CathInfo.com

What do you think of the above (from Fisheaters Forum), Jaynek? Fr. Cekada is clearly speculating in the worst possible way and concerning a man who is no longer with us.

I think it is wrong to attribute bad motives to people if it can reasonably be avoided. I try my best to not do this, but do not always succeed.  

I do not like to discuss people who have been banned and are unable to defend themselves, so I strongly prefer not to pursue this line of discussion.

Quote from: SJB

What do you think of the above (from Fisheaters Forum), Jaynek? Fr. Cekada is clearly speculating in the worst possible way and concerning a man who is no longer with us.

I think it is wrong to attribute bad motives to people if it can reasonably be avoided. I try my best to not do this, but do not always succeed.  

I do not like to discuss people who have been banned and are unable to defend themselves, so I strongly prefer not to pursue this line of discussion.

Is the following wrong, in your opinion?

I'm not a mind reader, to be sure, but I think it's the most likely explanation, based on the evidence.

A fear of giving offense, as you say, was indeed part of the story — but because offense would have had financial consequences.

Father Giardina began his operation by appealing for support from all types of trads and got it.

Announcing ANY sort of clear position on the pope would have inevitably ticked off SOME of the benefactors and lost part of this support. Why take the chance of killing the goose?

By maintaining a studied public ambiguity on on the question, dropping occasional hints to trads in all camps, and maintaining the "we're-too-spiritual-for-controversy" position, Fr. Giardina allowed benefactors to project their own beliefs onto him and justify their support. With so much "controversy" it's nice to feel that you're supporting a brand that's "non-controversial" and "spiritual" to boot!

In politics, this strategy is called "triangulation," and was part of Clinton's very successful fundraising program.

Father’s (Abbot Leonard'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.

Right away he began criticizing the idea that it was a miracle that permitted Father Ramolla to stay in the U.S.  It's kind of a strange thing to concern yourself with unless you're involved in some way.  It's a sure thing he is someone on the pro-Cekada side of the fence, that's all I'll say

Anatomy of a Strange Case of Diction Analysis

What seemed odd to me is that he somehow inferred (quite incorrectly) some sort of partisan propaganda from a prayerful reply I made to the original post of this thread:

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Praised be the miraculous Infant of Prague that Rev. Fr. Ramolla's immigration case was resolved successfully!

I don't get this idea that a "miracle" occurred with the Fr. Ramolla. I have always understood that wherever there is a miracle, it is something considered naturally impossible. What is so impossible that occurred?

When someone had given a very obvious clarification, his tone became all the more odd:

Thanks for your input, SJB, but I look forward to Hobbledehoy explaining his own words.

What did he expect me to write? Anyways, when I did reply, he didn't even vouchsafe me a direct response (not that he has too, but he made such a fuss about the whole business that I would have expected a direct response of some sort). All he said was:

I am satisfied already that the answer will be, at the very least, the meaning of "miracle" in its secular usage.

Then he finally explained why this random question of diction was so important that he had to question my praise of the Miraculous Infant of Prague:

I think it would appear decidedly unintelligent for anyone to say Fr. Ramolla didn't use the word for what it clearly means, at least in its secular sense.  I am quite certain the outcome was unexpected for BOTH priests: Fr. C surprised in displeased way, Fr. Ramolla in a pleased way. Both thought it was probably not going to happen. The very description by Fr. Ramolla of "miracle" shows this in a crystal clear way. Modernist mentality is to doubt our senses and to argue about ordinary word usage.

Then, he finally revealed the motive behind all the activity in the thread:

I am certain that the man knows what his word means, and has used it in a proportion to his need. I am certain because no educated Catholic uses the word "miracle" unless he, at the very least, first thought the occurrence was improbable. If you, gladius, doubt what is ordinarily certain, you can contact the man about it yourself.

What I see is that Fr. C thought deportation was probable and desired it to happen, while Fr. R thought it was likewise probable but feared it happening. When the outcome happened against the odds, the use of "miracle" was used to advertise the appearance of divine approval for Fr. R's apostolate, and divine disapproval for Fr. C's. But, no such divine implications can be given to such either way, yet some in the Fr. R faction are gearing it that way anyway. Even terrorists, however improbable, are allowed through by the same US bureaucracy, so it is certainly not some divine stamp. And, even though Fr. C believed it was probable (with professional advice) as did Fr. R believe it probable, some in the faction on Fr. R's side actually had the gall and disrespect to laugh at Fr. C for believing in the same sort of probability as Fr. R believed in. This is really sophomoric and inconsistent. Had Fr. R not made the untraditional mistake of mixing a secular term of "miracle" with a religious answer to prayer (perhaps due to English not being his native tongue), most likely this nonsense would not have to be exposed, as I have done here.

His tone and the manner he has elicited a polemical exchange are what disturb me.

I think he is the same person behind the Bazz account, but I do not think it is Fr. Cekada.

As Elizabeth has said, the game of guessing identities is one that most of us do not play well, but those who have been most outspoken about this issue were correct about the Hobson character and the "Pope Augustine" guy [by the way, I remember that you, Raoul, accused me of being this "Augustine" guy, which proves that one may be wrong in supposing the identities of posters]. However, I do agree there is something odd, as I have demonstrated above. He is definitely a polemicist whose tone and argumentative style are so eerily familiar to me, or at least this is what I have intuited. The way all of this began is quite haunting.

Anyways, whoever "Nonno" is, will become quite evident in the coming days or weeks. Everything has a way of resolving itself.