ALL ABOUT THE LAY PULPIT

Saturday, November 5, 2016

What Can One Do? Plenty!

Editor’s Note:  This will be our last post until the first of next year.  As we mentioned last month, we have been posting every week (for the last several weeks) while Pistrina Liturgica has been away, after which we ourselves will “take a break.”   Now that they are returning, we’ll be signing off, taking that break, and returning with our usual bi-weekly posts (as we said) on or about the first of the year.

The quote (of Pope St. Felix III) that we used in our last article says it all: Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”  This is a meaningful, far-reaching statement, for two reasons: first, it negates that oft-invoked (and baseless) “Alter Christus” remonstrance that so many culties like to dig up to disallow any criticism of their cult-master idols.  And, secondly, it shatters all the “detraction” argument used to silence any criticism of them as well.  As that saintly pope rightly pointed out, it is actually sinful NOT to confound such men, and that we actually have a moral obligation to oppose and expose these creeps.

So, how can this be accomplished?  Part of the task can be done by having blogs like this one to get the word out to educate people, and to warn them about the cult centers.  That we are certainly doing.  But, in the final analysis, it is up to the people at those cult centers to heed those warnings, and to act on them.  If they do not, then nothing is effectively accomplished, and the cult-masters win.  So, what can be done?  What should be done?

First, as we just stated, parishioners at the cult centers need to be informed about what is going on.  This is easier said than done, but it is by no means impossible.  It must start with education: parishioners with the facts sharing those facts with fellow parishioners who know and trust them.  A good place to start is with Schiavo, since most Gerties – even the die-hard cult supporters – have no sympathy for what Cekada had to say about that.  Ask them if they agree or disagree with what Checkie said; and, if it’s the latter, then share with them some of the pertinent facts about Schiavo, and how Cekada ingonred those facts (there are several Lay Pulpit articles devoted to that).  Or, if they’ve been “programmed” (by the cult-masters) to reject “point blank” anything written in our blogs, then glean some excerpted facts from the blogs (or elsewhere), and present it to them.

If it turns out that they are receptive, then show them how to access our blogs (because they may be unaware that they exist!), and then suggest other articles for them to read.  It also helps to give them the names of friends and acquaintances (whom they know and trust) who are opposed to the cult-masters – especially friends who previously attended SGG but who have since left.  The more of such people one can find, the better, because there is “strength in numbers.”  Also, if they have kids – and those kids are not in SGG’s school – ask the parents why they don’t send them there.  And if they do have kids at the school, ask them why there are so few of its graduates that achieve any academic distinction, etc.

Second, inform them about all the people who have left SGG, and why they left – especially about Bernie Brueggemann (who, while he was there, was SGG’s main benefactor).  Ask them if they know why he left; and if they don’t, tell them why.  (Again, there are several articles about that on our website (A Tale of Two Letters is one of them); and the whole SGG Scandals website is also a good source of information.  Also, give them the names and numbers of other people who have left – and tell them to contact them.

Third – and this is just as important as what was just said – those people who have left should get vocal about why they left.  So many of the people victimized at SGG – especially during the 2009 school scandals – simply “left.”  That is, they went quietly, without telling anyone, for fear of “slandering” the cult-masters.  Keeping silent is not only wrong, but sinfully wrong.  As Pope St. Felix III warned us, “not to oppose error is to approve it”; and so, people who have been victimized by the cult-masters have a DUTY to inform others about it -- others who may become future victims of the cult-masters.  By remaining silent, these victimized people have been enabling the cult-masters, thus helping to perpetuate their mischief.

Fourth – and this is important, too – the folks at the cult-centers must not rely on blogs (like ours) to “spread the word” for them.  We are doing our part -- giving people the “ammunition” – but they must use it.  We cannot “do it all,” i.e., we can print it, but they must “spread the word.”  As public critics of the cult-masters, we are already at a disadvantage, in that people like Dannie and Tony are automatically against us – and sure to “forbid” their followers to read us.  We are “off limits” to them.  Therefore, no “follower” will listen to (or believe) what we say.  It is up to their close friends and acquaintances to talk to them.  We can only provide the blueprint.  It is up to them to put it into practice.1 

Fifth, the thing for people to do, above all, is to ORGANIZE.  Organization – a concerted effort -- is the KEY to any effort succeeding.  “United we stand, divided we fall.”  If people are to rid themselves of the cult-masters, they must find like-minded parishioners, and then organize -- and coordinate their efforts.  (And don’t wait for “the other guy” to find them.  That “other guy” is YOU.)  And one last thing to remember is this: do not expect instant results.  It took time for people to be brainwashed.  It will then take time for them to be “un-brainwashed.”

But what can people do?  What are the weaknesses of the cult-masters?  Well, perhaps the biggest is their love of “the good life” (and their resultant insatiable need for money). 2  The cult-masters are always begging for money, because that is their raison d'être – their reason for being.  And, because they want to appear “needy,” they have a powerful motive for keeping their culties “in the dark” about their finances.  Rumor has it that both Dannie at SGG (and Big Don at MHT) have a lot of cash stashed away (in a labyrinthine network of financial “entities” – and that it would be downright embarrassing for them if their culties ever found out their actual worth.

At the very least, the parishioners, both at SGG and MHT, should demand an independent audit of parish finances.  We wager that many of them will be “disturbed” by its results.  This is potentially “a real biggie,” because nothing focuses peoples’ attention like money -- and nothing raises their ire like the misuse of money.  People will “forgive and forget” on a lot of things – but money is not one of them.  If they feel that they’re getting swindled, then all those “fund-raising” schemes of the cult-masters, for example, will make them “start to think.”

When we started writing about Dannie and Tony some years back, we were fighting an uphill battle.  But now it is the cult-masters who are on the defensive: in traditional circles, Dannie and Tony’s credibility is all but GONE, and their reputation as “scholars,” “Latinists,” and “theologians” is nil as well.  Nobody outside the cult-centers takes these bunglers seriously anymore.  However, bunglers though they are, they are NOT bunglers in the classic “benign” sense.  They are malignant, calculating scoundrels; and there will always be a fresh crop of the unsuspecting who will fall for their siren song. 

In our last article, we said that cutting off their financial support is “a good start”; but permanently putting them out of business is the real goal.  These vermin must not be permitted to victimize any more people, so they must be decisively and permanently STOPPED.  We hope that what we have said here will be of some use in making that happen.  But, again, blogs like ours alone can’t do it.  We can only inform.  It’s the people in the pews who must take the actual steps.  And, to repeat, they cannot do it as individuals, but only as an organized group.

Those disgruntled parishioners at the cult-centers, even if it’s only a handful of you, can make a difference.  At SGG back in 2009, what started as a protest by a single disgruntled parishioner eventually grew into a groundswell of opposition, resulting in half the congregation leaving – a loss in both numbers and revenue from which SGG hasn’t recovered to this day.  So, any size group will do for a start – but a start must be made.

Up to now, Dannie and Tony have been able to succeed in victimizing people because those victims were isolated and alone, not united.  So then, the key, again, is to organize and unite with like-minded fellow parishioners, and then spread the word to others in the congregation.  And if it happens only a little at a time, that’s okay.  “Plant the mustard seed, and it will grow.”  Most movements start out small, but they grow – and the key to that growth is perseverance.  Do that, and it will happen.  Let’s hope that the cult-center parishioners have the courage to do that – to unite in opposition, and see it through to the end.

_______________________________


1 There are several people at the cult centers who are disgruntled with the status quo, and who say, “somebody ought to do something that about it!”  Well, to them, we say, “that ‘somebody’ is YOU!”  Then too, there are others who are “waiting for the right moment” to do something.  Again, that “right moment” is NOW.  That’s a universal problem with people: they always expect “the other guy” to do it, not realizing that they are “that other guy.”  Or, if they actually decide that they will do it, they tell themselves that they’ll do it “someday.”  The problem with “someday” is that “someday” is a tomorrow that never comes.  As usual, people are invariably “inertial” when it comes to actually taking that first step.


2 They have other weaknesses as well.  For one thing, they are bullies; and bullies are invariably martinets.  It was the SGG school principal’s sadistic treatment of school children that precipitated the 2009 debacle; and lately, the same sort of thing has been happening at MHT.  (It may still happen at SGG too; but, because of the negative results of 2009, it may have been “driven underground.”)  So far, they’ve been able to get away with it “legally” – but some day, they’ll “cross the line.”  If parishioners could, say, capture any of this “on video” (with a “smart phone,” for instance), this could potentially put these sleaze-bags out of business – permanently.

Another “Achilles heel” is their schools’ poor academic records (and the fact that they’re not “accredited”).  If their local educational (or governmental) authorities were aware of that, this might be a viable “tool” to use against them.  (Even if their standards meet “legal” minimums, letting the parishioners know just how sub-standard their academics really are (compared to other schools) would not go down favorably in the minds of parishioners – especially when they’re paying a premium for such trash.


But the cult-centers’ biggest point of vulnerability, to be sure, is their “finances.”  If the parishioners can get an accountant involved, and get the cult-masters audited, that would probably be the most effective way of “getting at them.”     Also, it would be even better if they were able to expose all of the “front” companies that the cult-masters use to hide their stashes.  An accountant would surely know how to go about this.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Why the Cult-masters Must Be Stopped

The quote (of Pope St. Felix III) used in our last article says it all: Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”  This is a meaningful, far-reaching statement, for two reasons: first, it dispels that oft-repeated (and futile) “Alter Christus” argument that so many culties like to cite to disallow any criticism of their cult-master idols.  And, secondly, it also nullifies all the “detraction” arguments used to silence any criticism of them as well.  As the saintly pope rightly pointed out, it is actually sinful NOT to confound such men -- and that we actually have a moral obligation to oppose and expose these creeps. 

“But,” one of Dannie’s culties might protest, “His Excellency and Father Cekada are good, decent men, so why pick on them?”  The answer, of course, is that they are NOT “good, decent men.”  They are scum, and there are mountains of factual evidence to back up that claim: Schiavo, the 2009 school debacle (and how it was “swept under the rug”), the exodus of half their parish after that debacle – you name it.  There is nothing more that we need to prove on that score.  So why, with such overwhelming evidence, are Dannie and Tony “still in business”?  Why have they not been exposed or opposed – at least to any significant degree – by their former parishioners? 

Well, for that, we must go back to that “Alter Christus” thing again, and that old Catholic “obedience” thing of "not questioning our priests.”  The fact is, most of those who left SGG after the school scandals left “with their tails between their legs”: they kept silent.  Perhaps (they thought), they were gone from SGG and were now “safe,” so why “take retribution” or “make waves.”  Perhaps, too, they might have thought that Dannie and Tony merely “made a mistake” – so why “throw them under the bus” for that?  Then, too, they might have been too lazy or too cowardly to do anything, and they used the “Alter Christus” ploy as an excuse for doing nothing.  Whatever their reasons, they did nothing. 

And what did they accomplish by “not making waves”?  They enabled the cult-masters to continue their mischief, that’s what.  Because of their inaction, Dannie and Tony were able to keep making their “waves” – and a lot of people got “drowned” in the process.  After the 2009 school debacle, the children of many remaining SGGers became thoroughly disillusioned; and their resulting “drop-out” rate was atrocious.  Not only that: some of them (besides losing the Faith) became thoroughly dissolute, with several having children out of wedlock – and at least one confirmed case of a girl becoming lesbian, and another taking the “transgender” route.  Perhaps if those who left had been more vocal about it, those kids’ parents might have followed suit and left, taking both themselves and their kids out of harm’s way.

The fact that most of those who left SGG did not make their reasons widely known is “a biggie.”  Let us re-look at Pope Felix’s words: Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”  When we can do it are the operative words here.  These people could do it – but they didn’t.  That is something that they must think about – especially about the consequences of their hesitancy and their reluctance to “make waves.”  But, fortunately, they can rectify that situation.  It is not too late for them to make those waves – to get re-involved – to voice their input this time around.

In fact, now (oddly enough) may be a better time for them to do so, for the years of cult-master abuse since that time might have “softened up” the Gerties to the point where they are now more “receptive” to what these former parishioners (who left back then) have to say.  We’re also sure that the people still at SGG (and who oppose the cult-masters) remember many of these former parishioners, and know how to contact them.  We ask that they do just that, and then solicit whatever input they can get.  It would also be good for all concerned to “review” what has gone on all these years, to ensure that everyone is aware – to show them that the cult-masters “have not changed their stripes.”

We have devoted quite a bit of time to this ”hesitancy” thing, but we think it was time well spent, for we see this as the greatest barrier to people doing the right thing.  We hope that this has convinced them that their “hesitancy” has negative consequences, that they share responsibility for those consequences, and that their inaction against the cult-masters “is no less a sin than to encourage them.”  This applies not only for those who have left SGG, but for those who are still there, and who oppose the cult-masters, but for some reason still “tolerate” them.  By whatever degree they do not act, by that same degree are they also culpable.

So then, we hope that what we’ve said here sufficiently explains the reasons for acting against the cult-masters, and in strengthening peoples’ resolve to do so.  People must come to the hard realization that Dannie and Tony are not good men. In fact, they are not even competent men: as Pistrina has proved so conclusively, they are certainly not “scholars,” Latinists, or “theologians.”  All of their attempts at “scholarship” – such as SGG’s recent embarrassment, “Ordo 2016” -- have been miserable failures.   All they have to offer – all they’ve ever had to offer -- are Catholicism’s cosmetics, “the show,” and nothing more. 


Indeed, they’re a couple of bungling fools -- but they are not benign bungling fools.  They are malicious, and they are dead serious in their motives – and their motives are not Catholic.  Indeed, they’re all about MONEY – and nothing else.  People must come to this realization: that behind all the syrup and the sanctimony, there’s really nothing there.  Once people can focus on this – and comprehend this – then organizing opposition to the cult-masters will be a much easier task.  And -- just what kinds of steps that task will entail – that will the subject of our next article.  Until then, “stay tuned.”

Saturday, October 22, 2016

What’s It Going to Take?

Every week, one can always count on Dannie Dolan to fill his Bishop’s(?) Corner column with “copious quantities” of syrupy sanctimony – fulsome flotsam that is the specialty of the SGG flophouse -- that his culties just love to lap up.  Especially every Guardian Angel Sunday, when Dannie trots out the same tired old lies about “protecting our innocents.”  And this past Angel Sunday was no exception.   In his Bishop’s Corner, he had the following to say: “Be an angel for your Angel Guardian, and help him and us guard the innocence of our children. I’m thinking of Mass, of Catechism Class, and so much more. What a joy it is to bless the little ones today. What a blessing.  How the man can continue to spout out the same sanctimonious lies every year is beyond our comprehension.  To that, we must repeat what we have said so many times: Dannie, if you were so concerned about “guard[ing] the innocence of our children,” then what about all those SGG school kids traumatized back in 2009 -- and how you did NOTHING to guard their innocence (not to mention, the innocence of the girl whom the principal’s one son impregnated)?

Dannie went on to say, “Katie tells me that when she was little, in kindergarten, she received her Guardian Angel medal, and kept it safely, wearing it to church each year on this day. But medals, like growing up children anymore, have a way of going astray, so we “stickerize” the little ones for the day, praying the blessing and protection, like the assigned angel, will stick.  Well, Dannie, it’s a good thing that “Katie” wasn’t at SGG’s school, the day the principal’s sons were watching porn and animal torture videos on the school computer (which you claimed was just a case of “boys will be boys").  Dannie, were you wearing your medal (or were the Lotarski boys wearing theirs) when all this went on, or did your and their medals find ”a way of going astray”?

Dannie then proceeded to urge everyone to “pray for those who built up our missions and churches years ago. Pray for the many children and grandchildren who have forgotten that same Faith [our emphasis] which was salvaged and handed on to them, for them, with great sacrifice.”  Yes, Dannie, how about all of those “children and grandchildren” of SGG parishioners who have lost their Faith?  (And there are many.)  SGG’s young people have left in droves, with an alarmingly large percentage of them going morally astray: having children out of wedlock, at least one confirmed case of a girl becoming a lesbian, and another becoming a “transgender.”  And do you know why, Dannie?  Because there is no real morality at SGG, that’s why.  Because you conveniently overlooked real moral wrongs, brushing them aside as “boys will be boys,” that’s why.  And because you gave a blind eye to the brutality suffered at SGG’s school, that’s why.  And also because you looked on with cold detachment at the tragic murder of Terri Schiavo, that’s why.  In fact, there’s a whole litany to which we could add the “that’s why” response.

And why did Dannie overlook all of this?  The reason is simple: HE IS NOT CATHOLIC.  He is merely a depraved caricature of Catholicism -- a self-serving, conniving PHONY who tells people what they want to hear, so that they will give him what he wants: M-O-N-E-Y.  He gives them sanctimony instead of sanctity, he gives them puritanical pap instead of morality, and he gives them gaudy cosmetics instead of substance.  He is nothing more than an opportunistic con man, using people such as the late Bernie Brueggemann to his advantage (for one example, click here) or the late Fr. Martin Stepanich (as we just noted in our last article).  Yet, at the same time, he and Tony slander those whom they suspect as being their “competition” (such as the late Abbot Leonard Giardina, whom Tony so shamelessly slammed in a May, 2011 Quidlibet article).  (Click here for more on this.)

When one thinks about the hypocrisy of it all, it is positively overwhelming.  Here’s Dannie, the consummate “fox guarding the hen house,” talking about “protecting our innocents” -- when he has absolutely no intention of doing so (nor ever had, nor ever will).  Dannie and Tony are no more Catholic than Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, or any of the other Sunday morning TV preachers who prey on the gullible.  As they have proven so many times, they care NOTHING for Catholic truth and morality, but only for lining their own pockets (at the expense of their followers), just as these other hucksters do.  If they were really “men of faith,” they would devote themselves to the spiritual needs of the parish, and not go on boondoggle “apostolates,” etc. -- nor would they insist on complete financial control of their respective cult centers (accountable to no one, of course) -- nor would they try to wrest control of lay-run churches (as Big Don Sanborn is now trying to do at Our Lady of the Sun in Arizona).

Dannie and Tony are hell-bent on exploiting their Gerties.  But – guess what? – the Gerties just lap it up, like so many thirst-crazed, stampeding cattle at a watering hole.  But when they get there, they find out that it’s swill, not water.  The Gerties keep swallowing that sanctimony that passes for “sanctity,” and all the other BS that “His Excremency” and “His Chexcremency” (Dannie and Tony) ladle out either from their “poopy pulpit” or from Tony’s poison pen.  What is it, we may ask, about Dannie and his “show” that mesmerizes these people -- and what will it take for them to awaken from their stupor?  What will it take, too, to get those who know the truth (but who stay at SGG and put up with Dannie) to get off their inertial backsides and leave the cult center?  Why is it that these people, knowing who and what Dannie and Tony are, sit around and do nothing? What is it that makes them stay, knowing full well that these two vipers are simply lining their pockets (and those of the Lotarski family)?

An old quote (mistakenly attributed to Edmund Burke) is this:  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – and that seems to be the case with these people.  Another way of stating that – in fact, a better way (and one we’ve mentioned before) – is this quote from Pope St. Felix III:  Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”  This quote says much more than the former, because it reminds us that to do nothing (or, as that saintly pope put it, “to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it”) is, in fact, a SIN  -- a sin of omission. 


That is what today’s Gerties must remember: that their silence and their “inertia” are actually sinful.  Yes, they can do some good by, as we say, “starving the beast.”  But, in the end, they must do more than that.  “Passive” opposition,” such as withholding one’s financial support, only goes so far. (Besides, Dannie always seems to find new suckers to replace the old ones who have left.)  “Do not,” as Dylan Thomas admonished us, “go gentle into that good night.”  DO something.  But what can Gerties do?  (And, for that matter, what can people at MHT and other cult centers do?)  Well, they can do plenty.  But before exploring what action can be taken, the first thing to do is to be sure of one’s reasons for taking that action.  After all, effort without purpose is pointless.  In our next two articles, we’ll do just that: first, to give those reasons for taking action, and second, to offer some action steps to take.  In the interim, take that first step by STARVING THE BEAST!

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Another Pawn in Dannie's Dirty Chess Game

In the days of the Austrian Hapsburg monarchy, when an emperor died, the funeral cortege would stop at the door of the cathedral; and an official would knock on the door, and ask permission for “the Emperor of Austria” to enter.  He would then be denied permission.  After repeating this process two or three  times (and being rejected), he would finally request permission for “ a poor sinner” to enter; and then -- and only then -- would he be allowed entry. The object of all this was, of course, to emphasize that all of us, from the low to the mighty, are “poor sinners” in God’s eyes – and not even a Hapsburg emperor — or a clergyman, for that matter -- is “exempt.” 

In our last article, we presented two letters -- one written by Fr. Martin Stepanich, and the other by a former SGG parishioner – concerning the SGG school scandals of 2009.  In examining the two letters, it should be obvious to the reader that the Stepanich letter, written in reply to the parishioner, - was about as vitriolic as one could possibly be.  In fact, it was embarrassingly vitriolic – almost childishly so.  Fr. Stepanich sounded like someone giving a severe tongue-lashing to a miscreant kindergarten brat.  In doing so, he used every possible “trick in the book” (including name-calling) to “shame” the man into submission.

Not only did Stepanich misconstrue just about everything the man said -- calling his charges “numerous falsifications and distortions and misunderstandings of the truth” -- but he accused him of things he didn’t even say or do.  He (Stepanich) also ignored not only this man’s complaints, but those of dozens of others (several of whom also wrote to him).  Stepanich preemptively (and unquestioningly) accepted Dolan’s and Cekada’s baseless assertions at face value, while ignoring the hard evidence of others.  In short, Fr. Stepanich made a complete ASS of himself.

Was Fr. Stepanich “senile”?  Did his “advanced years” adversely affect his ability to reason (or his judgment) in any way?  Not really.  If one had read his letter (without first seeing the parishioner’s letter), he would find Fr. Stepanich’s arguments “logical,” and would judge him to be totally lucid and “with it.”  So, no, one cannot chalk it up to his being “senile.”  A more plausible explanation for him taking the stance he did is the “Alter Christus” argument: he was trying to protect a fellow member of “the Roman Collar Club.”  Additionally, he was applying the “shut-up-and-obey” rule: the time-honored premise that Catholics should always “obey their priests,” no matter what.

But in doing this, Fr. Stepanich did a very foolish thing: compromising his own integrity by vouching for a couple of worthless vipers.  It was a regrettable lack of judgment on his part, for the “school scandal” evidence was overwhelming.  (One of the victims was the grand-nephew of SGG’s biggest benefactor, who wrote to Sanborn about it.  Sanborn, of course, took the same approach as Stepanich: denial.)  In aligning himself with Dannie and Tony, Fr. Stepanich put his own reputation – unsullied up to this point – at risk.  If he had only reserved judgment until after ascertaining the facts, he might have preserved his reputation intact.

But, as it turns out, Fr. Stepanich’s reputation was already “compromised” to some extent: some time back, in a letter (published on Droleskey’s Christ or Chaos website), he took an essentially neutral position regarding Schiavo – totally failing to condemn Cekada for his depraved position on that. (Click here for letter.)  This was a foolish thing for him to do, for it compromised his reputation, opening him up to ridicule and suspicion in peoples’ minds.  Now, in retrospect, his regrettable stance on the SGG school scandals has confirmed those suspicions (and correspondingly damaged his reputation even further).

And for what?  “Vouching for vipers,” that’s what.  For a man who heretofore had an otherwise splendid record and reputation, this is a blow to both, and even to his credibility – a devastating revelation for a man considered by many to be a quasi-saint of sorts.  He risked all of that, just for the sake of “showing solidarity” -- of unthinkingly vouching for a couple of moral lepers, without first getting his facts straight.  And in doing so, he allowed himself to be victimized – to be used as a cat’s paw by Dannie -- just as those SGG school kids were victimized back in 2009.

But perhaps that is a fortunate thing for Fr. Stepanich -- and here’s why: have you ever noticed how people will often prematurely consign the deceased to heaven – how they’ll say, “Oh, he’s already with God” (as is often done at Novus Ordo funerals.)  Well, traddies often make that same mistake – at least “functionally”:  they offer Masses (and pray) only for those who (they think) “need” those prayers.  The “good” and “holy” are often neglected, because people assume that “they aren’t ‘in dire need’ of our prayers.”

The fact that Fr. Stepanich did such a foolish (and sinful) thing is proof positive that he is indeed in need of peoples’ prayers.  It is also proof positive that he -- like the rest of us – is only human.  He is not some “near-saint” to be prematurely placed on a celestial pedestal, but – like that Austrian emperor -- is a fellow sinner to be prayed for.  Like him, Fr. Stepanich too is not “exempt” -- and, like the rest of us, must face God’s judgment.  Let us all, then, pray for his soul.

Now there are some who might condemn us for bringing these “negative” things about Fr. Stepanich to light – that what we say here, even though true, amounts to “detraction.”  “Who are we,” they might say, “to judge him?”  “After all,” they might contend, “why did you write an article (click here to see it) condemning Fr. Cekada for criticizing 'Abbot Leonard' (Giardina), when you’re doing essentially the same thing: criticizing Fr. Stepanich?"  Well, there are important differences between what we are saying about Fr. Stepanich, and what Cekada said about Abbot Giardinia.  Firstly, what we said about Fr. Stepanich is the truth; and what the Cheese-Doodle said about Abbot Giardina was a pack of LIES -- unjust, uncalled-for, and BASELESS lies.

Secondly – and more importantly – we here are writing about a man (Stepanich) who was guilty of gross wrongdoing, whereas Cekada was accusing a man who was guilty of nothing.  Lastly (and most importantly), Checkie’s sole aim was to discredit an innocent man, while ours is simply to set the record straight on someone who was actually guilty of serious wrongdoing.  Our criticism of Fr. Stepanich – as we stated in our last article -- is not meant to “throw him under the bus” (or “consign him to the dust heap”), but is offered in a constructive, remedial sense: to point out that he, like everyone else, is in need of our prayers.

We certainly realize that Fr. Stepanich was not a self-serving parasite like Dannie or Tony, and that he led an otherwise holy and dedicated life.  However, he committed a major transgression -- out of a mistaken sense of “solidarity for fellow priests” -- by supporting Dannie and Tony during the 2009 school affair.  He thus shares a degree of culpability, especially since he was made totally aware of what was going on, and chose to ignore it.  But, to be sure, the real culprits in this drama are those two lepers.  In the end, Fr. Stepanich, by being duped into pleading the vipers’ case for them, became just as much a victim as those SGG school kids – another pawn in Dannie and Tony’s dirty chess game.  One could make an argument that he did not act premeditatedly, or with any particular malicious intent – but one could not say the same for Dannie and Tony. 


That they prevailed upon Stepanich to do a whitewash job for them, thereby sullying his own reputation, is beyond despicable – and exposes Dannie and Tony for the human scum that they are.  Martin Stepanich deserves our pity.  Dolan and Cekada deserve our scorn.  So, we must do everything we can to stop them.  And, of course, the best way to do that is to do what Pistrina and we have been recommending for so long: STARVE THE BEAST! 

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Another “Tale of Two Letters”

Editor’s Note:  Starting with this article, we will be posting every week – not every other week – while Pistrina Liturgica is temporarily shut down (for its conference).  Upon that blog’s return, we ourselves will take a “break” for a while, returning on or about the first of the year.

A while back, we posted an article, A Tale of Two Letters, one letter being a plea – and a most respectful one at that – by an SGG parishioner (Bernie Brueggemann) to Donald Sanborn, protesting the SGG “school scandals” back in 2009; and the other, Sanborn’s caustic reply.  (Click here for article.)    Well, here is another “Tale of Two Letters” (on those same scandals) – only this time, with a different cast of characters: another (former) SGG parishioner, and Fr. Martin Stepanich.  The Brueggemann and Sanborn letters are preserved on our website, and were therefore available as “links.”  The letters of Fr. Stepanich and the other parishioner, however, are not, and thus not available as “links.” 

Therefore, we have had to transcribe them, in their entirety, as appendices at the end of this article.  By the way, there were actually several letters that were written by dissident parishioners to Fr. Stepanich, requesting his helpful intervention in their grievances with the SGG cult-masters; but the two we have chosen for the appendices are fairly “representative,” and thus should suffice.  Appendix A is the letter written to Fr. Stepanich by the parishioner (whose name has been omitted), and Appendix B is Stepanich’s reply.

The parishioner’s letter is reproduced “as is” (except for some formatting changes). Fr. Stepanich’s letter was also reformatted; but in his, we have added our commentary (set off in parentheses, and in blue print).  We should also note that the parishioner’s letter (in Appendix A) was in response to a prior letter by Stepanich (his letter of “2-22-10,” to which that parishioner refers in his letter) – and that said prior letter (by Stepanich) was in support of Dolan and Cekada’s “version” of what happened at SGG’s school.  (Unfortunately, we do not possess that letter; but, again, it is obvious that the parishioner’s letter was a response to such a letter, and that said parishioner disagreed with Stepanich’s conclusions.)  That being said, we suggest that the reader now read both letters (Appendix A and Appendix B) before proceeding on.

So, after reading both letters, it should be obvious that the parishioner’s letter, although its rhetoric was a little “pompous” at times, was sincere – and, more importantly, TRUTHFUL -- and that it addressed charges (about the abuses at SGG’s school) that have been independently verified.1  It should also be obvious, from Fr. Stepanich’s response, that he never really acknowledged the genuineness (or legitimacy) of those charges, always referring to them as “alleged” -- and that he had no intention of pursuing the matter further to determine their veracity.  And it is also obvious that he willfully misconstrued much of what that parishioner had to say (and, most of the time, very condescendingly so) – and that his main intention was to belittle and scold that parishioner.  It was, in the main, a “shut-up-and-obey-me-because-I’m-a-priest” kind of letter. 

For now, the comment that we have added parenthetically (in blue print) to Fr. Stepanich’s letter is all comment we shall offer for now, because this article (with its two appendices) is already long enough.  Besides, there is another letter (about Schiavo) by Fr. Stepanich (“linked” in our next article) that has some further bearing on what we want to say, so we’ll hold off on any further discussion until then.  At this point, we’ll only add, to reassure those predisposed in favor of Fr. Stepanich, that we will not “throw him under the bus” (or “consign him to the dust bin”).  But, it would also be a disservice to the man to unrealistically “whitewash” what he has done.  The thing to do, instead, is to put this in its proper perspective, and then to draw constructive conclusions from it – and that is what we propose to do.   Until then, “stay tuned.”
__________________________________

1 The evidence, both from eyewitnesses and from documentation, is overwhelming, and verifiable not only by those numerous eyewitnesses, but by incontrovertible physical evidence.  For instance, part of the Lotarski boys’ immorality (about which Dolan was warned almost a year in advance) was borne out when one of SGG’s students gave birth to one of those sons’ child.  (And no DNA evidence is necessary; the child is “a spitting image” of its father.)  And many of those eyewitnesses were members of a family whose reputation at SGG was impeccable: the family of SGG’s main benefactor.

The other thing to remember is that Stepanich was informed not just by this one parishioner, but by numerous people (although ONE letter should’ve been “enough”).  There is no physical way that he (Stepanich) could not have been aware of the charges that those people made – or of the severity of those charges.


Appendix A. Letter of Parishioner to Fr. Martin Stepanich.

Editor’s Note: This is a transcript, reformatted and in a different font than the original (for ease of reading).  But, other than that, it is word for word what its correspondent wrote.  Here it is:

March 7, 2010
3rd
Sunday of Lent

Dear Fr. Stepanich,

I have wanted to write to you ever since you decided to comment on the situation at St. Gertrude the Great (SGG). You told me in December to “wait until after the new year”. After receiving your letter of 2-22-10 it is time to write. I will number the sections to make it easier for you to respond, if you so desire.

1. “Anti-SGG”
You label those who have left SGG over the current scandal as “anti- SGG agitators”.  Just like Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada, this is a very convenient way to avoid facing the real issues involved. It reminds me of the war hawks in the Bush administration who labeled everyone who opposed the Iraq war as “anti-American”. It also reminds me of those who label sedevacantists as “against the Pope” in order to just write us off without having to face the issues. The use of such generalized, sweeping epithets like “rebels”, while refusing to hear both sides of the situation in order to “judge just judgments”, is completely unworthy of a theologian of your stature.

No, Fr., we are not “anti-SGG agitators”. We are not against SGG but rather for the truth. You write just like Fr. Cekada, and act just like Bp. Dolan, because you write and act as though the truth is just not important. Nowhere in your commentaries on the SGG situation have I read what you think of Mark Lotarski’s criminal abuses and the SGG clergy’s consent to his iniquitous and soul-destroying words and actions (all publicly proven in the objective, external forum).
Fr. Ramolla has not started a new parish, and we have not joined it, because we are against something, but rather for something. You need to think about that.

2. False assumptions
You write as if Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, and Mark Lotarski are innocent of the crimes they have publicly committed. Given this, your condemnation of Fr. Ramolla and his parishioners as “rebels” has the appearance of justice. But “judge not by the appearance”, Fr. Investigate the objective, public actions of those involved.  The fact is Mark Lotarski has abused, psychologically and even physically, many of the children put into his charge at SGG school. Parents and teachers have prayed (as you suggested) and reported the abuses to the pastor and assistant pastor, who both have refused to this day to take any substantive action to correct the abuses. On the contrary, those who have tried to protect their children have been privately, and even publicly, castigated and even thrown out of the school and/or parish.  You have added to the grief of the parents (and many others) who have made the difficult decision to leave the parish they loved in order to fulfill their God-given duty. You have rejoiced the criminals and grieved the innocent. May God forgive you for that.

3. The real issue – protecting the innocence of youth
Are you, like Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada (and Bp. Sanborn, for that matter), also without understanding of the real issue involved here?  There is nothing God and Our Lady love more on earth than the innocence of youth. That is why Our Lady appeared to children at LaSallette, Lourdes, and Fatima.  I tell you most solemnly that the Church is passing through Her crisis now, and the entire world is about to be severely punished with a celestial chastisement, because of the crimes against the innocence of  youth. I tried numerous times to explain this to Bp. Dolan, and I suffered greatly to start and run a school in his parish to try, despite his opposition, to preserve piety and innocence in children, but he has proven too dull and too much in love with himself to understand how he has grieved the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary by his horrendous lack of compassion and willingness to sacrifice himself for the children of his parish. In this he has found a more-than-willing accomplice in Fr. Cekada, who excels even the bishop in this regard.  And now you – you also join in condemning those who are trying to protect their children. I simply can’t believe it.  There is more to being Catholic than just having the Faith. There is morals as well. Faith without morals saves no one.

3. Clergy protecting clergy
I wish to serve a warning to you, and to all other traditional clergy in America, and indeed the world. Yes, this will sound bold, but someone has got to say it.
Many, many clergy and laity are completely fed up with the grotesque crime of clergy protecting clergy who have committed public crimes. God Himself is giving public testimony of what He thinks of the SGG situation by moving so many so quickly to form such a wonderful, humble parish as St. Albert’s. It is God Who has commanded us to shake the dust off of our feet, for it is He who “makes all things new”.

How is it even possible the horrendous crime of child abuse, practiced and rewarded by the perverts of the Novus Ordo, is repeated in our own midst! How is it possible that certain priests show an utter lack of compassion for children, let alone their struggling parents! I personally believe that such an utter lack of basic human compassion, as typified by Bp. Dolan and even more especially Fr. Cekada, is a very real sign of demonic possession. Absent basic compassion, a man is capable of any evil. We are witnessing this with our own eyes. We will witness it to the end on Judgment Day.

What is the action a true Catholic priest must take in the face of such public scandal? It is what Fr. Tarcisius (now Bp. Pivarunas) did when faced with the moral turpitude of Francis Schuckhardt – he booted him out on his ear, and fought for years through lawsuits to protect the flock given into his charge. I personally believe this is why certain clergy have such an abhorrence of him – he is a real man, a true father who protects his children.

I state publicly and categorically that what Mark Lotarski has done is worse that what Schuckhardt did because Lotarski’s crimes have been committed primarily against children. And who does Bp. Dolan castigate? Stephanie Johns. Who does he and Fr. Cekada boot out? Fr. Ramolla. They persecute the just, and let the guilty go free, just as one of the wicked elders prosecuted by the prophet Daniel.

4. “SGG territory”
I find it absolutely incredible that a theologian of your reputation could utter such a ridiculous statement as to mention the setting up of St. Albert’s “right in the middle of SGG territory”. Could you kindly define what “SGG territory” is? Is it what Bp. Dolan decides his “territory” is? If that be true, then it certainly includes all of Cincinnati and northern Kentucky, since he told me he did not want to open a Mass center in northern Kentucky because it would “split his parish”. (What true love for souls...)

All of Cincinnati and northern Kentucky – gee, that sounds like a diocese to me. Please realize that there is no such thing as “SGG territory”. We have a perfect Catholic right, and in this case a duty, to allow God to set up a new parish wherever He thinks fit, even if it be across the street from SGG!  What kind of a dream world are you in? Do you not realize that there are no true parishes in the canonical sense (since there is no Pope), and hence there is no such thing as “SGG territory”? We are in an emergency situation, made far worse by those who have betrayed the trust put in them. Now we must start over. But start over we shall. Where God puts us is none of Bp. Dolan’s business. Or yours, for that matter.

GOD DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BUILDINGS, BUT ABOUT SOULS! Do you not realize this? You sound like Bp. Sanborn who said to a St. Albert’s parishioner “what do you want to see – pigeons roosting at St. Gertrude’s?”. Better pigeons than demons. Both you and Bp. Sanborn assume it is God’s will for SGG to continue. Why should God allow it to continue given the crimes that have been committed and the attempts to minimize, or even cover-up, the evils? (Cover up – like the black ooze of Fr. Siordia’s dream...)

Unlike certain clergy, God will do what is best for souls. He has no selfish interests. He is charity. He cares only for us, not what we can produce. Unlike Bp. Dolan, God is not a utilitarian.  I tell you solemnly that St. Albert’s parish is a work of the Holy Ghost. Everyone I have met at this parish is Catholic and (God forbid!) happy. The crushing burdens put upon us by Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada in refusing to correct the evils perpetrated against souls in their charge, and which they would not lift a finger to lighten, God Himself has mercifully removed. Our dear Jesus is truly our Father. Indeed, we who have left could say in all truth “a bishop we had, but no father”.

5. Recant
My advice to you, Fr., is simple. Have the humility to admit publicly that you have heretofore had only half of the story; recant what you have thus far written of the SGG scandal; learn the objective facts of the situation; then write a balanced, scholarly commentary that can be taken seriously.  If you do so, I, for one, would read it and take it to heart.  If you will not, then I can truly say that “I never knew you”.

In our crucified Lord,

 “XXXXXX”


Appendix B. Fr. Stepanich’s Letter of Reply to Parishioner

Editor’s Note: This letter was a “pdf” file, which cannot be “copied” per se.  Hence, we had to re-write it in its entirety.  We have, of course, reformatted it to suit.  But, other than that, it too is word for word what Fr. Stepanich wrote.  As we said earlier, we have put our parenthetical comments in blue. Here is the letter:

ATTENTION, SOLEMN ONE! (Fr. Stepanich starts of by “name-calling,” sarcastically referring to parishioner as “SOLEMN ONE”)

“I tell you solemnly that St. Albert’s parish is a work of the Holy Ghost….You write and act as though the truth is just not important…You have rejoiced the criminals and grieved the innocent…You also join in condemning those who are trying to protect our children…”  Guess who made those wild, sweeping assertions and slanderous accusations, without giving two hoots about the truth.  You did!  Yes, you of all people!

What I could have done is simply return to you your recent erratic and carelessly-worded, as well as most insulting, five-page document about the long, drawn out St. Gertrude the Great disturbance, asking you to tear up the thing and throw it into the waste basket.  Then you could have been asked to write – humbly this time! – a genuinely truthful and respectful and charitable letter that would go strictly by the real facts, without any of your shameful false accusations and distortions and deviations and rash judgments.  (Of course, the letter was NOT insulting, nor was it “carelessly worded,” nor were there any “false accusations.”  It was perhaps “confrontational,” but respectful -- and it was factual.)

But let’s do it this way: I will now once again state very clearly, as I have already done several times, my exact position in regard to the St. Gertrude situation, and then follow it up with an examination of at least some of your numerous falsifications and distortions and misunderstandings of the truth.  (Stepanich here is preemptively calling the parishioner’s claims “numerous falsifications and distortions and misunderstandings of the truth,” without ANY investigating whatsoever as to their veracity.)  Here is what, as you know all too well, I have repeatedly said: The principal need for the good of St. Gertrude’s church and school is to beg God fervently and perseveringly to intervene mercifully and bring about once again genuine Catholic right order and unity and charity and peace at St. Gertrude’s, and see to it that whatever needs to be corrected there will definitely be corrected.  (Is he asking God to “see to it that whatever needs to be corrected there will definitely be corrected”?  Or whom?  At any rate, “whatever needs to be corrected” was NOT corrected!)

And you know very well how I have even recommended Holy Hours of right-intentioned prayers by those who are able to devote that much time to such prayer, whether in the SGG church, or at home, or in some other suitable place.  That, then, is what I consider to be the real solution for the SGG reported problems.  And you?  What has been your response to that?  You have completely ignored what I said, as if I had said nothing.  Instead, you dishonestly jumped to the unwarranted and most insulting conclusion that I was defending the alleged abuses at SGG, as well as defending those who you say are guilty of those alleged abuses.  (But, Fr. Stepanich, you WERE, in effect, defending those abuses by denying that parishioner’s claims.  You had ample time to investigate them – but you didn’t.)

You obviously want me, an outsider, to declare that the alleged abuses have been at the SGG school, while at the same time condemning those that you say are guilty of promoting those alleged abuses or allowing them to continue.  But how could I possibly do that except by telling everybody that you told me what to say?  (No, Father, you could have looked into those claims; but, again, you made NO EFFORT to do so.)  You know all too well that I am not in the position to know anything firsthand, or as an eyewitness or ear-witness, about the alleged SGG school abuses.  I can only say that I have been told by others.  And I had been told plenty by others long before you injected yourself into my limited time and used up my limited energy.  If I were to tell anyone what I knew about the alleged SGG abuses, I could only tell what you and others have told me.  (This is a meaningless passage.  If Fr. Stepanich had been “told by others,” then why did he not heed their words like he did Dannie’s and Tony’s – or at least investigate what they had to say?  Why did he automatically take Dannie and Tony’s word, and not theirs – especially when the latter’s numbers far outweighed Dannie and?  Why did he ignore their hard evidence, and accept Dannie’s and Tony’s baseless assertions?)

Whether or not you yourself have been an eyewitness or ear-witness to the alleged SGG abuses that you talk about, or whether you only keep repeating what others have told you, or whether you have had children of your own in the SGG school, that you have not made clear.  (Why should he, Father?  The fact is, these things did happen.  Whether he was party to them or not is IMMATERIAL.)  I know of parents who have children in the SGG school, but who have said that they have not seen anything of the kind of abuses that you talk about.  (Not all families’ kids were involved, Father – but plenty were.  How many must there be to constitute “enough” for you?)  It would, of course, be no surprise if the alleged abuses that you talk about were seen by only one or by just a few persons on each given occasion, while others know about it only by hearsay.  (No, Father, they were seen by MANY eyewitnesses – but you didn’t bother to ascertain.)

Anyway, whatever the exact actual facts are, you need to be very careful not to give the impression that the SGG school as a whole is a place dedicated to the corruption of the innocent, nor should you make it look – as you actually have done! – as if that kind of situation is being deliberately and maliciously allowed, or even promoted, by those in charge of SGG.  (But it was, Father!  Both the principal and the SGG “clergy” actively promoted and/or “orchestrated” the vile activity at the school.)  Your plain intense hatred of those in charge of the SGG school has even made you descend to the lowest of levels in speaking of the “demonic possession” of the SGG leaders!  Yes, that’s exactly what you said, “demonic possession”!  Tell me now, what kind of spirit is it that prompts you to keep falsifying and distorting the facts and insulting others, especially priests of God?  It surely cannot be an Angel from Heaven!  (Father, what the parishioner actually said was, “the utter lack of basic human compassion, as typified by Bp. Dolan and even more especially Fr. Cekada, is a very real sign of demonic possession.”  And, you know what?  We heartily agree with him!)

You angrily protest that you are “not anti-SGG.”  Just whom are you trying to kid?  The plain truth is that you have over and over and over again shown how you are “against SGG”, and how much you have been hoping that SGG would close down and be left abandoned to the pigeons.  But that isn’t the worst of your hateful anti-SGG spirit.  What you have not even tried to keep secret is your intense desire that the SGG leaders would be “kicked out on their ears.”  Yes, that’s exactly how you and other anti-SGG noisemakers have worded it, “kicked out on their ears.”  (Again, what he actually said was, “No, Fr., we are not ‘anti-SGG agitators’. We are not against SGG but rather for the truth.”  Fr. Stepanich, you are putting words in his mouth.  He is not against SGG, but against its corrupt leaders.)

While untruthfully denying (How do you know the denial was “untruthful,” Father?) that you are “against SGG,” you evade the issue when you protest that you are rather “for the truth.”  That’s evasive nonsense.  (No it’s not “evasive nonsense,” Father – but what you are saying IS.)  The real issue is either being “for SGG,” or being “against SGG.”  Since you are plainly “against SGG”, you therefore cannot be “for SGG.”  If you are “for” something, you are automatically “against” its opposite, and vice versa.  Since you are plainly “for” the closing of SGG, you are plainly “against” its continued existence, and, since you are plainly “for” having the SGG leaders “kicked out on their ears”, you are plainly “against” having them stay there.  (Again, he’s against having them stay there – but NOT “against SGG.”  Those are two completely different things.)

Another thing that you dishonestly resent is that of being called a “rebel.”  (“Dishonestly”?  How so, “dishonestly”?!!)  You have obviously not given any sound thought to the full meaning of the word “rebel”.  (Actually, he has, Father.)  The full meaning is that rebels can be either “good rebels” or “bad rebels.”  You could have tried to defend yourself by insisting – though untruthfully! – that you are a “good” rebel against SGG.   Aside from your attitude toward SGG, you presumably are, as a supposed traditional Catholic, a “good rebel” in resisting and rebelling against the modernist Novus Ordo establishment.  In regard to that, you presumably would not resent being called a “rebel,” knowing that you are a “good rebel.

But you are definitely not a “good rebel” in regard to the SGG situation. (on what grounds, Father?)  You know very well that when your rebel leader was dismissed from SGG he vengefully (vengefully?) reacted by setting himself up where he knew many of the SGG parishioners lived and who would find it more convenient to come to his secular place for Mass rather than to SGG.  That rebel action of his plainly indicated that, since he was being dismissed from the SGG parish, he would make up for that by establishing himself in a secular building where he could take SGG parishioners away from their church, and this also meant that he was taking them away from their Eucharistic Lord in the SGG tabernacle.  (Father, let me remind you that SGG started out in such a “secular place,” as too did the early Christians in the catacombs.  Your accusation is petty, uncharitable, and BOGUS.)

You sure did let yourself get carried away in the wrong direction – in fact, right into heresy territory! [How so, Father?] – when I said that your rebel leader set himself up in a “secular building.”  Your mindless hasty reaction to that was this blasphemous insult to God: “God does not care about buildings, but about souls!” (Father, it’s neither blasphemous nor insulting – but you were.) And you put that insulting declaration into all capital letters no less!  It is as if you didn’t know that God is the one who has been inspiring men all through the Christian centuries to keep building worthy places for the worship of Himself, from the most magnificent basilicas and cathedrals down to the most humble of chapels and shrines, as if you  didn’t know how God kept after David and Solomon to build the first Temple of Jerusalem; as if you didn’t know how Our Lady, in various places of her apparitions (for example, Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima), repeatedly asked that churches be built there, with the all-important thing being the Real Presence of Jesus in those building [sic] and the offering there of the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (Fr. Stepanich, you WILLFULLY misconstrued what that parishioner was saying.  You knew full well that St. Albert’s, as all beginning parishes, HAD to start out humbly; and God doesn’t care what sort of building they had – as long as they did their best under the circumstances.)

Shouldn’t David and Solomon, as also Juan Diego of Guadalupe and Bernadette of Lourdes and Lucy of Fatima have objected: “But God does not care for buildings!”  You betray some more of your split thinking when you say that “God does not care for buildings, but for souls.  No one should have to tell you that God cares for buildings precisely because He cares for souls!”  You do not separate the souls from the buildings.  The two go together in God’s mind and intentions.  It is in the sacred buildings, sanctified by His Real Presence, that God provides the sacred means for the salvation of souls. (Your logic here is “all wet,” Father.  We thought you had a doctorate in sacred theology.  Go back to school!)

As if you had not already insulted God enough, you cut loose, from your exalted cathedra pestilentiae, with this brazen solemn pronouncement: “I tell you solemnly that St. Albert’s parish is a work of the Holy Ghost.”  You audaciously and untruthfully attribute the split of the SGG parish to the Holy Ghost, as if you didn’t know that the Holy Ghost is the God of unity, not of division. (Perhaps this parishioner sounded a little “pompous” in saying that St. Albert’s was “a work of the Holy Ghost” – but splitting away from a cesspool like SGG would at least qualify as a benevolent event.  At any rate, SGG itself originally “split off” from another entity – so why wasn’t that an act of “disunity”?  Again, your words are – at best -- uncharitable, and your logic, faulty.)

Don’t be so naïve as to imagine that everything is just hunky dory with the so-called St. Albert’s parish, and that the Holy Ghost sure enough created it, just because, as you say, you see so many “smiling faces” there. (Why not?  SGG uses the “smiling faces” ploy all the time to portray “contentment.”) You know that humans are notorious for putting on a silly smile or grin when they do a dummy thing.  And stop posing as some kind of prophet of dire things to come, such as many of us have seen coming already for many long years now.  And stop posing as some kind of mystic – in reality, a “mistake” – who has supposedly received some kind of super-terrestial revelations, and would like to tell us about them “most solemnly.” (Father, your words don’t make “a whole lot of sense” here; were you having a “senior moment” when you wrote them?  And, while you’re at it, is there anything else you’d like to nitpick to the “nth degree”?)

You, the Solemn One, pose as the one who makes decisions for God. (Again, Father, you are, at best, “putting words in his mouth.”  And, at worst, you are lying.)  You, the Solemn One, tell God that “He doesn’t care for buildings.” You, the Solemn One, tell the Holy Ghost to create that so-called “St. Albert’s parish.”  My, how easy you make it for God!  Since you do all the deciding for Him in regard to the SGG issue, all He has to do is sit back and take it easy.  God never had it so good! (Again, Father, you are willfully misinterpreting what the man is saying -- and your satire here is trite at best.)

You really went wild in protesting my statement that your rebel Mass location is “right in the middle of SGG territory.”  And you did a sneaky dishonest thing when you tried to make it look as if I was talking about a “canonical” territory – that is, a territory determined for a parish or a diocese according to Canon LawYou know all too well that I did no such thing.  You can plainly see that I was speaking simply of the actual area in Ohio in which SGG is located, and which makes SGG within easy enough reach for traditional Catholics in Ohio and Kentucky.  In objecting to a “canonical” territory, which you yourself dreamed up, you were actually arguing only against yourself, not against me. . (No, Father, it is YOU who are being “sneaky” and “dishonest” here. That parishioner was NOT referring to “SGG territory” in the “canonical” sense, but in a purely geographical sense.  And speaking of geography, since when does “SGG territory” encompass all of the southwest Ohio and northern Kentucky area?  It does not.  There are several other “trad” churches in that “territory” (including Immaculate Conception).  Additionally, St. Albert’s wasn’t “in SGG’s backyard,” so it was NOT infringing on their (or anyone else’s) “territory.”  So, you see, Father, it was you who were “arguing against yourself.”)

But let’s call it quits here.  Enough is enough!  You have made enough of a sorry display of your incompetence in handling the SGG situation. (Actually, it is you who have done that, Father)   And you crown it all with your solemn demand that I “recant,” that is, take back publicly all that I have said on the SGG issue!  What you very badly need to do is to get down on your knees before a crucifix and keep repeating the prayer of the publican, “O God, be merciful to me a sinner!” (that perfect little act of contrition). (Actually, Father, we think that this prayer applies more to you; so, what you “very badly need to do” is to say this prayer for yourself.) And keep repeating it and repeating it, until you let the grace of God come through.  And then, use those knees of yours aplenty, while doing the kind of praying for the solution of the reported SGG problem that I have repeatedly recommended.  Show, finally, that you understand that God, and God alone, is able to restore the right order of things at St. Gertrude the Great Church and school, not you and your fellow anti-SGG agitators. (We must certainly enlist God’s help in restoring order at SGG, but the actual physical work must be performed by people.  And you, Fr. Stepanich, did NOTHING to help make that happen.  On the contrary: you did everything in your power NOT to make that happen -- to impede any SGG parishioners’ efforts “to restore the right order of things at St. Gertrude the Great Church and school.”  Many people presented you with material evidence – and you ignored it all.)

AD PEDES TUAE SOLEMNISSIMAE MAJESTATIS HUMILIME PROVOLUTUS.
(“Most humbly prostrate at the feet of thy most solemn majesty”)
(“Most condescendingly self-righteous up here on my faux moral high-ground”)


March 29, 2010                         Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D