Saturday, January 14, 2017

Pushing the Envelope(s)

We mentioned in our last article (click here) that, after snubbing a woman (by refusing to go to the “wake” of her deceased husband), Dannie had the unmitigated GALL to send her collection envelopes for the coming year – after she had made it clear that she and SGG were “through.”  The woman at first thought that, because she and her husband were “still on the books” as SGG parishioners, the envelopes were mistakenly sent to her by some clerk who “hadn’t got word” of this.  However, the package in which they came was not addressed to “Mr. & Mrs. So-and-So,” but to that woman alone, a clear indication that the sender knew that she was now widowed -- and that she and Dannie had parted not on friendly terms.  What was Dannie thinking?  Did he think that this woman would have “second thoughts” – and return to SGG out of some sense of “remorse” or “guilt” (as many traddies are wont to do)?  Did he think she’d come penitently crawling back to SGG?  Well, think again, Dannie: “It ain’t gonna happen!”

When the woman opened the package and inspected the envelopes, she noticed several things.  First, she noticed that each envelope had some little “saying” on it.  For instance, one had this biblical admonition: “Thou shalt not forget to give thy tithe to the Lord.”  The only problem is, it’s not quite “biblical,” but is a bastardization of a biblical quote.  The actual words are: “Thou shalt not delay to pay thy tithes and thy first fruits; thou shalt give the firstborn of thy sons to me” (Exodus 22:29).

Now the problem with this is that “tithing” [giving one-tenth of one’s income to the Church] applied (and was only appropriate) at a time when the Church provided for peoples’ material needs as well as their spiritual ones.  Back then, it ran such things as hospitals and charities, and catered to most of the needs that are now met by secular authority.  “Medical,” for instance: this is now covered by private insurance (or the government), not “the Church.”  (Nowadays too, people have other insurance to pay, such as, homeowners and car insurance.)  The only things that “Dannie & Co.” provides for is themselves – and the “Lotarski” sinkhole, of course (aka, SGG’s “school”).  The parishioners – the folks who fund this boondoggle – get “the show” -- and little else.1

Dannie conveniently ignores the fact that the needs once met by tithing are now met by taxes – and plenty of them.  In America, not only are there federal and state income tax (and sometimes local tax), but also “FICA” (social security) tax -- plus “property taxes” (and sometimes “personal property taxes”), “gasoline tax,” “sales” (consumption) tax, “entertainment” and luxury” taxes, taxes on alcoholic beverages, tobacco, etc., etc.  If all this were tallied up, a person’s total tax load is well over half his income.  The other thing to remember is that Dannie’s idea of “tithing” is to give one tenth of one’s gross income, i.e., ten percent of one’s pre-tax income – not one tenth of one’s “net” (i.e., after-tax) income.  And what they get for it is, again, “the show,” and little else.  Bottom line: for Dannie to expect people to "tithe" is both presumptuous and inappropriate.  In fact, it's absurd.  

Another “zinger” that Dannie had put on SGG’s collection envelopes was this: “Contribute for Sundays you miss! Expenses stay the same.”  So, if a family were absent from SGG for some reason (vacation, sickness, or whatever) they are expected to “make it up” when they return.  (And to reinforce this “obligation,” each envelope has a space for “previous balance,” “today’s offering,” and [remaining] “balance” – to keep a running tab on how much one “owes” Dannie.)   Dannie, did it ever occur to you that families’ expenses keep coming too – but that they have NO ONE to “make it up” for them when their income gets interrupted?  (And when they go to some other church while on vacation, do you expect them to NOT donate to that church – or do you expect them to cover theirs and yours both?)

Oh yes -- also written on the back cover of the envelope box is this: Church Contributions Other Than Through Envelopes.”  Apparently, Dannie expects his Gerties to fork over even more than what they contribute on Sundays (in addition to the “more” that they give in the “second collection” envelopes the first Sunday of each month) – such as SGG’s “roof repair” fund, to fix SGG's ever-leaking roof (because it was improperly built to begin with).   And, oh yes, there was also included in the box of envelopes one that asked for an “initial offering” of $3 – for the envelopes themselves!  (How about mailing the envelopes “C.O.D.” as well, Dannie, so that your Gerties can pay for the postage too?)

Of course, the “envelope” money is just part of the picture.  In addition to that, Dannie is always begging for money to deal with the “fallout” from SGG’s faulty construction: the just-mentioned leaky roof, the prematurely failing HVAC system, the raccoon-infested walls, etc., etc., etc.  Then there is his “cyber ministry,” where he’s begging for money on the internet (for instance, in his internet “Mass,” with its flashing “donate” button during the  “collection” break).  Then there are the “seasonal” things, such as “Poinsettia memorials” at Christmas, “Lily memorials” at Easter, and his “all souls” scam during Lent (when he makes that phony claim about SGG’s altar being “privileged”).  (And speaking of scams, it was this widowed woman who paid for a “five-day” candle that she found extinguished after the first day.)  The truth is, Dannie has dozens of money-making scams throughout the year to keep his gullible Gerties giving.

But, as if that weren’t enough, he also has them donating their time as well.  SGG has a small army of “holy helpers” (aka, slaves) who toil day in and day out for the cult.  It is a well-known cult axiom that, in order to control people, one must over-burden them with “tasks,” while at the same time “guilt-trip” them about “not doing enough” (such as, attending Dannie’s “show”), so that they have no time – mentally or physically -- for anything else but the cult.  (Every classic cult works on this “business model.”)

One wonders why Dannie’s Gerties can’t see through all of this.  But that’s the way it is.  Once people are thoroughly “immersed” in the cult mindset, they’re “hooked.”2   Once one is in such a mindset, the only way to get “derailed” is for one to suffer some personal insult or injury at the cult-master’s hands.  And even then, some fools will still come crawling back later – either because they “miss the show,” or because they conveniently “dismiss” all the harmful wrong that Dannie has done, “rationalizing” it or “explaining it away.” 3   Another reason is that their recollections of those wrongs grow dim over time, and they “forget,” letting “bygones be bygones.”  (Some even pretend that such things never happened.)  And, all too often, they allow Dannie’s perpetual siren song of sanctimony to draw them “back into the fold,” like a magnet -- at which point, it takes another “trauma” to “derail” them again.

The good news is that one can always count on this to happen: Dannie, being the parasitic annelid that he is, will always exploit his Gerties.  The bad news, however, is that his Gerties have had a habit of “acclimating” themselves to such exploitation, and come to regard it as “the default setting.”   When that happens, it’s usually too late.  So, Gerties, before it’s “too late” for you, wake up and see Dannie for the parasitic leper that he is (and always will be), and GET OUT.

As for that woman who received those collection envelopes from SGG’s shameless leprechaun, she has learned her lesson.  And, speaking of those envelopes, a friend has suggested to her that she send them back to Dannie, along with – instead of one of Dannie’s incorrectly transcribed biblical quotes – this “biblically correct” one: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”


1 Dannie’s apologists will no doubt cite all the “apostolates” that SGG must “support.”  We should like to remind them that these “apostolates” are, in almost ALL cases, thinly-disguised VACATIONS for the cult-masters – usually winter getaways to warm, sunny climes to perform “confirmations” that could have been done by the local clergy.  And, although such boondoggles are, as Dannie claims, covered by a special “Bishop’s Fund,” the truth is that they are financed from SGG’s general collections.  And since SGG’s finances are a labyrinthine maze  known only to Dannie, Tony, and “the school principal,” SGG’s Gerties really don’t know where the money comes from.  (We wonder, too, if much of the money earmarked for “roof repairs” and other funding schemes actually ends up being channeled into these “apostolates.”)

2 That’s why – to make sure that they stay hooked and don’t “relapse” – Dannie puts those little “guilt-trip” reminders in his sermons, his newsletters, and SGG’s bulletin (especially his “Bishop’s Corner”) – another classic staple of the cult “handbook.” Dannie regularly complains, for instance, about dwindling attendance at his “show,” as he did in his Gaudete Sunday ’Cornerr: The evening Mass grows worryingly lighter, even for a Holy Day. First Friday in December was a sad affair. No new souls to make their Nine, very low attendance all day long, and many men missed their Guard of Honor. Some never called.”

3 A prime example of this was the man who had the “triple play” funeral for his wife (see footnote 2 in our last article).  This man had originally left SGG after the school scandals of 2009, along with half of its congregation, who formed a new congregation (St. Albert the Great).  This man was actually on SAG’s board, and helped draft some of its bylaws and liturgical practices. 

But, being the “letter-of-the-law” fanatic that he is, he grumbled and complained about SAG’s lack of “ecclesiastical correctness.”  (One of the things that he deplored was the lack of space between the sanctuary and the nave – arguing that it didn’t have the correct “dimensional proportions” of a “proper” church.  Well, it didn’t; but if it did, there would only have been room for perhaps one or two rows of pews.  Eventually, this pompous perfectionist left SAG to “go back home” to SGG and its pontifical pageantry – a great “propaganda coup” for Dannie.  This is probably the chief reason for Dannie giving the man’s Novus Ordo wife that “triple play” funeral -- an honor not even accorded Bernie Brueggemann’s wife.  (Bernie was SGG’s chief benefactor at the time, being single-handedly responsible for SGG’s very existence.  Bernie eventually left SGG; but, unlike the “triple-play” turncoat, he never returned.)

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Hypocrisy’s Poster Child

Editor’s Note: We’re back!  After a one-and-a-half-month hiatus, we’re returning with our bi-weekly posts.  And to ring in the New Year, we are, with our first article, highlighting one of Dannie’s main “virtues” – his incomparable hypocrisy.  So, read and “enjoy”!

A popular TV ad a few years back was one for an ant-acid called “Rolaids.”  The ad asked the question, “How do you spell ‘Relief’?”  Answer: R-O-L-A-I-D-S.  Well, here’s a new “update” on that:  “How do you spell ‘hypocrite’?”  Answer: D-O-L-A-N.  Yes, Dannie, Tradistan’s arch-hypocrite, has struck again.  Let us explain.

Recently, the husband of a couple who had once been SGG parishioners (but, thank God, had the good sense to leave) died.  And, since they had been generous donors while they were at SGG. Dannie, finding out about it from the funeral director, made mention of it in his ’Corner (click here), in the hope that he might get the man’s wife to have her husband buried at $GG (at $GG’s usual exorbitant “fee” for a Requiem).

The woman, in deep shock from her husband’s death (it was a sudden, unexpected death), declined Dannie’s invitation to have her husband buried from SGG.  Besides, having left SGG some time ago anyway (and not wanting to go back to that cesspool), she kept declining his repeated attempts at cajoling her to honor what he deemed would be “her husband’s wishes” (as if Dannie knew better than she what he wanted).  Instead, she asked him to send one of the priests to her husband’s “wake” (visitation) to give a blessing, and perhaps a brief sermon.

At that juncture she also informed him that her son, a Baptist minister, would also be there to say a few words to honor her deceased husband’s memory.  Dannie expressed distain over this, and told her it was “ecumenically impossible” for a priest to be in attendance in a room with her son. When she asked why, he told her that her son was a heretic and “in anathema” (a term the Church uses to denote those who are accursed and damned).  Defending her son, she then told Dannie that, unlike some trads, her son would never commit sodomy, would never molest a child, did not drink or smoke, was a good husband, and lived a decent, Christian life.  According to her, Dannie then turned into a hissing viper, telling her that she was “selfish” and was “denying” her husband a “proper” SGG burial.  At this point, she announced the conversation at an end, and hung up.

Later, in a subsequent Bishop’s(?) Corner (click here), Dannie sanctimoniously stated that he was going to the cemetery to “bless his tomb” [the deceased husband’s] for her -- obviously to appear “magnanimous” to his SGG “studio audience” (and perhaps even in the hope that she, being the generous soul that she is, might relent, and compensate him for this “favor”).  The problem is, though, that the ground didn’t need to be blessed, for it was an old Catholic cemetery, and therefore had its ground consecrated long before Dannie was ever born – by a real priest.  The ground did not need Dannie’s worthless, redundant “blessing” (although “One Hand” could surely use a “redundant” ordination!).  And, luckily, the woman did not “bite” on this meaningless gesture either.

Dannie’s claim, by the way, that it would be “ecumenically impossible” for him to be in the same room with a “heretic” (her son) is pure HOGWASH:  There is no such “ecumenical” (or canonical) caveat against such a thing.  Dannie LIED.  He simply “made it up” so that he wouldn’t have to go to the wake.  After all, if he wasn’t going to get some bucks for a Requiem, why bother to attend?

But what makes this claim so hypocritical (as well as phony) is that Dannie, some time back, WAS “in the same room” with some “heretics” – not only in the same room with them, but PRAYING with them as well!  [Dannie, don’t you regularly lambast Bergie for doing the same?]  It was at the Jewish Hospital [yes, Jewish] in Cincinnati, where Dannie underwent prostate surgery back in November 2012.  Dannie, as he is wont to do, waxed poetic about it in his November 24 Bishop’s Corner of that year: “We had quite an ecumenical gathering at Jewish Hospital. There were a Catholic bishop [Is Dannie calling himself a ‘bishop’ here?], Jewish doctors, a Catholic surgeon and nurses, and some cheery Protestant ones who energetically “said a prayer with me,” as is their custom, before surgery. I thought perhaps I should say a prayer out loud to the Little Jesus, Doctor of the Sick, but I reflected that non-Catholics probably wouldn’t understand the powerful devotion to the Holy Infancy – more’s the pity! Besides, the anesthesia was starting to kick in…”  [By the way, the “Catholic surgeon and nurses” were most certainly “Novus Ordo,” whom he otherwise usually labels as “not Catholic.”]

Hmmm, Dannie, why was it “ecumenically” possible for you not only to be “in the same room” with these folks, but to PRAY with them as well -- but you couldn’t attend that wake (where you wouldn’t even have been a “participant” anyway)?  Why is it that what was good for a roomful of Jewish (and Protestant) ‘geese” was not good for a lone Protestant “gander”?  [And, again, for that matter, why was it not “scandalous” for you to pray with “heretics,” as you everlastingly claim it is for “Bergie”?]  “What gives,” Dannie?  That “gander” wasn’t even going to ask you to participate.  All you had to do was to show up and “pay your respects,” then leave.

What “gives”?  Hypocrisy, that’s what! How exquisitely hypocritical – but how predictably “Dannie”!!   Perhaps Dannie could successfully “explain away” such an “inconsistency” to the cult-crazed brain-dead there at SGG – but not to us.  And, Dannie, what made you think that we would not sniff out your “inconsistency” and expose it?  In the ardor of impressing his culties, Dannie had to wax poetic about his “ecumenical gathering” there at the hospital, not realizing that his words would come back later to bite him in the derrière.  But that’s the problem with liars and hypocrites: they say what’s convenient for the moment, not realizing (or caring) that it might come back to haunt them later on.  (They’re so used to their culties swallowing whatever swill they dish out, it doesn’t occur to them that there are rational folks out there who won’t fall for such crap.)   

But wait – there’s more to this story: it turns out that the Protestant minister at that deceased husband’s wake was his wife’s son – but not his.  The son was hers by a former marriage.  (Yes, she formerly married a man who, convicted of embezzlement, abandoned her, and left her and her young son homeless and penniless).  Bankrupt and destitute, she eventually met and married another – the man now lying in the casket.  Of course, since this second marriage was not valid in the eyes of the Church – and since she (and he) wanted to be good Catholics, they – after they had been going to SGG for a short time (but long enough for Dannie to notice how much they contributed) -- approached him, and informed him of their situation. 

So, what did Dannie do?  Well, guess what?  He told them they could stay!  And why?  Because they were generous donors, that’s why!  Yes, he told them that they could stay, but that they should “keep it under their hat” (about being married previously) so that it wouldn’t “scandalize” their fellow parishioners.  He also went through the motions of telling them to “live as brother and sister” (knowing full well, of course, that they wouldn’t).  Why does this not surprise us?  Because, being the amoral creature that he is, Dannie wouldn’t let “a little thing like that” get in the way of a “business opportunity.”  Again, oh how exquisitely hypocritical, but oh how predictably (and unmistakably) “Dannie”!

But what makes all this even more hypocritical is that Dannie, who at the outset saw no problem in saying a Requiem Mass for this man he knew to be to divorced and remarried, refused another SGG parishioner’s request for the same (for her mother) because the mother was “Novus Ordo.”  (He also refused the mother the last rites.)1  (Apparently, being Novus Ordo is worse than being a remarried divorcee!)  But wait!  It seems that “being Novus Ordo” is not necessarily a reason for “disqualification”!  Case in point: yes, he refused that woman; but, some time back, he put on a “triple play” extravaganza for another woman who (the wife of yet another SGG parishioner) was -- you guessed it --  Novus Ordo!  (By “triple play,” we mean that he had three priests saying three Requiems simultaneously for her!)2   Why the inconsistencies?  Why say a Requiem for a remarried divorcee, but refuse one (and the last rites) to a Novus Ordite, yet put on a “triple play” Requiem for another Novus Ordite?

Why?  The reason, as always, was MONEY.  In the case of the remarried divorcee, Dannie figured that he’d get a generous stipend from the divorcee’s widow.  (He also thought that this gesture would entice her into “coming back” to SGG.   And, since they had been such generous donors in the past, Dannie was looking forward to “seeing the money flow again.”  He also saw it for its propaganda value: a “lost sheep” returning to the fold.)  Now in the case of the woman whom he refused both the last rites and Requiem, the couple requesting it had actually been some of Dannie’s staunchest supporters – but they were relatively poor: there was to be no big “payday” for Dannie in accommodating them.  But in the “triple play” case, that woman’s husband was well-to-do; hence, the big extravaganza.  The “common thread” in all these cases, to repeat, was MONEY.  Whatever Dannie does, MONEY is his paramount -- actually, his only -- criterion.  So Dannie, we must ask, is there no end to your hypocrisy?  

But folks, this story has one final, ironic twist:  although neither Dannie nor any of his “priests” had the common decency to come to the deceased man’s funeral -- nor did any of SGG parishioners, save one couple (in spite of the fact that the deceased man and his widow had many “friends and acquaintances” at SGG), the widow did receive something “special” in the mail from SGG shortly afterwards: next year’s “collection” envelopes!  It seems that, although none of these scum could come to the deceased man’s wake, his widow’s MONEY is still welcome at SGG!  How appropriate!  How quintessentially, exquisitely -- and unmistakably -- “Dannie”!!!

It is time for SGG’s Gerties to come to the hard realization that Dung-ball Dan is a malignant chameleon who changes his mood and his message whenever it suits him.  It’s time, therefore, to give His Excremency “the bum’s rush.”  So, Gerties, start your New Year off right: make a New Year’s resolution to get out of the cult -- and, by all means, to…

Starve the Beast!

1 This deceased mother’s daughter and son-in-law were a couple of Dannie and Tony’s biggest supporters, and had actually moved to Cincinnati (from New York) to be there at SGG.  Eventually, both of them got jobs working in SGG’s office.  (The woman was, in fact, in charge of SGG’s Sunday Bulletin.)  When the woman’s mother fell gravely ill, she and her husband entreated Dannie to give her the last rites.  Dannie refused, because she was “Novus Ordo.”  (It is, by the way, mortally sinful for a priest to refuse that to someone, whether they’re “Novus Ordo” or not.)  When she died, he (of course) also refused her the Requiem.  As a result, the couple left SGG, and has since moved back to New York.

2 This was the celebrated “triple play” funeral that Dannie put on for the Novus Ordo wife of one of SGG’s big donors.  The woman was not only Novus Ordo, but defiantly so.  She wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with SGG, and she LOATHED Dannie and Tony.  But, since her husband was one of SGG’s prominent parishioners (and a big donor), she not only got a Requiem, but THREE Requiems celebrated simultaneously by three different priests!

Of course, Dannie (and the woman’s husband) will claim that she “became traditional” before she died.  In fact, in an e-mail to the woman about whose husband this article is written, this “prominent SGG parishioner” told her, “We were surprised he [the woman’s husband] did not receive the benefit of a proper Catholic funeral. One of the things that comforted me most when my dear Stella [died was that she finally accepted the traditional Sacraments from Fr. Thielen just days before she died, and was able to have that beautiful funeral at SGG.” 

Of course, what choice did the poor woman have?  On her deathbed (dying from cancer), how was she going to get up and go get the priest she ordinarily would have wanted for her last rites?  She probably had a choice of either accepting her husband’s choice – or no priest at all.  Given such a “choice,” we seriously doubt that her “acceptance” of that traddie priest was all that “voluntary,” but more on the order of an ultimatum -- an “acceptance” that she had no other option but to take.

This SGG parishioner who related this in his e-mail was totally insensitive too in telling that woman, in the trauma and grief of her just having unexpectedly lost her husband, that “he did not receive the benefit of a proper Catholic funeral.” Firstly, it was not only insensitive of him to be telling her that, but arrogant.  Who is this presumptuous WORM to be preaching to her -- especially when she’s in such a traumatized state?!  (But that’s the way it is with culties: they’re so wrapped up in their own little warped world, that it never occurs to them that people might have “feelings.”)

Secondly, he was wrong.  We should point out that to this arrogant ignoramus that the woman’s husband DID get the benefit of a proper Catholic funeral: a Requiem Mass for him was said right away – and by a real priest (Fr. Bernard Hall) -- who, unlike Dannie, not only gladly agreed to come to the man’s wake, but, while there, blessed the body as well.  (And, by the way, also unlike Dannie, this priest did NOT ask for a stipend for saying that Mass.).

And lastly, we should like to point out to this presumptuous moron that, although Fr. Hall’s Mass was not the “show” that his wife got, it was a genuine Mass.  (This SGG parishioner’s wife was the one who got that “triple play” extravaganza we’ve reported on before – three Masses simultaneously celebrated by three different priests.)  A Mass “without all the bells and whistles” is just as pleasing in God’s eyes as an elaborate one (or three).  (In fact, we venture to say that, if God was not offended by the garish “triple play” display that Dannie & Co. put on for that SGG parishioner’s wife, He was certainly offended by Dannie’s reasons for doing so.) 

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.”