Well, OK, He Got Schiavo Wrong, But…

Incredibly (and sadly), there are still many for whom Schiavo is not “enough” to convince them that Cekada and Dolan are not men of good will.  For some, they need more “data points.”  Okay, here comes another data point!  Remember the late Abbot Leonard Giardina (of Christ the King Abbey in Cullman, Alabama), who died in January of 2011?  In May of that year, Anthony Cekada -- in his on-line blog, Quidlibet -- wrote a piece (about the abbot) entitled Tragedy and Treason at Christ the King Abbey.  The article started out innocuously enough, giving some details about the abbot’s history, then relating how the abbot once visited SGG (St. Gertrude the Great Church):

“Fr. Giardina visited us at St. Gertrude the Great in 1991 to preach at our Forty Hours’ Devotion. As a result of that contact, a number of our parishioners took an interest in the monastery. Some became Benedictine Oblates, and occasionally visited the monastery to make private retreats.  Father steered clear of the Society of St. Pius X and its Benedictine affiliates. During his visit here, he regaled us with a number of amusing anecdotes about his encounters with the rather “French-fried” Benedictinism of the latter.”

But this intro was just window-dressing, as Cekada continued with the following:

On the other hand, Fr. Giardiana was studiously coy about revealing his position on the question of the pope. As far as I know, he never made any public statements one way or the other.  Fr. Giardina’s monastery newsletter, Speculum, moreover, routinely printed a denunciation of traditionalists who engage in “controversy” and “sterile polemic.” Such questions, readers were assured, were of no interest to monks, who only sought to be “spiritual.”

“Studiously coy”?  He wasn’t being coy, Tony; he was just being prudent -- not sticking his nose into irresolvable issues that he had no business sticking it into.  He did not insist on a long laundry list of shibboleths that he would force his followers into accepting as “articles of faith.”  He knew that he had neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to make such arbitrary pronouncements (nor, may I add, does anyone else); and he also had the good sense to realize that doing so would only divide, not unite, Catholics.  In a traddie world fraught with cult-masters interested only in making exclusionary “demands” designed to scare and manipulate their sheep into compliance, he was a positive, healing force, who transcended such sectarian nonsense.

Cekada then continued, kicking his trademark sarcasm into high gear:

Father’s caginess on the pope question and his repeated “We’re-too-spiritual-for-controversies” protests, though, struck me as nothing more than a clever two-pronged fundraising ploy:

(1) Say absolutely nothing about the pope, so you can hit up all categories of traditionalists for donations: sedevacantists, SSPX-ers, independents, and Motu types.

(2) Play up the “I’m-only-a-humble-unworldly-monk” routine.

On the latter point, having spent some time as a monk myself, I am well aware how some of the sons of St. Benedict ham up the “humble monk” shtick whenever they sniff the scent of a potential big benefactor.

The double formula was a gold mine for Christ the King Abbey. Fr. Giardina played it to the hilt, and the bucks rolled in.

But in the long run, it sowed the seeds for abbey’s surrender to the modernists.”

“Father’s caginess”?  “Fund-raising ploy”?  “Play up the ‘I’m-only-a-humble-monk routine”?  “..ham up the ‘humble monk’ shtick”?  “…played it to the hilt”?  First off, does someone who considers himself to be “scholarly” use such puerile language?  And, secondly – and more importantly – does someone say this about a deceased man -- one who isn’t able to be there and defend himself against such disgustingly disrespectful drivel?  How contemptible.  How cowardly.  How false.  And how amateurishly done. Tony, what was your motive for attacking a deceased, defenseless man?  What did you hope to gain?  In your fruitless efforts to make this humble, holy man look bad, you have made yourself look bad, in he eyes of both God and men.  Your own words condemn you.  Phony Tony, once again – just as you did on Schiavo -- you have thoroughly embarrassed yourself.

The problem Cekada had with the good abbot is that the latter, who never used any high-handed tactics, was wildly successful – and Dolan and Cekada couldn’t stand it.  People gave willingly to the abbot’s cause, without any arm-twisting or solicitous exhortations – while all of Dolan’s and Cekada’s brow-beating and heavy-handed money-grubbing tactics failed miserably.  “Abbot Leonard,” as he was affectionately known, never aspired to any opulent life-style.  He never ate at upscale restaurants.  He never went to (or heard of) the Bishop’s Lodge.  He never went on expensive “apostolates” to Latin America or Europe.  Hence, he never needed to resort to such mercenary measures.  He was an unpretentious soul, staying at his monastery, living the simple life of a monk – toiling in the fields while quietly going about God’s work.

In stark contrast, Dannie Dolan tried to wow everybody with his ecclesiastical “pageants” (and still does), while Antonius Balonius tried to wow them with his attempts at “scholarship” – both of which have failed miserably.  Cekada’s much ballyhooed endeavor at authorship, Work of Human Hands (complete with “glowing reviews” by obliging partisans) is a critical (and financial) flop.  And Dolan’s liturgical extravaganzas (including his Palm Sunday procession, complete with donkey) now impress only SGG’s “hard-core.”  Parishioners with any sense (including SGG’s biggest benefactor, who had given them well over a million dollars) have long since left.

But Dannie and Tony still put on their “extravaganzas” – especially as “fund-raising ploys” (to quote the words Cekada used against Abbot Leonard).  This past year, they put on a “three-Mass spectacular”: three priests “simul-celebrating” three funeral Masses for the deceased wife of one of SGG’s biggest donors.  No matter that this wife was Novus Ordo, and that she habitually refused to set foot inside SGG.  What “counted” was the fact that her surviving spouse was one of SGG’s biggest donors; hence, the three-Mass “spectacular” -- all for someone who never believed in anything “traditional.”  What makes this all the more “curious” is that Dolan once denied Holy Communion to an SGG parishioner simply because he (allegedly) went to an SSPX church prior to that – a parishioner whose brother is a traditional priest and colleague of Dolan’s and Cekada’s.  But this parishioner didn’t have “big bucks,” while the deceased Novus Ordo wife’s spouse does: hence, give the one a “triple-play” extravaganza -- and the other, “the bum’s rush.”

The dynamic duo’s mercenary beacon shines through all too clearly in just about everything they do – but that has always been their trademark, their modus operandi.  The very fact that Cekada tried to imply that Abbot Leonard was “mercenary” is a classic case of “the pot calling the kettle black” – except that the good abbot was never mercenary – but the same cannot be said about the dynamic duo: they were (and continue to be) ever mercenary.  Cekada’s attempt to discredit a deceased, defenseless man is all too evident.  The insinuations are inescapable.  The funny thing is that all of Dolan’s and Cekada’s efforts at raising funds were futile, while the abbot -- who led by example, not by arm-twisting -- was, as we stated before, hugely successful. But that’s the way it always is: those who covet are invariably denied, while those who do not are invariably rewarded.  Greed, like all the other vices, is a self-defeating thing.

Of course, after thoroughly vilifying Abbot Leonard in his Quidlibet, Tony tried to “smooth things over” with words like “rest in peace,” etc., just as he did with Terri Schiavo.  But after cutting the man down as he did, the words “rest in pieces” would be more appropriate.  Cekada’s Quidlibet nonsense about Abbot Leonard, like what he said about Schiavo (and, for that matter, about everything else) has been an utter, absolute disaster – words that have boomeranged on him, and which continue to haunt him to this day.  One would think that, after Schiavo, he would have “learned his lesson” – but the arrogant and ignorant never do.  They can’t help themselves: they’ll always be that way.  Not until Cekada and Dolan have the humility to admit their wrongdoing, will they ever have a chance at redeeming themselves.  And, although their redemption is theoretically possible, one has only to look at their track record to realize that it’s not all that probable.

In addition to Schiavo, Cekada’s derogatory (and unwarranted) comments about Abbot Leonard provide yet another bit of insight into the arrogance and ill will of this sick, twisted man, just as WHH and his bogus defense of Dolan’s one-handed “ordination” showcased his ignorance and his counterfeit “scholarship.”  What Cekada did to Abbot Leonard is reminiscent of the hatchet job that another sick, twisted man – Dr. Droleskey -- did on Bp. Paul Petko.  Predators like Cekada and Droleskey, in trying to destroy totally innocent (and truly Catholic) men, will only end up destroying themselves (and, yes, Dr. D, we’re not yet done with you – not by a long shot!). 

The problem, though, is that when people “self-destruct,” they often don’t go down “alone”; they do “collateral” damage: they lead souls astray – and sometimes disillusion them to the point of despair.  That is why they must be stopped.  Ideally, one would hope that they’d have the basic decency to stop themselves, for it is in their own best self-interest (at least for their souls) that they do.  But, again, we’re talking about an ideal world.  In the real world, scoundrels seldom turn themselves around – and it would be extremely naïve for one to expect that Dolan and Cekada, based on their track record so far, would do the same.

In this article -- and in our previous article -- Lay Pulpit has elaborated only on Cekada (but not on Dolan); but not to worry:  Dannie will get “equal time.”  Before we are done, the reader will indeed get quite a refresher course on Dolan, and on just what part he has played in the dynamic duo’s dubious tenure as “shepherds” of SGG.  So, again, “stay tuned.”

I Disagree with Cekada on SCHIAVO, But…

How often have we heard one of Dolan and Cekada’s alopogists say those words – yet who still contend that they are “good men”?  And I’m sure that those same people too are saying, “Oh, here you go, bringing up Schiavo again!” Well, I hate to disappoint them, but this site will bring up Schiavo again and again until they “get it” – and why not?!  Repetition is sorely needed in today’s “dumbed down” world, where peoples’ attention spans are so short -- and especially so in traddieland, where attention spans are not only short, but often virtually non-existent.  For them, repetition is not only beneficial -- it is essential.  Repetition, in fact, is good for all.  It is an quintessential part of the Church: the Mass, the Gospel – everything She teaches – is repeated over and over again, in the hope that the faithful will listen to it – and "get it."

So, yes, we are repeating our Schiavo message – and, in subsequent articles, we’ll be repeating even more.  The reason that we’re starting with Schiavo should be apparent: it is, BY FAR, Cekada’s biggest faux pas, his biggest embarrassment – so much so, that even most of his own supporters admit that he was wrong about that.  So, why do they still support him?!  His position on Schiavo is utterly contrary to the Church’s teaching on moral theology, (and even to natural law).  No Catholic theologian – “traditional,” “Novus Ordo,” “sede,” SSPX, FSSP, or otherwise – agrees with what he said.  The articles that condemn Cekada’s position on Schiavo could fill up a small library (for two of ours, see Cekada’s Actual Words About Schiavo – Another Look, and Terri Schiavo Revisited – Again).  And, the fact that neither Dolan nor Cekada has ever admitted any wrongdoing regarding their position on Schiavo -- or has shown any remorse whatsoever -- is positively beyond human comprehension.   

How can someone condone depriving a person not in danger of death of even water to wet her lips – someone who was NOT a “vegetable” (as Cekada inferred)?  (She was, in fact, in a considerably better mental and physical state than many people who are cared for nowadays in nursing homes – at least, the Catholic ones.)  And, in the following respect, at least, Terri Schiavo suffered the same agony as Our Lord on the cross: she didn’t get one drop of water.  Her lips were cracked and parched to the point of bleeding.  So were her eyes, sunk back into their sockets, with blood oozing forth from them until it too dried up (and, no, Tony, this is not “syrupy sentimentalism”; this is cold, hard fact).  How can such a thing be done to any living being – much less, to a human being?

Terri Schiavo’s death did not just “happen”: it was not the result of a “staph infection” or some other unforeseen cause.  It wasn’t from “natural causes,” or from her organs “shutting down.”  No, it was from forced starvation and dehydration, overseen by armed, uniformed police guards, who had orders to arrest anyone who tried to give her food or water.  The guards even stopped a little boy who simply wanted to wet her lips.  Anyone who attempted to give her food or drink was warned that they would be charged with a felony if they did so.  Her death did not just “happen”; she was -- in plain, simple English – PUT TO DEATH.

And what did Anthony Cekada, the “great theologian” (according to his slack-jawed supporters), have to say about all of this?  Well, amongst other things, he said this: “A wicked husband still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his domestic and paternal authority.  He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello, unless and until an ecclesiastical or civil court, for a grave and just reason, legitimately impedes him from exercising his right.”   What “grave and just reason” did Michael Schiavo have for what he did?  No, Tony, he did NOT have that “right” – nor does anyone.  It was not a case of “pulling the plug” on a terminally ill patient whose vital signs were no longer “life-sustaining”; it was a case of enforced starvation and dehydration of someone who was nowhere near being “in danger of death.”  It was, in a word, MURDER.

According to eye-witnesses, the look of DISBELIEF on Terri Schiavo’s face (when she realized that she was -- by court order – being deprived of both food and drink) was UNMISTAKABLE.  She was AWARE that she was being deliberately deprived of both -- and it filled her with a sense of both DREAD and DISBELIEF.  She was TOTALLY AWARE, yet TOTALLY HELPLESS -- unable to lift a finger against the legalized murder that was being perpetrated on her.  Let us hope that it did not leave her totally hopeless as well – not just for the sake of her own soul, but for Cekada’s soul as well.

In an attempt to justify his contention that it was not necessary to use a feeding tube to keep someone alive, Tony stated that it constituted an “extraordinary” (and expensive) means of doing so (when, in fact, it was used for decades as a routine and painless to feed people -- and cheaper than conventional feeding), basing his contention (supposedly) on something that Pope Pius XII said back in 1958.  This he stated at a time when two of his own parishioners (Maria Duff and Peter Schappacher) were being nourished by feeding tubes at the time!  While berating a doctor (for stating that feeding tubes were not “extraordinary means”), Tony said this:  “How would you like a tube poked in your stomach?”  Well, Tony, Maria liked it.  So did Peter.  And – oh, by the way, Tony -- how would you like to be starved and dehydrated to death -- with an armed guard standing over you to make sure?

There was a time, Tony, when the Church (back in the Middle Ages) prescribed burning a stroke victim’s face to get him to “change his expression.”  Medical science (thank God!) has improved since then; and – guess what -- it has improved since 1958 too!  So, Tony, when you chide a doctor – an internationally-renowned one at that -- for “presuming to pronounce on matters of faith and morals” (when, in fact, he was only “pronouncing” on medical opinion – and very correctly so), remember that it was you (and only you) who was “presuming to pronounce” (and very incorrectly so) on everything: both on faith and morals, AND on medical opinion.  Tony, the fact is, you don’t know a root canal from the Panama Canal – or your anal canal.

Schiavo also underscored Cekada’s misogynist contempt for women.  It came through “loud and clear” in an exchange of correspondence between him and one of his (now former) female parishioners.  She asked him to clarify his position on Schiavo (especially with regard to the use of feeding tubes); and Tony danced around with specious arguments, with his usual mix of misquoting, misrepresenting, and taking things out of context (sound familiar? – like what he did in his “explanation” on one-handed ordination?).  The woman countered calmly and politely, proving him wrong on every one of his arguments.  When it became clear that she was right and he was wrong – and that he couldn’t “shut her up” -- he finally resorted to the following [the bold emphases are ours]:

Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.  You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.  But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your "opinion" on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects, chief among them, moral theology.

I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.  But  because [you] do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.

“Training in moral theology”?  Tony, if your “training in moral theology” led you to your conclusions on Schiavo, then I would beg to be excused from such “training.”  And you contend that this woman does “not have the humility” (but you presumably do?) -- and you have the  “sacramental graces and experience”?  Who are you trying to kid, Dummkopf?  Tony, you have “none of the above” – and I wouldn’t trust your judgment on how to boil water!!  I would trust the judgment of that woman – of anybody – before I’d trust yours!  And, oh yes, if that is a sampling of your “judgment,” then it is not only the laity’s business to question it -- it is our DUTY.  (I request that the reader read the entire correspondence to get the full impact of just how arrogant and disgusting Cekada’s words and attitude are; it is a real eye-opener.)

Just based on Schiavo alone, Cekada should not be taken seriously – much less, trusted -- on ANYTHING.  His “logic” is laughable -- but it’s consequences, tragic.  That is why it is so inconceivable that “Introibo” or the various “anonymouses” who have recently rallied to Tony’s aid should even lift a finger to legitimize this fake – much less, defend him.  If he had, perhaps, a “track record” of being “right” on other things, one just might grant him some legitimacy – but he hasn’t been right.  This has been made plainly and painfully apparent (again) recently -- in a series of articles (written on another website’s blog) dealing with his hopelessly flawed defense of Dannie Dolan’s one-handed “ordination.”  

The writer of that blog, of course, merely expressed that there were doubts about the validity of Dolan’s ordination – which, of course, prompted many of Tony’s “defenders” to accuse the author of definitely stating that the ordination was invalid (which he, again, didn’t); and they then attempted to refute everything that the author said.  When those attempts inevitably failed miserably, some of the “Cathinfo rejects” among them resorted to that last refuge of liars and cowards: to smear the author’s reputation (see Shooting the Messenger – a Textbook Example).  This tactic, of course, also failed miserably, and only convinced the author’s real audience – the traditional clergy – of the justice (and truth) of the author’s words, and of the ignorance and futility of these fools’ clumsy attempts at character assassination.

It behooves these people to get over their false pride (and hypocritical self-righteousness), and to admit what has always been glaringly obvious from examining Cekada’s own utterances: that he is an arrogant, condescending know-nothing who embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth.  His inexplicable stance on Schiavo not only showcased his monumental arrogance and ignorance, but it also revealed his total lack of compassion and conscience.  Those who insist on defending him (and Dolan) need to know that they are standing not on moral high ground but on quicksand.  On Schiavo, Cekada’s (and Dolan’s) words and actions are despicable – by any standard; and anyone who pretends to deny this is either “mentally challenged” or is a base hypocrite.

Looking at the larger, overall picture, Schiavo was nothing more than a logical extension of the “culture of death” movement that kicked into high-gear with Roe vs. Wade:  If it is okay to kill defenseless babies, it is okay to kill defenseless adults.  And if someone decides that life is no longer worth living, he has the “right to die”:  he can get Kevorkian (“Jack the Dripper”) to help him “do the job.”  It’s all about the destruction of humanity, folks.  Schiavo, Roe vs. Wade, Kevorkian: they’re all part of the same landscape – with Satan as the artist.  And, Tony, you helped out with a few more brush strokes.

Cekada’s disastrous Schiavo position is just one (albeit the biggest) of his (and Dolan’s) embarrassing failures at passing themselves off as “legitimate.”  There are others.  In subsequent articles, we’ll revisit them, refreshing once again the readers’ memories on just what their “track record” has been – on just what they have perpetrated on so many people.  We want to remind this duo’s supporters once again of the “caliber” of men that they are “taking bullets for” (and we want to remind everyone else to steer clear of them!).  So, for those hard-to-convince folks who say “I disagree with him on Schiavo but…” (as if Schiavo alone wasn’t “enough”) -- and especially for those unsuspecting, uninformed innocents out there who might become the dynamic duo’s next potential victims -- there will be more.  Stay tuned!

Shooting the Messenger: a Textbook Example

We must thank the mindless morons who have been “commenting” (that is, venting their literary spleens) on an article (in addition to several others) that has appeared recently in the internet blog Pistrina Liturgica.  The article, as many know, deals with Anthony Cekada’s flawed defense of Daniel Dolan’s one-handed “ordination”; but the “comments,” as many well know, DON’T.  Instead, they deal not with the article but with the article’s author.  And the reason, of course, is simple: they can’t discredit what the article says (because it’s the truth), so they must discredit its author: the old “ignore the message, shoot the messenger” tactic.

Their comments, in fact, comprise a TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of the “shoot the messenger” theme – perhaps THE textbook example – and we must thank them for that.  The reason that they have chosen to do this is obvious: they have no way to refute what the author says, because what he says is FACT – so they have to resort to character assassination.  And the reason that we must thank them is that they have saved us the trouble of exposing them as fools – because they have done such a masterful job of that themselves.  In their blind ignorance, they have shown to all the world that they are intellectually bankrupt, having no argument to offer except juvenile smear tactics; it is the one and only weapon they have left.

Another tactic that they have employed is that of “ganging up” on the blog’s author, attacking him en masse, as if “majority” equates to “right.”  This is the ”kangaroo court” tactic, the tactic of cowards, who attempt to “shout down” their opposition by sheer force of numbers.  It is reminiscent of a certain “parish meeting” in December, 2011, where an innocent bishop was condemned (in absentia) by a “lynch mob” led by the author of Christ or Chaos (accompanied by the church’s Neanderthal “pastor” and some compliant parishioners) – and it’s also reminiscent of what the Pharisees of old did to Our Lord.  It didn’t make the Pharisees right then, and it doesn’t make their modern-day counterparts right now.

It is a blindness that is obvious to everyone but them; and in their frantic (but fruitless) efforts to defend their “heroes” (Dolan and Cekada), they don’t realize that their efforts are only hurting these men -- demonstrating to all the world that they have no substance to offer – and thus making that deficiency all the more obvious.  But that is what one often does when he doesn’t have the facts on his side: he must fabricate something – something that he thinks will “take the heat off” the real issue.  The problem is, it never does; it only makes things worse, and makes one’s dodging the issue look even more obvious – at least to those with eyes to see.

And that brings up another thing: the author’s article was written NOT for the eyes of these blind fools, but for other peoples’ eyes: people with clearer vision (and minds) -- people who can evaluate an issue on its own merits (and not let their judgment be clouded by parochial allegiance to a couple of cult-masters).  People with eyes to see – especially the traditional clergy -- have seen (and recognized) that the problems that Pistrina’s author has brought up are not only real, but that the doubts about the validity of Dolan’s ordination are now, in fact, greater (and more probable) than ever.

The simplest (and most reasonable) way to allay those doubts is, of course, for Dolan to get himself conditionally ordained.  But that takes humility (not to mention, charity), neither of which Dolan (or Cekada) has – nor, I might add, do any of their fulsome flunkies who have been attempting to pinch-hit for them of late.  Their pride won’t let them admit that they’ve been backing bad men who are using them as cat’s paws for their own worldly aims – not that they haven’t been given plenty of warning that they are being so used.  They have come to emulate their cult-masters, both in arrogance and in ignorance.

And -- speaking of ignorance – these “commenters,” after failing in their attempts to match wits with the blog’s author, and now attempting (by “ganging up” on him) to turn the website into a cathinfo-style circus of spleen-venting -- think that what they’re doing is earning them brownie points with their cult-master heroes.  Instead, all they are accomplishing is gratifying their own vanity -- and embarrassing not only themselves, but their cult-masters as well.  Again, these idiots don’t realize that the website’s real audience is the public-at-large (and especially the traditional clergy), who – unencumbered by political allegiance “baggage” – can examine the data objectively, and see Cekada for the rank amateur that he is.  So, it really doesn’t matter what these “commenters” say or think.  In fact, the more they open their mouths, the worse they (and their cult heroes) look. 

It is only regrettable that Pistrina must occasionally stoop to “”recognizing” them (by having to respond to their hapless heckling), because they really don’t deserve such attention.  So, for all of them, we suggest that they stop wasting the author’s time (and everyone else’s), and that they stick to the facts from here on – or remain discreetly silent.  Of course, we know that they won’t.  Even though they (and Cekada) know that they can’t possibly refute the website’s documentation, they’ll still persist in their feeble (and futile) efforts to disparage its author.  They’ll still try to “shoot the messenger,” because that’s all that these intellectually bankrupt amoebas have left (and know how to do).  We only request, if they do keep trying, that they take their “comments” to another website -- one that accepts toxic waste.

Cekada’s Defense of One-Handed Ordination: Arrogance in Action

Doubts about the validity of Daniel L. Dolan’s priestly ordination arose -- and have existed -- ever since his ordination ceremony.  The reason, as many are aware, is that he was ordained with only one hand (instead of the prescribed two) by Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre.  Because of those doubts, nine of his clerical colleagues signed their names to a letter urging him "to stop saying Mass, hearing confessions, and administering the sacrament of Extreme Unction until this problem is solved."  In answer to their concerns, Anthony Cekada "solved the problem" by authoring an “explanation” stating that one-handed ordinations are indeed valid.

For years, this “explanation” was accepted by these nine priests, and accepted as well by those unschooled in the matter.  Because Cekada gave everyone the impression that he was a “scholar,” the “explanation” went unchallenged; and none of them bothered to verify the accuracy or credibility of his words.  However, with those who knew that Cekada’s explanation was flawed (and who had in fact privately warned him about it), doubts still lingered; and those doubts re-emerged in earnest after Cekada’s blatant faux pas on Schiavo.  And after the scandalous events at SGG (St. Gertrude the Great Church) – and Dolan and Cekada’s heavy-handedness in trying to cover up those events -- these doubts kicked into high gear (and, of course, doubts about Cekada’s academic credentials in general).

As reported recently in Lay Pulpit, another traditional blog has just published a series of articles about those doubts (prompted by a “dare” from one of Cekada and Dolan’s supporters -- one “Introibo” -- that the blog’s author provide “proof” that those doubts are well-founded).  The articles not only proved that the doubts were indeed well-founded, but they have also thoroughly shattered what is left of the myth of Cekada’s reputation as a “scholar” (I'm sure that Tony sincerely regrets that this over-zealous underling ever issued that dare!).  After reading those articles, one might question why Cekada even attempted his bogus defense of Dolan’s one-handed ordination, or why Dolan did not get himself “fixed” by undergoing conditional ordination – a completely simple and painless procedure that could have been done with absolutely no “loss of face.”

The answer, of course, is ARROGANCE, which has always been part and parcel of both Dolan’s and Cekada’s personnas.  The first time that the public really took notice of Cekada’s monumental arrogance was probably with Schiavo.  His unbelievable assertions on that were downright embarrassing, showcasing not only his arrogance but his ignorance (and, of course, his total lack of compassion).  But did he recant, or ever admit that he was wrong?  No.  Neither of these men has the humility to admit to any such thing.  Being totally DEVOID of that virtue, their first impulse has always been not to face things openly and honestly. but to cover them up, to explain them away, or to ignore them altogether (as Cekada did in Schiavo).

In the case of Dolan’s one-handed ordination, Cekada used the “explain it away” tactic, hoping that no one would check up on what he said.  But, unfortunately for him (and Dolan), one of their culties, irked that the author of Pistrina raised doubts about Dolan’s ordination, challenged that author to “prove his point” – and the latter obliged.  It is now definitively clear that Cekada not only employed incorrect, sloppy translation in his “explanation,” but completely ignored official papal teaching on the subject – and also ignored that universal maxim always employed by the Church: When in doubt, take the safe course [in this case, conditional ordination].

But Dolan’s arrogance would not let him do that, nor – just as with Schiavo -- would Cekada’s.  Again, that requires humility – something that these two do not possess, nor ever will.  Cekada’s defense of Dolan’s one-handed ordination turns out to have been a sham.  But this should not come as any surprise, because everything they do is a sham.  What else could one expect from people who interpret watching porn on the school computer as “boys will be boys,” or who overlook the principal’s son impregnating a female student (and, in fact, feature him in a complimentary article in a subsequent church bulletin) -- while blaming the girl?  And, again, what else could one expect from people who justified the murder of Terri Schiavo, who lay starving and dehydrating to death while they were feasting at one of their favorite restaurants?   

All they care about (and what it gains them) is “the show”:  the elaborate rites and rubrics, the pontifical pageantry, the processions (complete with bell-ringing, incense -- and even a donkey on Palm Sunday) – the trappings of Catholicism.  But what about the substance?  What about actually being Catholic – in thought and deed.  What did they do about the dozens of mistreated SGG school children?  And where was their concern for Terri?  They cared more for Vivaldi, Puccini, and Caravaggio (their pet cats) than they did for her.  Even the donkey in the Palm Sunday procession no doubt got plenty of hay and water – but not Terri.  And, to cite one more example, how about the parishioner whom they denied the sacraments because he happened to attend a Mass at an SSPX chapel – just one of many instances where they used the sacraments as “weapons” to scare the sheep into compliance?  That is not Catholicism; that is cultism.

Looking at their track record, why should anyone be surprised that Cekada tried to cover up for his buddy Dannie – especially if traddieland’s clerics accepted it?  It’s the only natural thing for this unnatural pair to do.  But the problem for them now is that traditional clerics – at least the rational and intellectually honest of them – no longer accept Cekada’s “explanation.”  They see it for the shoddily crafted expedient that it was.  So what will the dynamic duo do now?  Well, as long as they have a critical mass of groveling lackeys to keep them financially afloat, perhaps they’ll just continue going the “ignore it” route.  After all, if the sheep looked past Schiavo, they’ll look past this, as long as they get their “bread and circuses” (except that Dannie and Tony get the “bread,” while the sheep only get the “circus”).

But for many of the traditional public – especially its clerics -- the “circus” is over.  Cekada’s support with the latter has largely evaporated; and it’s only a matter of time before it does with many of the laity as well – perhaps even to the dynamic duo’s most ardent zombies.  One thing that will hasten this process is for traditional clerics to speak up, and stop hiding behind the cowardly cloak of “not getting involved” or “not causing scandal.”  If there is scandal, it is in what these cult-masters have done – and especially in covering up what they have done.  Silence and inaction are no longer “acceptable alternatives”; they equate to sinful collusion.  How many more souls will be endangered -- and how many more wallets will be drained by these parasites -- before they are stopped?  Those who continue to let these charlatans have their way will be endangering those souls (and wallets).  And those who continue defending the indefensible -- they can look forward to ultimate disillusionment.

Waking Up and Smelling the Coffee

If all of the electrons in the known universe were tightly packed together, they would amount to 10¹⁰³ electrons (the number 10 raised to the 103^rd power); that’s the number “one” followed by 103 zeros – an unimaginable number.  In the mathematics of probability, the odds of anything happening that are less than 10⁵⁰ to 1 are considered to be a zero percent chance.  Now, imagine the chances, according to evolutionary theory, of molecules randomly “bumping together” to form a single cell (either animal or plant).  The chances of that happening are 10^119,850 to 1 – yes, the number “ten” raised to a power of almost one hundred twenty thousand -- a number beyond comprehension.  Of course, all of this presupposes that these “molecules” also somehow “come to life” from inanimate matter – and that this matter “just happened to be there” (with no explanation offered as to how it got there to begin with).  And, remember, we’re talking just one cell here – and we haven’t even mentioned the other impossible hurdles that have to be overcome to make the evolutionary myth become reality.   Even to the leading evolutionists of the day, all this equates to UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE – yet they “believe.”

This is the same sort of thinking that seems to pervade the minds of the followers of Daniel Dolan and Anthony Cekada.  No matter what these two do or say, their brain-drained devotees excuse all (or explain it away), and blindly support them -- no matter what.  It doesn’t matter that Dolan and Cekada have committed a long laundry list of misdeeds (witnessed by many of their parishioners, half of whom eventually left in disgust), including (but not limited to) the following: ignoring (and even abetting) the cruelty and sadistic behavior that went on at SGG’s school; the watching of porn and animal torture videos on SGG’s school computer (that Dolan dismissed as “boys will be boys”); liquidating a satellite parish, and then pocketing the proceeds (including the parishioners’ “building fund”); taking expensive travel junkets to Europe and Latin America, and passing off vacations to a luxury resort in the desert southwest as “sabbaticals” -- all of this, yet they still blindly “believe.”

The latest example of this “blind belief” by Dolan and Cekada’s cult followers is their fawning defense of Anthony Cekada’s “explanation” of why (he thought) Daniel Dolan’s one-handed priestly ordination was valid.  As many are already aware, Dolan’s ordination (by Archbishop LeFebvre) was reportedly done with only one hand, instead of the prescribed two hands.  Nine of Dolan’s fellow priests, who had doubts about the validity of his one-handed ordination, urged him "to stop saying Mass, hearing confessions, and administering the sacrament of  Extreme Unction until this problem is solved."  It would have been a simple matter for Dolan to do so -- but he never did.  Instead, he had his buddy Anthony Cekada pen a lengthy explanation stating why one-handed priestly ordination was valid.  The problem was that there were lingering doubts about the accuracy of Cekada’s “explanation” as well.  Dolan could quickly and painlessly allay those doubts by submitting to that re-ordination -- but his pride won’t allow him to do so (nor will Cekada’s allow him to admit that his “explanation” was seriously flawed).

Those lingering doubts, which have never really gone away, have been a continuing thorn in Dolan’s and Cekada’s sides ever since they took the path of refusing to get things “fixed.”  A few months ago, a traditional Catholic blog suggested that they do, since Dolan is slated soon to ordain a young African seminarian to the priesthood, which of course requires that he himself be validly ordained and consecrated.  Miffed that an “anonymous layman” should even suggest such a thing, one of Dolan’s cult followers challenged the blog’s author to offer proof of his contention that Dolan’s ordination was invalid (actually, the author was simply raising doubts about it, not actually refuting it).  However, this cult follower, one “Introibo ad Altare Dei,” demanded the proof, and, in the process, opened up a Pandora’s box that Tony (and Dannie) wish that he never had -- for it has shown Cekada’s “explanation” to be a clumsily crafted comedy of errors, riddled with mistranslations and “misrepresentations,” i.e., lies.  As a result, what little that was left of Cekada’s reputation as a “scholar” is now a thing of the past -- a downhill slide that started with his preposterous interpretation of Schiavo, and that has been continuing ever since.

Because of Introibo’s challenge, the series of articles written that blog has shown conclusively that Cekada not only mistranslated official papal teaching, but actually fabricated words (that didn’t exist) to support his own faulty claims.  The blog’s revelations, all factual and well-documented, were immediately attacked by Cekada’s cult followers (eager to “defend” him), who tried their best to misconstrue what was said in the blog, and to belittle the credentials of its author.  In doing so, they only managed to make both themselves and Cekada look all the more ridiculous, and to provide the blog’s author with even more opportunities to prove him (and them) wrong.

Most of the arguments of Cekada’s defenders centered around citing theologians such as Regatillo as “authorities” to counter the “anonymous blogger.”  The problem here is that Regatillo (or any of the other theologians they trumpeted out) is not the POPE, who is the one and only authority to be cited.  This has been pointed out to these bozos several times, but they keep dredging up Regatillo, as if they had never been informed.  It is obvious, too, amongst the “anonymous” replies in support of Cekada, that one of them is none other than Tony himself; it seems that the amateur bonehead just can’t refrain from getting into the fray (and turning the “comments” section of the blog into a “Cath Info”-style free-for-all).  Even now, he has resurrected another “Regatillo” comment again for the umpteenth time, long after that issue was put to bed.  A chronic sufferer of “last-word-itis,” Tony keeps beating his “Regatillo” drum in the fervent hope that repeating it over and over again will somehow gain it credibility.

But that has been Tony’s “formula for success” all along.  For a time, it worked: his special blend of arrogance, condescension, intimidation (especially with women), and lying.  But then along came Schiavo, and that’s when his arrogance and false logic became so blatant then that people started “waking up and smelling the coffee.”  His bombastic, autocratic intimidation that once “carried the day” with both clergy and laity were no longer working so well (except with the hard-core at SGG and a few other flat-liners).  After Schiavo, he followed up with his mega-blunder “opus” (WHH); and now, with the exposure of his one-handed ordination “explanation,” his credibility with most traditional clergy is now gone.

But Cekada has failed to realize this: he’s still going on with “business as usual,” using his same old modus operandi, thinking that it still “works.”  True, it “still works” on some of his more fulsome culties, who are still “circling the wagons” – but the circle is getting smaller.  People are coming to realize that authoritarian arrogance and bombastic intimidation (and shoddy scholarship) are no substitute for truth, justice, and true scholarship.  People are no longer automatically (and unquestioningly) swallowing Tony’s haphazardly crafted swill.  They are starting to think things through for themselves, and the days of blind obedience to his faulty decrees are over.

One might still wonder why Dolan never got his situation “fixed” (or why Cekada went to such lengths to craft his faulty “explanation” to avoid Dannie having to get that “fix”).  The reason, of course, is obvious: they’re both proud, arrogant men, who have always been totally unable to admit wrongdoing.  Another reason is that back then, both of them had the traddie world pretty well bamboozled as to their credibility and their “scholarship.”  Prior to Schiavo, traditional priests trusted Cekada’s judgment and “expertise” – and they somehow overlooked his monumental arrogance.  But Schiavo changed everything.  And Schiavo also gives a clue as to why both Dolan and Cekada won’t come clean now, because -- long after the true facts about Schiavo came out -- Tony never “recanted” any of the preposterous claims that he made on it (although he’s had numerous opportunities to do so).  So if he didn’t recant about Schiavo, why would he recant about his “explanation”?  The fact is, man is utterly incapable of doing so.

These articles exposing Cekada’s bone-headed defense of Dannie’s one-handed ordination have, of course, ignited a firestorm of protest from CCC (Cult Control Central); and Tony is, of course, furious, because he is caught, naked and open, in the glaring spotlight of the truth – and he can’t stand it.  That is why all his culties have tried to come to his rescue, attacking the blog’s author in every way imaginable (as the cyber loonies so often do on Cath Info).  They have tried every trick in the books: misconstruing and misrepresenting what was said, misquoting (and outright fabrications), using “straw man” tactics, pursuing irrelevant arguments, playing the “Alter Christus immunity card,” even attacking the blog author’s character and credentials – you name it.  They’ve also tried to “gang up” on him en masse, in an effort to “overwhelm” him.  None of it has worked: they have been “beaten down to parade rest” every time, for the simple reason that they don’t have the truth on their side – and are defending the indefensible.

The inexplicable thing about Introibo and these “anonymouses” defending Dolan and Cekada is that they are totally aware of the dynamic duo’s sordid track record at SGG.  Like those evolutionists who ignore the evidence and still pretend that evolution is “for real,” Introibo et al do essentially the same:  they have personally witnessed – first hand --what the dynamic duo have done to their fellow SGG parishioners; yet they pretend that it never happened, so long as they “get their show” every Sunday.  It’s time to stop pretending.    It’s time to stop defending these lepers.  It’s time to wake up and sell the coffee.