Editor's Note: We received so many e-mails after a commenter last week disclosed "ridiculous" and "out of hand" school rules imposed at the swampland that we felt obliged to confront the rector through an open letter. Pages 2 and 3 will follow on May 7 and May 14.
His Flatulency
Swampland Pesthouse
Brooksville Cult Compound 00666-1313
Dear Don,
You don't mind our calling you "Don," do you? After all, it's not as though you really and truly belonged to the clerical state. You can strut and puff all you want with your bewitched cult supporters, but the Readers know you occupy the same status as lay men and women in Sedelandia, which is not the Church. In addition, you'll surely understand we can't address you as "Mister," weak as that honorific is, because you have forfeited all respect.
So "Don" it will be, knowing that the other names we use for you in private are unprintable (except our favorite, "gob of spit").
We write to give you the opportunity to set the record straight. Last week someone posted a comment about what normal people would consider to be outlandish rules for children, rules that the writer alleged were enforced at your swampland "school." Over the years, many people from different parts of the country have reported substantially the same nutty regulations.
But, quite frankly, Don, at first we couldn't believe such stories about any group that styles itself as traditional Catholic. If the accounts had been about, say, the Peoples Temple in Jonestown, Guyana, or David Koresh's Branch Davidians in Waco, TX, then, for sure, we would have believed the allegations. But about Roman Catholics? No way, we (wrongly) insisted.
Yet the same, or eerily similar, stories kept pouring in from all points of the compass. In light of last week's disclosure, our readership has asked us to verify whether these wild narratives are true. You see, Don, the good Catholic folks in cyberspace can't believe it either, especially those who grew up before Vatican II. That's why we're trying to get the answer straight from the horse's — or, rather, that Palm-Sunday equid's — mouth, as it were.
In this letter, we'll lay out the alleged rules and practices that well-adjusted, cradle-Catholics find abhorrent. We're asking you (or your Clone), pretty-please with sugar and spice sprinkled all over, to confirm or disconfirm whether they reflect official "school" practice, no matter if they're written down or just barked orally to the cringing kids at the start of a school year. (We fully understand any reluctance to put some of this stuff in writing. Sheesh! There'd be a stampede to get out of any cult that subjected little children to so much insanity. You've probably got some bad memories from Michigan on that score.)
You may send your response to pistrinalit@gmail.com. We have your (and the Clone's) email addresses so we can confirm the authenticity of any reply. Moreover, Don, as an undeserved courtesy, we'll call you personally to verify that the response indeed came from you. If it is authentic, we'll post it to our scribd pages for the world to see (just as we posted the letter you signed in 1990 advising your nemesis "One-Hand Dan" about the dubiety of his priestly orders).
We are certain that, despite your intense loathing for us, you'll want to dignify this inquiry with a written answer. If the reports we transmit herein do not reflect your cult school's (schools') policies, then you'll want to deny them right away. The rules/practices as reported are outrageous and do merit condemnation. You may even want to disavow them outright and, in your inimitable bombastic style, anathematize any school administrator who would institutionalize such intrusive and, in some cases, dirty-minded regulations. You'll get that opportunity here on Pistrina Liturgica. We promise. (We're not sede "clergy," so you can trust us.)
On the other hand, Don, if these regulations and practices do represent approved policy, we're just as sure you'll want to confirm them. You can't be ashamed of embracing them if you permit their operation and enforcement, can you? Others may disagree with us, but we say that if the rules truly reflect your actual policy, we can't see your denying that they exist even if they're not written down and even if you know they might alienate unsuspecting new-comers. To do so would be an act of treachery to your own deeply held beliefs. And you wouldn't betray yourself, would you, Don?
We mean, if you did deny them when, in fact, they are communicated to students and are in force, you might provoke outrage from the 11 or so families that left the "school" when they found the rules intolerable. That, we're sure you understand, Don, would be disastrous for your fundraising efforts outside the tightly closed circle of the Big 3 cult benefactors. Why, it might result in a catastrophe like the 2009 $GG School Scandal.
Trad Nation, too, would be sorely upset if you didn't stand tall for your own rules. Good gracious! If Big Don won't walk the line, who will? Moreover, what would the few "seminarians" you now have left think if you didn't keep a close watch on that hard heart of yours? (BTW, how many "seminarians" still remain at the pesthouse? Four, is it? Maybe five?)
So, Don, we've culled the content from all comments, emails, and interview notes in our possession so you can examine them one by one. Since you claim to be an educator yourself, for your convenience, we'll organize them in examination format, because such an arrangement seems appropriate given the subject matter.
The first part of our test is a true-or-false section: before each statement we have placed a "T" ("true," meaning that you confirm the truth of the statement) or an "F"("false,"meaning you disconfirm or deny the statement).
Get out your #2 pencil, Don. You...may...begin...now! (Remember: no cheating, big boy.)
. . . . . . . . .
A. True or False (circle the letter that reflects your answer):
Don, is it true that...
T F 1. Your "school" permits neither participation in outside sports activities (although you don't offer in-school athletics) nor membership in outside clubs or organizations?
T F 2. When kids (or at least the kids who aren't from your Big 3 donor families) break the rules, they are isolated, and other children are not permitted to talk to them, while these victims of your discipline are publicly humiliated by having to stand against the wall for the whole day with their offense written above their heads?
T F 3. Your "school" does not permit the children's families to have broadcast TV at home?
T F 4. Children must get permission from the "nuns" or the "priest" in order to use the Internet at home or go to the movies?
T F 5. In one of your satellite operations, two adolescents who with parental accompaniment went to see a "Lord of the Rings" movie were expelled for not having secured the "nuns'" permission first?
T F 6. Your "school" keeps the children so busy with excessive homework (assigned by mostly untrained "teachers"), choir practice, server practice, and drudge work outside the school that the heavy work load is breaking down the home family unit?
T F 7. Boys and girls, including brothers and sisters in the sole company of their family, are not permitted to swim together?
T F 8. The prohibition of mixed swimming applies even if the girls wear long board shorts and long-sleeved rash guard shirts?
T F 9. A girl was penalized after being pressured to admit to one of the prying, Nosey-Parker "nuns" that they did not recite "family Rosary" at home?
T F 10. Children must clean the work-shy "nuns'" living quarters?
Editor's Note: Don's big exam will continue next week on page 2 of 3 of our open letter with section B, the long essay section. That'll be a real challenge for the rector.
Oh my! If only one of these is true, then this is a cult. Christ Himself wouldn't require such tight control & strict rules. Those poor children!!
ReplyDeleteWait until you see next week's post. And then the week after that! You will weep for the plight of these helpless children.
DeleteAn eerie reminder of what I grew up with! Francis Schuckardt is speaking through the grave!
DeleteI can't find the original comment last week that you're referring to. Can you please help me out?
ReplyDeleteHere it is:
DeleteOk, found your blog. This is B.S. about these men. I have family who pulled their kids from the Brooksville school. The rules were out of hand and ridiculous.
1. No tv in the home, no movie theaters, no internet unless the nuns gave permission, no associating with non-Catholics, no looking at the opposite sex, no swimming with the opposite sex (even within same family), no sleepovers if there is any opposite sex in the school, no sports outside the school (yet none offered in the school), no outside clubs or organizations, quartatining kids who break any of the school rules where no one is allowed to talk to them, shaming kids with offenses put above their heads as they stood against the wall for the entire day, etc.
I can't imagine what these kids endured day in and day out at this school. From what I've been told, at least 7 other families left that school but didn't give them the real reason because they knew they would be shunned.
The majority of girls are forced into the convent by their parents and pastor.
These rules didn't apply to all families, btw. I'm happy they took them out of the school. The kids are finally happy and have learned to smile.
Shouldn't there be a police investigation?
ReplyDeleteFor what? The rules are stupid, but not illegal.
ReplyDeleteSo no one jumps down my throat on account of what I have to say, I have no affiliation with this or any other sede group.
ReplyDeleteIt may surprise all of you, including the men who run this blog, that Catholic boarding schools before VII were run in a similar fashion. Two come to mind - those run by the Society of the Sacred Heart religious (both here in the USA and in Europe) and another that was in the Philadelphia area run by the Assumption Sisters.
Also, for those of you who have no idea of what most Catholic schools were like before VII, many of them were run very strictly, including corporal punishment and hours of homework. We also had to clean certain rooms in the convent. It was considered a privilege to do so back then.
Interesting. I didn't know Sgg and MHT had boarding schools.
DeleteI would think the TV rule, movie, and Internet didn't apply to prevatican 2, since obviously the Internet is new and the others were more tame if you followed Catholic decency rules.
Hours of homework are even in private or public schools. What I see would be wrong is if it interferes with family life or if a school would take on the primary parental role. If they are not using the above rules as suggested and instead as mandatory, yes, there is a possible problem.
Another possible problem is if the cleaning interfered with the education. Also, is this cleaning voluntary or mandatory? Are nuns not there to serve Our Lord or are they now being the ones being served? I'm curious the kind of lives these nuns lead if they are having kids do their cleaning?
I hope these schools are all girls schools that you have mentioned? It certainly would have been inappropriate for boys to be cleaning the convent rooms.
Another problem I would think would be an isolation factor if these kids only have the school and nothing else. Prevatican 2 kids still had sports or jobs. What do these kids have outside these places? It would be considered more of a brainwashing factory and not a place of education and formation of a moral compass.
DeleteAnon. May 1 1:29 AM
DeleteThe cult "school" is not a boarding school. And we men and women of this blog attended Catholic schools in the 1950s. Yes, we had home work, and yes, we had rules, but nothing like this that entered into the fabric of family life and overturned the authority of the parents in their own home. In those days, the home was sacred.
Also remember that the Brooksville cult is NOT the Church, so its intrusions are in no way legitimate.
And that is why no one should EVER put their child in any kind of boarding school!
DeleteAnonymousMay 1, 2016 at 1:29 AM
DeleteWrote:
"So no one jumps down my throat on account of what I have to say, I have no affiliation with this or any other sede group"...+
I fondly remember many of the same things in which you write about. However, there are several big differences.
To begin with this is not a boarding school in the traditional sense of the word, whereby the students are paying for
room, board and tuition.
To the contrary this is supposed to be your normal Parish Catholic School with hours from 9am-3pm, with the students going back home to obey the rules of their respective households.
In this cult Parish, one of the parents of one of those student households decided to take their children to the movies as a family outing. For that decision, and for that family outing, the children were expelled from the school for not getting permission from the nuns first.
Do you ever remember anything like that in your school days?
I Don't!
Or do you remember the school sending home a permission slip to the parents to be signed by them for a school outing?
Chores or punishments where usually given to my fellow classmates when they misbehaved in school. They were given the chore of cleaning some part of the Parish Grounds, convents were reserved for the girls.
All students were always reminded to turn any chore into an offering for the Suffering Souls in Purgatory, hence turning any vice into Virtue, through prayer.
Many hours of homework was Standard Policy in most Catholic Pre-Vatican II good old school days, hence good educated citizens, and well above the norm.
My fear with the Cults of Traddie-ville, especially the cults under Sanborn are: they are usurping power that was given to the parents by GOD and not them.
They have no right to invade the homes of the faithful like BIG BROTHER and demand ALL to obey their school rules over that of the Parents. Just some of their idiotic rules are: not to own a TV, go onto the internet without permission from the nuns, not to swim with their own brothers and sisters, and obviously not to go to the movies without the nuns permission.
In essence, to obey Sanborn et al above the Natural Law of God given the family with the 4th Commandment. He is re-writing the 4 Commandment by placing the second clause of it, "And all those who take their place, above the first, which is to, "HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER", and then, "all those who take their place".
In no way does that allow them to impose a law above that of the GOD GIVEN PARENTS for their children.
Father does not become Priest, and mother is not a nun.
The laws of their school is one thing, the laws of the home is another. If you choose to attend their school, that does not mean that the Parent has relinquished their parental authority in the home.
They are insane!
They are a Jim Jones Cult, and far worse, because they are playing with the true Faith of God and making it up as they go with the Fear of Hell, and "No Salvation outside of their cult centers."
This is the BIG Problem with the SEDE Groups. They become CEO's of their own individual Corporations and they never convert out of Love of GOD, they just condemn out of fear.
Fear of the Lord is good, but Love of God is better.
What was that first commandment given us by Christ Himself?
Love God with thy whole heart, whole mind, and whole body and whole soul.
Practice this COMMANDMENT, and you will have no room for fear.
Anon May 1st 1:29 am,
DeleteDid the nuns of your day also have their own personal cooks dropping off meals every night? I thought I read someone cooks them their lunches. Does someone make them breakfast too?
And then, the school kids should be considered privileged to clean for them? Are we talking washing blackboards and sweeping floors? Or are we talking cleaning bathrooms, cleaning their quarters, and doing their dishes?
Sounds like someone signed up for a luxury vacation, and I'm not referring to the kids!
I, too, attended a Catholic high school in the 50's run by nuns & all was quite normal. I don't know about corporal punishment as it seems that the kids were generally civilized back then and corporal punishment was the parents' domain. All the nuns would have had to do was report us to our parents.
ReplyDeleteRemember, the SGG and MHT are not boarding schools nor are they just high schools. They are elementary through high school. So, which is normal? A child being punished for their family not saying the rosary? That doesn't seem normal for pre-1960's or now. The parents seeking permission from nuns to do things with their family? An agreement to isolate children from anything and everything that the nuns deem unfit? Would this include all sports, outside jobs, outside clubs or activities, socialization with all non-catholics? Please show me where any 1950's elementary school incorporated rules such as these.
DeleteAnon 5:02PM What are you talking about??!! What do you mean "Which is normal?" The school that I went to in the 50's was elementary & high school plus boarding for some high schoolers that lived too far away. They went home on the weekends. I only went to high school there. By normal I meant that there was none of those crazy rules that PL is posting. We went to school, came home, did some homework, sometimes went to movies or whatever we wanted that our parents approved & never asked permission by the nuns. In other words a normal life. You don't know what normal is? Really? A child being punished for not saying the family rosary is NOT normal. No school that I know of incorporated rules such as you listed. I don't understand how you could have misunderstood what I posted.
DeleteNo, no,no. Even in the 50's, St.John Bosco's way was reason, religion, and kindness. These are the Salesian principles of education.
ReplyDelete"Punishment:
In 1883, in a circular written by Don Bosco and sent out to Salesian schools, the pedagogist set down suggestions about punishing which were as follows:
"Before punishing ascertain all the facts.
Be sure that the guilty one knows why he is being punished.
Never turn a pupil out of the classroom. In more serious cases have the lad accompanied to the principal.
Justice must always be used when punishing.
Never make use of general punishments.
Never make use of corporal punishments.
Punishments must be few and never prolonged.
Written punishments are generally to be discouraged.
Never make use of the reflection room, where the pupil remains in idleness.
Always inspire the hope of pardon."
Maybe they should read up on this.
I think that Anon. May , 6:59 may have misinterpreted Anon. May 1, 5:02’s comment. The way I read it, the latter was criticizing, not condoning, MHT’s rules. I think that both of them, if one examines what they say, are “on the same page.”
DeleteRegarding another comment, I’d like to remind Anon. May 1, 1:29 AM, that the vast majority of pre-Vatican II schools, whether boarding schools or regular diocesan schools, were NOT run anywhere nearly so strictly as he (or she) implies – and certainly not run “in a similar fashion” to MHT’s. What Anon. states is, at best, the rare EXCEPTION to the rule. And, NONE of those schools expected the kids to clean the convent, the classroom, or anything else. “Cleaning the blackboards” was as far as it went (and this was either as a “punishment,” or it was a job they did in lieu of paying tuition).
To state (or even imply) pre-Vatican schools were run “in a similar fashion” to either one of the MHT/SGG cult schools is a MONSTROUS LIE.
The little children that attend Mass on Sunday's at MHT are like nothing I've ever seen before. Even kids as little as one, two, and three are expected to sit/kneel, stand still, and assist at Mass like the adults. Not even a religious book to keep their attention. If they so much as try to turn around one little bit, the parents are all over them. It's crazy! Kids that small can't be expected to sit perfectly still and not be distracted by things going on around them. I'm all for kids assisting respectfully at Mass, but the behavior I see there is just not normal! It's weird!
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you suppose that is the case, Anon 2:33? Do the parents look at the child and then the child behaves?
DeleteI don't know why that is. I certainly agree that a child shouldn't be running around, making unnecessary noise, etc....but to expect them to sit completely still and quiet is just not realistic. Most of the time the parent will grab the child, physically turn them back around, cover their mouth, etc.....just for one little peep. Frankly, I don't know why they don't have a crying room. It's either in the church or you have to go outside.
DeleteI want to know that IF these rules are true, do the families actually follow them? Or, as implied in the post, only certain families are obliged to follow them? Do the kids go wild after they leave the place because of the strict rules or do they continue to maintain these rules? Another option: are double lives being led (one for the parents' to see and one that is actually happening?) Are the rules for the school and church or just the school?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with children sitting quietly in the Church with piety. What I fear is what retribution will be paid to the respective families should someone break the robotic mode?
ReplyDeleteToday we must be very careful with that proverbial pendulum swinging too far to either side.
Blogs like this are necessary to protect the innocent from the wolves, and their self- righteous motivated intentions.
I sincerely hope that Intellectual Blogs such as Pistrina Liturgica would set up a Campaign to help to organize All Catholics of Good Will to come to a meeting of the minds to Serve God under the Faith, and not the Fancy.
I don't think anyone has a problem with children sitting quietly. In fact, I'm sure it is quite admired. They probably see those parents as wonderful examples of that Church. The question is what would Sanborn and priests do if the children did make noise? And another question is how are these kids so quiet?
DeleteShadow,
DeleteRegarding organizing the flock during this lengthy interregnum:
I think this is the crux of the matter that we as the lowly sheep of the Church are faced with during this crisis. The Catholic Church is built on a hierarchical order, with the lawful Shepherds governing the sheep. In our circumstance, we are roaming sheep without any shepherds, and no one is authorized to gather the flock. The various traditional groups merely give a false appearance of the hierarchy, but they have no more authority in the Church than anyone other lay Catholic.
So, we as the lowly sheep have to protect and support each other in the absence of the shepherds, and at the same time avoid any usurpation of the lawful power that only the shepherds' possess.
We are in this unnatural situation until God once against sends us his lawful shepherds. Until that time, all of us are in great spiritual danger as we are on our own, and there are wolves everywhere, many clothed as shepherds. The danger lies not only in the Conciliar sect, but it is all around us, with eastern schismatics, Old Catholics, and even in the so called traditional groups.
Who declared an "interregnum?" Where was I when this news was presented?
DeleteI don't have a problem with it either, however it seems there is NO tolerance for any sort of noise or movement from the parents. That's what I find strange. The fact that they expect a one year old to be quiet and still is beyond me. It's a child for heavens sake and they have no idea where they are. Robotic is a good word. Again, it is unlike anything I've ever seen in other traditional chapels and I've been to many.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Watcher, for setting me (Anon 6:59) straight. I'm fairly good at comprehension I think, but I read Anon 5:02's post several times & still didn't get it. Another lesson on the importance of clear writing.
ReplyDeleteGene, I so agree with your May 1 6:12PM post. That's why I'm on PL, as before they came along I always wondered if I was the only one on the face of the earth who could see & understand what I saw all around me.
One more thing: Last year the group picture of the SGG school students showed 21 or so students. This week there's another picture of the students showing only 15. How many of them would be Lotarskis? About how many other families then would this represent? It's nice to see the decrease. Hopefully this will continue.
Anon 5:02 clearly states this isn't normal:
Delete"So, which is normal? A child being punished for their family not saying the rosary? THAT DOESN'T SEEM NORMAL for pre-1960's or now. The parents seeking permission from nuns to do things with their family? An agreement to isolate children from anything and everything that the nuns deem unfit? Would this include all sports, outside jobs, outside clubs or activities, socialization with all non-catholics? PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE any 1950's elementary school incorporated rules such as these."
Specifically states (see bold) that isn't normal. The post also asks where you can find these rules in elementary school, insinuating that you can't.
Does that help?
Anon 5/1 7:57 pm:
DeleteThis in my opinion was the conversation that we were supposed to be having decades ago, in the early 1970's, but it was pushed aside by the creation of the "traditional clergy."
When these mission-less bishops and priests were thrust into the Church, it seemed like a no brainer for many, it solved the sacrament problem, but what many did not grasp is that it created new and unforeseen problems. Many also do not grasp that this "solution" is a radical novelty and in direct violation of the law of the Church.
Many will argue that epikeia allows this, as the lawgiver had not envisioned this situation, but I question that. Would the lawgiver will roaming unsupervised vagrant bishops who can enter any diocese at will, establishing churches, chapels and seminaries? I don't think so. These men have not simply provided the sacarments, as the "traditional" priest model envisioned, they have placed themselves in many ways as a substitute for the Divinely commissioned hierarchy.
Beautifully and succinctly put, Gene. They went several bridges to far. They now think they speak for Christ's Church.
DeleteSimply providing the Sacraments to a bunch of "old timers" who think they are their own pope is a "traditional priest model" envisioned ONLY by these same "old timers."
DeleteThe clergy exists to transmit the Faith. SSPX and SSPV try to create a Catholic society which provides mutual support to the priests and the faithful in living the Faith--both groups have orders from 'divinely commissioned hierarchy'.
CMRI adheres most to Gene's model--as one would expect of a group that had its inception w/lay people who got ordained priest & bishop in 2 days from "old Catholics" and then Thuc bishops who either provided sacraments for hire/or whenever CMRI didn't like what Bishop said CMRI would just shop for another Thuc bishop until bought bishopric for PIV (seems many lay here follow that model and wander from trad parish to parish). As PIV said in True Restoration video--he tells his 'priests' most important thing they do is Sunday Mass & give the people a brochure to explain what's going on because "that's what the people want" (same as N.O. but CMRI serves the trad N.O.s). Gene goes there because that's all he wants (they may also be less secure about their training so don't argue w/the laity know it alls).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8cBXYnlkTw
The idea of consecrating bishops who don't keep in contact w/each other, but just go their separate ways only happened w/Thuc and the 'bishops' he consecrated. This is not a Biblical model, i.e. the way the apostles behaved in the New Testament (they stayed together--formed ONE church). PL had published something in a combox about Sanborn saying he had no jurisdiction over the priests he was ordaining, i.e. they owed him no obedience and no-one else either. That is a protestant model--not a Catholic model. How does one ordain a priest w/out a vow of obedience? How does one build a kingdom w/everyone going separate ways and building own kingdom for profit?
As someone has said here, the main bond that unites a priest w/his bishop (and flock) is charity (like Christ w/His apostles) and it would be the same w/priests one consecrated bishop. To me the concept of "saving the priesthood" w/the (so-called) Thuc (personally believe he was not in his right mind and also suffering from extreme poverty) or MHT model is a false one. Will just create a protestant mess. Certainly not further Christendom.
Question for you: What makes you think SSPX and SSPV (or any of the others) priests are clergy?
DeleteCMRI is the best among the bunch for the reasons you have cited. They are the closest to living the true reality of their situation and not being pretenders. They are far from perfect, but it is for the same reasons you have illustrated above, that I still recommend them (with qualifiers).
The "Protestant mess" that you are referring to is created by the usurpation of lawful authority and the establishment of a pseudo-hierarchy, that cleverly puts up a pretense of being somehow connected to the Divinely instituted hierachy commissioned and sent by Jesus Christ.
Question for you: What makes you think CMRI are clergy? You speak of a pseudo-hierarchy when it looks more and more like Lefebvre will be declared a saint. Now consider layman Francis Shuckhardt--by what authority did he start a church, a seminary and obtain orders [talk usurping authority and pretending!]? Now it could be that God will approve the work of the CMRI, but if you don't see a Protestant mess in any layman who sees "the opportunity", buying himself a priesthood, starting a church and handing out sacraments (taking adv of gullible people)--you don't understand Protestantism or pretending. You seem to be engaging in a bit of protestant pretending yourself that there is no valid hierarchy for you to obey and that your opinion is = to any priest that supposedly (nevertheless) gives you sacraments. That was never true in any time and not true in this time.
DeleteAnswer: they (CMRI) are not clergy.
DeleteAlso, I did not and will not say that CMRI are not without problems, but they are the best among the bunch for not being pretenders. A fact that you also acknowledged above (post 5/3 12:14 pm). This doesn't mean their better in other areas, (training, knowledge of theology, Latin, etc) but usurpation of authority (both explicit and implicit) is the bigger problem in my opinion. CMRI gets a C in this category, the others fail with a resounding F.
To your other point: show the hierachy that I am bound to obey. Before you point me to SSPX, SSPV, SGG, CMRI or any other vagrant non-clerics, I would ask you to show me only members of the hierarchy who have legitimate and provable claims to their offices.
Crazy stuff indeed PL, thank you for bringing this to light. I believe most readers here are looking for a personal solution to the crisis of Modernism that has been afflicting the Church for over 100 years. This cultish triad is certainly not a solution I'd embrace. Too much exoteric .vs. esoteric inconsistency going on. Looney as the liberal Modernists, just in a different way.
ReplyDeleteAs the Psalmist tells us:
Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, et in via peccatorum non stetit, et in cathedra pestilentiae non sedit
Unfortunately, in this day and age, I can understand all the rules re: television, internet, movies, and outside youth clubs/sports associations. If you are trying to keep your child innocent and that's why you sent them to MHT, all it takes is one child who has been exposed to indecency to spread it to the whole school especially in one as small as MHT. You who decry Dolan for not being upset that Lotarski was showing porn and animal torture videos on the school computer to the other children should be the first to understand. Perhaps the SSPV nuns should have child proofed that computer as well as the Lotarski home computer.
ReplyDeleteFrom my own experience as a child, I know how fast one child can corrupt a whole group. As an adult I have seen children under 5 years old teach dirty words/nasty behavior to other family members' children just from going to daycare. Other parents have called to warn that such and such a child in school has a cell phone that they are using to show porn.
In the 50s, Church was still rating movies and there was list of forbidden books. I know of at least one N.O. Catholic grade school in the 80s [5th grade] where both parents were called in for meeting w/sister because of book fifth grader was reading even though had obtained book from fellow classmate. Also in that same school an elderly nun used to slam boys against the blackboard and have them repeat after her that they were nothing and good for nothing. All thought she was a saint (including the boys). In public elementary school I attended in the 60s early 70s corporal punishment was administered by principal. One 6th grade male teacher (vice principal) used to swat boys w/yardstick (call them up to bend over in front of the class and hit a swat that didn't hurt).
Sure LP is well aware of dunce cap and sitting in corner being standard practice. Family members had that experience in 60s and 70s.
http://theoldendays.yolasite.com/school.php
While could deplore child being put on the spot to reveal parents not saying the family rosary, on the other hand if family doesn't want to practice Catholicism or teach their child to do so, why send to MHT? [Better question to me is what about that child's conduct made it apparent that family wasn't praying as family/practicing Catholicism?] That family is undermining everything taught in the school about what is necessary to please God and keep the Faith. When you all deplore how many young people have fallen from the Faith--think how many times you as parents taught them a double standard (in dress, entertainment, and prayer, i.e. following what was preached in the Church you attended).
In terms of children behaving in church, don't you all believe in the Real Presence? Seems you are more afraid of clergy than of Almighty God. It was de rigor only 100 years ago: "Children should be SEEN and NOT heard." People are so proud that they've actually given birth nowadays, but imagine when EVERY family had a baby and toddlers. If you take a child out every time he makes a noise, he will learn to make noises to receive special attention and be taken out. I come from a relatively large family and can't remember ever being taken out of church, but we were all expected to behave (w/out toys, food, etc to distract and so were our friends). Only very occasionally were babies taken out who indeed were crying loudly. We all had to wear white gloves, white shoes, white hats, etc. (and keep all clean too!)
Why wouldn't a school computer located at a church have a filter? That seems strange in this age where it is so easy to put on a computer.
DeleteMy guess is the MHT kids aren't as "innocent" as everyone thinks. If rules have been set in place that are this strict, than obviously it is because some or all of the kids were doing these things.
DeleteWasn't the saying,"children should be seen and not heard" originally a Victorian phrase, intended for women?
DeleteIt isn't a Bible verse, is it?
One thing to bear in mind when making comparisons: the Brooksville cult is in no way the Roman Catholic Church. And although we old timers all had to "assume the position" or have our knuckles rapped by Sister, legitimate authority never intruded so intimately into home life. We have spoken to almost 100 old-time Catholics, and none ever remembers interrogations into private home devotions.
DeleteThe discipline that Anon 10:27 describes may have been the norm, but it doesn't make it right. St. John Bosco speaks against most corporal punishment in education. He also speaks against isolating and shaming children. His exact words are the following,"Force, indeed, punishes guilt but does not heal the guilty...Never, except in very extreme cases, expose the culprit publicly to shame. Except in very rare cases, corrections and punishments should be given privately and in absence of companions; and the greatest prudence and patience should be used to bring the pupil to see his fault, with the aid of reason and religion. To strike a child in any way...must be avoided..."
DeleteSt. John Chrsysostrum says,"Have not recourse to blows and accustom him not to be trained by the rod;"
St. Jean Baptiste de La Salle's coussl was to avoid the birch.
What is interesting is that the above forms of punishments )shaming, isolating, corporal punishment are not in tune with the Salesian way.
Most of the Internet, TV, movie, etc. rules would probably be avoided by normal Catholic parents without the need for the school coming into the home and taking on the rule as parent or above parents, I would think. BUT, then again, these kids at one point must have broken them to have such strict rules.
10:27 Anon, my guess is if you were from a fairly large size family, you were probably beaten in order to remain quitely in Church if you don't recall anyone ever being taken out often? My guess from what Anon 2:33 said, is that the kids at mht are taken out, beat in either their car or bathroom and then brought back in sniffling. Then, my guess is a look would be all that is needed until they forgot their last "correction."
DeleteWe don't think Anon 10:27's experience was the norm. This writer recalls that when he received swats from the dean of discipline, it was for genuine infractions, like cutting class one day in his senior year, and even then the dean gave the offender a choice of 3 whacks or detention for a week.
DeleteStandards and expectations were high, and order was demanded, but it was all reasonable. Actually, offenses against good order were the most sternly dealt with, but those offenses were real threats to the well-being of students and faculty when some high-school boys tried to push the boundaries too far or engaged in fighting.
Anon 11:55 PM's theory about the kids' behavior provoking such a draconian response doesn't seem to be the case, at least from the reports we have. Our experience as educators shops that some adults have a need to control and ratchet up the restrictions without a basis in actual behavior. However, if Anon 11:55 is right, we shudder to contemplate the conditions that necessitated the rule restricting siblings of the opposite sex from swimming together even in the company of their family.
Many people notice the odd behavior at mht from children. It's almost as through the kids are scared of their parents.
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t we stay focused on the case in point?
ReplyDeleteFact: A family outing to the movies resulted in a child being expelled from the school.
What was the crime?
Violating the School Rules.
How?
There are only two possibilities: Either the parents knew they had to obtain permission from the nuns to take their child to the movies, or they did not.
Now, if these are the actual school rules, and the parents signed an agreement with the school to uphold them prior to enrolling their children into the school, then they are as CRAZY as THE CRAZIES in charge.
If, on the other hand, these rules were unknown to the parents, or imposed after their children’s enrollment into the school, then MHT is usurping the Catholic rights of parents as the prime authority over their own children.
Interesting way to look at this , shadow. Could there be a possible a different way to look at this? A vague school rule was in place about movies, and thinking a parent has the ultimate authority over their own child, felt that if they accompany their child, than the school rule doesn't apply?
DeleteI'm thinking we need to find out the exact wording of the rule.
Let's look at another possibility of why exactly they were expelled, if this is even the case? Could they have been expelled instead of suspended or given a punishment other than the ultimate "expulsion" in order to set an example of who really has the utmost authority in the home....SANBORN?
Let's go back to the other rules being questioned in the post. A child was questioned and punished about the family rosary. One poster suggests it is due to the child's behavior. Let's assume the child has a behavior problem and that the school wants to uphold the most Catholic of virtues, since the faith is the obvious reason parents send their child to a Catholic school (and a secondary reason would be to protect their innocence as the poster suggests), would it not have been more appropriate to call the parents and child in to discuss the importance of the family rosary and that a daily family rosary is a requirement of attending the school. This is, of course, assuming the daily family rosary is a WRITTEN rule and ALL the families' were dealt with in the same way if they missed the family rosary.
Another topic being mentioned was the double standard given to the children by their parents. This is a very good point. Charity, or lack of, would be a quality that is mentioned over and over again with MHT. Was it not mentioned in the Bible, that the greatest of these is charity?
Moving on, the poster mentioned not following what was "preached at Church you attended." When did a sermon become dogma? Or the priest became infalliable from the pulpit? You attend Church for the Mass, no? Not so that one follows everything that priest says from the pulpit.
Anon 10:27 suggests the family who had a child being questioned about the family rosary must be "undermining everything taught in the school about what is necessary to please God and keep the Faith." So, why wasn't this family kicked out vs. the boy who went to see a movie with a parent? That logic doesn't make sense. One is undermining the faith and the other is breaking a Sanborn rule. Who is more important, God or Sanborn? Obviously MHT feels Sanborn.
ReplyDeleteHow many people are in this school anyway?
Another question I want to know is if the parents of all these kids are not hypocritical in their dress, entertainment, etc., than why the need for such excessive rules? Would they just not follow their parents' leads? Obviously, the poster suggests that parents need Sanborn to give them specific excessive rules to follow or the kids will be hypocrites just like their parents in dress, entertainment, prayer life, etc. It makes me wonder what exactly happened to have such rules in place.
Furthermore, please enlighten the readers to
why the original poster suggested that only some of the families had to follow the rules. Could that be a double standard? If any of the school rules were broken, assuming these rules are actually written rules, why are not kids kicked out due to ANY of the rules being broken? I would assume that if a rule, let's say kids on the Internet without written permission, was broken, any child breaking that rule would be expelled, correct? Let's take another rule, any family caught having television would be expelled, correct? Any family caught watching an inappropriate movie would be expelled, correct?
We can also assume that the rules at MHT are keeping these few children innocent because the parents at the school follow them and do not create a double standard, correct? Why the need for so many rules if the parents are already leading such a Holy life? And, why the excessive punishments in the school if so many parents are setting the example.
Let's now discuss the child being seen in not heard. That is a quote Sanborn loves to use because as he has explained in interviews that children should be raised to be quiet, anything different is a manifestation of original sin. While children should obviously remain respectful at Mass, a young child, let's say under two,usually cries or fidgets due to hunger, sleep, a diaper changing need, or because the attention span of a child is not as an adult. So, a child a year old would physically not be capable of sitting through an hour long mass, or even 2 hour high mass without being taken out, given food, or given a distraction. It is very disturbing to think a young child's expectations are to be that of an adult who brings a missal, a rosary, and the ability to see the Mass happening. It's also disturbing that if a one year old child sits there motionless for one hour, what is being done to that child if they do turn around or make any noises? Someone mentioned that there is not a cry room at MHT. Did they not build that church from scratch and not see a need for mothers or fathers to use a cry room? In that case, where do mither's nurse their babies? Please tell me not in the Florida heat of the car, or worse, a public bathroom? Please tell me there is a nursing area for mothers to feed their babies and not let them manifest the babies original sin crying?
This place seems to lack common sense and follow man, a certain man, and not necessarily the Catholic Church and it's teachings. What a shame.
A wonderful analysis. BTW, there is a double standard in place there for the Big 3. Perhaps some of the witnesses will comment.
DeleteAnon 11:44--exactly my point about young children at Mass!
DeleteThere is no crying room nor a place for mothers to nurse that I've seen except a fold out chair in the corner of the women's restroom. Note diaper changing station either. With large catholic families and lots of babies, why were these things not included in the planning of the church?
"No diaper changing station"
DeleteAre you willing to name the "BIG 3?"
DeleteRumors fly in traddieland all the time. It was suggested that this child who Anonymous 10:27 suggested must have expressed behavior problems, which may be to blame the child and not the nun that tended to pick on this child, not exactly up front and leading to the right conclusion with the girl being questioned for saying the rosary. In fact, I believe the family left the Church due to their constant mistreatment. The behavior problems of this young girl may be due to being born to a drug addicted mother, if the contradicting rumors are true. As any reasonable person knows, some of these children have attention and learning issues. Her adopted parents loved her enough to give her a private, Catholic education, an expensive one at that. They were fairly new to the traditional Catholic movement, so to imply that these parents could learn their lesson by punishing the child for not saying the daily family rosary is just not right. If the "nun" felt a new child was jeopardizing other people's faith or not living up to the school's expectations, maybe things should have been done privately or behind closed doors. Let's say the rumor is true, than one can conclude that she may have had learning problems as well. I wonder what kind of exceptions were made by this nun to help provide an iep so that this child could meet her individual potential in both spiritual and academic ways.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Sanborn doesn't realize is that people at his MHT church talk among themselves, despite his noticeable effort to rid any interaction among the parishioners. When a parishioner leaves, they tend to wonder why. Rumors fly about these people, true or not true. I'm sure some are started by the main families to discredit people who leave (whether fact or fiction) and then some are spread by the nobody type parishioners trying to find out why so many people leave. It's hard to discern which ones are true. So, maybe the poster of 10:29 is correct, this was an out of control little girl who needed to be put in line by the nuns constantly asking about the family rosary. Maybe it is true that this little girl may have suffered from the disabilities. We can certainly conclude that the end result, if true that this family left the church, resulted in the loss of the family receiving the true Mass. That is, unless they were able to find another traditional chapel and not scared away by the harshness they may have felt.
Back in the day, Protestant churches had cry rooms. Catholic churches did not. Nowadays children are much more agitated, due in part, I think, to watching TV & playing violent video games. Back then Mass lasted an hour usually, and churches were close by so there was no need to change, nurse or otherwise tend to a child. Every hamlet, town & city had a church. Bigger cities had several churches. Most churches had several Masses so one parent could go to one Mass & another parent to the next Mass, leaving babies at home. People on this blog that are commenting are only looking thro today's eyes. Yesterday was completely different in so many ways than today - the mood, culture, dress, mores, and even eating habits. I never saw an obese person until I was in my 20's and went to the circus to see the side show which figured one.
ReplyDeleteAnon. May 3 4:11 PM
DeletePerhaps you may have only seen older churches, but in our experience growing up in the 1950s, all the newer churches we saw had cry rooms. (The baby boom made them an architectural necessity, and they weren't only in upper-middle-class parishes either. Some were located to the side of the sanctuary and had department-store front windows so the mothers could follow the Mass. They were all comfortably appointed with pews and other furnishings. Mom could care for the infant(s)/toddler(s) and Dad sat with the older kids with the rest of the congregation. We're sure other old timers have similar recollections.
Yes, Anon 4:11, babies tend to have dirty diapers on an exact schedule. Do you actually have kids?
DeleteAnd in this day and age, when people travel 45 minutes to go to Mass, splitting parents up to keep the babies home isn't an option.
And babies are agitated or toddlers from playing violent video games or watching tv? Please....you have no idea what you are taking about. This may be true of adolescents, but that group was not the one being discussed. We were discussing 1,2, and 3 year olds.
We are, of course, in today's age and not 50 or so years ago. Sanborn knew this when building his masterpiece. He also knew most of the congregation would not be coming from Brooksville and there would be a need for a baby changing area or nursing area. It isn't practical to split up young families to two different masses, just so he can have his child free zone, especially with a mother who needs to nurse.
So all you Readers are 70+ year olds?
ReplyDeleteLate 50s to 70s+. Our tech guru, who doesn't write but sits in on editorial conferences, is in her 20s. She's from Mexico and has been a traddie since birth. She cannot believe the horrors of gringo Sedelandia.
DeleteHahahahahaha!
DeleteWell, only the ones who are in their late 60's and beyond can legitimately say they knew how things were pre-V2. How many are there in this class?
DeleteActually the people in their mid-60's are also aware of some pre-V2 practices -- like Dolan, Cekada, & Sanborn, and some of those in their late 50's had at least heard of how things were from their resister parents and relatives, who passed on their recollections.
DeleteWhat does an obese person have to do with any of this? Other than discussing someone's appearances and or health? Yes, very charitable and very Catholic, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteI don't think a church needs a cry room, but a place other than a bathroom for a baby to nurse is quite appropriate. A changing table would be a plus, but not necessary. Kids can learn to sit for first the rosary (15 minutes), and then it can build from there. I will have to agree with one of the other posters that these 9 month olds, 1 year olds, and 2 year olds at MHT are robotic and scared of parents. It's great when a child can learn to stay quiet, but typically at this age, it is done with distraction or since the original poster said they have no distractions (rosary, religious books, bottles, snacks, etc), it must be the rod that is being used.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a parishioner at MHT, I would be asking the parents how their children stay so well behaved, and if they take them out and bring them back, follow and see how all the rest of us can keep our kids quiet.
I'm Anon 4:11PM. Yes, I not only have children, but grand & great grandchildren. The purpose of my post was to show the vast differences between now & then. The mention of obesity was an observation. Neither condemning nor mocking it. Families generally ate at a set time & had breaks & snacks in between but the constant need to eat or gorge oneself wasn't there. The multitude of fast food joints didn't exist yet. Most people could walk or drive a short distance to church then. An observation on how different it was then & now. Snacks were never seen in church. I'd have to write too much to explain just how different everything was back then. Parents weren't your 'best bud' but someone that you respected & loved & who disciplined & guided you. I only remember being spanked once when very young. They didn't have to do it again because I knew that no meant no & not 'maybe' & crying & throwing a fit would not get me anywhere. In turn my kids knew this. And I do not understand if you changed a baby just before Mass why he would have to be changed 45 minutes later. Yes, I do know that we now have to travel much farther so things are very different from yesteryears. The little ones sometimes fidgeted but on the whole were generally more placid than today. Yes, now I have seen one & two year olds sitting for long periods of time in front of the TV watching very action-filled cartoons. The TV is used as a babysitter now - to the detriment of these poor innocents.
ReplyDeleteBecause sometimes, Anon, babies have dirty diapers, and sitting in one for 45 minutes isn't good for a baby or the people smelling it next to you.
ReplyDeleteI stil can't figure out how obesity relates to the church situation. Are you comparing a baby wanting to nurse to an obesity and gorging problem?
Do you go to MHT? Some masses last over 2 hours, not including Holy Week service week. So, to have a baby sit for 2-3 hours in a dirty diaper is insane.
I haven't seen a one year old sit for even an action packed cartoon for one or two hours. That doesn't seem do-able, considering their attention span doesn't last that long.
The point to make here is that it is not yesteryear. We are where we are, and we aren't going back to a time with masses 5 minutes away for the parents to take turns with their children.
Unless you want BM coming out of breast fed babies diapers or stinking out fellow parishioners, you change your babies diapers when they are dirty. You don't wait 45 minutes, and you certainly don't wait 2 hours.
Of course, in yesteryear, we also had a real Church to follow with a hierarchy. We also had accountability. We didn't have self-appointed seminarian bishops or ones who overstepped the bounds of parental authority. We didn't have priests related in the same congregation to the majority of their family , but we did have rotating priests to make sure certain boundaries were kept. We didn't have people traveling 45 minutes to go mass, and most parishes were actually united through their faith instead of having a bishop who discourages unity because he fears they will go against him once again (remember Michigan.) We didn't have families following a bishop across the country or an entire seminary being moved and a new one built due to one priest's medical condition because his dad was the big donor. There was actual order. There weren't needs for blogs like this hearing about things as stupid as the church being a breakdown of the family unit. Are they not suppose to be what unites the family? Is the school not there to "help" the parents instruct their children and guide them in the Catholic faith. Is it not the primary duty of the parents to teach and live their Catholic faith, and the school their helpers, and not the other way around? It completely makes me sick to think this church is breakjng apart families and using the poor, innocent children as their slaves to clean the convent and do the dishes. Are they the ones who cook for these helpless nuns too? I've heard of nuns doing and cooking for others, but not having servants for themselves. What a pity Sanborn has let this go on and created such a scandal by continuing to let it happen.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:20PM. Exactly! People there at MHT think they're getting the real deal but it's all counterfeit! I just don't understand that rich donor thinking he has his own personal priest & church!! Very, very strange indeed. Such a tragedy that other can get mixed up in this. This is Anon 7:44pm. People nowadays seem to be wanting in discernment.
DeleteI think any parent who takes a baby and/or toddlers to a two or three hour mass should have his head examined--unless it is a very special occasion like a relative is being ordained where both parents must attend the event (and probably one parent could expect to spend most time outside the service). To save everyone's sanity only one parent and older children should attend holy week services if one has babies and toddlers. It could be that because older children have to serve, the whole family or mother being the driver needs to bring the smaller children--in that case should be a priority to have a nursery/playroom, w/bathroom & kitchen access where mothers and children have access to what they need. If people here are saying that toddlers and babies remain silent for two-three hour MHT services, I would agree it's odd (very odd). Even at regular masses, parents spend much of the time minding their children under 4 yrs of age especially when first begin taking to mass. As the parents become more experienced and older children teach the younger (model the expected behavior) it does become easier, but never know when a baby will be fussy due to bad night etc. God bless you parents.
DeleteAnon 4:11PM again. The obesity statement had nothing to do with nursing babies. It was directed at people who brings snacks to church for toddlers as if they'd starve without them. Instead bring a book or some other quiet distraction.
ReplyDeleteIf you change a baby just before Mass I said. I hardly think he would need changing 30-45 minutes later. No, I live far from MHT & have nothing to do with any of that crowd.
The TV is usually always blaring in modern day homes with little ones sitting in front mesmerized by the constant action & bright colors.
I have no idea what your point is or why you're so upset. I'm just telling you what it used to be. Take it or leave it.
To further show how people are looking at bygone times thro today's eyes - I have a question: Did you or would you let your children watch "Little House on the Prairie", the series put out by Michael Landon?
I didn't let my children watch it because I had read the books and in turn read them to my children. I knew how authentic the stories were as I had lived thro some of her experiences. (not the horse & buggy parts tho. I'm not that old!) Michael Landon jazzed up the book to make the TV series. People did not talk or act in Laura Ingalls Wilder's time as portrayed on TV. I watched the first episode & was so disappointed & put-off by it that I didn't let my children watch it. It wasn't authentic, yet pretended to be. This is my whole point. It's a whole different world now!! But I don't think it's a better one, sadly.
Do not have any difficulty understanding the point. Good post(s). Thank you; you are correct.
DeleteReally my friend, you do not make sense in the least. First you compare obese people to "gluttonous" 1-3 year olds. In my country,this would be called a slippery slope fallacy(going to one extreme or another). Secondly,are you really sticking on the main point. If I am reading the post correctly, I think we are trying to find out if the Brooksville Cult is "normal". Do you really think that the Brooksville Cult is "normal" without comparing it to the weakness's of pre-vatican 2 days? Remember just because it was done, that doesn't make it right.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to try one more time & then I give up as I've already spent too much time on this. I do believe that most everyone on PL knows that Brooksville isn't normal. What I'm trying to get across is WHY it isn't normal. It isn't normal because most of the people going there are young, I assume, since they have young families. They don't know what it was REALLY like back then. Never did I see a woman nurse a baby in church back then. We'd take a little bottle of diluted apple juice in case the baby woke up & cried. Since I've had the good fortune or great blessing not to have gone to the NO, I never saw women nursing, but I have seen it on the internet when they'd show the NO & one woman even went up to the communion rail to receive nursing a baby!!!! This would never have happened back then. But the poor victims at Brooksville have been exposed to the modern world & have unintentionally picked up some of the modern habits.
DeleteNo, I do not compare an obese person to a gluttonous 1-3 year old, but EVERYTHING starts from a seed.
Do you think an obese person suddenly becomes obese overnite? No, it starts with parents & allowing what we call 'grazing' in which from an early age children graze all day & when it's finally time to eat a good dinner they're not hungry & allowed to pick. Also have you noticed toddlers running around with pacifiers in their mouths? Again, something never seen back then. Pacifiers are for infants. These people have been conditioned gradually over time & this is what we have now. Clueless people who will accept the likes of Sanborn & Co.
Writing as a public school teacher who recently quit, yes, many children are overweight. The food from home in the 'home lunch' is fast food snack packs - no care and attention to making sandwiches any more. School lunch beats it - certain standards are met because they must be met - that's how the entire public school system operates and the only problem is that in the case of academics, the standards are debilitating, agenda-driven for the children. Common Core in Hawaii destroyed mathematics for the elementary school children rendering them incapable of competing. All the teachers' children - very few exceptions I know of being NO Catholics - sent their children to private school.
DeleteMost people need a lot of birthdays to see perspectives that are invisible prior... and so history unfolds and people die off understanding more at the end than at the beginning if they are fortunate souls.
Today, in my opinion most older people are not fortunate; they die believing in the culture around them. It is far far too late for them to understand the deep truths about the purpose of life being to save one's soul... and they utterly lack information about such - and the same is true of young people, young old people, etc.
It is sad. Applaud original poster on this little by-way in the midst of a longer thread about the blogpost.
And is there something morally wrong with The Little House On The Praire? There are a ton of movie's that we will never really know if they are "historically correct".
ReplyDeleteAgain what I'm trying to get across, is that most young people who watched Little House on TV really thought that's the way people talked & acted then because they hadn't lived it or even read the books & nothing could be further from the truth. It was counterfeit just like Brooksville is but presented as the real deal. That is morally wrong. If Landon wanted to do something like that, he should have called it something else. He capitalized on Laura Ingalls Wilder. She must have turned over in her grave, as I was turning off the TV. Brooksville is counterfeit & that is morally wrong.
DeleteI perfectly understand, I just must have read your post wrong.
DeleteAnon 8:35, any shows including little house or Andy Griffith should be previewed per episode by a parent, but I personally wouldn't condemn someone for watching it. Nor would I place myself above others for not allowing my kids to watch certain things. Loving books is obviously to be commended, and reading to your children creates a great bond. I would be careful when thinking myself better than another for whatever choices I make or don't make.
ReplyDeleteI wil have to commend you though that for having great grandchildren, you seem to do quite well on the computer. Many elderly people struggle or have no desire to learn, let alone seek and write on a blog.
DeleteI don't think I'm above anyone (I've got many friends my age that think the same way I do. I'm just trying to make people see the truth. Andy Griffith is completely different. It was an imaginative comedy & never said it was taken from actual experiences that I know of. Quite a difference. Which goes to show that people here STILL don't get what I'm trying to say.
DeleteCekada is probably loving this! Finally a distraction to his school scandal!
ReplyDeleteSanborn has already indicated he is ready to retire--if only clone would come to FL/seminary & stop hanging out w/the nuns so wonder how old they are--weren't they ordained in the 70s? Dolan is also speaking of retirement. SGG not even savvy enough to put filters on their school computers. Can't see how this post would benefit SGG--especially w/one of their pupils ending up pregnant. Maybe that's why MHT put in all the controls.
DeleteAnon. May 2, 10:27 PM, it wasn’t the Lotarski “home computer” on which the porn was being watched, it was the SGG SCHOOL COMPUTER. Also, the discipline that you describe as the “norm” in “the old days” was NOT the norm. Our parents went to school in the 1920’s and 30’s, and none of the harsh punishments you describe went on there (and the same with us in the 50’s and 60’s). And as far as those Brooksville parents whom you claimed applied double standards, that’s HOGWASH. Actually, it’s the CLERGY, both at SGG and MHT, who apply a double standard. In short, there’s NO WAY on God’s earth that you can justify ANYTHING that goes on at either of these cesspools. The creeps who run both places are SOCIOPATHS.
ReplyDeleteAnon about the Little House, I'm understanding you. Sometimes language / tone/ intention over the Internet seems unclear. Thanks for clarifying. It's hoid insight to see the difference in expectations then and now. It would also be interesting to look at the comparison of priests and their power, positions, and accountability of then vs now. We ( not meaning you) tend to hold the parishioners to a high standard, yet we don't hold our clergy to a high standard such as some of the good priests of the past.
ReplyDeleteGood insight (not hoid)
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, the crazy rules in Brooksville started with crazy rules in Michigan by Sanborn. This was well before the time of the 2009 sgg scandal or girl getting pregnant.
ReplyDeleteWhen will Sanborn jr. be made a bishop? It has to be soon if Sanborn plans retirement. Normal people retire at what age? Bishop McKenna retired at what age? Yet, Sanborn is already talking about retirement.
We have every confidence that the consecration will take place in the near future, and, as we've suggested before, there will be at least two consecrating bishops at the ceremony (and we're not thinking of "One Hand" either).
DeleteOur conjecture, based on observation of certain events, is that the planning started in earnest around the time of Bp. McKenna's passing.
As we get more concrete information, we'll post it. When the ceremony does take place, it will be the showiest and most expensive that Tradistan has ever witnessed. Expect some retirements to follow in its wake (after a sufficiently "decent" interval, to be sure). Expect some other ruptures, too.
Who's the other bishop?
ReplyDeleteSince this is still speculation, we'd like to hold off on the announcement right now. Plus we don't want to spook the guy into withdrawing. (He's a nervous sort, with a yellow streak down his back, and afraid of his own shadow.) But don't worry, when we know for sure when the event will take place and who's all participating, we'll announce it here.
DeleteGot it...mere speculation
DeleteI'm pretty sure the speculation is not that it is happening, but WHEN it is happening. There has been talk about jr being made into bishop even before he left the seminary.
DeleteRemember the golden rule: those who have the gold make the rules.
DeleteWhich one of Sanborn's priests holds the gold, or the potential to get the gold? There is obviously just one.
But it's speculation concerning another bishop isn't it?
DeleteLet us call it informed conjecture. And we'll give you our grounds. How's that for forthrightness?
DeleteWhen Jr. gets his birthright miter, it's got to take place during a way-over-the-top, no expenses spared ceremony, the likes of which Tradistan has never witnessed before. The object will be to shock and awe TradNation and hence raise the stature of the new bishop in everyone's eyes. Plus it will be a warning to Dannie not to consecrate his own designated successor, who will look very bad n every respect in comparison to the new prelataster.
You see, first-class trappings won't be enough. The bosses down there have got to distinguish the extravaganza with something that's not been seen in the big traddie consecrations to date.
What's that you ask?
It's at least one co-consecrator, that's what it is. That'll make the shindig look even more like the good old days and give the kid an added aura of authenticity and gravitas.
Now the assisting bishop can't be "One Hand Dan." First, the bosses are furious about Dannie's 2009 $GG School Scandal, which has dragged the Brooksville cult practices into the public eye, and they're still smarting over all the construction problems/expenses they had down there. Second, the dark cloud of one-handed orders, which Big Don was a part of exposing in 1990, is something Jr. doesn't need hanging over his head at the beginning of his prelatical career as an élite episcopus vagans. Third, we get the feeling that the Clone may never have wanted to have much to do with "One Hand" anyway.
Remember he was ordained by R.F. McKenna. Oh, sure, it's true that originally he was supposed to become a "Dominican," so that would explain not scheduling Dannie, wouldn't it? However, within a very short time after the Clone's nicely printed ordination invitations were sent out (with the post-nominal initials O.P. already!), Jr. decided to become a secular "priest." Now what was all that about, huh? Was it all a ruse to bypass Dannie without hurting his feelings and risk losing the quarterly tribute? Who knows?
Although we can't get more specific beyond this stage — yet — there have been certain signs that another wandering bishop has been brought back quaking into the fold by the big shepherd's crook. And there's even been an occasion when principals have been together and, shall we say?, an obligation of sorts was incurred.
But as we said, right now this is speculation, and that's why we won't say any more until things mature a bit. Don't worry: it won't be long. We just don't want this 'fraidy cat to back out of any possible deal with his masters.
Thank heavens SOMEONE understands what I'm trying to express. I'm sorry, I am passionate about this subject & tend to write too quickly. I also have little patience for anyone who THINKS they know what's going on but hasn't a clue about the background. If you didn't live & experience what it was like growing up in a normal family in a normal church & school surrounded by normal people, and start spouting off about things - I have a problem with that. Back then it wasn't perfect, but now it's almost insanity. I'm glad I'm as old as I am for I dread to see what it's going to be like in the future. I never dreamed the church & society would fall so far & so fast in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, I entirely see what you mean, and I am sorry I misunderstood you.
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:00 - I'm so glad we had the chance to get it all hashed out!! Blessings!
DeleteHey Readers, is it true that you all think that wearing skin-tight pants without covering the back (therefore clearly showing off the entire legs and you know what) is perfectly fine for women and not the least bit sinful or immodest?
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the ones they wear in Brooksville when Sanborn isn't there watching them? Lol
DeleteWe don't know what's Anon 5 May 1:20 AM's problem. Dannie doesn't have problem with pants in church. Didn't you see the pix we posted of his last trip to Argentina? And haven't you seen the social media pages of the Brooksville élite's kids? They appear to favor short-shorts.
DeleteI don't have a problem nor am I a cult master supporter; I'm simply inquiring.
DeleteWhy do you always have this knee-jee reaction to assume someone is a cultist or supporter of the cult masters when something (you think) is negative about you is said?
We merely replied to the the question with what we thought was the appropriate response.
DeleteFirstly, Anon., Pistrina’s reaction was NOT “knee jerk.” Secondly, by your own admission, yours was “negative” (and preemptive as well). Pistrina NEVER made any statement about pants being “fine” to begin with, to elicit your unsolicited comment. Nor, may we add, did they assume – or claim -- that you were a “cultist.”) Your preemptive comment betrays your premeditated ill will, as well as your hypocrisy.
DeleteSo it's not true then? You think such a thing is immodest and sinful?
DeleteApparently "One-Hand Dan" doesn't think they're immodest or sinful, since he allowed himself to be photographed surrounded by pants-wearing women, so why should anyone else? Moreover, in the pix from Argentina, it looks like the gals had worn slacks and jeans to the confirmation + 1st communion ceremony. A picture is worth 1000 words, and we've got 8 with His Indulgency posing with females of all ages in pants.
DeleteNobody is challenging the standards for Catholic Modest Dress. To the contrary, what we are challenging are the Double $tandards imposed by the $acro$anct Clergy upon those who are not their elect. I think the pictures speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteI take back what I said. "The Readers" here most definitely approve of women wearing pants. I read the post about the photos of Dolan with women wearing pants, and anyone who can read can see that they say they are perfectly fine and not the least bit sinful.
DeleteDid those of you who deny this fact even read the post? How can you possibly say "The Readers" here or PL doesn't approve of pants when they most clearly do?
Whether or not we approve of pants on women is of no interest to Traddielandia. What matters is that Wee Dan has given them the A-OK when he appeared in all those photos down in Argentina.
DeleteIf Dannie Boy thinks they're "perfectly fine and not the least bit sinful," then who are we to gainsay the "old bishop (?)" of Tradistan? If Deacon Dan doesn't have a problem, then why should you?
C'mon. Chillax a little and get with Dan's program. Buy your woman a pair of plus size slacks or capris and set 'er free! Just show her the photos on the post, if she balks (but she won't, believe us). If you need more, email us and we'll send you six others like 'em. With Li'l Daniel's imprimatur (or should that be gerantur?), it's going to be PANT-demonium in Trad Nation from now on.
Hey, Gals, say, "Thank-you, Dirtbag."