The last Lay pulpit article, Oh
What a Tangled Web It Was – and Is, drew another comment (as did a
previous article) from a reader who goes by the moniker “Simply Catholic.” I need to thank “Simply Catholic,” for
he gives me another opportunity (and reason) to bring up a subject that needs
to be repeated and reinforced every now and then – Hypocrisy. “Simply
Catholic” accusingly labels this writer as “abominable” and “obsessed” for
(presumably) what this writer has said about clerics Daniel Dolan, Anthony
Cekada, and Markus Ramolla.
And his reasons for condemning this writer are (presumably) that these
men are Alteri Christi (or, as he put
it, “priests nevertheless”) and therefore “off limits” as far as having any
criticism leveled against them – the time-worn, threadbare “Alter Christus” argument. According to this non-logic, one could
not say anything against Martin Luther or Rasputin, because they were “priests
nevertheless”; and Christ, Our Lord Himself, could not (and ought not) have
leveled any criticism against the Scribes and Pharisees, because they were the
“priests nevertheless” of their day.
When will this illogical notion be dispelled?!
The sad thing is that people like “Simply Catholic” don’t practice what
they preach. He has oceans of respect
and concern for the “reputations” of Bp. Dolan and Frs. Cekada and Ramolla –
but where is his sympathy for Bp. Paul Petko and Fr. Bernard Hall? Why the selective concern? Why is not his “respect for the clergy”
uniformly applied? That’s because
he is probably one of the three aforementioned men himself or one of their
ardent supporters (actually, it’s the latter), and he’s afraid of the truth coming out – so he invokes the Alter Christus “clause.”
That is the ploy that all scoundrels use when they don’t want the truth
to get out. They have no valid
arguments to give themselves – no facts, no evidence, no truth to offer -- so they try to silence their opposition with
“guilt-trip” name-calling, labeling their adversaries as “abominable” or
”slanderous” for daring to speak out against the evil of latter-day Pharisees. They know that they can’t refute what
is said, so they employ the old “ignore the message and shoot the messenger”
tactic. They have no defense, so
they rely on offense. Again, when will this illogical (and blatantly
fallacious) notion be dispelled?
The fact is that this moronic notion will never be completely dispelled, because there will always be a pool
of narrow-minded people who will fall for this illogical tripe – especially the
“don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts” contingent whose steel-trap minds are already
made up and who are afraid to “open up their minds and let the sun shine
in.” They’ll unhesitatingly
believe unfounded hearsay (as many did concerning the false charges against Bp.
Petko), yet label the hard truth as “calumny and detraction.”
One who is truly logical (and intellectually honest) must keep an open mind. Unfortunately, this is all too often a rare commodity in
“traddie-land” these days. So
many, once they take a position, will stubbornly stick to it (and brook no
other); they are too proud to admit that they are (or have been) wrong. They’ll never change because they don’t
want
to change. And, like the Pharisee
in the parable, they’ll take the phony “moral high ground” and disdainfully
look down their noses at those “publicans” who dare to expose the truth about
bad men; yet they’ll swallow baseless lies leveled against good men. They’ll let bad
priests “hide behind the collar,” yet vilify good priests, simply because their allegiance is to the former and
not the latter. And because of
that allegiance, they’ll be too proud to admit to the truth and change their position,
because this makes them “look bad.”
What they fail to see is that if one is to have “respect for the
collar,” it must be uniformly
applied, not selectively doled out in
a pick-and-choose manner.
But the whole idea of not speaking against someone because he is “a man
of the cloth” is itself pure hogwash – and wrong. It is, in fact,
sinful. God’s commandments are for everyone; everyone, whether lay or clergy, is
subject to them. No one is exempt. Those fools who think otherwise would do
well to consider what happened with Vatican II. If no one spoke out against those “priests nevertheless” who
promulgated its errors, then there would be no traditional Catholicism today at all;
and the errors of these evil priests (and bishops and cardinals) would go on
unabated. Come on, “Simply
Catholic”! When will it “sink in”
that no one is above the law –
especially God’s law! When
will this realization penetrate your skull?
Sadly, good men have been vilified throughout the ages for standing up
for good and opposing evil. One –
the God-Man -- was crucified for it. And, sadly, as long as there are people
like “Simply Catholic” around, this (unfortunately) will continue. Let us hope and pray that such attitudes
will be eradicated in time. One
thing for sure: “Simply Catholic’s” comments will not deter this writer from getting
the truth out; it will only strengthen the writer’s resolve. And speaking of “resolve,” I would like
to direct the reader’s attention to a website – Athanasius Seminary, Inc.
-- whose title, interestingly enough, is printed in pink (perhaps to commemorate
“National Breast Cancer Awareness Month”?). It exposes -- in a subtle and highly humorous way -- Fr. Ramolla’s “agenda.” In closing, let us hope that “Simply
Catholic” (and people like him) will, in future, confine their comments to
the
facts -- and skip the accusatory histrionics – because, as this writer
told “Simply Catholic” once before, what he is doing is simply un-Catholic.
Jim, You're the one with no facts, no evidence, and, obviously, no charity. I never said Bp. Dolan or Fr. Cekada were above suspicion, nor did I say anything of the kind about Fr. Ramolla. But you have never really proven anything, and there is no reason to hold them in contempt. There was evidence against Bp. Petko at the time of Fr. Hall's ordination, and it did nothing to dissuade Fr. Ramolla or Fr. Hall, so I think it rather disingenuous that you are now charging that Fr. Ramolla turned against Bp. Petko in a matter of months simply because he wanted a mitre. It just isn't all that plausible, and, sadly, it was not unlike the charges you leveled (and then, in some quarters, denied when pressed for proof) against Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada. Jim, I pray for you daily, even though you treat me with contempt and ridicule.
ReplyDeleteSC (“Simply Catholic”) has chosen to comment again by the tried and true ploy of “ignore the message, shoot the messenger” – and, of course, by LYING. You claim that there was “evidence” against Bp. Petko. No there wasn’t; there were accusations, none of which were (or can be) substantiated. The things you claim in your comments are not to be found in that article (or in any other) on Lay Pulpit. You have made several allegations, none of which are accompanied by substantiating facts. SC, in your comments, you make the charge of “no facts, no evidence” -- yet you don't back up that allegation with any of your own (which only reinforces one of the article's main points). SC, do you understand logic? Do you understand the English language? You had better take remedial courses in those two subjects (and in Truth-telling) – and, oh yes, in Charity.
ReplyDelete