Whom Are You Trying to Kid, Danny?

Amidst the fluff and flotsam of the March 30 edition of the SGG church bulletin’s Bishop’s Corner, one item that leapt off the page (like a frog on steroids) was Daniel Dolan’s reference to Anthony Cekada as being “a distinguished writer and theologian.”  No doubt this was Dannie’s half-hearted attempt to stem the tide of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that has been surfacing of late.  Perhaps Dannie’s anal remark might do for SGG’s parishioners; but for the rest of us, it is sick humor.  Amongst the mountains of evidence of Tony’s NOT being “distinguished” at either, we (again) choose to go back to Schiavo, because it is arguably the most salient example of Cekada’s intellectual inadequacy to date.  One aspect of Schiavo that we haven’t touched on before but will examine now involves a woman, a former [thank God!] SGG parishioner, who, at the time -- and in a most respectful and humble manner -- requested Tony’s explanation of his views on Schiavo.  He rebuffed her -- most condescendingly and vituperatively -- with the following words:

Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.  You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.

But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your "opinion" on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects -- chief among them, moral theology.
 
I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.  But because [you] do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.

Let’s look at Cekada’s words again, and analyze them:

…lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.  You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have. 

Really, Tony?  This woman doesn’t have “the moral training that priests have”?  Well, Tony, neither do you.  I should hope she doesn’t have the moral training that you (apparently) had – because yours isn’t worth having.  And, although this “lay traditionalist” NEVER claimed to “turn something into a mortal sin that isn’t,” she had every right to – because it WAS a mortal sin!

…you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects -- chief among them, moral theology.

Again: “Really, Tony?”  It is YOU who cannot accept the fact that this woman, although she is a “layman” (and therefore may not have had the “formal training in moral theology” that you had), certainly retained and applied what she got better than you did!!

But because [you] do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion,” rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.

Are you talking to yourself here, Tony? “Humility”?  Are you kidding?  You don’t know the meaning of the word!  You’re right about one thing though: her exchange with you certainly was a waste of time – of hers, not yours!  Given the choice of following your advice, or being a member “of the Church of Lay Opinion,” I’ll take the latter any day of the week.

Cekada’s foregoing remarks to that woman were in response to several points she had raised about his position on Schiavo, specifically, his remarks about Terri Schiavo’s care being a “grave burden on society.”  This is what she said:

What about the pregnant woman, who learns that her unborn child is going to be severely disabled imposing a heavy burden on their families or on society. According to your teaching, that mother would have the right to, if not abort the child, to starve it after its birth. Based on hardship and expense and that child should not live.

Your entire thesis seems to be based on cost. And so I ask Father, what is the price of life these days? What is the dollar amount that we finally tell our suffering loved ones is too much?  I thought Traditional Catholics, more than most, were aware of the great benefits derived from sacrifice. We know that grave burdens, embraced as Christ embraced His for us, lead us to an eternal reward.

You also did not address the issue of why Terri’s mother was threatened with arrest if she so much as put an ice chip to her dying daughter’s lips. Surely that was not considered extraordinary?  You wrote that, “Accordingly, when it is envisioned that such means will need to be employed permanently, they become "extraordinary" and there is no moral requirement to continue their use.”

The only thing that was proved to be permanent was that Terri would be disabled. There were nurses and doctors who came forward and testified that she could swallow. She did not drool; she was able to swallow her own saliva. But her adulterous, “husband,” only 3 months after receiving over a million dollars for her care, ordered all rehabilitation stopped.  When he found out that a nurse was feeding her Jello, he had her fired. Judge Greer said in 2003, “I do not want anyone feeding that girl!”

I do not think that anyone – lay or cleric, could have put this woman’s case more eloquently -- and accurately.  And conversely, I don’t think there is anyone on God’s earth whose response was more morally indefensible (and reprehensible) than was Cekada’s to her.  Tony chose to treat her like a disobedient child – and to scold her for being so brazen as to question “…a priest [who] probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects -- chief among them, moral theology.”  “I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.”

In his utter failure to address any of this woman’s concerns, Tony, of course, displayed his trademark arrogance and ignorance.  That’s no surprise – he does that all the time.  But what makes that arrogance and ignorance especially stand out is how he just assumes that he can “get away with it.”  He totally disregards the naked reality that he is simply dodging the woman’s questions (and it’s obvious that he doesn’t care either).  He knew, of course, that he lacked the intellectual skills to deal with her concerns properly -- and could not legitimately refute what she said; so, in his desperation, he tried to silence her the only way he knew how: he got defensive, intimidating her with his “I’m a priest” power play -- essentially telling her to shut up.

In a subsequent SGG bulletin, Tony published an article (about Schiavo) that was an almost word-for-word rehash of one of his responses to her; but he deliberately left out her part of the correspondence, because he knew that she was right and he was wrong.  And, of course, his vanity would not let him admit that he, the “distinguished writer and theologian,” was not only proven wrong, but by a woman – and that if the culties found out, he would be seen for what he is: a vain, pompous ignoramus – and a bully.  Therefore, he had to keep her part of his private correspondence with her just that – private. .  [It didn’t work, however; news of it leaked out, bringing a whole new torrent of public ridicule down on Tony’s unscholarly head.]

This defensiveness -- this refusal to deal with the woman’s questions logically, openly, and honestly – shows not just his vanity, but his woeful incompetence in moral theology.  To quiet his opposition, he had to resort to naked intimidation.  But besides his intellectual shortcomings, his response to her also betrays his thinly-veiled contempt for women – his failure to recognize them as thinking human beings.  To Tony (and to Dannie) women are, at best, “holy helpers” whose job it is to do all the labor-intensive “grunt work” so that the two counterfeiters can “put on their show.”  God forbid that they should ever think, let alone, question the shepherds’ “wisdom”!  Well, Tony, I have news for you: this woman has more wisdom “in her little finger” than you could ever hope to achieve in your lifetime.

It had to have been on Schiavo – more than on anything else -- that Anthony Cekada was at his absolute worst.  It was here that he, whom Dannie calls a “distinguished writer and theologian,” most emphatically showed himself to be NO theologian at all, but a vain, condescending know-nothing (which, of, course, he’s is every time he opens his mouth`).  Therefore, in future, we sincerely hope that Dannie refrains from insulting our intelligence (and his) by referring to this buffoon as “a distinguished writer and theologian.”  Saying it doesn’t make it so, Dannie; and your blundering buddy has made it embarrassingly clear that it isn’t so – not just on Schiavo, but every time he opens his mouth.  You can’t cover for him indefinitely.  So give it up, Dannie; stop kidding us – and stop kidding yourself.