A man, the firstborn son in a large Italian-American family, was -- as firstborn sons often are -- expected to “go far” in life. He was intelligent and handsome, and had an engaging charisma about him. After finishing a stint in the Navy, he got a job as a salesman; and it was quickly apparent that he was a “natural” at this. He quickly became the top salesman where he worked. Eventually, he met a girl, got married, and started a family. While he was in the Navy, however, he took up gambling. This habit continued after he got out, and later developed into a really serious problem. Eventually, he became a full-blown compulsive gambler, and lost his job. His wife, who gave him chance after chance to reform, finally – after seeing him gamble away their house (and even steal from his kids’ piggy banks to support his habit) – left him, taking their two kids with her.
Now all the while this was going on, the man’s family made one excuse after another as to why his chronic gambling “wasn’t his fault.” And, because he himself was such a charismatic “sales jock," he “sold” his family on that notion too. Time after time, his father (or, in some cases, an uncle) would pay his gambling debts and “bail him out” – hoping against hope that he would reform. Of course, he never did. Bailing him out only fed his habit (like trying to put out a fire with gasoline). Being a real “charmer,” he “re-married” several times, swindling each and every subsequent wife out of her life savings. But to this day, some family members still regard him as “faultless.” In fact, some even blame his first wife – saying that “things would’ve got better” if she hadn’t “abandoned” him. Some feel sorry for him. And, yes, some even think of him as “the victim.” But in no case, do they condemn him.
Well, it’s kind of the same way at SGG. There we have Dannie, the charismatic master flimflammer, exploiting and victimizing people at will (and draining their pockets for whatever pet reason strikes his fancy) – yet his culties defend him to the hilt. Not only do they rigorously endorse him, but they vehemently condemn anyone who dares say otherwise -- especially those who expose the truth about him. They regard them as vindictive “witch hunters” who “have an axe to grind”; and they refuse to believe the mountain of factual evidence against him. They either refuse to believe it, or they find some way to “explain it away.” No matter what he does, their Dannie can do no wrong.
We at Lay Pulpit (and even more so at Pistrina Liturgica) are especially cited for being “disrespectful of the clergy” for what we say about Dannie and Tony. Since they are “men of the cloth,” we are supposed to show them “deference.” – but do they (and their supporters) show others the same?* Showing Dannie and Tony deference, of course, presupposes that they are good, decent men who have some degree of legitimacy that entitles them to that deference – either because they are legitimate, or they are presumed to be until proven otherwise.
And the plain truth is that, in the beginning, they were presumed to be legitimate. They were given the benefit of the doubt, and shown that deference – plenty of it. But they showed themselves NOT to be good men; and when they chose to abuse their privilege – to wantonly and habitually victimize people, and then to disdainfully and arrogantly disregard those victims and their plight (and the hard evidence of their mistreatment) -- they forfeited all right to any such “deference.” Therefore, we ask, why go through the utter pretense of continuing to show these worms any deference? What they now merit is total censure.
Strictly speaking, NONE of the sede “bishops” warrants any “deference.” Since appointments to the bishopric must come from the Holy See (i.e., be authorized by the institutional Church), none of the traditional bishops are licit (and -- many might argue -- are invalid). However, we here will not “play theologian” and rule on any of that, nor are we saying that a sede bishop warrants no respect at all. (Our position is that good men, whatever their “credentials,” warrant respect – and bad men don’t.) But we can say this: as sedes, they haven’t any of the jurisdictional authority that goes along with the office of bishop. So, for a dirt-bag like Dannie to have his Gerties kiss his ring and accord him all the other “deference” due a bishop is unwarranted (not to mention, pretentious) – but, oh, how Dannie just relishes playing the part!!
It is ironic that Dannie, who has no pastoral jurisdiction or authority whatsoever, can pretend that he does -- and can play at it with such relish – squeezing out every bit of ersatz homage that he can from his SGG vassals. Actually, just for what they said about Schiavo, Dannie and Tony -- even considered as simple priests -- are entitled to no deference whatsoever. Add to that the rest of their “track record,” and these bagworms deserve nothing but utter CONTEMPT. These two renegades, who operate totally un-policed and answerable to no one -- and doing whatever they damn well please -- expect their underlings to accept their rubbish “because they’re priests.” Sorry -- not any more.
Besides, the “nice approach” has already been tried on these bagworms far too many times before – and it hasn’t worked. Invariably, when people have asked them to explain a wrong position that they have taken (especially on Schiavo), they have condescendingly told them to “shut up and obey,” and have scolded them for “questioning their authority.” And when confronted with all the hard evidence against them, they have simply clammed up and ignored it -- hoping that it won’t become “public” – or, they have denied it – hoping that their parishioners accept their “explanation.” Or, they simply use the “stonewall” approach and shout down their opposition, telling them to “shut up and believe” because “they are priests” -- and, therefore, are not to be questioned. So, again we ask, why show these worms continued “deference”?
Actually, for those who know the truth about Dannie and Tony, but who remain acquiescently “deferential,” their silence is sinful – sometimes mortally sinful -- because it only reinforces the cult-masters' behavior. “Accommodating” them won’t stop them. And it certainly won’t reform them, but will only ensure that they’ll do more of the same. Dannie’s and Tony’s apologists would do well to remember this. And when they actively defend these maggots, they not only give them unwarranted “legitimacy” and credibility, but they make themselves collaborators in the cult-masters’ mischief.
It is interesting to note, too, that when these people attack our blogs for what we say about Dannie and Tony, they never attack the main arguments. Instead, they invariably pick on some “tangent” point, and/or they accuse us of “name-calling.” They, of course, also engage in name-calling. But there’s one big difference: we can back up what we say with FACTS. They can’t. All they have going for them is groundless denial. And the reason that we can back up what we say is that, invariably, our proof comes from Dannie’s and Tony’s own lips: the cult-masters condemn themselves with their own words. So, again, these people who try to defend them by “blowing smoke” are just making both themselves and the cult-masters look even worse.
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: self-righteous, defiant denials and deaf ears are not “morally acceptable alternatives” for the truth. Those who strenuously defend the cult-masters cannot use any of those as a “justification shield.” They have an obligation to seek out the truth – and then use it. If they do not, they are just as guilty as the cult-masters. The sad reality, though, is that many of them willfully do NOT seek it out, because they’re afraid of what they’ll find – and then they’d have to give up their “show.” Whatever their reasons – willful ignorance, close-minded intransigence, acquiescence, or “inertia” (not making the effort to seek out the truth) – none of these, again, are “morally acceptable alternatives.”
These people must stop pretending, and come to the cold realization that Dannie and Tony are illegitimate scum, as the evidence clearly shows. If they think they can prove otherwise, we eagerly invite them to try. But we know that they won’t -- and can’t -- because they know that we have the truth on our side. Defending these maggots as “legitimate” will always be a failed effort, just as bailing out that gambler (in our earlier example) was a failed effort: it only ensures that one’s self-destructive behavior continues.
Again, no one is going to reform Dannie and Tony. And the truth about them is out there – a mountain of it -- and it’s getting harder and harder to ignore. So, it’s time for the dirt-bag duo’s supporters to STOP ignoring it, to start facing reality, and then to TOTALLY REJECT Dannie and Tony and their cult catholicism.** By supporting these losers, they are hitching themselves to falling stars. For their own good, they’d better abandon that course and embrace the truth, before they become losers too.
* For both Dannie and Tony and their apologists, the “Alter Christus” argument (that they invoke to exempt them from any criticism) seems to apply only to them, and to no one else. Both the cult-masters and their culties disparage “Bergy” (Francis I) and other novus ordo clerics, and anyone perceived as “playing ball’ with them (such as the SSPX), and that is okay. In fact, they even disparage traditional clergy as well -- the late Abbot Leonard Giardina, for one (click here for more on that). Anyone considered an adversary of the cult-masters is “fair game” for being attacked – just one more example of the “double standard” mentality that reigns supreme at SGG.
Another thing on which Dannie and Tony’s supporters attack us is that we only go after the SGG/Brooksville bunch, and no one else. Well, the answer to that is that these are the only ones with whom we have first-hand knowledge. Anything that we know about others is “second hand”; and, therefore, it would not be fair for us to comment on them. Besides, if we did, we’d probably be criticized for “picking on everybody.”
That is not to say that we haven’t received detailed information on other parts of traddieland that are rotten, but we just don’t have the time to devote to them. Perhaps one day we can; but for now, chronicling the misdeeds of the SGG/Brooksville bunch is a full-time job in itself. (Perhaps someone in one of those other locations could start their own blog, because -- to repeat -- “our plate is full” for now.)
** No, the spelling of “catholicism” with a lower-case “C” is not a mistake or “typo.” It was done deliberately, for cult catholicism is not Catholicism at all, but a grotesque caricature of it. So, why give the cult-masters legitimacy by capitalizing that word when it applies to them?