The text of an email I sent to some friends a couple of months ago...

I wanted to share one consideration with you at this time:

Fr. Cekada taught me in the seminary for over two years.  He knows I was an obedient seminarian, and an excellent student.  More than five years after I left the seminary, during which five years I spent more than two as a regular at SGG, I was asked to teach in his school.  If he suspected I was mentally ill, why did he invite me to join his staff at SGG School?  Would this not be a kind of madness on his part, presuming he thought me ill?  Who lets an ill man spend all day with children, forming their minds and hearts?

Well, the first "incident" he mentions in his email took place toward the end of the 2006-2007 school year, almost eight years since I first met Father (June 1999).  During this eight years, he had substantial interaction with me at the seminary, had me as a "parishioner" at SGG for over two years, and had other contact with me.  Yet, the proof of my madness centers around incidents where he and I simply disagreed, all from 2007 or later?  Indeed, the first incident mentioned was not even a disagreement, as I anonymously submitted the concerns of another (a lady of sterling reputation who had asked me to pass on her thoughts, and had subsequently died) about the fitness of a man considered for ordination.  To this day, Father has no proof that I am the one who submitted the objection.  He only has the word of his secretary at the time, from whom Bp. Dolan pried the information, despite the fact that I had said I would gladly come forward at their request.

The point?  I could quite easily, on this point alone, destroy Father's credibility, demonstrating him to be what he is - a detractor/calumniator extraordinaire.

I have debated proceeding with a lawsuit, as my own name is not very dear to me, especially within such truly mental circles.  However, when one asks "Why did Fr. C. react so vehemently to my email?", it is clear that I struck a very sensitive nerve, very hard.  I believe I will seek a judgment and damages, not for my "name" - but to expose him as a liar.  Why?  Because there is much more at stake than my name.  He lied about me because I know there is more going on at SGG than meets the eye.  They are smart men, and thus have eluded detection thus far.  By getting the law involved, even if only in a defamation suit at the beginning, there is a much greater chance of exposing some of the truly deep problems.  It is my belief that the reason Fr. C. has not brought a suit against me is simple: he does not want the law to be involved in any way.  If he were to force me to testify about what I said, and why I said it, he runs the risk of the law getting into his business.  Could he not be refraining from motives of charity?  Well, I have serious reasons to doubt such.

Well, just some thoughts on this sad matter.  The point about asking me to teach at his school after seven years' relationship, including an intimate student/teacher relationship at seminary, is enormous.  It shows his whole "case" for my mental illness is based upon very recent disagreements, not incidents indicative of mental illness.  Yes, I know this - and you have known it, too.  However, it strikes me as hugely important in nailing a man who bullies countless sheep into silent submission, so as to be able to continue the shearing of the others without interruption.  Well, the time for interruption has arrived.  Would to God there was another, more upright man around to tackle this situation.  When he arrives, I will gladly yield the floor.  Until then, I believe God has appointed this task to me.  Fr. C. is, in my opinion, a psychopath.  I am not a psychologist, nor do I wish to throw stones - I have sins enough of my own.  However, if I am correct, the kind and degree of damage that would be wrought by a psychopath in his position, with no authority above him, is breathtaking to consider.  It must be stopped, and he has provided the lever to do so.  His public email, intended to be the end of me, may turn out to be the end of his harmful games.  We are all our own worst enemies.  I know no one has harmed me like I have harmed myself.

Please pray for me, and for Father, as I proceed to seek counsel on this matter, from God and men.  Honestly, I loved having Fr. as a teacher.  He has many delightful qualities.  I do not wish to see him hurt unnecessarily.  However, I have come to believe that he is in serious danger of damnation.  A lawsuit may be the only hope at this stage of getting through to him.  What is more, it may be the only lever by which to begin the process whereby this whole thing [i.e., sgg.org/cult] can finally be exposed for the fraud it is.

God speed in +JMJ+

Addendum: I still have not taken legal action, although I may do so soon.  I am unsure, as it seems pointless at this hour.  The evil men in high places are exposing their own evil deeds left and right, through their own nervousness and sloppiness, and action on the part of non-entities like me seems, in a way, superfluous.

This is sad indeed. He has done so much writing and teaching. But, PTF asked how  he arrived at the decision about Mrs. Teresa Schiavo. Interestingly enough it is in stark contrast to a Priest that I know to be a true shepard. Fr. Stepanich.
That decision tells alot about Father Cekada. I invited him to defend his position, but have not seen any response.

How does your family members react to all this stuff?
Sorry for being a busy body, but I think they must be suffering a lot.

No need to apologize, my lady.  I speak to my mother about things pretty regularly, and she has much kind advice and wisdom to offer.  I have been blessed in having such a mother.  Indeed, she cared for me most tenderly when I was badly injured, even bathing me for a number of weeks, when I could not do such for myself, as if I was a baby once again.

She knows her son, and that I cannot sit idly by whilst mind-raping goons try to lord it over the sheep.  Her main piece of wise counsel - take care of myself first.  Admittedly, I do not always follow this advice as well as I should, but I have a hard time not looking at it this way: If I were walking past a man raping/assaulting a woman (in an alley, etc), should I refrain from helping her just because I am not yet a saint, or morally certain that I am in a state of grace?  Of course not.  Even if I am, at that moment, loaded down with countless sins of my own, I MUST help someone in such a situation.  If I neglect to do so, I am guilty of the evil deed, too.

Caraffa, what you're saying about how a soul goes dark is spot-on.  Immorality leads to despair of salvation, despair of salvation leads to loss of faith, and loss of faith leads to heresy.

This is indeed what must be happening with Mel Gibson.  It's no surprise.  Mel Gibson works in Hollywood.  You cannot be a traditional Catholic and play the Jєωιѕн power-game where hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.  He's trying to serve two masters and it is eating him alive.

The fairy-tale about The Passion of the Christ is that he used his own money and "beat the system," but let me tell you, Jєωs own not only the production but the DISTRIBUTION.  That means it doesn't matter that Mel put all his own money into the film.  You could make a film for ten billion dollars but it would never get seen unless the Jєωs allowed it.  That is why he went from the supposedly independent Passion right to Disney who made Apocalypto.

There's a good reason why they allowed it, but it would sound too paranoid if I said so and many traditional Catholics love that film.  Seeing Christ pulverized in THX/IMAX with James Cameron lighting strikes me personally as wrong.  As for the films he didn't direct, there is no question that they are pure ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic propaganda.  "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, only those who do the will of my Father in heaven."  Mel is saying "Lord, Lord" but do you think the Lord would approve of these lying films that he compulsively cranked out?  During the last two or three decades he must have had numerous pleas from God -- speaking through his conscience -- to walk away.  He can't, due to vanity, and now is tormented.  Well, every day is a new chance...

As far as Father Cekada goes, he seems a little erratic, but so far I haven't seen any visible signs of "psychosis," just the occasional dyspeptic outburst -- which is not uncommon for Catholics or any other humans.  Gladius is being vague, but if he suspects misconduct of a criminal nature, as he seems to allude, he'd better report it.  If not, and his only complaint is that Father Cekada is a bit loopy and unpredictable and has inordinate control of his flock, it's better to let it go.