Saturday, October 15, 2016

Another Pawn in Dannie's Dirty Chess Game

In the days of the Austrian Hapsburg monarchy, when an emperor died, the funeral cortege would stop at the door of the cathedral; and an official would knock on the door, and ask permission for “the Emperor of Austria” to enter.  He would then be denied permission.  After repeating this process two or three  times (and being rejected), he would finally request permission for “ a poor sinner” to enter; and then -- and only then -- would he be allowed entry. The object of all this was, of course, to emphasize that all of us, from the low to the mighty, are “poor sinners” in God’s eyes – and not even a Hapsburg emperor — or a clergyman, for that matter -- is “exempt.” 

In our last article, we presented two letters -- one written by Fr. Martin Stepanich, and the other by a former SGG parishioner – concerning the SGG school scandals of 2009.  In examining the two letters, it should be obvious to the reader that the Stepanich letter, written in reply to the parishioner, - was about as vitriolic as one could possibly be.  In fact, it was embarrassingly vitriolic – almost childishly so.  Fr. Stepanich sounded like someone giving a severe tongue-lashing to a miscreant kindergarten brat.  In doing so, he used every possible “trick in the book” (including name-calling) to “shame” the man into submission.

Not only did Stepanich misconstrue just about everything the man said -- calling his charges “numerous falsifications and distortions and misunderstandings of the truth” -- but he accused him of things he didn’t even say or do.  He (Stepanich) also ignored not only this man’s complaints, but those of dozens of others (several of whom also wrote to him).  Stepanich preemptively (and unquestioningly) accepted Dolan’s and Cekada’s baseless assertions at face value, while ignoring the hard evidence of others.  In short, Fr. Stepanich made a complete ASS of himself.

Was Fr. Stepanich “senile”?  Did his “advanced years” adversely affect his ability to reason (or his judgment) in any way?  Not really.  If one had read his letter (without first seeing the parishioner’s letter), he would find Fr. Stepanich’s arguments “logical,” and would judge him to be totally lucid and “with it.”  So, no, one cannot chalk it up to his being “senile.”  A more plausible explanation for him taking the stance he did is the “Alter Christus” argument: he was trying to protect a fellow member of “the Roman Collar Club.”  Additionally, he was applying the “shut-up-and-obey” rule: the time-honored premise that Catholics should always “obey their priests,” no matter what.

But in doing this, Fr. Stepanich did a very foolish thing: compromising his own integrity by vouching for a couple of worthless vipers.  It was a regrettable lack of judgment on his part, for the “school scandal” evidence was overwhelming.  (One of the victims was the grand-nephew of SGG’s biggest benefactor, who wrote to Sanborn about it.  Sanborn, of course, took the same approach as Stepanich: denial.)  In aligning himself with Dannie and Tony, Fr. Stepanich put his own reputation – unsullied up to this point – at risk.  If he had only reserved judgment until after ascertaining the facts, he might have preserved his reputation intact.

But, as it turns out, Fr. Stepanich’s reputation was already “compromised” to some extent: some time back, in a letter (published on Droleskey’s Christ or Chaos website), he took an essentially neutral position regarding Schiavo – totally failing to condemn Cekada for his depraved position on that. (Click here for letter.)  This was a foolish thing for him to do, for it compromised his reputation, opening him up to ridicule and suspicion in peoples’ minds.  Now, in retrospect, his regrettable stance on the SGG school scandals has confirmed those suspicions (and correspondingly damaged his reputation even further).

And for what?  “Vouching for vipers,” that’s what.  For a man who heretofore had an otherwise splendid record and reputation, this is a blow to both, and even to his credibility – a devastating revelation for a man considered by many to be a quasi-saint of sorts.  He risked all of that, just for the sake of “showing solidarity” -- of unthinkingly vouching for a couple of moral lepers, without first getting his facts straight.  And in doing so, he allowed himself to be victimized – to be used as a cat’s paw by Dannie -- just as those SGG school kids were victimized back in 2009.

But perhaps that is a fortunate thing for Fr. Stepanich -- and here’s why: have you ever noticed how people will often prematurely consign the deceased to heaven – how they’ll say, “Oh, he’s already with God” (as is often done at Novus Ordo funerals.)  Well, traddies often make that same mistake – at least “functionally”:  they offer Masses (and pray) only for those who (they think) “need” those prayers.  The “good” and “holy” are often neglected, because people assume that “they aren’t ‘in dire need’ of our prayers.”

The fact that Fr. Stepanich did such a foolish (and sinful) thing is proof positive that he is indeed in need of peoples’ prayers.  It is also proof positive that he -- like the rest of us – is only human.  He is not some “near-saint” to be prematurely placed on a celestial pedestal, but – like that Austrian emperor -- is a fellow sinner to be prayed for.  Like him, Fr. Stepanich too is not “exempt” -- and, like the rest of us, must face God’s judgment.  Let us all, then, pray for his soul.

Now there are some who might condemn us for bringing these “negative” things about Fr. Stepanich to light – that what we say here, even though true, amounts to “detraction.”  “Who are we,” they might say, “to judge him?”  “After all,” they might contend, “why did you write an article (click here to see it) condemning Fr. Cekada for criticizing 'Abbot Leonard' (Giardina), when you’re doing essentially the same thing: criticizing Fr. Stepanich?"  Well, there are important differences between what we are saying about Fr. Stepanich, and what Cekada said about Abbot Giardinia.  Firstly, what we said about Fr. Stepanich is the truth; and what the Cheese-Doodle said about Abbot Giardina was a pack of LIES -- unjust, uncalled-for, and BASELESS lies.

Secondly – and more importantly – we here are writing about a man (Stepanich) who was guilty of gross wrongdoing, whereas Cekada was accusing a man who was guilty of nothing.  Lastly (and most importantly), Checkie’s sole aim was to discredit an innocent man, while ours is simply to set the record straight on someone who was actually guilty of serious wrongdoing.  Our criticism of Fr. Stepanich – as we stated in our last article -- is not meant to “throw him under the bus” (or “consign him to the dust heap”), but is offered in a constructive, remedial sense: to point out that he, like everyone else, is in need of our prayers.

We certainly realize that Fr. Stepanich was not a self-serving parasite like Dannie or Tony, and that he led an otherwise holy and dedicated life.  However, he committed a major transgression -- out of a mistaken sense of “solidarity for fellow priests” -- by supporting Dannie and Tony during the 2009 school affair.  He thus shares a degree of culpability, especially since he was made totally aware of what was going on, and chose to ignore it.  But, to be sure, the real culprits in this drama are those two lepers.  In the end, Fr. Stepanich, by being duped into pleading the vipers’ case for them, became just as much a victim as those SGG school kids – another pawn in Dannie and Tony’s dirty chess game.  One could make an argument that he did not act premeditatedly, or with any particular malicious intent – but one could not say the same for Dannie and Tony. 

That they prevailed upon Stepanich to do a whitewash job for them, thereby sullying his own reputation, is beyond despicable – and exposes Dannie and Tony for the human scum that they are.  Martin Stepanich deserves our pity.  Dolan and Cekada deserve our scorn.  So, we must do everything we can to stop them.  And, of course, the best way to do that is to do what Pistrina and we have been recommending for so long: STARVE THE BEAST! 


  1. Being involved with these men, there is a huge rule that everyone is aware: do not criticize priests. No matter what they do or how they are wrong; you must never criticize. They can certainly criticize and smear the reputations of anyone they want, but they have earned the right to not be criticized themselves. On many occasions, I have heard these men criticize other priests. It's sad that they think they are above any rules that they have self-imposed for others to follow.

  2. Dolan, Checkie and Stepanich - there is NO NEED for any one to criticize them.

    All one needs to do is to UNCOVER the plain facts of what they have so said or done. No commentary, no accusation is necessary. Just the plain facts. They will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Regarding "you must never criticize" - that is a self-serving rule set up by themselves. Despicable deeds need the cover of darkness; and darkness hates the light.

    Still think they are good and holy men??? Woe to them that call evil, good - and good, evil.

  3. Yes, Dannie’s and Checkie’s (and Sanborn’s) tenure has been one long, continuous reign of malicious mischief, whose nefarious record speaks for itself. They are all materialistic parasites who prey on the gullible to keep them in business. (The same can be said for Pivmeister; it’s just that he keeps a lower profile than the others, so his “notoriety” is not as flagrant.)

    As far as Stepanich is concerned, he certainly proved himself to be a “jellyfish” when it came to standing up for what is right on “Schiavo”; and on the SGG school affair, he made a complete ass of himself. However, as we said before, we will not “throw him under the bus,” because we know of no other instances where he misbehaved so badly. As far as we know, he did not lead a hedonistic lifestyle as the others do, but lived a dedicated, decent life. We can say, however, that he was certainly weak, and suffered from the “Alter Christus” notion that one cannot criticize “a member of the Roman Collar Club.” Unfortunately, that weakness runs as a common thread throughout much of the clerical establishment, and thus it is something of which many clergy are guilty.

    We wanted to highlight that; but the main intent of our article was to underscore how Dannie and Tony USED Stepanich for their own malicious purposes, to show how utterly unscrupulous and amoral they are – and we think we have shown that.

  4. Well, my attitude now is after all the garbage that has been disclosed since 2009 is to get to the bottom line. "Show me the money!". I am sure that ALL of these men have bank accounts that far exceed mine.

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if they had to disclose their personal Income Tax Returns to their parishioners like Politicians do to the Public? Oh, how fast we would find the intention of the King/Pauper knocking on our doors.

    Excellent article! I don't think that any true "Alter Christus" should take offense to this kind of constructive criticism. After all, Our Lord God suffered so much more for all of us, and He was totally innocent, are they?

    1. You have to wonder why the 3 main ones (Sanborn, Cekada, Dolan) have accounts and foundations in states other than the ones they live. Are they hiding something?

      They have parishioners struggling with money in all their parishes. What have they done to help them? They haven't. They just ask for more money and you to sacrifice so they can live a nice lifestyle.

      The whole no criticizing any priest, only exist if you are not one of them. How many times have they laughed, belittled, or caused scandal about other priests?

      The 2009 school scandal was just the tipping point. There will be more coming out as people figure out what is the actual motivation behind these men. I don't believe it is saving of souls.

    2. Am not arguing with the accounts and foundations in states other than the ones they live in - only probably won't spend the time to search to prove this. Even I know there is no need to open an account in another state let alone a foundation other than: where to hide the money and probably where to get the tax advantage.

  5. I would also like to know if Arizona gave Sanborn their assets? His newsletters appear he is hurting for money, even though we all know there is money hidden all over the place.

  6. I suggest all these Royal Collars dig into their own pockets before they send around any more baskets during the Mass. I believe in supporting my Parish as per fulfilling one of the Precepts of Holy Mother Church. However, I have come to the conclusion that Supporting has many meanings, and it does not only mean CASH. So this Peon, like most of America is in revolt.

  7. If people really knew how much the cult-masters have “salted away” in their various bank accounts (some of which ARE listed in states other than which they reside), they’d be mighty surprised (and angry). The cult-masters always exhort their followers to “tithe” (that is, give a tenth of their income to the cult-center, as was prescribed in the Bible). This no longer applies, since many of the things that used to be run by the Church (hospitals, charitable institutions, etc.) are now provided by secular authorities. So, “tithing” is really an unrealistic (and exorbitant) expectation these days. The other thing is that these renegades aren’t “the Church” anyway. They are independent parasitic sinkholes designed to make their leaders rich, at the expense of the gullible. These lepers don’t deserve ANY support, much less, “tithing.”

    As for the one Aono.’s question about Arizona, we don’t know. We would appreciate any info that could be given by anyone out there.

  8. Why does everyone trust these men when it is very apparent that they are so wasteful with money that is not their's? The money you tithe belongs to the church, not The Bishop Lodge vacations or European tours. It should not be wasted on organs that are not needed or fancy dinners at Belgium restaurants.

    Basically, what you are saying is that there are hidden accounts that the majority of parishioners do not know exist; the ones in charge (S,C,D) plead for more money/extra collections weekly because they claim not to have enough; the money goes to crappy work on their buildings, their secret bank accounts, luxury vacations, fancy and unneeded church items (organs), organic and gourmet meals, etc.; yet no one questions because they wear a collar? They have no one that they have accountability to since they do not belong to the Church, so they can do whatever they want with the money? They have no board, no lay people checking to see if they are actually reporting the true amount they receive (and reportedly ask for cash instead of traceable amounts), no breakdown of expenses, no reports on how much they pay themselves, etc? No one even questioning any of this because they have a collar?

    Then, you have the collar group sticking together telling the people they are not allowed to question the money, their opinions, their actions, etc. They just need to shut up and give money, even if they can't afford to give it? They can do whatever they want, even if it doesn't align with the teaching of Christ and the Church?

    SGG has a lay person running the school, even though they have several nuns and several priests who reside there? How does that even make sense? They pay him a huge salary and bonus "perks" when they could be using one of their religious to run a school for mostly the principal's own children?

    Then, you have another school in Florida that has nuns being allowed to abuse children because they wear a habit? And don't they have one of the nun's mother running the school with only their main families who followed Sanborn from Michigan?

    A family who pays for their children to become bishop and mother superior of a convent is leading the way for more corruption. Children being forced into the convent by their overbearing parents or brainwashed schools.

    Lastly, you have a group in Arizona who is expected to hand over a bank account and land to a man hiding his assets and wanting to open a seminary in Europe?

    This sounds like a movie, and I haven't even brought the ties with CMRI into any of this to deepen the plot.

  9. Replies
    1. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the Vatican even condemn the murder of Terri Schiavo? Were not the American pro-life groups publicly opposed to her murder? I vaguely remember Fr. William Jenkins of SSPV spoke out against it and some priests of SSPX, and any number of “Novus Ordo” priests and officials spoke out against it. What do/did they know, what considerations did they deliberate, that Cekada, Sinburn, Dolan and Stepanich don’t/didn’t study? What factored into the Cekada moral process to decide it is morally permissible for that poor woman to be murdered that didn’t factor in the process of those who declared it is wrong to murder this woman? How can these other trad priests, and the “Novus Ordo” be right, and trad priests of the Cekada variety, all popes in their own right, be wrong?

      Cekada made his impulsive, impertinent pronouncement, that it was morally justifiable for Terri to be murdered, before knowing all of the facts. So typical of him. When presented with the facts, including the expert opinion of a prominent neurologist, he didn’t back down but rather, made rude, condescending comments and pompous judgments to and against this doctor. What possibly could his motives have been? I will never understand this.
      (His rough and smart aleck response to Dr. Gebel was, among other factors, terribly embarrassing for me to read.) Cekada’s ignorance of medical procedures and modern day methodology of diagnosing are deplorable. He criticizes the doctor for not examining Terri live. Did Cekada even bother to visit Terri, if nothing else for prayer, when he was in Florida and first learned of her situation?

      2 quotes from Fr. Stepanich say it all in favor of not murdering the poor woman:

      “You no doubt realize how difficult it has been, right from the beginning of the Terri Schiavo case, to figure out exactly what all the real facts were regarding that case.
      Whatever happened to the old-fashioned God-inspired charity which calls for the best and most gentle care of helpless patients?”

      Yes deceased Father, whatever happened to the best and gentle care of helpless patients, or in this case, helpless patient victims? Yet you seem to give Cekada and company the green light to decide this woman should be murdered. Did you, when living, and yours, ever consider that you yourselves could or could’ve been in a similar state and your guardian or next of kin, with the enforcement of the courts, could force you to die such a horrible death? What gives you people such a right? The available “facts” that Cekada used to render his decision at the barest minimum were more than sufficient to insist Terri’s life be spared. Why the need to “figure out” all of the facts? Even if you ignore the facts presented by her parents, the testimony, facts and opinions of her immediate medical caregivers should have been fact enough to allow her to live.

      I guess my “Catholic” education teachers (and Catholic mother) got it all wrong. I was taught we do all we can to preserve and sanctify human life, from conception to death. We don’t kill off anyone.

    2. You people will never be happy with any chapel.

      You disagree? Prove me wrong! Name one chapel you think is good.

      I'm waiting.

    3. Different Anon, but I do love my church I attend and have nothing but good things to say. It is not Novus ordo or the 3 men that tend to be mentioned. Will I list it? No, because I am not leaving them to the bombastic defenders of the SGG and MHT squad, who I tend to see lurking in the comments. There is more out there to just the chapels that are listed here.

    4. Query: How much do they pay this lay principal? What constitutes a "huge salary"? Lastly, since this would not be public information (it is not a public school where salaries must be made known to all), how did you obtain this info?

    5. We don’t have concrete, CERTIFIED figures on his salary, only anecdotal evidence; but, reportedly, his salary was in the vicinity of $60,000/year. He also had his wife, daughter, and at least two of his boys on the payroll. So, one could safely say that the family’s total remuneration was somewhere between that and $100,000/year. But the salient point is that, whatever this “total remuneration” was, what the students got was not worth the price. If he made only a PENNY, that would’ve been a penny too much. Whatever the Gerties paid, they did not get “their penny’s worth.”.

  10. Yes, Anon. 10:25 AM, there is no way one can justify Cekada’s depraved remarks about Schiavo (nor exonerate Stepanich for his wishy-washy stance on the same subject). Even if Checkie had been accurate on everything else that he’s said or written (which, of course, he hasn’t), “Schiavo” alone is enough to condemn him – plus, it highlights his own incomparable combination of ARROGANCE and IGNORANCE.

    And speaking of ignorance, we will not answer Anon. 4:28 PM’s anal question. It is not our business (or desire) to be a certifier of chapels. We cannot possibly know everything there is to know about each and every chapel or church group – nor could anyone else. (We have, by the way, mentioned some chapels approvingly, but we’re not going to waste our time cataloging them just to satisfy your morbid curiosity; go back and read our former posts to find them.) As Anon. 6:53 so appropriately said, it is folly to mention any chapels by name, “because I am not leaving them to the bombastic defenders of the SGG and MHT squad, who I tend to see lurking in the comments.” So, our advice to you is, “Keep waiting.”


  11. AnonymousOctober 19, 2016 at 4:28 PM writes: You people will never be happy with any chapel.

    I question the prudence of responding to what I suspect is a baited query but, hoping this person might be reasonably open to exploring some aspects of trad reality, I will attempt some comments. And, what does being “happy” with any chapel really have to do with priests who condone the murder of a defenseless patient? One should be happy attending a chapel that has a priest who advocates murder? I speak not for Lay Pulpit or Pistrina Liturgica but, these are forums that expose the corruption and un Catholic mentality, behavior and actions of specific priests & bishops. Terri Schiavo isn’t the only concern these forums focus on but many of the comments on this week’s forum pertain to Terri. There is a treasure trove of information available on these forums to back up causes for unhappiness with certain chapels and priests.

    Priests who advocate such an aberrant position of Catholic moral theology in the case of Terri Schiavo can at best be suspect of distorted theology in other areas of Catholicism. Taking them seriously by listening to their sermons on a regular basis, listening to their admonishments & lectures in the confessional, or seeking counsel from them about moral issues, especially life threatening matters, could actually be hazardous to the Catholic soul.

    Sending children to their schools is unthinkable. Yet they all have such beautiful statues in their chapels and they say such reverent Masses and wear such pretty vestments. Valid Masses & Sacraments confected by priests in pretty vestments surrounded by beautiful statues, who might not be in line with the authentic Catholicism of the pre V2 Church is a serious matter, one that doesn’t make me happy. Thanks to forums like these we know how they con and manipulate $ from their followers and abuse it. We are familiar with their psychological terrorism and the guilt & shaming techniques to control their followers.

    Legally, per civil law, these clergymen are the owners of these chapels and can do whatever they want claiming it to be authentic Catholicism. The next trad priest down the way will denounce the next one cross town, confusing a person, and possibly leave one in serious doubt as to whether or not he commits a serious sin by attending the ones that have been condemned. Are you in favor of your priests staying at and partying at the Bishop’s Lodge? Frequent 5 star European travels & dining? You wouldn’t mind your hard earned $ in the collection plate subsidizing this and so many other abuses? This does not make me happy.

    I will never be happy with any chapel until normalcy has been restored to the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve waited and endured for over 50 years. I would love to be able to attend my canonical parish. It is within reasonable walking distance of my home. Yet, this isn’t possible. Back in the day, at my parish, how lovely it was to choose from 6 Sunday morning Masses. If only this was now possible. I would position myself in the side row of pews behind a pillar, or even better, up in the choir loft, ideally not having to deal with that element of nasty, gawking, creepy traddie Catholics spying on everyone and watching their every move and breath! Knowing the priests do not advocate killing patients. This would make me happy. This is my idea of a happy chapel. I guess I can continue to dream of focusing and adoring Christ in the Mass and in the Tabernacle.

    Please tell me the requirements a trad priest and his chapel have fulfilled to make you happy? May I ask, can you name a chapel that you are happy attending, happy being a member, happy financially supporting its clergymen? Does your priest condone killing innocent, defenseless patients?