SNAP Conference speaker Judy Braun: Catholic Church allows child abuse (as long as it's secret)
On the opening night of SNAP's recent annual conference, National Director David Clohessy attempted to convince his audience that SNAP "does not hate churches," suggesting that the group does not have any particular animus against the Catholic Church.
Clohessy's denial rings hollow, however, in light of an alarming presentation later delivered at the conference by Judy Braun, a writer raised in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn. (Braun has also written under the pseudonym, Eishes Chayil ("woman of valor"), and her name has more often appeared as "Judy Brown.")
Braun's talk was oddly titled, "Monotheism and Child Sacrifice." According to Braun:
"For centuries the Catholics and Jews have been sworn enemies. Only now after two millennia of distrust and contempt, the world's ancient religions have finally come together as leaders of these religions, both popes and rabbis, are united in rare agreement that child sexual abuse is allowed, as long as it is done in secret and its victims are buried deep under the fear of God."
Thus, according to Braun, child abuse is actually permitted in the Catholic Church and in Judaism – as long as it is kept secret.
[Click to see the actual page from SNAP's conference program guide describing Braun's talk.]
According to Braun, child abuse is really the practice of child sacrifice, and "Child sacrifice is still common in Western society today." Its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, apparently, stem from the Old Testament story of Abraham and Isaac.
Abuse is "allowed," says Braun, because of "smaller and larger truths" believed by both Catholic and Jewish clerics. (We're not sure we understand it, either.)
Yet as warped as Braun's presentation was, her talk was met with enthusiastic applause by the SNAP audience.
Braun's wild broadside against the Catholic Church, Judaism, and men – which was met with resounding approval from conference attendees – certainly make it hard for SNAP to argue that it has no vitriol against the Catholic Church and that its mission is merely to provide support for victims.
Right after I posted my comment that begins "I ask" I noticed a very recent comment by 'JR' about my using "types of mentality" as an ad-homimen attack. I have explained rather fully in several extended comments precisely what I mean by that phrase. And I believe it characterizes the type of presentation we consistently see in 'JR's material, as defined by the elements and characteristics I discussed. If 'JR' sees any elements of my definition of that 'mentality' that don't apply, I'd be interested to see those thoughts.
Responding to ‘JR’.
Let’s just let it hang out there that the only ideas you have noticed in my comments are that you are a “goldmine”- which I have indeed said; and that you are a “juvenile delinquent, a shot gun shooter, a liar” and “a type of mentality” that I “scorn” because – again – you are a “juvenile, a liar” and an “inaccurate-fact maker” (this last bit is also something I have written). Nor did I say you were a “type of mentality” but merely that you demonstrate the characteristics of a type of mentality – and if you can’t quite see the difference there, then there’s nothing I can do about that. The rest of the terms are your own and not mine. Nor have I ever intimated that you are a few ranks above Satan nor mentioned Satan in any connection with you.
The neat bit is that by creating a whole bunch of stuff which – perhaps even in yourown mind – I actually did not say, you neatly dodge any responsibility for answering the ideas that I actually did say. Neato. Whatever value your signing your name (or more correctly, your screen-name) contributes to enhancing the quality of your material is anybody’s guess; perhaps you can explain how that alchemy works, according to your illuminations and calculations.
In regard to how Loving Your Neighbor As Yourself is “meaningful … in the context of these posts”, I am happy to respond.
Love in the Christian sense requires at the very least a concern for others’ welfare and a respect for their being made in the Image of God. That requires a fundamental concern for fostering a common milieu of Truthfulness, in the culture and in the affairs of that culture, because human beings must live as social beings in a culture. The amount of un-Truthfulness in this Catholic clerical abuse Stampede is thus of grave concern to me, because it works strongly to undermine religion, the Church, and the general common atmosphere of Truth.
Reason was given to us by God as part of His Image to help get a grasp on Truth.
The greatest charitable service I can do – and it is what I would expect to from others toward me as I attempt to give it to others – is to hew as closely as possible to the Truth in my assessments and then share them.
If by any chance you think that Charity means going along with un-Truth in order to be ‘sensitive’ or ‘accepting’ or any such, then I say that as far as I am concerned that is not Truth or Charity but merely enabling people to travel further down a dark path.
I have applied the best and most Truthful analysis I can to all the material you have presented, since the material you present makes such extraordinary claims and is also read by numerous readers and must be analyzed carefully, in as public a forum as you chose to make those assertions. If my analysis seems not to correspond with your own assessment of the material you have written, then you can make of that whatever you will.
Jesus said we are to "love our nieghbor as our selves" Your limitations were added by religious miliners sewing together a Frankenstien like monster in the middle ages under the Medici Popes to obfuscate the simple statement that the one you claim as God made. [Expletive deleted by moderator]
There were four Popes (out of two-hundred-sixty-plus) from the Medici clan and they reigned in the Rennaissance and not the "middle ages".
At least I was close. [Abbreviation for expletive deleted by moderator.]
I believe I should have said Borgia Popes.
Were there 260 Popes during the Renaissance? Again history rewritten?
LOL
Precisely the problem with so much of your material: you either haven’t got accurate facts or you don’t care whether you have accurate facts or not. How is any rational person to credit any of your assertions?
Were you inferring that the Medici Popes were somehow standard examples of all or most of the Popes throughout the Church’s history? Do you know the difference between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance? And not simply to chronologically place them but in terms of their significance and the primary dynamics of those eras?
In a larger sense, I imagine that just such a mentality governs the dynamics among many of the types of mindset about which I have voiced my concerns: they share either the same ignorance of the history upon which they themselves claim to draw their ‘evidence’ and their ‘proof’ or else they don’t really care whether they are making accurate and informed statements at all. Imagine a roomful of such mentalities, setting each other off like tuning forks.
Especially if they have been assured by experts such as Braun – and Fr. Doyle who is a priest of the Church but doesn’t seem to hold either priesthood or Church in much esteem – that they are so right and very clever.
No wonder there is such gnashing of teeth when their ‘historical evidence’ is questioned or demonstrated to be inaccurate.
And my thanks to TMR for sparing everybody your expletives.
"I believe I should have said Borgia Popes."
A marvelous bit of mimicry by 'JR'. Along the lines of: See? I'm serious and careful because I only say 'I believe' and don't make wild assertions that I can't back up and then try to change the subject.
Except that there was only the one Borgia who became a Pope: Alexander VI.
I believe it takes more than mimicry to be a serious and careful commenter.
But there's more. Having been forced to recognize his error, did 'JR' at least do even a little searching in a history book? Apparently not – since his second offering is even more inaccurate than the first.
This type of mentality doesn't even try to improve itself. It just tries a different version of the same one-note game it always plays.
So what, I was wrong. So the **** what.
Precisely what I have been saying about your material all along.
Which leads me to add another observation: I would say that what constitutes this entire approach exemplified in "JR's material is an Attitude. So accurate Content doesn't really matter – it's just all about Attitude. Come up with snappy bits and throw them up on the screen and that should be 'good enough' to do the Job.
But this approach is hardly useful for such profoundly serious matters as the Catholic abuse 'crisis' (or any other matter of major public import).
And yet such disregard for Content and the substitution of Attitude (a queasy combination of adolescent in-your-face and smarmy emotionalism) are pretty much the SNAP and SNAP-py stock in trade. 'Facts don't matter' – as is often said nowadays.
I can't see how we can sustain a serious deliberation, let alone a mature and workable national Culture, with this sort of approach.
What hatred! All because I don't care about what you consider important. Which includes your imaginary deity, who tells you to love your fellow man as you love yourself. And since It's seems you have convieniently forgotten that comand. My guess is you have substituted Narcissism for self love. Two very different things.
I must say your unrestrained nastiness has creeped me out. Not because you caught me in a ," How many Pope's can dance on the heads of mankind?",kind of error. ( I care about Popes, their number; and their last names even less than I care about you and your imaginary friend. )
You'll now say "It's obvious you don't care about this history it shows in what you post"; and or "This statement proves your wooley thinking"
You think I'm obvious? You have all the charm of road-kill.
But since, unlike Moses, I have decided to ignore the shrubbery. This post will be the end of my responses to you.
You've earned your money.
If you don't care, that's your business; but you're the one who brings in history to buttress your assertions – so learn some accurate history or be prepared to be called on your inaccuracies. If you don't care but you want to fill the screen with stuff you admit you don't care about, then that's the business of everybody who has to look at it and try to make sense of it. Or were you under the impression that this site is just a sandox or a litterbox for whatever seems to be flickering in your mind at any given moment?
And if what I have been discussing isn't "important" then kindly specify precisely what it is on this site and in its comments that you do consider important. Aside, no doubt, from your own stuff.
And who can take you seriously trying to lecture somebody about the commands of a deity Whom you consider "imaginary" in the first place?
Do you even read these comments of yours before you hit the 'Post Comment' button?
"Hatred"? "Unrestrained nastiness"? Because I can't make sense of most of what you toss out and I say so clearly and explain why I've said it by using the very material you have provided? And are your expletives a) not-expressions of vitriolic nastiness or b) symptomatic of something that borders on the clinical or c) just your natural way of conversing? You do recall, I presume, mentioning me and death in the same sentence in one of your comments – and how do you explain that away? Epthets such as "roadkill"? The insinuation that I'm being paid for my analysis?
You have implied that you were going to stop before and your promises have proven as reliable as your assertions. But be assured: since I don't consider directly addressing you in comments to be in any way enoyable, whether you do or do not perform as promised is not an issue. But I will continue to call the shots as I see them on any material that comes across the screen. That's the value of this site, as far as I can see, and that's how it's going to be for as long as the site permits it. My goal: no more politely free rides to baloney and whackery masquerading as serious commentary on so vital an issue.