Say Again?

In our last article, we received a comment that was, as we said, “typical of the kind we get from SGG’s (and MHT’s) brain-dead loyalists -- and perfectly illustrates how their minds work.”  Actually, we received several such comments – and here’s another one!  This bit of nonsense, nestled amongst the myriad comments received on one of our articles this past June (click here) was the following (obviously from one of the Cheese-ball’s “loyal brain-dead”): 

“I don’t know much about the Schiavo case and in my minimal understanding was the argument not essentially the following:  Father Cekada’s opinion was that the Schiavo case would fall under extraordinary means and thus be permitted while people upset by this hold the opinion that it did not fall under extraordinary means and thus should not have been permitted and was murder.”   “If we had a hierarchy,” he went on,  “with the authority to rule on this and Father Cekada went against them then I would understand being upset about it, but at this point is it not just two opposing opinions on a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on?” ¹

There were other comments as well, but we chose to focus on this one because, first, it slavishly mirrors Tony’s depraved position on Schiavo; and hence gives us the opportunity to revisit this issue again, and re-emphasize once again the fatal flaws in his argument.  This comment – like so many of the others made on the article – was designed to discount our credibility: but, as it turns out, it will (once again) only serve to destroy Tony’s.

First of all, the flimsy “extraordinary means” argument has been obliterated by just about every Christian theologian – Catholic or Protestant.  And not only has Terri Schiavo’s death been condemned on moral grounds, but even on legal grounds – even by an atheist. (Click here.)  Secondly, the commenter’s question -- “Is it not just two opposing opinions [i.e., Checkie’s opinion vs. other theologians’ opinions] on a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on?” – proves nothing.  All it does is to betray the commenter’s  “sede” position (that Bergoglio “is not the pope”) -- because he’s insinuating that “nobody has the authority to rule on” [this issue].  Actually, yes they do – because it doesn’t take a “pope” to rule on it – only a correct-thinking moral theologian. 

What the commenter fails to grasp is that it really doesn’t matter what Bergoglio’s opinion was.  The fact is, when all the facts in the case became known, Checkie’s opinion was found to be patently contrary to all moral law – “Catholic” or otherwise.  And, again, ruling on that is a “no-brainer” for any moral theologian – any competent one, that is.  (And, to his credit, Bergie did condemn Terri’s murder -- as did numerous others – Novus Ordo, “traditional,” or otherwise.  At least in this case, Bergie was “a better man” than Tony!)  Lastly, it’s rather ironic that this commenter considers Terri’s death “a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on”; yet he probably has no trouble whatsoever taking Tony’s word (or that of any of his fellow imposters) on their “una cum” nonsense (or any of the other “dogmas” that these jokesters have invented – “subjects” that NOBODY (other than a pope) really “has the authority to rule on.” ³

Even back at the time of Terri’s death, there were enough facts known to prove that her death was MURDER – facts that Checkie disdainfully ignored.²  Instead, he based his “extraordinary means” argument on an outdated opinion of Pius XII’s that tube-feeding might be considered “extraordinary.”  By the time of Terri’s death, tube-feeding had for decades NOT been considered “extraordinary” but routine.⁴  The other fact that he totally ignored was that Terri was not in danger of death, nor was she terminally ill.  She was, in fact, able to swallow (she actually swallowed the Sacred Species in Holy Communion, amongst other things).  With the right rehabilitation (for which her husband withheld the awarded malpractice settlement funds), she could very well have been eventually “weaned off” the tube-feeding.

Nor was Terri a “vegetable,” as Tony (and his supporters) imply.  Her cognitive function was impaired – but far from gone.  But, since Michael Schiavo (her husband) refused to release the insurance money for her rehabilitation, she was never given a chance to recover.  Instead, she was put to death by court order.  The evidence on this is overwhelming – and irrefutable.  And all of this was public knowledge at the time – but Checkie conveniently ignored it.  Instead, the miserable wretch did his misogynist best to take the side of her husband against her – and to ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of letting her live.

What Checkie did (amongst other things) was to look at her life in terms of dollars and cents.  Specifically, he stated, “Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were very generous in spending everyone else's money.  Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.”  “This," he continued, "is now a grave burden on society. If someone wants to make every effort to sustain life for as long as possible in a body that is obviously shutting down for good, he is free to pay for extraordinary means himself but it is wrong for him to impose this burden on everyone else.”  [Cekada’s bold-face emphasis]  To Checkie, then, it was more “cost effective” to let her die.  Again, how can this “commenter” reconcile this in his mind?  Since when has it become acceptable in Catholic moral teaching to justify terminating someone’s life because it is “a grave burden on society”?  What this does – in measuring human life in terms of dollars and cents -- is to DEGRADE it. ⁵

Schiavo, by the way, was not an “accident.”  It was a planned stage of the pro-death movement (just as Karen Ann Quinlan was), and it became the Roe vs. Wade for euthanasia.  What made it so insidious is that it introduced the notion that human life is not precious or sacred, that we’re just like any other “animal,” and that (therefore) we should be “disposed of” when we become “a grave burden on society.”  Indeed, that mentality pervades today’s world, both consciously and unconsciously.  Our lives are no more precious than a chimpanzee’s or a dog’s – or a house-fly’s.  It dehumanizes us: we are no longer human beings, but animals who just happen to be “at the top of the evolutionary chain.”

That being the case -- that human life is no longer sacred (and that we are just “fellow creatures”), then Catholic moral theology also goes “down the toilet,” and hence supernatural eternal life becomes no longer sacred (or relevant) as well.  And with that, a whole Pandora’s box of Godless “beliefs” is open (and legitimized): naturalism, materialism, nihilism, evolution – you name it.  And “causes” such as environmentalism, the “green” revolution, animal rights ⁶ – whatever – become “morally relevant.”  And what are all these “causes” and “isms”?  They’re just ATHEISM in camouflage. 

And that (along with a plethora other things) is what is so dangerous about the whole pro-death agenda – an agenda that Checkie’s words so readily reinforce.  Granted, it may not make one instantly subscribe to all these aforementioned “isms” and false “beliefs” – but it “plants their seeds” in one’s mind.  It fosters the mentality.  So, this commenter had better think twice before matter-of-factly treating the Schiavo controversy as merely “opposing opinions on a subject that nobody has the authority to rule on,” as if it were some sort of “drawing-room" discussion -- or that it was “irresolvable,” because -- as this (obviously “sede”) commenter was trying to imply with his “nobody has the authority to rule on it”  -- there was no “pope” to settle the issue.

Rather, it’s about an innocent woman being unjustly put to death, while suffering unspeakable agony during that slow, excruciating ordeal.  And it’s about an unspeakable scumbag – a low-life pile of dung who calls himself a “theologian” -- matter-of-factly discoursing (with disinterested detachment) about her husband’s “right before God” to have her put to death (and using a long out-dated argument to justify his “extraordinary means” nonsense).  The attitude of this “commenter” – when it’s all said and done – mirrors that of the Checkmonster, and is, at best, despicable in the extreme. ⁷

The sanctity of human life is everyone’s business.  Without that moral absolute, the whole meaning of “humanity” is meaningless, and we are doomed.  That being said, we implore everyone to reject Checkie and his fellow purveyors of evil.  These moral lepers have shown in so many ways that they are not about caring for souls, but about caring for themselves.  Do not let these parasites continue to ply their trade.

Give these scumbags the “pink slip.”

STARVE the Plague-Ridden Beast!

_________________________________

¹ There was also this other gem (probably from the same “commenter”):  “Who cares if they [Cekada and Dolan] were correct or not on Schiavo?  Totally irrelevant.”  Totally “irrelevant”?  Is he (or she) kidding?!  We're glad, though, that the comment was made, because -- like so many others designed to “overwhelm” and “bury” us -- it only gave us that much more material with which to bury them.

² We say “disdainfully” because it was glaringly obvious by this (and by numerous other comments that he made on Schiavo) that Cekada is decidedly misogynist.  This, of course, is no surprise.  Misogyny pervades just about everything that the Cheese-ball has ever uttered or written.

³ Actually, the cult-masters have a plethora of make-it-up-as-they-go-along hypotheses that they pass off as “dogmas” (which they have neither the authority nor the "proof" to promulgate, and which they use as “litmus tests” to determine one’s “Catholicity” – “una cum” being one of them).  And, of course, their loyal brain-dead believe implicitly in these myths.  Yet they cannot wrap their minds around the easily proved fact that Terri Schiavo was unjustly put to death -- nor will they accept that obvious truth.

⁴ In fact, one of SGG’s parishioners had a girl being tube-fed for decades prior to (and since) Terri’s untimely demise – and another parishioner couple had their infant boy being tube-fed as well.  Both of them, when they became aware of Checkie’s depraved opinion on Schiavo, left SGG in protest.

⁵ First, we must point out that Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers (Terri’s family) were not “very generous in spending everyone else's money.”  On the contrary: Michael Schiavo was for terminating her life, not for “spending everyone else's money”; and secondly, the Schindlers publicly stated that if Michael Schiavo allowed them to take care of Terri, they’d gladly pay all her medical expenses (and let him keep the insurance money), and hence not be “spending everyone else’s money” -- but Michael Schiavo refused their request.

Some more blatantly “false phraseology” (aka, bald-faced lie) by Cheese-ball was this: “in a body that is obviously shutting down for good.”   “Shutting down for good”?  Tell us, Tony: from which of your body orifices was this assumption extracted?  It wasn’t “shutting down,” Tony; it was SHUT down: she was put to death by court order.  The proximate cause of death was NOT “organ failure” or something connected with a “terminal illness,” but DEHYDRATION as a result of forced deprivation of water nourishment.

⁶ Some “animal rights” fanatics go so far as to suggest that we humans should “de-populate” (that is, cease to exist, and let the planet “revert back to the animals”).  And some even extend the definition of “animals” to ANY living thing: trees, grass, weeds, fungus – you name it.  (And, yes, that means that plants now qualify as “creatures” – and, therefore, have "feelings” (and therefore "rights").  Who knows?  One day, mowing one’s lawn might qualifies as “creature cruelty” and “exploitation”!)

⁷ How anyone could justify Cekada’s position on Schiavo in any way is totally beyond belief.  That’s why we think that this “commenter’s” words, “I don’t know much about the Schiavo case and in my minimal understanding was the argument not essentially the following…,” reek of insincerity.  He is, we are sure, fully aware of ALL the background on Schiavo, but pretends not to be.  (If he knew enough to comment as he did, he knew “enough.”)  In other words (to borrow some recent phraseology from Pistrina), he’s full of, of, of, of…. horse-feathers!  (That is, he’s a LIAR -- and not a very good one at that).

On Lay Pulpit, there have been more than a half-dozen articles about Schiavo; and we urge those who haven’t yet read any of them to do so.  Two articles of note are those dealing with the physiological and psychological effects of death by dehydration (click here and here).  And for other articles about her, click here, here, here, here, and here.  Granted, this is “quite a few” on that same subject; but each gives its own unique perspective on that sad affair).

Terri’s death is one of the most tragic events of our time – and one that should be kept in the public eye now and always, lest people forget.  The depth of depravity to which Phony Tony sank with his sick (and arrogant) opinion on Schiavo can never be over-stated.  May he live to regret every word that he has ever written on that subject.

You Can’t Fix “Stupid”

A recent Pistrina Liturgica article (click here) contains a series of comments that we've decided to share with our readers.  And the reason we’ve chosen to do so is that some of its comments are so typical of the kind we get from SGG’s (and MHT’s) brain-dead loyalists -- and perfectly illustrate how their minds work.  The series began with someone mentioning Sanborn’s having a hoard of precious ecclesiastical paraphernalia, and commenting thusly: “Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes filled with expensive chalices and such.”  One of Sanborn’s (obviously disbelieving) “loyalists” then accused him of being a “rumor monger” (because he started with, “Rumor has it…”), after which the ensuing discussion degenerated into the “Sanborn loyalists” calling their opponents “you women-folk” -- and, of course, demanding proof of the existence of the safes.

Well, the proof eventually came – and it was indisputable photographic proof (click here).  However, even photographic proof (apparently) doesn’t convince some people, for a subsequent commenter retorted, “All we have been given is a photo of a safe.  So what?  That does not prove the rumors of what is supposed to be in it” [as if the chalices and other articles there couldn’t be seen – because it was a locked GLASS case, where the chalices et al were clearly visible].  And, later on, another added, “A photo with a cleric in it who is not unhappy about the photo being taken.  Nothing wrong in the photo.  You women [our emphasis] are too much.”  Well, what can one say?  It seems that even photographic evidence “doesn’t work” for the disbelieving.  (And what, we may ask, do the phrases, “A photo with a cleric in it who is not unhappy about the photo” and “Nothing wrong in the photo” mean?  What relevancy -- or rationality -- do they add to the mix?)  (Note also the nice “misogynist” touch: “You women”!  This comment, by the way, was followed by an even more misogynist comment: “‘Women’ being the operative word here.  Just a bunch of gossipy, old spinsturds.”)  [Another nice misogynist touch!]

Pistrina’s “Reader” then responded by reminding the commenter that he was missing the point – actually, two key points: first (to quote him directly, “Sanborn has tons of liturgical vessels. He can afford to outfit the new Melbourne cult center without asking the laity to pay for it.”  And secondly, “The ‘rumor’ reported on June 11 12:34 is true, and hence 12:34 is not a "rumor monger" but a truth teller, a reporter of fact.”  At this point, a commenter (the same one?), alluding to that earlier comment ("Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes filled with expensive chalices and such"), replied, “You [“the Reader”] are missing the point. We do not know what is in the safe, do we? 




What the commenter was doing here, of course, was “switching gears”: he was switching from talking about the concrete photo evidence of the “glass case” safe – evidence that he could not refute -- to another type of safe: a “bank vault” type (the one from that earlier comment to which he alluded), whose contents, of course, cannot be seen, because such a safe is made of steel, not glass).  This deceptive “switch” was, of course, intentional: he had shifted the argument to something else – and then (falsely) added that “the Reader” had “missed the point.”  But the Reader’s point was not about “safes” at all.  The “point,” as Pistrina correctly noted, was this: why is Big Don asking for donors to furnish items (for the Melbourne chapel), when he already has a whole stash of such items to donate (and probably much more).  Whether they are in a glass case or in a “bank vault” is totally irrelevant.¹

Later on, another commenter tried to derail the discussion yet again with this: “Pistrina Liturgica June 16, 2017 10:00 AM does not mention the Catholic moral teaching about rumors.”  Maybe she will soon.  Of course if she does it will be in her usual balanced manner” [our bold emphasis]. This comment (again) alluded to that earlier “two large safes” comment (because its author started it off with, “Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes…”) – thus (supposedly ) making him a “rumor monger.”  Well, “the Reader” eventually (and patiently) answered this new (and false) accusation, reassuring the accuser that “rumor has it” is just another way of saying “it is reported” – and hence is not “rumor mongering.”  “The Reader” then gave a succinct (but thorough) explanation about Catholic teaching on rumors, and finally “put this false accusation to bed.”  [Note too that the accuser once again used the words “she” and “her” in his misogynist rant.]

Well, after that, the commenter – like the proverbial “greased pig” that he is – slithered off to yet another corner with this meaningless taunt:  “Aren't you supposed to be resting from hate today?” (He was inferring, of course, that reporting about safes full of ecclesiastical paraphernalia amounted to “hate mongering.”) Unable to deny the obvious truth of those reports, he resorted to the classic ad hominem tactic -- what some might call “ignore the message, shoot the messenger” – except that he was shooting the wrong “messenger.” ²

So, to summarize, things started off with someone denying photographic proof, then following it up with such obviously irrational (and misogynist) accusations, then trying to “switch” the argument by sending it off in several directions, and then finishing up with a cheap ad hominem attack?  What kind of idiots would use such tactics -- and who do they think they’re fooling, we may ask, with such an obvious trail of deception?  Don’t they realize that arguing in the face of such clear evidence is self-defeating?  And, if they consider themselves “Catholic,” do they not realize that seeking the truth is more important than winning the argument – especially by resorting to such underhanded methods?

Apparently not.  For them, “winning” is the only thing that counts.  But in trying to defend their cult-master heroes, they blind themselves to the truth -- and end up making liars out of themselves for their heroes (thus embarrassing them and thus hurting them in the process).  This says a lot about them; first, that – like their cult-masters, they have no principles.  Lie, cheat, steal: it really doesn’t matter, as long as it’s “for the cause”!  Principles are nothing.  Truth is nothing.  Winning is everything.  “The cause” – or what they perceive as “the cause” -- is everything.  (That’s why they can reconcile themselves to Checkie’s depraved conclusions about Schiavo, to Dannie’s equally depraved “boys-will-be-boys” “morality,” and to the scandalous events at SGG's school in 2009.  As long as they get their “show,” they really don’t care.)  Pilate once said, “What is truth?”  For the cult-masters and their trolls, their answer would be, “whatever we want it to be.”

And the other thing that this “says about them” is how much they’ve been brain-washed by their cult-masters.  Not only are they devoid of principles, but they have also become devoid of independent thought.  Those “stupid” comments were not so much stupidity as they were the cult mentality at work.  When people “drink the Kool-Aid,” ³ they do (and say) “stupid” things – things that they would ordinarily have the good sense not to.  And the Gerties (and their swampland cousins) have been “drinking the Kool-Aid” for quite some time – not the cyanide-laced, physically lethal stuff, of course, but the “BS”-laced, spiritually lethal stuff: Dannie’s “S&S” (syrup and sanctimony), his “boys-will-be-boys” hypocrisy (that passes for “morality”), his elaborate pageantry (that passes for “Catholicism”), Tony’s depraved nonsense about Schiavo (that passes for “moral theology” – along with his other mistake-riddled rubbish that passes for “scholarship”), etc.

At both SGG and MHT – the people have been “dumbed down” by the cult-masters’ “Kool-Aid” to the point where they have no cognitive will left of their own.  They’re “almost beyond repair,” so to speak, suffering from “terminal stupidity.”   Can their “stupid” be fixed?  We certainly hope so.  But, whether they “learn” or not, as long as others learn -- that’s what really counts.  They – not these disillusioned poor wretches at the cult centers – are our real audience.  If we can prevent them from falling victim to the cult-masters, then we have done our job.⁴

______________________________

¹ The commenter’s “point,” by the way, was wrong on three counts: first (as we mentioned), the original point of the discussion was not about what kind of safe (or safes) that Big Don had, but that – whether he had them in safes or not – Big Don had plenty of “goodies” to supply Melbourne – so why ask for “donations”?  Secondly, the commenter – in switching the discussion from the “glass case” to “two large safes” -- was talking about the wrong safe(s).  And thirdly (and perhaps most importantly), the posed question (We do not know what is in the safe, do we?) is really irrelevant: the very fact that one has a safe presupposes that there are VALUABLES inside, doesn’t it?  (So, what did this idiot think that Big Don was keeping inside those safes – his false teeth?)

Actually, Big Don’s hoard of ecclesiastical valuables is quite large – even larger than what it’s “rumored” to be.  The Donster accumulated most of it “back in the good old days,” when the Selway cash was flowing freely (just as Dannie accumulated his, when the Brueggemann money was flowing freely).  Although times are now “tougher,” Big Don still has a HUGE hoard of goodies -- one from which he could easily outfit the Melbourne operation – and have plenty left over.  But, of course, the avaricious (and selfish) Donster wants to keep his hoard for himself.  He’s all for “giving,” when somebody else is doing the giving.

² What makes this taunt so ridiculous is that it was not “the Reader” who reported about the safes full of ecclesiastical goodies, but one of the other commenters.   So, it was not “the Reader” who was (allegedly) spreading “hate,” but (again) one (or more) of the other commenters.  All that “the Reader” was doing here was trying to provide explanations and clarification (in answer to this commenter’s misinformation and willful misconstruing of facts).

³ This, of course, is a reference to Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple Agricultural Project (or Jonestown, as it’s better known) – a cult (in Guyana) where he convinced his followers to commit mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced “Kool-Aid” (an imitation fruit-flavored drink made from a packet of fruit-flavored powder, sugar, and water).  Jones bade them to drink it, and they robotically obeyed.  Over 900 of them died, including Jones himself.

⁴ That is not to say that we have “given up” on the Gerties (or even on Dannie, Tony, and Big Don).  We certainly hope that they someday “learn.”  It’s just that we’re not “holding our breath” for that to happen!

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 n^th 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.