Well, OK, He Got Schiavo Wrong, But…

In Lay Pulpit’s last couple of articles, we have covered two of Anthony Cekada’s major blunders.  After having read them, one might say something like, “Well, okay, Cekada was a rascal; but Dolan is more or less innocent.”  Not so, folks.  First off, Dolan approved of (and collaborated in) both Cekada’s Schiavo fiasco and his wretched attack on Abbot Leonard – not to mention, Tony’s bogus defense of his boss’s one-handed “ordination.”  Everything that Cekada did, Dolan approved – and probably orchestrated.  Nothing that Cekada did or said was ever done without his boss’s approval or permission.  Tony has always been the “mouthpiece,” but Dannie’s the one who has been pulling the strings.

But, that being said, these two things are, as they say, just “the tip of the iceberg.”  They actually pale in comparison to some of Dolan’s other “deeds.”  As pastor of SGG’s (St. Gertrude the Great) church and School), Dolan was responsible for the running of both.  As early as 2007 (and perhaps earlier), various “strange things” were happening at the school – mainly involving the school’s principal and several of his sons.  Many of SGG’s parishioners can recall these events.

These “events” included (but are not limited to) the following:

1.   Two of the principal’s sons started bullying several of the younger school children, as well as scandalize them (with lewd gestures, and showing them porn on the school computer).  One of the principal’s sons even put some of his gestures on a “social” website (Facebook).

2.      Another of the principal’s sons was engaging in immoral behavior with one of his female co-students.  One of SGG’s teachers complained about this [this teacher was later dismissed, and eventually labeled "mentally ill"], and went to the pastor (Dolan) to warn him.  The warnings were ignored, and the girl eventually got pregnant.  The girl, of course, was “blamed,” while the boy wasn’t cited at all (in fact, he was later featured in a complimentary article in the church bulletin). 

3.      The school’s principal also had a hand in bullying students.  The mother of one of them (a young grade-schooler named “Andrew”) had bought her son school supplies.  Since they were not of the “approved” kind, SGG’s principal berated Andrew in front of the entire class, reducing him to tears.  When the mother finally got to see Dolan to complain about it (he ignored her for some time, then finally saw her, seeing that she wouldn’t go away), he listened to her complaint, then replied, “So you won’t be sending them back” [to SGG’s school, that is].  He used the word “them” because she other children in the school.  In other words, he was telling her that not just this child, but all her children should leave.

4.     Another of the SGG students missed a homework assignment.  For that, he was beaten (on his behind) with a wooden paddle by the principal – to the point where the paddle broke.  This was done in front of several of the faculty, who were called in to witness it.

5.     An SGG office staff worker complained to one of the principal’s sons about him and his siblings scandalizing the other school children; the principal’s son threatened her with physical violence.  She went to Dolan to complain, He ignored her, and did nothing.

6.      This same son also threatened one of the teachers with physical violence (and used the “F” word), all in the presence of the German class that teacher was conducting.  When the teacher complained to Dolan about it, Dolan did nothing.  A day or so after that, that same teacher found all the tires on his car flattened. Shortly afterward, that teacher was fired.

7.      The self-same son also went a former parishioner’s house and threatened her in her own driveway, in front of a several witnesses.  She called the local police, who have the incident on file in an official police report.  

The foregoing is just a sampling of what went on at SGG’s school.  There are many more that could be cited (especially the mistreatment of SGG students by the principal or one of his sons) – and they have all been corroborated by numerous eye-witnesses (some are documented in police reports).   

Dolan’s reply to the principal’s sons’ watching porn and animal torture videos on the school computer was – as we’ve reported before -- this: “boys will be boys.”  In each and every case of wrongdoing, Dolan sided with the wrongdoers, but ignored the pleas of their victims (he even punished them, in some cases, for “complaining”).  Eventually, many of SGG’s parishioners (and most of the faculty) rose up in rebellion against this injustice, finally demanding the ouster of the school principal.  In response, Dolan pretended to “demote” the principal, appointed another in his place, but then did an about-face, reinstating the principal and firing the replacement* -- all within the space of a week.

Meanwhile, news of the abuses reached SGG’s other satellite parishes.  The one in Columbus (St. Clare) ended up being sold (without the parishioners’ knowledge or consent) by Dolan and Cekada, who then pocketed the proceeds ($320,000).  In addition, they also confiscated St. Clare’s building fund ($123,664), plus their operating fund ($19,330).  I don’t know what the reader would call these actions; but where most folks come from, they're called theft.  St. Clare’s parishioners, now dispossessed of their church, currently hold services in a rented building, with a priest (who, by the way, was also discarded by Dolan) saying Mass for them.

Besides their “creative fiscal policy,” the dynamic duo also engages in “creative explaining,” i.e., lying, as the following example (and others) will show:  on Palm Sunday, 2009, one of SGG’s parishioners who had had “enough” decided to leave SGG; and in a short e-mail note to Dolan later that day, he stated that he was leaving SGG -- but would give his reasons (for doing so) later on.   It turns out that this parishioner was also one of SGG’s ushers.  As an usher, one of his jobs was to ring the church bell on certain occasions, as, for instance, for church processions.  On that Palm Sunday (April 5, 2009), there was a procession; and the bell was to be rung while it was going on. 

However, the rope by which the bell was rung got stuck.  The usher silently motioned to Dolan that it was stuck, and Dolan nodded in acknowledgement.  Two attempts to “un-stick” it (by another parishioner) failed, and the procession had to go on “silently.”  In his “Bishop’s Corner” column in the church bulletin two weeks later on Low Sunday, Dolan commented first that the usher had left SGG, but that he had done so for doctrinal reasons.  Later on, he touched again on the usher’s “doctrinal” reasons for leaving when he made the following comment about the “stuck” bell: “The bells were silent, though, as the rope got caught during their final ringing by a long time and loyal usher...”  Later, Dolan went on to say, “Keith Monnin, our highly sociable assistant caretaker around the church, perceiving the problem (not the doctrinal issues [our emphasis] but the bells), came running with the ladder to put things right.”

The fact is, the usher had NO “doctrinal issues.”  In his e-mail message to Dolan that day, he gave no reasons whatsoever for leaving SGG (but said that he would give them later).  Dolan simply lied, implying to his readers that this usher was leaving because he was questioning church doctrine.  In a subsequent letter to Dolan some weeks later, the usher did state his reasons, which were not “doctrinal”: he left simply because of Dolan’s failure to address the abuses at SGG.  In his letter, he asked Dolan to retract his lie about the “doctrinal reasons” – but Dolan never did.

Then, some time after that, Cekada decided to comment about the Palm Sunday bell-ringing problem, when he wrote the following in an article entitled School Dazed: “When on Palm Sunday [2009] our school principal (also the head usher) tried to get the usher to ring the bell at the proper time during the procession, said usher took offense.”   Apparently, Cekada did not read Dolan’s “Bishop’s Corner” comments in that Low Sunday church bulletin, because his statement makes either him or his boss out to be a liar.  Of course, they were both liars:  Dolan about the “doctrinal” thing, and Cekada about the “bell” thing.  And, in this case, no eye-witnesses are needed; it came from their own lips.

Cekada compounded his lie by adding these words to his first one: “I had inadvertently gored his [the usher’s] ox in 2005, when I wrote an article criticizing a pompous doctor who presumed to pronounce on matters of moral theology. It turned out to be the usher’s son. Ouch! Though I personally apologized to the man for giving offense, it seems he never got over it.”   There are two lies here (mixed with a little bit of truth).  The “truth” part was that the “pompous doctor” to whom Cekada referred was indeed the usher’s son – but that’s where it ended.  He did not “presume to pronounce on matters of moral theology”; he simply gave a medical opinion on Terri Schiavo’s death (yes, that doctor).  In response to that opinion, Cekada wrote a rebuttal, slamming the doctor.  Not only was that rebuttal published, but included as an insert in the SGG church bulletin one Sunday.

To this, the usher – an SGG parishioner at the time -- indeed took offense (as anyone would), and left in protest.  However, some months later, he relented and returned, putting the episode behind him.  Eventually, he even made sizable donations to both SGG and their affiliated seminary in Florida.  So, yes, Tony, he did “get over it.”  Cekada’s “personal apology,” by the way, is a “half-truth”: he never apologized for what he said about the usher’s son, but only for not being aware that he was the usher’s son.  It gives the reader the impression that he apologized for the former, which is totally false: Cekada never apologized for ANY of his remarks.  It is, plainly put, a lie.

Now one might say, “So what?  These are things of no great importance!”  True, they are not what one would call “earth-shaking.”  But if these two men can lie about things of such little consequence, they will certainly lie about things of great consequence.  And, stating that a parishioner left SGG “for doctrinal reasons” is -- if one thinks about it -- “of great consequence,” because it essentially insinuates that said parishioner is a heretic: if he left for such reasons, it implies that he is not in agreement with Church doctrine.  So, Dolan’s insinuation is, in effect, a double lie.

Another example of the dynamic duo’s mendacity (this, time, Dolan’s) that bears repeating is the episode detailed back in March 2011 by Lay Pulpit (see A Pristine Example of Hypocrisy).  In SGG’s church bulletin, Dolan stated the following about a recently deceased former SGG parishioner: “In the last year of his life, Bernie more than once expressed his wish to be buried from St. Gertrude the Great.”  Then he added, “He was buried instead from Immaculate Conception, although he once so opposed this group’s scandalous inception in 1989, as to forbid discussion of the very subject in his home.”  Both of these statements were base lies, prompting one of the deceased man’s sons to send an e-mail (to Dolan), stating that both statements were, in the son’s words, “bullshit.”

Not only did Dolan not retract what he said; but one of his female parishioners attempted to corroborate his falsehood by lying on his behalf, stating that it was she to whom the (now deceased) man had made the statement about wanting to be buried at SGG.  She then added that it was not “Catholic” of the man’s son to use the word “bullshit.”  The deceased man, as many know, is the same one who was at one time SGG’s biggest benefactor, having donated millions to them over the years, but who left in disgust over the aforementioned abuses that went on there.  (After he left, Dolan tried to “guilt trip” him into returning, accusing him (and others who had also left) of “endangering their souls” by leaving – but, fortunately, the scare tactic didn’t work.) 

Dolan’s bulletin statements not only expose him as a liar, but they also document his slander against Immaculate Conception Church’s clergy -- by his reference to their “scandalous inception in 1989.”  And the woman, of course, is guilty not only of lying, but of berating a man for rightfully getting angry at someone lying about his father (who, being deceased, could not “talk back,” just as Abbot Leonard, being deceased, could not talk back against what Cekada said about him).  Her accusation that it was not “Catholic” of him to use the word “bullshit” is a study in pharisaic prudishness and hypocrisy.

Over the years, both Dolan and Cekada have engaged in many forms of willful misrepresentation, either by making false insinuations and/or by giving false impressions, or by out-and-out lying.  One of Cekada’s “out-and-out” lies was his accusation about someone being mentally ill – the man who had originally tried to warn both him and Dolan (in an e-mail on Christmas Eve, 2008) about the abuses and immorality going on at SGG as early as 2007.  In an e-mail reply, Cekada labeled the man “mentally ill”; and he was banned from church property (under threat of being charged with criminal trespass).  A colleague of his was also banned for refusing to condemn him (as was his wife too, though she had nothing to do with it).  Actually, about a dozen people were eventually banned from the property for opposing the dynamic duo; it became their favorite way of “punishing” their adversaries.

After labeling the man “mentally ill” and banning him (and his colleague) from the property, the dynamic duo’s vindictiveness did not stop there. Later, both were labeled as “losers” (even though both were gainfully employed (the colleague had an immensely successful tutoring business – and still does); and they started a rumor that the “mentally ill” man had an AK-47 assault weapon and that he was going to terrorize SGG’s parishioners at their church picnic! (Gulp!).  The rumor, of course, was pure fiction – but it illustrates the ridiculous lengths to which these two bungling fools will go in their Machiavellian chicanery.  No wonder that Tony has earned the moniker “The Blunderer”!

Cekada’s trademark arrogance, vindictiveness, and lack of compassion are already known quantities; and it should be evident by now that Dolan is his equal in this respect.  The reader should have by now a pretty clear picture of what kind of men these two are.  The track record of these two “shepherds” of SGG’s flock has been one long story of victimizing innocent people, using every weapon imaginable: intimidation, manipulation, “guilt-trip” fear tactics, false insinuations and innuendo, outright lying, character assassination, shady financial dealings – you name it – to achieve what they want.  And, for a time, it worked.  But their past is catching up with them.  In addition to losing half their parish, they have lost something even more precious: respect.  Ultimately, they will defeat themselves – at least in a material sense – if they continue on their present path. 

In their heyday, they could count on almost-yearly “sabbaticals” to The Bishop’s Lodge, “apostolates” to Latin America and Europe, and frequent dining at upscale restaurants.  But times are tough now; their big givers have flown the coup, and new ones are hard to come by.  Until they recruit a new crop of suckers, they have to heavily curtail La Dolce Vita.  But this, perhaps, will be their ultimate salvation: material failure often brings on spiritual redemption -- for, to save one’s soul, one must “die” to this world and its pleasures.  Let us hope that the “new crop of suckers” never comes.  Let us hope that Dolan and Cekada learn their lesson, and do learn to reject their former lifestyle.  But will they?  Yes, we can hope -- but I wouldn’t call that a realistic expectation.

The truth is, Dolan and Cekada are consummate parasites, concentrating all their efforts towards separating people from their money.  They are the “P. T. Barnums” of traddieland, epitomizing that impresario’s famous boast, “There’s a sucker born every minute” – except that the dynamic duo would re-phrase it as, “It is morally wrong to let a sucker keep his money.”  The “good news” is that they do their Machiavellian chicanery heavy-handedly, amateurishly, and sloppily, so that many people readily recognize it as such.  But the “bad news” is that – especially in traddieland – there are many trusting, guileless innocents who don’t recognize it (as well as the willfully blind who don’t want to recognize it, because pride won’t let them), both of whom are “ripe pickings” for these two opportunists.  The former must be warned -- and the latter, brought to their senses. 

It is a sad fact that people nowadays have been “dumbed down” to the point where things must be repeated for them in order for it to “sink in”; and people, by and large, have “short memories.”  This is why political campaign ads are always repeated with nauseating regularity: it is done because it is necessary -- and because it works.  “Repetition equals reinforcement.”  That is why, although what has been written here has all been said before, we are saying it again:  perhaps it will “sink in” this time.  And that is why we’ll repeat it again and again -- as often as necessary -- until it does sink in. 

______________________

* Dolan and Cekada’s apologists would be quick to point out that this “replacement” who was fired also turned out to be a scoundrel – which, later on, he was; but it had nothing to do with what he did (opposing SGG’s abuses) at the time.  In a subsequent “apology” sermon, Dolan tried to “explain away” the fact that virtually half the parish had left, by attributing it all NOT to the abuses going on there, but to the “conspiring” of this “replacement” – a young German priest whom he had ordained two years before.  Dolan inferred many things in his “apology,” but kept them conveniently vague, knowing full well that parishioners predisposed to believe anything he said would unquestioningly swallow whatever he said, without any proof – and there wasn’t any:  It was all assertion.  But to unsuspecting, credulous minds, that’s all that’s needed.

Whatever alleged “private agenda” that this German priest might have had against Dolan, it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the abusive events that had occurred at SGG’s school; they would have happened (and did), whether this priest was there or not.  But it provided a convenient opportunity for Dolan to “explain away” those events by inferring that they were the result of this German priest’s “agenda.”  This priest, after being ousted from SGG, was asked (by the parishioners who had also exited SGG) to start a new parish (St. Albert the Great) – which he did.  However, he eventually turned on those parishioners, leaving them “high and dry” – just as Dolan had done to the people at St. Clare’s in Columbus.  There is much more that could be said – especially about events that transpired afterwards -- but this is all fodder for a whole series of articles (which will some day be told).  But for now, this thumbnail sketch must suffice.

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!