A CALL TO ACCOUNT

They shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. St. Matthew

The Gerties' new-found resistance to Dirtbag Dan and his clerical clown crew gives us hope. His Errantry has certainly by now settled in for some serious holiday money-raking after his return from conferring possibly doubtful confirmations in the gorgeous, tree-filled, provincial capital of Mendoza located in the heart of Argentina's rich wine country. That means it's time for you disgruntled Gerties to grill him about that unneeded expenditure when so much work needs to be done at fast-declining SGG.*

As in the past, we've once more laboriously compiled a list of questions and demands that cry out for response before Deacon Dan gets another dime. Previously our call for confrontation went unheeded. But this time, however, we think some of the cult's victims might take action. This costly trip could well be the straw that broke the camel's back. Gutsy Gerties should form a committee to force His Profligacy into providing concrete answers to the following concerns: 

1. What was the total travel cost of the South-American vacation? Be sure he itemizes every penny -- flight, taxes and fees, transfer, lodging, food, tours, miscellaneous purchases, opportunity costs etc. (Visits to lovely Mendoza wineries should be disallowed insofar as the enormously popular Malbec grape variety is in no need of "One-Hand Dan's" dubious ministrations: a blessing from a malformed, gringo, vagus louse could wind up provoking an invasion of phylloxera, another ghastly export from the United States.)

2. Who were the donors to the "Bishop's Fund" that made this wasteful trip possible and how much money did each one give? (Demand 'phone numbers or e-mail addresses so you can verify the gift.)

3. Insist Li'l Dan show by means of bank statements his withdrawals from the so-called "Bishop's Fund" to cover the entire cost of the senseless junket. Don't take him at his word. If we were betting souls, we'd wager that all cult-center funds are commingled, so you won't be able to tell if the money came from "donors" or was diverted from the weekly collection.

4. If full-airfare was paid, question why Dannie  didn't use his accumulated frequent-flyer miles to reduce the cost of the ticket? (We think his account is with Delta.) Also, determine whether he flew economy or business/first class.

5. Ask if the miles "Travelin' Man Dan" earned on this frivolous round-trip journey to far-off Argentina will be applied to defray the cost of future lame-brained "apostolic" adventures or if he will claim them for personal use. (At this point, it would be prudent to find out how he and the Blunderer paid for their recent flight to Santa Fe, New Mexico: did the Gruesome Twosome use frequent-flyer miles earned on flights paid for by Gerties' donations?)

6. If miles weren't used, press him on why he didn't feel duty-bound in justice and charity to apply accumulated miles to offset the price of the round-trip ticket to Argentina. This is a serious question of moral theology.

7. How much cash ("alms and stipends," as the SGG newsletter says) did His Indebtedness have to pay to the two clerics in Mendoza? (Everything has its price, you know, including the pretense of being a globe-trotting "bishop.") Where did that money come from in the first place? Can he prove that individual donors gave the money for that specific purpose, or did he use his own discretion?

8. Why couldn't the two Mendozan clerics have availed themselves of one of the several bishops in Latin America? Was Dannie trying to get even with the Argentine bishop who came to the United States to ordain a priest for the community in Lawrence, Massachusetts (the chapel he had unsuccessfully tried to capture for himself)? Or is it because no one else wants to work with those two guys? (They've got a shady reputation down there for "bishop-shopping.") Moreover, are those two sly ol' dogs taking advantage of Desperate Dan's pathetic neediness in order to make some extra cash at the Gerties' expense?

. . . . . . . . . 

Dannie owes his benefactors a full explanation, so it's not impudent or un-Catholic to confront him. Anyway, you won't be in the presence of a "Great Man"; you'll be staring down your nose at a small-time operator. The truth is, Dinky Dan's just a free-lancing, baggage-laden episcopus (?) vagans with no brief from the Catholic Church, no jurisdiction, no authority, and no ecclesiastical privileges -- none whatsoever. All he's the master of is a down-market cult with more of a resemblance to Scientology than to authentic Catholic practice.

To question how Dan spends unwitting Catholics' hard-earned money is not only licit, it's positively virtuous. In the old days -- in the real Church-- there were accountants, finance committees, a diocesan bureaucracy, and a cleric's well-formed sense of his sacred duty to make sure the faithful's money was used wisely. That's all disappeared now. Stewardship and righteous agency have gone the way of sound clerical formation: they're both a faded memory. So it's up to the people who provide the funds for his life of ease to demand  -- and enforce -- accountability.

Start after Mass this Sunday. Tell "One Hand" to set up your audit meeting for next week. If he refuses, walk away from the cult center forever.

*  Airfare alone must have cost about two grand. And what about the "alms and stipends" he had to fork over to the Argentine priests in return for allowing him to pretend he has a worldwide apostolate? (Those two mercenaries would dump him in a New-York minute if he had come down empty-handed, and Dannie knows it.)

All that cash could fix a lot of leaks.

Come to think of it, all that money could go a long way toward ridding the cult center of the super-varmints infesting the rotting hellhole. After declaring victory over the menacing raccoon horde, Dubious Dan had to walk it all back last week because the filthy vermin had breached the slipshod defenses his handyman had erected against them.

Hypersensitive Tony Baloney, perhaps driven bonkers by all the scratching and clawing, was reduced to madly hurling dirt clods at the masked invaders. (The noise must've been worse than crying babies at Mass!) If Dannie had just saved the money to hire a licensed exterminator, the Cheeseball wouldn't be so exercised.

But there's a bright side to this dismal infestation: the Blunderer can use the raccoon interlopers as an excuse for all the errors we'll expose in his next written effort.

MEANWHILE ... REMEMBER TO WITHHOLD ANY ALL-SOULS' DAY ENVELOPES.

STARVE THE BEAST!

DEAD RECKONING

...obscene ravens, clamorous o'er the dead. Shelley

The money-mad cult clergy kicked off their annual All Souls' drive for your dollars in the September SGG newsletter. Then last week's Sunday's bulletin prominently featured a page-one notice of envelopes eagerly waiting in the pews for Gerties to fill in the names of the dearly departed for this year's frenzied greenback-grabbing fiesta and clerical cash windfall. (The envelope is a silent, unsubtle reminder for cultlings to stuff it with bucks before dropping it in the collection basket.)*

We want to advise you all to keep your money in your pocket in case you mistakenly believe the SGG "priests" will be offering Mass at a privileged altar.** (That's a cruel fiction under which many traddies seem to labor.***)

As an aged Spanish Dominican told us last month, sede altars cannot be privileged. In ecclesiastical law, you see, a privilege is a favor or right conceded by proper authority. Seeing that Tradistan's prelatasters possess neither authority nor jurisdiction, they cannot designate an altar as privileged nor can they concede their "clergy" a personal privilege.

To the extent that sedes affirm there is no authority in what passes for the Church visible, they couldn't possibly receive such a privilege from the Holy See, even if it were granted. Furthermore, since sede chapels and Mass centers have not been erected by competent ecclesiastical authority within Church territory -- geography in this matter is at best a secondary consideration -- their altars are ineligible for the Church's general concession for All Souls' Day or Forty Hours.

Now all this doesn't mean you shouldn't request a Mass to be said for the poor souls. Of course you should, even if the priest is a sede. But we do pose one big caveat: If you're going to use a sede, you should be completely certain the celebrant is validly ordained.

So the question for Gerties and Gertie-groupies is this:

Do you honestly and truly believe "One-Hand Dan" and the "priests" he's "ordained" possess valid orders?

If you have the slightest reservation, save your money and wait until you find a priest whose orders are unassailable.

The holy souls in Purgatory will surely be grateful.

* The cult loves to criticize the SSPX, but at least the society has the decency and honesty to make clear in its effort to relieve suffering souls that "no stipend is required for this act of charity" (District superior's October 1, 2105, letter to the faithful).

** Such as altar is "one at which a plenary indulgence may be gained, usually for a soul in Purgatory, by the celebration and application of a Mass. The privilege is either local (belonging to any priest at a particular altar) or personal (to a particular priest at any altar) or mixed (to certain priests at certain altars). To have a local privilege an altar must be consecrated" (Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary).

*** Several years ago we heard that, in reply to a pious woman's inquiry about a privileged altar at the SW Ohio cult center, a grossly malformed "Young Father" replied something to the effect, "I don't know which one it is, but, yes, there is one." 

FOR (GERTIE) WOMEN ONLY [MOSTLY]

Hey, you true-believin', bishop-boostin' Gertie Gals...

... and all you viciously judgmental cult queen bees, wherever you may be!

Pistrina's got a quiz just for you.

Can you tell us what's wrong with this picture of Deacon Dan (taken during his recent luxury vacation to beautiful, springtime Argentina)?

No, it's not the hard truth that "One-Hand Dan" may not have the right to sport prelatical vesture.

No, it's not the fact that a sede "bishop" -- if he really believed in the vacancy of the Holy See --  would wear a purple-trimmed black choir cassock and black mantelletta.

And no, it's not that the cassock of the priest on the left looks to be about 6 to 8 inches too short.

Don't you see? Yes, that's right. It's the two well-poised, young women wearing the elegant veils, standing at Dubious Dan's right.

What's that, you say?

Nooooo! It's not that they're pretty and therefore couldn't possibly be real cultie chicks! 

C'mon, now!

Look carefully, ladies! You're experts at finding fault with your fellow Christians. Try harder.

Don't you see?

They're wearing PANTS -- 

-- a flagrant violation of the Gertrudian Dress Code and of all things held holy by the freaky gringo sede cult masters! And yet ... a fast-aging, over-fed Dannie looks as pleased as Punch with it all! (Or why else would he allow himself to be so photographed?)

Oh, we can hear you making the excuses now. "'When in Rome...,'" you'll snidely cluck in a hypocritical defense of Dirtbag Dan's rare tolerance of the real world. But, ladies, the trouble with that argument is that this "Rome" where trouser-clad women can be modest, devout, and properly attired in church is everywhere, including the United States of America.

So, then, what's O.K. for demure traditional Catholics in sunny South America should be O.K. for fanatical cultie babes in dismal SW Ohio, USA,  right?

Dannie's photographically documented attitude proves that the cult's prohibition of pants is irrational and outlandishly puritanical, symptomatic of a deeply seated psychological disorder. It's just another mechanism to control the already whipped tradettes: If you can tell 'em what to wear, you can tell 'em how much to give.

The sensible, sophisticated, and well-educated Argentines (and other Latin Americans) know that wearing pants nowadays doesn't turn women into raging feminists, nor does it show disrespect for the house of God. Whether we like it or not, pants are no longer exclusively men's outerwear according to the general custom, so there's no violation of  the Summa's teaching or of Deuteronomy 22.

That's a sick fiction of the nutty, malformed sede leadership. Moreover, the two young ladies are not alone in their choice of apparel.  Note in the photo to the right that both grannies and great-grannies are wearing pants as they pose with a brightly beaming Wee Dan. And, by the way, some of the girls in the other snapshots have open-toed shoes and sandals, while some of the men are wearing blue-jeans, logo-sweat shirts, and athletic shoes.(Click here, but do it fast, because after this they'll probably take down the pix.)

You "bishop -bewitched" Gertie gals need to ask yourselves a question: If His Tolerancy doesn't have a problem with women's pants and exposed female feet in Argentina, why doesn't he allow you gringo chicas the same privilege? Aren't you tired of freezing in the winter and boiling in the summer just to satisfy the cult masters' lubricious superstitions about what decent, contemporary women should wear? The business, governmental, and social worlds now universally accept women's dress trousers, and well-adjusted men of today are no longer inflamed with uncontrollable lust at the sight of a patch of skin.

You know in your heart that dress pants are perfectly appropriate in Church today, just as you know that peep-toe, nude-heel shoes or sandals won't carry you or normal guys to hell. You know you're not responsible for how degenerate, traddie pervo males react. (If you believe you're at fault, you'll have to lock yourselves indoors all day long or else get a burka.) You also know that women's pants per se are no threat to modesty: Some of those pioneer dresses of Tradistan are wrapped so tight they leave no room to imagination. And, let us add, what man out there isn't eternally grateful that Hillary Clinton prefers pant-suits to dresses?

Hunh? What's that you're hissing at us?

"Big Don wouldn't have tolerated the dress-code infractions! Those modernist Jezabels would've been driven out like the moneychangers in the temple."

We'll, you're probably right on that point, ladies. No doubt an overwrought rector would've sent the two nice, young women scurrying red-faced out of the hall, followed by the sweet, little first communicants and confirmands weeping bitterly from fear, on the heels of embarrassed matrons hobbling to safety as fast as their canes or blue-jeaned, sneaker-shod menfolk could propel them. But would that have been Christian? And what Catholic truth would such a violent outburst have defended? How many souls would've been won for Christ? How many souls lost to the Novus Ordo or the evangelical sects?

Ladies, can't you see this pants-prohibition nonsense for what it is? Another way to meddle in your lives. Obviously, Li'l Dan doesn't really give a hoot about his own rules. So that means you Gertie gals now have the opportunity to kick the cult-master creeps out of your clothes closets.

Here's all you have to do:

1. Print out a copy of the first photo above.

2. Put on a pair of old dress slacks (cult central's a filthy, rodent-infested dump).

3. March into the crumbling cult center on Sunday.

4. When a sleazy usher/bouncer tries to stop you from entering, show him the photo and shout,

"It's O.K. See for yourself: Bishop APPROVES!"

5. Go sit down on one of the dirty pews and wait for the (possibly simulated) Mass to begin.

You won, girl-friend! Double-standard Dan won't utter a peep.

And now you'll be warm through the fall and winter.

READY FOR ACTION

As home his footsteps he hath turn'd/From wandering on a foreign strand! Scott

Pisrina's back and refreshed from our conference-cum-pilgrimage to Spain.  And while we're still experiencing some problems with our new system, we can't wait to get started again exposing the hypocrisy, greed, and self-interest of the malformed cult masters of Tradistan and their toadies.

Despite being very, very busy in September, we always had time to read Li'l Dan's "Corner" aloud to the whole group. While we were away, it looks as though the Gerties have begun to rebel. They're not sending their children to the awful Sunday-school classes and they're opting out of attendance.  Good for them! Plus the pesky vermin are back, and Dan's wearing rags. Ol' "One-Hand" sounded desperate as he cajoled and threatened at the same time.

All the scrutiny he's getting from the outside is working in more ways than simply diminishing attendance and dampening enthusiasm.  We noticed that Dannie was reduced to explaining that the money to fund his current (unnecessary) escape to springtime Mendoza, Argentina, came from donors to his "Bishop's Fund." Now that's a real sign he's feeling the pressure to be more accountable.

It's hard to imagine there are enough fools out there who just want to underwrite "One Hand's" expensive foreign getaways. If we were asked to bet, we'd wager that some of the weekly collection is earmarked for the travel fund. But since we're not gamblers -- and since we don't believe the cult masters possess the business acumen to maintain separate funds --  we'll gamely go along with the Dirtbag's lame "explanation."

And that brings us to this question: With all the mounting expenses at the cult center, why didn't His Selfishness use the accumulated travel funds to help out at the cult center?

There are plenty of bishops in Latin America -- and in the US for that matter -- who could perform the confirmations in Mendoza. (Of course, Deacon Dan may be the only one who'll do it for free and perhaps bring down some good-will stipend money as well!) The couple thousand dollars wasted on this frivolous junket could have gone a long way in providing some financial relief for the collapsing cult center. If not used to rid the center of its filthy pests, the money could have been saved to pay off the coming winter heating bills.

Wee Dan should learn that charity begins at home. We hope the Gerties are learning that lesson for themselves.