"A reckless disregard for truth": SNAP lawyer Marci Hamilton from Yeshiva University
A recent public appearance in Philadelphia by lawyer Marci Hamilton, an advocate for the anti-Catholic group SNAP, underscores the brazen dishonesty of some individuals when talking about the issue of sex abuse and the Catholic Church.
Hamilton's public appearance was intended to promote proposed "window" legislation in Pennsylvania, which would abolish decades of established law and lift the statute of limitations for abuse claims for a set period – a so-called "window" – so that contingency lawyers can bring 50-, 60-year, or even older abuse claims in order to bankrupt the Catholic Church.
(Yet public schools, where rampant abuse and cover-ups are still occurring today, are notably exempt from this legislation.)
Indeed, in states where window statutes have already been enacted, such as California, Oregon and Delaware, they have directly led to dioceses being forced to file for bankruptcy.
And while answering questions from an audience member at her appearance, Hamilton rattled off a number of outright lies and half-truths that again reveal her complete disregard for truth and veracity.
Hamilton's smearing the dead
In discussing the issue of the proposed legislation, the audience member brought up the problem of false accusations and recalled the high-profile episode in 1993 involving Chicago's Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. Bernardin was falsely accused by a man named Steven Cook, who was a victim of the quack practice of hypnosis therapy and was duped into believing that he had been abused as a teen by the prelate.
Hamilton actually had the gall to respond:
"The survivor has pulled back on saying they're false."
In truth, after fully recanting his claim in March of 1994, Cook died of AIDS in September of 1995, almost two decades ago.
In addition, the pair had a remarkable episode of reconciliation in December of 1994, as Cardinal Bernardin and Cook stayed in regular contact with each other right up until Cook's final days. Cook even called Bernardin a few months before he died to wish the prelate well as he recovered from cancer surgery.
In other words, Hamilton flat-out lied to everyone in her audience by claiming the accuser had reversed his recantation.
Just making it up as she goes along
Also, in discussing the issue of window legislation, the audience member brought up the fact that there is debate over the constitutionality of such laws. Yet Hamilton brazenly interrupted the man's claim:
"I haven't seen a single scholar in opposition to me on window legislation on constitutionality."
In fact, window legislation that retroactively lifts the statute of limitations for criminal cases has been unequivocally ruled unconstitutional by no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court.
And as far as the constitutionality of window statutes in civil cases, there has indeed been very intense debate, as laws differ from state to state.
For example, in Wisconsin, another state where Hamilton has pushed for such legislation to be passed, it was reported:
"[L]awyers representing state and national civil justice organizations called the window's constitutionality into question during the hearing. When the 2003 legislation extending the statute of limitations was under consideration, a similar window to allow previously barred suits was proposed. Then-Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager had advised legislators that the proposal was constitutionally flawed."
In other words, Hamilton's claim that she has never been challenged on the constitutionality of window statues is completely bogus.
(One law firm has published a balanced state-by-state analysis of proposed window legislation. In some states, the analysts found the proposed legislation to be constitutional. In others, definitely not. In Pennsylvania, the firm found both constitutional and unconstitutional foundations in the state's proposed legislation. They concluded, "[I]t is unclear whether such window legislation will pass constitutional muster.")
Marci's retirement strategy
The audience member also asked Hamilton if she personally stands to gain financially if window legislation is passed in Pennsylvania.
The question clearly took Hamilton by surprise, and she initially tried to dodge the question by providing a "history" of her stake in the issue. (She claimed she had no interest in becoming a trial lawyer until the 2011 Philadelphia grand jury report, but that report has since been thoroughly discredited, which makes her reasoning moot.)
But as she was unable to weave herself out of answering the question, she finally admitted that "yes," she does stand to benefit monetarily if such window legislation is successful. In the end, she hopes to "move to Puerto Rico and write novels." (We're not kidding. Watch the video).
The time is long overdue for the media to recognize Marci Hamilton as the dishonest bigot that this woman actually is.
You have absolutely zero proof that the CORPORATE Catholic Church would be made "bankrupt" by opening windows for victims to sue. Zero proof.
And if you don't want to be sued; don't do things you can be sued for.
Not the complete truth re Church bankruptcy either. San Diego filed but that was thrown out by the bankruptcy judge because the Church hid assets.
By the way Jesus and the Apostles started your Church with no money. FYI
P.S. Do you actually think that the corporate RCC if it could have, would'nt have pursued the civil constitutonality issue all the way to the Supreme Court if it had a shot at winning?
Hell they went to the top court in Rhode Island or Delaware claiming no one could sue the Church because they are a religion. Nice tactic,huh? They lost.
I would say that again we are seeing what happens to this Game when questions are actually asked.
And clearly and for so very long the Game’s Players have not been asked any questions and thus either a) they are kind of out of practice with the concept (and also reveal the unpleasant tendency to lie instead) or b) they have always known their Oz-like Game couldn’t and didn’t-dare answer questions truthfully and have been prepared to lie instead. And so in trying to run one part of Lenin’s vision they fall afoul of another part of Lenin’s plan. The hot ironies.
In the internet universe Hamilton could have tried to deploy some of the classical Distractions that we have so often seen in commentary on this site, but – as Lenin saw – no Distractions are going to work in a public meeting (i.e. a meeting where not only your soul-mate colleague cadres are allowed to attend and to speak, and where the whole thing is recorded).
Only the liberals, communists and the radical, anarchist "OWSers" are so easily distracted. No depth, no standards, no ethics, morals or principles. Life is so easy for them.
Death will be much harder.
What's wrong with liberals Dolphin?????
There were no other comments up when I submitted my first comment.
There are now three uncharacteristically focused comments by JR. On that point, I invite readers to my thoughts in a comment put up at the end of the immediately prior thread (although geographically it doesn’t appear last but a bit above the last in the comments section).
I would note that “the Catholic Church” is not and has never been the Party-Defendant in any of these lawsuits. Rather the Party-Defendant is a specific Diocesan/Archdiocesan entity.
Thus too I can’t make out the sense of “the CORPORATE” [sic] Catholic Church” here. But I think it reflects the Cartoon idea that the universal Roman Catholic Church is just one huge single monolithic corporate entity working off one ‘pot’ of money and assets, such that if you sue any sub-part you are still looking at some magical and universal bottomless pot-of-gold at the end of the torty rainbow. (Similar to the idea underlying the thought – expressed by JR in his last comment on the immediately prior article-thread – that the Doheny fortune of a billion dollars went to the Archdiocese of LA and that therefore persons seeking to sue it could console themselves with the thought that the AOLA could afford to be sued. See my comments in-response.) Possibly this is an idea given to the tuning-forks put out to the faithful and eager tuning-forks by a tort-attorney looking to ease any conscience-pangs by prospective allegant-Plaintiffs.
I would also repeat a point I made a while back in comments: once a Diocese/Archdiocese is made the Party-Defendant in a lawsuit, then the Ordinary has no option but to start thinking like a Defendant in a lawsuit; his attorneys and his Insurers would insist upon it.
And that is especially true if there is reasonable doubt about the validity of the allegations and claims. The Game play here is to quickly move the public beyond the possibility that the Defendant is trying to deal with allegations that are not proven or for which rational grounds exist for seriously doubting their credibility, and instead go for the simulacrum of a moral high-ground by claiming that the Ordinary is not behaving in a Gospel-way because steps are being taken to minimize the potential exposure to the lawsuit.
I think that in many of these cases we have seen Ordinaries (and their attorneys and Insurers) yielding to the lawsuits with only a few very limited attempts to contest the specific allegations. Thus the number of out-of-court settlements.
And as I have said in comments before, the consequence of this (understandable) legal strategy was that in addition to a) simply whetting the appetites of further tort-attorneys and allegants for a payout, there was also b) the (sly) tendency for the proponents of those dubious and unexamined allegations to them come back and claim (after the checks were cashed) that the very fact of the settlement ‘proved’ that their unexamined allegations were true all along. Thus creating a remunerative feedback-loop dynamic: the more these claims were settled the more claims and lawsuits came in.
I hope the corrupt "lawsuit-ites" leave a few bucks for our Church to continue the good works globally for which it is so treasured by the truly suffering. I wonder how the Church-bashers charitable contributions stack up when compared to their "enemies"? Given the Obama IRS scandals, we may now have a way to find out (dog bites owner, again).
Who better to educate and lead the world to protect children from abuse, everywhere? This is truly God's hand at work.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/expert-says-churchs-abuse-prevention-should-differ-for-each-culture/
Are Cardinal George and Billie Donahue still yamering? What the heck does a biased bent on liberalism and communism have to do with anything relevant here?
Cardinal George blames the entire society and Billie blames imaginary forces of darkness for actions by the hierarchy. And they're both blaming liberals and commies. But never the guys who did it. The guys who commited the crimes and enabled these windows ,you so dread, to be opened.
Now unless either of these two are hierarchs themselves( which is possible) save for Billie she ain't got the right "parts" to be a hierarch, they've no ax to grind. The problem's with the system and you two don't count in that system you are at the bottom. you have no say in that system but to agree or leave.
"Who better to educate and lead the world to protect children from abuse everywhere?"
I know your not joking but gee that's like saying about a drunk driver. He should be forgiven by having him drive drunk. Punishment free
The definition of insanity is doing the same actions and expecting a different outcome. Or in your case have the same people who didn't protect your children remain in charge of protecting your children. Maybe you really don't like your children?
I think you should keep hitting the we , the victims, are only after money and don't deserve any compensation from your Church. That line is so working for you . I LOL bitterly.
You'll all be out of business soon enough with that tactic. And if you add Billies demons to Cardinal Georges episodes in revisionist history. You have the very soul of the Catholicism that ruled the world in the dark ages.and that's why society knows our truth is more valid than your lies.
The only one playing a game here is you Cardinal George.
You must wonder why atheists, and the usual assortment of communists/socialists/anarchists regularly visit this site, or are so informed by "others" to do so, only to make basically useless (fraudulent, baseless, inaccurate, unlearned, etc.) contributions? What interest would they have in a site that is dedicated to monitoring the irrefutably corrupt media's reporting on the Catholic Church abuse matter?
Why wouldn't they haunt sites that favor their world-view? The Church supporters that contribute to this site apparently don't dwell on (nicer way of saying stalk) the SNAP or thousands of Church-bashing sites. Why the lefts insatiable drive to attack? Real victims of crimes, the majority of whom received no legal justice or financial compensation, try to find ways to move on, as far away from their offenders as possible, from their injuries and lead full, healthy, productive lives.
Unless, these perennial malcontents either secretly harbor desire for conversion or enjoy being constantly abused and/or humiliated (alas, usually a central feature of their intimate relationships), it makes no sense to have a healthy libido under constant assault.
The hatred for Catholics (not just the Church or her offending priests- the great majority of whom are homosexual) is overwhelming. Where is the hatred for the homosexual men that committed these crimes? I don't promote that insanity, but, if it's profiling you support, why not take it down to the common denominator in over 90% of the minor abuse cases worldwide?
These are rhetorical queries. I wouldn' t expect an honest answer from the professional victims here since honest resolution of the insidious homosexual practice of seducing minors (a practice welcomed and celebrated by both the ancient and modern secular world) is neither the means nor the end of their intentions.
It cannot be forgotten that if their impossible dream were to happen and the Catholic Church did "just go away", Western civilization (not Islamia) would revert to that world so desired by the Church critics, one of total unconstrained pagan hedonism, including the truly sadistic victimization of children.
Perhaps, this is their ultimate goal.
If the Catholic Church had just gone away, as you Billie say , I know a lot of kids who wouldn't have been harmed.
.
Oh Dolphan – Your right, nobody was ever abused by the Catholic Church. WOW….Ask your God for forgiveness. Please….
Good observations, Delphin.
JR seems unable to see any “relevance” to any material here in my discussions of “liberalism and communism”. I can refer him to my previous comments on this and numerous other articles. But once again I note a dynamic mentioned before: there is never a sustained and coherent discussion with many Abusenik commenters; rather, it’s as if every single time one has to start de novo with them. Whether this is part of the Game or whether this reflects the basic level of competence with ideas is anybody’s guess.
If JR can point out with a quote where I have “blamed” anybody, then that needs to go up here. I have been pointing out disconnects between dots and offering my take on forces and interests involved in the Catholic Abuse Matter, beyond the simple Rime of the Ancient Mariner focus on stories. But again the Playbook here: when you can’t engage the ideas, make up a straw-man assertion and then go on about that for a while. And this thought pretty much handles much of the rest of the 1255AM comment (to the extent that the comment is understandable and coherent).
My point all along is precisely that we don’t really know who “did it” and who is simply being falsely accused (for whatever purposes).
And we get a slang definition of “insanity” (although that’s so often the level of cafeteria homework). May I suggest a look at a competent dictionary?
And on top of that, I haven’t suggested that priests-accused “remain in charge of protecting your children”. Perhaps JR was thinking of something or somebody else; the Distracter distracted.
The sublimely revelatory bit – “Maybe you don’t really like your children?” – simply deserves to be left out on the limb where it was hung.
As for the 106AM comment: again with fake and straw-man positions that I have never taken: I have said that genuine victims need to be assisted, but the problem is in determining who is such a person and who is otherwise-classifiable. And to that problem JR and other Abuseniks have made absolutely no response, except to insist (even in tantrum-mode) that they must be believed because they would never lie or make a mistake (such as exaggeration or imprecision or anything else). I leave it to the readership.
And once again an uncharacteristically advanced-level term: “revisionist” history. JR would need to explain just where my history is “revisionist” and just what my history is“revising”. My assessment of this “revisionist” bit: from wherever JR has gotten the term, he deploys it here to try to characterize my taking-apart of the Cartoons which govern his view of the Catholic Abuse Matter and which he has for so long presumed actually constituted the ‘history’ of the Catholic Abuse Matter. If I am correct, I can only say that I am not personally (interested in) going after JR specifically, but rather I have been subjecting those widely-held Abusenik Cartoons to some analysis, examination, and assessment.
And on a specifically historical note: Catholicism surely did not “rule the world in the dark ages”. The Vikings, the Moors, the marauding tribes from Central Asia, the Byzantine Empire (a far better candidate for the claim, at least as far as the Mediterranean world was concerned), and all of the still only semi-civilized barbarian tribes and warlords and assorted rulers … there was very little ‘ruling’ to be achieved.
And yet it was in those days the monks who were preserving the books and the various apostolic missionary enterprises and Bede writing his History and Popes trying to keep the light of civilization and the Gospel alive … is any of this news? To some, it clearly is.
The only distractor here is you. I talk about compensating injured victims. You say injured victims aren't the majority of claimants but that the majority of claimants are fradulent. A stampede of thieves as it were.
I say prove it and you can't.
So who's distracting who?
The Popes' "light of civilization" was lit in the gas chambers of WW2 and that" light" still "shines bright".
Remember Hitler was an altar boy.
Hannah Arendt said his father beat him everyday.
I wonder if he was sexually abused?
A deceitful, despicable woman from a corrupt and irrelevant organisation. Try posting on their website.
I should clarify, after reading Delphin, that I think that all religion is at best a waste of time and at worst a poison to people's brains with sometimes deadly outcomes. So I am an equal opportunity hater. You do not need religion to be moral. In fact, religion opens people's minds to thinking about and believing in the supernatural. Even today, educated people worry about "dark forces" and "black magic" and witchcraft. Otherwise clear-thinking people visit psychics and look at horoscopes. These people are religious, in one way or other, and that allows them to say at least maybe to these other imaginary things. Publicly Publion, aka Starbuck, who I will now call LaunchCode, was writing her about another "dimension" known only to the godly. Sorry, no evidence for that.
Seems as though profiling is quite alright with the left, so long as it isn't one of their sacred cows being profiled.
We may profile religious, but not atheists.
We may profile Catholics, but not Islamists.
We may profile conservatives, but not liberals.
We may profile caucasians, but not minorities.
We may profile wealthy, but not poor.
We may profile heterosexuals, but not homosexuals.
What an interesting paralell universe you beings inhabit.
Again what does our or anybodies atheism or political point of view have to do with endangering children by YOUR hierarchy?
And JR has no interest in debating the moronic stance that you exemplify so blissfully.
It seems we will all need to be keeping IFF lists: For lack of any better material the Abuseniks have apparently decided to simply keep re-naming commenters: I am now to be ‘Launch Code’ and ‘Cardinal George’, depending on the commenter (and the phase of the moon, perhaps).
After his stint with voluntarily entering a Catholic seminary, Learned-Counsel has now decided that “all religion is at best a waste of time and at worse a poison to people’s [sic] brains with sometimes deadly outcomes”. Not that atheism – one might propose any of the Communist variants on that theme – haven’t been far deadlier. But that’s LC’s rights and let it be. Although such 180 changes of fundamental course don’t offer a great deal of support for stability or credibility – but again, it is what it is and we need only note the fact for reference in assessing future material.
Just how much children are endangered these days by the Catholic hierarchy is a very relevant question. From all extant indicators, not very much either in absolute terms or in relative terms (i.e. compared to other organizations, religious or otherwise).
Readers may rest assured that no matter how my ‘identity’ may change (or rather be-changed) here, my ideas and thoughts will remain the best that I can provide. I earnestly hope that sets a good example.
‘Learned-Counsel’ (whose life path – abused or perhaps raped by a priest, then entering a seminary, then leaving the Church and, it would seem, all belief, behind – resembles that of the late Economus) reports his ‘hate’ and I thank him for that characterization of his overall Stance.
He is indeed acute and very accurate in his assertion that “religion opens people’s minds to thinking about and believing in the supernatural”. Clearly, such seminary classes as he managed to attend had some good effect – more so, perhaps, than Harvard’s and his law-school’s (all presumed here for the purposes of the discussion at hand).
However, it is difficult to actually ground his assertion that “you do not need religion to be moral”.
In the first place, if one is steeped – willingly or otherwise – in the Western tradition (itself so heavily influenced by Christianity) then how can one be sure that what one perceives or feels is merely one’s personal and – as it were – ‘natural’ sense of morality is not simply Judeo-Christian morality that has had the Christian/Catholic source-identifiers snipped out? One thinks here of Thomas Jefferson, who in his Enlightenment and Deist desire to get the value of the ‘moral’ bits of Christianity without going in for the ‘supernatural’ bits, put together his own version of the Gospels with the ‘supernatural’ bits edited-out.
Second, if one has a ‘morality’ and moral maxims and principles and obligations – but without the ‘supernatural’ authority for them – then how does one drum up the authoritativeness of that ‘morality’ and those maxims and principles and obligations, either for oneself or for others? How does one sustain that ‘morality’ if, say, one were to find oneself in a situation where one’s preferred and personally-adopted principles became inconvenient, perhaps seriously so? How does one avoid reducing moral principles and obligations to being merely emanations of one’s personal preferences at any given moment?
Further, how does one say of others’ actions that such and such an action is immoral?
How, for example, would one justifiably face a murderous regime and stand up to claim that its murders are immoral? On what grounds? On what common and yet also authoritative basis? On what basis did Pius XI condemn Nazism and Fascism? Because he simply didn’t personally like those regimes? On what basis did Pius XII and later John Paul II condemn Soviet Communism?
Or does Learned-Counsel mean to imply that there is some comprehensive common human morality that all human beings will universally demonstrate in all places and at all times? If that is so, then where does such a common and universal sense and content of morality come from? Is there some common human essence which is somehow pre-programmed with that common and universal sense and content? And if so, then where does that common essence come from?
For that matter, why be ‘good’ at all and not, instead, choose to be ‘evil’?
Surely these are not issues that would have escaped the notice of a trained philosophical mind. Perhaps – as a matter of simple conceptual investigation, if nothing else – they would not have escaped the notice of a trained legal mind, either.
Catholic thought would be that a) there is indeed a supernatural source (using ‘supernatural’ here not in the sense of late-night horror flicks but rather in the sense of a dimension or Plane of Existence above and beyond this observable, material dimension) of morality and b) there is thus a Ground for the content and authority of morality, namely God and the Image of God that is instilled or imprinted in us.
And that the fundamental principles of that morality do not change because human nature – both as Image and as Fallen – does not fundamentally change. Much the same – to use my own imagery here – as the principles of aerodynamics and the rules that flow from it do not change, and thus: you cannot fly a fixed-wing aircraft in reverse anywhere in this dimension or on this planet. (Explanation happily furnished upon request.)
That sort of thing.
As far as religion being nothing but “imaginary”, I would say that without religion then “morality” becomes nothing more than a matter of personal desire or whim and thus rather “imaginary” itself.
Wrong again. You're batting 1000 at being wrong.
What atheists have no morality? Non Christians have no morality?
You are a fool.
It's called EMPATHY i.e. I know how I'd feel if someone robbed me or injured me ( your Church did) or murdered me or mine. So if it happened to you. Yes even you. I'd feel sorry. I'd have empathy.
Your Religion uses empathy when it needs it and throws it away when it doesn't. Where's the morality in that?
I even feel sorry for the perps, both the abusers and the hierarchs. It has to be a pretty sad life. But I'll never forgive them if they're not sorry and refuse to compensate the people they have injured.
[edited by moderator]
The dialogue that always inevitably deteriorates into name-calling and incredibly juvenile criticisms we witness here are just another fine example of all that "Tolerance" the left demands for themselves.
Do as I say, not as I do.
And, when it is a fact that the community that harmed all those "children" for which the left feigns to grieve is their very own (homosexuals), for which there is no defense, going on an all-out "flailing arms, holding ears, screaming" assault on those inclined to point out the sad truth is their only possible defense.
So the Queen of the name callers and juvenile crticisms would like to pose as rational peace maker now? While she still throws insults. A case of the pot calling the kettle black.
O.K. Delphinium.
Of course I worship Satan. Sure I do. All us leftists and gays do.
Happy?. So now what?
What else have you got?
Your imaginary God against our imaginary Satan. It's a wash.
How high up in grade school did you get, Miss Buckley?
The only one flailing and screaming and holding her ears here is you. Ever hear of projection?
Why don't you go kill a commie for Christ/
Correction to the 7Jun 6:58 comment: If the deviant homosexuals had gone away, no kids would have been harmed. And, not only were minors harmed by homosexual deviants, so was the Catholic Church's good works, which affected millions of poor and at risk, throughout the world, reliant upon her charity.
If deviant homosexuals had embraced God's Commandments and Jesus' teachings, as expressed through Church doctrine, and ceased their deviant practices and lifestyles and repented by turning back to God, there would be over 90% less 'harm to kids', everywhere, as well as less harm to the world's poor and at risk.
Marci Hamilton IS a dishonest bigot. The abuse matter has served such people well. She has pretended all along that her concern is children. But notice her focus is only on the Catholic Church, which means her concern is NOT really children. If it was, she would be targeting abuse in other venues. If it was, she would be asking what is the church doing NOW to protect children. If it was, she would not be seeking instruments, such as laws, for suing the church via old incidents.
From 1236PM today a comment that makes one feel like one is working with denizens of a 'dayroom' in a secure facility.
Were JR to have read what I said then he would realize that his objections are based not on what I said but whatever Cartoon had popped into his mind.
My comment was all questions so I "said" nothing, and certainly not anything that appeared in the Cartoon in JR's head.
The "fool" bit is best left hanging out there just where it was put.
You would know.
I would also point out that 'morality' and 'empathy' are two different concepts (again, I recommend consulting a competent dictionary).
And -as always – we haven't established that anybody posting here is 'genuine' such that they are in need of 'empathy'.
And if JR cared to address himself to the questions I posed, then that might be relevant here.
But I doubt the questions cover any material scrawled on any of the 3×5 cards in that mental shoebox.
Nonetheless, that's where the ball is in terms of the issues posed in my comment.
As Shakespeare says in King Lear,
"The policeman who lashes the whore has a hot need to use her for the very offense for which he plies the lash."
Hey Learned I'm out here in the desert, really, my friend is having me proof read his book on the saints, I swear I'm not kidding. And I'm dealing with tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber?
I may have stepped over the bounds of good taste. I think Julie is absolutely correct that I have said it all before. Guilty. But no one's perfect. I just thought the truth was important about who we are, us victims.
You may need religion to teach you morality. I sure don't. if you look at the Catholic Church's history. Morality or empathy never comes to mind. Power; greed, idiotic judgements and bloodshed is what comes to mind. That's if you look at it's real history compared to the propaganda it pedals about it's past.
But they have done some good, some very good things, like criticize capitalism and the death penalty and on the whole , lately, the Church has been anti war. ( Unless their ox is gored. (Think Viet Nam.)
I'm sorry those great acts are tarnished by it's behavior towards it's own victims.
And that it's good acts are dimminished over all by a historic tidal wave of bad ones. Absolutely unnecessary and unlike Jesus, completely.
Can't seem to get an answer to a very simple question to the haters: how do we fix the deviant homosexual predator problem in the world? Over 90% of minors molested by adults, everywhere, including the Catholic Church, is by deviant male homosexuals.
The US majority has practiced incredible tolerance of your communities blight on our families, churches/synagogues, schools, athletics (did I leave anything out?) – how do we first contain, and then ameliorate the damage, caused by your community, caused to our children?
We should be suing you.
Please do.
The hits just keep on coming from the cafeteria and the dayroom.
JR insists he needs no religion to teach him any morality. Fair enough: I have been under the distinct impression for quite a while that no religion had taught him any morality.
What comes to JR’s mind when he turns his flickering lamp on “the Catholic Church’s history” and what would occur to a rational observer are – of course – not necessarily the same thing at all, except in the Cartoon-and-ketchup demimonde. He would have us believe that he knows “it’s [sic] real history”, while those who have read and studied that history have merely studied “propaganda”. We are thus presented with a Cartoon about a Cartoon and it is what it is.
Nor – need it be said again? – have we established just who are genuine victims and just who are otherwise-classifiable, present company not excepted.
From Learned-Counsel (as from JR) we get no substantive response to questions posed, but instead a curious diversion: Having demonstrated here no chops in Philosophy or Law or – it would clearly appear – Theology (for which three areas he reports himself as having had some advanced-education) he now instead opens up fresh fields of Distraction and gives us (allegedly) Shakespeare.
It immediately struck me as odd: the term “policeman” is not one Shakespeare’s era would have known; the term comes from a much later era.
Sure enough, Shakespeare didn’t actually say that. The quote now entered into the record here comes from that doughty anti-religionist Christopher Hitchens, in his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. (I could give the Act/Scene/Line reference in Lear for what the Bard actually did say, but I wouldn’t want to deprive Learned-Counsel of the pleasure and privilege of sharing that with us; surely he knows.)
The gist of Hitchens is that anybody who condemns some X, only does so because they themselves want to do X, and are afraid to do or otherwise internally stymied in doing X, but now also want to prevent anybody else doing X. This was Hitchens’ take on religious prohibitions: religious people only prohibit stuff that they themselves are afraid to do and yet also don’t want anybody else to enjoy doing.
Hitchens made a big hit with the adolescent mentalities that see ‘morality’ as nothing more than silly and stodgy excuses that have been thought up by un-enterprising kill-joy oppressive old no-lifes just to ruin their day and their fun.
This is consummately sophomoric (and vintage Hitchens). It is the adolescent idea that the only reason there are rules is to get in your way and ruin your personal day and your personal pleasure.
That Learned Counsel would proffer it here … is what it is.
Thus, if Hitchens’ analysis were to be applied to doctors, then it would work out to this: the fundamental maxim of the profession – Primum Non Nocere – simply means that older doctors and their ‘traditions’ and their ‘rules’ have told younger doctors not to harm patients simply because the older doctors want to harm patients but don’t dare to or haven’t got the gumption to and now they don’t want younger doctors enjoying themselves by harming patients either.
If Hitchens’ analysis were to be applied to pilots, it would work out to this: flight instructors who insist that no pilot should ever attempt to fly a fixed-wing aircraft backward are simply desirous of the thrill of crashing but don’t have the gumption to do it, and they are now going to make sure they spoil everybody else’s fun too, and that’s why they made the rule.
Of course, the real reason that student pilots are taught this prohibition from Day One is that the aerodynamic principles of flight will not allow an aircraft to stay in the air if the airflow over the wing is reversed; the wing is specifically designed to ‘process’ oncoming air coming at its leading edge from in front of the aircraft. And thus Hitchens’ witlessly adolescent bit is revealed for what it really is; and any student pilot who decided to go with Hitchens’ assessment of the matter would not remain in one piece for long, nor would any passenger who flew with him/her.
Lastly, why kid ourselves? We are not going to get anything responsive from the usual suspects here so let me give the answer we weren’t otherwise going to get: Act IV, Scene VI, lines 160-173.
It's always so quaint when communists, atheists, homosexuals attempt to lecture Catholic Americans on:
Morals
Catholic Church History
Economic philosophy
Jesus
The first thing the "Rainbow Coalition" needs to do is get a reality check. Only in their warped parallel universe do their "radical opinions served up as fact" resonate.
Perhaps the Islamic and Communist/Socialist regimes of the world be interested in your world philosophy- since American Catholics know the Truth.
Better pack your Burka and Manifesto for that road trip (leave the size 13 pumps home, though)-
Let's see if I'm getting this right. Cardinal George and Billie are the adults and Learned Council and myself are juvenile…. have I got it?
Yet, they believe in a diety they have no proof exists; and worse tell you what that imagined diety wants all of us to do.
They then pretend with out that imagined diety (that rest of us are too juvenile to "believe" in) there would be no morality what so ever. Even though civilizations extant eons before their dieties son made a personal appearence on this little planet, said murder was a crime as was thievery and fraud bearing false witness and child RAPE and all rape.
So something doesn't quite fit in the grownups constructs?…. Oh I know what doesn't fit: truth and logic.
Which way to the kids' table?
Thank you, everyone, for your comments.
We are closing this thread for now.
This article seems to be doing it's fair share of telling half truths and making unfair, biased arguments. First they claim that Mr. Cook was "duped" into believing he had been abused via hypnotherapy, then a paragaraph later, claims that he "outright lied". Which is it? If he had false memories implanted via hypnosis, then he would have honestly believed that he had been abused.
What I find the most sickening is that his dying from AIDs was cited for no apparent reason. From the tone of the next few sentances, it seems that the author felt that Mr. Cook having contracted HIV was something that reflected negatively on him. Presumably it is assumed that we would assume that he must have been a sexual deviant. All I can say to anyone who makes that assumption is, shame on you!
Thank you for writing, Matt, but we wrote that Cook was "duped" by hypnosis therapy, and it was Hamilton who "flat-out lied" by claiming that Cook had recanted.
And there is no "assumption" about anyone's lifestyle. Cook's illness is mentioned in the context that both he and Cardinal Bernardin were seriously ill and consoled each other.