Cekada's Actual Words About Schiavo -- Another Look

He was about four years old at the time.  His mother had taken him and his siblings (a brother of eight, a sister of seven, and another brother of five) to play in a wooded lot down the street from where they lived.  The lot was slated to be sub-divided into three lots for houses; but for now, it was our “playground.”  Three of us were swinging on a wild vine, sort of “Tarzan style,” while my four-year-old brother – too young to safely “swing” – was amusing himself by sitting down on what was left of an old ladder (about three rungs or so).  My mother had convinced him that it was a “boat”; and in his adorable, trusting, childlike innocence, he took her word for it.  With a beaming grin (that still melts my heart to this day), he was enjoying himself immensely in his little “boat.”

That is the enduring (and endearing) memory that I have of my little brother.  No, he is not dead; he is in a nursing home.  A few years back, he underwent a “heart-valve replacement” operation, during which he was put on a “heart-lung machine.”  Because he was on it “too long,” his brain got oxygen-starved, causing some brain damage.  This was the beginning of a dementia that worsened over the years to the point where he had to be admitted to a nursing home.  He is now there.  He responds to my calling his name, and he is visibly happy to see me when I go there to see him.  But when I say something to him or ask him a question, he mumbles something unintelligible to me.  I’m really not sure “what’s going on inside his head”; but it doesn’t matter: he’s in a safe place, where he’s being taken care of.  I thank God that he did not suffer Terri Schiavo’s fate (and that his spouse didn’t let such a fate befall him) – because he has far less “cognitive function” than Terri.  If he had received the same “care” as she had, he’d be in a coffin right now.

Now it turns out that this nursing home is one that today’s “traddies” would derisively refer to as “Novus Ordo” -- latter-day “Samaritans.”  It also turns out that the priest who fought for Terri Schiavo’s life was “Novus Ordo.”  Okay, now, before continuing on, let’s look at the following excerpt from Scripture:

Luke 10:30-37

Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.  Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.  So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.  But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion.  He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.  And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’  Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”  He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

Does the reader see any “parallels” here? To paraphrase what Our Lord asked in that parable, who was it that proved to be “a neighbor” to Terri Schiavo?  Who was more truly Catholic: the “traditional” priest or the Novus Ordo “Samaritan”?  I think you know the answer to that one.  Why is it that a man who calls himself a traditional priest (Anthony Cekada) not only “passed by on the other side” but actually had the gall to justify Terri’s husband decision that his wife be put to death?  Cheesy Checkie’s exact words were: “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.”  No he doesn’t, Tony!  He might have the power (under our warped, immoral legal system)– but not the right.  NO ONE has the right to starve (and dehydrate) someone to death -- especially when they are not in danger of death.  God have mercy on you, you warped, miserable wretch! 

It is interesting, too, to note Cekada’s comment about the “ice chips and Jello”: this is a tacit admission on his part that she (Terri) was indeed able to swallow (as she was when she took the Sacred Species in holy communion) – contradicting what he has stated on that at other times.  But that’s vintage Cekada: saying what is expedient for the moment, not realizing that it might contradict something that he’s said before.  He has a long and storied history of “foot-in-mouth disease.”  For those who never took the time or trouble to read up on all of Cekada’s “gems,” here are a few more (in italics):

“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 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]

“Had Terri Schiavo not received a $750,000 malpractice settlement - i.e. some trial lawyers shook down an insurance company, which in turn calculated that it would be cheaper to pay them and the Schiavos off, rather than gamble with the Oprah-watching idiots in the average jury pool- you can bet that her husband and parents would not have sold off their own houses to sustain her for all this time. Instead, you and I- not merely the Schiavos or the Schindlers - got stuck with the "grave burden" of paying for it. If something is immoral in the whole affair, it is surely this.”

What kind of a warped, sick mind would utter such monstrous comments?  First off, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were NOT spending “everyone else’s money” (nor was Terri Schiavo’s body “shutting down for good”).  No “public money” was spent on keeping Terri Schiavo alive -- but quite a bit of public money WAS spent on putting her to death.  And, as far as “grave burdens on society” are concerned, let us ask Tony this:  How much public assistance is given to illegal immigrants and to deadbeats who have been “on the dole” for generations?  The answer, Tony – as you well know – is trillions.  And even if public money had been spent (which it wasn’t) to keep her alive (as is done every day in government-supported nursing homes), what does that have to do with “moral obligation”?  The answer: NOTHING – as you (and everyone else) well know.  Tony, to borrow your own words: “if something is immoral in the whole affair, it is surely” you.

It is hard to imagine how someone who calls himself a “traditional Catholic” priest could utter such mendacious and depraved nonsense.  But it is even harder to imagine how people who call themselves “traditional Catholics” could listen to and/or follow such a man -- as some still do.  But it is hardest of all to imagine how fellow “traditional” CLERGY could do the same: shamelessly remain silent in the face of such a travesty.  Why is it that the laity had to bring all of this to everyone’s attention?!  Where is moral leadership in “traddieland”?

When one of the laity – a woman – politely and respectfully voiced her concerns to Cekada about Schiavo, here is how he answered her: “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.”

At the end, Tony sanctimoniously added:  “Be assured of my prayers.  Yours in Christ, Father Cekada.”

Again, it is hard to imagine a more condescending (and erroneous) reply than what Cekada gave that woman – or a better example of supreme arrogance coupled with supreme ignorance. [For those who want to read a more complete account of the correspondence between Cekada and her, click here.]  Cekada says that this woman doesn’t “have the training in moral theology that priests have.”  Well, Tony, she’s got more than you!  Cekada’s remarks not only showcase his trademark arrogance and ignorance, but they expose him as the liar and misogynist that he is. Why would any rational person take him seriously?  But, more importantly, why would any traditional CLERGY take him seriously – on anything?! 

 

Before closing, a few more the Blunderer’s “gems”: “Mrs. Schiavo’s husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) - and not her parents - had the right before God to determine whether these means should have continued to be used. A husband does not somehow automatically lose his headship of the household or his God-given ‘domestic and paternal authority’ if he becomes a moral reprobate.  An ecclesiastical or civil court may for a grave reason, of course, prevent him from exercising his authority.  In the Schiavo case, however, the civil courts examined the matter and repeatedly reaffirmed Mr. Schiavo's rights.”

“Mrs. Schiavo’s husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be)…” -- SEEMS to be??!!!  Tony, are you kidding?!  For your information, Michael Schiavo DOES automatically lose “his headship of the household or his God-given ‘domestic and paternal authority’ if he becomes a moral reprobate“ – at least in God's eyes.  And he WAS a moral reprobate.  For you and the “civil courts [who] examined the matter and repeatedly reaffirmed Mr. Schiavo's rights,” he might have been “right”; but for the rest of us -- and for GOD -- he wasn’t.  You know it.  Those blind fools who follow you know it.  Every traditional cleric knows it.  And God certainly knows it.

Yet there are those who still listen to what this buffoon says, and who will accusingly ask us why we are “harping on Schiavo again.”  We, in turn, respond, “Because you are not listening again.”  The fallacy of Cekada’s arguments – not to mention, his arrogance and ignorance -- is glaringly obvious – even to the profoundly “mentally challenged.”  It is time for people to stop pretending that he never said what he did.  It’s there in black and white.  And we will keep “bringing up Schiavo” as often as is necessary until these pretenders open their eyes.  Perhaps, this time around, this will be the “shock therapy” that finally awakens them into recognizing the embarrassing truth that has been painfully present all along – and which, in their pride, they keep ignoring.  And we will keep “bringing it up,” whether they “get it” or not, because it is a message that needs ALWAYS to be kept in front of humanity’s eyes – or else there is no hope for humanity.  If respect for the dignity of life is lost, then we are lost. 

I realize, of course, that Cekada’s and Dolan’s followers stick with them because they “put on a good show.”  But it’s not about “the show,” folks.  It’s not about pontifical pageantry.  It’s not about elaborate rites and rubrics.  It’s not about impressive, polyphonic music.  And it’s certainly not about boondoggles to the desert southwest (disguised as “sabbaticals”), and travel junkets to Europe and Latin America (disguised as “apostolates”).  It’s about truth.  It’s about standing up for the dignity of human life.  It’s about Catholic justice.  And it’s about Catholic charity – none of which these two have.  It is time for traditional laymen and clerics alike to come to the realization that these two are not Catholic, but simply a couple of worldly con men who are destroying Catholicism.

With the present tenant in the White House, standing up for the dignity of human life is now becoming more of an uphill battle than it has ever been.  Obama and his political cohorts have already done enough damage – and lepers like Cekada have helped them do that damage.  The murder of Terri Schiavo helped pave the way for the present pro-death agenda that permeates “Obamacare” – and we can thank Anthony Cekada for “doing his part” too.   We can do our counter-part by putting both him and Obummer out of business.  Perhaps we can’t stop the latter, but we can certainly put Phony Tony (and his fellow huckster) out of business.  Terri Schiavo will thank you for it, and so will my little brother.  So let’s do it.

Brain Dead? We’re Talkin’ RIGOR MORTIS!

In a previous article, Lay Pulpit laid out some of the tactics or strategies that “brain-dead traddies” often use (and the “cards” that they play) to try to silence their opposition – especially those who are “exposing” one of their favorite scoundrels.  One such “brain-dead traddie” has been distinguishing himself lately by using most of the tactics (or “”cards”) mentioned in that article.  We thank him for doing so, because it’s always nice to have someone display concrete examples of what we are trying to illustrate; it is very gratifying to get such cooperation.

The “brain-dead traddie” in question is a man, passing himself off as “Anonymous,” who has been sending in “comments” on another “blog” website, in which he criticizes the author of the blog for what he (the author) has been writing in a series of articles which methodically (and convincingly) dismantles Anthony Cekada’s horrendously flawed defense of (the validity of) Daniel Dolan’s one-handed ordination (and which, in doing so, destroys what’s left of the myth of Cekada’s “scholarship”).  This “Anonymous” – not to be confused with another ”Anonymous” who defended the blog’s author -- used several of the tactics we mentioned, including the “tangent” tactic, plus the “shoot the messenger,” “calumny and detraction,” and “Alter Christus immunity” cards also mentioned.

He started off with a variation of the “tangent” tactic – let’s call it the “completely clueless” tactic – by saying that “…the Holy Office has decided that question [the validity of one-handed priestly ordination] that way many times.”  He was responding to an article in which the blog’s author had just explained that the Holy Office had NOT made any “decision” on validity.  It seems as though “Anonymous” had never even read the article -- or, at least, had not really comprehended what he had read – as the blog’s author commented in reply (and as this correspondent reiterated in a subsequent comment).

But “Anonymous,” like the proverbial greased pig, ignored the reply and undauntedly slithered off to another corner, contending that one should believe a “renowned canonist’s” opinion (rather than an “anonymous blog”) on one-handed ordination.  In this, “Anonymous” was combining the “tangent” tactic with the “shoot the messenger” card: he was misrepresenting what the “canonist” said, while discrediting the blog’s author’s words because he (the author) was anonymous.  Anonymity, it seems, equates to no credibility (if that is true, then “Anonymous,” by that criterion, is not to be believed as well!).  The actual documentation (that the blog’s author was relating) clearly and definitively shows that no decision was ever made by the Holy Office (as both Cekada and “Anonymous” well know, but willfully choose to ignore); but “Anonymous” discounts the documentation simply because the relating was done “anonymously.”

After that bit of “foot-in-mouth disease,” where he embarrassed not only himself but those whom he thought he was trying to defend, and after being thoroughly “put in his place” by the blog’s author, “Anonymous” then played his “calumny and detraction” card, stating (verbatim) the following: “OK, Reader, let's suppose everything you say is correct. Don't you see the incalculable harm you are doing to the traditional movement. If the other side (no pun intended) hired someone to destroy the Traditional Church they could not have found anyone more lethal than you. You should be proclaiming what it good and wholsome in tradition and if you find abuses then you should make them know to the parties who are at fault. These failing should be kept in house not proclaimed for the world to see. Unless you are doing it to show your superior knowledge and intellect. That is what comes through in your postings. While your intention may be praisworthy your method is scandalous.”

Aside from his bad grammar, punctuation, and spelling (and the phantom “pun” to which he was referring), “Anonymous” in effect conceded the author’s point when he said “…suppose everything you say is correct” – after which, he berated the blog’s author for doing “incalculable harm” to the “traditional movement.” For “Anonymous,” you see, it is “incalculable harm” to expose mistranslations [of passages of critical canonical importance] and fraudulent misrepresentations of papal teaching (aka lies).  He seems to forget that it was Cekada who was doing real “incalculable harm” by twisting the truth to promote his own false agenda. For “Anonymous,” it is better to cover up a dung heap with gold leaf than to extricate the excrement.

[A couple of editor’s notes:  first, it was humorous to see “Anonymous’s” one statement to the blog’s author: “…you seem to have as little interest in listening to correction as the clergy you condemn” (whom, by that statement, HE has just condemned!).  Another humorous sidelight is that after “Anonymous’s” comments had been thoroughly refuted, he decided to identifying by name who (he thought) the blog’s author was.  This is one of those tried-and-true tactics that the brain-dead often use: they think that “naming names” is a way to “embarrass” or “expose” someone.  They don’t realize that this only gives the “exposed” some free publicity, and makes them look shrill and spiteful.  It’s a kind of subset of the “shoot the messenger” tactic: when they cannot legitimately refute their adversary, they have to “lash out” and discredit him in some way; and this is their sorry (and ineffectual) way of doing so.] 

This stance (of covering up willful lies for the sake of “appearances” or of “what’s good for business”) is so prevalent in traddieland – at least among the “brain dead” – that it is almost one of its hallmarks.  And it seems to be an almost universal axiom of the brain-dead that criticism of clergy – IN ANY FORM – is verboten.  Like Ian Fleming’s fictional Agent 007 (who had “a license to kill”), clergy seem to have a license to lie, cheat, steal (or even worse) -- with complete impunity.   One can do or say whatever he pleases, so long as he wears a Roman collar – and God help the poor reprobate who dares criticize that “Roman collar” (at least, that’s what “Anonymous” thinks).  Well, wake up, “Anonymous”!  How can you defend such a moral leper as Cekada?  Just for what he said about Schiavo alone, he is to be regarded not only as a “know-nothing,” but as an EVIL MAN.  Yet idiots like you defend such as him (as do so many clerics – either actively, or by their cowardly acquiescence).

But this is what the brain-dead do so well: they like to cover up the dirty laundry of whichever scoundrel they happen to be supporting, while (at the same time) exposing the alleged misdeeds of others.  “Anonymous” accused the blog’s author of calumniating Dolan and Cekada, when the author was merely trying to point out the obvious and myriad doubts about Dolan’s one-handed ordination, a defect that could be easily remedied by conditional ordination (and consecration) – but Dolan’s monumental pride and arrogance will not let him submit to that. 

The author’s arguments are convincingly airtight, but “Anonymous” chooses to ignore them, because he knows that he cannot disprove them (the old “ignore it, and maybe it’ll go away” strategy)), responding instead by switching the discussion to tangential issues: veering off and micro-examining irrelevant, trivial details (such as plucking the word “messenger” out of the phrase “shoot the messenger,” and then expounding on its “definition”), and then -- this tactic failing -- by resorting to attacking the author’s credentials.  In doing so, he has embarrassed not just himself in about every way possible, but also those hucksters on whose behalf he proffers his apologetics.  If one were to catalog the commonest violations of logical and rational behavior, he’d be hard-pressed to come up with a more complete list than that displayed by “Anonymous’s” comments; they read like a textbook case of how to violate just about every precept of logical discourse.

What is it that makes people act irrationally like that?  One answer is that they get wrapped up in personality cults.  Personality cults breed blind acceptance and obedience (the “Jonestown crowd” committing mass suicide by downing poison “Kool-aid” was a telling example of that).  So it is easy to see how the latter-day “Kool-adiers” accept Dolan’s and Cekada’s swill, ignoring the latter’s monstrous stance on Schiavo, and singing the praises of his inept attempts at “scholarship” – and “give their hearts out” to keep Dolan and him in the cushy life-style to which they have become accustomed (and come to expect).  That is also why they can follow the siren song of people like Droleskey, swallowing the obvious (and easily disproven) fabrications of his cowardly attack on an innocent man (or, at least, remaining acquiescently silent in the face of them), yet play the “calumny and detraction” card when anything is said against “one of theirs.”

This sort of thing, unfortunately, has been going on since the beginning of time.  This is what our Lord’s Passion and Death were all about: people ignoring (and despising) the truth, and accepting the lies and duplicity of those who crucified Him.  They followed the cult-masters of their day – Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin clique – and rejected Truth to the point of Deicide.  People always seem to be duped by false shepherds; and once they are duped, they cannot admit that they made a mistake by doing so.  Why?  Pride – arrogant pride -- that most prevalent and paramount of human failings.  People are usually too proud to admit that they did wrong; and that is also why Daniel Dolan will not submit to a simple, painless ceremony that would ensure the validity of a young man’s ordination (not to mention his own). 

And, speaking of that ordination (as someone just recently pointed out), why is Dolan ordaining him anyway?  The rector of the seminary is a bishop himself – with no doubts about the validity of his ordination (and consecration).  Why is a whole entourage of clerics and fellow seminarians making the expensive trek to Ohio to perform a ceremony that could be done without leaving the rectory in Florida?!!  Good question – especially when the SGG faithful (who will probably fund it), are currently saddled with the cost of replacing a leaky church roof (that wasn’t done right the first time, thanks to Cekada’s bone-headed attempt at “playing architect”).  This doesn’t make much economic sense (or any other kind of sense, for that matter).  But “sense” has no place in traddieland – at least at SGG, where the “show” must go on, no matter what.  But not to worry: SGG’s culties will spring for it, so that the charlatans can put on an extravaganza that, ironically, might not even be valid.

When will Catholicism be cleansed of such frauds and charlatans?  And when will the brain-dead stop supporting and defending such indefensible fakes and start embracing what is legitimate and true?  Well, fortunately, more and more people are waking up; and there are fewer and fewer “Anonymouses” still clinging to such indefensible hucksters.  Those who heretofore blindly accepted Cekada’s false “scholarship” and Dolan’s over-the-top ostentation (or who acquiesced out of “respect for the cloth”) are starting to think for themselves, and seeing them for what they are.  They are starting to see through their mendacious façade, and seeking the truth – because they realize that it is GOOD FOR THE FAITH to do so.  Truth cannot and should not be suppressed for “appearance’s” sake.  It didn’t work in our Lord’s time, and it won’t now.

What is needed is for Catholic CLERICS to speak up and speak out.  They are the shepherds (i.e., the ones to whom most of the lay look up for guidance); they need to stop shirking their responsibilities and start DOING THEIR JOB.  It should not have to be for laymen to do what they should be doing; but in a vacuum, WE MUST – and ARE.  A few words from the right clerics would banish dolts like “Anonymous” to a well-deserved oblivion (or, more preferably, make them see the light).  There is no room in Catholicism for worldly, self-seeking cult-masters (or for zombie-esque apologists who perpetuate them); and more and more of the faithful are waking up to this reality.  Some clergy are starting to realize this, too, and are doing something about it – but not enough of them.  For the yet silent and the acquiescent, they MUST realize that their silence and their pretending that “all is well” are only HURTING the Faith – and disillusioning those faithful who see through that inaction as the hypocrisy that it is.   Let us hope that the day will come when more clergy will wake up and act – before their own disillusionment sets in.

Extreme Makeover, Brain-Dead Edition (aka “Down ‘n Out Abbey”)

One of the popular “reality shows” on U.S. network TV in recent years has been one called Extreme Makeover, Home Edition.  In this program, a needy (and supposedly deserving) family (usually one that has suffered some unforeseen misfortune) gets their house “re-habbed” by a professional crew – all, of course, gratis -- at no expense.  And during the program, the family’s “story” is told: the particulars on what type of misfortune happened to them, how they are dealing with it, and other “human interest stuff” to both entertain and inform those watching the show.

Also, you might recall, “PBS” (the U.S. Public Broadcasting System) has been airing a BBC series (called Downton Abbey) for the past three years (with another season or two in the works) – about life in an upper-class estate in Edwardian England.  Well, folks, it turns out that traddieland has its own version of both: the saga about life in a no-class rectory in “Dolanesque” America.  This “version” is, in fact, a hybrid, having elements of both Downton Abbey and Extreme Make-over.  We call it Extreme Makeover, Brain-Dead Edition – or, Down ‘n Out Abbey for short.  It is the story of how “SGG” (St. Gertrude the Great Church), through the magic of “R&R” (Relocation & Reconstruction), became the resounding travesty that it is today.  In the case of SGG, the old facility was not “re-habbed” but sold, and a new facility (in a new location) built in its place.

Heretofore, SGG’s parish was languishing in the northern Cincinnati suburb of Sharonville, Ohio, in a church “way too small” for its congregation – whose school children were “crammed” into that church’s basement.  The dream was to replace all of this with both a new church structure and a new school, plus, build a new rectory and convent.  The fact that the old church had a building next door -- an “Odd-fellows” Hall -- which could be used for a school, was a moot point: what the pastor and his assistant wanted was a self-contained, brand-spanking new “campus,” complete with everything: church, school, rectory, convent – “the full Monty.”

So, an ambitious “building campaign” was started, with the church’s main benefactor (who lived in Kentucky) tapped for a million or so to get things moving.  (However, not everyone was expected to donate such a sum; an elderly widow living on a fixed Social Security income, for instance, would only be expected to cough up a measly six grand or so.)  With much exhortation (and fund-raising “techniques” that Jimmy Hoffa would’ve been proud of), the money was raised; and a parcel of land (valued at $500,000) adjoining an industrial lot was picked for the new “complex.” 

The “main benefactor” had offered them land in Kentucky “for free”; but they chose the “premium” site (which they could have sold for a profit) instead.  The reason was that the land in Kentucky, although close to most of SGG’s parishioners (the “main benefactor’s” extended family – most of whom lived in Kentucky -- comprised about half the congregation), was not near the desired “epicenter,” i.e., where most of the restaurants (frequented by the pastor and his assistant) were located. But, no matter -- with spirits high (and wallets drained), the intrepid SGG parishioners plodded forward, ready for excitement -- and exploitation!

The original plan called for an impressive, gothic-style “sermon in stone,” connected to its school by a “cloister” colonnade; and the school was to have a large gymnasium for its expected burgeoning enrollment.  Also included were a rectory, a convent, a “carriage house” -- and even a grotto.  But SGG’s sheep didn’t “sacrifice” as expected, and the “sermon” idea had to be shelved – and, instead, the gymnasium became the “church.”  Also, the “stone” used for the “church” turned out to be stone veneer (from China) – about one inch thick – which was literally hung on the building’s frame via “pins” -- to make it look “solid.”  To finish it off, a kind of epoxy caulking was applied (from a caulking gun) to serve as “mortar.”

The result was a structure where the stone not only did not support anything, but structurally detracted from the edifice – making the place not so much a “sermon in stone,” but more like an “epistle in epoxy” – but with no moxy!  But, no matter – it looked good (and, after all, in traddieland, “appearances” are what count – right?).  If there was ever a prize given for architectural blunder of the year, this baby would win it hands down (just as WHH would win its literary equivalent).  This new facility is a case study in how to transform a Taj Mahal plan into “section 8” housing.

Now, the original plan for the “cloister” and adjoining area called for a sloped roof; but Tony Cekada, SGG’s literary paper-lion and resident Expert on Everything, wanted a flat roof, to make things look more “churchy.”  Therefore, SGG’s resident yes-man, G. Whiz Kwikenderty, dutifully obliged, and a flat roof it was!  (An architectural expert from SGG’s Columbus affiliate was sent down to evaluate the roof, as well as the new facility’s general quality of construction; and he found it to be not so much appealing as it as appalling.  His remedial recommendations, of course, were ignored; and the roof was finished according to “the Blunderer’s” mandate.)  However, that design didn’t quite stand well with the laws of physics, that is, the roof leaked.  Several patch jobs were done, but to no avail; and the upshot of the whole thing is that the roof now needs to be replaced.  But – no matter – the “sheep” are “good” for it – right?

Other nifty design features included several utility systems that didn’t meet code (but somehow got “fudged” through later on), plus an innovative HVAC cost-cutting measure enabling the church’s vestibule to be used as a sauna in the summer, and a meat-locker in the winter – great for young mothers with week-old infants!  Another “nice touch” in the vestibule was a hard wooden bench for “crying room mothers” to sit on, but with no “back” to it.  Instead, there was a large picture mounted on the wall behind it, such that when someone sits on the bench, the picture’s “frame” cuts right through the sitter’s back – a design feature worthy of the Marquis de Sade.  If this arrangement still exists, it is a testament to both the pastor’s ingenuity (and depravity), and parishioners’ forbearance (and masochism).

The “church” building also includes a “social hall” (a space originally earmarked for staff offices), and private offices for the pastor and his assistant, with the dozen or so “staff” being shoe-horned into an area about the size of the pastor’s office.  The pastor’s office, of course, has an over-sized wooden desk and chair, and its own fireplace; and it and the assistant pastor’s (also large) office share a wet-bar/kitchenette and private, Roman marble full-bath (with shower), while the staff shares the social hall restrooms with the rest of the parishioners.  The pastor’s office, by the way, adjoins a windowless “sleeping” room that can be used for other activities that lend themselves to windowless rooms.

Besides the gym-turned-church, the perforated cloister, and the school, the complex also includes a 2000+ sq. ft. rectory and a similar-sized “convent.”  The rectory, an edifice whose area could ordinarily accommodate a family of six or seven, houses two occupants: the pastor and his assistant – each with his own living-room sized bedroom (and each with private bath and walk-in closet).  For some reason, the rectory has three air-conditioning systems (perhaps to give each occupant his own “climate zone,” plus a “spare”).  Because they ran out of the Chinese stone veneer, the rectory exterior was clad in stucco, to give it a half-timbered, “English” look.

The same holds true for the “convent” (The reason for the quotation marks is that it really isn’t a convent, although it was “sold” to the parishioners as such).  As it turned out, what nuns they did have were billeted in a small house (left over from their “Sharonville days”), which was inconveniently located several miles away – necessitating the nuns’ commuting to and from the “campus” to get their work done.  When they moved into the property, there were two nuns (both of whom are now gone).  What the “convent” then became, instead, was a boarding facility for visiting priests (usually from Sanborn’s swampland complex).  To round out the “campus,” there is a “carriage house” (now used for storage) and a “grotto” – but not just a grotto: in front of the grotto, there is a (roughly 10 ft. diameter) fish-pond (complete with re-circulating pump, and a dozen or so goldfish (the pastor originally wanted sixty-bucks-a-copy koi for the pond; but, fortunately, a cost-conscious worker sent to buy them substituted the cheaper fish for them.

There seems to be an ongoing problem with keeping the fish alive, however.  It is not known whether they die of “natural causes,” or if perhaps they are being decimated by the resident cats (Vivaldi, Puccini, and Caravaggio).  Another possibility, too, could be that the fish are “raffled off” to the parishioners some time during Lent.  For those who have not frequented the property in recent years, it is not known if the fish-pond is even functioning (or if it is still stocked with fish) – and, for that matter, if Vivaldi, Puccini, and Caravaggio are “still with us” (there has been no mention of their demise in The Bishop’s Corner, so we must assume that they have not yet “gone to that big cat-house in the sky”).

Anyway, getting back to the roof: rumor now has it that there is going to be a plea for money to bankroll the roof repairs now pending (even though the roof ought to be still “under warranty”).  One thing, of course, that “complicates” this is the fact that SGG still has the fifty-to-eighty-grand-a-year “school” millstone around its neck (depending on how many Lotarski kids are on the payroll), plus whatever is paid -- if any -- to the rest of their faculty.  Then there’s the “beat the clock” factor: it’s only a matter of time before the rest of the place falls apart anyway, what with the “hung on” stone veneer, the ever-leaking roof, and the overall shoddy construction techniques (and materials) employed by G. Whiz. 

We give Down ‘n Out Abbey about a generation to once again attain that “English” look (i.e., like London after the blitz).  By that time, though, the dynamic duo should have enough salted away to abscond to the Caribbean (the Bishop’s Lodge is just too pricey) -- or perhaps to some bargain resort in Thailand.  It all depends on how much parishioners’ money can be laundered with the fiscal shell game that’s been going on all these years (with SGG’s tangle of “front” corporations and shelters).  Then the onus will be on “Lurch” or “Wannabe” (or whoever turns out to be their heir apparent) to pick up the pieces (both figuratively and literally).  Perhaps by that time they’ll find someone with real construction expertise (and a priest who doesn’t try to “play architect”).

One of the many ironies of all of this is that the old Sharonville facility would now handily suffice – and last much longer than what they have now.  It is a sturdy, well-built brick facility, which would more-than-adequately meet the needs of SGG’s now greatly-diminished congregation; and the property next door (the aforementioned “Odd-fellows hall”) would have made a more-than-adequate school (which now houses only a handful of students).  Plus, the hall could have been purchased by selling the half-million-dollar lot they ended up using for the new facility – with money left over.  Another irony is that the school, in fact, turned out to be, in effect, a church-subsidized private tutoring service for the Lotarski children (most of SGG’s graduates were Lotarskis, more of whom graduated from the school than all the rest of its students combined) 

Another irony is that most of SGG’s current monetary shortfall stems from the fact that most of the original SGG congregation, including its “main benefactor,” left there in disgust – taking their money with them (the “main benefactor” heavily subsidized the school’s operation, as well as the church).  With them gone, it’s becoming a daunting task to keep the Lotarski juggernaut chugging along, and still meet the parish payroll.  The school, a sub-standard facility that has outlived its usefulness, is (as said before) a financial millstone around the pastor’s neck – who undoubtedly pines for “the good old days” at the Bishop’s Lodge, for his travel junkets to Europe and Latin America, and for the epicurean feasts at the Grand Finalé et al.  For “eats,” he must now settle for Bravos – and (as he lamented in the church bulletin one Sunday) with coupons, no less!

And now, as stated earlier, rumor has it that the sheep are expected to chip in to a “roof repair fund” to pay for “Tony the Blunder’s” bone-headed mistake: his “flat roof” fiasco that must now be replaced -- a roof that is not yet ten years old.  Plus, there’s sure to be “under roof” damage to pay for as well.  Hopefully, the repair budget will be meticulously “scrutinized” so that no money erroneously finds its way into the “Bishop’s Lodge fund” or some other such pot.  And, after whatever repairs are done, we suggest that the name of the church be changed to something more appropriate (that more accurately reflects what the building represents).  Hence, we submit for the parishioners’ perusal the name “St. Dilapidatius” – the patron saint of dilapidation.

Those who “gave ‘til it hurts” during SGG’s original “building campaign” (and who fall for it again) can take solace in the fact that, by being fleeced once again, they are revalidating their “brain dead” credentials.  And for those brain-dead who had once left SGG in disgust but who have now returned – Wow! -- their “revalidation” will be doubled!: they have the satisfaction of knowing that they are 1) once again subsidizing the cult-masters’ worldly lifestyle, and 2) experiencing the masochistic thrill of knowing that they are subsidizing a mistake.  Wow, there ought to be a special party thrown for them – on April Fool’s Day!!  Perhaps, if they’re lucky, they can live to see the day when SGG’s buildings fall apart (and/or their cult-masters decamp).

To rational people, it is inconceivable how anyone with half a brain could be expected to once again bankroll what can only be described as a mistake, a blunder – especially one coming from “Tony Baloney,” whose “Schiavo” and “WHH” fiascos already establish him as the “clown prince” of blunderers.  It is even more inconceivable that people who left SGG (because they knew who and what the SGG clerics are) could be hoodwinked into not only returning there but be expected to subsidize these lepers again.  They probably returned because they can’t do without “the show” (and will overlook sodomy and sadism to get it); but we hope that they at least keep their money in their wallets this time. 

This will send a message to SGG’s clerics (and to all cult-masters) that their parishioners are not groveling boot-lickers who mindlessly reward their absurdity.  The ultimate “fix,” however, is to completely “starve the beast”: to put cult-masters like them completely out of business, for everyone’s spiritual good – including their own.  Then, stripped of worldly temptation and proclivities, they’ll perhaps renounce la dolce vita, get back to their Cistercian roots, undergo an “extreme makeover” of their own – and then, at long last, start practicing what they preach.  But, I’ll bet you -- my food stamps for your Bravo’s coupon -- that that’s not going to happen! 

You Can’t Fix Brain-Dead

The “beatitudes” and “pearls of wisdom” covered in Lay Pulpit’s last article are philosophical gems of the first stamp that should warm the gizzard and tickle the cerebral cortex of even the most profoundly mentally-challenged traddie (and stimulate the regurgitation reflex in the rest of us).  Perhaps one day these “pearls” will be emblazoned in bronze, gracing the lobby of Sanborn’s Swampland Sanitarium (aka MHT Seminary) – or perhaps gracing the rolls of paper found in certain of its rooms (where they will be seen more often – and put to better use).

But such proverbial “pearls” are just generalizations.  They are no good unless accompanied by specific blueprints for action.  The well-equipped traddie must be armed with more than glowing platitudes; hence, we are here to help -- in any way we can.  Lay Pulpit has come up with an absolutely stupendous list of strategies/tactics that will help the brain-dead weather any storm that threatens to enlighten his intellect or contaminate him with moral rectitude.  If you’re championing some shady cause, or find yourself losing an argument because you have lied your way into a corner, these are some handy tricks that you can use to worm your way out.  Okay, ready?  Here we go:

1.    The “Denial” Tactic.  This is your first line of defense: simply deny everything – even if you have “lied yourself silly.”  Chances are that your opponent won’t remember the lies you told before; you can just deny having said “such-and-such” – and then pray that your opponent has “amnesia”!  This, by the way, is the defense that “Pamela” used against “Ted” (aka “the ‘Peregrine’ defense”) in their celebrated e-mail exchange.  But, of course, it didn’t work for her, so she had to go to her second line of defense, the….

2.    The “Tangent” tactic.  When one gets proved wrong -- especially with one’s own words (as “Pamela” was), then the thing to do is to change the subject, or attack some “tangential” issue.  “Pamela” tried this (read the whole article), but was eventually flushed out of her (to quote her idol, Dr. D) “hidey hole.”  This is a good tactic, but – alas! -- a temporary expedient, for it too inevitably gets “found out,” necessitating changing the subject yet again (and getting “found out” yet again), until one eventually has to resort to….

3.    The “Take toys, go home” tactic (aka the “stonewall” tactic).  In this ploy, one simply “grabs his toys and goes home,” tail between legs, slithering all the way.  “Pamela” used this as her “last stand”; she said that she had “no more time for this sort of thing,” and simply “signed off.”  This tactic is also known as “SSSS” (Slammed Shut Sphincter Syndrome), wherein the combatant assumes an “anal” posture and refuses to argue or dispute further, and simply “slams shut.”  This tactic is fraught with ignominy and embarrassment – but, nonetheless, it “gets the job done.”  Besides, “he who lies and runs away, lives to lie another day!”

4.    The “Pretend, Maybe It’ll Go Away” Tactic.  This one is a kind of hybrid of the “denial” and the “take toys/go home” tactics, wherein one not only denies, but pretends that his faux pas has never taken place.  Dr. D employed it when he removed his hatchet-job article (on Petko) from his website (and has never again referred to the fact that he had written it) – and is now hunkered down in his “hidey hole,” pretending that the “smoke” on this (and his ordination) will go away.  The former pastor of SAG (St. Albert the Great Church) also employed this tactic, when he betrayed and then left his parish, absconded to Germany, and set up shop there, pretending that all of his former chicanery had never happened.  This tactic, although seemingly effective, is still a temporary ploy, because it “catches up” with its perpetrator in time – especially if Lay Pulpit keeps bringing it back to the surface!

These tactics are known by a variety of names, but they all boil down to the same thing, following the same sequence:  first, try lying; then, when that doesn’t work, attack (and/or lie about) something else; then, when you run out of those “tangents,” grab your toys and go home – and then “keep a very low profile.”  If this sounds all too futile, take heart, because there are other “tools” or “trump cards” in the brain-dead traddie’s tool belt.  Here they are:

1.    The “Calumny and Detraction” Card.  This card, also referred to as the “traddie ‘race’ card,” is one that the brain-dead can use to stop (or at least deflect) someone’s attack on whichever guilty cult-master the brain-dead is trying to defend.  One simply has only to holler “calumny” or “detraction,” and the “attacker” will be stopped dead in his tracks.  Apparently, one cannot expose the misdeeds of another – no matter how heinous those deeds are – if it is seen as “hurting the wrongdoer’s reputation.”  No matter that the wrongdoer may have destroyed someone else’s reputation (or may have done real material harm to another), he is nonetheless entitled to his reputation – especially if he is “a man of the cloth” – which brings us to the next “card,” the….

2.    “Alter Christus Immunity” Card.  This card states that “men of the cloth” are “Alter Christi” (“other Christs”), and therefore no one is allowed to “touch” them -- to criticize them or any of their actions: a kind of ecclesiastical “diplomatic immunity.”  This card works for a great multitude of traddies; and the more brain-dead the traddie, the better it works.  Clerics of any stripe (excepting Bp. Petko, of course) are considered “sacred” – “off limits” to any sort of criticism or even “confrontational behavior.”  For instance, Tony Cekada used it quite effectively (or so he thought) against any criticism of his handling of Schiavo – especially when it was a woman who was being “confrontational.”   And, of course, anyone who dared speak out against all the scandalous goings on at SGG was guilty of this sort of sacrilege as well.  For those brain-dead zombies still at SGG, this was (and still is) a most effective deterrent to any “disrespect” leveled against their cult-masters.

3.    The “Shoot the Messenger” Card.  This classic trump card, although a brainless one, is still widely used – especially by “first-timers” who have not the savvy to come up with anything more “original.”  They seem to delight in “knowing who their adversary is” and then “exposing” him by referring to him by name – all the while completely ignoring the message that the adversary is presenting.  Apparently, they think that one will be “embarrassed” at being “found out” – and that this will somehow make him “clam up” and refrain from speaking out again.  For the brain-dead, this gives them a “cat-that-swallowed-the-canary” sense of triumphant euphoria.  Unfortunately, the use of this card usually ends up with its user embarrassing himself; plus, his “sense of euphoria” is all too often erased when the “adversary” turns out to be a cat-swallowing shark.

4.    The “Profanity” Card.  Another classic: this card is also one of those “low tech” weapons used by the unschooled to “disqualify” arguments because of “improper language.”  If one uses words such as “bullshit,” he is automatically condemned as being “not Catholic” – because this is a “bad word,” boys and girls!  It’s the proverbial “aw shit” that wipes out the hundred “attaboys” -- where one “four-letter word” can cancel the beneficial effects of Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.  The use of this card was effectively illustrated in a previous Lay Pulpit article, where it also showcased one of traddieland’s finer traits: hypocrisy.

All of the foregoing tactics have been employed by the likes of Cekada and Droleskey, and even by lower life forms such as “the Neanderthal” (SAG’s former pastor) – all to no avail.  They have all brought their bean-shooters into battle, only to be met by laser-guided howitzers.  One would think that they’ve had enough, but they “keep coming back for more.”  It’s almost as if they’re taking a correspondence course in masochism, and they must keep taking the exam over and over again!

Every now and then, too, one of their inept apologists – the “pawns” in their chess game -- comes in to “run interference” for them (“Simply Catholic,” “Introibo,” or some other encephalic paraplegic), and each gets mowed down by withering machine-gun fire (an M-60 will do; one doesn’t like to waste his “howitzer” on minor nuisances).  They are the “flies” (hanging around the cult-center outhouse) that occasionally need to be swatted.  We thank them, however, for we need do a little “pest control” now and then (and we thank the cult-masters for providing the steaming heaps that attract them).

The truth is, traddieland has become a wasteland, where truth is despised and hearsay and rumor are taken as gospel, and where the innocent are condemned, and the guilty are worshipped as heroes: Anthony Cekada’s travesty on Schiavo was condoned (or even defended) by SGG’s parishioners, his pathetic “WHH” was hailed by them as a “masterpiece,” and the sick goings on at SGG were ignored by them as if they had never happened.  Yet they (and especially their “St. Albert’s” spinoffs) can nail an innocent bishop to a cross – a man who, to this day, is still shunned by many as “damaged goods” or some sort of “leper” (although, mercifully, this misconception is dissolving, as more and more people see and recognize the truth about the vicious hatchet job that Droleskey did on him).

Too many traddies, too, are looking for some cheap, magical way to get to heaven, following their cult-masters’ pharisaic, letter-of-the-law formulae for “finding that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.”  The trouble is, the cult-masters (and sanctimonious pulpiteers like Dr. D) get the “gold,” while the sheep get the “rainbow” (or some other mirage).  And speaking of “Dr. D,” it’s time to put those rumors about his becoming a priest into their proper perspective.  First of all -- according to many eye witnesses, including a woman who goes by the moniker of “Peregrine” – he is a priest (she witnessed his ordination by Slupski).  But priest or no priest, the relevant point to seize here is that “a Roman collar does not turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.”  He is still a beggar who panders boring, sanctimonious swill for money – and a liar to boot.  His becoming a priest will not rehabilitate him; it will only serve to make him look even more ludicrous and irrelevant than he already is.  It is time that this loser starts making an honest living instead of catering to the brain-dead with his sanctimonious drivel.

Actually, it’s high time that ALL of traddieland’s losers get real jobs – and stop peddling Droleskeyite sanctimony, Dolanesque ostentation, or the false scholarship of arrogant, condescending know-nothings like Cekada.  Traddieland has become a place where “seminaries” are little more than “puppy mills,” turning out simplex simpletons who forget how to make holy water – or forget the words of the consecration (or where, in Slupski’s freak show, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be made a priest – in the confessional – with no seminary training whatsoever required).  Traddieland, in short, has made itself the laughing stock of Catholicism.  It is a sick joke, except that it is not funny – it is a tragedy.  It is an embarrassment.  In short, it is not Catholic.

But these hucksters cannot function unless empowered by willing, obsequious fodder who provide the fuel for their machines.  The peasants who give their hard-earned money (and labors) to them in return for “pageantry” must learn to, first, close their pocketbooks to the cult-masters – to “starve the beast” – and then close their minds to them.  They must come to realize that the hucksters are just giving them “the show” instead of the substance.  Until that happens, traddieland will not be (or become) Catholic.  It’ll just be a futile charade of “pontifical nostalgia,” syrupy sanctimony, and wishful thinking.

But, lest the reader get the wrong impression, not all traddies are unwitting victims of their cult-masters; many are willing accomplices – co-conspirators – who know exactly who and what their hireling shepherds are.  This is certainly true at SGG, where people are fully aware of what has gone on there, but who (literally) don’t give a damn: they must have their “show” – and they’ll overlook anything and everything to get it.  The same is true for the remnant “SAG” crowd, who backed their pastor’s (and Dr. D’s) cowardly attack on an innocent man, but who are themselves too cowardly to admit it (and, so far, not one of whom has come forward to apologize to the man, either publicly or privately).  They have tried to assuage their guilt by changing their name to “St. Therese” – but it won’t wash.  A leopard cannot change its spots.

When will “traddieland” come clean?  Probably never, for it is “a ship without a rudder” (actually, more like amusement-park “bumper cars” with no steering wheels, going every which way, and getting in one another’s way).  There is no hierarchy to govern it and “keep it honest.”  There are too many self-appointed “fly-by-nighters” plying worldly agendas -- preaching “heaven” but practicing hedonism -- making (and breaking) rules as they go along, and preying on gullible parishioners with narrow minds and fat wallets.  And, in spite of the aforementioned plea for traddies to “starve” the cult-masters, it seems that this folly will continue.  Practically speaking, until some sort of restoration happens (or until God “steps in”), the parasitic cult-masters will continue their blood-sucking, until both they and their hosts inevitably die.  So, until that appropriate remedy materializes, one must hope for the best, prepare for the worst – and pray that God will spare us in the trials to come.