ALL ABOUT THE LAY PULPIT

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.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

You Can’t Fix “Stupid”

A recent Pistrina Liturgica article (click here) contains a series of comments that we've decided to share with our readers.  And the reason we’ve chosen to do so is that some of its comments are so typical of the kind we get from SGG’s (and MHT’s) brain-dead loyalists -- and perfectly illustrate how their minds work.  The series began with someone mentioning Sanborn’s having a hoard of precious ecclesiastical paraphernalia, and commenting thusly: Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes filled with expensive chalices and such.”  One of Sanborn’s (obviously disbelieving) “loyalists” then accused him of being a “rumor monger” (because he started with, Rumor has it…”), after which the ensuing discussion degenerated into the “Sanborn loyalists” calling their opponents “you women-folk” -- and, of course, demanding proof of the existence of the safes.
Well, the proof eventually came – and it was indisputable photographic proof (click here).  However, even photographic proof (apparently) doesn’t convince some people, for a subsequent commenter retorted, All we have been given is a photo of a safe.  So what?  That does not prove the rumors of what is supposed to be in it” [as if the chalices and other articles there couldn’t be seen – because it was a locked GLASS case, where the chalices et al were clearly visible].  And, later on, another added, “A photo with a cleric in it who is not unhappy about the photo being taken.  Nothing wrong in the photo.  You women [our emphasis] are too much.”  Well, what can one say?  It seems that even photographic evidence “doesn’t work” for the disbelieving.  (And what, we may ask, do the phrases, “A photo with a cleric in it who is not unhappy about the photo” and “Nothing wrong in the photo” mean?  What relevancy -- or rationality -- do they add to the mix?)  (Note also the nice “misogynist” touch: “You women”!  This comment, by the way, was followed by an even more misogynist comment: “‘Women’ being the operative word here.  Just a bunch of gossipy, old spinsturds.”)  [Another nice misogynist touch!]

Pistrina’s “Reader” then responded by reminding the commenter that he was missing the point – actually, two key points: first (to quote him directly, “Sanborn has tons of liturgical vessels. He can afford to outfit the new Melbourne cult center without asking the laity to pay for it.”  And secondly, “The ‘rumor’ reported on June 11 12:34 is true, and hence 12:34 is not a "rumor monger" but a truth teller, a reporter of fact.”  At this point, a commenter (the same one?), alluding to that earlier comment ("Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes filled with expensive chalices and such"), replied, “You [“the Reader”] are missing the point. We do not know what is in the safe, do we? 
What the commenter was doing here, of course, was “switching gears”: he was switching from talking about the concrete photo evidence of the “glass case” safe – evidence that he could not refute -- to another type of safe: a “bank vault” type (the one from that earlier comment to which he alluded), whose contents, of course, cannot be seen, because such a safe is made of steel, not glass).  This deceptive “switch” was, of course, intentional: he had shifted the argument to something else – and then (falsely) added that “the Reader” had “missed the point.”  But the Reader’s point was not about “safes” at all.  The “point,” as Pistrina correctly noted, was this: why is Big Don asking for donors to furnish items (for the Melbourne chapel), when he already has a whole stash of such items to donate (and probably much more).  Whether they are in a glass case or in a “bank vault” is totally irrelevant.1

Later on, another commenter tried to derail the discussion yet again with this: “Pistrina Liturgica June 16, 2017 10:00 AM does not mention the Catholic moral teaching about rumors.”  Maybe she will soon.  Of course if she does it will be in her usual balanced manner” [our bold emphasis]. This comment (again) alluded to that earlier “two large safes” comment (because its author started it off with, “Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes…”) – thus (supposedly ) making him a “rumor monger.”  Well, “the Reader” eventually (and patiently) answered this new (and false) accusation, reassuring the accuser that “rumor has it” is just another way of saying “it is reported” – and hence is not “rumor mongering.”  “The Reader” then gave a succinct (but thorough) explanation about Catholic teaching on rumors, and finally “put this false accusation to bed.”  [Note too that the accuser once again used the words “she” and “her” in his misogynist rant.]

Well, after that, the commenter – like the proverbial “greased pig” that he is – slithered off to yet another corner with this meaningless taunt:  “Aren't you supposed to be resting from hate today?” (He was inferring, of course, that reporting about safes full of ecclesiastical paraphernalia amounted to “hate mongering.”) Unable to deny the obvious truth of those reports, he resorted to the classic ad hominem tactic -- what some might call “ignore the message, shoot the messenger” – except that he was shooting the wrong “messenger.” 2

So, to summarize, things started off with someone denying photographic proof, then following it up with such obviously irrational (and misogynist) accusations, then trying to “switch” the argument by sending it off in several directions, and then finishing up with a cheap ad hominem attack?  What kind of idiots would use such tactics -- and who do they think they’re fooling, we may ask, with such an obvious trail of deception?  Don’t they realize that arguing in the face of such clear evidence is self-defeating?  And, if they consider themselves “Catholic,” do they not realize that seeking the truth is more important than winning the argument – especially by resorting to such underhanded methods?

Apparently not.  For them, “winning” is the only thing that counts.  But in trying to defend their cult-master heroes, they blind themselves to the truth -- and end up making liars out of themselves for their heroes (thus embarrassing them and thus hurting them in the process).  This says a lot about them; first, that – like their cult-masters, they have no principles.  Lie, cheat, steal: it really doesn’t matter, as long as it’s “for the cause”!  Principles are nothing.  Truth is nothing.  Winning is everything.  “The cause” – or what they perceive as “the cause” -- is everything.  (That’s why they can reconcile themselves to Checkie’s depraved conclusions about Schiavo, to Dannie’s equally depraved “boys-will-be-boys” “morality,” and to the scandalous events at SGG's school in 2009.  As long as they get their “show,” they really don’t care.)  Pilate once said, “What is truth?”  For the cult-masters and their trolls, their answer would be, “whatever we want it to be.”

And the other thing that this “says about them” is how much they’ve been brain-washed by their cult-masters.  Not only are they devoid of principles, but they have also become devoid of independent thought.  Those “stupid” comments were not so much stupidity as they were the cult mentality at work.  When people “drink the Kool-Aid,” 3 they do (and say) “stupid” things – things that they would ordinarily have the good sense not to.  And the Gerties (and their swampland cousins) have been “drinking the Kool-Aid” for quite some time – not the cyanide-laced, physically lethal stuff, of course, but the “BS”-laced, spiritually lethal stuff: Dannie’s “S&S” (syrup and sanctimony), his “boys-will-be-boys” hypocrisy (that passes for “morality”), his elaborate pageantry (that passes for “Catholicism”), Tony’s depraved nonsense about Schiavo (that passes for “moral theology” – along with his other mistake-riddled rubbish that passes for “scholarship”), etc.

At both SGG and MHT – the people have been “dumbed down” by the cult-masters’ “Kool-Aid” to the point where they have no cognitive will left of their own.  They’re “almost beyond repair,” so to speak, suffering from “terminal stupidity.”   Can their “stupid” be fixed?  We certainly hope so.  But, whether they “learn” or not, as long as others learn -- that’s what really counts.  They – not these disillusioned poor wretches at the cult centers – are our real audience.  If we can prevent them from falling victim to the cult-masters, then we have done our job.4

______________________________


1 The commenter’s “point,” by the way, was wrong on three counts: first (as we mentioned), the original point of the discussion was not about what kind of safe (or safes) that Big Don had, but that – whether he had them in safes or not – Big Don had plenty of “goodies” to supply Melbourne – so why ask for “donations”?  Secondly, the commenter – in switching the discussion from the “glass case” to “two large safes” -- was talking about the wrong safe(s).  And thirdly (and perhaps most importantly), the posed question (We do not know what is in the safe, do we?) is really irrelevant: the very fact that one has a safe presupposes that there are VALUABLES inside, doesn’t it?  (So, what did this idiot think that Big Don was keeping inside those safes – his false teeth?)

Actually, Big Don’s hoard of ecclesiastical valuables is quite large – even larger than what it’s “rumored” to be.  The Donster accumulated most of it “back in the good old days,” when the Selway cash was flowing freely (just as Dannie accumulated his, when the Brueggemann money was flowing freely).  Although times are now “tougher,” Big Don still has a HUGE hoard of goodies -- one from which he could easily outfit the Melbourne operation – and have plenty left over.  But, of course, the avaricious (and selfish) Donster wants to keep his hoard for himself.  He’s all for “giving,” when somebody else is doing the giving.

2 What makes this taunt so ridiculous is that it was not “the Reader” who reported about the safes full of ecclesiastical goodies, but one of the other commenters.   So, it was not “the Reader” who was (allegedly) spreading “hate,” but (again) one (or more) of the other commenters.  All that “the Reader” was doing here was trying to provide explanations and clarification (in answer to this commenter’s misinformation and willful misconstruing of facts).

3 This, of course, is a reference to Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple Agricultural Project (or Jonestown, as it’s better known) – a cult (in Guyana) where he convinced his followers to commit mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced “Kool-Aid” (an imitation fruit-flavored drink made from a packet of fruit-flavored powder, sugar, and water).  Jones bade them to drink it, and they robotically obeyed.  Over 900 of them died, including Jones himself.


4 That is not to say that we have “given up” on the Gerties (or even on Dannie, Tony, and Big Don).  We certainly hope that they someday “learn.”  It’s just that we’re not “holding our breath” for that to happen!