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.)