Emile, it is obvious from your post (#216) that I and/or “Bocca” have some sort of animus against Daniel Dolan, that I am “motivated primarily by a spirit of revenge,” or that I am possessed of a “melancholic nature,” etc. – and several others on this website have echoed those same thoughts. “Ladislaus” even went so far as to claim that I and “Bocca” are one and the same. No, Ladislaus, we are not one and the same, as “Gladius Veritatis” informed “Ladislaus” (and which “Matthew,” the owner of this website, can verify) -- but for which Ladislaus accused Gladius of being “childish” simply for revealing that fact.
No, Emile (and Ladislaus, and Yeti, and a few others), I am not “consumed with vengeance,” nor is the author of the Pristrina blog (who, BTW, I am not). Neither this blog nor Lay Pulpit (which “Marcellinus” referenced) was ever on a “vendetta” against Daniel Dolan. They merely brought out the facts about him. And I now intend to present those facts – mainly derived from “links” from the Lay Pulpit blog -- facts that are not only independently verifiable, but which invariably come from Dolan’s (and Cekada’s) own lips.
From early on, it seemed to many that Dolan’s deportment was a bit “affected,” and that his “piety” was a bit cosmetic. And it soon became apparent that this was the case: that his nature was not so “benign,” but disingenuous and “affected,” and that his “piety” was purely cosmetic -- and counterfeit. But it wasn’t until Schiavo that this clearly manifested itself, and that everyone found out the depths to which Dolan and Cekada could really sink. What Cekada had to say about Terri Schiavo’s death was beyond despicable – and it caused outrage throughout the Catholic world. In fact, what he said about Schiavo – and said publicly – was thoroughly condemned not just in Catholic circles, but throughout Christendom. Both Pistrina and (especially) Lay Pulpit subsequently docuмented much of this tragedy -- not in ”a spirit of revenge,” but in a spirit of charity -- charity for this gentle soul, Terri Schiavo, who was forcibly put to death – a slow, prolonged death of unspeakable agony – and which Anthony Cekada “justified” as her husband’s “right” to determine. Perhaps over a dozen articles were written in Lay Pulpit alone, but the one here graphically depicts Terri Schiavo’s ghastly countenance toward the end. [BTW, for those who want more details on Schiavo, they can also click here, here, and here.] But Dolan’s and Cekada’s malevolence did not stop with Schiavo. It surfaced again in late 2008, when one of SGG’s parishioners had the courage to uncover what Dolan was deliberately trying to keep under wraps: wanton cruelty in SGG’s school (by its principal), and blatant immorality on the part of his sons. This included the sons’ watching porn on the school computer (and soliciting other students to do the same) – and one of those sons impregnating a female SGG school student. When confronted about all of this by SGG’s angry parents, Dolan ignored their pleas, and simply shrugged it off as “boys will be boys.” SGG’s (understandably) outraged parishioners (including SGG’s chief benefactor) demanded the resignation of the school principal -- but Dolan refused to fire him. In fact, Dolan not only condoned all of this, he presided over it. And, as a result, half of SGG’s congregation (as well as St. Clare’s, SGG’s Columbus, Ohio affiliate) left. All of this, BTW, is not just docuмented in Lay Pulpit and Pistrina, but was common knowledge throughout traditional circles, even before either of those blogs came into being.]
But if you think Dolan’s and Cekada’s “chicanery” stopped there, think again. Although not on so “spectacular” a scale as Schiavo or this “2009 SGG school scandal,” their maligning of innocent people continued nonetheless – people whom they never met, nor who did them any harm whatsoever: Abbot Leonard Giardina, for example (click here), as well as others (click here). These, BTW, are only a sampling of the innocent souls who -- without provocation -- have been wantonly vilified by these men. (So you see, “Prayerful,” it wasn’t just a case of Dolan having “made some mistakes.”) And what kind of an example did Dolan and Cekada set for their parishioners? Did they lead “exemplary lives”? No they didn’t. Instead, they enjoyed “living the good life”: regularly dining at fine restaurants, and going on winter “apostolates” -- invariably to warm, sunny climes. For instance, while his Gertrudians were eating their Lenten fish-sticks back in blustery Cincinnati, Dolan was in warm, sunny Mexico, where he could get away from the Cincinnati cold (and our gringo Lenten fasting and abstinence rules) – feasting (in his own words) on “copious quantities of meat” (click here). And let’s not forget his (and Cekada’s) “sabbaticals” to The Bishop’s Lodge, a posh resort in Santa Fe, New Mexico (click here). [Why the extravagance -- and why both of them?] Unfortunately, since his main benefactor left (in protest) after the “2009 school scandals,” Dolan can no longer afford such luxury – but I’m sure he still pines for “the good old days.” Then there’s Dolan’s setting himself as some sort of mini-pope, passing off as “dogma” his claim about “una cuм” Masses being “invalid” (as if he had the “authority” to proclaim such “dogma”), and that those attending such Masses are “committing mortal sin” (as if he had that authority to “decree” that too). [Actually, it was Donald Sanborn who first promoted “una cuм.” Dolan hopped on that bandwagon later.] Now there are some who may claim that Dolan no longer pulls such authoritarian “shenanigans.” To repeat, think again: he has now turned on Donald Sanborn, his one-time ally, accusing him of “heresy” concerning another piece of “dogma” (sedevacantism vs. sedeprivationism). So, for this (and for a multitude of other reasons), we believe that the West Chester “tiger” has not change his stripes – nor will he ever.
But will you (or any of your like-minded colleagues on this website) set aside your partisan feelings for Dolan, and take heed of any of the evidence I’ve presented here? I don’t know. One problem is that, heretofore, you (and your colleagues) have been a hostile audience, “demanding proof” from me. Yet, when I have provided that proof, you claim that you don’t have time to explore it (or that a “link” is from a “pay” site). Another problem, of course, is that there’s “a lot to read.” Yes, there is – but at least this time, the “links” are “for free.” And, for those who “don’t have the time,” I submit that “Shiavo alone” is enough “proof.” But for those who think that Schiavo was just an “anomaly” (or merely a “mistake” on Dolan’s part), let me also say that the other docuмentation I have provided proves conclusively that it “wasn’t just Schiavo” – that Schiavo was just one of many facets of Dolan’s ongoing mischief. So, I sincerely hope that you have the intellectual honesty to set aside your biases, and genuinely seek out the truth – all of it. If you do, you will find that what I have presented here is the truth.
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response, Giacomo; it helps me to understand the history more clearly. I have added yourself and Bocca, as well as the others involved, to my daily Rosary intentions and ask that you would be so kind as to remember me in your prayers.
Topic: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies (Read 34445 times)