thank these loonies for their “disruption” – for, thanks to them, now those safeguards are in place!

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Dannie’s “Not-So-Divine Comedy”

Dannie Dolan’s SGG Bishop’s(?) Corner, as always, “never disappoints.”  It’s always chuck full of his usual mix of ecclesiastical excrement: “S&S” (Syrup & Sanctimony), “The Show,” gruesome details of his feral critters’ exploits, copious quantities of “Bergoglio bashing,” lots of condescending flattery for all his cult slaves -- and, of course, the weekly “weather report.”  And, as usual, many of Dannie’s absent-minded musings and ramblings – especially about his critters – are fairly pointless to anyone other than himself.  Well, last week’s ‘ Corner  was no exception: it was vintage “Dannie.”

First, he started off with the weather, as he is wont to do: “This past week was a heavy one, both for work and weather. And it’s always harder to work in this weather!”  (We’re not sure why it’s “harder to work in this weather!” but, okay, so be it.)  And then this tidbit: “The McFathers have decamped to hot humid Florida (they could have stayed here) for vacation.”  (Sounds like Dannie was perhaps a little “addled” that they went to Florida [vs. staying back at the cult center] for vacation.  Is he complaining about it being “a waste of money”?  (If so, isn’t that a bit like “the pot calling the kettle black”?!)

Then Dannie started waxing poetic about “The Show”: “But all of our feasts and devotions were duly done, and sung. Our young people formed a fine choir for St. Peter’s Chains. First Friday’s Adoration (thank you to the Guard of Honor) anticipated the glory of today’s Transfiguration. ‘Lord it is good for us to be here!’ we can only cry out with Peter. Believe it.”  Well, okay!  But why recount the week’s past events (including those poor “Guard of Honor” scmucks who had to drive to the cult center in the middle of the night to do their “hour” for Dannie -- while His Complacency slumbered, snugly and indolently, in his king-sized bedroom back at the rectory).  We don’t think that the “Guards of Honor” who were there (between 2 and 5 A.M.) exclaimed, “Lord it is good for us to be here!”  It was probably something more like, “Lord, why are we here at this hour, while Dannie (as usual) is snoozing comfortably?”

The next thing Dannie blathered about was his “critters” (Caravaggio and a certain “weasel,” followed by some “bashing” of the cult’s “enemies” (but, curiously, no “Bergoglio bashing” this time): “The idea of God as Father is blasphemous to the Mohammedans, and forgotten by too many Christians.”  And then, “At some point he [Fr. Lehtoranta] pulled into the parking lot of a Baptist church to get his bearings. It was a beehive of activity. ‘Vespers,’ Fr. Cekada quipped. Well, if only the Baptists knew about Vespers being almost all biblical, I’m sure they would crowd in. Then our parking lot would be packed on some Sunday afternoons. Imagine. Twice on a Sunday and once during the week, and they line up to tithe their ten percent!  [Our bold emphasis.]  But they have neither tabernacle nor altar nor sacrifice. Do you suppose we will one day pay terribly for taking it all for granted?”  The “takeaway” from this is not so much Dannie’s “Baptist bashing” per se, but his using this as an opportunity to give his culties another not-so-subtle reminder about tithing.  Dannie still expects them to give one tenth of their gross income to the cult center!1

But we save the pièce de résistance for last: Dannie's next "tidbit" was about implementing a new “liturgical practice” for SGG: “First Wednesday” devotions!  To quote Dannie, “Last week Fr. Lehtoranta had the inspiration to initiate the First Wednesday devotion, so we did. (How did we miss that one all these years?)  [Yes, Dannie, how did you?!]  A five years indulgence is granted for those who ‘perform some devout exercise in honor of St. Joseph’ on the first Wednesday of the month.”  Well, Golly! (as Gomer Pyle would say).  “Five years’ indulgence!”  [Yes, that’s right, boys and girls: five years!]  Whether or not Dannie has the “power” to grant such an indulgence (and we don’t think he does – for a multitude of reasons) is really an irrelevant point.

Rather, the relevant point here is that, for Dannie, “being Catholic” is all about how many First Fridays, First Saturdays, First Thursdays – and now, First Wednesdays -- one observes, not about how one treats one’s fellow man.  (Dannie has lost sight of the latter.  Correction: he never saw it to begin with.)  That’s why Dannie can reconcile watching porn and fornicating with a fellow student (aka, “boys being boys”) with “being Catholic.”  That’s why he and Tony can sell a congregation’s satellite chapel out from under them (and expropriate their building fund), and still be “Catholic.”  And that’s why he can muse whimsically, with complete detachment, about birds and bunnies being shredded by his feral cats, and still be “Catholic.”  And how can Dannie reconcile all these things? Because he has no principlesthat’s how.

With Dannie, it really doesn’t matter what one does (or how one treats his fellow man), as long as he “shows up for the show” (or, to put it more correctly, “as long as he donates”).  It’s all “letter-of-the-law” stuff: all letter, but no spirit.  Or, as St. Paul puts it, it’s all “sounding brass and clanging cymbal,” but no charity.  And that – coupled with no morals or principles – is, as they say, “a deadly combination.”  That being the case, all of these extra-added “devotions” are not about making people holier, but about imposing extra-added control and manipulation.  It’s about totally immersing them in the cult, until there’s nothing else left but the cult – the classic cult blueprint for control. 

And why is Dannie doing this?  Because he’s getting desperate, that’s why.  This is “Last Chance Gulch” for Dannie: a last ditch attempt to whip the Gerties into line, because he’s losing his grip: financially, psychologically, actually. “The old magic” (aka, manipulation and control) isn’t working very well anymore (and hasn’t for some time). Both the collections and attendance have never recovered to pre-2009 levels, and are down even more, so Dannie “has to do something.”  And that “something” is still control and manipulation (even though it’s not working very well anymore).  It’s really all he has left – that, plus lashing out at all his “enemies” (real or imagined): Bergoglio, Moslems, Baptists, SSPX, FSSP, the government, the local energy utility, “weasels” – you name it.

So, that’s why he’s going back to his old standby: overloading the Gerties with “activities” (that time-worn but tried-and-true cult tactic).  Will it work?  No, we don’t think so.  The Gerties (at long last) are beginning to see through this ruse.  As we said, both attendance and collections are down (although Dannie did comment in his ‘Corner, “Summertime brought another light attendance last week, but a good collection”).  This, however, is wishful thinking on Dannie’s part.  The collection (relatively speaking) was not all that “good.”  But this comment was significant in one respect: like his earlier “tithing” comment, it did reaffirm Dannie’s one, overpowering priority: MONEY.  (And, let’s face it: Dannie really doesn’t care if the pews are completely empty, as long as he gets his Geld.)

That being said, we implore those Gerties still being exploited by the mitered maggot to “turn off the Geld,” i.e., to shut their pocketbooks -- and to continue “voting vote with their feet.”  Dirt-bag Dan and Antonius Balonius are two “fake news phonies” who do not deserve ONE RED CENT of anyone’s hard-earned cash.  Let’s “bring down the curtain” on their "Not-So-Divine Comedy"!  Let’s “close down production” on this farce -- and the sooner, the better.  In other words,

Starve the beast!


1 One perceptive commenter [“Anonymous,” Aug. 5, 8:27 PM) caught this (about Dannie’s perpetual preoccupation with tithing) on last week’s ‘’Corner, and commented about it on PL’s article (click here), after which The Reader, in concurrence, responded with several remarks, including the following:

Boy does he [Dannie] want the Gerties to get the idea. To make sure they did, a couple paragraphs later he [Dannie] wrote:  Summertime brought another light attendance last week, but a good collection.’   P.S. The collection haul still amounted to less than what $GG used to rake in before the 2009 $GG $chool $candal. 

All we shall add to that is, “Right on, Reader!”

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Say Again?

In our last article, we received a comment that was, as we said, “typical of the kind we get from SGG’s (and MHT’s) brain-dead loyalists -- and perfectly illustrates how their minds work.”  Actually, we received several such comments – and here’s another one!  This bit of nonsense, nestled amongst the myriad comments received on one of our articles this past June (click here) was the following (obviously from one of the Cheese-ball’s “loyal brain-dead”): 

“I don’t know much about the Schiavo case and in my minimal understanding was the argument not essentially the following:  Father Cekada’s opinion was that the Schiavo case would fall under extraordinary means and thus be permitted while people upset by this hold the opinion that it did not fall under extraordinary means and thus should not have been permitted and was murder.”   “If we had a hierarchy,” he went on,  “with the authority to rule on this and Father Cekada went against them then I would understand being upset about it, but at this point is it not just two opposing opinions on a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on?” 1

There were other comments as well, but we chose to focus on this one because, first, it slavishly mirrors Tony’s depraved position on Schiavo; and hence gives us the opportunity to revisit this issue again, and re-emphasize once again the fatal flaws in his argument.  This comment – like so many of the others made on the article – was designed to discount our credibility: but, as it turns out, it will (once again) only serve to destroy Tony’s.

First of all, the flimsy “extraordinary means” argument has been obliterated by just about every Christian theologian – Catholic or Protestant.  And not only has Terri Schiavo’s death been condemned on moral grounds, but even on legal grounds – even by an atheist. (Click here.)  Secondly, the commenter’s question -- “Is it not just two opposing opinions [i.e., Checkie’s opinion vs. other theologians’ opinions] on a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on?” proves nothing.  All it does is to betray the commenter’s  “sede” position (that Bergoglio “is not the pope”) -- because he’s insinuating that “nobody has the authority to rule on” [this issue].  Actually, yes they do – because it doesn’t take a “pope” to rule on it – only a correct-thinking moral theologian. 

What the commenter fails to grasp is that it really doesn’t matter what Bergoglio’s opinion was.  The fact is, when all the facts in the case became known, Checkie’s opinion was found to be patently contrary to all moral law – “Catholic” or otherwise.  And, again, ruling on that is a “no-brainer” for any moral theologian – any competent one, that is.  (And, to his credit, Bergie did condemn Terri’s murder -- as did numerous others – Novus Ordo, “traditional,” or otherwise.  At least in this case, Bergie was “a better man” than Tony!)  Lastly, it’s rather ironic that this commenter considers Terri’s death “a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on”; yet he probably has no trouble whatsoever taking Tony’s word (or that of any of his fellow imposters) on their “una cum” nonsense (or any of the other “dogmas” that these jokesters have invented – “subjects” that NOBODY (other than a pope) really “has the authority to rule on.” 3

Even back at the time of Terri’s death, there were enough facts known to prove that her death was MURDER – facts that Checkie disdainfully ignored.2  Instead, he based his “extraordinary means” argument on an outdated opinion of Pius XII’s that tube-feeding might be considered “extraordinary.”  By the time of Terri’s death, tube-feeding had for decades NOT been considered “extraordinary” but routine.4  The other fact that he totally ignored was that Terri was not in danger of death, nor was she terminally ill.  She was, in fact, able to swallow (she actually swallowed the Sacred Species in Holy Communion, amongst other things).  With the right rehabilitation (for which her husband withheld the awarded malpractice settlement funds), she could very well have been eventually “weaned off” the tube-feeding.

Nor was Terri a “vegetable,” as Tony (and his supporters) imply.  Her cognitive function was impairedbut far from gone.  But, since Michael Schiavo (her husband) refused to release the insurance money for her rehabilitation, she was never given a chance to recover.  Instead, she was put to death by court order.  The evidence on this is overwhelming – and irrefutable.  And all of this was public knowledge at the time – but Checkie conveniently ignored it.  Instead, the miserable wretch did his misogynist best to take the side of her husband against her – and to ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of letting her live.

What Checkie did (amongst other things) was to look at her life in terms of dollars and cents.  Specifically, he stated, “Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were very generous in spending everyone else's money.  Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.”  “This," he continued, "is now a grave burden on society. If someone wants to make every effort to sustain life for as long as possible in a body that is obviously shutting down for good, he is free to pay for extraordinary means himself but it is wrong for him to impose this burden on everyone else.”  [Cekada’s bold-face emphasis]  To Checkie, then, it was more “cost effective” to let her die.  Again, how can this “commenter” reconcile this in his mind?  Since when has it become acceptable in Catholic moral teaching to justify terminating someone’s life because it is “a grave burden on society”?  What this does – in measuring human life in terms of dollars and cents -- is to DEGRADE it. 5

Schiavo, by the way, was not an “accident.”  It was a planned stage of the pro-death movement (just as Karen Ann Quinlan was), and it became the Roe vs. Wade for euthanasia.  What made it so insidious is that it introduced the notion that human life is not precious or sacred, that we’re just like any other “animal,” and that (therefore) we should be “disposed of” when we become “a grave burden on society.”  Indeed, that mentality pervades today’s world, both consciously and unconsciously.  Our lives are no more precious than a chimpanzee’s or a dog’s – or a house-fly’s.  It dehumanizes us: we are no longer human beings, but animals who just happen to be “at the top of the evolutionary chain.”

That being the case -- that human life is no longer sacred (and that we are just “fellow creatures”), then Catholic moral theology also goes “down the toilet,” and hence supernatural eternal life becomes no longer sacred (or relevant) as well.  And with that, a whole Pandora’s box of Godless “beliefs” is open (and legitimized): naturalism, materialism, nihilism, evolution – you name it.  And “causes” such as environmentalism, the “green” revolution, animal rights 6whatever – become “morally relevant.”  And what are all these “causes” and “isms”?  They’re just ATHEISM in camouflage. 

And that (along with a plethora other things) is what is so dangerous about the whole pro-death agenda – an agenda that Checkie’s words so readily reinforce.  Granted, it may not make one instantly subscribe to all these aforementioned “isms” and false “beliefs” – but it “plants their seeds” in one’s mind.  It fosters the mentality.  So, this commenter had better think twice before matter-of-factly treating the Schiavo controversy as merely “opposing opinions on a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on,” as if it were some sort of “drawing-room" discussion -- or that it was “irresolvable,” because -- as this (obviously “sede”) commenter was trying to imply with his “nobody has the authority to rule on it”  -- there was no “pope” to settle the issue.

Rather, it’s about an innocent woman being unjustly put to death, while suffering unspeakable agony during that slow, excruciating ordeal.  And it’s about an unspeakable scumbag – a low-life pile of dung who calls himself a “theologian” -- matter-of-factly discoursing (with disinterested detachment) about her husband’s “right before God” to have her put to death (and using a long out-dated argument to justify his “extraordinary means” nonsense).  The attitude of this “commenter” – when it’s all said and done – mirrors that of the Checkmonster, and is, at best, despicable in the extreme. 7

The sanctity of human life is everyone’s business.  Without that moral absolute, the whole meaning of “humanity” is meaningless, and we are doomed.  That being said, we implore everyone to reject Checkie and his fellow purveyors of evil.  These moral lepers have shown in so many ways that they are not about caring for souls, but about caring for themselves.  Do not let these parasites continue to ply their trade.

Give these scumbags the “pink slip.”

STARVE the Plague-Ridden Beast!

1 There was also this other gem (probably from the same “commenter”):  “Who cares if they [Cekada and Dolan] were correct or not on Schiavo?  Totally irrelevant.”  Totally “irrelevant”?  Is he (or she) kidding?!  We're glad, though, that the comment was made, because -- like so many others designed to “overwhelm” and “bury” us -- it only gave us that much more material with which to bury them.

2 We say “disdainfully” because it was glaringly obvious by this (and by numerous other comments that he made on Schiavo) that Cekada is decidedly misogynist.  This, of course, is no surprise.  Misogyny pervades just about everything that the Cheese-ball has ever uttered or written.

3 Actually, the cult-masters have a plethora of make-it-up-as-they-go-along hypotheses that they pass off as “dogmas” (which they have neither the authority nor the "proof" to promulgate, and which they use as “litmus tests” to determine one’s “Catholicity” – “una cum” being one of them).  And, of course, their loyal brain-dead believe implicitly in these myths.  Yet they cannot wrap their minds around the easily proved fact that Terri Schiavo was unjustly put to death -- nor will they accept that obvious truth.

4 In fact, one of SGG’s parishioners had a girl being tube-fed for decades prior to (and since) Terri’s untimely demise – and another parishioner couple had their infant boy being tube-fed as well.  Both of them, when they became aware of Checkie’s depraved opinion on Schiavo, left SGG in protest.

5 First, we must point out that Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers (Terri’s family) were notvery generous in spending everyone else's money.”  On the contrary: Michael Schiavo was for terminating her life, not for “spending everyone else's money”; and secondly, the Schindlers publicly stated that if Michael Schiavo allowed them to take care of Terri, they’d gladly pay all her medical expenses (and let him keep the insurance money), and hence not be “spending everyone else’s money” -- but Michael Schiavo refused their request.

Some more blatantly “false phraseology” (aka, bald-faced lie) by Cheese-ball was this: “in a body that is obviously shutting down for good.”   “Shutting down for good”?  Tell us, Tony: from which of your body orifices was this assumption extracted?  It wasn’t “shutting down,” Tony; it was SHUT down: she was put to death by court order.  The proximate cause of death was NOT “organ failure” or something connected with a “terminal illness,” but DEHYDRATION as a result of forced deprivation of water nourishment.

6 Some “animal rights” fanatics go so far as to suggest that we humans should “de-populate” (that is, cease to exist, and let the planet “revert back to the animals”).  And some even extend the definition of “animals” to ANY living thing: trees, grass, weeds, fungus – you name it.  (And, yes, that means that plants now qualify as “creatures” – and, therefore, have "feelings” (and therefore "rights").  Who knows?  One day, mowing one’s lawn might qualifies as “creature cruelty” and “exploitation”!)

7 How anyone could justify Cekada’s position on Schiavo in any way is totally beyond belief.  That’s why we think that this “commenter’s” words, “I don’t know much about the Schiavo case and in my minimal understanding was the argument not essentially the following…,” reek of insincerity.  He is, we are sure, fully aware of ALL the background on Schiavo, but pretends not to be.  (If he knew enough to comment as he did, he knew “enough.”)  In other words (to borrow some recent phraseology from Pistrina), he’s full of, of, of, of…. horse-feathers!  (That is, he’s a LIAR -- and not a very good one at that).

On Lay Pulpit, there have been more than a half-dozen articles about Schiavo; and we urge those who haven’t yet read any of them to do so.  Two articles of note are those dealing with the physiological and psychological effects of death by dehydration (click here and here).  And for other articles about her, click here, here, here, here, and here.  Granted, this is “quite a few” on that same subject; but each gives its own unique perspective on that sad affair).

Terri’s death is one of the most tragic events of our time – and one that should be kept in the public eye now and always, lest people forget.  The depth of depravity to which Phony Tony sank with his sick (and arrogant) opinion on Schiavo can never be over-stated.  May he live to regret every word that he has ever written on that subject.