ALL ABOUT THE LAY PULPIT

Saturday, August 27, 2016

“Catholics”(?)

In recent years, there has been much debate (and contention) about what constitutes real Catholicism (especially in Traddieland!).  So, what is “Catholic”?  Is “being Catholic” saying all the right prayers and observing all the right rites and rubrics?  Is it “observing all the fast and abstinence rules” or “not missing Mass on Sunday and holy days of obligation”?  Is that what gets one to heaven?  Of course not.  If that were so, then the Pharisee in Christ’s parable (about the Pharisee and the publican) would be “justified.”  The irony today is that many traddies – especially those at the SGG and MHT cult centers -- are exactly like that Pharisee in the parable – and like the “tinkling cymbal” and “sounding brass” in St. Paul’s epistle.  

In fact, they are functionally Protestant in many ways; and, conversely, many Protestants are functionally Catholic.  Many professed Protestants, for instance – in spite of their “fides sola” precept stating that all that’s necessary for “salvation” is “accepting Jesus” and that good works are not necessary), live and act as if they are.  They know, either consciously or unconsciously, that we are responsible for our actions, and that there are moral (and legal) consequences if we do wrong.1  So, although their religion claims that “good works don’t count,” their behavior signifies otherwise.

Traddies, on the other hand, claim (as they should) that good works are necessary for salvation – but the problem is, their actions don't match their words. Like the Pharisee in that parable, they condemn people for things like “improper language” or “violating dress codes,” or for not coming to Dannie’s “shows” often enough.  Yet they “look the other way” in the face of BLATANT IMMORALITY -- or even pretend that it never happened.  For example, the scandalous events of 2009: they saw and knew what happened – the brutal behavior of the SGG school “principal,” the blatant immorality of his sons, and the way that Dannie ignored the pleas of the victims – yet they said (and did) nothing. 

They’ve seen also Dannie’s and Tony’s extravagant lifestyle: their “sabbaticals” to the Bishop’s Lodge, their winter “apostolates” to sunny Mexico, their penchant for fine dining and for unneeded “toys” (such as Tony’s new organ), and their wasteful spending to fix up prematurely leaking roofs and prematurely failing HVAC systems.  They’ve seen their embarrassingly failed efforts such as “Ordo 2016” and SGG’s “calendar,” and how Checkie was TOTALLY WRONG about Schiavo (as he is on virtually everything else he’s written).  They’ve seen more than enough to convince them, yet they disregard it: they still support these imposters implicitly.

The great lesson of history, it is said, is that we never learn its lesson -- that it is always doomed to repeat itself.  And that’s exactly what Dannie and Tony’s culties are doing: they plainly see what’s happening, but they never “learn” from it -- and they ignore what they want to ignore, and believe what they want to believe – no matter what happens.  If Dannie and Tony, for instance, were videoed committing an immoral act, their culties wouldn’t believe it – or, if they were forced to admit it, they’d "explain it away" it as “irrelevant.”

For Dannie and Tony, being “Catholic” has always been about how many Hail Mary’s one says or about how many Rosary processions one attends, not about how one treats his fellow man.  Our Lord bade us to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  But what have Dannie and Tony done?  How have they “done unto” Terri Schiavo, or all those SGG school kids victimized back in 2009?  And their culties -- how have they “done unto others”?  Let’s look at one typical example: an SGG parishioner once berated a man as “un-Catholic” for uttering a word (commonly used to indicate bovine waste) to describe something that Dannie had said about the man’s father (see A Pristine Case of Hypocrisy); but she totally ignored the fact that Dannie’s words were bald-faced lies – and that the man was totally justified in saying what he did about Dannie.

Another example: a woman (from Sanborn’s Brooksville cult) who regularly condemns other women for being “scantily clad” (i.e., wearing “shorts,” etc.) was seen recently at a local establishment, wearing “short shorts” (and a halter top).  But such behavior is typical amongst culties: they say one thing but do another.  However, who can blame them?  After all, they’re only emulating what their cult-masters do!  The SGG and MHT cult centers are Tradistan’s benchmarks for double-standard hypocrisy.

Many Protestants, on the other hand, often lead exemplary lives.  In one of our articles, for example, we reported about a group of Baptist missionaries’ children who suffered beheading at the hands of their ISIS captors rather than renounce Christ (click here for article).  We referred to them as “martyrs.”  Later, however, one of Sanborn’s MHT letter-of-the-law lunatics (his depraved “prefect,” we believe) reportedly stated that, technically, they were NOT “martyrs” (because one must be Catholic to be termed a “martyr”).  Well, we think we know what God thinks of such “technicalities” (and, for that matter, what he thinks of Anthony Cekada’s remarks about Terri Schiavo).2  One thing for sure: those kids (and Terri) will see heaven long before Dannie, Tony, or any of the other cult-master scum does (that is, if the latter ever do).3

Historically, Protestantism has been condemned by the Church (and rightly so) for its “heterodox doctrines” (aka heresy).  But guess who else is doing the same: the cult-masters!  Without any authority (or jurisdiction) whatsoever, they promulgate their pet “doctrines” – such as their “una cum” nonsense – passing off these personal opinions as “articles of faith,” and denying the sacraments to anyone who doesn’t “comply.”  And, when they do make such rules, they administer them selectively -- with no apparent rhyme or reason as to who must obey them, except for the one criterion that always applies: MONEY.4  

The bottom line here is that, like his “show,” Dannie’s (and his fellow cult-masters’) “Catholicism” is – to repeat -- purely cosmetic, not real.  Functionally, he and they are Protestant (actually, something less than that).  The cult-masters preach “Catholicism” (and sometimes not), but don’t live by its precepts.  In reality, they have become a blend of neo-Puritanism and religious totalitarianism, all designed to keep their followers in timorous servitude, and themselves in luxury.  They are nothing more than swindlers taking advantage of peoples’ innate sense of good will, fair play, and generosity – and exploiting them in every way imaginable.

The problem is that traddies – by and large -- are tailor-made for such exploitation, because they have been carefully brought up to OBEY – and, all too often, to BLINDLY obey.  And blind obedience – obedience without discernment – is dangerous.  It is the kind of thing that fosters (and perpetuates) CULT behavior – the kind that typifies SGG and MHT.  What traddieland needs is a good dose of common sense (which, in Traddieland, is in short supply), along with some intellectual honesty.  Traddies need to stop pretending about what they know is wrong.  They need to realize that Catholicism is more than “cosmetics” -- fancy ceremonies, letter-perfect rubrics, and affected, pretentious “holy-speak” – and that real Catholicism is about living by Catholic principles, i.e., about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.  It’s as simple as that. 

Real Catholicism is about real virtues.  It’s about real humility, not the false Uriah Heep “humility” of Dannie’s “apology sermon”5 (that was nothing more than camouflaged pride), in which he “apologized” to his parishioners, then proceeded to put the blame on someone else (without, by the way, offering any proof of such).  It is about real wisdom, not about Cekada’s smarmy, specious sophistry (whether written, or in his videos).  It is about real goodness, not about the Dannie’s empty, syrupy sanctimony (or the fault-finding, back-biting neo-Puritanism of his followers).  But most of all, it’s about CHARITY – the charity that Dannie and Tony never had for those victimized school kids (and their parents) back in 2009 -- or for Terri.  Traddieland needs to heed St. Paul’s words: And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.”  Until that happens, Traddieland will never be truly Catholic.
____________________________

1 Common sense dictates that such an irrational precept is wrong, that we must all live by (and operate according to) moral precepts, and that there are moral (and legal) consequences if we don’t.  Protestants, as we, live by Catholic principles – which is the only true, rational moral compass for humanity.  As Belloc so rightly pointed out, it is Catholic principles which have “set the tone” for moral conduct through the ages.  And, even though we live in a pluralistic society, people live by the Catholic principle that we are responsible for our actions. Our whole legal system, for example, is set up that way.  Otherwise, the alternative is anarchy and chaos.  (Luther, for one, found that out.  He noted with chagrin that his followers took his “fides sola” creed literally, and hence were degenerating into debauched, dissipated behavior.) 

But today, unfortunately, the opposite is happening: immoral – not moral – behavior  is “setting the tone” for society.  Little by little, old moral precepts are being abandoned, and being supplanted by a “new morality,” where things like abortion and homosexuality not only are no longer sins, but are protected “rights” under the law; and open immorality of every sort is now “the standard.”  In fact, standing up for one’s Catholic principles -- speaking out against homosexuality, for instance -- is soon becoming a “hate crime” subject to criminal prosecution.  Meanwhile, things such as “wasting energy” and “not being ‘green’” are becoming today’s new “sins.”

Of course, some might claim that Dannie & Co. also echoes the same sentiments regarding some of what we’ve just said.  But the difference is that Dannie et al do not practice what they preach (as they’ve demonstrated so, so many times in the past – and continue to do).  Dannie (sometimes, that is) “waxes poetic” about Catholic precepts, but he never adheres to them (as he did in 2009, as Tony did on Schiavo, etc., etc. etc.).  So, to those claimants, we say, “We hear you – but we don’t believe you.”

 2 While Phony Tony, (SGG’s “traditional priest” and “authority on everything”) was justifying Terri Schiavo being starved and dehydrated to death, a Novus Ordo priest (Fr. Frank Pavone) was there at her bedside, doing everything he could to comfort her in her final death agony.  As our Lord asked in His parable about the Good Samaritan, who was Terri’s “neighbor” in this case?  We think you know the answer to that one.

3 It’s ironic that Dannie, commenting in his July 31, 2016 ’Corner about a priest (in Normandy) recently slain by Moslems, remarked, “The sight of a priest, his throat slit by Moslems, should open some Christian eyes…”  Well, Dannie, how about those Baptists kids (whom we just mentioned) who were slain?  We know that you regularly read our articles (as we do your ‘Corner), so you know what we said about those kids – so why did you not ever mention them?  Do they not “count” because they were Protestant?  Shouldn’t that “open some Christian eyes” as well?

The other “ironic” thing is that the French priest did not “die for his Faith.”  [On the contrary, he compromised his Faith by pandering to these Islamic scum.]  But he bore mentioning by Dannie, while those Baptist kids, who did die for theirs, apparently merited (and got) NO mention, because they were NOT “Catholic.”  But this, again, is what so typifies the cult-masters: double-standard behavior.  Also, one final irony is that Dannie himself is not Catholic, and thus has no reason (or justification) to “throw stones” at anyone else.  (Oh yes, he’s perhaps “Catholic” in the same sense as that Pharisee in Christ’s parable was “valid” – but he’s not Catholic in practice – nor, in our opinion, is he in any other sense of the word.)

4 A prime example of this was the celebrated “triple-play” Requiem Mass (actually, three Requiem Masses celebrated simultaneously by three different priests) for the deceased Novus Ordo spouse of a big SGG donor, while the Novus Ordo mother of a not-so-well-to-do SGG parishioner was denied a Requiem Mass (and last rites).  The discerning criterion was -- as you already know -- MONEY.  But this is the rule at the cult centers.  The “elite” (the rich who are big donors) get whatever they want (and DO whatever they want), while the poor get nothing -- but must “obey.”


5 For those (in non-English speaking countries) who may not be familiar with Uriah Heep, he (Heep) was a fictional character (in Charles Dickens’ novel, David Copperfield) who was noted for his phony, cloying “humbleness.”  Dannie’s “humbleness” – although of a different style, is just as counterfeit and disgusting.  By the way, for a written transcript of Dannie’s “apology sermon,” click here.  (An audio recording of it was, at one time, also available in SGG’s sermon “archives,’ but has since been removed.  Gee, we wonder why!)

10 comments:

  1. MHT parishioners wearing short shorts and halter tops, no way! Sanborn would condemn you to hell. Those clothing options are only available for the main families.

    In all seriousness, who cares what the other parishioners are wearing as long as they aren't the ones setting the standards for those around them but not following them?

    MHT are a bunch of hypocrites. Everyone knows that. New people have always said it is the most uncharitable church they have attended, and these people are not new trad Catholics. Yet, they continue to go for the sacraments. It boggles my mind. If the church, it's leaders, it's parishioners lack charity, than how can the place be Catholic?

    Those people have major issues. Money, money, power, power, control, control, control. Learn to shut up and obey, or you will go to hell for your pride.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, if the truth were known, Big Don probably REALLY DOESN’T CARE whether the womenfolk are wearing “short shorts” or not. It’s a case of him only SAYING that he cares, because that’s a necessary part of his “ACT” – of his “manipulation and control” program. And, as you so rightly surmised, the manipulation and control are ULTIMATELY about one thing: M-O-N-E-Y. If Donny thought he could “maximize profits” by RUNNING A NUDIST CAMP (or a house of ill repute), that’s exactly what he would be doing. “End of story.”

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't exactly say that. I think Sanborn thinks everything is a sin, and I mean EVERYTHING, except when it comes to his pet parishioners and himself.

      Look at the gluttony of the food. His special chef and luxury outings at fancy restaurants.

      The nuns take a vow of poverty, but do they really? The nuns who boast to kids if you go into the convent, you are given whatever you want.

      The families with money are not asked to follow the same standards as other parishioners.

      In my opinion, the man has fallen off the deep end, and Selway is going to take over quite soon. He's even more extreme than Sanborn, so my bet is he will send more parishioners running.

      Delete
    3. The remarks about the nudist camp, etc. were, of course, made in jest – but only “half” so – because I wouldn’t be surprised if Sanborn would do just that. The point I was trying to make is that, no matter what he does, the “bottom line” is MONEY. Also, I’m already painfully aware that “double standards” ARE the standard, both at MHT and SGG; so, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that score (and also about the loony-tune Selway boy). Thanks so much for your input!!

      Delete
    4. Question for - Anonymous August 27, 2016 at 3:09 PM:

      I’m just curious. This MHT traddie chick wearing short shorts and a halter top in public – does anyone know what happened after this burlesque club like sighting? Was she reported to Sinburn
      or the bishop elect and reprimanded? Or, was the information passed around the compound and nothing more is known? Has she rehabilitated her public wardrobe? One’s first impression might be that this account is trivial and gossip and as such
      shouldn’t be repeated or discussed. But, upon further analysis, this incident is most significant. Some, perhaps many, laypeople in these cult centers are just as bad as their clergy in their hypocrisy and despotism as they control and dominate their underlings. Such a person can’t be taken seriously when it comes to her bullying and dictates to the laity how they should dress or behave.
      Such a person should make sure her own house is in order before implementing the wrecking ball on other houses.

      Delete
    5. I'm not the one who saw the short-shorts and halter. Burlesque type sighting? Really? I don't think I would go that far in describing laypulpit's reports of it. For all we know, "short-shorts" could mean bermuda shorts someone was wearing for swimming, jogging, etc. A halter top could mean that someone had cap sleeves. It's all in the interpretation. IMO, the whole Brooksville cult is extreme in judgements, and shorts are perfectly acceptable for some occasions. If I was the one to see it, I wouldn't consider it my business to report it to a superior. Yet, I do see the hypocrisy laypulpit presents, especially the ones to pretend to be so proper, report all their findings to Sanborn and Selway, and then wear the same things or worse.

      People have free will and need to make their own choices. My problem is with the hypocrisy that the main families seem to inflict on others, but they do not follow themselves and Sanborn knows of the hypocrisy and doesn't correct it. In fact, it is encouraged by his own hypocrisy. I don't know if it is a person in these families, but it wouldn't surprise me from all that goes on at this places.

      There are women at the places who find other women (and even girls) to have too sexy of shoes, too tight tops, too revealing skirts, too much make-up, their veil is not appropriate, they don't sit correctly, their blouse is "too see-through" (despite the shirt underneath), the girls/boys have been dating longer than 6 months and causing scandal to the rest of the congregation, not enough piety is shown by staying for a certain amount of time after Mass, not enough people coming to the SUNDAY Benediction, and even those who tell the priests and bishop who have not been going to confession and communion. These women report it to make their own self look good. It's quite ridiculous.

      Delete
    6. We don’t know how short the “short shorts” were (or how skimpy the “halter top” was); but we assume that “short shorts” means “something shorter than Bermudas, and that “halter” implies something “skimpy.” (The reported sighting of the woman in shorts, etc., was sent in by a Pistrina commenter, with no further “details.”) But, regardless of what she was wearing, the relevant point to seize here is the woman’s double-standard HYPOCRISY (as one Anonymous noted).

      And as another Anonymous noted (in addition to the hypocrisy), the “double-standard” mentality (and the reporting of all sorts “infractions” to the cult-masters) is COMMONPLACE at MHT. Bottom line: I think we’re all “on the same page” when it comes to describing these scumbags!

      Delete
    7. Infractions are encouraged to be reported, due to weeding out any "undesirables." Yet, if one reports on any of the pet families, it must be their pride of why they reported an infraction. Then, it is turned around into a witch hunt for daring to report on a main family.

      Yet, exceptions are made for a certain yoga teaching instructor, barely dressed, getting one-on-one instruction from one one of their main priests.

      Scruplosity is the game in Brooksvile. If you aren't wearing a habit or ankle length skirt, you are criticized or rumors spread against you. Sanborn's no denim, no tennis shoes, no heals, no tight clothing, no attention getting outfits rules are not in place for the elite. Instead, Sanborn looks the other way. If you are not one of the elite, he sends someone or goes himself to let you know that your clothing is not appropriate for "his" church.

      What can you do for him? How much money can you give him now or when you die? What can you do to promote his church, seminary, convent, school, cemetery? How much physical labor can you provide to him? How many kids do you have that he can use to increase his server boys processions? What can you do to bring up the dwindling school numbers? How many vocations can you give him to his seminary and convent? Remember to leave him in your will. If you are wealthy, he will provide many sick visits from a priest. If not, despite the amount of priests, they don't have enough staff. Do you need prayers? Pay the $30 stipend. This is a pay for religion place. Either get with it, or get out!

      Stand outside after Mass on one of his sermon days. Is he talking to the "regular" parishioners or is it the "elite?" It truly is "his" parish. It is not a Catholic parish, and it certainly isn't one I can see any pre-Vatican 2 Church promoting.

      Delete
  2. Surprising even in the context of what has been learned and just corroborates it to read one to one yoga instruction for a priest at MHT by a yoga instructor with typical yoga instructor clothes.

    "Undesirables" not welcome put me in mind of something so vague I didn't write about it earlier: during a podcast some time back, the bishop referred to people, evidently unattractive ones with some kind of group not ethnic trait - when I heard the comment in context it made me think of the pictures I had seen of drug addicted families who harvest the cocaine in South America - their features are distorted as a result of constant exposure - with such a term of disgust that I should think some who heard would respond inside as I did... with resignation - it proved to me something about the character which has been under my impressions since first getting acquainted with the MHT bishop through podcasts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We received the following comment on our post entitled “Catholics”(?) (dated August 27, 2016). But, because all comments must be “okayed” before publishing, we waited until we could write a response. But when we went to publish the comment, it would not “publish” – why, we’re not sure. So, what we’ve decided to do is to recreate it both on that original “Catholics” post and on our current post here (along with our response). Here is the comment “as written”:

    I don’t know where you get the ideas that Protestants are functional Catholics and that Protestantism says good works don’t matter. Look, I was a Protestant once, and they belive [sic] very much that good works matter, they just don’t believe that good works justify or merit salvation. In fact, it is an oversimplification to say Catholics believe they do. Works alone cannot justify, because no amount of good work by a man could ever make up for offending an infinely [sic] good being like God. Even the tiniest infraction against the infinite would result in an unplayable [sic] debt [we think that he meant to say “unpayable”!] by the finite. Catholics do believe, however that good works have real merit, however inadequate it may be in so far as attaining salvation. I assume the Catholic Encyclopedia could assist if you want to investigate further.

    That was his comment. Here is our response:

    Like the hypocrite you are, Anonymous, you WILLFULLY misconstrued what we said in the article. [You sound like Big Don or Checkie!] First, we NEVER said (or implied) that Protestants SAID that good works alone are necessary for salvation. What we said is that they (Protestants) “act as if they are.” The operative words here – for you, that is – are “act as if.” Yes, we know that one must have Faith as well, and that both that and good works are necessary for justification. That is rudimentary “catechism” stuff. Your insinuation that we are “simplistic” (and therefore intellectually inferior) is, at the very least, uncharitable (as well as hypocritical). And besides being false, it was grossly stupid of you. Every SCHOOLBOY knows that both Faith and good works are necessary, so your “insinuation” only highlights YOUR ignorance, not ours.

    It was stupid of you because you should have understood what we meant, without having to go into your letter-of-the-law grammar school “Catechism 101.” We didn’t go into any such detail, because we didn’t have to – at least for rational people. You must still be Protestant, because you were obviously taking what we said out of context (just as the Protestants do with their Bible – and just as they did to form their “fides sola” myth). And trying to condemn us with your pharisaic letter-of-the-law drivel only makes you look like the mean-spirited scum that you are. You knew EXACTLY what we meant; but, again, you chose to WILLFULLY MISCONSTRUE it. No, we don’t need the “Catholic Encyclopedia” to “investigate further” – but perhaps you do.

    ReplyDelete