Repetition: Not Only Good, but Necessary

Editor’s Note: We have been informed by Pistrina Liturgica that they’re still on “hiatus,” and that they may or may not post, depending on how things go.  But, whatever they do (or don’t do), we’ll still be posting.  Our article for this week follows somewhat along the same lines as our last one (in which we brought up Schiavo again) in that it talks about why we repeat themes, that is, why we bring up “old subjects” again (which some of our “commenters” view as “unnecessary” and/or “redundant”).  That said, here is our article… 

One of the complaints that we often get (in “comments” from the cult-masters’ apologists) is that we “harp about the ‘same old things’ all the time” – Schiavo, for instance.  The inference here is that Schiavo (and anything else we reprise) is “old news” (and therefore doesn’t “need” to be mentioned again).  Their inference is probably also that, if the cult-masters haven’t “committed any sins” lately, perhaps they’ve “reformed” – so why condemn them for “old sins”?¹

Well, they’re wrong on both counts: first, “old news” does need to be brought up now and again; and secondly, the cult-masters continue to demonstrate that they haven’t reformed.  We continue to get confirming intelligence that they have not cleaned up their act.  And as we do, we report it – but it doesn’t necessarily come on a “regular basis” – each and every week, so to speak.  Indeed, it would be unrealistic to expect that there would be “something new” to write about every week.  Also, there is often new information that comes to light on “old news” (such as on Schiavo), so we “dredge it up” again.

These hypocrites know that we are telling the truth (and that they are not).  They know that they can’t deny or disprove it, so they must resort to “name-calling” – labeling what we say as “harping” or as an “old canard” -- in their fruitless attempts to diminish its credibility.  The other thing that is so hypocritical about them is that they habitually do the exact same thing: they often dredge up “old news” themselves.  In fact, that which they typically accuse others of, they are invariably guilty themselves.  That’s because there is no intellectual honesty in Tradistan.  They believe what they want to believe, and ignore what they want to ignore -- especially when it negates their point (and is embarrassingly obvious).  Their typical ploy is to “change the subject,” and then start harping about one of their old “pet peeves” – or some other such “diversionary tactic” to avoid the real issue.

In our responses to these complaints that we are repeating “old news,” we simply point out that there are many instances where repletion is both legitimate and necessary: the Gospels, for one. Every week, the Gospels are repeated from church pulpits (along with a corresponding sermons), because people need to be reminded on a regular basis – especially in this day and age of “short memories” (and even shorter attention spans).  Repetition is reinforcement.  That’s why it’s used so much in “political”and “commercial” ads: it is a well-documented fact, again, that people tend to forget, unless they are reminded regularly: “out of sight, out of mind.”

And not only do people “forget,” but they also “forgive.”  Over time, as peoples’ memories grow dim, so too do their senses of outrage often subside over time – about Schiavo, for instance.  Several of were outraged about that, and left SGG.  (Many, however, stayed, because they thought that, at the time, this wasn’t “reason enough” to leave.)  [Oh, how sadly mistaken they were!]  Some even later returned to SGG, because they “forgave and forgot.”  Then came the school scandals of 2009; and this was “enough” – at least for half the congregation.  For them, this was indeed “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”  (But for the other “half,” this was still not “enough.”)  And for some, they too (unfortunately) “forgave and forgot” over time, and returned.

Had these people been “reminded” more regularly about those two events (Schiavo and 2009), they too might have left for good – and especially if they had heard about the so many other malicious acts of which the cult-masters have been guilty. There are too many to catalogue here; but if they were known, the cumulative effect of them, we believe, would certainly be more than “enough.” And that is precisely why we must keep these things – all of these things -- in the public eye, and repeat them as often as we can, lest people forget.  Again, if they are “out of sight,” they will certainly be “out of mind.”²

We mentioned earlier the inference (by some of the cult-masters apologists) that the cult-masters may have possibly “reformed,” because nothing “big” (like “Schiavo” or “2009”) has happened lately. Well, let’s put that myth to bed right now: although nothing so “spectacular” as those two events has (supposedly) happened since then, much has happened that is no less significant: Dannie’s and Tony’s frequent slandering and/or ill treatment of innocent people (such as Abbot Leonard Giardina, Bernie Brueggemann, and Sr. Gerard Vincent), for instance; their malicious meddling in other peoples’ affairs (such as Dannie’s attempt to sabotage an ordination in another chapel), for instance; and “appropriating” the proceeds from the sale of a satellite church (including its $120,000+ building fund), for instance.  Actually, there is a whole litany of “for instances,” any one of which conclusively demonstrates that they have not “reformed,” nor ever will.³

Another “for instance”: the “school.” No one much hears any more about what’s happening there (excepting Dannie’s occasional “propaganda plug” for it). Does this mean that “all is well” there?  Does this mean that the “principal” has “reformed”?  We think not.  (Sadistic principals don’t “change their stripes” either.)  Our guess is that, because of the irreparable damage that he did back in 2009, the “principal” has been ordered (by Dannie) to “behave himself,” lest the other half of SGG’s congregation “sees the light” and leaves -- and Dannie just can’t afford to let that happen.  (Another possibility is that the abuse at the school has “gone underground,” i.e., that it’s still there, but goes unreported -- which, we think, is a distinct possibility.)  But whatever the case, a telltale sign “that something’s wrong at the school” is this: its anemic attendance.  Most of the parents of school-age kids, whether they’ve “heard about 2009 or not,” must “know something” -- because they’re not putting their kids in the school.

No, the cult-masters have not “reformed”; they’re probably just becoming more careful, more cunning, more discreet -- or at least trying to (and not doing all that good of a job of it, we might add).  And, regardless of whether it’s the “school,” or Schiavo, or anything else, enough has already surfaced about the dastardly duo, that no new “scandals” are necessary to prove conclusively that they are wolves in sheep’s clothing, that they are unrepentant rogues, and -- to repeat what we said earlier -- that they will never “reform.” (However, we believe that there will be “new scandals” yet to come, because Dannie and Tony are scoundrels; and as history has repeatedly shown, scoundrels never stop being scoundrels, but keep doing their mischief until they trip themselves up.) 

And that’s why we have always been there, reporting and repeating – whatever it takes -- to get the word out and keep it out, until these parasites are put out of business.  If Tony would only admit that he was dead wrong about Schiavo (and apologized for it); if Dannie would only admit the obvious truth about what took place at SGG’s school in 2009; if he would only admit that fornication and watching porn are not “boys will be boys,” but blatant immorality; if only Dannie and Tony wouldn’t have slandered and harmed all those innocent people that they did; if only they hadn’t wrongly confiscated that satellite chapel’s “building fund” money (as well as pocketing the proceeds from its sale) – the “if only” list could go on and on. 

“If only” they would have apologized for all they’ve done, and recompensed all whom they’ve harmed – but they didn’t.  (But that, of course, takes humility, and a conscience – neither of which they have.)  Or, better still, if only they had not done all those nasty things to begin with, but they did – and they don’t show any signs of “slowing down.”  And that is why we are here, “reporting and repeating.”  Perhaps we will never be able to convince the “hard core” at SGG to abandon the cult; but if we can prevent others from falling prey to the cult-masters, we’ll consider that a “win.”  And for those of you who are “others,” you can help make that “win” happen by withholding your material support from these parasites.  Keep your cash in your wallet.  Don’t give it to Dannie. 

Starve the Beast!

___________________________

¹ Their inference is also that we must always be coming up with “something new and different” every time in order to prove our point (or that “old news” loses its validity and “expires” over time).  But how many “new and different” examples of the cult-masters’ malfeasance must one produce in order to prove that they are scoundrels?  How many times must we “prove our point”?  How much is “enough”?  Actually, once is enough. And since we have already produced dozens of “new and different” examples – all of which are independently verifiable -- we think that this is more than “enough.”

² Many people, incredibly enough, may still be unaware of Schiavo and/or the events of 2009.  And for many, if they became aware of these events “too long” after they happened, “forgive-and-forget syndrome” may have set in -- in which case, the impact of those events on their minds may have been severely diminished (or even lost) over time.  And so, for such people, more “reinforcement” may very well be necessary.

Some time back, we posted an article, “Schiavo Alone” is Enough (click here), which stated (as its title implies) that Tony Cekada’s words alone (about Terri Schiavo’s death) should have been enough to cause one to reject him and Dannie.  However, we realize that this alone may still not be “enough” for some people.  Therefore, even more “reinforcement” may be necessary -- especially in this day of short memories and attention spans.

³ And considering that both we (Lay Pulpit) and PL have been reporting on the cults for a decade or so, that “litany” is quite a long one – literally hundreds of articles, most dealing with Dannie, Tony, and Donald Duckmeister. 

Yes, We’re Bringing Up “Schiavo” Again

To date, we have written at least half a dozen articles dedicated exclusively to Schiavo – so why are we doing so again? The reason is simple: because someone in our readership has brought up the subject again – and we had to respond (in order to clear up some of his misconceptions).  In a comment on one of our recent articles (click here: “Anonymous,” 2:20 PM), the commenter agreed with some of what we said about Terri Schiavo: “Now, do I think that Schiavo should have been entrusted to her parents' care?  Of course. Was the woman dying or shutting down as Cekada suggests?  No.”  But the commenter then added, “She was clearly in a PVS, and was being tube fed, but may have been able to swallow.  But that doesn't change the fact that tube feeding is extraordinary, and, by the way, I could never verify that Michael Schiavo had a live in girlfriend or was the beneficiary of an insurance policy.”

The problem, though -- as we pointed out in our response to this comment – was that Terri Schiavo was NOT in a “PVS,” i.e., "Persistent Vegetative State."  Other “problems” included the commenter’s claim that “tube feeding is extraordinary,” and the commenter’s inability to “verify that Michael Schiavo had a live in girlfriend or was the beneficiary of an insurance policy.”  All of these “concerns” were addressed and answered by us several times in previous articles, but we thought we’d cover them again, just to reassure our “doubting correspondent.”

First, his claim that Terri was in a “persistent vegetative state” is patently false.  Perhaps our correspondent’s assertion was based on what Cekada said.  Phony Tony, in trying to play “medical expert,” stated that “reviewing CT images, watching a video and reviewing ‘summary/excerpts regarding testimony given in deposition transcripts’ -- is no substitute for examining a live patient.”  Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth.  Personal observation is often totally misleading – especially in neurological cases.¹  It is, in fact, the medical equivalent of judging a book by its cover.²  In neurological cases like Terri’s, medical test results – CT scans, MRI’s, EEG’s, etc. -- are the only really reliable information to be had.  (See also Terri Schiavo Revisited - Again.)

Then too, our correspondent might have been basing his assumptions (about PVS) on Michael Schiavo’s (Terri’s husband’s) citing of several pro-death “experts” who claimed that Terri was in a PVS (or “brain dead,” as is the more popular term).  But the real medical evidence showed that Terri was not  “brain dead.”  Sure, she was brain-damaged, but not brain-dead.  (Click here for one corroborating article.)  One of the mainstream media lies about her was that, when her brain was weighed after her death, it didn’t weigh enough to be “normal.”  The problem here is that her brain weight was low because it was dehydrated, not because it had “shrunk significantly.”

There was also plenty of EEG evidence (in addition to personal observation by eyewitnesses) that she indeed had cognitive function.  She was definitely not a “vegetable” or a “flat-liner.”  Besides, she reportedly gave short answers at times, and smiled on a regular basis.  She was also able to breathe on her own, and eyewitnesses also attest that she could swallow – and actually received the Sacred Species at one point (before she was deprived of nourishment by court order).  [By the way, this ability to breathe on her own prompts us to ask why our correspondent stated, “Normal people swallow their food.  Normal people breathe air.  If you cannot swallow your food and breath air that most definitely constitutes extraordinary.”   Terri was never on a respirator, and she could actually swallow – so why make such an “insinuating” statement, as if it were applicable to her.]

Secondly, our correspondent’s claim that tube-feeding is “extraordinary” is taken out of its proper context, and therefore false.  Yes, it is not the way that a fully able-bodied person eats; but it is a very ordinary way for feeding incapacitated people – and has been for decades.  (And, as we pointed out in our reply to our correspondent, it is also cheaper than conventional feeding.)  Many people, whatever their mental state, have been routinely tube-fed – again – for decades.  It is not “extraordinary.”  And, whether it be for days, weeks, or decades, it is, in fact, the method of choice for sustaining debilitated people (and has been common medical practice for over fifty years).

Lastly, regarding our correspondent’s not being able to “verify that Michael Schiavo had a live in girlfriend or was the beneficiary of an insurance policy”:  First, let us simply state that Michael Schiavo and his girlfriend, Jodi Centonze (whom he met in 1992, and started his “relationship” in 1995, ten years before Terri’s death) already had two children (with Michael Schiavo) by 2004 – still a full year before Terri’s death (click here for Wikipedia’s timeline of events). [Also, click here and here for additional confirmation of Schiavo’s relationship with Centonze.]⁴  As far as our correspondent’s question about whether Michael was the beneficiary of the insurance policy on Terri, that is a moot point.  The relevant point is that, regardless of who the “beneficiary” was, this money was earmarked for Terri’s medical care -- but that Michael Schiavo chose to use it instead for himself and his new girlfriend.  (A really “caring husband,” huh?)

But, regardless of how much “cognitive function” Terri had, or how much of a “burden on society” (as Tony Baloney put it) her medical care might have been, the bottom line on all of this is that, regardless of her condition, NOTHING justified starving and dehydrating her to death.  As we reminded our correspondent in answering his comment, her death was murder, pure and simple – and his conjecture about what constitutes “extraordinary means” was irrelevant (as well as totally wrong).  There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to justify her court-ordered execution.  So, if our correspondent was trying to use the “extraordinary means” argument to insinuate that Tony’s position was somewhat “justified” (or that it somehow lessens Tony’s culpability), then he is sadly mistaken.  It does neither.

Our correspondent, although professing ignorance of several pertinent facts in the matter (such as, whether Michael Schiavo had a live-in girlfriend or not), was nevertheless very definite in his conviction that Terri Schiavo was in a “persistent vegetative state.”  How is it then, we wonder, that he was so very cognizant (and so positively sure) about that latter point, yet “missed” everything else?  We also find it odd that our correspondent was not able to satisfy his curiosity by consulting the internet (or to learn even more by reading our previous articles on Schiavo).  Was his “selective ignorance” genuine -- or he was just another one of Tony’s deputized mouthpieces trying to defend the indefensible?  We don’t know; but, whatever the case, we have addressed all of his concerns.  And, whatever his intentions, if his aim was to legitimize Cekada’s position in any way (or to mitigate its invalidity). then (again) he is sadly mistaken -- and we think that we’ve effectively put to rest any concerns he might still have in that regard.

The really important takeaway is this: that, whoever he was, he now knows the truth – and no longer has the need (or the justification) to defend the indefensible.  We must actually thank him, for he has given us the opportunity once again to set the record straight on Schiavo, and to reinforce what we’ve said about it in the past -- and he has given us the opportunity once again to expose Phony Tony for the consummate liar that he is.  So, whoever “our correspondent” was, we hope that we have now cured him of his “ignorance” – and, once again, we thank him profusely for the opportunity to do so!

___________________________  

¹ There have been many documented cases – especially recently – where patients who had been thought to be “vegetative” for decades have “come out of it” and have completely recovered.  In Terri’s case, she was definitely making medical progress, when Michael Schiavo decided to stop her therapy, and to pocket the medical money (awarded her) for himself and his girlfriend.

² Of course, this is precisely what the Gerties do in judging what is “Catholic”: they regard “the show” as “true Catholicism.”

³ As we’ve pointed out several times in previous articles on Schiavo, there were two children at SGG (Maria Duff and Peter Schappacher) who were nourished for years by tube-feeding -- before, during, and after the Schiavo affair – and Dolan and Cekada were completely aware of this. 

⁴ Note also (from one of the web links) that Jodi Centonze was previously divorced (in 1989) before she married Michael Schiavo.  It gives one an indication of how much Schiavo “cared” for Terri (and how much of a “Catholic” he was): he fathered two children with Centonze years before his (invalid) marriage to her, while his real wife lay helpless in bed.  (One wonders why Tony never expressed any moral outrage about this!)

…But We’re Not Holding Our Breath

Anthony Cekada’s comments about Schiavo, when published, sent shock waves throughout the Catholic world.  Many Catholics – “Novus Ordo” and “traddie” alike -- rightfully condemned Tony Baloney’s depraved position justifying Terri Schiavo’s murder.  And at SGG, the reaction was generally the same: most Gerties disapproved of what Phony Tony said.  But, ingrained with a misplaced notion of “respect for the cloth,” they pretty much “looked the other way” and remained silent about it.  Most of them probably figured that “getting the sacraments” outweighed their private concerns, so they said nothing – at least publicly.  The small contingent who did voice their concerns (in private letters to Phony Tony) were arrogantly rebuffed by him.  And, although they may have circulated their letters amongst a few other Gerties, that same misplaced “notion of respect” kept them from voicing their concerns more widely.  For the most part, it all stayed “within SGG’s walls.” ¹

However, many Gerties no doubt made a mental note of what he said.  Then came the 2009 school scandals, which included not only widespread brutalization of students by the school “principal,” but openly immoral behavior by his sons. When one of the school’s teachers complained to Dannie about that immoral behavior (including one of those sons fornicating with a fellow student), the teacher was dismissed (and later slandered by both Dannie and Tony as being “mentally disturbed”).²  News of this “spread like wildfire” throughout SGG’s congregation -- and especially, when the girl got pregnant, it spread amongst SGG’s younger set.  For many Gerties, all of his was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.”  (For a more about what went on, click here.)

The immediate impact of these events was that half the parish left in protest. Included among them were many of the families whose children got victimized – including SGG’s main benefactor, Bernie Brueggemann, whose grand nephew was also one of those victimized.³  But, although half the congregation left, many of those who were victimized pretty much “kept it to themselves” – again, because they still harbored some feeling of “respect for the cloth.”  However, a few did voice their concerns (including Bernie). And when they did, they did so with that same “respect for the cloth.”  In each and every case, they gave Dannie, Tony, and the Donster every “benefit of the doubt”; but, in each and every case, they were arrogantly rebuffed by them. 

But now there isn’t any doubt. We now know that these “men of the cloth” deserve no respect whatsoever – first, because they are not really clergy, but, more importantly, because they are evil men.  These maggots have repeatedly ignored the basic precepts of Catholic morality (and the sanctity of human life), they have slandered dozens of innocent people, and they have used the sacraments as “weapons.”  They have also bamboozled the Gerties into paying for an unneeded new facility (that is now prematurely deteriorating, and in continual need of repair), into paying for a “school” that has accomplished nothing except drain the parish’s funds, and into bankrolling the cult-masters’ boondoggle “apostolates.”  Their track record at SGG has been one of continual subterfuge and deception – doing whatever it takes to get what they want – and it’s all been documented and verified.⁴

And the majority of the Gerties still there at SGG know this.  They cannot feign ignorance of what Dannie and Tony have done; and to the degree that they know, there is a corresponding degree of culpability.⁵  So, for them, there is no excuse for staying there and giving these maggots “the benefit of the doubt” – because there is no doubt.  So why do they stay?  Some, as Pistrina Liturgica pointed out in a recent article (click here), have even returned to the cult center after having left.  Why are they there?  They are there because, as PL also pointed out, it’s an addiction: they just can’t do without the pontifical pageantry that Dannie puts on every week, and they don’t care if they have to sacrifice their principles to get it.

In all probability, the Gerties know all about Phony Tony’s position on Schiavo, and they know all about the abuses that occurred in 2009 – but they don’t care, as long as they get their “Show.”  That’s all that matters.  And, as we said before, depending on what degree of knowledge they have, so too is their corresponding degree of culpability.  But for those who once left SGG and then returned, their culpability is even greater: they cannot be given any “benefit of the doubt” whatsoever.  These worms fully knew who and what Dannie and Tony are – and what they have done.  They have absolutely no excuse.  

They are perhaps even more culpable than Dannie or Tony themselves. After all, those two maggots can’t help doing what they do; they have a vested interest in engaging in their predatory practices, because that is their “business model”: it puts money in their pockets.  But those “returnees” have no such material stake – nor do they have a spiritual one, because, as PL pointed out, they have plenty of options for “getting the sacraments” elsewhere.  They lost nothing by leaving SGG, and they gained nothing by returning.  So why have they returned?  There is certainly no rational reason.  So, for them to return to SGG – knowing full well what Dannie and Tony are -- makes them an even lower form of scum than those two.

This indeed is unfortunate.  But the “good news” is that these brain-dead are, by and large, older people.  And as they die off, the younger people – who are not so gullible (and spineless) as they -- are not coming in their stead.  Attrition will take care of the problem.  (Just recently, in fact, Dannie alluded to this, wistfully recalling the large crowds at SGG in the past, and then lamenting, “Those who once attended are dead.”  (And, on another occasion, he lamented,“Sad. The dead are gone, the devout grow older and can’t come, and no one takes their place anymore, although the memory of their example reproaches us.”)  So, as time inexorably marches on, Dannie’s “demographics” problem will only get worse.

And the reason that the younger are not so gullible as their parents is that (as we’ve mentioned more than once) it was they, the younger Gerties, who in 2009 really saw what was going on at SGG. They witnessed first-hand all the abuse and the immorality, and how Dannie condoned it -- and they saw through the sheer hypocrisy of it all.  (We might also add that they saw through Schaivo as well,)⁶  They, more than any others, realized that Dannie’s “Show” is just that – for show – and that behind its façade, there’s nothing: no Catholic morality, no Catholic principles – no real Catholicism at all.  It’s all fake.  It’s all a farce.  And they weren’t buying it.⁷

So, perhaps the real “solution” at SGG is the demographic shift now going on.  We can certainly hope that those older folks do someday “see the light” before they die.   But, if they didn’t see it after Schiavo (or in 2009), how can one realistically expect that they will now? What magnitude of “eye-opener” will it take to make them “see the light”?  We, of course, hope and pray that they do see the light, for their own wellbeing -- both material and spiritual.  But making that happen is a tall order.  One can lead a horse to water – but if that horse is “brain-dead,” how can it discern water from “Cult Kool-Aid”?  Again, we can certainly hope that those folks wake up and “see the light” – but we’re not holding our breath. 

___________________________

¹ The correspondence between one of the parishioners and Cekada did eventually get put on a website (click here.), but it never got the “press” that Tony’s comments got.  (Tony’s original “position paper” was included as an “insert” in one of SGG’s Sunday bulletins.  Negative comments from disgruntled parishioners were discreetly “kept out of sight.”) 

² The teacher, by the way, was absolutely right about that (and other things): the girl soon afterwards got pregnant.  The vilification campaign against that teacher continued on a regular basis.  In addition to the “mentally disturbed” lies told about him, he was said to be a “slacker” and a “failure”; and then false rumors began being circulated about him (including one that he was carrying an AK47 rifle, and was going to terrorize an SGG “parish picnic” one year!).  Far from being a “slacker,” the man is a hard worker, has a good job, and is now happily married and living in Florida.

 ³ Shortly after he left, Bernie received a letter from Donald Sanborn (whom Dannie had informed of Bernie’s leaving), arrogantly (and wrongfully) rebuffing him for leaving SGG. Bernie then replied, firmly setting Big Don straight with the truth – but with much more respect than Bombastic Don accorded him.  ((See A Tale of Two Letters.)

⁴ Much of the verification is from independent sources (that is, sources connected with neither us or the cults), or from the testimony of people whose reputations are beyond reproach (such as Bernie Brueggemann), and/or from multiple eyewitnesses (for instance, the dozens who witnessed the widespread victimization that occurred in 2009).  And, of course, much of our corroboration comes from Dannie’s or Tony’sown lips.  (Dannie and Tony routinely indict themselves with their own words. In fact, on at least one occasion, they even managed to contradict each other.)

Dannie’s and Tony’s (and Big Don’s) “corroboration,” on the other hand, comes from them “blowing their own horns,” or from them singing one another’s praises.  And in every case, it’s gross misrepresentation.   

⁵ Some of the people who are still there at SGG were close friends of those who were victimized (or, in several cases, even witnessed the victimization themselves); yet they chose to disregard their friends’ testimony, and remained at the cult center.  “The Show” was more important to them than the truth.

⁶ The “younger set” back then included a girl, Maria Duff, who suffered from a severe heart defect.  And, in addition to being fed through a tube (as Terri was), she was also confined to a wheelchair -- and was on a heart monitor, a respirator, and oxygen as well.  She, unlike Terri, was truly on “life support” (as Tony falsely intimated that Terri was) – yet, unlike Tony, her parents did the truly Catholic thing, i.e., they respected the sanctity of her life, and lovingly cared for her.  They didn’t “pull the plug” on her, as Tony would have done.  The other kids saw this – and thus saw through Tony’s hypocrisy as well. 

⁷ Back in 2009, the brutalization going on at the school was common knowledge amongst the younger set -- as was the watching of porn and animal torture videos on the school computer.  (The principal’s” sons were not very discreet about their activities back then.)  And, of course, when one of them got a girl pregnant, that news spread like wildfire.  The younger set quickly spread word throughout their “grapevine” – and, unlike their obsequious, blindly obedient parents, they easily saw through Dannie’s obvious hypocrisy in “playing holy” while ignoring all of this, and they wisely rejected Dannie’s bogus brand of “Catholicism.”