What’s in a Name?

Danniie’s August 10, 2105 Bishop’s Corner was the usual mishmash of syrupy sanctimony; and sandwiched in-between were the usual furtive reminders to donate (”Please do remember Abraham’s Burse, and Father’s many needs”) and to attend “the show” (”surprise yourself and others – but not God – by showing up for something”; or, “Would you make a sacrifice and show up for the Rosary Procession Thursday evening after supper?”; or, “Now, come, let us bless Our Lord in return”).*  But more and more, it seems, Dannie’s pet cats are taking center stage, for -- in this issue -- several paragraphs were dedicated to his feral felines.  It seems like not even a week goes by without Dannie making some reference to them.  

We wonder why.  We also wonder why he gave them the names that he did: Vivaldi, Puccini, and [gag me with a spoon!] Caravaggio.  Was Dannie just trying to be “cute,” or was there some “significance” to those names?  We wondered, so we did a “web search” of those three characters for which the cats were named.  It turns out that all three were “imperfect” in some way, with Vivaldi perhaps being the least “controversial” of the three.  Antonio Lucio Vivaldi, born March 4, 1678, was an Italian Baroque composer and virtuoso violinist, whose best-known work was a series of violin concertos known as The Four Seasons.  He was also, believe it or not, an ordained priest – but one who, reportedly because of his fragile health, was dispensed from practicing his vocation.  That’s kind of ironic: on the one hand, there’s Vivaldi, the non-practicing priest; and then on the other, there’s Dannie, the practicing non-priest!!  Maybe that was the "attraction" for Dannie!

At any rate, the next cat was named for Giacomo Puccini, also a composer, but a bit more of a rascal than Vivaldi.  Puccini wrote perhaps some of the most beautiful opera music ever composed, but his personal life was anything but that.  A notorious womanizer, he had affairs with at least a half dozen women; and one woman, with whom he was accused of having an affair (but actually didn’t), was so mortified about it that she committed suicide.  (Later documents revealed that he actually had an affair with her cousin.)  So, one wonders why, out of all the famous personages who have ever lived, Dannie would pick such an unsavory character as Puccini for a pet cat's name.

But, as unsavory as Puccini might be, he was -- compared to Caravaggio -- a cherub.  Michaelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, born in 1571, was a painter.  A Wikipedia article describes him as having “led a tumultuous life. He was notorious for brawling, even in a time and place when such behavior was commonplace, and the transcripts of his police records and trial proceedings fill several pages.”  It goes on to report that he committed a possible murder, and that he consorted promiscuously with both women and men – and even young boys. Also, several of his religious paintings were rejected for being too “sensuous” (and even erotic); and a disproportionate number of them dealt with such grisly themes as beheadings, or with depicting young boys in “carnally suggestive” ways.  For these and other reasons, most historians agree that he was in fact homosexual.   By any measure, Caravaggio was a scoundrel.

So, again, one wonders why Dannie named his pets after such characters.  Well, okay, Vivaldi was innocuous enough – a bit odd, but innocuous. And Puccini?  Although that one’s a bit of a stretch, one can make “allowances” for him.  But Caravaggio?  Granted, Dannie has a penchant for choosing odd names; but Dannie, couldn’t you have picked someone else? After all, what if one of your culties “googled” Caravaggio, and found all that “dirt”?  Wouldn’t he be scandalized?  There are plenty of other names that are just as deliciously ridiculous as Caravaggio, but without the sordid “baggage.”  How about Tintoretto, Botticelli, or even Rembrandt?  Perhaps you could hold a “name the cat” contest (and charge admission – another fund-raiser!), and judge on the basis of how outrageous it is -- or, better still, perhaps name them for some outrageous person.  (Our personal favorite is Oscar.) 

But, regardless of what names Dannie gives his cats, the real issue here isn’t that, but this: why someone who calls himself a “bishop” would fill up his column in a church bulletin week after week with brainless blather about his pet cats (not to mention, spell out all the gruesome details of their “exploits” with baby bunnies).  Doesn’t he have anything better to do than that?  At best, it’s bizarre.  At worst, it’s sick. Perhaps Dannie thinks that he’s being “cute” by musing about cats dismembering, devouring, and regurgitating these little critters; but if you ask us, it’s a sign of not being “cute” but of being “twisted.”  Dannie’s “bunny fetish” shows a mind that is – if not “Dahmeresque” -- a bit disturbing.**

We wish that Dannie would simply dispense altogether with his banal banter about his cats.  He’s not being “cute” or “humorous”; this drivel is actually tiresome as well as boorish.  That, along with his syrupy sanctimony, may work on the brain-dead; but for the rest of us, it’s just so much “window dressing.”  It’s artificial, it’s insincere, it’s pretentious, and it’s disgusting.  Dannie, we wish that you’d dispense with it all.  Actually, we wish you would simply dispense with yourself (and Tony too) – and take Vivaldi, Puccini, and Caravaggio with you.  The bunnies (and we) will thank you for it!

_________________________ 

* Since we’ve been “getting on Dannie’s case” lately about how he’s always either begging for money or scolding parishioners for not coming to “the show” often enough, we notice that his reminders about them are a little more subdued these days – but they’re still there. 

** But, then again, so also is the mind of a “bishop” who – while enjoying himself down in warm, sunny Mexico during Lent – can, in one breath, say to his freezing parishioners back home, “Still the weather [in Mexico] was beautiful.” And then in the next breath, ask them, “Did you have more snow?” (and, oh yes, ask them to pay his “excessive heating bills” while he’s down there “doing Mexico.”)  If that is not “disturbing,” then it is certainly insensitive.  But what else could one expect from someone who takes his cats to a “kitty spa” for their pedicure, while he’s justifying the starving and dehydrating to death of Terri Schiavo?

The “Dahmeresque” adjective, by the way, is a reference to Jeffrey Dahmer, the convicted serial killer who sometimes ate his victims, and who, by the way, got his “start” by watching videos of torturing animals.  He quickly graduated from that to torturing them himself, then doing the same thing to humans – and ultimately to cannibalism.  We wonder why Dannie would use a church bulletin to recount the grisly details of his feral cats’ “exploits” – and we also wonder if Dannie would like to reconsider his “boys will be boys” comment about the SGG principal’s boys watching the same sort of videos.

Name Dropping’s “Poster Child”

Editor’s Note:  This is just a reminder to any new reader’s that Lay Pulpit is a bi-weekly publication, i.e., we publish only every other week.  What we may do in the“in-between” weeks is to give the readers a “preview” as to what is coming the following week (provided that we know the topic by then!).

Some weeks back, Daniel Dolan mentioned in his Bishop’s Corner that a former SGG parishioner had been guilty of a very serious transgression, and that SGG’s parishioners should keep this individual “in their prayers.”  This comment, undoubtedly, was designed to make Dannie appear as “magnanimous” – as a “good shepherd” looking out even for the “lost sheep” of his flock.  But, his real reason for mentioning it was, “See what happens to those who leave SGG?”  Dannie was intimating that, if one leaves SGG’s protective cocoon, he “falls from grace” – and that, if he had stayed there, he wouldn’t have “fallen.”  The truth is, SGG never provided a “protective” haven for anyone, much less, provide a morally healthy one, but instead, one of fear and trembling -- and with a totally false sense of “morality.”  Rather, it would’ve exacerbated whatever “issues” the parishioner had to begin with, and only made things worse.*

One thing for sure: Dannie’s mentioning the parishioner’s name certainly “made things worse.”  It was a cheap shot: Dannie could have discreetly told his parishioners (from the pulpit) to pray for this individual; but, instead, he published it on SGG’s website -- on the internet -- for all the world to see, thus exposing this individual (and family) to public humiliation and embarrassment.  But does he care?  NO.  If Dannie thinks he can use someone’s name to his advantage, he does so without hesitation. He doesn’t care if he advertises one’s misfortune, ruins one’s good name, or exposes one to ridicule or embarrassment, as long as he profits by it.    The fact that it came at someone else’s expense really is of no concern to him.  He got his “plug” in for himself.  He “scored his points.”  He profited by it.  That’s all that matters.

But Dannie has a long history of name-dropping, as does Tony, whose practice of derogatory name-dropping dates back at least as far as Schiavo: When a neurologist wrote a medical opinion on Schiavo that contradicted Tony’s pathetically inaccurate account, Tony not only mentioned him by name, but lambasted him as a “pompous doctor who presumed to pronounce on matters of moral theology.”  The doctor, of course, made no such “pronouncements” (nor did he direct any at Tony), but confined his remarks to the case’s medical aspects only.  Tony, however, did “pronounce” – both on its medical aspects and on “moral theology” – and got them both totally wrong.  Then, being his usual vindictive self, he published his condemnation of the doctor on the internet, and distributed it to SGG’s parishioners (as an “insert” in their Sunday bulletin). 

Now it turns out that this doctor is the son of a man who was an SGG church usher at the time.  One can imagine his dismay at seeing his son’s name in the bulletin – a bulletin that he, as an usher, handed out to parishioners after Mass. Understandably upset, he quit SGG after that – but relenting some months later, returned.  However, in the aftermath of the 2009 debacle, he quit SGG again – this time, “for good.”  We mention this second departure, because Tony, in his Quidlibet, falsely blamed the usher’s second departure on the events that precipitated his first departure: “I had inadvertently gored his ox in 2005, when I wrote an article criticizing a pompous doctor who presumed to pronounce on matters of moral theology. It turned out to be the usher’s son. Ouch! Though I personally apologized to the man for giving offense, it seems he never got over it.”  

Actually, the usher did “get over it,” not only (as mentioned before) returning in the interim, but -- subsequent to that -- even donating sizable sums of money to both SGG and MHT Seminary.  It was only after the 2009 SGG school scandals that he left for good.  (And Tony’s claim that he apologized “for giving offense” is FALSE too; he apologized, but only for not knowing that the doctor was the usher’s son, NOT for “giving offense.”)  When that usher did leave for the second (and final) time, Dannie and Tony both “misrepresented” his reasons for leaving (that is, they LIED).  Dannie said that the usher left “due to doctrinal differences,” when in fact he hadn’t; he merely told Dannie (in an e-mail) that he’d give his reasons (which were NOT "doctrinal") later.

Of course, Dannie couldn’t resist the temptation then to do some name-dropping:  “The bells were silent, though, as the rope got caught during their final ringing by a long time and loyal usher, Jim Gebel. Jim had decided to leave us that day, due to doctrinal differences [our emphasis]. We will miss him and his lovely enthusiastic wife, Olga.  Goodbye, dear friends!”   Oh, how sweet!  Dannie, of course, made sure to use “sugary” words, to make himself look good for his “audience.”  He knew too that they had no way of knowing that the usher’s reasons for leaving were not “doctrinal”; so, by saying what he did, he came off looking “magnanimous” – while at the same time making the usher look like a heretic.  But that’s what Dannie does: he thanks people for their “long and faithful service,” wishes them well, and then, “off-camera,” stabs them in the back.

Tony lied for different reasons: he claimed that the usher left because he didn’t want to ring the church bell during a procession.  As Tony put it, “When on Palm Sunday 2009 our school principal (also the head usher) tried to get the usher to ring the bell at the proper time during the procession, said usher took offense.”  This was a preposterous claim for Tony to make, for two reasons: first, why would someone suddenly “take offense” at ringing a bell – something that he routinely did dozens of times before?  Secondly, Dannie himself stated that the reason he didn’t ring it was that “the rope got caught” -- thus contradicting Tony’s version.  So, they both lied, but for different reasons.

In yet another bit of name-dropping, Dannie told a story about a visiting priest assisting him at a solemn High Mass – and made it sound as if it had happened just recently.  In fact, it happened twenty-five years ago.  Dannie did this because he wanted to give the impression that this priest was his “buddy”; thus, he had to make their getting together look “recent.” (For a full account of this, click here.) The priest, in fact, has had no contact with Dannie for years.  But Dannie needed a “supportive” anecdote to bolster his waning image, so he conjured up this story.  In a subsequent communication to Pistrina, someone confirmed that Dannie’s account was indeed fictitious (click here to see it).

Dannie’s most deplorable use of name-dropping, though – and the one that he has used most often -- is his invoking the name of the late Bernie Brueggemann for his own gain.  Bernie, of course, was known not just at SGG, but throughout the traditional world as a good and holy man.  He, as many know, was SGG’s main benefactor, single-handedly responsible for the building its present facility.**  Naturally, Dannie could not pass up the opportunity to exploit Bernie’s name to bolster his own image, since he knew that, although Bernie left SGG in disgust after the 2009 school scandals, SGG’s parishioners still revered his memory. 

What makes his attempts to exploit Bernie’s good name so despicable is the fact that – when Bernie left SGG back in 2009 – Dannie tried to “guilt-trip” him into coming back, even to the point of invoking the memory of his recently deceased wife to “shame” him into returning.  And when Bernie himself died, Dannie didn’t bother coming to pay his respects to the man: neither his visitation, nor his funeral, nor to the grave-site – NOTHING – even though Bernie was the biggest benefactor that SGG ever had.   Yet, in spite of having maligned him so, he saw fit to use Bernie’s name over and over again in order to profit by it.

Two examples will suffice to illustrate this: first, in his March 15, 2015 Bishop’s Corner, Dannie – after engaging in a bit of “Bergoglio bashing” – added, “What would Bernie Brueggemann have to say about this?”  There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring up the man’s name here, especially when one considers how he treated Bernie in the past; but Dannie figured that he’d get some “mileage” out of it – so he stuck it in.  And on yet another occasion, another “name-dropping” comment that Dannie made about Mr. Brueggemann drew a swift and angry reply from Bernie’s son: in his Feb. 27, 2011 Bishop’s Corner, Dannie stated: “In the last year of his life [our emphasis], Bernie more than once expressed his wish to be buried from St. Gertrude the Great. He was buried instead from Immaculate Conception, although he once so opposed this group’s scandalous inception in 1989, as to forbid discussion of the very subject in his home.”  Firstly, Bernie spent “the last year of his life” (and then some) NOT at SGG but at another church (St. Albert the Great); so, during that time, he couldn’t possibly have “expressed his wish to be buried from St. Gertrude the Great.”

Secondly, Bernie actually attended Immaculate Conception Church every First Friday for a good number of years before he died; and he did NOT, as Dannie put it, “forbid discussion of the very subject in his home.”  This was, to put it plainly, a bald-faced lie.***  When Bernie’s son heard what Dannie said, he was IRATE, and responded (in an e-mail) that it was “bulls**t” (click here for more details).  For Dirt-bag Dan to say what he did was not only despicable, but downright STUPID, for Bernie’s entire family could bear witness to it’s being utterly false.  However, that did not deter Dannie from making his false claim, because he probably figured that his gullible Gerties would believe it anyway.

So, whether it’s broadcasting a former parishioner’s humiliation, subtly slandering another, or taking advantage of another’s good name -- or falsely claiming a priest to be his “buddy,” Dannie has always seen fit to use name-dropping as a means of unjustly profiting at others’ expense.  One might think that Dannie would by now cease his name-dropping ways, since he’s been “caught at it” so many times.  But Dannie, being Dannie – will keep trying, no matter what.  He can’t help himself.  It’s in his DNA.  And up to now, it has worked for him.  As long as he thinks he can get away with it -- and find people gullible enough to believe it -- he’ll keep at it.  But the bad news for Dannie is that more and more of those “gullible people” are becoming “un-gullible”; and the other “bad news” is that we will always be there to “catch him” – to make sure that they do.

_________________________

* SGG is anything BUT a moral refuge.  The scandalous events at SGG’s school – the principal’s sadistic behavior and his boys’ immoral behavior -- are a matter of record, as is Dannie’s disgusting “like it or lump it” and “boys will be boys” attitudes about them.  If anything, this kind of “atmosphere” would have undermined one’s spiritual well-being. Add to that Tony’s and Dannie’s stand on Schiavo, and what you have is a recipe for moral shipwreck.  SGG is not so much a safe refuge as it is a pirate’s den.  The truth is, leaving SGG was the best thing that anyone could have ever done.

** Actually, Bernie was responsible for the very existence of SGG.  Besides donating the lion’s share of the money to build SGG’s facility (well over a million dollars), he also donated men and machinery from his own business to help with the construction.  And it didn’t stop there: afterwards, he underwrote the running of the school, donating several thousand dollars a month – and this was in addition to what he gave every week in the collection basket.  To repeat again, without Mr. Brueggemann, SGG simply would not exist.  This can’t be over-emphasized enough: he EPITOMIZED, in every way imaginable, St. Gertrude the Great.  He WAS, so to speak, SGG.

*** To compound the lie, one of Dannie’s culties stated that Bernie had told her about Bernie’s wish to be buried at SGG.  Perhaps she was unaware of Dannie’s lie – or perhaps she was aware, but just wanted to add some affirmation to what Dannie said.  Either way, she exposed herself as a liar also – and an inveterate licker of Dannie’s boots.  (For more on this, lick here).

Still a Moot Point

A recent Pistrina Liturgica article posed the question of whether a priest (instead of a bishop) could validly ordain priests, and invited discussion on the topic.  In response to that article, several of Tradistan’s illiterati accused the author of putting forth opinion as fact (which he certainly did not; he simply posed a question, then solicited opinions on it).*  But, although their comments were totally misdirected and (as usual) reeking of willful misinterpretation, they provided an opening for Pistrina to revisit another area involving “opinion”: Dannie’s one-handed orders.  As Pistrina so adroitly pointed out in a follow-up article, “just as no right-thinking traditional Catholic can safely accept as a valid priest a man ordained by a simple priestt, so too, no traditional Catholic, in light of Pius XII's  1947 Sacramentum Ordinis, can safely accept as a valid priest a man ordained with only one hand.” 

This follow-up article, in turn, generated even further misdirected comments by these same annelids, some morphing into arguments that had absolutely nothing to do with the article’s subject matter, but instead veered off in all sorts of directions (a favorite ploy of those who haven’t any truth to offer), inventing new arguments, and rehashing old ones.  For instance, one commenter again brought up the old canard that Pistrina had not proved that Dannie’s one-handed orders were invalid, to which Pistrina replied (for the umpteenth time) that it NEVER was out to prove invalidity, but only to say that there was DOUBT about that validity.  Another commenter pointed out that the letter from the nine priests to Dannie (urging him to get conditionally re-ordained) also did not constitute proof of invalid orders, because none of them were eye-witnesses to the event, to which Pistrina reiterated (again, for the umpteenth time) that it didn’t say the letter proved invalidity, but that there was DOUBT about that validity.

And then another commenter, referring to yet another Pistrina article (which mentioned that there was an eye-witness -- an SSPX priest -- to Dannie’s one-handed ordination), asked Pistrina to produce his name.  Otherwise, they claimed, this witness was either a liar -- or didn’t exist.  Here again, Pistrina answered that it was not necessary to produce that witness’s name to prove DOUBT about Dannie’s orders – because the letter from the nine priests already does that.  What this witness does provide, however, is further reassurance for us, since we now know that “if it ever went to court,” we have a witness to call on to testify -- and the truth would come out.  These nay-saying commenters know that too.

The fact is, that, except for these hard-core naysayers, virtually EVERYONE in Traddieland knows about Dannie’s defective ordination.  As Pistrina so rightly put it, “Everybody -- and we mean e-v-e-r-y-B-O-D-Y -- who counts in this matter knows what happened.”  These naysayers can wallow in their denial all they want, but the truth is, they know it too – and, again, they know that the vast majority of traddieland now believes Dannie’s orders to be defective, and that if it actually did “go to court,” they wouldn’t have a case. 

And we use that word “case” advisedly, for one of those commenters, one “Introibo ad Altare Dei,” is a lawyer.  And, as a lawyer, he knows full well that, until such a case actually does go to court, no priest is going to be a whistle-blower and “tell” on another priest.  It’s just not done.  And if that priest has not authorized Pistrina to divulge his name -- and he hasn’t – then he’s not about to reveal it himself.  So, “Introibo” can safely play his hypothetical “produce your witness” game, because he knows that Pistrina’s hands are tied – that they are not at liberty to divulge it.**

However, for the rest of the world, the fact that NINE PRIESTS wrote to Dannie urging him to get re-ordained – and that Tony Cekada subsequently wrote a long (and erroneous) treatise expounding on the “validity” of one-handed ordination – makes it more than clear enough that the one-handed ordination took place.  (Why, one may ask, would Tony have gone to all that trouble of writing his treatise, if the one-handed ordination hadn’t taken place?)  Dannie’s defective orders were the talk of Traddieland, and it would’ve been so easy for him to put those reports to rest by simply taking the Church’s prescribed prudent course: conditional re-ordination – but he didn’t.  His steadfast refusal to do so is a sure sign that Dannie is in denial, and is “stone-walling” in a vain attempt to disavow the obvious -- and painting himself into a corner from which he cannot retreat.

It is also an accurate barometer of his intransigence, arrogance, and lack of good will.  If he were truly humble and wise, he would have taken that simple, EASY step; he would have seized such a providential opportunity to show that he was good and humble, and to show -- for once in his life -- some real good will.  But he didn’t.   Instead, he took the denial path, getting his sidekick, Tinhorn Tony, to cobble up his pathetically bungled monograph, with the hope that no one would check its accuracy.  But someone did; and the result is that most of Traddieland considers not only Dannie’s orders doubtful, but those of all whom he has “ordained” as well.

Actually, whether Dannie is “valid” or not, he’s in big trouble with his Maker, for the scandalous events of 2009 alone are enough to brand him as a moral leper*** (just as are Tony Cekada’s remarks about Schiavo).****  And these are just two “tips” of a much bigger “iceberg” of documented evidence on him and Tony – evidence that can be corroborated by scores of witnesses (and even by words from Dannie's and Tony's own lips).  And Dannie and Tony know, again, that “if it ever went to court,” all of this would come to light – this and more – and, consequently, whatever “leverage” they still have left would quickly vanish.  They know this only too well -- and that they can’t afford to let any of it surface.

So, the question of whether Dannie is “valid” or not – which we concluded some time ago is a moot point -- is still a moot point.  The doubts about his validity are not "a necessary ingredient” -- but they are, of course, more “icing on the cake” to reinforce what we already know: that he is illegitimate, that he is a humbug and a fraud.  So, “Introibo’s” attempts to salvage his “validity” are irrelevant.  Most of the trad world is now “on” to Dannie.  Most now know that his orders are doubtful.  But, more importantly, they know that he is scum.   And the more that his supporters try to “beat their drums” for him, the worse they (and he) will look.

In our last article, we mentioned that Dannie was “losing control” at SGG.  Actually, he’s losing control everywhere.  Except for his dwindling band of diehards inside the SGG cult sphere, Dannie is no longer taken seriously anywhere, anymore.  The mass exodus that began in 2009 continues to this day, as more and more people discover what he and Tony are really about.  “Introibo” and others need to learn this lesson too; and if they would concentrate less on winning arguments and more on seeking the truth, they might have a chance to do so. But that takes humility and intellectual honesty, both of which they have shown a distinct lack so far.  One would hope, though, that they’d make the effort.  One would also hope that Dannie and Tony would show some humility and intellectual honesty too – but that also is a moot point, because it presupposes that they have a conscience. 

_________________________

* Some who commented on Pistrins’s article pointed out that writing about the validity of priests ordaining priests was merely opinion.  As Pistrina reminded these illiterati, they’re even wrong on that: canon 951 (of the 1917 Code of Canon Law) specifically states that priests can be extraordinary ministers of ordination.  The exact translation, which Pistrina provided in a its article, Calling All Theologians, states: “The ordinary minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated Bishop; the extraordinary [minister is one] who, although he lack episcopal character, has received from the law or from the Apostolic See through a special indult the power of conferring some orders." 

This is just one more of the many instances where Dannie’s minions have shown their woeful ignorance – and have embarrassed their cult hero Dannie in the process.  If they had read the previous article’s comments, they might have found that translation – but they didn’t.  Or perhaps they did get their “intelligence” directly from the dysfunctional duo themselves, who missed it too; and, as Pistrina noted, “Perhaps their ignorant clergy-instigators are unaware of its contents.”  This is entirely probable, for Dannie and Tony have continually demonstrated a woeful ignorance of canon law in everything they say or write.

** It is interesting to note that Pistrina’s original articles about Dannie’s one-handed orders dealt only with doubts about their validity.  These articles brought people like “Introibo” (and even Checkie himself, although he camouflaged himself as “anonymous”) out of their subterranean woodwork to go to bat for Dannie – all to no avail.   Pistrina successfully shot down each and every one of their arguments and objections.  Then, later on, when a Pistrina article mentioned a witness to Dannie’s defective ordination, “Introibo” – having “struck out” with his “validity” argument -- crawled out of the woodwork again to attack Pistrina from a new angle: that the witness does not exist.  But that doesn’t matter, because – again – it’s not necessary to the “doubt” argument.

*** In Pistrina’s article, we commented (as “the Watcher”) words to that effect.  In answer to our comment, someone (obviously one of Dannie’s supporters) retorted that someone called “Introibo ad Altare Dei” (who happens to be a lawyer) supposedly refuted what we said, then added, “boy did he [“introibo”] kick you’re A**!”  Needless to say, we did not look up whatever “Introibo” had to say; but if it was anything like this comment, it wasn’t worth reading – and it wouldn’t have “refuted” anything anyway, for what we said can be verified as true.  But his comment did demonstrate one thing: that lawyers all too often aren’t so much interested in finding the truth as they are in winning the argument.  And when they don’t have the truth on their side, they must resort to using whatever “debating team” tricks they can find to “cloud the issue” and carry their point.

In this case, they accuse Pistrina of trying to prove that Dannie’s one-handed ordination is invalid, when in fact Pistrina has made no such claim.  (“Introibo” and others have repeatedly made this false accusation, which Pistrina has repeatedly had to rebuff.)  What Pistrina actually said was that there was doubt – which there is.  But “Introibo” – being the typical lawyer that he is – figures that repeating the same charge over and over again somehow gives it credibility.  This is a favorite lawyer’s trick -- and politician’s trick, for that matter.  (That is why political ads are repeated so often: “repetition is the mother of belief.”)

**** “Introibo” and the Dynamic Duo’s other apologists MUST be aware of Cekada’s remarks on Schiavo; and they must also be aware of what happened at SGG in 2009.  Both of these events were not only highly publicized (both within SGG and without), but verified by scores of eye-witnesses as well.  For them to be aware of these things, and still defend worms like Dolan and Cekada, is beyond human comprehension.  Also, the fact that they’ve commented on Pistrina’s blog is proof that they do read it -- every article -- although they comment only on those that they (mistakenly) think that they can refute.  On the articles that contain documented evidence that leaves absolutely no room for doubt, they’re (of course) strangely silent.  In other words, they’re more interested in carrying their point than in seeking the truth.