“Flip-Flops” and “Flip-Flopping”

A female acquaintance recently attended Mass wearing what one might call “flip-flops”: open-toed shoes (similar to sandals) with no strap in back (to fasten them to the heels).  Now in many parts of Traddieland, this is a “no-no” (aka “inappropriate attire”).  It seems that, to some cult-masters, women’s “uncovered” heels are too “provocative” (i.e., sexually stimulating) – almost the equivalent of “showing too much bosom.”  And to some of these cult freaks, even any kind of “open-toed” or “sandal-like” shoe falls into the same verboten category.

First off, let us say that anyone who considers “open heels” to be too “provocative” (or who gets “turned on” by them) is 1) some kind of sexual pervert, 2) a moron, or 3) both.  Folks, Our Lord wore sandals.  His mother wore sandals.  Mary Magdalene wore sandals.  Caesar Augustus wore sandals.  EVERYBODY wore sandals.  I don’t think that any of them were “put out” (or “turned on” by the fact that anyone – man or woman -- wore sandals, “uncovered-heel” or not.  The cult-masters’ preoccupation – or make that obsession – with sandals and “strapless heels” is not only odd, but SICK.  It’s just one more manifestation of their “dress code” fetish – their puritanical, warped notion of what constitutes “propriety.”

But with all of this talk about “flip-flops,” it also occurred to this writer that “flip-flop” is not only a noun but a verb as well.  As a verb, “flip-flop” means to change one’s position about an issue (usually to suit one’s purpose at the time).  It is also interesting to note – actually, humorously ironic to note – that, although Daniel Dolan and Anthony Cekada are opposed to wearing flip-flops, they are not opposed to flip-flopping.  Dannie and Tony are experts on flip-flopping; it is “mother’s milk” to them.  A good example of their “flip-flopping” was illustrated in a recent Pistrina article that exposed one of Tony Cekada’s “inconsistencies”: he was “reminiscing” about a Mass he had attended back in his seminary days -- a Mass that was a 1962 “Pope John XXIII” rite -- which Tony later condemned in his train wreck “opus,” Work of Human Hands, as “a radical break with tradition.”

But this is not the first time that Tony (or Dannie) has “flip-flopped.”  Perhaps his biggest and most blatant “flip-flop” had to do with an article he wrote back in 1990, entitled A Question of Authority (which is no longer in print: he removed it, because it is now a source of embarrassment for him).  In his article, he chided those on both sides of the “sedevacantism” debate for condemning “various non-sedevacantist groups declaring sedevacantist groups ‘schismatic,’,,,” and “various non-sedevacantist groups declaring sedevacantist groups heretical or schismatic...”  Apparently, it was okay to take either position, and still be a “Catholic in good standing” – but now it is not.  Now, it is not only verboten to be a non-sedevacantist, but to assist at an “una cum” Mass (where someone whom they consider an invalid pope is being prayed for in the canon).

In the same article, Checkie stated that “No traditional clergyman, remember, be he priest or even bishop [our bold emphasis], possesses ordinary jurisdiction – power from the Church to command subjects, make laws, interpret them authoritatively, conduct trials, issue judgments, settle legal disputes, and inflict canonical penalties.”  Yet, since then, Tony has “issued judgments” on everything from the validity of Dannie Dolan’s one-handed “ordination” (in which he went against official papal teaching) to the pronouncements of his amateurish, error-riddled Work of Human Hands -- and, of course, his already mentioned nonsense about “una cum” Masses being “invalid.”  And Dolan, his “boss,” has barred people from receiving the sacraments simply because they attended an “unauthorized” ([SSPX] chapel.  In addition, several parishioners were even barred from church property (by police order) simply because they disagreed with Dolan on a non-church related matter.  What kind of “ordinary jurisdiction,” we ask, enabled them to do all of this?

The two renegades, Dannie and Tony, have set themselves up as authorities on just about everything – and demand obedience from their flock on everything they say or do.  When Kathleen Plumb (the editor of a traditionalist newsletter (The Four Marks) “crossed” them, her paper was black-balled by them as “an occasion of sin”; and SGG parishioners were ordered not to read it.  Yet, back when Dannie and Tony broke away from the SSPX to start their own group, it was okay for them to break their vow of obedience to their SSPX superiors.  Apparently, it was okay for them to disobey the SSPX, but not for their parishioners to disobey them.

Some people who were once invited to speak at SGG, are now personae non gratae.  For one of them (Gerry Matatics, who has his own ministry), it wasn’t so much a case of his “crossing” them, but of “getting in the way” – of their purse strings, that is. He was seen as a "threat to business” – of siphoning revenue away from the SGG coffers – so he was never invited back.  Another man, the late Abbot Leonard Giardina, was bad-mouthed by Cekada because he was too “popular” (i.e., too financially successful), so he had to be “downgraded” (in Cekada’s Quidlibet) – which was unnecessary, because the poor man had just died, and was therefore no longer a “threat” to Tony.  But that’s the way it is, folks, when you get in Dannie’s or Tony’s way:  “One minute you’re hot, the next minute you’re not!”

As the Pistrina article pointed out, Tony is a true “chameleon” – and so, of course, is Dannie.  They say one thing one time and the opposite the next; and the reason is simple: it’s all about MONEY.  Back in 1990, when “sedes” and “non-sedes” were pretty much equally divided, he had to appeal to both to maximize gate receipts.  But as time went on (and more and more of his big donors leaned in the “sede” direction), he and Dannie saw more profit in going that way – so they did.  Not only that: Phony Tony eventually refined their “sede” theory by dreaming up his “una cum” fiction to further keep what sheep they had left in the pen.

Meanwhile, they hope and pray that the culties have not detected (or that they have conveniently forgotten) their “position swings” over the years.  And, of course, they try to keep these things hushed up so that the culties won’t notice (or, they “erase the evidence” whenever they can, as Tony did by deleting his 1990 article from SGG’s archives).  One wonders what new “switch” they’ll pull next, as circumstances dictate. 

For the near term, what Dannie will probably do is to latch onto some popular “cause” and milk it for all it’s worth – such as, to ride the wave of the latest popular sentiment against Islam.  (This is our hunch as to what he’ll do, because he’s been giving it some lip service of late; note his words in a recent Bishop’s Corner about “holding back the beheading Mohammedan hordes.”)  Dannie knows that the average traddie, just like the public-at-large, gets all emotionally charged up about “beheading hordes” (as a recent Lay Pulpit article pointed out); and Dannie probably figures (and certainly hopes) that this lip service will give him some currency -- that it’ll enhance his standing with the culties.

Whatever they do, you can count on the master chameleons adapting themselves to whichever situation comes along, and “blowing whichever way the wind blows” – to do whatever it takes to maximize their material benefit.  Count on it.