ALL ABOUT THE LAY PULPIT

Saturday, June 21, 2014

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them: Part 2


Daniel Dolan and Anthony Cekada are, as our last article noted, “in it for the money.”  Everything they say or do is geared towards that. They, in fact, use it as their gauge for success, both in themselves and others.  In his Quidlibet newsletter, for instance, Cekada measured the late Abbot Leonard Giardina’s “success” by how much money he took in.  And in SGG’s bulletin (and web page), readers are inundated with exhortations to donate to this or that “fund-raiser”: SGG’s “building program,” or its on-going “remember us in your will” plea.  There is even a “donate” button dedicated to “support SGG school” – as well as a “Make Automatic Monthly Donation” Subscribe button, with donation “options” ranging from five to five hundred dollars monthly.  Then there are the occasional “novelty” fund-raisers, like “paver stone memorials” – and, of course, the ongoing (futile) efforts to peddle Tony’s literary train wreck, Work of Human Hands.

How does one persuade people to donate to all those “causes”?  How can people fall for any of that?  How can they be so subservient? so compliant?  so gullible?  The answer, unfortunately, is that “trads” are naturally inclined to be that way.  And, because of their disenchantment with the changes of Vatican II, many of them were ready and willing to support anyone who opposed it; and those who “promised to bring back the true Faith” were given almost a “blank check” to do so.  The problem was (and is) that not all those who opposed Vatican II’s changes did so for the right reasons. The opposition, though fairly effective and legitimate at first, gradually split up and fell into disarray, attracting factions with “not-so-lofty” intentions: fortune seekers, opportunists, and – as so often happens in religious movements – assorted fanatics and “loonies.”

Everyone recalls Francis Schukardt, the tyrannical megalomaniac who ran his congregation like a despot. If he was not traddieland’s first to set the pattern for cult behavior, he was certainly its defining example.  At first, he seemed to give the people what they wanted: a return to orthodox Catholicism – or so it seemed.  What he was actually giving them was the appearance of Catholicism: the Latin Mass, the “old” rites and rubrics, elaborate ceremonies, beautiful polyphonic music, etc. (sound familiar?).  But as time went on, he started introducing practices that went beyond that -- and became more and more autocratic, more manipulative, more cult-like.  Women had to dress in almost Amish garb; and everyone was forced to follow ridiculous rules (such as having to walk backwards out of church after Mass).  Besides the dictatorial behavior, there was also his extravagant life-style (sound familiar?).  Also, he was accused by his colleagues of being a pedophile (although the charges were never pursued in court), and was eventually dismissed (for “incompetency”) by his colleagues.  (For more, see Wikipedia link.) 

The damaging thing about Schukardt is that he set the “cult” pattern for others to follow; and follow they did – especially Dannie and Tony.  They (and others) quickly realized that the way to attract and keep followers was to emulate Schukardt’s behavior: get them to join up by offering them “orthodoxy” (or what appears to be orthodoxy) but keep them with cult tactics – an easy enough thing to do, especially with traddies, who already have a tendency for blind obedience to authority.  And that’s just what Dannie and Tony have done.  But along the way, they, like Schukardt, over-stepped their bounds, becoming “mini-popes” – not by proclaiming themselves as popes (as Schukardt did), but by acting as such: forbidding parishioners to attend rival chapels (and denying them the sacraments if they did); dispensing parishioners from abstinence on a Friday if they attended Mass (and withholding it if they didn’t) and proclaiming a Mass “invalid” if one prayed for someone whom they didn’t recognize as pope (the “una cum” nonsense) – as if they had the authority to do all theses things, which they don’t.

The irony of it all is that these “keepers of orthodoxy” have themselves become increasingly heterodox.  In addition to making up their own rules as they go along, they are actually breaking the rules:  Cekada’s Schiavo travesty was probably the clearest, most flagrant example of this; and his lame defense of Dolan’s one-handed “ordination” – in which he misquoted, mistranslated, and misrepresented official papal teaching -- was downright laughable.  And, denying the sacraments to someone simply for attending an “illicit” chapel -- that is not only uncharitable, it is illicit itself  (and mortally sinful).  (Even when not actually forbidding people to attend rival chapels, Dannie and Tony routinely discourage them from doing so, whether they consider the chapel “legitimate” or not – as a recent Pistrina article noted.)

The problem is that this sort of behavior has spread elsewhere: traddieland in general has developed a “we’re the only game in town” mentality, where each group tries to convince its followers that it has the only “valid” clergy, and that its rivals are “flawed” – or even bogus.  One traddie group, for instance, claims that the “Thuc lineage” (anyone ordained by Archbishop Thuc) is invalid, and that people who go to its churches are public sinners (!).  Other rival factions have similar caveats and prohibitions, with much of traddieland degenerating into a quagmire of bickering biddies, all issuing mud-slinging interdicts against one another.  There is little loyalty among traddie clergy – and certainly no unity.  And, as far as “authority” is concerned, the truth is, none of them has the power (or right) to “outlaw” anyone, since they’re all outside the institutional Church (and therefore have no juridical power to do anything).

Another problem with traddieland is that it has no intellectual base.  Many traddie clergy have a very superficial knowledge of the Faith and of basic moral theology (not to mention, poor academic formation in general).  That’s why they know only how to “nit-pick”: condemn people for “wearing inappropriate clothing,” call them “public sinners” for going to “the wrong chapel,” or declare a Mass invalid if one “prays for the wrong pope” -- but can’t apply the correct basic moral theology when dealing with Schiavo or with things like organ transplantation.  Sometimes, they even go so far as to condone immoral behavior outright, as Dolan did when he dismissed watching porn as “boys will be boys.”  As for academics, the only traddie seminaries that approach anywhere near pre-Vatican II levels are those of the SSPX.  “Seminaries” like MHT barely meet high school standards.

The good news, though, is that people are starting to wise up to the hucksters who pass themselves off as “scholars,” or who bill themselves as “the only game in town.”  They’re starting to question why these leaders use such exclusionary tactics (fear, guilt-tripping, etc.) to keep their flocks from scattering, why they so jealously guard their turf, and why they conjure up such bogus reasons to “disqualify” one another.  (After all, UNITY is supposed to be one of the four marks of the Church!)  They’re finally coming to realize that clergy should be “putting out the welcome mat” instead of turning folks away for violating arbitrary “rules” – especially when those “rules” are not articles of Faith.  They’re increasingly tiring of men who are interested only in money or in “empire building” – especially second-rate outfits like SGG and “Big Don’s” Florida puppy mill.

But more “wising up” needs to occur if traddieland is to survive.  What traditional Catholicism sorely needs are honest, principled clergy: good men, who will not sell Terri Schiavo down the river, or compromise their principles for convenience or for material gain -- and who have the academic acumen to really know how to deal with basic moral issues.  What it doesn’t need are fly-by-nighters like Dolan and Cekada who are just floats in a parade: all show, with nothing underneath, or pompous firebrands “Big Don,” whose hell-fire-and-brimstone pulpiteering is only so much flatulence -- and whose “seminary” is indeed a puppy mill churning out incompetent stooges.  Traditional Catholics need to start recognizing such “signs” when they see them – and to steer clear.  To paraphrase that well-known marketplace admonition, “Let the traddie beware.”

No comments:

Post a Comment