ALL ABOUT THE LAY PULPIT

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

Editor’s Note:  At the request of our readers, we too at Lay Pulpit have taken Pistrina Liturgica’s lead, and are now moderating our readers’ comments. This will spare them wasting their time putting up with some of the repetitive, “off-color” ranting we’ve been getting from a few “crazies” of late.  We wish to repeat Pistrina’s words – that we will tolerate negative comments, as long as they meet reasonable standards of decorum and decency.  Also like Pistrina, we will be monitoring our blog several times a day (as we always do) to make sure that comments are posted punctually.   

In his latest fit of turbo-charged megalomania (and vanity), Big Don Sanborn has created what he calls his “Roman Catholic Institute” – and has, of course, installed himself as its “Superior General.”  The Donster, not content with lording it over his ever-shrinking band of groveling swampland toadies, is now seeking recruits outside the cult-center walls for his new “Institute.”  Fortunately, most folks will see through this subterfuge, and write this off as just the latest in a long line of hare-brained schemes concocted by this deranged despot – but some will actually take him seriously – perhaps because they’re “afraid” to do otherwise.

And that’s what Big Don is all about: fear and intimidation -- his two “pillars of fate.”  He’s a bully.  (Others, to be sure, employ such tactics as well: Dannie, for instance -- albeit in a more subtle, “guilt-tripping” way.)  But, for good old-fashioned, "dyed-in-the-wool" BULLYING, Big Don takes the prize.  No one even comes close to him.  He is Tradistan’s undisputed “High Priest of Humbug”; and, over the years, he has carefully fine-tuned his skullduggery, bullying his way to the top, until he’s got most of the swampland servile shivering in their boots.  But what is it, one may ask, that strikes such fear into people there that they robotically submit -- in almost trance-like obedience -- to this Svengali?  What is it?  Simple: it’s a CULT (as if you didn’t know!).  It’s Jonestown without the Kool-Aid.1

There are a multitude of supposed “reasons” for their fear, perhaps the biggest being that they’re afraid that “there’s no place else on earth” where they can go to find “salvation” (or “the sacraments”).  But there’s also the fear of “losing their friends” (because some have been “shunned” by their cult-center “friends,” similar to what the Amish do).  Well, regarding that first “fear” (“no salvation outside the cult center”), that is pure BALDERDASH.  Actually, the opposite is true: all too often, there is no salvation inside the cult center – only disillusionment and despair.  And, as they have proved over and over again by their actions, these men are not Catholic, nor do they have anyone’s spiritual welfare in mind.  They’re interested only in themselves and their own material gain (at the expense of others, of course).

And as for that second “fear” -- “what will our ‘friends’ say” -- we must ask, “what friends?”  Anyone who shuns someone for leaving the cult is not a “friend,” but a Pharisee.  To do such a thing is not only uncharitable and un-Christian; it is downright childish.  “Friends” like that are not worth having; they are like the Pharisee who, rejoicing that he was “not like other men,” shunned the publican (or the Samaritan).  The thing to do when this happens is, as St. Paul once said, to “dust off your sandals and move on.”  Find NEW friends.  (After all, that’s what you did when you joined the cult, didn’t you?)  And, guess what?  Your world will not come to an end – and you will actually feel better for having broken free of those “friends.”

Much of this “fear” stems, too, from the notion that the cult-masters still have some kind of “credibility” or “power” left.  THEY DON’T.  By their own words and actions, they have destroyed their reputations, and have forfeited any right to any “respect.”  And, although people in the cults may still be fooled (or intimidated) into thinking that they have that credibility, NO ONE else does.  Nobody in TradWorld (or anywhere else) takes these clowns seriously anymore.  Most trad clergy now realize that Tony’s error-filled defense of one-handed ordination, for instance, is garbage (along with the other examples of his “scholarship” – such as Schiavo -- that are just more of the same humbug).  And they also know that the 2009 school scandals have exposed the cult-masters’ “morality” as bankrupt.  So why are many of those trad clergy still showing these dirt-bags deference – especially when they know the cult-masters’ “track record”?  Why are they not speaking out against these worms?

Is it “Roman Collar Club Syndrome”?  Are they not saying anything because it would be “bad” or “scandalous” for “traditional Cathoilcism”?  Or is it "fear of retribution” from these sleaze bags?  To answer that first fear (the “scandal” that “opening one’s mouth” might cause), one must realize that it is the covering up of wrongdoing (for “appearance’s sake”) – not the exposing of it – that is scandalous.  Covering up the truth has NEVER furthered the cause of good.  On the contrary: it has hindered it – sometimes irreparably.  It only “keeps the sore festering” until such time that the inevitable truth comes out – making that “cover up” all the more embarrassing and harmful.  As “men of the cloth” who are supposed to be “experts” on morality, trad clergy should know this – but all too often, they show themselves to be the “fallible mortals” that many trads mistakenly think them not to be.

And the other fear – the fear of “retribution” -- WHAT retribution?!  These humbugs have no “power” anymore!  They are “paper tigers” who have long since lost any “influence” or “leverage” that they might have once had (if, indeed, they ever had any to begin with).  They are, in fact, now the laughing stock of TradWorld.  And – to repeat – being bullies, they are cowards.  If one stands up to them, they will cower down, like the poltroons they are.  The plain truth is, they can do absolutely nothing to you – so why be “afraid” of them?  And, more importantly, why protect them?

You are not furthering the cause of “traditional Catholicism” by remaining silent.  On the contrary: you are helping to destroy it.  Acquiescence only furthers the cause of the cult-masters – and it not only enables them, but it is makes you their accomplices.  For the most part, it has been we lay people who have (so far) taken the lead in standing up to these predators.  Now it is time for clergy to join in. After all, standing up for truth and justice is - as they say -- “everyone's business.”

Clergymen oftentimes exhort us laymen to “do our part” (and admonish us that “if you don’t, God will judge you”).  (And that’s perfectly okay, because such exhortations are usually legitimate – unlike the cheap “guilt-tripping” that Dannie habitually employs.)  Well, now “the shoe is on the other foot”: clergymen, do your job.  “Do your part” to help put these predators out of business.   Some of you, of course, have “done your job.”  But now it’s time for all to get involved.  Collectively, all of you can “put them out of business.”  Remember, God can judge you too – and, remember too, He holds you to a higher standard. 2

We as laymen will continue to do “our part.”  But the help of the clergy is essential to properly “finish the job” – especially in convincing those poor disillusioned souls at the cult centers (many of whom believe “only what a priest says”).  As clergymen – if you are really interested in furthering the cause of “traditional Catholicism” (vs. “not getting involved,” as so many did on Schiavo) -- you must “do your part.”  And, as clergymen, your duty to do so is even greater. 

There is really nothing to stop you – only “inertia” and/or perhaps some unnamed “fear.”  But, again, there really isn’t anything to fear.   So don’t be “afraid of the big bad wolf.”  “The wolf” is certainly bad, but he’s no longer “big.”  “His “teeth,” so to speak, “have been pulled.”  The cult-masters are certainly no longer a threat to anyone (except perhaps to themselves).  So, don’t be an enabler of these predators.  Don’t be an accomplice.  The souls of many (including your own) may depend upon it.

___________________________


1 One wonders how (otherwise) “normal, intelligent people” (some even college-educated professionals) could allow themselves to be controlled in such a way.  What possesses them to surrender their wills to such a carnival con man as the Flushing Rat (or the “Detroit Door Mouse”)?  And what motivates them (especially older women) to bankroll these thieves during one’s lifetime, and even to forsake their own families – their own would-be heirs -- and sign over all their assets and bequeath their entire estates to these thieves?

As many have written to us and reported, every facet of life at the swampland cult center is dictated, detailed, and choreographed down to the nth degree – from whom one may have as “friends,” to what kind of clothes one may wear (both at and away from the cult center) – even to one’s conduct -- what one may say and do -- in one’s own home); and, of course, TV sets are forbidden in cult homes (unless it’s one of the “elite” families). 


2 Again, this is not to imply that some have not done so.  Many, indeed, have spoken out against people like Dolan, Cekada, and Sanborn.  But there are many who haven’t – many who “have the goods” on them, but who, out of some false sense of “propriety” or desire “not to get involved” – do nothing.  It is these latter to whom our exhortations are directed.

10 comments:

  1. Sanborn is intimidating. Why? I'm not quite sure. He has boastful confidence, and his attitude is usually that of disgust of others, including his own parish. Him smiling is very rare, but usually only around his large money contributers. I noticed the Australia newsletter really put on a show to pretend he was some happy, go-lucky personable priest. It even looked as though he enjoys children. That is a farce. He may have money now, but Eventually, that money will run out. Once that convent is built, my guess is that the nuns will be the ones taking in the dough. More people have a bleeding heart for the nuns than for Sanborn. Will Sanborn require the nuns to hand over their funds to him? Who knows. I think that will be his only survival though. He can't keep up that decaying seminary building too long and his handful of missions can't afford to send the amount of money needed to fix that place. I'm not sure if his parishioners have ever demanded an itemized copy of upkeep of that building, but they should. They should demand to know the cost of "routine" repairs caused by someone not qualified to do the job. They should ask for the food bill that is rumored to be gourmet everything. What is the cost of his cook? The cost of his repair and maintenance workers? How much is his salary and that of his crew?

    The claims of how priests have never had to answer to their parishioners may have been how it was in the past, but that's when there was a heriachy who watched over the others. Who is watching over Sanborn? Who is making sure the extra money is going toward the needed future repairs and not the Fancy restaurants, luxury travel expenses, and expensive cars?

    Why they don't demand he be accountable, I guess we will never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good “synopsis” of Sanborn. Yes, we figured that he has utter disdain for everyone, even for “his own.” It sounds like Big Don’s facility is just like SGG’s: falling apart. (They both got the same guy to build their facilities.) And, also like SGG, there’s no fiscal accountability. It’s all “smoke and mirrors”; the parishioners are kept totally in the dark. They can demand all they want about financial particulars, but they’ll never get it (just as SGG’s Gerties won’t).

      And, yes, it’s perhaps lamentable that no one is demanding any accountability from them (or that there is no “lawyer” or “accountant there to spearhead such an effort). But, actually, one needn’t be a lawyer or accountant to do that. Religious entities, just as secular corporations, must meet certain “accounting criteria” – and, like them, are subject to financial scrutiny. That said, there are avenues open to anyone for reporting “irregularities” if they feel that there is anything of that sort going on.

      Delete
  2. I've never been to the swampland, but how is it that the same builder is operating in Florida and Ohio? I noticed quickly how phony and slipshod the work done at SGG is, but I chalked it up to the fact almost all buildings constucted in the last 30 years by the lowest bidder are pretty lousy, as standards have declined among such workmen.


    And as far as what are people to do about the gang? Well, just what is there to do that hasn't been done? They went rogue 30 years ago have operated outside the constraints of the Catholic church since. They more or less operate functionally as protestants, and are just as protected by civil laws and proprieties. If they commit crimes, then by all means, those with evidence should come forward and produce testimony to the civil authorities, but they are too smart for that I suspect. They carefully observe to not cross that line where there will be real consequences. They can imperil souls, care less about people, manipulate, squander, and luxuirate their cats...that's all plenty legal in the USA.

    They will continue as they do until the money runs out or they die or they undergo genuine conversion, which, I suppose, we should all pray for.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, you’re right: SGG and MHT had the same builder. (He was an SGG parishioner; we’re not sure if he still is.) And, yes, both SGG and MHT are falling apart. (See our article http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2013/05/extreme-makeover-brain-dead-edition-aka.html.) Just a week or so ago, Dannie talked about the AC units needing repair (again!) -- and another about ready for needing repair. Yes, workmanship in the last thirty years has been poor, but SGG’s and MHT’s are especially poor.

    Whether or not any of the conduct of the cult-masters or the “principal” was “criminal” in nature will be hard to prove – especially after almost a decade later. The time for the people to have spoken up is long since past. But “criminal” or not, it was certainly immoral (and sadistic).

    BTW, we too hope that Dannie and Tony (and Big Don) “undergo genuine conversion”; but, based on their behavior to date, “we’re not holding our breath.”

    ReplyDelete
  4. Testing ability to post - earlier today had difficulty which may be cause signed out prior or because browser interacting with new system.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is certain that people are different. I go by character. Bp. Sanborn's personality is his cross in my opinion.

    There is a lack of humility and lack of self-doubt coupled with strong opinions, as well as a lack of ability to get along easily with other people, a mental orientation around everything which is cutting in a black and white sense, and critical.

    I have listened to many many podcasts of his, or of him in conjunction with others who give relief from the Bp. himself, actually - hours' worth, over the last several years in a TRRadio membership which has been cancelled.

    He is analytical and wants consistency and to be able to label whether in his own mind or outside it confronting life. His 'intellect' = a word he uses more often than any other I can think of - is very important to him as a source of pride, in my opinion. 'Truth is exactly correlated with reality' needs humility to make it work, and self-doubt.

    I find the latter invaluable, anyway, in dealing with some of the same characteristics Bp. Sanborn has.... and I really do see his entire character as a stumbling block... but it may not preclude the offering of something useful and lasting.

    I am not supporting him but people who are writing off what he is doing maybe should not be so quick to do so.... as has been pointed out, gullible people exist, a lot of them, and his scene in Brooksville, because of TRRadio in my case and others I am sure, seems prominent for a newcomer.

    I was fortunate enough to find this site, and through it several others. This has changed my life in a way... but always, though want to move to a warm place like the one I am in... because of Bp. Sanborn's character as I saw and see it, would have been ill at ease in Brooksville and would have had to move again. I am getting ready to move once, from Hawaii for the sacraments, and would like to have it be Once.

    The sheer strength of his personality has created a mountain on which he is situated because others are unwilling to be as black and white as he is, or even capable of so being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never having listened to TRR, we are not familiar with what you report about it. But from what we’ve seen of Sanborn, he is not all that “analytical” (in the sense of correct thinking, that is). From what we’ve observed, his “analytical thinking” is merely ”intellectual bullying” -- and that is not a strong point but a weakness -- a character flaw. Just about everything we’ve seen of Sanborn, either spoken or written, does not smack of “analytical.”

      That said, we don’t consider that Big Don has anything of any value to offer. We do not condemn you for giving him some “benefit of the doubt” in saying that “his entire character…may not preclude the offering of something useful and lasting,” but we most emphatically beg to differ with you. And even if he did have “something useful and lasting to offer,” it would not make amends for all the harmful (and erroneous) poppycock that he has generated.

      No doubt he may have uttered some “useful” platitudes at times – even Hitler and Stalin have done that – but that would not make him praiseworthy in the classic (and correct) sense of the word. Hence, we also do not agree that “people who are writing off what he is doing should not be so quick to do so.” To quote your own words, “as has been pointed out, gullible people exist, a lot of them, and his scene in Brooksville, because of TRRadio in my case and others I am sure, seems prominent for a newcomer.” If what you claim is true, then “his scene” seeming “prominent for a newcomer” means that these newcomers are falling for his claptrap – and thus have all the more reason to steer clear of him.

      Lastly, “the sheer strength of his personality [that] has created a mountain” and that “others are unwilling to be as black and white as he is, or even capable of being so” are not “assets” for him, nor are they reasons for “respecting” him (or justifying his character in any way). On the contrary, they are reasons for rejecting him. He is a bully and a bombastic blowhard – and both a material and spiritual danger to anyone who comes in contact with him.

      Delete
  6. We wish to add a point of clarification to our last comment -- just in case one of the cult-masters’ "apologists" decides (as they usually do) to willfully misconstrue what we said. In that comment, we used the following words: “We do not condemn you for giving him [Sanborn] some benefit of the doubt…” What we wish to add to that is, not only do we not condemn her, we in fact commend her for having such a charitable attitude. The problem, though, is that Dannie, Tony, and Donny merit NO “benefit of the doubt,” because there IS no doubt -- and showing them “leniency” in any way gives people the impression (especially those “straddling the fence” or “predisposed favorably toward them”) that these scumbags have at least a modicum of legitimacy – which they do not..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comment volume seems to be down a bit….seems as though the opposition suppression via comment moderation has been successful although it makes this blog much more boring.

      “Big Don” has many good sermons and good things to say and write. He may have a bit of a harsh personality and style, but that is not a reason to condemn him. He also does not demand that his positions on the crisis in the church are absolute, but his view on what he believes to be the most probable explanation regarding this as well as his reasons for it.

      Delete
    2. The comment volume is down a bit, not because our blog is boring, but because “moderation” has kept some of the obvious idiots from cluttering the airwaves with their maniacal drivel -- including the lunatic who kept accusing PL and LP of deleting his posts (and asked PL to “surrender”). Our readership is actually UP since then, so we don’t think that our readers are “bored.” That said, we believe that your conclusion is erroneous.

      And, yes, Big Don might accidentally have said something noteworthy at times in his sermons (as I’m sure Rasputin has -- or Stalin has in his speeches); but that doesn’t prove that he is a “good man.” In the main, he has proven himself to be a bombastic blowhard and a BULLY. (And his subterfuge in trying to conceal his support of Checkie on Schiavo is just one of the many acts of subterfuge he has committed. He is a monster, deserving of no respect (or legitimacy).

      And – one more thing – Big Don DOES “demand that his positions on the crisis in the church are absolute.” How can you make such a statement? Where have you been?

      Delete