Coal in their stockings: Church-suing Jeff Anderson, Philly Judge Teresa Sarmina,
New York Times' Laurie Goodstein, SNAP's David Clohessy, former NH Judge Arthur Brennan
We close out our great year at TheMediaReport.com with our Top Five posts of 2012! Again, thank you so much to everyone!
#5 Minn. Supreme Court Rejects 'Repressed Memory' Junk Science Against Priest, Media Yawns
For years now, Church-suing lawyers have attempted to use the novel psychological theory of "repressed memory" as a way to circumvent the statutes of limitations in many states in order to file big-money lawsuits against the Catholic Church.
However, in July, the Minnesota Supreme Court flatly rejected the theory as bogus. The Court declared that scientific studies that have tried to prove the bogus theory have "lacked foundational reliability." Yet – not unexpectedly – the media was nowhere to be found reporting this important story.
Regular readers of this site have long known that "repressed memory" is a complete sham. Yet once again, when the facts do not fit the accepted media narrative, the facts are ignored. Kudos to the Minnesota Supreme Court, however, for telling the story that the media will not.
#4 NY Times Loses It: Two Front-Page Stories and an Editorial Over a Suspended Misdemeanor Sentence
One cannot help but wonder when a misdemeanor conviction (with a suspended sentence) has ever warranted two front-pages stories, an editorial, and a breathless op-ed in the New York Times.
While the suspended sentence in the trial of Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn was in some sense historic, any sense of perspective was lost in the Times' coverage. The diocese delayed in reporting that a priest had lewd photographs of children on his computer after two computer technicians, a diocesan lawyer, a monsignor, a vice-chancellor, a psychiatric doctor, and a deacon all allegedly saw the images, but none of them officially alerted law enforcement.
Yet it was Bishop Finn who took the fall and became a victim of a publicity-hungry prosecutor, even though he never even saw the images.
Meanwhile, while the Times hyperventilated over Bishop Finn's suspended misdemeanor sentence, the paper has continued to turn a blind eye to massive sex abuse and cover-ups occurring today right in its own backyard. As we have relayed several times before, it has been reported that just in the first three months of 2012 alone in New York City public schools, there were "248 complaints of sexual misconduct involving school employees."
Where's the outrage from the Grey Lady over this?
Ten years … Three grand jury reports … One trial … 11 weeks of testimony … More than 60 witnesses … A trial judge who favored the prosecution so much that she was actually described as "often mistaken for a member of the prosecution team." … 13 days of jury deliberations.
Yet after the expensive, months-long Philadelphia criminal trial of seven criminal charges against two Catholic priests, the jury returned a guilty verdict on just a single count against one of the priest defendants.
The media predictably went apoplectic over the lone, class 3 felony conviction, yet it buried the real story about the verdicts: the jury flat-out rejected Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams' wacky claims of an abuse "conspiracy" by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia – a conspiracy which the media widely trumpeted for well over a year.
TheMediaReport.com was the first to obtain a copy of the high-profile but carefully guarded deposition given in January by David Clohessy, the national director of the anti-Catholic group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), in the case of an accused priest in Missouri.
For years, Clohessy has been incessantly railing against Catholic Church officials for alleged "lack of transparency," "hardball tactics," and "avoiding tough questions." Meanwhile, it was those very traits that characterized Clohessy's deposition appearance.
The deposition exposed Clohessy as steadfastly refusing to answer many of the important questions asked of him and contumaciously refusing to hand over relevant documents that had been ordered by a judge. Clohessy persisted in his hardball defiance despite losing a number of previous appeals.
David Clohessy's deposition once again exposed SNAP's inherent hypocrisy and dishonesty.
#1 *EXCLUSIVE REPORT* Alarming New Evidence May Exonerate Imprisoned Priest
Rev. Gordon J. MacRae, sentenced to 33½ to 67 years, has been in the New Hampshire State Prison For Men since 1994 on abuse charges. Yet TheMediaReport.com compiled an exclusive report in February showing that newly released signed statements in a court motion reveal that Fr. MacRae's primary accuser, a man named Thomas Grover, totally made up the abuse accusations in order to extract money from the Church.
These signed statements include stunning declarations from individuals who have been very close to Grover. One such declaration is from the accuser's stepson, who wrote, "On several occasions, Grover told me that he had never been molested by MacRae."
Then there are the words of Grover's former wife, who said that Grover is a "compulsive liar" and a "manipulator" who "can tell a lie and stick to it 'til its end." Most notably, the former wife also said that Grover "never stated one word of abuse by [MacRae]."
The statements also include one from a former friend of Grover who was slated to accuse Fr. MacRae of abuse but recanted. "[I knew] full well that it was [all] bogus … I did not want to lie or make up stories," the man wrote.
The National Center for Reason and Justice is sponsoring Fr. MacRae's case, and TheMediaReport.com continues to keep an eye on this important and compelling situation of a man serving very hard time for a crime for which convincing testimony pronounces his innocence. Stay tuned for any future developments.
(Pictured far right in the photo collage at the top of this post is Arthur Brennan, the New Hampshire judge who oversaw Fr. MacRae's trial and sentenced the priest in 1994. Brennan is now retired and has since become a leading member of the radical "Occupy" movement. The picture of Brennan was taken when he was arrested during a protest at the Hart Senate Building in Washington, D.C., in October 2011.)
On we go to 2013!
Well it looks like ,according to you, the corporate Church is winning victory after victory against it's own corrupt layity who are out to get the Church's gold.
I picture it like the Beagle Boys going after Scrooge McDuck's piles; but always losing against the "virtuous" collector of greenbacks. Jesus weeps.
Happy New Year!
I am really at a loss sometimes to understand the tone of such comments as Mr. Robertson's. The fact is $2.6 billion has been expended in mediated settlements of claims against American Catholic priests that are typically anywhere from three to five decades old. There can be no proof, and none is ever offered. There can be no evidence, and none is ever sought. As one New Hampshire lawyer put it, as reported in Dave Pierre's first book, "I've never seen anything like it!" That same lawyer has since brought five additional waves of mediated settlements with clients that he amasses year after year to the ruination of priests accused, many of them deceased – all of them left abandoned and defenseless. I am at a loss to understand how you can trivialize this as "the corporate Church winning victory after victory against its corrupt laity." The real victims in stories like this have been Father Gordon MacRae whom I have been writing about for years. He has been sitting in an NH prison for 18 years for crimes that no thinking person believes ever took place. There is indeed corruption, and it is palpable. It is easy from the perspective of unthreatened freedom to wax eloquently about the true nature of this scandal. As I have written many times, greed ranks right up there with lust among the Seven Deadly Sins. I do not mean to minimize the existence of real victims of sexual abuse by clergy, but I have always maintained that it is they, the real victims, who should be most alarmed and offended by the proliferation of fraud in these cases. I applaud David Pierre for his undaunted efforts to cover this aspect of the story.
Mr. MacDonald, since your hierarchy with out your imput has paid out 2.6 billion dollars according to you. They know full well that the majorty, 97%, of the claims are accurate. And that's the truth of it.
Did you in the pews know about the Paracletes' "recovery" centers for abusing priests?
Did you in the pews know that these abusing priest were being put back into the parishes with no warnings for the parishoners, that they might protect their children? Your children.
When will you admit that your hierarchy has betrayed your trust?
Where were the recovery centers for the victims?
Where are recovery centers for victims?
Mr Mac Donald if you divide 2.6 billion dollars by 100,000 victims. you get 23,000 dollars per victim. And I know that the vast majority of victims have never been compensated. Nor are they intended to be compensated by your hierarchy. Thanks in large part to Church created front lawyers and groups (SNAP) on the imaginary "opposite side".
If there is such a huge "conspiracy" (by Satan or Santa Claus or the Boogy man, which ever fairy tale enemy you can imagine) against your Church. Why is The Great Oz allowing it to happen? According to you the gates of Hell are prevailing against Christ's Rock. Not possible according to your own Founder. Just calm down and do the right thing: Get rid of your hierarchy and allow women their full humanity by becoming priests; and compensate the victims of your hierarchy's crimes. Just a victim's opinion.
All just peoples thank you, David, for writing about the wickedness of SNAP and its followers, including its insatiable lawyers! Keep up the excellent coverage on this greed and hypocrisy.
I wish you a blessed and peaceful New Year!
I have just posted a link to this over at the blog, These Stone Walls. This is very important news. I have followed the case of Fr. Gordon MacRae closely over this year, and the fact that it is your top story tells me that Catholics are far more ready to hear the story of falsely accused priests than their own bishops are. This is something our bishops need to get into step with. The list of victims has expanded greatly to include many priests falsely accused and unjustily vilified like Fr. Gordon MacRae.
First, I add my congratulations to DP/TMR for all the valuable – and almost unique, among the media – work in 2012.
Second, I share this article (link at the end of this comment) in which two well-known literary critics – Laura Miller and Daniel Mendelsohn – are discussing 2012 in terms of literature and criticism.
One of the notable bits – they observe – is that there hasn’t been the usual “phony memoir” as there have been in so many prior years. The “phony memoir” is the newish genre in which persons claim experiences that they never actually had (recalling, perhaps, my comments earlier this year on the Rigoberta Menchu book of 30 years ago). And then when it is discovered that the authors never actually had the experiences they write about in their ‘memoir’ (several examples given in the article) they cawn’t think why there is a problem.
And they are supported by some readers who say that even if the ‘memoir’ wasn’t really truthful, yet they found the story inspiring.
All of which leads the two lit-critics to discuss “the reality problem” in literature today: what does it mean to write a phony memoir? Are there downsides? Do the authors and/or readers realize that there are downsides? Do they care? And if not, why not?
In regard to the phony-memoirs they are talking about in the interview, Mendelsohn says that if you want to write about experiences you never had as if you had actually had them, then Fine … but that then makes your work a novel and not a memoir.
I share this because although it is a discussion among two literature critics about matters having completely to do with literature, there is a dot to be connected with matters specific to the TMR site. And it becomes clear that in the past few decades the entire dynamic of the phony-memoir clearly seems to have become widely spread in American culture.
The two critics then discuss another point of interest to them in reviewing the literary scene in 2012: the demonstrated and proven examples of authors with very specific interests and objectives adopting numerous screen-identities to trash rival authors’ books or to get supporters (I will call them a ‘posse commentatus’) to hit the keyboards and do it for them. (Examples given and discussed in the article.)
I can recommend a look at the article and then let your mind go on from there.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/talking_with_daniel_mendelsohn_about_the_year_in_literary_criticism/?source=newsletter
I see the circus continues.
Pub pretending there is a culture of mendacity proves exactly what? There's been mendacious cultures since there was culture. In my opinion religion, all religion is a lie. Built to control people for the benefit of a few over the multitudes. But so what? Who cares? So we have liars. We also have defensive attempts by persons to protect themselves and their own actions by casting blame and or attention elsewhere. Isn't that what you do? Isn't that what the Church is doing? Why you do it? Especially since you've no real need too. I have not a clue.
I can only agree with the comment about “the circus” continuing, although I am reasonably certain many will differ as to what actually constitutes “the circus”. And who the clowns.
In regard to the series of questions (legitimately) put forward as an opinion, I would make the following follow-on comments:
I am not sure where the 2.6 billion dollar figure comes from but I am even less sure where the 100,000 victims number comes from. As best I can make out, it would be derived by taking the 10,000 or so formally made allegations (tallied up by the John Jay Report) and multiplying by 10 (because, as ‘everybody knows’, for every one claim there are 9 unreported claims). But if one sticks to the actually-filed allegations, then it works out to 260,000 dollars per claimant (minus tort-attorneys fees and expenses).
What would some folks say if the Church had not established a clinical center where priests could be sent? And since the vast majority of allegations do not involve clinical pedophilia, then there is a much larger spectrum along which professional therapeutic praxis can range in regard to how to treat them and when to return them to ministry. And the John Jay material noted even a decade ago that the majority of priests had only a single allegation against them, and there was only a smallish core of individuals who – as best Jay could determine – were responsible for a significant amount of multiple allegations (and, again, that so few formal allegations comprised ‘rape’).
I have a rather clear impression that JR put himself on record in comments on this site as saying that nothing can be done by the Church for victims. And so it is a surprise (conceptually, not so much rhetorically) to see this query as to where the victim-therapy recovery centers are. I for one am on record on this site for some form of therapy tailored to genuinely-established victims (although I also note again the substantial professional challenges of diagnostically isolating damage caused by the abuse as opposed to life-issues and challenges originating from some other source, in order to formulate an accurately-based therapeutic plan).
In regard to the “conspiracy” bits: I would suggest as an alternative the use of the term “synergy” and reiterate my position (explained at length in comments on this site) that there are numerous ‘special interests’ inside as well as outside the Church whose objectives are served by this sustained (almost 30 years now) focus on the Church to the general exclusion of all other sites of possible or probable abuse.
Indeed, as if on cue, JR exemplifies this very synergy by tossing in the suggestion that if only women were “allowed their full humanity by becoming priests” and if victims were compensated (this, apparently, presumes that the 2.6 billion only went to the 10 percent who formally claimed abuse, so there is still that phantasmagoric 90 percent still waiting for a check – but, of course, by its own logic this theory means that there will always and eternally be a remaining invisible 90 percent, like an ever-receding horizon, because every new allegation automatically will include 9 other allegations that are ‘un-reported’ … thus The Ball can Keep Rolling).
And apparently new conceptual and theoretical theological and philosophical and psychological ground is being broken here: a human being not-ordained as a Catholic priest is not “allowed” to realize the fullness of being-human. That covers 99.9 (plus some extra decimal places) percent of the species past and present. Catholic priesthood is indeed an awesomely marvelous thing (forgetting that has been a significant contributor to the whole Matter of abuse in the first place, I would say) but I would not go so far as to assert or imply that without such ordination a human being has no hope of achieving the fullness (such as it is ever achievable) of humanity and of being-human.
As to the theologico-historical query as to why God (to Whom, I presume, he is referring with the term “The Great Oz”) has allowed all this Abuse Crisis to happen: is the implied presumption here that whatever happens in human history must be something God approves of (and that therefore it is morally acceptable?). This is precisely the question of the relationship between Sin and History and Divine Providence that Catholic thought has been working on for the better part of the past 2000 years (starting most vividly with Augustine). Would we credit a Nazi claim that ‘since we have managed to get our Thing going, then God must clearly approve of it’? (Although if that is the idea, then perhaps we need only wait a while longer to see how History turns out, as the Thousand-Year Reich found out and a lot sooner than it ever expected).
My own opinion – and I have adverted to it before in comments – is that God writes straight with crooked lines (as the old saying goes): the Church failed in a way, and by working to reform herself, has emerged from the crucible of this particular historical experience stronger than before. Ecclesia semper reformanda, as the maxim has it – the Church is always in need of reform. (Just what constitutes genuine ‘reform’ and what is merely ‘change’ is the real nub of the challenging task here, as it always has been.) Boethius wound up in prison, but through that catalyzing experience he produced On The Consolations of Philosophy – whether some think that is or is not an achievement worth the awesome cost in his own suffering, and just how it fits into God’s Providence … these are questions to ponder and pray about.
All that being said, I would say for myself that the bishops – prior to the Dallas reforms – certainly didn’t perform as well as I would have liked. I would also say that the bishops at times not only let their parishioners down but also those priests who were thrown into the path of the Stampede (Fr. MacRae in New Hampshire being a rather thought-provoking example here). But as a Catholic I have never myself had any expectations that the Church as a human organization (though with a divinely-commissioned Purpose in human history) was going to be perfect. My personal approach is that in my life I have let God down as often as not, so I personally don’t consider myself in a position to take too perfectionist a position in regard to my expectations of other human beings and of the Church or any other human organization.
Which is not to say that ‘everything that happens in a human life or in human history is morally good’. Rather, it is merely to say that one should always look for what is reformanda (i.e. that which should be reformed or repaired) and work to get it reformed and repaired – in one’s own life and in human history – as best one can. And I see that happening in this Abuse Matter and I can see the successful results of the reform (compare, for example, the numbers in the first and second Jay Reports).
On a final but not un-related note: for those planning their New Year’s reading, I could recommend John T. McGreevy’s 2003 book Catholicism and American Freedom: A History. He gives a remarkable picture of the complex and dynamic challenge of Catholics and their clergy in America since the mid-1850s, when immigration brought the first large numbers of Catholics – laity, clergy, and hierarchy – into mostly Protestant America. Once again, as with Diarmaid MacCulloch’s 2009 book Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (and I have pointed out in prior comments MacC’s particular limitations), this is a book that offers readers a much more textured understanding of the stunning complexities and challenges, in a text well-grounded in documentation and conceptual commentary.
In regard to the Abuse Matter: he deals with it at the end, in Chapter 10. But the book was published in 2003 (and most of his research and writing was probably done by 2002) so his treatment of it reflects and suffers-from the limitations of that time-frame. He seems to conflate “cases” and validated accusations, and we have learned much since then that wasn’t available to him when he wrote his concluding pages in that book.
But his book is well worth the read for anybody who seeks a better understanding of this vital subject. And, as well, the book offers a chance not only for a historical study but also a prayerful or contemplative experience as the reader enters into the issues and historical events he so skillfully portrays and discusses.
And so into 2013.
Publion,
Happy New Year to all. The readers of this site would probably find value in reading
http://www.justiceformatt.com, also a documentary on ABC 20/20 can be searched.
Why do I go after “mendacity”? Happy to oblige with an answer: I do it in large matters like this because mendacity, especially when organized and especially when it gains a large publicity, has consequences and those consequences can be lethal along many axes of importance: moral, legal, ethical, Constitutional, social and cultural, as well as conceptual (there is something repellent to me in many people being immersed in substantial inaccuracies).
I didn’t say I was out to “prove” anything – just connecting dots for readers to consider.
I precisely do not hold that “all religion is a lie” and that seems the nub of the difference here. But when dealing with matters about the Beyond or the Unseen, human beings can come up with many different conceptions; human reason alone is itself capable of coming up with a stunning diversity of conceptions about the Beyond (and, as is often seen, about many serious this-worldly matters as well). The official Catholic response to that (since the 13th century and Aquinas, certainly) has been a careful and well-considered reliance on human reason guided by the Holy Spirit; before Aquinas there was a tendency in the Church – as there is in so much of the human approach to the Beyond – to claim that a more directly mystical and emotional personal experience of the Beyond is an equally valid path (or perhaps the only true path) to connecting-with and conceptualizing-about the Beyond. This was part of the reason that even in the decades immediately after Aquinas, there was much dissatisfaction among some in the Church with his approach: they felt that he placed too much reliance on the human ability to exercise Reason, since Reason along with the rest of the human capabilities, was tainted in the Fall of the Adam and could not be relied upon.
But the Church formally adopted Aquinas’s approach, and wisely I would say. Because if all human capacities were somehow skewed by Original Sinfulness, then the emotions were too – and emotions themselves are very volatile and mutable things themselves. And Reason is what gives the human being that capability that sets our species apart in some fundamental respects from the rest of the critters on the planet. And this was all demonstrated rather quickly after the Reformation when some of the major Reformers quickly found their own ideas being emotionally used as fuel for armed political revolution (Luther and the Anabaptists).
The Vatican assumed the responsibility for being the clearing-house of finally-accepted reasoning about the Beyond because otherwise everyone could claim that their own illuminations were accurate and governing ‘reason’ and the Church as a coherent belief-group would fragment if not completely dissolve (as happened to just about all of the Protestant Reformers’ efforts, and rather quickly after Luther’s initial break).
Nowadays, and especially after Vatican 2, there has been i) a return to a claim for more emotion and less reasoning and ii) a resurgence of argument about how much of a role the Vatican should play in determining the Rome’s role in defining and assessing the reasoning that shapes the Church’s thought. That is an ongoing dynamic.
But we started out here addressing ‘mendacity’ and I am very alert to mendacity, since it can manifest anywhere in human affairs, and even more so if the cultural atmosphere of an era is somehow hospitable to it. And in an era of ‘mass society’ and the internet, the ability to propagate mendacity is hugely amplified. And then, if mendacity is somehow built-into an approach then things get even more dangerous.
So I always like to Kick-Tire when I come across a situation where there is the possibility of mendacity, especially if that mendacity is likely to have wide and deep consequences. And if there seems a possibility of organizationally-embraced mendacity.
Thus in this Abuse Matter, especially as it has evolved in the past few decades, I seems to me that whatever the prior failings of the Church organizationally, the possibilities of Abuse have now been effectively addressed. And I have made it clear in numerous comments that I am not pleased (but given the frailties of humans generally, not surprised) with the demonstrated failings of responsibility in prior eras. And again, I distinguish between outright and deliberate mendacity on the one hand, and a general difference in how things were assessed and done in eras of history prior to our own.
On the other side of the scales, however, I see in such approaches as SNAP a deliberately-embraced organizational mendacity (e.g. Mr. Clohessy’s ‘double-standard’ of truth) that feeds into a conceptually-questionable panoply of assumptions and assertions I gather under the general term ‘victimism’ (as it has mutated in this country) and which seems to consider that entire panoply of its assumptions and assertions as beyond-questioning. And I have directed my efforts to conceptually questioning and examining many of those assumptions and assertions – and the results are part of the record on this site.
So while I agree that the propensity for lying is present in all our species, I am more concerned with organizationally-embraced mendacity as a reality or as a possibility or as a probability. And I am concerned for the consequences of insufficiently-rational or forthrightly anti-rational approaches to any particular problem, wherein persons don’t deliberately or consciously lie, but still manage to mire themselves and perhaps others in inaccurate or non-true conceptualizations.
And so while I accept that lying exists, and that un-truthfulness and inaccurate reasoning exists (especially if deliberately embraced of if widely amplified), I don’t simply let that be as it may. I address it.
And to conclude, that’s why I see myself as very much having “a reason to” do so. Life is tough enough as it is in this world, without complicating matters with a heavy larding of outright deceit or widespread inaccuracy or both.
Re: “And I know that the vast majority of victims have never been compensated.”
Reply: It is general knowledge and part of the system that victims of crime are never compensated by anybody, not even the State. Why should the Church be different? Why should the sex victims be different? Does monetary compensation ever rehabilitate the victim? Perhaps it serves to pamper his sense of revenge, even if against a third party who has no way of knowing the truth or falsity of his claim? The church hierarchy has been accused of being tardy in bringing these claims to light yet the victim takes thirty to forty years. Ridiculous!
Re: “Get rid of your hierarchy and allow women their full humanity by becoming priests; and compensate the victims of your hierarchy’s crimes. ”
Reply: If we get rid of the hierarchy, we won’t need priests – male or female – especially if there is no God or Satan as you have been deceived into thinking, Jim Robertson. Did you know that the first murder was the result of spiritual jealousy, when Cain slit his brother’s throat? The Lord has commanded “Do not covet your neighbour’s goods”. Coveting the role of priests is spiritual jealousy and very displeasing to the Lord who calls His servants as He pleases. Further, who has the right to say to the Potter “why did you make me like this?” As the Lord said in a relatively recent conversation (Monday. 17th January, 1994) with Debra of Australia, “So many of you are dissatisfied with your state in life. This is foolish.”
Women don’t need to be priests to exercise their full humanity any more than the majority of men need to be priests to exercise their own masculine humanity.
Point to ponder: The rabbit wanted to be a lion – he wanted it so badly, so badly – and eventually his wish was partly achieved when the lion had him for dinner. Alas! Foolish rabbit became a rare bit.
If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's children, how did mankind come into existance? I believe Cain wandered into the Land of Nod where he married one of their women? What inconsistancy in the fairy tale/ I'm appalled.
Mental illness tends to have people talking to things that arn't there. But if you think the Almighty is letting Debra of Australia (Is that her title?) know that He really doesn't want women priests yet gave the big Hollywood skip to the innocent children slaughtered at Aushwitz. Well maybe there is a hell after all. Right here and right now." Dissatisfied with your state in life" He shouldn't have said:" how foolish", He should have said: What can I do to help.
As allways just moi opinion.
Jim is back, swingin' and missin'. Have a good day Jim. God bless.
Re: "If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's children, how did mankind come into existence?"
Reply: A good question indeed. Have you never heard of Seth?
Adam
2
Cain
Abel
Seth
3
Enoch
4
Kinan
5
Mahalalal
6
Jared
7
Maethusalah
8
Lamech
9
Noah
10
Shem
etc,
Refer 1 Chronicles 1:1-4 and so on.
Re: "He should have said: What can I do to help."
Reply: Maybe He could have said, "You're making such a mess of this; let Me take over" ?
But the trial of life belongs to the individual who has to make choices, to overcome the obstacles and learn endurance – where then would be the crown of achievement? The Lord, of course, is always happy to respond to our prayers to Him, but He will not take away our Free Will which He gave us – to love Him or to follow His enemy, satan. We have free choice of our actions, but the consequences are not ours to choose I am sure you would have noticed this, by now.
Perhaps you are the one who is Nodding still?
Re: 'Well maybe there is a hell after all. Right here and right now.'
Reply: 'Where satan rules – that IS HELL' ! You are right – in a sense.
Re: 'Mental illness tends to have people talking to things that arn't there'.
Reply: When a person stubbornly refuses to use his senses – spiritual and physical – to come to a knowledge of the truth, that is a trait inducing fatal mental toxicity – leading to death of body and soul, not just mental illness. The body passes away in any case, but the death of the soul is an eternal tragedy, an everlasting suffering in the merciless and hateful power and spite of satan. You are free to choose.
When in doubt send in the Satanists. all who believe that Satan exists. It only proves that the human imagination can produce Angels, Devils; Dieties and Darkness. It can also imagine love and kindness; humanity and decency. As the old union song goes: Which side are you on?Again dear sad Satanists, Goethe said: "Anyone who believes in Satan is already firmly in his grasp".
P.S. Gail dear, Your list of names is all male. Forget the women or did the old testament miss biology? It wasn't Adam and Steve.
Hey Julie, Happy New Year.
Re: 'All-male' list.
Reply: Yes, the genealogy is generally recorded that way. Women, like the vast majority off men, other than those through which the genealogy to Christ is recorded, are only mentioned if there was something particularly noteworthy about them; it is still like that today. Most people understand that a woman, wife or concubine was involved, not a sterile 'Adam and Steve' scenario. Even today, wives are known as Mrs (husband's name). That is just the way it is; don't rail at me for that. All the women's associates and relatives knew them in their day, and God still knows them too, just like the millions of nameless men who passed this earthly way over the ages. Nevertheless the heritage was passsed down through the sons, usually the first-born son except in the notable case of Jacob and Essau, the latter of whom threw away his heritage for a bunch of mandrakes – whatever those were – much to the Lord's horror at his ingratitude.
Re: 'When in doubt send in the Satanists. all who believe that Satan exists. It only proves that the human imagination can produce Angels, Devils; Dieties and Darkness. It can also imagine love and kindness; humanity and decency. As the old union song goes: Which side are you on? Again dear sad Satanists, Goethe said: "Anyone who believes in Satan is already firmly in his grasp".
Reply: If all satanists believe there is a satan, what happened to your sight, if even the evil and hell-bent can see? 'Anyone who believes in (as in 'is a follower of'') is already in his grasp.' True. The poor dupe who refuses satan's reality, is suffering under satan's deception; what is the next step after refusing to recognize the spirit world and therefore failing to follow the Lord's way of goodness and love? Failure! Failure to grasp the present opportunity in this life to gain eternal life with God who is the source of all life, as opposed to eternal spiritual death alienated from all goodness and love. Why is it so much more attractive to grasp evil rather than life and love? Is one afraid of love – has one been mortally wounded in one's relationships? The solution is to approach our Father in heaven who is just waiting to be gracious to us – He wants us to ask, since He will not force Himself on us. What could be better than a loving relationship with our Creator and Father in Heaven, to be forever loved, never more forsaken, always provided for, never again hurt. The next step us up to you. Be brave!
There are two types of delusion: that of not perceiving reality, and that of seeing what does not exist. Are you saying that love and human decency only exist in one's imagination? You really are asleep! A little effort is needed to explore truth; a sufficiently discerning and ordinary intelligence is given to most. Pride and stubbornness dim these powers. It is useful to examine the root of one's prejudice – was it a hurt, a disappointment, a love lost in the past? A feeling of rejection that results in an angry and stubborn resentment against love? Dig a bit deeper into your soul and pray for help to the One who loves you most – the Lord, your Father and Creator – the One who wants you to return His love. God bless you in your life's journey.
Another thing: believing that satan exists does not make one a satanist any more that believing the God exists makes one a follower of God.
Please, don't limit my argument to your belief system. Your definition of life or the Universe is not mine. I know as with all believers you are determined to define the paramiters of my life ( and by tradition, everyone elses life) by your faith. Not fair.
Neither of us is capable of defining the universe – for my part, I try to live with what is; denial is stupid.
The settlement figure of $2.6 billion in mediated settlements is public information published by The U.S. Bishops Conference. According to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice study, there were 11,500 victims of Catholic priests over a 55 year period from the late 1950s until the study took place in 2004. Statistically, this placed the victimization of children and adolescents by Catholic priests in a very small category when compared with similiar claims against other clergy, Scout leaders, and educators. The 100,000 victim figure has two sources, neither of which are rooted in any known reality. Back in 2002, Father Andrew Greeley told a news reporter, "I wouldn't be surprised if the victims numbered 100,000." He later said that this was only his opinion, that it had no evidentiary basis. The second time this number was thrown out it was by "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh during an interview on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Mr. Walsh told the camera that "100,000 victims of sexual abuse by priests were denied an audience with the Pope" during a protest at the Vatican in 2010. Several people called CNN on this, and Anderson Cooper issued a formal apology to the Catholic League. In truth, there were 60 protestors at the Vatican, not 100,000, and 30 of them presented themselves as victims of abuse. The "victims" were outnumbered by reporters two to one. From my perspective, most victims of the tragedy of sexual abuse have been in far greater danger in their own homes and schools than in any Catholic Church. The greater problem today is that victims are not served by the victim rhetoric of activists who are using this issue to simply and repeatedly slam the Catholic Church. When grown-ups refuse to see or present themselves in any light other than their self-identification as victims, we should all be wary because some other agenda is in play.
I can and do see myself as other than victim. But I was still a victim of clerical sex abuse at my school.
We live in a nation that for the past 10 years has slaughtered and is slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. Because the U.S. on 9/11 was victimized. Now that's insanity. 15 hijackers committ a horrific Crime that kills 3000 and we kill tens of thousands more, to what , get even? Or to give TRILLIONS to our own oligarchs?
This psuedo fight between the victims of clerical abuse and the people in the pews, has also been created for the benefit of your own ruling class: the hierarchs and their "careers".
Are you infering that the victims of 9/11 deserved no compensation for their loss?
You set up your selves as victims for the benefit of the idiots that moved around pedaphiles, who harmed again Yet you rail against the injured mentioning the fact that they were harmed????
Have any of you family members or friends injured in this way? Which "side" would you be on if I was your family member?
Regardless of where it arises, there are only two sides to any issue: the good side and the bad side.
Only the bad is unforgiving and consistently looks to divide.
Black and White thinking only makes sense if you are building something precise like a house.
There are usually many more " sides" than two to "any issue". Most adults know that.