**BREAKING** Appellate Court OVERTURNS Historic Philly Conviction of Msgr. Lynn [UPDATES: Court Docs Added ... More Links and Developments ... Philly D.A. Unhinged?]

This is good news for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia coming Saint Stephan's Day. Was this urgent news regarding Msgr. Lynn's alledged sex-abuse broadcast on the Philadelphia radio and TV stations?  Was the monsignor's case the top headline for KYW-radio AM 1080?  Media bias is proved if the Philadephia media ignores the Msgr. Lynn's court exoneration.  

 

How can any moral person rejoice in this action by the courts? The protection of children is supposed to be one of our foremost responsibilities. Yet, proclaiming innocense for those who cover up criminal activity seems to make at least some subjects of Rome happy. Nothing could be sadder, and vilifying those who cry for distributive justice for the the hundreds of thousands of victims of childhood sexual assault casts shame upon the entire institution that was at one time respected.

What part of "Appellant is ordered discharged forthwith" evades this narcissistic judge's reading comprehension? Is she not in contempt of court for carrying out yet another dog-and-pony-show at the expense of law and justice, while Msgr. Lynn's release is delayed for no justifiable reason? And why aren't Msgr. Lynn's attorneys not at the Superior Court at this moment seeking his release, as ordered?

Could the false flag efforts called SNAP and VOTF ever have come from the right wing of the church? Of course not. Don't be stupid. It had to come from the empathizing left not the "I'm not resposibile for any of my actions" right.

You may notice I have had an answer for all your "questions" about SNAP and Doyle and VOTF.

That's what being truthful gets you. All the right answers. Try it.

Tales from the Cafeteria continue, with the new possibility that all along the Cafeteria has actually been located in the Horsehead Nebula.

On the 1st at 1152AM JR attempts to re-toss a lot of his old plop at the screen, on the premise that it hasn’t been “dealt with”. It (either JR’s own material or somebody’s else’s that he has parroted) has been dealt with extensively, many conceptual and historical questions are in the record as having been raised, and JR is on the record as having answered none of them.

Part of this difficulty lies in the JR’s self-serving conflation of ‘come-back’ with ‘answer’, which two terms – out in the precincts of the Horsehead Cafeteria  – apparently are synonymous.

Thus the reappearance of the old Deschner material here. The Vatican managed to diplomatically separate itself from the Fascist State in the Concordat of 1929, realizing a Vatican objective that had been active since at least 1870 when the increasingly anti-clerical Italian government had taken over all of the former territory of the Papal States. Just what that diplomatic fact is somehow supposed to establish in regard to the Church and Fascism generally is not something JR has cared to explain.

Ditto the location of Nazi death-camps. First, JR has not explained whatever he thinks he sees as the significance of the Nazis’ selection of the sites as being anything more than a matter of convenience, i.e. the camps were put close to the populations that were destined for eradication. The five extermination camps (Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec) were all in the former Poland, which after its defeat had become the directly-administered Nazi state called the Government-General – a large area simultaneously under direct Nazi control and close to the targeted populations.

Does he claim that the fact that many Central European countries had historically strong Christian or Catholic ties somehow demonstrates a deeper alliance between Christianity and Fascism or – more properly – Nazism?

Second, camps such as Bergen-Belsen, Flossenburg, Ravensbruck, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Dachau – where executions were carried out – were located in Germany, which was had Christian ties but was not a Catholic-majority country.

And in any case, the fact that the former Poland was a “Catholic” country of itself demonstrates no other “facts” that JR thinks he can “read”. He is welcome to counter that with demonstration of his own thinking on the matter, if he can. But we went over all of this quite a while ago on this site and got nothing substantial from the Horsehead precincts in response.

Then on the 1st at 158PM JR will offer Kay Ebeling’s website as his evidence, thus we are sent from one table in the Cafeteria to another – which is hardly progress. The question that has to be answered is this: wherever the initial pretextual location for SNAP’s non-profit status was lodged, can it be demonstrated in documents that “the Church” somehow ‘founded’ SNAP?

It will not at all be sufficient to demonstrate that the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa, coupled with the Dominican still-Father Doyle, were somehow present at the creation of SNAP as a non-profit entity. Because the presence of the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa and the still-Father does not offer clear proof that “the Church” – rather than Doyle, using the Sisters as a cover – initially organized the SNAP entity; it merely demonstrates that Doyle used the Sisters to set up SNAP as a non-profit. Nor does this maneuver of Doyle’s in any way establish that the Church conceived of SNAP as a concept with its mission and purpose.

What the use of the Sinsinawa group might indeed indicate is that Doyle – using the Sisters as either witting collaborators or un-witting mules – wanted an organization of his own that would be able to legally raise funds independently of the Church in order to pursue his own purposes.

All of which then has to be added to the problem that, as D’Antonio relates, it was only when Anderson encountered Blaine that SNAP’s actual ‘career’ took off, as that shrewd tortie realized that this would be the perfect front organization for cultivating and  grooming his ‘victims’. Doyle does not appear from the historical record to have objected as that major transformation took place, to the benefit of the torties and the SNAP organizational staff.

Thus the deceased Economus joins Deschner in JR’s mental shoebox, which – I would say – is pretty much where they belong anyway. They all pretty much operate mentally the same way, picking and choosing bits and pieces like magpies building a nest they like, but unable to explain the complications or questions arising from the material they have patched-together.

So the “false-flag” effort here does not reveal any role of the Church whatsoever. If JR wants to insist that SNAP never had “the victims” as its first priority (which may – or may not – be news to the Sinsinawa group) then he is welcome to do so and I have already gone on the record as agreeing with that, for reasons I have explained. But the only way to involve “the Church” in this is to claim – in the manner of a child playing with blocks – that since the Sinsinawa group and Doyle were all Church-affiliated, then “the Church” founded SNAP.

And another possibility is that the Church was indeed somehow informed of the formation of SNAP – but merely as some sort of group that would ‘help victims’, which possibility would certainly place the Church as approving some sort of help for ‘victims’.

But then Blaine met Anderson, and Doyle set-up for himself as opposed to being a collaborator with the Church, and SNAP went in an entirely different direction.

Readers are welcome to consider the usefulness of JR’s Wiggy effort to mimic competent analysis and judgment in his characterization of Economus as having “analyzed brilliantly” anything at all.

Then JR asks – with an uncharacteristically competent usage – “what would be the benefit for the church in planting me as a provocateur regarding SNAP?”. I had not given his role so magnificent and honorific a characterization as “provocateur”; I had simply pointed out that if the Church wanted to make “victims” somehow ‘look bad’, then JR was the perfect tool for the job; and – adding a bit more counter-intelligence thinking into the mix here – JR would not even need to be prepped for the job since merely winding him up and letting him roll-on would be more than enough to achieve the objective; he would ‘make victims look bad’ rather ‘naturally’, so to speak. This, of course, is a very desirable type of agent – one who doesn’t have to be taught new skills because his natural tendencies will do the job for you. Such an agent is, in a sense, like a fire-and-forget munition: just set it in motion and it will do the job on its own without the bother of further monitoring.

And since what JR doth “tell” is so clearly and demonstrably deficient in rationality, coherence, and competence, then it becomes clear quickly the value for the Church (presuming for the purposes of this discussion that JR is a tool of the Church): he reveals – unwittingly and ‘naturally’ – the inherent whackness of the Abusenik position at its fundamental level. And then – taking this possibility to the level of counter-intelligence sublimity – JR need not ever be further monitored since he himself believes that he is an independent agent pursuing a goal that he thinks is actually the opposite of what he is actually doing.

But whatever the case may be in that regard, we see clearly why the Abusenik Playbook has always and from the get-go eschewed serious and sustained discussion of the fundaments of the Abusenik position and the material produced in support of it: as soon as anybody starts poking at it, this baloney-skin tire is going to puncture and deflate.

He then gets into true semantic word-play: he is not “fighting for unknown victims”; he is fighting for “unrepresented victims” [italics mine]. But in order for such “victims” to be “unrepresented” they first – not to put too fine a point on it – have to be in the first place. And that is precisely the core problem here: we don’t know if they even do exist, and nothing JR has produced has demonstrated that they do. So we are right back where we started here, with what at this point remains nothing more than a phantasmagorical construct self-servingly invented to keep JR in business doing what he does.

And whatever the failures of SNAP in regard to “victims”, there is no demonstration by JR that the Church created the SNAP organization as it came to be under the aegis of the Anderson-Blaine alliance. And if the Church, hypothetically speaking, originally approved of the Sinsinawa enabling of SNAP as some sort of victims-help organization, then that opens up a whole further can of worms for the JR and Economus fantasies.

Lastly, on this point, in the internet age it is not possible to credibly assert that a group of persons cannot get themselves together – at least virtually – if they wish. And after two or more decades of the internet, that has not happened. And JR has never explained that absence in any credible way.

On the 1st at 1234PM JR bleats plaintively that “experience is given no credit here”, while “posturing by apologists is”. Yah.

For what am I an “apologist”? Can he demonstrate with accurate quotations where I am a shill for “the corporate church”? But it’s going to be easier for him to toss this plop than it is to deal with the questions I pose to his assorted claims, assertions, conclusions and stories.

And more to the point, in what is JR supposed to have “experience”? We have nothing to demonstrate conclusively and credibly that JR is ‘experienced’ in anything more than the administration and sustaining of his own fantastical system.

But – apparently aware on some level that his own material won’t be enough to pull of his gambit here – he goes for the inference of “class war” (as well as the initial “experience” bit): JR is apparently a “worker” (not some effete ivory-tower “professional” type).

How does his skein of fantastical bits square with D’Antonio’s material? (Or are we to presume that D’Antonio too is a tool of the Church?)

Nor do we even know – as I said a while back on an earlier thread where this bit surfaced – that JR actually “worked with” SNAP (which term itself would have to be more clearly explained).

And where did I ever say that SNAP is “showing well for victims”? Once again, JR cannot handle the actual material so instead he invents material to which he can more easily object.

Does SNAP “make us [victims, presumably] look bad around important issues”? It does now, in no small part because of the work of the TMR site. Otherwise, things might have kept Rolling Along: SNAP issuing its usual boilerplate press-releases whenever some new bit floated by in the news, to ensure that the public adopted the correct (i.e. negative) spin toward the Church. And I say again that if JR is under the impression that his own material makes ‘victims’ somehow ‘look good’ on those “important issues”, then he needs to re-think some basic stuff indeed.

Then he tosses in a third random variable, trying to introduce a right-left twist into the mix.

And then that somehow what Doyle and SNAP have done has somehow worked to “circumvent any self-leadership and connection for victims” [italics mine]. That isn’t really the right word here: ‘prevent’ would be more accurate, but that presumes that there is a myriad of “victims” out there in the first place. “Circumvent” would indicate that such “self-leadership and connection” had taken place but Doyle and SNAP had somehow gotten-around it; whereas, actually, there has been no such activity on the part of the (hypothetical) myriads of “victims” in the first place.

But how in any rational universe could Doyle and SNAP prevent these hypothetical myriads of ‘victims’ from somehow coalescing? Perhaps JR knew very well what he was doing in choosing the wrong term (“circumvent”) here: to claim that Doyle and SNAP could actually prevent such a coalescing might well be too much of a muchness. But JR had to somehow get by the fact of the very absence of that coalescing, and if he didn’t have somebody to blame for that absence, then the alternative explanation would come to light: there has been no such coalescing because there is nobody out there to coalesce.

Then we are assured that if we just “keep watching” we will see – sure as shootin’ – that JR has been right all along. Well, that’s not much of a demonstration. He will gladly pay us Tuesday for a hamburger today. The Wimpy Gambit.

Thus the comment of the 1st at 104PM also fails. And it is in this comment that we get the actual demonstration of JR’s conflation of ‘come-back’ with “answer”. But what are definitions to Abuseniks? They are as much silly-putty as the stories, claims, assertions and all the rest. Ditto the “truthful” bit.

To Dennis, per his 12/29/13 post at 10:40PM, your words are in italic, my responses follow in bold regular type (ed.).

Putting Lynn in prison sends a very clear message to anyone else who is in a position such as his. You wish to take a vow of obedience and do as you are told and not question something you know is wrong you will face the punishment.

Putting Lynn in prison on nothing more than bias and a sense of spite only feeds mob mentality. It is a VERY DANGEROUS MINDSET, one that I will protest loudly and obnoxiously with every breath of my being, both as a Catholic and as an American. Do not forget, Msgr. Lynn was cleared of all of the other charges, and the one charge that he was originally found guilty of was based on the sole testimony of one Danny Gallagher, AKA Billy Doe. It has now been successfully argued that THAT law was grossly misapplied, and if one backtracks the steps, the misapplication was clearly deliberate and intentional and agenda drive. The safety and well being of those abused played NO part in the actions of WIlliams and Sarmina. 

 

Then you state it is the laity responsibility to recognize the signs of abuse. Is it also the responsibility of individuals to recognize the abuser before the abuse ever happens ? Its not stamped on their forehead !

Then whose responsibility is it?!?! Really?!?! You advocate simply watching the sparks turn into a full blown forest fire, and then blaming the Park Ranger stationed 100 miles away. Not in my world! Best to LEARN how to recognize the sparks BEFORE they ignite, EXTINGUISH them IMMEDIATELY by LOCAL means, and THEN alert the Park Ranger that something is causing sparks, and he needs to PREVENT them from showing up in the first place!

WAAAAAY too much can (and does) happen LOOOOONG before the any given bishop even recieves a memo. For example, (at least) SIX people suspected Ratigan's activities for years before Bishop Finn had heard even one word about it. ALL SIX of those people met the legal criteria for "mandated reporters". 

Now answer this very important question: Who could have stopped Ratigan dead in his tracks years before the fact? The correct and righteous answer is…….THE LAITY!

As to recognizing the abuser before the abuse happens, it is possible, and it is a work in progress for society as a whole. The key is not in us recognizing the pedo, but teaching our children how to recognize the signs of grooming behaviors. You really need to read the Abel Harlow Study, and then talk to professional child welfare people about -who- fits the MO of any given pedophile.  

 

If you believe in your own statement then you as a parent failed your own two children.

I firmly BELIEVE and ADVOCATE my own statement, and you are not the judge of my own parental abilities. That decision rests soley with my children and with God. You have no part of that decision. 

 

Did you call the police when two of your children faced attempted abuse ? Did you file an official complaint ? Was there a investigation into your complaint and OFFICIAL finding ?

All complaints are public record !!!!!

NUNYA BIZNEZZ!!!!!!! In one case I did not know until many years after the fact. In the other, we took drastic legal recourse. That is all that you need to know. 

Rondre,

He was in jail for 18 months. He never said a word, did a press conference, wrote a editorial, or even did a newspaper interview. He accepted his fate. His lawyers spoke, but not him. I think that is accepting responsibility 100%.  

Jim,

Under the LAW of the United States, he should not have had to accept or be forced to accept anything. Lynn broke the law post 2007, not before. Too bad he wasn't in that post past 2004. Why did the DA not prosecute the former Archbishop (now deceased) or bishop Cistone who was more involved in Lynn. The DA was never divulged all the information and threatened detectives along the way not to reveal the real truth of Dan Gallaghers account, which never happened. 

LOL! LOL! How, pray tell, has SNAP damaged the church at all? Ever? Snap barks at the church and pretends to speak for victims. How does barking at the church, around issues it should be barked at for, do anything to harm them? It's the church's cover up it's behavior that's causing the harm. not SNAP.

If you made two lists of actions: SNAP's towards victims and SNAP's towards the church. It's hostile actions towards victims ( by pretending it represents us without our vote for one) will be much longer than any so called harmful actions done against the church by SNAP. Everything SNAP does is there to make victims look bad and to pretend it cares about victims and our needs, while it makes us look bad. Bad as in unfocused, angry; illiterate; uneducated; hypocritical and stupid.Think of the case in Missouri or Kansas that was fought to the supreme court by SNAP to keep it's records sealed. Exactly what the church had fought having done to itself for 25 years. And attempting to pass SNAP off as a rape crisis center sans therapists. Oh please! How did that make victims look good and the church look bad? The church makes it self look bad. SNAP makes victims look bad. Now that's quite an accomplishment to make raped children out to be the bad. When all we've done is say we were raped. When we were raped and by who we were raped.

P.S. SNAP's founding documents as a non profit says it's founded by the church. Sponsered by the Dominican nuns of Siniwa Wisconsin. Fr. Tom Doyle is still a Dominican priest again I quote Doyle, that he "always testifies (in abuse cases) on behalf of the church" Where is someone speaking for the victims if both SNAP and Doyle are "testifying for the church"? Nowhere that's where. Sad Sad Sad!