Saturday, December 31, 2016

Hypocrisy’s Poster Child

Editor’s Note: We’re back!  After a one-and-a-half-month hiatus, we’re returning with our bi-weekly posts.  And to ring in the New Year, we are, with our first article, highlighting one of Dannie’s main “virtues” – his incomparable hypocrisy.  So, read and “enjoy”!

A popular TV ad a few years back was one for an ant-acid called “Rolaids.”  The ad asked the question, “How do you spell ‘Relief’?”  Answer: R-O-L-A-I-D-S.  Well, here’s a new “update” on that:  “How do you spell ‘hypocrite’?”  Answer: D-O-L-A-N.  Yes, Dannie, Tradistan’s arch-hypocrite, has struck again.  Let us explain.

Recently, the husband of a couple who had once been SGG parishioners (but, thank God, had the good sense to leave) died.  And, since they had been generous donors while they were at SGG. Dannie, finding out about it from the funeral director, made mention of it in his ’Corner (click here), in the hope that he might get the man’s wife to have her husband buried at $GG (at $GG’s usual exorbitant “fee” for a Requiem).

The woman, in deep shock from her husband’s death (it was a sudden, unexpected death), declined Dannie’s invitation to have her husband buried from SGG.  Besides, having left SGG some time ago anyway (and not wanting to go back to that cesspool), she kept declining his repeated attempts at cajoling her to honor what he deemed would be “her husband’s wishes” (as if Dannie knew better than she what he wanted).  Instead, she asked him to send one of the priests to her husband’s “wake” (visitation) to give a blessing, and perhaps a brief sermon.

At that juncture she also informed him that her son, a Baptist minister, would also be there to say a few words to honor her deceased husband’s memory.  Dannie expressed distain over this, and told her it was “ecumenically impossible” for a priest to be in attendance in a room with her son. When she asked why, he told her that her son was a heretic and “in anathema” (a term the Church uses to denote those who are accursed and damned).  Defending her son, she then told Dannie that, unlike some trads, her son would never commit sodomy, would never molest a child, did not drink or smoke, was a good husband, and lived a decent, Christian life.  According to her, Dannie then turned into a hissing viper, telling her that she was “selfish” and was “denying” her husband a “proper” SGG burial.  At this point, she announced the conversation at an end, and hung up.

Later, in a subsequent Bishop’s(?) Corner (click here), Dannie sanctimoniously stated that he was going to the cemetery to “bless his tomb” [the deceased husband’s] for her -- obviously to appear “magnanimous” to his SGG “studio audience” (and perhaps even in the hope that she, being the generous soul that she is, might relent, and compensate him for this “favor”).  The problem is, though, that the ground didn’t need to be blessed, for it was an old Catholic cemetery, and therefore had its ground consecrated long before Dannie was ever born – by a real priest.  The ground did not need Dannie’s worthless, redundant “blessing” (although “One Hand” could surely use a “redundant” ordination!).  And, luckily, the woman did not “bite” on this meaningless gesture either.

Dannie’s claim, by the way, that it would be “ecumenically impossible” for him to be in the same room with a “heretic” (her son) is pure HOGWASH:  There is no such “ecumenical” (or canonical) caveat against such a thing.  Dannie LIED.  He simply “made it up” so that he wouldn’t have to go to the wake.  After all, if he wasn’t going to get some bucks for a Requiem, why bother to attend?

But what makes this claim so hypocritical (as well as phony) is that Dannie, some time back, WAS “in the same room” with some “heretics” – not only in the same room with them, but PRAYING with them as well!  [Dannie, don’t you regularly lambast Bergie for doing the same?]  It was at the Jewish Hospital [yes, Jewish] in Cincinnati, where Dannie underwent prostate surgery back in November 2012.  Dannie, as he is wont to do, waxed poetic about it in his November 24 Bishop’s Corner of that year: “We had quite an ecumenical gathering at Jewish Hospital. There were a Catholic bishop [Is Dannie calling himself a ‘bishop’ here?], Jewish doctors, a Catholic surgeon and nurses, and some cheery Protestant ones who energetically “said a prayer with me,” as is their custom, before surgery. I thought perhaps I should say a prayer out loud to the Little Jesus, Doctor of the Sick, but I reflected that non-Catholics probably wouldn’t understand the powerful devotion to the Holy Infancy – more’s the pity! Besides, the anesthesia was starting to kick in…”  [By the way, the “Catholic surgeon and nurses” were most certainly “Novus Ordo,” whom he otherwise usually labels as “not Catholic.”]

Hmmm, Dannie, why was it “ecumenically” possible for you not only to be “in the same room” with these folks, but to PRAY with them as well -- but you couldn’t attend that wake (where you wouldn’t even have been a “participant” anyway)?  Why is it that what was good for a roomful of Jewish (and Protestant) ‘geese” was not good for a lone Protestant “gander”?  [And, again, for that matter, why was it not “scandalous” for you to pray with “heretics,” as you everlastingly claim it is for “Bergie”?]  “What gives,” Dannie?  That “gander” wasn’t even going to ask you to participate.  All you had to do was to show up and “pay your respects,” then leave.

What “gives”?  Hypocrisy, that’s what! How exquisitely hypocritical – but how predictably “Dannie”!!   Perhaps Dannie could successfully “explain away” such an “inconsistency” to the cult-crazed brain-dead there at SGG – but not to us.  And, Dannie, what made you think that we would not sniff out your “inconsistency” and expose it?  In the ardor of impressing his culties, Dannie had to wax poetic about his “ecumenical gathering” there at the hospital, not realizing that his words would come back later to bite him in the derrière.  But that’s the problem with liars and hypocrites: they say what’s convenient for the moment, not realizing (or caring) that it might come back to haunt them later on.  (They’re so used to their culties swallowing whatever swill they dish out, it doesn’t occur to them that there are rational folks out there who won’t fall for such crap.)   

But wait – there’s more to this story: it turns out that the Protestant minister at that deceased husband’s wake was his wife’s son – but not his.  The son was hers by a former marriage.  (Yes, she formerly married a man who, convicted of embezzlement, abandoned her, and left her and her young son homeless and penniless).  Bankrupt and destitute, she eventually met and married another – the man now lying in the casket.  Of course, since this second marriage was not valid in the eyes of the Church – and since she (and he) wanted to be good Catholics, they – after they had been going to SGG for a short time (but long enough for Dannie to notice how much they contributed) -- approached him, and informed him of their situation. 

So, what did Dannie do?  Well, guess what?  He told them they could stay!  And why?  Because they were generous donors, that’s why!  Yes, he told them that they could stay, but that they should “keep it under their hat” (about being married previously) so that it wouldn’t “scandalize” their fellow parishioners.  He also went through the motions of telling them to “live as brother and sister” (knowing full well, of course, that they wouldn’t).  Why does this not surprise us?  Because, being the amoral creature that he is, Dannie wouldn’t let “a little thing like that” get in the way of a “business opportunity.”  Again, oh how exquisitely hypocritical, but oh how predictably (and unmistakably) “Dannie”!

But what makes all this even more hypocritical is that Dannie, who at the outset saw no problem in saying a Requiem Mass for this man he knew to be to divorced and remarried, refused another SGG parishioner’s request for the same (for her mother) because the mother was “Novus Ordo.”  (He also refused the mother the last rites.)1  (Apparently, being Novus Ordo is worse than being a remarried divorcee!)  But wait!  It seems that “being Novus Ordo” is not necessarily a reason for “disqualification”!  Case in point: yes, he refused that woman; but, some time back, he put on a “triple play” extravaganza for another woman who (the wife of yet another SGG parishioner) was -- you guessed it --  Novus Ordo!  (By “triple play,” we mean that he had three priests saying three Requiems simultaneously for her!)2   Why the inconsistencies?  Why say a Requiem for a remarried divorcee, but refuse one (and the last rites) to a Novus Ordite, yet put on a “triple play” Requiem for another Novus Ordite?

Why?  The reason, as always, was MONEY.  In the case of the remarried divorcee, Dannie figured that he’d get a generous stipend from the divorcee’s widow.  (He also thought that this gesture would entice her into “coming back” to SGG.   And, since they had been such generous donors in the past, Dannie was looking forward to “seeing the money flow again.”  He also saw it for its propaganda value: a “lost sheep” returning to the fold.)  Now in the case of the woman whom he refused both the last rites and Requiem, the couple requesting it had actually been some of Dannie’s staunchest supporters – but they were relatively poor: there was to be no big “payday” for Dannie in accommodating them.  But in the “triple play” case, that woman’s husband was well-to-do; hence, the big extravaganza.  The “common thread” in all these cases, to repeat, was MONEY.  Whatever Dannie does, MONEY is his paramount -- actually, his only -- criterion.  So Dannie, we must ask, is there no end to your hypocrisy?  

But folks, this story has one final, ironic twist:  although neither Dannie nor any of his “priests” had the common decency to come to the deceased man’s funeral -- nor did any of SGG parishioners, save one couple (in spite of the fact that the deceased man and his widow had many “friends and acquaintances” at SGG), the widow did receive something “special” in the mail from SGG shortly afterwards: next year’s “collection” envelopes!  It seems that, although none of these scum could come to the deceased man’s wake, his widow’s MONEY is still welcome at SGG!  How appropriate!  How quintessentially, exquisitely -- and unmistakably -- “Dannie”!!!

It is time for SGG’s Gerties to come to the hard realization that Dung-ball Dan is a malignant chameleon who changes his mood and his message whenever it suits him.  It’s time, therefore, to give His Excremency “the bum’s rush.”  So, Gerties, start your New Year off right: make a New Year’s resolution to get out of the cult -- and, by all means, to…

Starve the Beast!

1 This deceased mother’s daughter and son-in-law were a couple of Dannie and Tony’s biggest supporters, and had actually moved to Cincinnati (from New York) to be there at SGG.  Eventually, both of them got jobs working in SGG’s office.  (The woman was, in fact, in charge of SGG’s Sunday Bulletin.)  When the woman’s mother fell gravely ill, she and her husband entreated Dannie to give her the last rites.  Dannie refused, because she was “Novus Ordo.”  (It is, by the way, mortally sinful for a priest to refuse that to someone, whether they’re “Novus Ordo” or not.)  When she died, he (of course) also refused her the Requiem.  As a result, the couple left SGG, and has since moved back to New York.

2 This was the celebrated “triple play” funeral that Dannie put on for the Novus Ordo wife of one of SGG’s big donors.  The woman was not only Novus Ordo, but defiantly so.  She wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with SGG, and she LOATHED Dannie and Tony.  But, since her husband was one of SGG’s prominent parishioners (and a big donor), she not only got a Requiem, but THREE Requiems celebrated simultaneously by three different priests!

Of course, Dannie (and the woman’s husband) will claim that she “became traditional” before she died.  In fact, in an e-mail to the woman about whose husband this article is written, this “prominent SGG parishioner” told her, “We were surprised he [the woman’s husband] did not receive the benefit of a proper Catholic funeral. One of the things that comforted me most when my dear Stella [died was that she finally accepted the traditional Sacraments from Fr. Thielen just days before she died, and was able to have that beautiful funeral at SGG.” 

Of course, what choice did the poor woman have?  On her deathbed (dying from cancer), how was she going to get up and go get the priest she ordinarily would have wanted for her last rites?  She probably had a choice of either accepting her husband’s choice – or no priest at all.  Given such a “choice,” we seriously doubt that her “acceptance” of that traddie priest was all that “voluntary,” but more on the order of an ultimatum -- an “acceptance” that she had no other option but to take.

This SGG parishioner who related this in his e-mail was totally insensitive too in telling that woman, in the trauma and grief of her just having unexpectedly lost her husband, that “he did not receive the benefit of a proper Catholic funeral.” Firstly, it was not only insensitive of him to be telling her that, but arrogant.  Who is this presumptuous WORM to be preaching to her -- especially when she’s in such a traumatized state?!  (But that’s the way it is with culties: they’re so wrapped up in their own little warped world, that it never occurs to them that people might have “feelings.”)

Secondly, he was wrong.  We should point out that to this arrogant ignoramus that the woman’s husband DID get the benefit of a proper Catholic funeral: a Requiem Mass for him was said right away – and by a real priest (Fr. Bernard Hall) -- who, unlike Dannie, not only gladly agreed to come to the man’s wake, but, while there, blessed the body as well.  (And, by the way, also unlike Dannie, this priest did NOT ask for a stipend for saying that Mass.).

And lastly, we should like to point out to this presumptuous moron that, although Fr. Hall’s Mass was not the “show” that his wife got, it was a genuine Mass.  (This SGG parishioner’s wife was the one who got that “triple play” extravaganza we’ve reported on before – three Masses simultaneously celebrated by three different priests.)  A Mass “without all the bells and whistles” is just as pleasing in God’s eyes as an elaborate one (or three).  (In fact, we venture to say that, if God was not offended by the garish “triple play” display that Dannie & Co. put on for that SGG parishioner’s wife, He was certainly offended by Dannie’s reasons for doing so.) 


  1. The only time I've heard of that three requiem custom was in ++John Moynihan Tettermer's I Was A Monk. The requiems were for one of his parents. I was under the impression that this took place because both he and his brother were priests. Of course this took place when he was still a Catholic Passionist, not when he was a Liberal Catholic prelate.

  2. Yes, Dannie’s “triple-play” extravaganza is virtually UNHEARD OF: not even high church officials and heads of state are accorded such an honor. It is embarrassingly obvious that Dannie put on this garish spectacle as a “thank you” to the dead woman’s husband for prostituting his principles and crawling back to the SGG cesspool. It is also an admittance that Dannie is DESPERATE to hang onto his “big donors” (which this man is) and will do ANYTHING to keep them there – because the “glory days” of SGG are over (when Dannie had plenty of big donors to bankroll his schemes).

    But after the 2009 SGG school scandals, all that changed: the really BIG donors (such as Bernie Brueggemann and Tom Nies) left; and SGG has now fallen on hard times. The dead woman’s husband also left for the same reasons (although it took him a while longer to make up his mind). So, when he left, this too was a big financial blow to Dannie. But, fortunately for Dannie, the man came back; and the reason he came back was – ironically – “the show.” It turns out that the man is an “ecclesiastical perfectionist” and a “rites and rubrics” fanatic. And, since he didn’t agree with the rubrics, etc. at St. Albert the Great Church (to where he had defected), he left, and – as he put it -- “came back home” to SGG.

    To prostitute one’s principles and return to SGG, just because “they put on a better show,” is absolutely DESPICABLE – but that’s what he did. However, one cannot blame Dannie (from a strictly MATERIAL standpoint, at least) for putting on his blatant “thank you” performance for him. But from a spiritual, moral standpoint, SHAME ON THEM BOTH. And, as it turns out, SGG – from that “material standpoint” -- is “going down the toilet” anyway. So, all of this hapless hoopla will have been in vain: the cult is crumbling – and, along with it, this man’s cherished “show.”

  3. None of your analysis makes any sense. Let's see.

    1) The couple whose mother was Novus Ordo who didn't get a Catholic burial. I don't know where you've been, but no traditional Catholic clergy I know will do a funeral for a member of the Novus Ordo conciliar religion. If we thought the Novus Ordo church was the true religion, wouldn't we be going there instead every Sunday? So how can a Catholic priest perform a funeral Mass for a member of a false religion?

    2) The woman who received the sacraments from a traditional Catholic priest before she died, who received three requiem Masses. As her husband said, she became traditional Catholic before she died, receiving the sacraments from a traditional Catholic priest. Thus she would be entitled to Catholic burial. Your claim that she didn't really convert to the Catholic religion is based on no evidence that you cited. And as far as your outrage that she received three simultaneous requiem Masses, I have never heard of any limit to the number of requiem Masses that can be offered for a deceased, nor can I comprehend why you are outraged at the thought of a dead person receiving three Masses for the repose of her soul.

    3) A woman offered to Bp. Dolan that he send a priest to speak at her husband's funeral alongside a protestant minister? You think a Catholic priest should do such a thing? Put the Catholic religion on the same footing as a heretical sect? And this woman defends this because this protestant minister isn't a sodomite (not sure what that has to do with anything ...), while gratuitously accusing other traditional Catholics of being such? She sounds like a complete screwball.

    And you object to the statement that the protestant minister is "in anathema"? Why don't you read the Council of Trent, in which the pope and bishops list all the errors of protestantism and say that anyone who holds them is "anathema". Maybe that was insensitive of them to say that? Is there something wrong with Bp. Dolan quoting the Council of Trent?

    How about you take some time to learn a little about the Catholic religion before you start posting about it all over the internet.

    1. Anon. 2:06 PM, you’re wrong on all counts. First, for a clergy, “traditional” or otherwise, to REFUSE to give someone the last rights – to one who REQUESTS those rights -- without even ascertaining that person’s disposition, etc., is wrong – and mortally sinful. And to deny that same someone a Catholic burial is also wrong – and mortally sinful.

      And as for that woman who “became traditional” because “her husband said,” I just don’t believe him – or you. Yes, I don’t know for sure that she did NOT “convert” – and I never made that claim. I only expressed my DOUBTS that she did, because it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE that all during her married life, right up to the time she became mortally ill, she was DEFIANTLY Novus Ordo – and LOATHED Dolan and Cekada.

      Your argumentation about the “benefit” of three Requiem Masses is, like that of so many of Dannie’s apologists, IRRELEVANT to the point being made. The point is that it was overly ostentatious, given the circumstances. NO ONE at SGG, before or since, has had such a “triple-play” extravaganza done for them. Can you get that through your thick skull, dummesel?

      Next, the woman who requested Dolan to come to her husband’s wake DID NOT tell Dannie to speak “alongside a Protestant minister.” I repeat, she did NO SUCH THING – and you know it. Like the hypocrite you are, you’re just trying to misconstrue her words to suit your own argumentative purposes. And, by the way, Dannie later told ANOTHER lie: he told an SGG parishioner (named “Natalie,” who is a friend of the dead man’s widow) that the reason he didn’t come to the wake was not because her Protestant son was there, but because he said the woman told him that there was going to be a funeral the next day, and he would go then. That IS A LIE. She never said any such thing, and she made it PERFECTLY CLEAR to Dannie that it was a “one day” thing. So, you see, you’ve just defended a LIAR. And if you’re one of the SGG brain-dead, you can ask “Natalie” to corroborate all of this.

      Lastly, your invoking the Council of Trent to justify Dannie’s calling the woman’s son “in anathema” is irrelevant too. The point here was the total INSENSITIVITY of saying such a thing. It’s like the theater critic telling Mary Todd Lincoln, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?” Of course, being the Pharisaic hypocrite you are, it never occurred to you that this woman was distraught, and was just trying to defend her son who, while she was in her moment of grief, had just been maligned by Dannie.

      And, oh yes, one more thing: it turns out that there HAVE been sodomite traddie clergy – and it would really surprise you to find out who some of those others are!

    2. I am replying to the 3rd remark made in the above comment.
      I did not accuse the priests or the traditional "catholic's of sodomy. I did not say in my conversation with the Bishop "unlike some trads", those words were added by the author of Lay Pulpit.
      What I factually said to the Bishop was "My son would never commit sodomy, would never molest a child, did not drink or smoke, was a good husband, and lived a decent, Christian life."
      This was after the Bishop told me a priest could not be in the same room as my son and tried to make me feel like my son was evil.
      For the sake of accuracy, let me clarify the facts. My deceased husband was the stepfather of my son. For 31 years my son called this man dad. Regardless of my son's religion, he was also a family member. My son was not there to conduct a protestant service, but to say some words of remembrance to honor his dad.
      The pompous jerk who called me a total screwball can perhaps now understand what really transpired. I would also like to know why this jerk was so inflamed by the word sodomy. He seemed unable to read past that word and lost the whole content of the rest of what I said. What triggered such a tirade from the word sodomy?

    3. "And, oh yes, one more thing: it turns out that there HAVE been sodomite traddie clergy – and it would really surprise you to find out who some of those others are!"

      So tell us--who are they? When were they convicted like V2 priest John Geoghan? How do we know the anonymous poster is really the mother and not the author of this blog? Let me guess--for some reason you're "not at liberty to divulge the info, just like the nameless, faceless "witnesses" to an alleged one-hand ordainaction!

    4. Not YOU again, moron!! We get so-o-o-o-o-o tired of idiots like you trying to “fish” for information (that you would then try to use against us), and questioning the veracity of what we say. RATIONAL people know that we’re telling the truth, and that we back up everything we say with hard evidence. But you know DAMNED WELL that in the case of homosexual priests, we cannot – for a multitude of reasons (legal and otherwise) – name specific names.

      However, we CAN say something public to dismantle your empty insinuation, “How do we know the anonymous poster is really the mother and not the author of this blog?” If you are a member of SGG, you can ask a woman named “Natalie” to check the veracity of whether that woman exists, and if she commented. And if you are NOT a member of SGG, it’s none of your damned business! (And -- oh yes – go ahead, Pharisee, and condemn me for using the word “damn.”)

    5. I need not condemn you for using vulgar language as there is so much more by which you condemn YOURSELF.

      You claim SGG to be a "cult" yet:
      Anyone who disagrees with you is a "moron" (ad hominem attacks are used by cult leaders and those incapable of rational thought).

      People cannot/should not question your veracity (sounding very cult-like)

      I named John Geoghan as a sodomite. There are no legal repercussions because it's true. You bring home my point splendidly, that there are no convicted Traditionalist clergy or you would name them. There are no legal or moral problems with doing so.

      So there's only one woman named "Natalie," at SGG and she's privy to the author of the comment in question. Query: Does she go by the Code Name
      "Deep throat"?

      SGG's a cult and the clergy are moral scum? Physician heal thyself!!

    6. Look, moron, both Pistrina and we have exposed SGG’s cult-like practices (not to mention, their lying and subterfuge) many, many times. RATIONAL people see this; but you don’t. And your ridiculous comment asking if “Natalie” is “Deep throat” shows that you are indeed a moron (or someone who acts like one). And your statement about there being no “convicted” homosexual trad clergy is irrelevant, because homosexuality is not a “crime” anymore – ergo, there CAN’T be any “convicted.” But there HAVE been homosexual clergy, one of whom is now living somewhere on the east coast – and several trad clergy know who he is.

      However, that being said, we will not “take your bait” and name him, for reasons we stated in our last reply (and, contrary to what you claim, there ARE legal restrictions that apply). But there are other reasons as well (which are our main ones); and if you don’t know what they are, then you are (again) indeed a moron. But why, we may ask, do you dwell on this, while ignoring the main points of our article? Why did you choose to focus on this one tangential point? Because you KNOW that what we said about Dannie is the embarrassing TRUTH, and you can’t do anything about it. Therefore, you had to pick on some tangential issue in your failed attempt to cast doubt on our credibility.

      Everyone outside the SGG cult knows (as you do) we’re telling the truth; and they are ignoring your empty accusations and insinuations – and that’s good enough for us.

  4. What a great post nailing Don Dolly for his hypocrisy, greed and lack of anything remotely resembling Christian charity or pastoral concern. He can't attend a wake because the Baptist son of the widow is "anathema" (what a missed opportunity for conversion and what a thing to say to the bereaved (esp to cover your own lack of desire to attend!)), yet as he rolls into surgery he can pray for his own skin w/Jews, Protestants & Novus Ordos (whom, you're right, he never ceases to lambast as non-Catholics!)--and brag about it in his bulletin. Then to add insult to injury he sends the widow collection envelopes! MONEY sure ain't anathema--bet if Mom had donated enough moola Baptist sonny could have preached at the SGG 3 ring circus (Don Dolly might have even given him his own Baptist table--and made it a 4 ring funderall)! It would be funny if souls weren't being lost because of these ravening wolves.

  5. Isn't everything Don and Dan do about the show?
    Dan's show is his ceremonies. Don's show is his featured radio shows,newsletters, and money making schemes. When will people learn that these men are hypocrites and are there for the good life? While Dan likes everyone taking care of him, Don likes the power he has over the people. He thinks he is the man behind the trad movement who everyone should come to for anything and everything Catholic. What a joke. This man lacks charity and is out to scam people out of money. Don even has it set up where only the elite get tended to with care. How many visits to the sick does a "regular" parishioner get vs. how many someone "connected" gets at that place? It's all about the money.

  6. Yes, indeed, Dannie is a hypocrite – an ARCH-hypocrite. Donny is too, but hypocrisy is Dannie’s main “drawing card,” whereas Donny’s is hellfire-and-brimstone bullying. It’s ironic that both of these annelids are looked up to as “everything Catholic,” when in reality they’re everything EXCEPT Catholic. People who follow these scum-balls will lose both their souls and their wallets. Thanks to both Anon.’s 2:47 PM and 3:28 PM for your comments. Keep ’em coming!

  7. Sanborn is a psychopath who makes psychopath sheep followers. His parishioners beat their kids (not spank) during church services and no one bats an eye. His sermons consist of fire and brimstone, but then he has no qualms about leading a posh lifestyle of trading in cars, the best restaurants, traveling, etc., and all bought and paid for by the parishioners of MHT and his mission chapels. The guy keeps coming up with new schemes and never follows through with any of them. He lies to his parishioners saying they need to expand the seminary because they are running out of room. Really? How many actually stay? He just wants more money. He's too cheap to hire someone to fix his building that is following apart, so you see his seminarians doing the work or a handful of families, my guess is the big 3 who everyone talks about all the time. My guess is he fudges his weekly tithes and pockets the money for his side trips during his speaking engagements. The poor elderly parishioners will probably be squeezed of every last dime from him (no doubt that by giving everything to him you can get to heaven.).

    Really, what good things can you say about this man? He is a liar, a thief, a misogynist, an enabler of child abusers, and absolutely not catholic.

    1. And I'd like to add that he has no problem going behind other priests back and badmouthing them. Mht is the only place you can get to heaven, you know?

  8. You are a liar, you don't tell the truth. If I'm a moron you're an idiot, the lowest form of retard. You continue to act like the cult you denounce! How do you know there are homo clergy? Unless maybe you...oh! I understand--you don't want to out yourself! LOL

    1. It seems you too know homo clergy at SGG, but seems you don't care--no matter how many children are harmed. LOL in hell w/Cekada & Sanborn & their great Iago sense of humor--as long as you get the gelt on earth...

  9. What was that you said about "ad hominem" remarks? We want to thank you for making a fool out of yourself. Keep up the good work!!

  10. Just to clarify: our last comment wasn't a reply to Anon. 6:59 AM, but to Anon. 9:18 AM (and we're not sure how the two comments got interspersed; it was not our doing). So, Anon. 6:59 AM, our apologies to you for any misinterpretations that this may have caused. To repeat, our last comment was aimed at Anon. 9:18 AM, not you.