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.