Carnival barker – contingency lawyer Jeff Anderson
What is a "stuntsuit"? It is a lawsuit whose only real purpose is to generate publicity and garner media exposure for one's cause.
So the word "stuntsuit" can readily apply to the silly lawsuit that was filed over a decade ago in 2002 in Oregon by contingency lawyer Jeff Anderson against the Vatican, wildly claiming that the Vatican is somehow the direct "employer" of all of the world's 412,000 Catholic priests and is somehow directly and legally responsible for any and all misconduct committed by them.
Anderson's filing of his "stuntsuit" in 2002 predictably amassed tremendous mainstream media attention. But after years of wasted time and effort, and after a federal judge's dismissal of the matter a year ago, Anderson quietly dismissed his frivolous appeal just last week.
This time, however, the mainstream media did not even take notice.
Third time is not a charm
In truth, the suit dismissed last week by Anderson in Oregon was the third such suit filed by Anderson against the Vatican "to disintegrate in the face of legal and factual challenge."
At the heart of Anderson's ridiculous suits are "factual misstatements and fallacious syllogisms that [have] misled the public for years," said Jeffrey S. Lena, counsel for the Vatican. Most recently:
"This case was based on a couple of simple and erroneous ideas about the Catholic Church. First, that all priests are controlled by the Holy See (the Vatican) and second that the Holy See receives information about the activities of all priests and makes specific decisions, either directly or 'by and through' dioceses and religious orders …
"The problem with the plaintiff's theory is fairly straightforward: this is not how the Catholic Church works. In reality, priests are under the control of their local superiors … and the Holy See does not receive and maintain information on all the world's priests or on all the sexual abuse cases relating to priests throughout the world."
And the mainstream media goes quiet
Anderson – who is also a close ally, prolific fundraiser, and major donor of the anti-Catholic group SNAP – has now shown a penchant for filing suits that are shown to be meritless in the face of simple facts. In addition to his goofy lawsuits against the Vatican, a recent suit against the Church which invoked the discredited theory of "repressed memory" was expeditiously booted out of the Minnesota Supreme Court just last year, as we reported at the time.
Yet the mainstream media remains notably silent about Anderson's legal antics and theatrics. While the media seems to always uncritically trumpet Anderson's lawsuits when he initially files them, it goes mute when the suits are later quietly dismissed by the courts or by Anderson himself. (Where are you, Laurie Goodstein?)
Whenever it is Anderson versus the Catholic Church, the mainstream media can always be expected to put journalistic standards of truth, balance, and fairness aside and come down firmly in support of the legal stagecraft of Jeff Anderson.
A couple of thoughts come to me:
First, ‘repressed memory’ has now been voted off the island in the just-published 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (called DSM 5 in the trade). There is also a warning in the first few pages of the new edition warning against too-easily using any of its categories in a “forensic” forum: they are, the Manual advises, categories that have been developed for the purpose of helping clinicians categorize various issues with some degree of uniformity but they are not designed to be ‘evidence grade’ material to be tossed around in the forensic forum as if they were as solidly established as – I would say – any of Newton’s Laws.
Second, I would say that this entire effort to involve the Vatican directly (for legal or civil lawsuit purposes) serves several purposes: a) it opens up the possibility of going not simply after Diocesan assets (including its Insurers) but also the Vatican’s fabled assets (popularly imagined to include all of the architecture, art treasures, property, and – of course – the fabled gold-hoard buried in the fabled Vatican vaults). As I said in a recent comment, torties would be in a much better position if they could advertise (obliquely, of course) to possible fresh Plaintiffs and allegators that the stakes and possible payoffs have now been raised accordingly, to now include the entire Vatican treasure-hoard (as it is popularly imagined in certain circles).
And b) this entire approach serves the purposes of anti-Vatican (within the Church) and anti-Church (outside the Church) interests. The Vatican is imagined as i) a super-controlling and super-powerful world-wide military-type command-organization (or ‘Mafia-like organized-crime conspiracy’, if some prefer) and ii) the Vatican (thus-imagined)and indeed all of Catholicism ‘proves’ itself beyond question to be something alien and hostile to “the primitive Christian community” and “the Gospel” and the “New Testament” and “Jesus” (or ‘Jeeeeezuzzzzz’, if some prefer).
Something for everybody! What’s not to like?
How very sad. I've been bloggimg for 11 yrs. ….I've been out since 2001… WHY don't they get it.????
aka Gloria 1929—You have been and are "out" in many ways. You have said that you were a faithful convert to Catholicism many years ago (I am sure that with the passion you show that you were a devoted Church member, yet you seem to know nothing about the faith). You were justifiably devastated as were all Church members when it came to light over a decade ago that crimes against children were committed (most decades before) and the leaders did not respond as they should have. No one is making excuses for what has happened. I am not going to rehash here-construct my sentences to include what one might want to hear or not hear.We all know what has happened. However, your comments everywhere (you say you have been a "blogger" since you have been "out") are offensive and ignorant. You refer to the entire Church in bizarre terms, talk about the devil running the Catholic Church at this very time. You refer to your personal stories that are not even of any interest let alone factual. Your incessant anti-catholic church ranting is absolutely pointless except to attract some attention.You seem completely unaware of the present problem of child abuse everywhere. Noone can make excuses for past problems but you are fixated on that. I have yet to see one of your comments on a news article about any other abuse situation-so much now exposed in public schools, clubs of all kinds, sports. Your interest and fixation is only on your old religion and decades old stories. Have you any information about the false claims that have been made against innocent priests by vicious, disturbed, greedy crooks ? Have you any first hand knowledge of the injustice that has transpired in Philadelphia? Have you any clue as to the child protection program in all diocese in the US, what has been in place and updated greatly since all of this came to light? Have you compared that (I can't go into it here-it is pages long) to the policy of your non-denominational church you say you just joined (whatever..).
Please don't infiltrate this serious forum with your nonsense. You would be foolish to think that you would have any impact on anyone here with your emotionally overcharged material. You seem to be just fine with the audience you have on some anti-catholic complaint board (yawn, and again yawn).
Maybe we should be glad Laurie Goodstein isn't writing an article. Because if she did, she'd twist the facts and include quoted, unquestioned lies in order to drum up anger against the Catholic Church like she always does.
"What is a "stuntsuit"? It is a lawsuit whose only real purpose is to generate publicity and garner media exposure for one's cause."
This is a cause that the public needs to keep in their minds. We're already got the 2 billion from the RCC, and put a number of criminal priest in prison. These suits encourage victums to tell their stories, and it's working.
Publion's comment on the previous blog is saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that survivors or should I say anyone who does not agree with the catholic church is pushing that ball up hill and eventually it will begin to roll back down.
He needs to be corrected. In the beginning it might of seemed that way. But catholics, (yes catholics) survivors of clergy abuse and the majority of the public are no longer pushing any ball to keep things rolling. The reason for that is WE HAVE PICKED THE BALL UP and in doing so we have been a threat to expose the catholic church for what they have done and to this day what they have not done.
I feel sorry for individuals who continue to protect a church that truly has made no changes. The structure that has allowed the hiding, the past denials is still in place.
Have these people asked themselves what would it be like today if those first victims who came forward accepted the words from the church that "everything will be O.K." instead of picking up that ball and saying what you are telling us is unacceptable.
I would be willing to bet it would have continued to be business as usual for the church since they knew of attacks for decades.
If Publion would like to say I or Jim or anyone else is here to keep the ball rolling on clergy sexual abuse GOOD. It means I am (I don't want to speak for Jim) doing my job, because like 9/11 if we forget what happened and remove any protection from it ever happening again catholics like now can only blame themselves.
So like what one of your clergy members (fr.Lynn) can be quoted as saying during his trial "I dropped the ball" rest assured it was picked up by people who want the right things to happen.
In closing thank you to Publion and anyone who thinks like him to assure me I am on the RIGHT track.
In regard to the ‘drwho13’ comment of 9AM today:
It is a “stunt” because it is a lawsuit that, upon examination, cannot possibly succeed on its merits – a fact which is so clear after examining its claims that it becomes highly improbable that the filing attorney didn’t realize that. Thus the lawsuit is filed not in order to achieve the satisfaction of its claimed torts but rather to garner publicity (and, in my imagery, to Keep The Ball Rolling). In legal usage, such a lawsuit could be characterizable as “frivolous” and that of itself would subject the filing attorney to sanctions.
What is the “this … cause” that “the public needs to keep in their minds”? We have been trying to examine the claims and dynamics involved in the Catholic Abuse Matter and by this point have seen and examined enough to realize that “this cause” has some very serious deficiencies as well as unsavory dynamics involving pressure and ‘interests’ working to support what so far appear to be some very dubious claims, allegations, assertions and “stories”.
Thus it becomes highly improbable that this Catholic Abuse Matter – spearheaded by such lawsuits – is merely some conventional legal occurrence where a crime or tort is claimed, careful and substantive legal examination is conducted, and the claims are dispositively established as being legally acceptable as the basis for deploying the Sovereign Coercive Power of the courts … or not.
And once again, we note the use of “stories” to characterize the claims and allegations and so forth. This term reveals far more than its proponents would care to accept: “stories” are heavily flavored with the fictional until they are clearly substantiated and demonstrated to be accurate reports of a (criminal or tortious) event. Only then do they become – strictly speaking – ‘reports’.
But it is precisely here that “stories” become conflated-with or confused-with ‘reports’. And it is precisely here, therefore, that the Abuse Matter is revealed to have been fueled by mere “stories” that by and large have never been examined for their credibility. And on this site the few “stories” that we have been able to examine have proven themselves to be incapable of bearing the weight of proof. Indeed, in the recent Philadelphia ‘Billy Doe’ case there were several “stories” – widely varying and in some cases either incoherent or incompatible or both – that were put forward.
And once again we also see the too-easy but very ominous conflation or confusion of “story” and the “cause” in which the story is deployed. It is precisely not sound legal practice to presume that since the “story” is in such a good “cause”, then therefore one should let the “story” slide through out of respect for the “cause”, whether the “story” is accurate or not. And it is precisely not sound civic or legal practice to presume the accuracy of the “story” simply out of that ‘respect’ for the “cause” or out of some sense of it being inappropriate or insensitive to examine any such a “story” too closely – or even to examine it in any way whatsoever.
But all of this has become standard operating procedure in legal cases involving this type of “story”.
To the extent that it becomes increasingly possible – perhaps even probable – that the entire Catholic Abuse Matter has been legally based on very very little demonstrated evidence whatsoever.
The Church has responded by refining operating procedures substantially – to the point where she is now quite possibly the most abuse-careful organization on the planet today. As is demonstrated clearly by the sharp decline in allegations (and their ‘stories’) and even – indirectly – by the fact that SNAP is now trying to expand its portfolio of “issues” beyond Catholic Abuse (although there has always been a motley congeries of ‘interests’ supporting SNAP’s operations).
So I would propose considering the possibility that the entire Catholic Abuse Matter is – from a legal standpoint, especially – an inverted pyramid with all of the now-conventional issues all (precariously) balanced upon the support of a tiny pinpoint of actual abusive activity, that was rapidly and improperly expanded to presume a huge superstructure of presumptions, assumptions, and assorted plaints and issues which remain suspended precariously on almost no demonstrable basis whatsoever.
How could it all have happened? How could the Abuse Matter been so grossly over-inflated? That’s a question that will increasingly come to the fore as the dynamics of the Abuse Matter continue to be examined and revealed.
And with respect to the web-monniker that this commenter has selected – Dr. Who – we are also presented with the conflation – not unique to this commenter – of a personal sense of borrowed status and purpose in a great and good “cause” (Dr. Who being the sci-fi Time-Lord who uses his amazing skills and capabilities to fight against the various imperial and organizational evils in the universe, including the ultra-evil robot-like Daleks). So we have to add into the mix of Abuse-Matter supporting dynamics the reality of numerous types looking for a good cause (any good cause) by which they can engage – imaginatively anyway – in some great and purposeful and good mission and “cause”. And since there are no Daleks in real life and human history, the Church is thus raised up as the nearest actual equivalent. And the game, adventure, drama, and “story” go on from there.
No, 'Ricky', "this suits encurage victums to tell their stories (…and what whoppers they are) to get Church booty that they dunt deserve", as so ineloquently pointed out in your "2 billion from the RCC" remark.
Your intent is solely about getting money because you're part of the "lefty lazy lying lot" who's sole intent is pounding the Church. Nothing (any of) you do is about justice.
The only thing that is working is the overworked imagination of those leftists who have convinced themselves that, finally, they have the Church on the run. You may have gotten your "2 billion" and you may have succeeded in imprisoning some innocents, but you will never destroy the Church because we, the faithful, are the Church and you have not touched us, and you never will.
The blood of our martyrs, for over 2000 years, has been the life-giving fuel for our passion (sacrifice) for our Lord. Thank you for your contributions to our cause-
May you join your martyrs as soon as humanly possible. It will be your first and only human act
. Flies are attracted to dung. You'll need to keep swating as you ascend.
It is clearly obvious to me that no minds are changed by my posting here. You can't change what you don't have. Au Doo Doo. (to paraphrase L.C.)
Your ground swell of "good catholics"(4), who have figured out that us victims are not. will not out live you. [edited by moderator]
Oh please, must we now be expected to sustain the victim-activists self portrait of heroism as pertains to their constant electrifying of the Church abuse matter 'zombie'?
True heroes would have spoken up at the time of the transgressions and forced the changes required to not only stop ongoing abuses but also prevent future abuses (guilt, anyone?).
Heroes would expect no compensation for their heroic deeds.
Heroes would have disappeared into the sunset as soon as the light were shone on the abherrent behavior, not pounded it for all it may be worth for themselves, literally, decades later.
Just what we need now, lifelong cowards with hero complexes.
Mighty Mouse lives on-
[edited by moderator] I reported my abuse at the time it occured and found out 2 weeks ago my perp was promoted by the very priest who I'd reported my abuse to and who said he believed me. And so what was done about my report? NOTHING! Those who didn't are not to be blamed by [edited by moderator] you.
"I feel sorry for individuals who continue to protect a church that truly has made no changes." Made no changes. An outright lie and part of the deceitful narrative put out by those who claim to be concerned about children – but clearly are not. so they aren't fooling anybody.
The leftist mind, such that it is, is easily changed (flighty, flimsy, shallow thing) because it is founded on lies (the "sand foundation"). Easy come, easy go, whether its' principles, convictions, morals, ethics, partners – anything.
Not so with faithful Catholics; their truths come from Jesus Christ via His Rock – His Church. Those are not just words on which to form a lofty popular opinion - that is a lifelong, and beyond, committment.
Thank God for the Church militant.
Now we have JR at 1220PM and 1230PM today.
At 1220PM JR now gives us a charming trio of demonstrations. First, ala Ecker, the wish for somebody to die – and again with that faux-pious bleat. Second, the pronunciamento (why do so many atheists declaim even more baldly than popes and hierarchs?) format in order to assert – third – that an interlocutor has never performed a “human act”. (And yet – long ago now – when I first encountered JR’s material here and after awhile said that there was something of the “sleazy whackjob” in it all, we were quickly subjected to a rant from the Wig of Outraged Victimization. I hereby re-submit my opinion.)
Then at 1230 JR declaims that “it is clearly obvious to me” (nice mimicry of competent discourse) that “no minds are changed by my posting here”.
First, if JR’s material is any indication of what he thinks it will take to “change minds” (a menu including epithet, unsupported assertion, assorted distractions and diversions and poses) then he truly is trying to play varsity baseball with a Pop Warner football. But of course, in that very act JR reveals the basic meaning of ‘changing minds’ to the Abuseniks: not that you actually work to change through rational persuasion and demonstration anybody’s thinking and assessment but rather that you simply get them (or manipulate them) to change their presumptions and conclusions … without any intervening thought-processing (analysis, exploration, deliberation, assessment) whatsoever at all.
“You can’t change what you don’t have”. How charmingly childish. But I will suggest this modification: you can’t mimic what you don’t have. A lesson yet to be learned by some commenters.
Lastly, are we looking at yet another JR ‘Dick Nixon’ moment (as in: You won’t have me to kick around anymore)? And a shout-out to former ‘Boston Survivor’/now ‘Learned Counsel’ for a bit of stuffing in the otherwise thin content of his bit here. But wasn’t he commenting here because it “amuses” him to traffic with us “immoral” types? Perhaps a timeout on the sun-porch will clear things up. Or not.
The sustained dung imagery (flies attracted to; doo-doo) simply demonstrates with a boffo bravura the inner reality of the commenter. As I have noted before, some commenters really aren’t clear on the concept that you can’t mimic what you don’t actually possess nor can you hide what you actually do bring to the table. But who can blame them? For decades now so many many Abuseniks have been given a free pass by a seriously chin-stroking media and commentariat as if they were serious bringers of seriously true facts and reports.
Aug. 16, 10:21 am- Publion, “…(Dr. Who being the sci-fi Time-Lord who uses his amazing skills and capabilities to fight against the various imperial and organizational evils in the universe, including the ultra-evil robot-like Daleks).” Publion, I’m pleased to see that you have a good understanding of Dr. Who’s mission; you are among the few that grasp the concept.
You stated, “…there are no Daleks in real life and human history, the Church is thus raised up as the nearest actual equivalent.” This is where your position goes astray. You are correct in noting that there are no Daleks in real life, however you are wrong in stating that “…the Church is thus raised up as the nearest actual equivalent.” Quite the contrary, the Church has Herself descended to the level of the Daleks.
The key here is that while the evil doing of the Daleks is fictitious, the evil doing within the RCC is very real. I’ve seen it from the inside as a member of a religious order. You indicated that it is a game I assure that it’s no game, unless you consider buggering a child a game.
There are some very sick clergy within the RCC, and some even sicker prelates protecting them. As you said, and I agree, “… and “story” goes on from there.” Unfortunately the story is far from over as it spreads to other continents.
At this time in American journalism history, it is so evident that the leftist bias has so thoroughly corrupted the industry that this corruption has actually been accepted as a matter of fact – just doing business, as usual.
This is also what has happened in politics where this administration has engaged in extra and anti Constitutional practices to the degree that the citizenry has simply, sadly had to develop an immunity to the constant irritation caused by their continued outrage.
A recent poll determined that well over 2/3 of the US population is highly pessimistic regarding the US future and believe we're on the wrong track. As Obama and Congress' poll numbers tank, the conclusion we may draw is that the feeling of helplessness, in the face of chronic and unabashed lawbreaking, immorality and unethical behavior by our leaders and the press that is being experienced by the population is reaching untenable and unsustainable proportions. Something has got to give, soon- the majority of Americans won't tolerate these conditions for much longer. Just as one hint of evidence of a foundational movement back towards traditional American ideals is the recent revelation that one of the most successful current television series is Duck Dynasty- a show that focuses on traditional family values, hard work, American ingenuity, a healthy attitude toward wealth creation, and most importantly, religion. The America that hungers for that experience is vast and predominates the landscape, while the minority of Americans that are leftist (20%?) are losing their grip on the political powerbase (in both parties) that they were handed by a deviously corrupt media. This phenomena could also explian the failings of major newspapers, mostly liberal and other entertainment media (movies, TV, music). Real America, the one that has been repeatedly brutalized by the lying media, is rejecting the left.
While Russia and China conspire to use their versions of religion to reorder the world aligned to their worldview, with the mideast being used as a useful tool in their tug of war, the US and Europe would do well to return to their roots in Christianity. It may be the only hope we have to retain our God-given freedoms.
Speaking of tools- I wonder how the typical American leftist, comprised of every lib-creation of "special" entitlement groups (your typical OWS gathering is fairly reflective of this group), will fare when they learn how they've been used in a global, relatively bloodless, war to destroy the American freedom experiment, and are then tossed out with the trash, or reassigned to the nearest gulag or re-education camp? I am pretty sure that the new Communist-Islamist regime will have little regard for the never-ending complaints of the Rainbow Coalition.
And, what does any of this have to do with the leftist and media's (one in the same) constant assaults against the Catholc Church? Everything. Christ's Church is the only entity on the planet that can defeat such evil, and the enemy of humanity knows it.
We went from This: "We're already got the 2 billion from the RCC, and put a number of criminal priest in prison. These suits encourage victums to tell their stories, and it's working."
To This: ".. I’ve seen it from the inside as a member of a religious order..There are some very sick clergy within the RCC, and some even sicker prelates protecting them".
….In less than 24 hours.
Let's give it another day or so to see if it can fully contort itself into a self-consuming human pretzel-
Delphin,
Maybe Rick Perry and Rick Santorum will check-in during the next 24 hours and get us all back on track, the "Right" track!
Dr. Who puts all of his cards on the table: the Church “has Herself descended to the level of the Daleks” … on the basis, we may presume, of “some very sick clergy”. How does one get from “some” – a relative few, perhaps more accurately – clergy to the entire Church descending to the level of the fictional Daleks (and even worse, since the Church’s “evil” is “very real”)?
As written, Dr. Who’s comment here gives the strong impression that those some/few “very sick clergy” – and “some even sicker prelates protecting them” – have utterly reversed the Church’s essential valence from good to “evil”. If that is what he means to say, then we are looking again at a case of Abusenik histrionics – where the oomph of the nifty emotional sound-bite overrides the rational coherence of the thought that the sound-bite is supposed to be conveying.
And if a few “very sick” individuals (and – bit more dubiously – “even sicker prelates”) actually can utterly reverse the essential valence of the Church, does that work also then in regard to non-genuine claimants – i.e. that a few “very sick” ones among that number can reverse the entire valence of the victim group?
Dr. Who – if he has familiarized himself with the flow of earlier commentary on this site – will realize that internet claims are in the final analysis almost invariably un-provable (given the nature of the Web) so whether he is or was or isn’t or never-was a member of a religious order is not something that can enter into the matter here. If he is, then I am even more curious as to how he can rationally get from that some/few to the utter devaluation of the Church. If he is not, then it’s not so surprising.
And his “game” thoughts are derailed because he clearly is not familiar with the usage of “Game” or “game” as I have long used it here to describe the Abusenik Stampede and so forth. But should he review prior comments and then put up some further thoughts I’d be happy to respond.
And to kick-start that research I will say that while genuine Abuse is no game, the trouble we are examining on this site is precisely that of a) establishing genuine victimization and b) distinguishing such incidences from mere undemonstrated “stories”; and further, c) that it has indeed become a Game when such a distinction becomes functionally irrelevant and anybody who feels like singing up can come up with a “story” and have a whack at the Church piñata without substantiating or demonstrating the genuineness of a claimed victimization.
Thus i) victimization is bad and serious, but ii) we must distinguish genuine victimization from claims that are otherwise, so iii) it is insufficient to simply assume that since (i) is true, then we can presume that mostly all claims are mostly true such that (ii) is not necessary and might even be ‘enabling’ or ‘obstructive’ of meeting the demands of the ‘victim’.
Publion- “While the Church in the United States claims to have addressed the issue, some disagree. As Mark “Honigsbaum from The Guardian put it in 2006, “…despite the National Review Board’s own estimates that there have been some 5,000 abusive priests in the US, to date 150 have been successfully prosecuted.” Some critics of the Church such as Patrick Wall attribute this to a lack of cooperation from the church. In California, for example, the archdiocese has sought to block the disclosure of confidential counseling records on two priests arguing that such action would violate their First Amendment right on religious protection.[188] Paul Lakeland claims Church leaders who enabled abuse were too frequently careless about their own accountability and the accountability of perpetrators [189]” (Wikipedia).
Yea, I know it’s Wikipedia, but the original sources are readily verifiable.
“…internet claims are in the final analysis almost invariably un-provable (given the nature of the Web) so whether he is or was or isn’t or never-was a member of a religious order is not something that can enter into the matter here” (Publion). This is obviously true in my case, but Patrick Wall’s membership is indisputable.
First, I note yet again a typical Abusenik gambit: they don’t give links or references but rather they simply give you their spin on what they have read and then leave it at that. In this case, we are given “Wikipedia”, which is a start but since Dr. Who provides quotes from some Wiki article or something else, then he might have simply provided the links to that material. As it is, there appears to be no article on ‘Patrick Wall’ in Wiki, except for a British neuroscientist, a British military officer, and a British Catholic hierarch.
Abusenik Patrick Wall – if memory serves – claimed to be a canon-law expert and several other things, in a court case, and was rather thoroughly exposed in his pretensions and assertions by an actual canon-law expert. TMR published an article in August of 2012 (link provided below) which includes a link to the court document from that actual canon law expert (second link below; see especially pp.6ff of that court submission).
In that same timeframe (see third link below, comment stamped August 22, 2012, 9:37AM), by the by, a commenter going by the moniker ‘drwho13’ inquired “why so many people want to see them [i.e. the Vatican hierarchy] in front of the ICC at the Hague” if they hadn’t done anything wrong. And as we have recently seen, the ICC at the Hague did not want to see the Vatican personnel in front of it and rejected that lawsuit.
In regard to the California matter, this site took an in-depth look at the material from California and it did not perform as Dr. Who seems to imagine it does.
I would need to see the actual Guardian article and then also the source material for it (i.e. the National Review Board’s “estimates”): I would especially be looking for the definition of “abusive” and how the number was reached, since the first John Jay Report (released in 2004, if memory serves) does not say that “there have been some 5,000 abusive priests in the US” but rather that there were some 4300 accused, out of which only 250 or so were found guilty and convicted – which as it stands could well support the possibility that few of the allegation-cases actually stood up in court or even qualified for police investigation.
At any rate, there has been no groundswell on this site to the effect that the pre-Dallas episcopal management was sufficient; the post-Dallas era – now a decade old – has seen a substantial change, by any extant reliable indicators. If some wish to look at the performance of the pre-Dallas era hierarchy as a historical phenomenon, that is certainly legitimate. But to try to cast the pre-Dallas era as a current and contemporary phenomenon would be – I would say – the equivalent of berating Nimitz’s WW2 carrier navy for the pre-1941 failures of the ‘battleship navy’ and the ‘battleship admirals’ of that prior era before the watershed changes induced after 1941.
But again, for the Abuseniks, The Ball Must Be Kept Rolling and so we are seeing something very much like this past-present confusion in their efforts to freeze time in some prior era and claim that no significant changes have been made. (Which statement is not meant to imply that all of the claims about that prior era were true or accurate to begin with.)
Thus finally, the concluding bit about Wall (his “membership” in a religious order is “indisputable”): yes, but his membership is also irrelevant. Once you have read Dr. Peters’ (the canon law expert) demolition of Wall in the below-linked court documents, then the key elements become not only Wall’s (pretended) competence but his integrity; and these are cast into serious doubt by Wall’s own assertions and claims when those are examined and assessed. Wall’s competence and integrity are very very disputable indeed.
http://www.themediareport.com/2012/08/21/huge-court-victory-by-vatican/
http://www.themediareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Peters-reply-to-Wall-and-Doyle.pdf
http://www.themediareport.com/2012/08/21/mea-maxima-culpa-silence-in-the-house-of-god/
The link I am providing here could fit into any number of recent articles. It is writer Joseph Epstein's review of some of the writing of author J.F. Powers, a Catholic of the 1950s who wrote quite a bit of fiction about priests.
I submit it to the readership not to make any particular point but simply as a possible piece for their consideration of Things Catholic and Things Priestly.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578641723309707986.html?KEYWORDS=joseph+epstein
So, Who-bird, your problem really isn't with those bad old priests and prelates now, is it? You eagerly whipped out the "righty" card (which doesn't usually get used until well after those worn-out racist and phobe cards) as soon as you found your opening.
[edited by moderator]
Delphin,
Don't you think that the anti-Catholic card is even more worn-out? Your tack carries little weight with main stream Catholics.
I have just (Sunday morning of the 18th) come across the Ecker comment of the 16th at 1003AM. I respond to it here.
Ecker a) uses the term “survivors” – which of course slides in – as if it were a fact – precisely what has not been established: the genuineness of most claims such that (distasteful as it may be) the genuinely-abused may term themselves “survivors”.
And then b) he expands the subject group to include “anyone who does not agree with the Catholic Church”. That’s a rather vaguely-defined group: in what matters do these person “not agree with the Catholic Church”? Or does Ecker mean anybody who is opposed to the very concept or the very existence of the Catholic Church? Once again, the vagueness in conceptualizing and stating points raises questions about just how careful various persons were when making their abuse-allegations and claims in the first place.
But he is generally accurate in re-stating my point that the Ball being pushed uphill will at some point start to roll back down.
He now does some tinkering with the imagery of the Ball (which he chooses to characterize as somehow ‘correcting’ me): it is not being pushed (although “in the beginning it might of seemed that way” [sic]) but rather “we” [excessive formatting omitted] – meaning apparently Ecker as leader, paragon, exemplar and Chief Wig of all “survivors” – “have picked the ball up” [excessive formatting omitted] and – waittttt for itttttttt! – “in doing so we have been a threat to expose the catholic church for what they have done and to this day what they have not done”.
My point was that whatever that ‘they’ did in the way-back is now running out of steam as the weight of evidence (or absence of evidence) and the sharp decline in allegations work not only toward i) indicating that whatever was amiss in the way-back is now not only restored but improved but also ii) giving rise to the question as to whether there was actually that much demonstrably “evil” in the first place.
Thus at the present juncture the Ball is not simply Rolling on its own but rather the Ball is clearly slowing-down its forward/upward movement.
Ecker is hereby invited to give a concise listing of just what it is that he believes the Church has and has not done.
Then the Wig of Exasperated Benevolence: Ecker does “feel sorry” for – waitttttt for ittttttt! – “individuals who continue to protect a church that truly has made no changes”. First, in what way have I (other commenters are at liberty to speak for themselves) tried to “protect” the Church (accurate quotations required)? And can Ecker actually explain his assertion that the Church has “truly” “made no changes”? We see here again the refusal of the Abuseniks to accept that any substantial changes have been made. And how does he explain the notable fall-off in allegations from the pre-Dallas era?
But if the Abuseniks admit that the changes have had good effect, then they are ‘admitting’ themselves out of a job and a “cause”, are they not?
Thus too, can Ecker explain just what “structure” is still in place “that has allowed the hiding [and] the past denials”? And – especially in the light of the hefty weight of non-evidence in regard to so very many of the claims and allegations – then can Ecker distinguish demonstrably between a deceitful denial and an accurate denial? Or does Ecker expect that the readership will (and must) presume a) that the “structure” actually means the entire institution of the Church and b) that the “denials” were all essentially deceitful (because – but of course – all of the allegations were essentially accurate and true)?
Since Ecker engages in a counterfactual, I will also use one: imagine “what it would be like today” if all of those allegations were each individually examined carefully and rationally (rather than simply being given some form of a free-pass as actually happened).
Ecker’s capacitiy and proclivity to place-bets are his own and I won’t speculate. But his thought here starts to veer toward the idea that: No matter how problematic the dynamics that have enabled the Stampede and the Abuse Matter, it was all in a good cause. But then we still don’t know how many of the “attacks” were genuine in the first place. And examination of such allegations as we have managed to do here certainly doesn’t give any bettor grounds for betting that most of the “attacks” were truly and accurately claimed and their “survivors” genuine.
And then once again, Ecker refers to his “job” here (has he been hired by somebody or is this a self-appointed “cause”?). And then – amazingly – he connects the Catholic Abuse Matter to – waitttt for ittttt! – “9/11”. To me, it’s always a warning sign when any “cause” has to connect itself to a much different and larger issue; it smacks of needing to borrow some other phenomenon’s status and credibility to burnish the dubious status and credibility for a much weaker issue and ‘cause’. (Which gambit, of course, would also immediately serve to burnish the status and credibility of any propagators of that weaker issue and ‘cause’.) This “9/11” bit thus repeats the gambit of stealing the Holocaust “survivor” trope for the (still dubiously-established) allegants and claimants in the Catholic Abuse Matter.
Catholics now “can only blame themselves”. Blame themselves for … what, exactly? Has Ecker established and demonstrated that the Catholic Abuse Matter is not an inverted pyramid, balanced precariously on almost no demonstrable evidence whatsoever?
How nice that Ecker doesn’t “want to speak for JR” – but they both speak from the same mushy swamp-like ethos and world-view. It is what it is.
But a nifty connection of words between the Ball of the Stampede and Msgr. Lynn’s statement that he “dropped the ball”. Nice rhetorical move but to what purpose and what’s the point of it? Nobody I have read commenting on this site has ever denied that there were some deficiencies in management of personnel in the pre-Dallas days (nor has anybody I can recall reading ever lamented the arrival of the Dallas-Reforms era – although I have voiced concerns about the rights of the accused priest, given the pressures of the Stampede and the vagueness of some parameters in terms like “boundary violations”).
Just what does Ecker actually mean by “the right thing” that some “want … to happen”? Are the Dallas-Reforms not “the right thing”? And how can the Church do “the right thing” when it appears that nobody can (or – in many cases – wants to) demonstrate exactly what did (or did-not) happen?
The Abusenik answer to this last question is: a) simply assume every claim is true and accurate and just start writing checks; and b) write not only for the ten or eleven thousand formally-lodged allegations but for the one-hundred or so thousand more that have gone ‘un-reported’; and c) then start working on the intangible (as well as unproven) damage (psychic, emotional, psychological, behavioral, psychiatric) that was – we must also assume – ‘caused’ by the still-unproven ‘abuse’(however defined, but certainly to include at the lower end of the spectrum an arm across the groin in front of a dozen or more witnesses).
Then the juvenile myah-myah bit at the end of Ecker’s comment and – if the idea isn’t strong enough to stand on its own then shout it – the exaggerated formatting of “right”.
Let us not close our Notebook on the Playbook yet. There always seems to be more to learn.
Publion,
Concerned ???
[edited by moderator] Find out where your diety came from along with your hierarchyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ZmsRUmuWU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
In regard to the 745PM Ecker one-liner comment of the 18th:
If I read behind the lines – or line – correctly, what Ecker is working on here is the following delusion: simply by eliciting extended comments because of the quality (or lack of it) in his material, Ecker is succeeding in making the ‘Catholics’ “concerned” (because of the substantive “threat” that he imagines he has succeeded in creating for the evil and blame-worthy Catholics and the Church.
Such a delusion must be a consolation to him, and perhaps one that is much-needed. Be that as it may.
What actually goes on (for my part) with his material (and some others’ here) is not that the wisdom and acuteness of his analysis and thoughts constitute a “threat” to the Church and to Catholics. Rather, what goes on is my desire to use such material as useful specimens for further elucidating some of the dynamics of the Catholic Abuse Matter and the Stampede. And – as I have said several times before in comments – I take a lot of time and space to do this because I precisely want to demonstrate (and not simply assert) just how much careful and serious work is required when making and then justifying or simply even explaining thoughts and claims in such an important matter.
Readers who might have followed my link in one of yesterday’s comments to the court document of Dr. Peters, the canon law expert, in the matter of Patrick Wall, will see this vividly demonstrated: Peters does not simply file a short and snappy one-liner document that makes an assertion and then leaves it to be accepted by the Court on the basis of his own presumed authority. Rather, he establishes his own credibility and expertise, and then recounts Wall’s claims, and then – in this step by step process – assesses each of Wall’s claims and assertions in orderly sequence, explaining at each point how he has reached his conclusions.
This is not simply a ‘legal’ requirement; rather, the legal requirement exemplifies the fundamental and essential need for clear and careful thinking and the exposition of that clear and careful thinking at each stage of presenting one’s position and one’s conclusions.
We have seen the spread of the one-liner and snarky type of assertion, along with assertions otherwise deficient in clear reasoning and exposition, with the growth of Web commentary. Indeed, as I have said, I am convinced that without the spread of such deficient thinking-process then the Stampede could never have – so easily and for so long – attained the existence it has managed to retain.
As I said, many Web commenters consider all of this process to be not necessary (and perhaps beyond their capabilities). Thus the myriad short-snappy-snarky comments out there on the Web, or the conceptually deficient extended comments that yet do not actually manage to perform well the job of analyzing and assessing this or that matter.
And then with such as Ecker we see an added layer: presented with the alternative of such process, they instead choose – or need – to simply console themselves with the (delusional) thought that if their one-liners or deficient material can elicit lengthy responses, then they have somehow ‘succeeded’ and have ‘achieved’ something.
And perhaps in one sense that is true: they have ‘achieved’ the result of making their material a useful specimen of how-not-to-do-it, and in the Catholic Abuse Matter they further give occasion for readers to consider just how much of the inverted-pyramid of the Abuse Matter is and always has been based on gross deficiencies: in collecting substantiated factual information, in assessing that information, and in presenting their resulting conclusions coherently.
And – hardly by coincidence – this is precisely the difficulty we recently saw with JR claiming that he has had no luck in ‘changing minds’ here: in order to ‘change minds’ constructively and competently, it takes a lot of this type of rational and persuasive work. Whereas – as I said in a prior comment – JR exemplifies vividly, as does Ecker in his way, the how-not-to-do-it methodology of simply appealing to emotions rather than reason and thus for all practical purposes manipulating readers into ‘agreeing’ with whatever is being put forward.
One further suggestion: The court-submission – that expert opinion of Dr. Peters – that I linked to above (and which TMR originally provided in the summer of 2012) offers any reader an excellent opportunity to get a sense of the complexity but also the dynamic flow of Things Catholic. Because it is not one of the specifically legal documents (such as the Complaint, various Motions and attorney submissions) then it is not primarily ‘legal-ese’; rather Peters’ document is an extended reflection and analysis of various matters in Church history and in theology. It is formatted according to the requirements for a court submission, but it is highly readable for any lay reader and – as I said – it offers a wealth of insight into the Church’s history and operation.
Certainly, if any of the readership hold themselves to the old (and – as they say – ‘venerable’) practice of Spiritual Reading, then the Peters document would certainly qualify as that.
And, as I said in prior comments on this thread, for readers not so much spiritually inclined but interested in the practice and discipline of rationally examining material and expressing that examination coherently and rationally and logically, then Peters will greatly repay any efforts expended in reading him.
O.K. After many months here, reading your opposition to victims. I'm finished
It's very clear a web of deceit and mendacity is continually being spun here between P , passing itself off as being a, a human being; and D passing it self off as a martinet in it's "church militant".. They do not speak to each other or about what each other posts. They direct attacks only towards victims who dare to stand up to their lies and lying implications.
And then there are Josie and Julie, the Dolly sisters, feigning honesty and innocence to back up the one two punches of Tweadle D,P, and Tweadle Dumber, D.
I've said before that conversation is impossible here because real free speach is edited for the "safety" of the readership.
So I end my attempts to reach you. Where you are I've already been. You represent the small rulling minority of an old and evil and idiotic institution. One that has been built on fear and fantasy. That's what you want and that's what you've got. Fear and Fantasy your path to an afterlife that does not exist.
And don't pretend you are just average posters speaking your "truth". You are not.
What you are are lying evil frauds set up to guard the palaces and treasure of your princes. You are professional. I am not.
I quit this game. You are another Tom Doyle created cul d' sac. Maybe not directly controlled by Doyle but just another one of his "committees" to control victims and how we are to be seen publicly. SNAP and TMR and VOTF are all Doyle's "committees", all bullshit; all the time.
Jeff Anderson has always worked for the Church. He's yours not ours.
I have been used enough by your church; and I've had enough of dreck like you. Fin
…I give it 2 weeks…..
We are now presented with JR’s second Nixon-’62 Moment in less than a week.
Examining and questioning is “opposition” and “attacks”. What’s new here?
If there are any examples of “a web of deceit and mendacity” I’d like to see them (accurate quoted). I would submit an alternative explanation: “projection”, whereby what the speaker is actually doing himself is instead blamed-upon (or ‘projected-onto’) the interlocutors (who have actually been the targets of the speaker’s own – in this case – “web of deceit and mendacity”). We notice here yet again that we get no examples to explain or demonstrate the assertion; just the assertion itself.
And the epithetical: the speaker’s target is merely “passing itself off being a human being” [sic].
Curious bit though, that “they do not speak to each other or about what each other posts”: I certainly have never had any off-site communication with any other commenter. But I have noted on occasion where there does seem to be that very thing going on between certain commenters, such that various posts from various persons will almost simultaneously appear with either i) the same bits of content in them or ii) the same phrasing or usages. More projection, perhaps. Or a shared Shoebox.
I have never encountered material from JR and others in which it would seem accurate to characterize the material as “victims who dare to stand up to their lies and lying implications”. Indeed, we see again here no examples of such “lies” or – a rather vague term – “lying implications”.
But the assertion does reveal – once again – the mental dynamics in play: persons who have convinced themselves that whatever it is that they are doing is some form of heroic standing-up-to. It may be a consolation, even a needed consolation – but it cannot be given here the same free pass that the media have given such posturing for decades.
Just what does “conversation” mean for JR? Does that mean that rationality and coherence are not necessary because – as we have so often heard here – “it’s just a blog” and we are all just blog-weenies killing time and blowing off a little harmless steam? And yet – surely – there is nothing “harmless” in the Stampede, and for my part I have always said that serious deliberation and analysis are or should be essential here.
If anything of JR’s has been “edited for the ‘safety’ of the readership”, then what could such material possibly be? Substantive ideas and demonstrative evidence to back them up? Or merely the usual expletives that are deleted not for the “safety” but for the respect of the readership (after all, who needs to have expletives tossed at them when they’re trying to consider serious matters?).
If JR was ever under the impression that ungrounded assertions and claims, epithets and expletives were reasonably to be construed as “efforts to reach” readers, then that was his (rather eye-popping) mistake in the first place. But – of course – the way the Game has been played for the past few decades (with the media’s hefty indulgence) that was precisely what was supposed to work here on this site as on all the others.
Once again too, the revealing phrase “your truth” – as if there is no objective truth, but only whatever ‘truth’ an individual or interest-group wants to claim is ‘truth’. Thus: ‘your truth’, ‘my truth’, hers-his-or-its truth, ‘their truth’, and ‘our truth’ and so on.
We are “lying evil frauds” and so forth. But after one of his earlier Farewell Concerts some months back, JR had returned to the boards claiming that it ‘amused’ him to traffic with us “immoral” types. Not so amused any longer? This site is no longer ‘amusing’? I for one am glad to hear it.
And we are informed that not only still-Father Doyle but also Jeff Anderson have “always worked for the Church”. No evidence or explanation as to how such a conclusion was reached in the matter of Anderson; but it would no doubt resemble the material proffered in proof of the claims that SNAP and the still-Father were also working for the Church. Or at least they don’t agree with JR or acknowledge his extensive brilliance – which may amount to the same thing according to the calculus book JR reads from.
A sweeping conclusion delivered with the full Wig of Victimization and a French sweep off the stage with the curtains rustling loudly in the wind as the storm swoops by on its way to the exit.
I am reminded of Tolkien’s Gandalf: “Thus passes Denethor … “
Meanwhile, we are all left to ponder the fact that for so many decades this type of mentality – or, if one wishes, ‘approach’ – was given a free-pass. And the Stampede came.
For the TMR record, I do get moderated (a lot, lately!), but, I don't use expletives or epiteths and I don't want anyone thinking that I do. Not my style.
Regarding the style of the left when their lies are exposed and they've no place left to go, but on either full assault or in full retreat (temporarily), just observe the antics of their politicians when busted; Clinton, Filner, Weiner, Obama, Roberts, Hart, Sharp James, Marion Barry, the Daly's and on and on – they will literally take the lie to the grave with them, but, not before brutalizing, with the help of an all-too-willing press, the opposition as liars.
This flame out was to be expected.
Again.
And, again.
The solace that has been achieved from this site and reading comments from Publion and his friends is knowing that they will always be on the defense in an attempt to defend the actions of the roman catholic church and its leaders.
That there thinking is of the minority and not the majority. Their attempt to minimize or change the reputation of their church because of the actions of catholic clergy will not change because of fancy words or length of a comment.
When the future looks back at this time, it will be their church who will have the black eye and be known as the "bad guy"
So Publion be concerned because if the old statement " you can do many right things, but if you do one wrong that is what you will be remembered for" means that you and your friends have many many more words to write.
Sadly in the end those words will mean nothing.
Dennis,
This case disintegrated as did 2 others-not much defense needed. Anderson quitely went away and the press did not cover the defeat. What are you commenting on?
Anyway, since you like the ball analogy, I suggest that you read up on offense/defense (it can take up some of your idle time). Somehow, I feel that you did not play a sport.
"Sadly, in the end" (as you say) your words mean nothing because they are gibberish. Your quotes ( wherever do you get them?) are never appropriate to the subject at hand. It is your words that are meaningless, even when used correctly and spelled right.
Jim is bowing out? I don't think Jim was really understanding Publion's posts, and being so radically one-sided in posts, to the point of caricature, doesn't help one's case. Jim isn't changing anyone's mind, in fact, he is making me a more sincere Catholic, I believe, because one can see in such comments what is out there, and in what numbers, inside and outside the church, battling fiercly against Jesus and His church. It's easy to pretend real evil does not exist, and there is really only one force against real evil. And that is the church.
Commenter Ecker is welcome to his predictions (the Wig of Knowledgable Prediction with the tin-foil helmet plopped on top) as to whether the Church “will always be on the defense”. And if he is referring only to past actions – in the pre-Dallas era – of the Church and some bishops, then who here has ever denied that personnel matters were not always handled well? Ecker here tries to paint much of the commentary on this site as “defending the actions of the roman catholic church and its leaders” when actually the gravamen here has been to try to find out what actually happened before jumping to un-supported (and perhaps un-supportable) conclusions.
All of which is thinking-too-much for such as Ecker, whose solution to this issue is simply to believe that all or most of the allegations are genuine. (I repeat here a point I made above in another comment: If just a few bad-apple priests can change the fundamental and essential valence of the Church from good to ‘evil’, then won’t a few non-genuine allegants and claimants also vitiate the valence of the victimists?)
So Ecker’s “solace” is – like so much else in his self/world-view, it would seem – somewhat not-anchored in reality.
The Wig/helmet also commands him to inform us that such thinking as he disapproves-of here is “of the minority and not the majority”. By what demonstrable evidence can that assertion be supported?
“Fancy words or the length of a comment” will not, he is further directed to inform us, will not “change the actions of catholic clergy”. But once again: we are precisely trying to get a grasp on just what “actions” that “catholic clergy” actually did (or did not do). And what we are trying to do – the way I see it – on this site is to deliberate and discuss, not to “change”.
And there is surely a difference between a) trying to discover what actually happened and b) trying to “minimize” what has already been demonstrated to have happened.
And then Ecker consoles himself with the thought that “the reputation of [the] church” will not “change” now. This, I think, is the key bit here: Ecker has sought – and sees himself as having led the charge for – an essential and permanent reduction in the “reputation” of the Church. This dovetails nicely with the overall secularist-liberal effort to reduce the public stature and credibility of its greatest rival and obstruction, i.e. the Church. An effort for which, in the final analysis, the Abuseniks have served that effort as fellow-travelers and even useful idiots, to use the old Soviet phrases. (Let me save us all some time here: I just said that they were made – whether they knew it or not – to play the same role as the “useful idiots” of Lenin’s gameplan; I did not say that all Abuseniks were idiots.)
And if “fancy words” and extended comments won’t change minds, does Ecker think that his various ex Wiggedra pronouncements will have any effect? Only – perhaps – on certain types of mentalities.
Ecker is further instructed to tell us that “when the future looks back at this time” … readers are welcome to take that bit from the tea-leaves for what they think it’s worth. I think that historians are going to be looking at the Stampede as a striking example of a Stampede, very similar to what the Nazi’s tried to mount against the Church in the later 1930s (see the link at the bottom of this comment, taken with thanks from the These Stone Walls site). And historians will have to consider just how a culture and society that considers itself so educated and competent could fall for a Stampede all over again in these oh-so-modern and enlightened times.
We are then given a quotation from somewhere to the effect that no matter how many things an individual or organization does right, it will only be remembered for “the one wrong thing”. I am not convinced of the accuracy of that thought, but even on its face it would seem clearly to support the idea that the Church has done a number of things right. Whether – as Ecker and the interests and forces (real, rather than imagined) that he serves hope – the Church’s final epitaph will be that it was “evil” because of the “one wrong thing” … that remains to be seen. Anybody who wishes to join Ecker on his hilltop waiting for that Glorious Moment to arrive is advised to bring their own Kool-Aid and to pack some loaves and fishes; it may be a very long wait. Entertainment will be provided by the comedic stylings of the various Wigs; event security will be provided by all of those who made a “career” guarding everybody’s lives during a hitch of military service that they spent in the sunny climes near the Caribbean counting the days until they could go do other things.
And thus to the faux-pious bleating of the Wig of Mature Sadness: those who disagree with Ecker will wind up with efforts that ultimately “will mean nothing”. As they Hebrew brethren and sistern say: from your lips to God’s ear. Let’s just wait to see what God says when He hears it.
http://www.cesnur.org/2010/mi-goebbels_en.html