A New “Link” for Lay Pulpit

The scandalous events that took place at SGG (St. Gertrude the Great Church) back in 2009 were the culmination of troubles that had been brewing for some years prior to that.  The first notable sign of that “trouble” was Anthony Cekada’s disastrous justification of the murder of Terri Schiavo, back in 2005, which caused a sizable number of parishioners to leave SGG shortly thereafter.  But the thing that caused the biggest exodus (about half of SGG’s parishioners, including its biggest benefactor) was the surfacing in 2009 of the scandalous events that took place at its school then and before.

This was probably the main catalyst for the creation this blog (Lay Pulpit) as well as the Pistrina Liturgica blog (although there were other factors as well).  Since then, not only have the events of 2009 been documented and reported, but other ongoing misdeeds (and blunders) of the pastor and his assistant have been uncovered as well.  These include, in addition to Schiavo, Cekada’s pitifully amateurish attempt at “authorship” (Work of Human Hands), and his totally discredited attempt at validating his pastor’s (Daniel Dolan’s) one-handed “ordination.”  As a result, much of the “dynamic duo’s” duplicitous behavior has been exposed – and their one-time “reputation” has (thankfully) been reduced to “junk status.”

Naturally, all this has spawned backlash from those die-hards who still support Dolan and Cekada, and who refuse to accept documented proof (much of which comes from Dolan’s and Cekada’s own lips).  They claim that those who have written articles providing this documentation “have an axe to grind,” and they have responded to them with all manner of caustic “comments” (especially to articles written in Pistrina). [Most have commented “anonymously” -- and in some cases, the anonymous “commenter” has been none other than Cekada himself.  It seems that Tony just can’t keep away from the fray!]*  

And in just about every case, the “commenters” do not challenge what is written -- because they know they can’t -- but instead do what those with no defense of their own have always done: they divert.  They ignore the subject at hand, and instead fabricate some new issue (that is invariably irrelevant and “tangential”).  Sometimes they set up a “straw man”; and sometimes they simply employ the “ignore the message, shoot the messenger” tactic.  But in either case, it’s “diversionary.”

Another “weapon” in their bean-shooter arsenal is that of playing the “numbers” game: “You are the only two websites saying what you do.  No one else is!”  But the fact is, yes they are.  First of all, among the half of the parish that left SGG in 2009, over a dozen of them – including some of SGG’s own faculty – did take the trouble to speak out: they opened a website (sgginfo.com) to air (and document) their numerous grievances against the SGG clergy and school principal.  It wasn’t a “revolt” by a “small clique of malcontents,” but a grass-roots effort by the scores of SGG parishioners who were cruelly victimized.  And in addition to them, several parishioners from SGG’s satellite parishes were also victimized, and joined the effort.  In all, over sixty pieces of correspondence were generated.  (It must be remembered, too, that there was a lot of correspondence generated back in the “Schiavo” days.  If this were included, the total would be well over a hundred.)**

Unfortunately, because of “political pressure” from an outside cleric, the website was pulled down.  However, it is now back, but under a new title: sggscandal.com; and we have added it as a link on our “Home” page (see “Links you’ll love”).   In addition to this website, there are others, such as one created by parishioners of St. Hugh of Lincoln (an SGG satellite in Milwaukee, Wisconsin), that also detailed the heavy-handed (and typical) mistreatment received at the hands of SGG’s clergy (see link).  Additionally, there is an abundance of correspondence about Schiavo, which showcases Anthony Cekada’s trademark arrogance (and ignorance) in an unmistakably clear way.  We hope eventually to incorporate much of it (and the SHL link) into the new website.  Thus, it will serve as a valuable archival resource for those seeking more documentation on Schiavo -- and as a “memory jogger” for those still in denial both about both it and the events that took place at SGG’s school.

Speaking of the latter, there is one series of articles on the new website that we’d like to highlight this week.  They deal with School Dazed -- an article published on Anthony Cekada’s Quidlibet newsletter -- which was his attempt at “explaining away” the scandalous events that went on at the school in 2009.  In response, a series of articles entitled School Dazed Revisited was compiled by the sgginfo website’s editorial staff, in six parts, which are now recreated in the new website (see links 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).  Each part is written in “side-by-side” format, with Cekada’s original School Dazed remarks written in the left column, and the rebuttals to them in the right column.  Those six articles provide perhaps the best insight on what happened at the school (and on how Cekada’s mind works).  And, together with three other articles contributed by three individual parishioners (click here, here and here), not only do they completely dismantle Cekada’s pathetic whitewash job; but they show how Cekada, by his own words, exposes himself for the liar that he is.

What the newly resurrected website proves, among other things, is that those who oppose the dynamic duo are not an “anomaly” or a “small clique of disgruntled crackpots,” but a sizable (and growing) number of people.  By the sheer number of those who have contributed to this website, Dannie and Tony (and their hacks) cannot “write them off” as “insignificant.”  More importantly, they cannot, no matter how much they try to belittle or discredit these folks, ignore fact.  Much of the evidence presented by them is irrefutable (some even coming from Dannie’s or Tony’s own lips); and even the “anecdotal” evidence (not strictly “provable”) can be corroborated by dozens of witnesses (including some who are still at SGG).***  In short, too much evidence exists for all of it to be “swept under the rug.”

In future, we hope to highlight even more articles – especially those dealing with Schiavo (when they can be incorporated into the website).  In these articles, again, Cekada’s arrogance and ignorance come through unmistakably.  In fact, he does such a great job of hanging himself with his own words, that little further commentary is necessary – even perhaps for those “lowest common denominator” die-hards who still fall on their swords for him.  But, regardless of what he and they say or do, rational people should have no trouble  in seeing the evidence,  in comprehending the facts, and in drawing the right conclusions.

____________________

* It is common (and accepted) practice for someone to comment “anonymously” on a blog; but for Cekada himself to come on as an “anonymous” commenter – to pose as someone else, on an article written about him -- is deceptive, for it gives the impression of his having an independent “outside” supporter, when none really exists.  Secondly, it shows a true lack of professionalism: a true professional defends himself on his own forum (and Tony has one -- Quidlibet), and doesn’t stoop to playing “heckler” on someone else’s.  But, as we said, Tony – the classless Blunderer -- just can’t “keep away from the fray.”  And when he does “jump in,” he invariably gets annihilated – especially on Pistrina, where he is woefully inept at matching wits with them.  (The idiot doesn’t seem to realize that, when he does try to “spar” with them, he only succeeds in giving them the opportunity to reinforce their point – at his expense.)

But how do we know it is he who was the “commenter”?  It’s fairly easy: some of the comments contain information (or phraseology) peculiar to him only, and to no one else.  And why does he himself comment?  That’s easy, too: many of those who offered their “commenting” support for him and/or Dannie were actually an embarrassment for them – they turned out to be some of SGG’s semi-literate bottom-feeders.  Their comments were actually so damaging that, for a time, Dannie put out a “gag order” to silence them – so Tony had to come in and “fill the vacuum.”  Lately, however, a few have popped up here and there to have their say – but only the chosen few articulate enough to get Dannie’s and Tony’s “imprimatur” to do so.

** It must be remembered that, for every grievance put in writing, there are usually hundreds (and, in many cases, thousands) that aren’t.  Most people -- especially “traddies” -- are reticent, and not prone to “speaking out.”  The written response at SGG (and its satellite parishes) was overwhelming, both in numbers and in intensity.  And, as it was, of those who were victimized, most were reticent, and responded not publicly, but simply by leaving.  Perhaps if they hadn’t been reticent but more “vocal,” most of SGG’s parishioners – not just half of them – would have left.  Dannie and Tony should “thank their lucky stars” that the response was as muted as it was, or they would be left sitting there by themselves, with only Puccini, Vivaldi, and Caravaggio for company.

*** One bit of evidence that is both irrefutable and well witnessed is the “bell-ringing incident” at SGG on Palm Sunday of 2009.  The church bell, being rung by an usher during a procession that day, got “stuck” (the usher, by the way, left SGG that day, but for unrelated reasons).  Both Dolan and Cekada gave accounts of what happened with the bell – both of which contradicted each other.  Dolan gave an accurate account – at least about the bell; but Cekada did not, lying both about what happened, and why.  The fact that the incident was witnessed by most of those present that day adds even more “fuel” to Cekada’s lies. (As it turns out, Dolan also lied – not about the bell, but about the usher’s reasons for subsequently leaving SGG.)  (For a more detailed account of what happened (and more), click here.)

There’s No “Biz” Like “Show Biz”

The SGG pastor, in his recent Bishop’s Corner installments, has been going all out to give his readers every disgusting detail possible about life at SGG – and we do mean disgusting.  First, there were his almost weekly reports about his pet cats’ latest bunny butchering – even including details about how one of them got sick on its putrefied remains and gagged it up.  Thank you, Dannie, for such vivid imagery; that’s really “top-drawer” stuff – and it makes for such pleasant dinner-time chitchat!  All we can say is “Yummy!”  So elegant!  So refined!  So uplifting! (Or is it upchucking?)  So, what luscious landscape could this “poetic prince of the honeyed phrase” paint for us next?  What sort of scrumptious vignette could he be conjuring up after that?  Well, actually, Dannie has already come up with two: first, a report about some raccoons colonizing the church premises (somewhere inside its walls); and second, a mouse -- camped out somewhere in a rectory refrigerator – rummaging through leftovers. Wow!  What pertinent stuff! And, again, “Yummy!”

What sort of idiot, we must ask, would knowingly and eagerly “share” such gruesome, boorish trash in his church bulletin -- and, via its website, beam it to a potentially global internet audience?  (If you guessed either Josef Mengele or The Marquis de Sade, you were “close, but no cigar.”)  And, for that matter, what sort of numbskull would name his three feral felines Puccini, Vivaldi, and Caravaggio?  (He probably figured that the culties would think it “cute” for him to name them so (“cute”? how about “gauche” or “pretentious”?). At any rate, it seems that Dannie has an insatiable (and not altogether wholesome) preoccupation with critters -- and their grisly foraging habits.

Nevertheless, one cannot deny that Dannie has a certain “way” – a certain “something” -- with animals: raccoons, cats, mice, grotto-pond carp – whatever!  (And don’t forget “Senex,” SGG’s one-time resident groundhog!)  One could think of him as the Cult Center’s “Doctor Doolittle.”  When he’s not waxing poetic about the weather (or his carnivorous raids south-of-the-border), he’s mooning over critters.  We think that this deserves some recognition.  In fact, we think Dannie could turn this critter fetish into a fund-raising opportunity.  SGG could, for instance, stage a production based on the original Doctor Doolittle movie (starring the late Rex Harrison – and, in a later remake, Eddie Murphy) – with Dannie and his critters in the starring roles. 

Dannie would be perfect for the part!  After all, with his mousy grin, he does have a certain rodent-like charm; and he does like to swoon on [nauseatingly so] about birds and other flora and fauna in his weekly Bishop’s Corner.  And one can just picture him, processing along the cloister walkway, with a daisy-chain of Waldtieren in tow (along with his groveling culties, happily singing Rex Harrison’s If I could Talk to the Animals -- in pontifical polyphony, of course).  In the movie, the animal-loving Doctor was asked if he “could talk Hippopotamus,” to which he replied, “Why Nottamus!”  Re-applying that (and other quips from the movie) to Dannie, one might continue, “Can you speak “Rhinoceros”?  Why, “of course-eros”!  Can you speak “Duck”?  (Well, we won’t touch that one!)

But “Doctor Doolittle” doesn’t quite “go far enough.”  It doesn’t quite capture the “real” Dannie.  Given his trademark rodent-like snicker, we thought that Doctor Door-mouse would be more à propos.  (After all, “Door-mouse” was Dannie’s moniker back in his seminary days.)  And back then, too, he could speak “Duck” (or a “rhymingly reasonable facsimile”).  In the production of this “Menagerie Masterpiece,” SGG’s budding Thespians could be “extras” in the show (unlike their usual role as  behind-the-scenes cult slaves for Dannie's "show").  [Of course, they’d get their usual ”wages”: nothing.]  The choir could double as Dannie’s “backup” singers [and we sincerely hope that they “drown him out,” because his voice is flatter than Russia’s steppes], and Tony could provide “instrumental” accompaniment on the organ.  All in all, it could be a very “cost effective” production – and who better than Dannie to put on a “show”?

As for animals, there are (of course) the cats (who should, however, be muzzled for the show, because clinging carrion makes for bad breath).  And the Palm Sunday donkey* could, no doubt, be borrowed for the occasion.  As for the Refrigerator Mouse® and the raccoons, we’re open to suggestions.  [Actually, raccoons are scavengers.  So, if Dannie could tie some “bunny leftovers” to the back of his robe, they’d probably follow him.  And the mouse?  He might take a liking to Dannie’s “cheesy” grin, and follow along too – if he’s still around, that is.**  As for other animals, there are plenty of deer (and a coyote or two) in the area.  And some of SGG’s “children of the corn” farm folk could volunteer their barnyard critters (including, perhaps, a goat, strategically placed behind Dannie).  All in all, it’s a “win-win” for everyone.

And how much to charge for admission?  Culties who are part of the “cast,” of course, would be admitted “free” (as would any kid of theirs who sold fifty or more tickets to “outsiders”).  And then there’s SGG’s “Cyber Outreach” program: the Web.  And as an added “incentive,” they could advertise that every “patron’s donation” (of $500 or more) would merit a free copy of Work of Human Hands.  (On second thought, scratch that idea; that might shut down the production!)  At any rate, let us hope that – once this “show” has had its run – Dannie will have gotten this “critter fetish” out of his system.

Okay – we know -- enough poking fun at Dannie and his “critter fetish” (and our whimsical idea of him staging a reprised production of Doctor Doolittle).  It was, of course, all done in jest.  But Dannie is NOT in jest.  NOTHING that he ever says or does is in jest.  His “waxing poetic” about his cats, his “cute” nicknames for them, his newsy little anecdotes about “refrigerator mice,” and the numberless “sweet nothings” that appear in his Bishop’s Corner every week: they’re all calculated, pre-meditated, and contrived -- all designed for maximum effect.  They are the veneer of innocence -- the “sheep’s clothing” -- that the West Chester Wolf dons to fool his sheep.  They are the “happy face” that he puts on for all who are fool enough to fall for it.  They’re all part of the make-up, the cosmetics -- the schtick -- that Dannie uses to put on what we’ve always referred to as “the show” – the caricature of Catholicism that this humbug impresario has been putting on ever since he’s been there.

Dannie’s demeanor back in his “door-mouse days” at Écône may not have been all that “exemplary,” but it was at least real (that is, compared to now).  And we wonder, since Dannie’s been “faking it” for so long, if he might be having trouble keeping reality and “persona” separated these days.  After all, that often happens when one lives “in character” for so long.  But not to worry: Dannie would never have a “relapse” or pull a “Freudian slip” in front of his culties (and even if he did, we wonder if they’d “catch on” anyway).  But the majority of people outside the cult circle have caught on to Dannie.  The SGG Clown Act no longer holds its trance over Traddieland – or anywhere else, for that matter.

But again, not to worry: retirement is nigh for both Dannie and Tony; and they probably have enough salted away to get them, if not to Santa Fe, to somewhere more cost-effective (yet adequate) -- perhaps south of the border, where Dannie can hold court with the campesinos who still revere him.  There, too, he might eventually write his memoirs.  (And if he wants them printed into another language, he can always count on Tony to mistranslate them for him.)  But don’t get too many copies printed up, Dannie; you know how long it took to work off the WHH inventory.  If you get stuck with too big of a publishing bill, that just might “set you off” -- which might bring out the “door-mouse” in you again!!

____________________

* Dannie always has a live donkey for his Palm Sunday processions.

** At last report, the hole in the rectory refrigerator was plugged, thereby cutting off access to the goodies inside.  So, if Dannie is taking his impending trip down to Mexicali, we might have this ironic dichotomy, where he is down there, pigging out at a Rodizio, while Topo Gigio, back at the Cult Center, is “plugged” out, waiting in vain outside his “Rodentzio” (aka, the rectory fridge) for a meal that will never come.  Of course, Dannie’s reason for mentioning this little episode was probably the same as it always is: in giving the culties some newsy little anecdote like that, it makes himself appear “cute” (or at least innocuous) to them.

But Dannie usually has a deeper reason for saying something, other than just “looking cute.”  And to find that reason, first ask yourself this:  How does a refrigerator get a “hole” in it?  It’s a bit of a stretch to think that the mouse was able to gnaw his way through several layers of steel and plastic to produce that hole.  Even refrigerators that are old and rickety don’t get holes in them – at least, not from rodents.  If a mouse was able to gnaw its way through that refrigerator wall, then almost every refrigerator in every inner-city slum would have a hole in it.  Then, ask yourself this: Why would a rectory that is less than twenty years old – a rectory inhabited by priests, not a slum inhabited by welfare recipients – be infested with mice to the point where one is able to help himself to refrigerator leftovers?  It all sounds a little hokey to us, Dannie.

The real reason for Dannie mentioning that little episode was probably more “Freudian”: he was trying to give the impression that the fridge was in such bad shape that it needed to be replaced.  And, as Pistrina has already noted, was this a subtle hint for a new refrigerator?  And if so, who’d be expected to ante up the money for it – as an “extra sacrifice,” over and above ordinary parish expenses?  We think we could hazard a guess.

A Moot Point

Editor’s Note: We’re back!  After a holiday respite, Lay Pulpit now resumes once again.  For 2015, however, we will publish not weekly but bi-weekly, i.e., every other week (although we may sometimes publish more often, time permitting).  For those of us who earn our daily bread by other means, it is not always easy to find the time to publish on a weekly basis; and, of course, we derive (and seek) no financial benefit for our efforts (as the SGG clergy do).  However, time permitting, we will publish as often as possible.  Here is this week's offering:

A recent Pistrina Liturgica article -- in addition to a whole series of earlier ones -- has dealt with the doubts about Daniel Dolan’s one-handed ordination.  In those earlier articles, Pistrina related how, after Dolan’s dubious ordination, nine priests (one-time colleagues of his) urged him to get those doubts resolved before continuing with his priestly duties, after which he responded by commissioning Anthony Cekada to write a tract arguing the validity of one-handed ordinations (which Pistrina then subsequently totally disproved and discredited).

This recent article dealt specifically with a contention by one of Dolan’s supporters that there was an “eye witness” who swore “before God” that Dannie was ordained with two hands, not one.  The problem is that this “eye witness” came forward to make his claim thirty-five years after the ordination – long after those nine priests had written their letter to Dolan.  Why, one might ask, didn’t he come forward then?  Pistrina pointed out this and several other problems with this “witness’s” account (which are detailed in the article). 

In response to this article, one of Dolan and Cekada’s supporters – one “Introibo” – wrote in as a “commenter” to challenge what Pistrina had to say.  Introibo started by saying that the nine priests’ testimony itself was fourteen years after the ordination, making it subject to doubt as well (strangely, though, he did not raise the same objection about his “witness’s” words, which were thirty-five years after the fact).  In the ensuing marathon of comments, Introibo, who happens to be a New York lawyer, went on to claim that he had a hard-and-fast witness, whereas Pistrina had none; and, being a lawyer, he then went on to claim that Pistrina had “no case” at all.  After repeated calls by Introibo for Pistrina to produce a “witness,” Pistrina responded by saying that there were witnesses to the one-handed ordination, but that they do not, for their own private reasons, wish to be identified – and hence, Pistrina is not at liberty to reveal their names.  Whereupon, Introibo, being a lawyer, seized upon this to contend (since Pistrina could not produce their names) that they did not exist -- and that Pistrina was lying about them (and everything else).

What Introibo failed to realize (or did not want to realize) is that there was no mention of such “witnesses” in the original Pistrina article – because there was no need to.  No such “witness” was necessary to prove doubt.  The fact that nine priests wrote to Dolan about his ordination being doubtful (and urging him to do something about it) was proof enough that a doubt existed.  And the Pistrina article addressed that doubt.  Another problem with Introibo’s “witness” is that he was the only one to make such an affirmation.  That, coupled with his Johnny-come-lately timing and his over-the-top rhetoric, strongly hints that it was braggadocio, not fact – and it is our belief that, one day, this “witness” will suffer much embarrassment for having done this bit of damage control for Dannie.

It must too be pointed out out that Pistrina never stated that Dolan’s ordination was invalid (although Introibo and other “anonymous” commenters claimed it did); it only said that, since the ordination’s validity was in doubt, Dolan should take the safe path of removing that doubt by undergoing conditional ordination (as the Church has always prescribed in such cases).  Dolan, of course, did NOT take that path, but instead commissioned Anthony Cekada to write his lengthy tract “proving” the validity of one-handed orders – which, of, course, it did NOT.  It was a totally flawed mish-mash of mistranslation, faulty logic, and misquoting of official papal teaching; in short, it was a pack of lies.  But for some number of years, Cekada’s error-filled “explanation” was accepted by everyone (including those nine priest who had written that letter to Dolan).  But persistent doubts about it kept surfacing.  Then one day, a year or so ago, this same Introibo – because he was irked by Pistrina’s often referring to Dolan as “one-hand Dan” (a moniker, by the way, coined by one of Dolan’s former colleagues), challenged Pistrina to prove that one-handed ordination is doubtful.

Well, Pistrina did just that – and in a thorough and decisive way.  And it is ironic (and appropriate) that it was Introibo, who, in issuing this unsolicited challenge, tried to discredit Pistrina and conversely vindicate his hero Dannie -- but accomplished just the opposite.  And it is now doubly ironic (and understandable) that this same Introibo – with his comments on the recent Pistrina article (and a subsequent article, by the way) – has come forward once again to argue that this Johnny-come-lately “witness” is, nevertheless, a witness (and that Pistrina had failed to produce one).  But his point is moot – and for more reasons than one. 

First off, as Pistrina has tried (in its numerous responses to him) to explain to him over and over again that the issue is NOT about identifying or producing “witnesses” (and certainly not about claiming that Dolan’s ordination was invalid), but only about showing that there was doubt about that validity – enough doubt to prompt not only a letter from nine priests (including Dannie’s buddy Don Sanborn), but also a lengthy (and flawed) response (by Anthony Cekada) to that letter -- both of which are more than ample evidence of that doubt.  The vast majority of traditional clergy, then and now, understands that there was and continues to be doubt (and now so more than ever).  And, despite Introibo’s contention that it did not fit the legal definition of reasonable doubt, it was “reasonable” enough for those nine priests (as it is for the vast majority of traditional clerics) – and definitely genuine. And Introibo’s unceasing efforts to downplay or de-legitimize that doubt only betray his bias – and an ulterior motive for saying what he did.**

Secondly, Introibo’s point is moot because the really salient point about all of this is not so much the doubt about those orders, but Dolan’s being too ARROGANT to remove that doubt – by taking the safe, prudent course of getting conditionally ordained.  Everything else is moot.  Everything else is irrelevant.  Conditional ordination was (and still is) the obvious (and common sense) thing to do.  It would have been so easy, so painless.  Had he done it, it would have displayed so much humility and good will on his part – and, in a single stroke, it would have put an end to all doubts about his orders.  But to do so requires humility and charity – in both of which Dolan is sorely lacking.  So, in lieu of taking that quick, easy step, he instead had his buddy Tony compose a lengthy (and now totally discredited) treatise arguing the validity of one-handed orders -- which makes one wonder why he went to all that trouble to avoid a simple fix.

And why have Dannie and Tony done this?  Again, because of their monumental ARROGANCE – that’s why.  Because of that arrogance, they have steadfastly refused to do the right thing; and in the process, they have dug for themselves an ever-deeper hole – a hole that they cannot get out of.  But this should not surprise anyone: this is what they’ve ALWAYS done.  They have always taken the devious, the deceitful, the wrong course.  One has only to look at their track record to see it:  for instance, the well-authenticated 2009 SGG school scandals (where scores of parishioners were victimized, and where half of them, including SGG’s biggest benefactor, left in protest).  Why would one expect the overseer of such a travesty to act honorably?  Or why would one put any credence or trust in that same pastor who referred to watching porn on the school computer as “boys will be boys”?  And why would one expect someone who wrote a whole series of articles justifying Terri Schiavo’s being starved and dehydrated to death to do the right thing?

So, it really doesn’t matter whether Dannie’s ordination was doubtful or not, because there is NO DOUBT as to his (or Tony’s) character – and no amount of “defense” or “damage control” will alter that.  The sad (and well-documented) facts are that the “devious duo” have vilified and victimized scores of innocent people, both clergy and laity alike – behavior that has typified them so many times in the past, and which continues today unabated.  Hence, it comes as no surprise that they have taken the deflective path of dodging the “doubt” issue all these years.  What else could one expect from such amoral, immoral creatures?  What is surprising, though, is how people (such as Introibo) can defend their actions.  How, in the face of irrefutable evidence of the dynamic duo’s pernicious behavior, could they accord these two even one iota of respect – or credence?

That, too, is simple to answer: pride.  Like Dannie and Tony, these people too have dug themselves a hole out of which they cannot get themselves: they too cannot admit that they have made a mistake by continuing to support these two moral lepers.  But that is human nature.  That is why people cling to myth and reject truth, why history’s lessons are never learned and its mistakes repeated, and why Barabbas was released and God Himself was crucified. Because of this, the “Introibos” of the world will never be convinced – because they don’t want to be convinced.  As long as Dannie and Tony “put on a good show” for them, they simply don’t care.  For them, it’s all about cosmetics, not about reality.  For them, it’s not about how good one is, but about how good one looks – about “the show.” For them, everything else is irrelevant.  Everything else is moot.

____________________

** “Introibo” will probably contend that we too are “biased” and that we have an “ulterior motive” for saying what we do about the Devious Duo.  Yes, we are definitely biased -- but not for any ulterior motives. Our opposition to them is straightforward and open – and taken as a result of (and on behalf of) the countless people whom they have victimized.  And not only has what we’ve reported about them been corroborated by those victims; but much of our evidence has come from Dolan’s and Cekada’s own lips.  True, we have not revealed Introibo’s “witness” – because we are not authorized to do so, and – more importantly – because that is not necessary (or pertinent) to the case.  Again, the “case” has not to do with Introibo’s “witness” but with proving doubt about one-handed orders. 

But, ultimately, the “case” has to do, not so much with those issues, but with Dolan’s and Cekada’s character -- or lack thereof.  We do not have to prove anything about doubtful orders, nor do we have to produce any witnesses to refute Introibo’s.  The proof of Dolan’s and Cekada’s character is proof enough: a proof that they themselves have amply provided – and which Introibo cannot refute.   When one is a viper, it matters little whether his orders are “valid” or “doubtful” or whatever.  As they say, “a rose, by any other name, is still a rose”  -- and so is a viper.