Lighthouse said:  

1. IF the "gravest accusations" are true, they are NOT just items to be swept under the rug for purposes of doing business-as-usual. For those closely involved they would be as the current expression goes--deal-breakers.

2. Say what one wants, but the number of people that picked up and moved, leaving investment, acquaintance, and their own small sliver of hope in a putrid world, well, it's scary, odd, and puzzling. A small amount of administrative bumpiness would not seem to be enough to cause this to happen. So what did happen. No, I don't want a party line, I want to know: what did happen?

3. Mr. Shea got this started, and promised evidence and a reckoning, but he seems to be AWOL, and there has been no evidence and no reckoning. That right there would lean one toward kicking the case out of court and declaring a mistrial.

4. The St. Albert group seems to have gone off prematurely like a defective firecracker, seeking land, signing up bishops, spending money. Who IS driving this runaway train?

5. The SGG clerics have been very oddly silent in defending themselves. I know, to reply to lies only gives them credence, but could we at least hear a "That's absolutely ridiculous"?

Is there anyone here that feels confident enough to make a decision between these two? If so, precisely why?

Good questions, I ask myself something similar when trying to figure this out.

Question ( 1 ) -- No proof of any kind has been provided.

Question ( 2 ) -- That is easy, Father Cekada has the kind of personality that alienates people.    

The Terri Schiavo gaffe threw oil on the fire; then there appears to have been what many consider poor management of their school.  Then there is the issue with selling the church, which I know nothing about but I can see how it could create dispute.

Calling Eamon "mentally ill" in a public letter is another example.  That is not acceptable for a priest to do.  CMRI won't say so since they have ties to Father Cekada but it would be unthinkable for Bp. Pivarunas to call someone a lunatic in public.  That kind of trash-talk is not befitting a priest AT ALL.

So all these things were adding up against Father Cekada.  He apparently never backs down about his mistakes; and the Terri Schiavo issue is a CLEAR mistake.  There is a deafening silence from CMRI and other clergy about that, no one rushed to his defense.  While I understand these moral issues are often more complicated than the laity realizes, his idea that the tube could be removed because she was wasting taxpayer money was simply appalling. Nothing about that sounds like authentic moral theology; so his appeal to being educated and trained felt totally unconvincing.  

This made him lose credibility as an authority and maybe it's what opened the floodgates.  Before that, he had quite a reputation for learning that may have kept people in awe of him.  That was all over after Terri Schiavo.  It is very possible that, if anyone was holding grudges against him before, the gloves were off at that point.  

In retrospect, the one who comes out of this smelling like a rose is Father Martin Stepanich.  He acknowledged Father Cekada's error but tried to maintain the peace.  Looking back you can see all along he knew what he was doing.  But many people no longer trust priests, that is the sad reality.  Once their trust is broken in one priest, why should they trust Father Martin?  That is how the worm gets in.  I have been there myself.  

This is why St. Paul puts so much emphasis on giving people the benefit of the doubt; of thinking no evil.  Until we have PROOF that someone is not to be trusted, we should trust them totally, having confidence God will either not put us in the hands of our enemies, or will pull us out in time by showing us clearly what they are.  But God does not ask us to be suspicious or try to read evil intentions. I have learned this after many painful trials.  It all comes down to faith and trust in God.  

Not that I'm saying I would have done any better, but nothing about this situation EXCEPT the Terri Schiavo controversy merits a public response.  Maybe the situation with the school as well, though I don't know much about that and leave it to the consciences of those involved.  All I know is the Terri Schiavo opinion was public, so it needed a public response, but it is really no reason why anyone would have to leave SGG, it's not clear-cut heresy, it's just like one of those grotesque laxist opinions of the Jesuits that were condemned.

Question ( 3 ) --  Eamon and others mixed innuendo with the facts.  People were more willing to believe the innuendo when they saw various unsavory things about SGG.  But when you really add it all up, it amounts to very little.  I remember the outrage that a girl got pregnant at SGG, as if somehow that is Father Cekada's fault.  Like Tele is doing now, he was just throwing everything out there to see what stuck, to get back at the object of his obsession.  

It is, in fact, remarkable how similar the anti-SGG crowd once sounded like Tele, and how much they all sound like the Prots who rebelled against the church.  They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.  Agitators throughout history have picked apart the faults and sins of priests in order to push their various agendas through, and those faults have often been tremendous, priests in the Middle Ages were frequently extremely worldly and sinful to a point that goes far beyond anything that has been proven against SGG clergy.  I would hate to see how Eamon would react to them!  Part of the problem, of course, is that trads tend to be overly idealistic and want to build heaven on earth, apparently, while the true Church is filled with sinners and people that are more or less imperfect.

Question ( 4 ) -- Father Ramolla has the right to go be an independent sede priest if he wants to.  The problem is that, to do this, and maintain yourself -- have money to eat, to live, etc. -- unless you have money yourself, you need a flock.  So he may be dependent on certain characters that he would prefer not to be dependent on; just one possible theory.

Question ( 5 ) -- Do you defend yourself against every rumor?  It just gives the rumors more life when you do that.  I saw a movie about Walter Winchell where he said "When you start defending yourself, you're dead."  

Question ( 4 ) -- Father Ramolla has the right to go be an independent sede priest if he wants to.  The problem is that, to do this, and maintain yourself -- have money to eat, to live, etc. -- unless you have money yourself, you need a flock.  So he may be dependent on certain characters that he would prefer not to be dependent on; just one possible theory.

As a priest, you also need a bishop who will provide you with some necessities for your apostolate. This is where I see politics clearly playing a role it simply shouldn't play. This problem is increased by many of the laymen who assign something more to the traditional bishop, namely the power to rule.

Question ( 3 ) --  Eamon and others mixed innuendo with the facts.  People were more willing to believe the innuendo when they saw various unsavory things about SGG.  But when you really add it all up, it amounts to very little.  I remember the outrage that a girl got pregnant at SGG, as if somehow that is Father Cekada's fault.

Here's a little reality check and refresher from Oct 20, 2009:

Quote from: Pope Innocence 3 (SGG defender)

2 youngsters spent time together off school hours (Parties etc)...

They got busted in a classroom at SGG School on a Saturday (in mid to late December) by the mother of the girl.  The young man, keep in mind, was on the clock as an employee of sgg.org/cult.

This was part of the incident that caused me to write in December.  NOTHING was done about it by those in authority and months later there is a baby on the way.

They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.

Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!

I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.

To get back to the topic:


It is curious that for the latest posting on Pristina, Toth cited the Prophecy of Jeremias for the epigraph, for which he did not provide the exact citation, which is curious because he is too quick to criticize sloppiness in scholarship.

Here is the verse in its entirety (Jer. ch. xvii., 5):

Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

It's funny (though "funny" is a funny word for it) that he avails himself of this grand verse (or, rather, the greater portion thereof) as an epigraph to an article that has no reference to the supernatural (grace, prayer, the mystery of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the necessity of devotion to Our Lady, &c.), but only discourses upon what he regards as solutions to the present-day predicament of the Church, all of which are at the human, natural level:

You can start by taking back your chapels.

But you must act together -- as a community -- if you want the peace you've been searching for.

[...] in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin.

"Community"? "Democracy"?

Really!? Why the sudden change into some sort of positivist Populist?

Several weeks ago, Toth wasn't such a Populist:

We're not talking about the indolent acquiescence of the gullible and invincibly ignorant-- the witless wonderment of wan and sad-eyed Traddie women shrouded in their impossibly long, dirt-gathering calico skirts; or the surly aggressiveness of their pot-bellied and grim-lipped menfolk straitened by their seam-bursting, unlaundered polyester slacks three 0r four sizes too small. On the contrary, the Readers mean the educated and affluent Traddie minority, who would see the sham were they to awake from their inertia.[emphases mine]

Another change can be seen in these words:

When at last the Restoration gives us a sovereign Roman pontiff, Catholicism can return to a monarchy, but in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin. [emphasis mine]

The appeal to naive, optimist sedevacantists greatly contrasts with what he has written before:

It all goes to prove the Readers' point that the Restoration will have to come from the conservative Novus Ordites, because Traddieland has surrendered.

STAY HOME ALONE -- YOU'LL BE IN BETTER COMPANY.

One week he writes the whole "sede movement" off  and tells everyone to "stay home alone," and a week later he explicitly makes reference to the "Restoration" as resulting in the reign of a Supreme Pontiff?

Why the change? Could it be that he is trying to appeal to certain people in a certain lay-board at a certain Chapel in Ohio?

Toth is basically like Obama: both have adopted the tactics of the Communists in the propagation and implementation of their agendas, yet both will fail pathetically in appealing to the "community," because they are not a part thereof; rather, in their superciliousness they think themselves above it in attempting to manipulate it.

Toth is condemned by the epigraph he cites.

It is baffling that anyone would try to defend this man and his agenda. References to the present-day predicament of the Church on the part of those who attempt such a defense makes it look all the worse: the ultimate conclusion of that line of argument is that Toth and his buddies are basically parasites who endeavor to engorge themselves with power at the expense of Holy Mother Church, abusing Canon Law for their own benefit.[/size][/font]

It is baffling that anyone would try to defend this man and his agenda. References to the present-day predicament of the Church on the part of those who attempt such a defense makes it look all the worse: the ultimate conclusion of that line of argument is that Toth and his buddies are basically parasites who endeavor to engorge themselves with power at the expense of Holy Mother Church, abusing Canon Law for their own benefit.

Hobbles,  I was thinking the old boy may create his essays in collaboration with fellow artists, which would account for the sudden mood swings.

Encouraging people to stay home from Mass is a very, very dangerous thing to do.

To get back to the topic:


It is curious that for the latest posting on Pristina, Toth cited the Prophecy of Jeremias for the epigraph, for which he did not provide the exact citation, which is curious because he is too quick to criticize sloppiness in scholarship.

Here is the verse in its entirety (Jer. ch. xvii., 5):

Quote

Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

It's funny (though "funny" is a funny word for it) that he avails himself of this grand verse (or, rather, the greater portion thereof) as an epigraph to an article that has no reference to the supernatural (grace, prayer, the mystery of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the necessity of devotion to Our Lady, &c.), but only discourses upon what he regards as solutions to the present-day predicament of the Church, all of which are at the human, natural level:

Quote

You can start by taking back your chapels.

Quote

But you must act together -- as a community -- if you want the peace you've been searching for.

Quote

[...] in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin.

"Community"? "Democracy"?

Really!? Why the sudden change into some sort of positivist Populist?

Several weeks ago, Toth wasn't such a Populist:

Quote from: Toth (12 February: "The Noonday Devil")

We're not talking about the indolent acquiescence of the gullible and invincibly ignorant-- the witless wonderment of wan and sad-eyed Traddie women shrouded in their impossibly long, dirt-gathering calico skirts; or the surly aggressiveness of their pot-bellied and grim-lipped menfolk straitened by their seam-bursting, unlaundered polyester slacks three 0r four sizes too small. On the contrary, the Readers mean the educated and affluent Traddie minority, who would see the sham were they to awake from their inertia.[emphases mine]

Another change can be seen in these words:

Quote from: Toth (4 March: "The Iron Time of Doubt")

When at last the Restoration gives us a sovereign Roman pontiff, Catholicism can return to a monarchy, but in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin. [emphasis mine]

The appeal to naive, optimist sedevacantists greatly contrasts with what he has written before:

Quote from: Toth (26 February: "A Rude Awakening")

It all goes to prove the Readers' point that the Restoration will have to come from the conservative Novus Ordites, because Traddieland has surrendered.

STAY HOME ALONE -- YOU'LL BE IN BETTER COMPANY.

One week he writes the whole "sede movement" off  and tells everyone to "stay home alone," and a week later he explicitly makes reference to the "Restoration" as resulting in the reign of a Supreme Pontiff?

Why the change? Could it be that he is trying to appeal to certain people in a certain lay-board at a certain Chapel in Ohio?

Toth is basically like Obama: both have adopted the tactics of the Communists in the propagation and implementation of their agendas, yet both will fail pathetically in appealing to the "community," because they are not a part thereof; rather, in their superciliousness they think themselves above it in attempting to manipulate it.

Toth is condemned by the epigraph he cites.

It is baffling that anyone would try to defend this man and his agenda. References to the present-day predicament of the Church on the part of those who attempt such a defense makes it look all the worse: the ultimate conclusion of that line of argument is that Toth and his buddies are basically parasites who endeavor to engorge themselves with power at the expense of Holy Mother Church, abusing Canon Law for their own benefit.[/size][/font]

I think, Hobbledyhoy, that the lay control plank was ALWAYS part of the Ramolla party's revolutionary platform, right from the beginning, and I know that Fr. Ramolla encouraged it.

But it was just ONE plank, along with calumny-spreading and acting out really old grudges, which the prime movers (Fr. Ramolla, Hall, etc.) used to lure other unsuspecting souls into the revolutionary mob. When, one by one, lay people like this finally cooled down, realized they'd been taken for a ride, and headed off elsewhere, this left lay control types like Toth and friends.

This is why lay-controllers seem so prominent now — people who joined the "revolutionary coalition" for other reasons became disaffected (or just plain came to their senses) and left.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Raoul76

They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.

Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!

I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe anybody ever said Bp. Dolan had a drinking problem. The reference was probably to related to expensive wines, which in and of themselves are not a problem at all except in appearances possibly.

This is why I say some here never cease to comment even when they haven't sufficient grasp of the facts.

Raoul said that Eamon and the anti-SGG crowd said Bishop Dolan drank, I was only responding to his comment.

Did he really say that? Or did you just assume that's what he meant?