St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Lilly Fowler (l) plays useful idiot for campaign against
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson orchestrated by Church-suing tort lawyer Jeff Anderson (r)
Media outlets – both secular and religious – have been falling over themselves to tout the dramatic front-page story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by Lilly Fowler that St. Louis Archbishop Robert J. Carlson testified in a recent deposition that he was unaware that the sexual abuse of a child was a crime.
As one might imagine, however, even a cursory look at the actual facts reveals that the entire story is just plain silly at best and malicious at worst.
The Archbishop is obviously well aware that sex abuse of a child is, and always has been, a crime, and to suggest otherwise simply demonstrates how deeply ingrained the mainstream media's animus is against the Catholic Church and its leaders.
Fowler's selective facts
Fowler's story is based entirely on selected excerpts from a deposition that Archbishop Carlson recently sat for in a lawsuit by the hyperbolic contingency lawyer Jeff Anderson. And no doubt the story was another plant by Anderson to pump up the value of his lawsuit by using useful idiots in the media like Fowler to put public pressure on the Church to settle the case on favorable terms to Anderson.
However, even a cursory review of the actual deposition (pdf) clearly illustrates that Archbishop Carlson was not claiming that he did not know that the sexual abuse of a child was a crime.
For starters, Fowler makes no mention of the fact that the deposition involved a priest who was removed from active ministry because of abuse some 30 years ago, nor does she bother to inform her readers that Carlson himself played a significant role in events leading to the priest's removal.
Fowler also conveniently neglects to tell readers that this was the fifth time that Carlson had sat for a deposition with Jeff Anderson regarding this very same priest.
And as far as Fowler's wild headline that Abp. Carlson "claims to be uncertain if he knew sexual abuse was a crime," a look at the deposition reveals that numerous times during the deposition Carlson clearly acknowledges that child abuse is indeed a crime. For example:
page 145:
ANDERSON: [Y]ou knew a priest touching the genital of a kid to be a crime; did you not?
ABP. CARLSON: Yes.
Also:
pages 98-99:
ANDERSON: And you also knew that when first degree criminal sexual conduct is written and recorded, that is the most serious of the sex crimes against a child. You know that?
ABP. CARLSON: Correct.
And as at least one source has aptly pointed out, in the deposition Carlson told Anderson eight separate times that he had told relatives of abuse victims to go to the police, which is an obvious indication that Carlson knew crimes had been committed.
Oddly, in her story Fowler did bury one of Carlson's statements that he knew that sex abuse was a crime – thus undermining the entire premise of her splashy headline.
Anderson's bait and switch
So, what about Fowler's fevered claim that Archbishop Carlson testified that he did not know that child sex abuse was a crime?
Well, the deposition makes clear that Carlson had repeatedly acknowledged the depravity of child abuse, and when Carlson testified that he did not know whether "it" was a crime, he was referring to the mandatory reporting of abuse and not the crime of sex abuse itself. Indeed, Carlson has since released a statement and video explaining as much.
We thus have yet another phony story hawked by the notorious Jeff Anderson and penned by an all-too-willing journalist in Folwer seizing the opportunity to produce a TMZ-worthy story which an anti-Catholic media was more-than-pleased to promote.
In the end, the story here is really more about the current state of the mainstream media than anything Archbishop Carlson said in a deposition about what he remembers from 30 years ago.
Reporters are inherently lazy that is why they publish easy stuff fed to them by the likes of Jeff Anderson and why they never really fact check stories.
Not sure it is as much an anti-Catholic thing–though the media is certainly bigoted aginst Catholics.
The point here is not that he admitted it at other times during his deposition, he certainly did…the point is how often he denied having any knowledge about the law when he clearly did and AT WHAT POINT HE KNEW IT, further Jeff Andersons questions in the pages that stirred so much outrage, were slightly different, this time trying to pin point the TIMEFRAME when the Archbishop knew it was illeagal to abuse a child. The questions were clear…read the following link at Catholic Culture for more "clarity".
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=821
What you and Lawler seem to be missing is that it was not a lie but a mischarterization by Anderson if only because it would make no sense in this context for the bishop to lie and it would be a ridiculous lie in any event.
Jessie, it's clear you didn't read the transcript. Your suggestion that the Archbishop's repeated denials were a "mischaracterization" is initself a "mischaracterization" of the TRUTH. Yes we all knew he knew it was a crime, yes he even admitted same earlier in the deposition. The question he was avoiding was about WHEN he knew it was a crime. It is crystal clear to most but of course if one's head is buried in the sand, they probably aren't seeing very clearly.
Phil Lawlor could not have made it more clear, the Archbishops responses, once again erodes what little credability our church has left.
Why would, or should, anyone have to read anything filterd thru a biased media site (even lefty Catholics are biased, they've been taught the fine art of self-hatred) when you can read the ABs deposition, directly – as provided here at TMR?
Oh, it's a case of "interpretation", I suppose? The dear lefty's interpretation and clarificaton will tell you what the Bishop really meant, instead of what he really said.
And, we're suppossed to believe these miscreants about whether any abuse at all ever occurred? Sure, ok – and OJ is innocent, too.
There's a "fine art to self hatred"?
[edited by moderator]
Everybody except MediaReport knows Carlson should be held accountably for his crimes.
What crime is that? He has not been charged with anything.
The crime of pretending he didn't know if he was committing a crime by not reporting as a mandatory reporter. Get it? Got it? Good.
Intentionally dull commenters should be held accountable for the crime of purposefully obfuscating the TMR article by spinning it to focus on the AB, rather than on the dishonesty of the media, as they continue to collude with lawyers and other liars, when reporting on the Catholic Church.
Be careful now, gang, your Dear Leader has made it a crime to practice free speech on the i-net if it 'offends' somebody.
Your ignorance is offensive to me.
Your arrogance offends me and a big, so what?
Who cares what offends you?
You are more than willing to offend anyone who doesn't "think" as you do. People who live in glass houses etc. Go pray about your own offensiveness.
Who is the real "Useful Idiot", You or her ? You conveniently leave out the Archbishops not being able to remember things, over 140 times. You wisely choose not to give the YOUTUBE link ~~ showing Carlson testifying, and clearly lieing through his teeth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muCjj_o0ifs
Chauvenist: One who has blind patriotism.
That's you to a "T". Attacking someone who simply reports someone, lying through his teeth, covering up the most horrible crime, of child rape. You are as blind as it gets.
Look at these facts: 1) Archbishop Carlson is being deposed for the FIFTH time regarding the same priest. 2) It is in regard to something that happened decades ago. How well does anyone remember details from 30 years ago? 3) If the Archbishop said something in this deposition that was even slightly different than how he phrased it in previous ones, Mr. Anderson would pounce on it and claim he perjured himself. It is safer to say "I don't remember." I have been through a deposition; it is nerve wracking. Therefore, do not pass judgment on whether Archbishop Carlson "lied through his teeth."
Read my reply above.
Educate yourself.
Good post. Fowler is clearly an idiot, and Anderson is growing desperate as the well runs dry. Meanwhile, back in the reality of today, child sexual abuse is more rampant than ever in public schools, protestant denominations, sports clubs, families and a huge number of people (maybe your work colleague?) are addicted to child porn (which leads to abuse). Oh, and watch what happens to the scouts. Happy to leave your kids there? Remember that word, folks: today.
Common sense is a fleeting virtue amongst so many. To honestly believe that anyone could think that sexual abuse of a child is not a crime is a lack in critical thinking. Of course the Bishop knows that sexual abuse of a child is and was a crime. Does anyone really believe that he did not know this? Seriously? The media no longer reports news, they tell stories about bogey men and Bigfoot. There are an awful lot of people who want to so desperately believe in mystical beasts and will spend months in the woods looking for them.
Furthermore, the inclusion of clergy as mandatory reporters is relatively new. The original statute listed doctors, teachers, etc. Thus, at the time of the alleged incident, he was not a mandated reporter.
Well was he a priest and bishop "off duty" at that time, when it is okay to have a moral lapse of judgement? Remember the Trenton NJ diocese, their lawyers succesfully argued the priest was "off duty" while sexually molesting a minor child on a trip out of state. To excuse his actions because he is NOT am mandated reporter is beyond obscene. Was he not a well educated man who should have known better? if not how or why should he be anybody's bishop?
David, trying to defend the indefensible DOES NOT HELP OUR CHURCH! If you'r trying to keep the blind faithful from becoming disillussioned by the truth, then I guess you must soldier on. But I think it clear you do not believe the oft repeated phrase "the truth will set you free", you are a prisoner of an institution, desperate to hide the truth in such matters.
Joanne on the 18th June points out that the Bishop was not a mandated reporter at the time of the alleged offence. So he had no legal duty to report the accusation to the police. The witch-hunt crowd will brush this aside and say he had a moral duty to report. This is clearly Anderson's strategy in his desperate effort to keep the ball rolling. But if this was his genuine concern, the moral duty of an adult, then why aren't the alleged victim's parents on the stand, having to explain their failure to take their child to the police and lay a complaint againts the alleged perpertrator? When did the alleged victim himself, after becoming an adult, report the alleged crime to the police? So many unanswered questions? But the name of the game is to focus all blame on the Church. Because that is the pathway to the perceived pot of gold.
And so … The bishop at the time knew the behavior of a man he employed was not only immoral but criminal as well. This clarity is good. But the reason the bishop himself did not report the behavior to the police is not clear. Or moral.
Saint Paul MN on the18th comments …" but the reason the bishop himself did not report the behavior to the police is not clear. Or moral"
Well that must be considered in the light of the seriousness of alleged offence and also the laws and attitudes prevailing at the time. But try to imagine a situation in which the parents, for whatever reason, had not reported the alleged behavior to the police. Then the Bishop fronts up at the police station and reports one of his own priests for molesting a child. The police are only human, and they will assume two things. Firstly that the offence is very serious, and secondly that the Bishop himself is sufficiently certain of guilt that he personally reports the priest. Now obviously this mindset would have led to a prejudiced investigation and a subsequent prejudiced prosecution in the court. Putting aside today's legal requirements the sensible course of action for the Bishop would have been to allow the parents to decide things… to exercise their legal rights or not.
Incidentally my understanding is that police can only investigate alleged criminal behavior when they have obtained a signed complaint from the alleged victim or the victim's parents.
Hi David, how's everything going? I have got to say that I am confused. I have been following the Catholic Church sex abuse saga for some time now and I have to say that I have gotten to the point where I don't know what to believe anymore.
I will say though that I was not surpirsed to see you coming to the defence of Robert Carlson seeing as Bill Donohue ( who is not popular with sex abuse victims although I don't know why as he is as anti sex abuse as the next person) also did see on the Catholic League's Facebook page. Here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/CatholicLeague/posts/10152157479704290
This bishop and his latest deposition stand as good examples of how the catholic church and its employees are no more moral than the times and human beings' natural continual moral/ethical evolution. As demonstrated by this TMR article and some of the comments following, the RCC, its employees and its membership often lag behind the moral and ethical advances of society. Thus, the debate must be had about when the bishop knew that sexual abuse of minors was a crime (a really bad crime) and whether or not he had a legal obligation to report to the municipal authority. The secular law of the time is the standard? The one true church, the light of the world according to its supernatural founder, is supposed to be better than that and know more than the rest of society when it comes to doing, to put it in the most general terms, the right thing.
Scandal was/is a really big deal to the RCC. The actual sexual abuse of minors by religion workers was/is not of much sincere concern. Even if all you ever read on this subject was this deposition of Mr. Carlson, you come straightaway to these conclusions. These so called cardinals, bishops and priests are just religious businessmen, always looking out for themselves and their corporate entity.
The TMR story is about the dishonesty of the reporter, Fowler, not about whether or not the AB should have known he was a mandatory reporter thirty years ago, or about the Church's moral authority or sexual abuse of children.
The majority of the commenters, so far, totally missed the point in their zeal to hammer another priest, and the Church.
And, that is the heart of the whole manufactured Church abuse matter – antiCatholic bigots are absolutely blinded to the truth by their hatred of the Church.
Thank you to the media report for getting the word out.
I don't hate the church, Delphino. I think it's silly and stupid; mean spirited and more bad than good. Just the way I feel about you.
It is interesting to note that personal insults are permitted to fly "one way" from the bigots to the faithful here at TMR, why is that?
One way censorship is a bad thing.
I hate how the church behaves at times. Like when it's so very not what it paints it's self to be. Where it behaves well towards people ALL people, I honor it. (Not for after life reasons but simply because it means so much to you and to all the people who believe.)
But the truth is still the most important thing we live by.
But your church and you no longer rule the world and people are smarter than they used to be and over all, kinder too. And that doesn't appear to be the path you want to follow. You want to be the boss because you think you are supposed to be.Well the rest of us and there's quite a lot of the rest of us don't want to follow you.
I read the deposition text and the comments. Some significant points were raised in the comments and I would say the following:
First, this text of the deposition comes to us not as a ‘free-standing’ document out of the blue but as an element in what is apparently a long-standing legal process involving civil lawsuit. Thus the savvy reader has to consider the text not only a) as a document in and of itself but also as b) an element in a legal strategy, since attorneys (on both sides here) work strategic angles designed to best take advantage of statutory and case law for their client(s) and cause. This point lies within the comment about this present deposition being the fifth in a series of depositions sought by Anderson.
Equally so, we must therefore factor-in legal-strategizing: and this point was nicely made in the comment to the effect that if the Bishop were to respond (yet again) to questions about 30 or more years ago, and his current answer in any way deviated from any prior answer given in one of those prior depositions (the course of which itself stretches over a period of years), then this would provide fodder to Anderson as to the unreliability or even impeachability of whatever response the Deponent has made in the current deposition.
Thus what we are precisely not reading here in this text is a conventional and informal discussion between two persons previously unknown to each other, in which the questioner is simply and honestly trying to discover some information and the person-questioned is simply trying to dodge the questions.
Further, the Bishop/Deponent’s constant reiteration of the fact that there is documentation (from the prior depositions, as testimony or exhibit), and further that he doesn’t recall his prior answers exactly, are very likely the responses advised by his attorneys in order to avoid whatever legal trap by which Anderson might be trying to ensnare the Bishop/Deponent in the current deposition here. At this juncture we have to bear in mind that almost nothing in the questions currently being posed to the Bishop/Deponent is ‘new’ and the entire exercise here is strongly tinted with repetition (of material already covered in prior depositions).
In this exercise then, we see two substantial issues or dynamics at work: i) this is what happens when one tries to use intricate legally-strategized maneuvers for the secondary (or perhaps primary) purpose of providing some pretext for a public relations gambit. The non-savvy reader may well simply presume that s/he is being given a front-row seat for a conventional and informal discussion, when actually what is unfolding is the playing-out of a deeply-strategized legal gambit in which much of what is happening is determined by relatively arcane legal tactics and objectives that are largely beyond the ken of the average reader.
And ii) this is what happens when one tries to bring an evidence-based legal system to bear on matters from the long-ago, when most of whatever evidence might have once been available has now dissolved. (Which also goes to the Statute of Limitations discussion in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter and victimist sex-abuse law ‘reforms’ generally.)
Thus too, for example, the reference made in a comment here about the argument being made that a priest was “off-duty” at the time when he (allegedly?) committed some type of abuse: this would be an important point to make in a case where the defense attorney was concerned to avoid opposing counsel’s effort to ensnare the matter in the tort-law principle of Respondeat Superior (i.e. that the action of an accused – as an employee of an organization – might justify a lawsuit against the organization itself). Much of the post-2002 phase of the Stampede has been built precisely on the efforts of torties to bring this principle of Respondeat Superior to bear on the Catholic Abuse Matter.
Therefore, the defense counsel who might have made the ‘off-duty’ comment was simply engaging in a legitimate legal maneuver, covering a necessary (if, to a non-professional reader, invisible) legal base in the matter. And thus it would be tendentious to try to use that instance as some sort of example to the effect that the Church was immorally trying to extricate itself from responsibility (for – we always must recall – a story or allegation or claim which might have precious little evidence to substantiate or corroborate it).
And thus too we see what happens when matters are thrown into the legal-forum (as opposed to the public or personal forum): as soon as a matter enters the legal forum, then simple conventional ‘discussions’ are off the table, and the entire affair becomes ineluctably entangled-in and governed-by the requirements of the legal forum and its relatively arcane protocols and principles. It was the brilliance of the Anderson Strategies to hoodwink the public into thinking it was in a front-row seat for simple and conventional discussions and questionings in the personal forum, when actually what was unfolding was a series of exercises in the highly-formalized legal forum. An analogy here would be that the public thought it was looking at a general atlas-type road map, when actually the entire operation was being conducted according to highly-specialized military terrain maps, replete with various arcane but vitally important markings created by various types of highly-specialized military principles and information.
Anderson, adroitly working this discrepancy among the personal and public and legal forums, works to give the public the impression that he is simply trying to conduct a personal-forum or public-forum discussion, whereas he knows that the Church – as a Party-Defendant – will, under the guidance of its legal counsel, have to conduct itself very carefully according to the many (often invisible to the untrained eye) complexities of the legal-forum. Thus Anderson can help foment the impression that whereas he is merely a simple honest person trying to conduct an informal discussion, he is being met with what seem to be merely ‘legalistic’ evasions (which of course themselves work to give the further impression that only the guilty embrace ‘legalistic’ maneuvers). But calling for a deposition is itself a highly-legalistic and legally-strategized action itself.
And then by thus doing so, Anderson is able – as we see in some of the comments here – to distract attention from the glaring (and for him uncongenial) reality that even when advised to call the police by the Bishop himself, the parents did not do so. Or if they did, the police themselves took – for whatever reasons – no significant action. This is a classic example of the ‘dog that didn’t bark’, in an attempt to explain away which we have seen Abuseniks proffer so many excuses and convoluted (and rather improbable) explanations over time on this site.
And we also see that the Bishop was not a mandatory-reporter (as the concept has been designed nowadays) at the time, and was himself not a witness to any alleged actions, although the parents would have had direct (and in some ways influential if not outright controlling) access to the allegant him/herself.
It would appear then that neither the parents nor the Bishop – for whatever reasons they might variously have had – wanted to take matters into the legal forum at the time of the (alleged?) incident. While there are many possible explanations for this actuality, I would say that the least probable scenario is that the parents were eager to engage the legal forum (through the report to the police) but that they were somehow prevented from doing so by the Bishop (and ‘the Church’).
Lastly, I would say that we are seeing here – as a commenter has already pointed out – Anderson’s efforts to Keep The Ball Rolling, in one of the few hospitable venues left to him, i.e. his hometown of the Twin Cities (where various behind-the-scenes political and cultural elements still offer some support for his efforts).
You mean the "legal traps" not set to punish any criminal bishop or higher for crimes against humanity, so far?
In regard to the comment of the 21st at 725PM: As if he might be describing himself, JR reports that he hates the Church’s behavior “at times … like when it’s so very not what it paints it’s self to be” [sic].
Then the rhetorically shiny but fundamentally nonsensical bit about the fact that JR “does honor [the Church]” when it “behaves well toward ALL people” [queasy shout-caps retained] … but if the Church does do so (JR’s comment is made in the indicative mood, not the subjunctive) then a) how can it also not-do-so, and b) to what times or to what era(s) in the Church’s history does JR refer?
And to further confuse things, JR then covers his tracks by saying that he doesn’t honor the Church “for after life [sic] reasons but simply because it means so much to you and to all the people who believe”. It’s a bit late in the game for JR to be protesting his deep and respectful concern for what any Catholic believes.
Then another rhetorically high-grounding bit, this time a non-sequitur: “truth is still the most important thing we live by”. What “truth” might that be? Some version of the Abuseniks’ ‘personal reality’? The Stampede fever-visions? Whatever can be plop-tossed at the piñata?
And in what era of planetary history did the Church “rule the world”? And I can certainly think of at least one glaring example demonstrating that people might very well not be “smarter than they used to be”. And against what era in human history is the measurement made justifying the assertion that said “people” are also “over all … kinder too”?
But this odd and dubious bit is simply a set-up for yet another ketchup-stained put-down: Whomever JR is addressing in this comment is – clearly, in that cartoonish sort of way – not interested in participating in the general human advance in intelligence and ‘kinder-ness’ and, thus conversely, has chosen to be less intelligent and less kind.
And we are informed – with no corroboration whatsoever – that JR is not alone in his pronunciamento, but rather refers to “the rest of us … and there’s quite a lot of the rest of us” who also don’t want to “follow” the Church that (as he has already – with uncharacteristic stylistic chops – provided the set-up) rules the world.
But since the initial premise of the set-up (i.e. that at some point the Church did “rule the world”) is unsupported and quite probably unsupportable, then the whole neatly-arranged (almost too neatly arranged) pile of blocks collapses.
Then on the 22nd at 154AM we merely get another variation on the manipulative effort to presume precisely what has yet to be demonstrated: that the Bishop is a “criminal bishop” and – waittttt for itttt – that the guilt is for “crimes against humanity” (readers may recall that this was the gambit in the Complaint filed to great fanfare with the International Criminal Court in The Hague; the ICC declined to fall for it).
But if the Bishop is guilty of crimes against humanity, then conversely the Abuseniks must by definition be glorious fighters in the cause of humanity. And doesn’t that make a consoling and self-serving picture for them? And that’s really what it’s all about.
The Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic church is the direct decendant of the Roman Empire and also it's continuation in this "best of all possible worlds"..
The "world", i.e. Western civilization, was Rome. The Church ruled the then known "world" for 1400 years then it expanded into the Americas. If the sun never went down on the British Empire it also never set on the catholic empire.
Do you never tire of attacking people or is this rank hostility of yours a mere costume you dress up in to degrade your fellow woman/man and has nothing to do with what you really think?
Why, do I bother with you?. You are a one note samba.
Really, "a little late in the game"? What game, Coach Sandusky? I'm not playing any game here but you see it as a game? Interesting. That says a lot.
I can see that devout Catholics believe in what they believe. They are not about doing bad but good. Whether or not their church winds up doing good or bad is a completely other matter.
I ,as you well know, don't buy the church anymore; nor any of it's self laudatory pr spin.But the people who do aren't evil per se. They simply believe it and I don't. I can and do respect that they believe it and that it means something to them and that's all i need do.
I can respect the individuals and also the believers as a group but I'm not required to believe what they believe in order to respect them as people. Just the opposite is true in your case. You respect no one who disagrees with your take on things regarding your church 's crimes.
Of course my "side" represents humanity more than your "side. Your "side' would have us all serfs or wage slaves with a smile, "again". Despite the very recent attempts of the church to feign an "affection" for democracy (less than 100 yrs., really) while always remaining the last "Divine Right" monarchy.
You know if the U.S. had invaded the vatican instead of Iraq (and it really should have given the crimes it committed against Americans compared to what any Iraqi ever did to us). It would have been a hell of a lot easier and cheaper both in monies and lives lost to bring democracy to the vatican.
U.S. paratroopers landing in st. Peter's square would be a more just war for the U.S. than any it's been in since WW2.
"Your side" was responsible for the mass murder of innocents that defined the bloody 20th century- more innocents murdered in that century, alone, by your side of atheist-socialist-communists than all previous centuries, combined.
[edited by moderator]
Some interesting bits now, [edited by moderator].
On the 23rd at 11AM we get a chance to see how the cartoon-mentality actually works: In response to my query as to just when in the planet’s history the Church was supposed to have “rule[d] the world”, we do not get a response of historical fact but instead a stringing-together (like a child piling up toy blocks) of already-dubious factoid-y bits.
Thus: “The Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church” (notice the uncharacteristic use of caps and the title stitched together from the traditional Four Marks of the Church) is – JR asserts – the “direct descendant of the Roman Empire” [correction supplied]. Since ‘descendant’ is a biological term applied her to a non-biological entity, then it is clearly a metaphor.
OK, but then is it at least an accurate metaphor? That depends utterly on what is meant by “descendant”: in what way does the Church ‘descend’ directly from the Roman Empire? Clearly not politically, since then it would have been known as the Catholic Empire rather than the Catholic Church – so the Church is (not to put too fine a point on it) a church and the Roman Empire was not a church but (not to put too fine a point on it) an Empire.
And even at its height the Roman Empire did not “rule the world” – which included the upper reaches and the Chinese end of the Eurasian landmass, the Indian sub-continent, the Pacific, the Americas (such as they then existed). And when did the Church “rule” anywhere near as much? And in what ways did it “rule”?
It would be much more accurate and defensible to say that the Church was the successor to the Roman Empire, although only in several ways … and then perhaps go further from there. But “descendant” is neither accurate nor conceptually defensible.
And – so as to remove all doubt as to his misconceptions – JR then goes on to formally define “the world” as “i.e. Western civilization”. Which is hardly a sufficient definition of “the world” in the time of Imperial Rome or at any point before or thereafter.
Then on to the next cartoon mischaracterization: that “The Church” (uncharacteristically capitalized again) “ruled the then known ‘world’ for 1400 years”. Astute readers will notice how the ball is now freefall-bouncing in terms of what the definition of “world” is here – definitions and concepts and facts are merely silly-putty to the Abusenik mind.
Readers may consult the actual history of the Church in the Dark and Middle Ages to see just how often Popes managed to get local political authorities to obey papal instructions; it was not often, and the number of such successful instances decreased precipitously as the early Modern period began. Did the papacy manage to get the local civil authorities to deal effectively with Luther? Did the papacy stop Henry VIII from breaking away and dissolving the monasteries?
Then a tidbit riff on the old saw about the sun never setting on the British Empire (which the Church, within those “next 1400 years” also did not “rule”) and also never setting on the “catholic empire” (no capitals this time).
But that’s about as much ‘history’ as JR wants to play with here, and he quickly puts the blocks down and heads for far more congenial territory: the Wig of Exasperated Innocence (“Why do I bother with you?” – stage direction: hand to brow in an open backhand motion, Wig cast back with a toss of the head).
Because he is victimized by the fact that I “never tire of attacking people” (and if that means pointing out gross historical and conceptual howlers then he’s not going to like this comment either … alas). But it isn’t the putting-up of such howlers that works to “degrade” a commenter; it is the “rank hostility” demonstrated by any commenter who points out the howlers. Yah.
JR then dons the Wig of Professional Integrity and protesteth that he plays no game here and never has. Yet he once said, as an excuse for yet another come-back to the stage after taking his leave here, that he posts here “because it amuses [him]”. It’s a game here that he’s playing; and it’s being played with blocks and silly-putty … even if JR might console himself by imagining that serious work is done with toy blocks and silly-putty.
Why does he “bother” indeed? There are several possible explanations. Readers may consider it as they will.
Then – in yet another deeply uncharacteristic conceptual gambit – JR tries for a distinction between “devout Catholics” (suddenly the capitalization again) and “their church”(not capitalized). Had we “devout catholics” not noticed how carefully he draws distinctions?
In a nice example of projection he then refers to a “self laudatory PR spin” [correction supplied] as if it applied to the Church and not to the Abuseniks and (not to put too fine a point on it) himself. And anyway, it’s all just a matter of differing beliefs, doncha know? Yah.
And thus all JR “need do” is “respect” those differing beliefs. I would say that he also needs to either a) put up rational and coherent and perhaps even modestly credible material or else b) save himself some exasperation by not expecting that what he does put up is going to get a free-pass (as the Playbook assured the Abuseniks would be the case when they began spouting their stories and so forth).
Then another nice example of projection: it is those who question Abusenik stuff who “respect no one who disagrees with” the Abusenik “take on things”.
And then – tah dahhhhhhhhh! – that “take on things” involves “things regarding your church’s crimes” … clear examples of which “crimes” we are still trying to pry out of the otherwise free-flowing spigot of Abusenik characterizations, claims, epithets, and assorted self-serving distractions and dramatizations.
But if the Church has committed “crimes” (and that Bishop is a “criminal”) then – tah dahhhhhh! – the Abuseniks are fearless truthy crime-fighters and may don the warrior’s horned helmet over the Wigs. Abusenik soap-opera bids fair to go Wagnerian.
Then we are informed that JR’s “’side’ represents humanity more than your ‘side’”. So in addition to ‘sides’ here, we also get the repetition of the “humanity” trope: the horned-helmet Wigs are fighting their truthy fight “for humanity”. Tah-Dum Dum Dum with a drum roll and a trumpet-y trill.
Then on into the sorta Lefty bits about “serfs” and “wage slaves”. Which serves merely to provide the lead-in for another whack at the piñata in terms of the Church trying to “feign an ‘affection’ for democracy” – which, with uncharacteristic concern for the historical – is “less than 100 yrs., really” while actually (so to speak) the Church is “the last ‘Divine Right’ monarchy”.
But alas: No, the Church (and I am repeating points here from prior threads) is not actually “the last” or even “a” Divine Right monarchy. That historical term defines secular or ‘temporal’ rulers who claimed that their kingship came directly to them from God and precisely not through the mediation of the ‘spiritual’ authority of the Papacy. Used to describe the Papacy, this term is clearly nonsensical … since it would require the Pope to claim that he got his authority directly from God rather than from (not to put too fine a point on it) God working through the spiritual authority of the Papacy.
And that concludes the entertainment.
Except for a come-back to the footlights at 1110AM, wherein JR riffs on the counterfactual of the US invading the “vatican” (no capitalization). Which silliness merely provides the set-up for the bit about the Church having committed more crimes against Americans “compared to what any Iraqi ever did to us”. Thus the US could have brought “democracy to the vatican” … which has worked so well in Iraq, has it not?
And that concludes the entertainment.
If the U.S. can't bring Democracy to the 1000+ Catholic hierarcy at the point of a gun; who can it bring Democracy to? No one. That's never been it's intention. Empire is what it's always been after and Empire is just what it got. The rest is all cover. Wolf passing for lamb. So very, very like the church.
Did the wealth of pagan Rome's religions evaporate with Constantine or did it "magically transubstantiate" itself into catholic religious cash?
"Spiritual authority"? Don't you mean "imagined authentication by the non extant"?
Art "amuses me". Truth "amuses me". Niether one of those "amusements" are a game to me.
You define, as usual, that my being amused by my posting here equates to my playing a "game". What's up with you? Are you such an over the hill jock that everything's a "game" to you? Step away from your sports, ball boy.
It's o.k. to find life amusing, you know? Rather than just another near occassion of sin.
Follow the money to find the truth-
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/marginalizing-magisterium-one-grant-time
"Crisis Magazine"!!! The crisis you are experiencing is of your own doing and lack of doing. Crisis indeed if you can't even see what caused your crisis. You are responsibile for your troubles not the media nor the raped nor Obama, (As conservative as he is; you still hate him. Not because he kowtowed to the banks and wall street but because his image, unlike his reality, is one of being a progressive; he after his elections doesn't even posture as a socialist.. His being a progressive is an illusion created by the other pro- 1% party the democrats.).
You defend the indefensible.
Any comment on the actual contents of the article at Crisis Magazine rather than what your out-of-control emotions (which, unfortunately, rule any logic you may have) led you to believe the name of the magazine represented (for which you were wrong, as usual)?
For the record, I don't hate anybody – no such [sinful] vileness ever parted my e-lips here or elsewhere. You, on the other hand, have professed your hatreds numerous times – here at TMR, and elsewhere.
D, you best leave your religion. Here's what pope Frank says:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/29/us-pope-communism-idUSKBN0F40L020140629
A pope does not my faithfulness to my religion make. I only need to know that Pope Francis' theological teaching is infallible, not his opinions on economic systems [or ice cream flavors] in the modern world.
After all the interpetations are done (from Italian to English and then from 'press-ese' to truth), it'll take awhile for faithful observers (not ideoogical pundits) I trust to determine what he said. We've been here before (although, my read of his comment as reported by Reuters is different than yours), especially, with this very talkative and engaging pope.
Are you thinking about coming back home [if he is as 'left' as you wish]? I can live with a leftist, yet faithful Catholic pope (but, not another antipope!) if it'll bring the Church's stray sheep back in to the fold (and, you can keep your booty, believe me, no one wants it)-
Frank best watch his step. After 30 year + years of conservative popes. He needs a food testor after that rap.
He hands us, communists, the moral high ground. (Which we all ready held, by the way, regarding class struggle and the vast vast majority of people on this planet, the poor.).
Handed it by a pope who claims us reds stole it from THE richest religion on earth.
How does the church plan on getting the poor back? Is it going to buy them?
This should prove very interesting.
I have to laugh who would have thought it would be pope Frank who handed me my biggest(only) compliment here. That Communists had stolen Christianity from the Christians. I told you I was more christ like than you. LOL!
"Thinking of coming back home"?
No! Absolutely not.
I think if you want the moral high ground you should be coming to my "house". I'll keep a red candle burning in the window for you. Frank and I, both, will keep a red candle burning for you.
You don't even know your own religion. The pope is only infallible when he speaks under very specific rules. He has to say he's speaking about a matter of faith or morals ONLY and he has to say: What I'm going to say next is "infallible". Really D if you are going to "defend" a religion you might want to know the rules of said religion.
Nothing I said should lead you to distort, and then attempt to correct (however feebly), what I said regarding papal infallibility. Your insincere response is just another distortion of reality, at which the left excels.
Imagine what these leftists and claimants do with those things they proclaim happened out of view of all observers (and half century ago…)?
Bunk!
Who's the "other" anti pope you've lived through????
You can't be that old ! What are you Dracula? I'm kidding.
You seem mighty interested in my booty, oh baby!
The church's lost sheep? BAAAAAA!!!!……..Humbug
We aren't lost That's what we told you to do; because your church was not living up to Jesus and particularly about the poor.
One of the big debates at vatican 2 was a fight over the length of cardinals trains. Not choo choo trains but the back of a dress trains.
But it's us commies who stole christianity? Well you weren't using it.
[edited by moderator]
FOWLer-type reporting (both pro and amateur) on things Catholic abounds. It is all a sick game to antiCatholics.
http://www.catholicleague.org/aps-mass-grave-retractions/
In regard to the 24th at 1226PM: In the first place, I wasn’t aware that the US had tried to “bring Democracy” to the “Catholic hierarcy at the point of a gun”; once again JR appears to confuse fantasy and actuality.
In the second place, I would need to see some explanation as to how it is the legitimate role of the US government to bring “Democracy” to a religious polity, at the point of a gun or in any other way. Once again, we see here shadows of ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ Catholic effort to cast the Church as just another foreign government that needs to be ‘regime-changed’ and – like all ‘progressives’ – they don’t mind seeing the US government do it … that’s how the progressive left (whether religious or secular) lubricated its support for the invasion of Iraq a dozen years ago.
But then – in a twisty twist – JR immediately goes on to cast the US as just another “Empire” – waitttt for ittttt – “so very, very like the church”. This is what happens when one substitutes riffing on particular words like a frog hopping across a pond on whatever lily-pad appears opportune, rather than actually thinking-through a coherent conceptual position.
So very, very like the Abuseniks.
The 1256Pm comment presumes that the pagan religions of the Empire immediately prior to Constantine had a great deal of “wealth”. Where does he get that idea? Any substantiation for it? Does he mean only the state civil religion or does he mean to include the mystery religions as well? Did the state religion own any of its assets or were they the property of the Emperor or were they simply funded by the Imperial treasury on some scheduled basis?
Then the riff on ‘transubstantiation’ or ‘magical transubstantiation’ used in reference to the insinuation that Emperor Constantine transferred to the Church such assets as might have belonged to one or several of the aforementioned religious entities – the state civil religious establishment and/or the mystery religions. Unsurprisingly, the implication is that there was fabulous wealth involved. Which remains a fantasy embraced but not demonstrated as credible. And of course the concept of “cash” is ludicrously anachronistic.
The 1259PM comment makes no sense since one of its key phrases (“the non-extant”) makes no sense.
Then at 111PM JR breaks new conceptual ground by claiming that “amusements” doesn’t mean that he is playing a game here. The Abusenik silly-putty definition Problem is thus nicely and vividly exemplified.
Then, rather than go any further down a road that he perhaps realizes isn’t going to take him anywhere he wants to go, he simply tries the old I’m Not/You Are gambit and goes for the insinuation that it is I who is playing a game here. And in order to fill out that rather thin gambit, he stuffs in an epithet (“over the hill jock”) that might help distract from the lack of substance in the response.
And then the revealing (if not intentionally so) stab at philosophy: that “it’s o.k to find life amusing” … instead of merely finding life to be “just another near occasion of sin”. Do we perhaps hear a riffy echo of the Abuseniks’ consoling self-justifying fantasy that they shouldn’t take the dubious and highly-strategized construction and deployment of their stories too seriously – and thus they needn’t worry about the seriousness of what they are doing … ? That would dovetail nicely with the silly-putty and play-dough aspects so often demonstrated in their material.
And in a larger sense, it is precisely the seriousness (the Latin term applicable here might be gravitas) of the Christian and Catholic approach to living that so incites and bothers various elements and flavors of the secularist liberal or progressive camp: for their schemes and dampdream visions to work, one cannot take any First Principles or Last Things or Ultimate Things seriously. In that sense, to use a line delivered well by Jason Robards in Max Dugan Returns, they have a philosophy of life “somewhere to the left of Whooopeeee!”.
But who could find that amusing?
This is a report on a recent psychiatric study. The headline synopsis says that it has found “an association between child abuse and the reduction of the gray matter in the brain that is responsible for information processing”. [italics mine]
Immediately, the clinical mind is attracted to a) that interesting term “association” and to b) the question as to how the key term “child abuse” is defined. Until solid definitional values are established for those terms, then it will not be possible to derive any reliably solid impressions and information.
In regard to (b), the article quickly establishes the definition of ‘child abuse’ – and it is a broad one indeed: “Child abuse, also referred to as child maltreatment, describes all forms of physical and emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, negligence, and any other exploitation that harms the health, development, dignity or survival of a child under the age of 18 years”.
This is going to be problematic for the study: when the definition is so multivalent and multivariant, then it is going to be very difficult to connect a specific cause with its (claimed) specific effect.
Furthermore, there is a serious conceptual error at the outset: as we have seen and discussed in recent comments on this site, the human brain doesn’t reach its first plateau of ‘maturity’ until sometime in the 20s. So this choice of “a child under the age of 18 years” seems both i) arbitrary and ii) inaccurate as a basis of assessing any theorized damage.
In the matter of (ii) it is inaccurate since it will be difficult to distinguish a) the predictable as-yet-unmatured information-processing skills of someone younger than the 20s from b) a serious dysfunction caused by any hypothesized abuse (which term, as we have seen, is already very broadly defined).
In the matter of (i), it becomes possible and even probable that the research team specifically chose this ‘18’ age because of some ulterior motive connected to current child-sex-abuse concerns. For example, a study purporting to support current policies or excitements would be a more congenial candidate for funding.
And – sure enough – the article describing the study immediately goes on to support the UN World Health Organization excitements about sexual abuse (although the study had already just defined ‘abuse’ far more broadly than the merely sexual, as we have seen).
We also run into the Corroboration Problem: how did the researchers establish that their subjects actually did have a “history” of (some form of) “abuse”? Or did they merely accept ‘self-reports’ from individuals?
And then – immediately – the study reverts to discussing the effects of “maltreatment” (i.e. that broad definition) rather than “sexual abuse” specifically. So again we see the bouncing-ball of definition so often observable in matters such as this.
The study acknowledges that the most ‘damaged’ parts of the brains in their ‘abused’ subjects are parts of the brain that “develop relatively late”, which again brings us back to the initial decision by the researchers to limit their subjects to a top age of 18 years (rather than somewhere in the 20s).
And this article also notes that in 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a “position statement” to the effect that “mental abuse in young children can be just as damaging as physical abuse”. Which doesn’t help the Stampede fever-vision that sexual-abuse is the primary and most ‘horrific’ cause of difficulties in brain-development.
And that’s the article linked-to without any explication here by JR.
I would add that there are certainly other issues which could cause what might be generally described as “information processing” problems, and they are not all connected to abuse. For example, some form of attention-deficit disorder (ADD) or even some temperamental or some characterological predisposition that precludes the self-application of one’s energies to the discipline and work involved in processing information.
Lastly, I would point out that even if this study is in some way accurate, then by its own theorization those who are abused and suffer from a dysfunction in their ability to process information are hardly to be taken as credible – let alone sole – sources of testimony (especially in the legal forum) as to the alleged and remembered events of long ago. For a while the ‘repressed memory’ scam enjoyed sufficient credibility so as to appear to cover this difficulty, but that era has passed and ‘repressed memory’ no longer enjoys such easy credibility as an explanation. Which perhaps is one of the reasons why the torties almost always sought out-of-court settlements rather than trials.
Jesus, who is supposed to be your boss, kicked the money changers out of the temple in Jerusalem, did he; or did he not, according to your beliefs?
How absolutely stupid of me to think that money and religion go hand in hand. Where would I ever get that notion? From the Communist manifesto? No not there. Where, oh where did I get that idea? It couldn't be from the constant hand out for money from the church that I've witnessed my entire life could it now? Yes i think that's where I got that "wrong" idea. There and from every religion in the christian panoply of scams.I don't know about other faiths but "supporting" a priestly,imam class is pretty constant in the wonderful world of magic beliefs to which you subscribe.
When I see the poor flying in $20 million dollars from Switzerland to Rome, illegally yet, in private jets or refurbishing apartments in Rome or building 2 swimming pools for one Bishop in the U.S. Then I'll believe your faith has gotten the basic drift of the Naz (Nazarene) Oh! but hang on, the poor of the church are funding those things right now.
Maybe my wrong money ideas came from tithing 10% of one's wealth to the church. Let's see what's 10% of 1 and 1/4th billion catholics' salaries a year? Even 1% or .01% would be quite the yearly pile. Tithing was a part of many pre christian religions both the mystery sects and the up front state authorized brands.
It's so funny in any diety subserviant system. Paying to keep the god/gods happy was a necessity to gain: after life, heaven, a good crop, sons instead of daughters etc. etc. ad nauseum. That money didn't evaporate. It was taken by what ever religion ruled that particular society "spiritually".
The story comes to mind of a charleton, redundent I know, minister who after his/her services was asked What do you do with God's money? the minister answered; "Well i throw it all up in the air. the money that stays there is God's. That which falls back to earth is mine."
Here's what he shrinks say about damages to your raped children.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/278537.php
What have all these diatribes against religion, especially Christianity, have to do with the dishonesty of bigoted journalists?
We 'tithe' to the secular governments- much, much more than 10%- and what do we get in return? Generally speaking, we get more oppression in the form of higher and more taxes and more regulations.
#1 charity in the world? Catholic Charities.
That is all anyone needs to know. We all just need to know the truth.
You will know the tree by its fruits.
"We all just need to know the truth" My sentiments exactly or are you calling me a fruit? :^)
12 years of catholic schooling produced this "fruit" and from my guess-timation many Saturday mornings in catechism class produced the peach that is you.:^)
Brother Delphin do you read much? You need an accurate (sans an after life) alternative to superstition. Given the standard of education in the U.S. I don't know if you ever got much of one.
Look I say what I say here in the shortest way possible, compared to some, so that maybe someone reading might ask themselves a few more questions about "faith" itself (not muslim or catholic or hindi faiths) but just the act of believing in something with absolutely no emperical back up.
D, You have the world all nailed down i.e.: Capitalism is the U.S.. Catholicism is the one true religion. that you were just so very lucky to be born into. That there's an after life. That there's a judge who tells us not to judge but he gets to judge. (He doesn't seem to mind being hypocritical with that but okey dokey).
Yet, You don't believe in the Big Bang????? So scientific fact is not true but what you believe to be true is true? I just want to know at what point on the scientific scale you opted out.? No big bang for sure, according to you, but evolution maybe?
Anyway, Mr Freespeach,You don't like what I write? (again) Don't read it.
A perfect example of the liberal/progressive worldview:
Distorting fact (as documented) to make it appear as though an epiteth was used,
Making assumptions about a commenters education with absolutely no grounding in fact (as documented),
Making untrue statements (as documented here) to inflate oneself,
Making untrue statements and distortions about commenters stated (as documented) ideological position.
Just imagine what these distorters of all truths will do to defeat their arch-enemy (any Catholic priest), and, with the promise of a pot of gold at the end of that 'rainbow'?
There is no limit to the depths that these liberal-progressives will descend (they are already in the abyss)- just look at the current leftist, lying and corrupt White House administration, for one example.
I was joking when I asked if you were calling me a fruit. Have you forgotten how to play?
My immediately preceding comment here (the 24th, 812PM) was actually intended to be a response to a JR link to a psychiatry article put up on the immediately preceding thread on the 23rd at 1147AM.
The link to that psychiatry article is http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/278537.php
Since the article deals with material that is of general interest to the Catholic Abuse Matter then it can be read on this thread as well as the preceding thread.
Following up on ideas from my prior comments on this thread, I would also recall the curious history here:
Sometime in the Spring of 2013 a female functionary in the Twin Cities archdiocese sex-abuse office quit her job. Shortly thereafter, in the mid-summer of 2013, she went to Minnesota Public Radio with her ‘story’. Then, in the autumn of 2013 there suddenly appeared that weird (and still unexplained) bit about a porn-stash on a priest’s hard-drive and the local police – who had previously cleared the case – were re-opening the investigation. Then that even stranger bit wherein a man who had purchased the hard drive some years ago at a yard-sale suddenly reported that he had made an entire copy of the hard-drive but had forgotten about it for years but suddenly had remembered. (And this bit – in light of current federal law regarding the mere possession or viewing of internet child-porn – bid fair to implicate both the archdiocesan staffer who quit and this fellow who not only viewed the stuff but made himself a complete copy of it.) But then a local police honcho said that really, all the police wanted to do was ‘talk to’ the Archbishop. And then suddenly we heard nothing more whatsoever about the internet porn-stash or its alleged complete copy. And then the police got to talk to the Archbishop, apparently. And now we have Jeff Anderson on yet another deposition that certainly seems to be far more of a fishing-expedition – in an old pond indeed.
As I said in comments about this thing on a prior thread: a) it doesn’t at all appear that the MPR media reporting is very comprehensive or informative and b) of all the possible scenarios to explain this odd sequence of events, the least probable by far is that the police are merely doing their job conscientiously and the MPR media outlet is merely doing its job conscientiously.
And in addition to all that, there remains the question of Jeff Anderson’s role in fomenting all of this, on his own home turf of the Twin Cities. And of all the possible scenarios that might address that question, I would say that one of the more highly improbable scenarios would be that he was just minding his own business until a case happened to come in the door and he simply minded his own business and pursued that case with no active connection whatsoever to the police, the former staffer, and the media.
It's tough when the Truth insists on being revealed; whether from it's intended burial in a septic tank 'mass grave', from within a missionary workhouse/laundry or from under a wrongfully convicted priests cassock - the Truth always finds its way back to the enlighten the world-
http://www.catholicleague.org/irelands-mass-grave-hoax/
You are so right!!! The word is finally out about the hoax(es). A number of people I have spoken to just this week are finally aware of the lies in "Philomena" and it is well accepted now that the media got this one wrong big time. Thanks for posting this before I was about to. Next-the Carlson bit-I can't even address Jack so I won't even try.
Gee Del! you still can't answer one question? Do you believe in evolution? I just want to know at what level you're at, besides your religiousness and your support for the market place . What's your standard for scientific truth?
You can be sued for libel. but then you've called me satan so many times that any sensible jury would see; you are plain nuts; and I don't think I'd win Your bad opinion of me is none of my business.
[edited by moderator]
No bodies out to get all priests so don't pretend we are. We claim justice about what happened to us. Hate's not a requirement for justice. Truth however is.
How dare you say I don't tell the truth? What a degrading thing to say to someone particularly when saying such a thing is a lie in itself.
P Your side, the church, wants to settle worse than we victims do. Insulting us cost no one money.The fact that parishiners must never know the whole truth. Makes the church eager to settle rather than risk even more bad attention during a trial. the truth about the church's enablers and criminals has cost the church tens of millions in "donations" by now. And if trials happened you couldn't cope. You couldn't. Your pr already is in the toilet. Trials would wipe you almost out.
My neighbors quit going to church. They just couldn't stomach the contradictions.
Your behavior and the behavior you support is costing the church money. Big money.
But decadent systems can't see themselves as such. You'd think the church like any corporation would act according to their fiscal bottom line, but no. It only functions when the church gets everything it wants from the faithful. If it doesn't get what it wants it can't function. 2000 years of getting everything their way has devolved them. And that's why they do everything wrong regarding this scandal. Everything wrong.
Francis the talking pope is the same old same old. Nothing new from him. His meeting with victims of your church will be like watching a scene at the Actors Studio. The performance is the story.
I think you guys should skip the minor transition of death in order to canonize someone. Why wait? Make him a saint now. st. Francis, It has a familiar ring to it. And you can send out press releases as to how he lives like a pauper, the poor dear; and what he ate for breakfast. And what cute little thing he did to show how human he is today.
I wish he'd live up to his pr but like Obama, What they say aint what they do.
You don't tell the truth about me, you lie about me, so, please do try to sue me for libel for that fact (this one won't be settled out of court- in a dark back alley like your former windfall).
The THEORY of evolution is an interesting theory, too bad it is collapsing under the weight of science- you know, that flawed human invention that requires EVIDENCE and REPRODUCIBILITY. Neither genetic elucidations (micro) nor fossil record findings (macro) seem to support most of Darwin's ('borrowed') shakey theories. The jury (of which you are not well-aquainted) is still out on this theory. Same goes for your 'self-ignited' Big Bang Theory – we know too little to conclude anything. I have submitted many comments on my position on both theories, you should bulk up on your selenium supplements.
I am confident that science will elucidate the truth, and that truth will be fully congruent with God's Truth.
I find it amusing when self-admitted amateurs try to manipulate scientific outputs (as strained thru the msm, no less) to make them support their own ideology- especially, those that have documented, right here, their being monumental failures in mathematics and science (and maybe not too astute at English [grammar, spelling], either).
You're a funny guy. Stick to acting, you've got most of us fooled. Really.
So, back to the TMR article- what do you think about this journalist FOWLer's (appropriately named) dishonesty in her reporting on AB Carlson's deposition (in other words, stop with your red herrings, we're on to you)?
Oh, dear dear Delphin. You've been had. Yes I fail at gramma puntuation and spelling :^). But I don't fail at knowing what's true and what's not.
The Big Bang's true D; and there's plenty of proof for both it and evolution. The rcc even supports those truths D. I don't want to hurt your feelings here. All kidding aside. D . You are being abused by thinking like that. I'm grateful you shared what you really believe; and for that and the kindness you showed with Dennis. I've got to be your brother and tell you, you're very wrong.
Will any of the virtuous catholics here please, tell Delphin the scientific truths, he doesn't believe in, are the truth. This is shameful.
Well what AB Carlson knows or dont know will come out in his trial in July 2014. What is known the St. Louis Dioceses does not have the correct document concerning Pedophile Priest and Children "Safe Enviornment". The correct Approved Document signed by all Bishops in the United States is the 2002 Bishops Charter titled "Protect Children and Young People" this Charter Document as Legal Words "SHALL/WILL" Canon Norm 1 and Language that takes Punitive Action against those who avoid the Charter. Well it seems a loop hole avoiding the laws has been craeted by Safe Enviornment. As some legal individuals say without SHALL/WILL as used in the 10 Commandments Canon 1 clergy get a pass concerning this subject. We as Parishioners and Grandparents should ask why. Why did our AB Return from signing the Bishops Charter and create another document which creates Church Boards, POC's as First Places to Report in lieu of Direct Reporting to Law Enforcement?? Maybe he wont remember either ???
How condenscending of you to "tsk, tsk" a perfectly solid (debatable) position on Darwinian and evolution principles and the 'Big Bang' theories (note the plural).
It would take a generation of intensive study for you to understand the depth and breadth of both/either debate(s); suffice it to say that anthropogenically-based climate change/global warming is another risky venture that should added to this long list of "still out to the jury" politically-motivated theories.
All these theories require the benefit of generations of study to elucidate truths. Many researchers are 'liberalized' (brainwashed/re-educated) in the university system and must move well past those ideological influences (if ever when/if they remain in academia) to reveal truths.
You're way out of your lane here. It isn't necessary for other commenters to weigh in on any debate on these issues, believe me, they have no more insight (gnostic, or otherwise) on these issues than do most/many of the so-called 'experts'. We have enough opinions out there (have you seen/read/digested the vastness of opinions on these topics?) to consider, already, we've got yours and mine – who needs anything more? We disagree, I'll live.
In the end, nature and logic will reveal these truths to all. Truth is not relative. It is.
AB Carlson. Remove the Safe Enviornment Document and Install the 2002 Charter signed by all US. Bishops in 2002 Titled "Protect Children and Young People",
If "Jack" (who seems to know about as much as his name implies) were to replace todays most popular target, the Catholic Priest, with any other of the Progressives claimed disenfranchised (eg. African-American, Muslim or gay), would "Jack" practice his bigotry so openly?
Me thinks "Jack" would be run out of town on a rail.
Here's a "SHALL" for you "Jack": Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor …-
Is your Kool-Aid orange flavored?
Having apparently realized that his bits about the wealth of pagan Rome’s religions weren’t going to fly, JR will now (the 14th, 1208PM) simply ignore all that and try tossing from a new angle while – as always –trying to make himself out to be the victim in the matter.
Having pointed out that Jesus chased the money-changers out of the Temple he then pats himself on the back for deciding that “money and religion go hand in hand”. Money goes hand in hand with most organized human endeavors – but that’s so obvious as to be a truism.
A more relevant observation, I would say, is the distinction as to how the money is acquired: do people voluntarily donate or is it somehow taken from them against their will?
But I would agree with his asking himself the question: “Where, oh where did I get that idea?”. I have often wondered where his ‘ideas’ come from, and it is nice to think he might be giving some thought to that himself.
And then he introduces (with exorbitantly uncharacteristic phrasing) the bit about “the christian panoply of scams” – is he under the impression that the other great world religions are not open to donations? Perhaps all that “entire life” experience is more limited than he imagines.
And then he quickly admits that he doesn’t “know about other faiths” but then immediately goes on about the “imam” class, which – it apparently has to be pointed out to him – is not a Christian religious element.
And then we are bethumped for “the wonderful world of magic beliefs to which you subscribe”, as if we have not been treated here to so many floridly improbable or non-credible bits from the Abuseniks.
Then JR moves even further afield with his eructations about “the poor” – to whom, if we are rightly informed – he did not give away all his wealth.
When I see that, then I’ll treat his pious declamations more seriously.
Or he could have at least given a way a tenth of it to “the poor” as a form of voluntary tithing of himself (since he brings up the subject of tithing on the 25that 1218PM).
We are then informed – with no corroboration – that “tithing was a part of many pre christian religions both the mystery sects and the up front state authorized brands” [sic] Was it really? Could he name a few such religions? And demonstrate where he got the information that supports this odd assertion? Or perhaps he could check with whomever he took notes from and see if that person has any basis for this bit.
And at the end of it all I am still trying to figure out here if the Church is guilty of tithing or of not-tithing? Or – given JR’s predilections – both at the same time?
Then (the 15th at 1234PM) JR shares what strikes him as “so funny” about “any diety subserviant system” [sic]: “Paying to keep the god/gods happy”. Was JR referring to paganism of some sort or to Christianity or to religion in general? Was he under the impression that Catholics donate in order to “keep the god/gods happy”? Is that what he imagines is an accurate take-away from all of his claimed experience?
Why – does he imagine – have human beings since the beginning of recorded time a) turned to some form of the Beyond and b) have asked for help with their life-concerns and c) made offerings to that form of the Beyond? Or does he subscribe to some idea to the effect that somewhere right after the cave-painters humanity took a wrong turn and looked ‘upward’? And if so, how did that happen and what force or power could have pulled that off, i.e. turning all of humanity toward the Beyond)?
Then – so very nicely – he concludes with a joke that I heard when I was a kid, although he tries to palm it off as “a story” (Abuseniks have a habit of trying to palm off so much as “a story”, do they not?).
Apparently that old joke was lying around in a 3×5 shoebox somewhere.
But I would have to say that the effort at a more nuanced epithet – referring to “a charlatan, redundant I know, minister” [corrections supplied] – is simply too uncharacteristic for the type and level of mentation we have seen from this commenter.
Some people have a need for a daddy figure. An attempt to control an outcome by killing virgins or sheep or doves or prayer or donations hasn't changed at all over the ions. How it's done is the only difference. The goal of worship is to effect an outcome. A beneficial outcome to the worshiper. How's that diffrent from praying for rain or paying a priest to pray for you.? Or sacrificing a ram or even a child. Remember god; Abrahm and Isaac.
It's all Magic (which is always a trick; and a scam); but it can provide a very good income to the witch doctor with very little work.
The biggest thing any human or cromagnon ever saw was up, the big sky.
Big meant power. Hence sky gods. There were mountain gods too. Olympus and Sinai. It was the god of a north African tribe called Israel that gave you the 10 commandments on a mountain from a burning bush. Sure he did.
If all other religions are false aren't the odds are your's is too?
A 3×5 shoe box????? If that's a 3 inch by 5 inch shoebox, I'm a hoblled Chinese lady from the 19 th century. If it's a 3ft. by 5 ft shoe box I'm Paul F'ing Bunyan.
I'm legion, princess.
Prayers for "Dennis Ecker", please.
Many of us may not have agreed with him on some (ok, many) things, but, we "know" him, he is a fellow traveller, and he seems to be in some distress.
http://catholics4change.com/2014/06/12/has-your-faith-experience-been-harmed/#comment-58178
Communists have a need for a Nanny figure, it's called the State- the god they worship and to whom they tithe nearly 50% of their earnings in the US (more under socialist-communist regimes) and to whom they dedicate or sacrifice their lives (…and the lives of their relatives and descendents, such as in North Korea).
I'd sooner be a servant of my loving God than be a slave to your Satan-
No we should "support" the rich so they can have nannies. Wake up.
"slave to Satan"? Who me? you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you think I'd back a guarnteed loser like your imagined devil? You must mistake me for yourself. People are only enslaved to imaginary demons when they believe them to be real. Free yourself. You can live quite happily without bogey devils or deities.
Why would you not only believe that junk but want everyone else to believe it with you.?
The poor should quit playing nanny to the rich.
P, I did give at least that much away to friends and their children for college.
The point I was trying to make was that the money and or property and or whatever you give to any religion, it does not go to heaven. It' doesn't disappear. It' remains on this earthly plain and goes to Rome or Switzerland or Billy Graham 's bank account. Depending on which juju you consider sacred. The wealth is transferred and, unlike a rolling stone, it gathers more wealth to itself. So when I hear any major religion crying poor mouth. I look askance.
Does this individuals' behavior indict a whole industry, or nation, or race, or gender, as it does if/when a Catholic priest is involved?
No, of course not- not when the individual is a member of the protected progressive elite class-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/26/probe-jimmy-savile-abused-victims-aged-5-to-75-in-hospitals-across-uk/?intcmp=latestnews
Don't start talking about "classes" in America, D. You could be mistaken (briefly) for a Communist.:^)
I need to say thank you Delphin for linking to Dennis. Truely. thank you. It was very kind of you.
I guess the philosophy-of-religion box has been opened now (the 26th, 446PM). JR proffers the bit about “some people have a need for a daddy figure” – but my comment had reached back to the beginning of recorded human history and the fact that almost every human culture about which we are aware has somehow forged for itself some stance toward a Beyond. In light of that massive and profound historical reality about human culture and also its implications for human-nature, the pop-psychology rumination that “some people have a need for a daddy figure” doesn’t even begin to address the matter.
Then we are informed that “the goal of worship is to effect an outcome” (and again: is the source of such a bit the same source as governs most of JR’s material?). But one could defend this assertion. It would all depend on the definition of “outcome”.
One could even continue to defend the assertion when it is then qualified by the further assertion that such an outcome be “beneficial … to the worshipper”. [correction supplied]
But again: it would all depend on the definition of “beneficial”.
So, for example, the deepening of a personal relationship with God and the formation of a stronger identity in and for God might be one such an “outcome”; beneficial – certainly – to the human who is praying, but not necessarily at all concerned for that human’s personal material interests or advancement. Prayer, in other words, might have a “beneficial outcome” that is primarily and essentially spiritual.
And as he apparently has to be reminded, Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac nor did God actually require it in the end.
Thus the conclusion JR draws (“it’s all Magic”) fails. As does the further assertion about its being “always a trick; and a scam” [sic].
Thus too, the difference between the role of the priest and the role of the “witch doctor” should become more clear: priests aren’t primarily there to do the type of things witch-doctors do. And I would say that this very fact has been an important element in the current Western disenchantment with the Catholic Vision: as Western society has become more selfish and ‘Me’-oriented in the past decades, the role of the Catholic priest has proven insufficient to pander to selfish needs, and many have gone off to find actual witch-doctors and other types of religious figures who might more directly and effectively get for them what they want.
JR will then assure us – on what demonstrable basis is anybody’s guess – that “the biggest thing any human or cromagnon [sic] ever saw was … the big sky”. Readers may consider the revelation value of this bit as they may.
Then the crowning and delicious example of Abusenik ‘thinking’: “if all other religions are false” (which has not actually been established by anything we have seen here) then “aren’t the odds are your’s is too?” [sic]. On top of the problem just pointed out here (i.e. that it hasn’t been established that all other religions are “false”), I would also note that numerous attempts at a working space-vehicle failed throughout the 1920s and 1930s, and then came von Braun’s rockets: one could have argued that since all the others had somehow failed, then his would too. Except that they didn’t fail. And that bit of novelty moved the matter forward in ways we still haven’t fully grasped and still haven’t fully actualized.
Thus, in regard to the Catholic Vision: the utter novelty or new-ness of God’s self-revelation in Christ moved the ‘God/religion’ matter forward in ways we still haven’t fully grasped and still haven’t fully actualized. (I’m not breaking any new ground here and any modestly informed Catholic might quickly recognize my point.)
The concluding chest-thumping in regard to the size of his mental shoe-box need only be left where it was put for the contemplation of those so inclined.
Ditto the perhaps far-too-revealing self-trumpeting bit that concludes the comment. In addition to that queasy gender-bending slant.
Then (the 26th, 501PM) we are informed – after all this time and self-‘revelation’ – that, by the most amazing coincidence, JR recalls that he did give away at least a tenth of his swag to “friends and their children for college”. Of course.
Then on to a further explication of what he meant about the wealth of any religious institution: “it does not go to heaven”. Was he under the impression that many believing donors imagined that it did? Was he under the impression that those many believing donors did not fully expect that their donation would go to further the cause and work of the institution to which they were making the donation?
But also: to the extent that the sacrifice involved in the making of a donation actually does have an effect on the spiritual development of the donor and on the deepening of the donor’s relationship with God (not because God needs the cash but because humans need to ‘give’ and ‘sacrifice’ in order to catalyze their growth and development), then in that sense the money actually does “go to heaven”.
And I am not breaking any new ground with that thought either.
But then again we hear here that queasy echo of the torties and the Stampede: the Church is so rich, and thus is not poor, that you won’t really be taking money that’s going to leave anybody broke and destitute – so let’s get to work on those stories, campers!
Thus, when I hear Abusenik stories, I “look askance”. (And isn’t that phrase rather advanced for the usual material from this commenter?)
[edited by moderator]
"Humans need to give and sacrifice in order to catalyze their growth and development"
Says who? The Bishop with the 2 swimming pools? Cardinal Schmuck with the Rome penthouse? You?
How the f%^K would you know anything about my abuse if I hadn't told you. Did the church share with you my "story"? The true story of my rape? You are a low life pr*&k. You need to have your hidden [edited by moderator] kicked. Really you do. You best hope I don't find out who you are. [edited by moderator]
Your pope just said that the only real (true) way to get to heaven is through the priestly class. Some protestant religions don't believe that. They therefore are false religions according to st. Frank. Don't pretend the rcc doesn't say it's the "one true religion (faith). You know it does. So I can clearly say that if all other religions are false; the odds are so is yours.
Here's a link to the popes quote, http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21814
It is worthy to note that a commenter here thinks he should/could sue another commenter for his perception (certainly not a reality) of being libeled, yet, in his next e-breath he actually threatens/terrorizes another commenter for some perceived (again, not real) slight.
[edited by moderator]
And, these claimants decry some (wise, rational) commenters insistance on anonymity.
Sure. We'll tell you who we are, and where we work and live.
Who knows, maybe Obama's IRS will come a-knocking.
Target, isolate, ridicule and attack – and use the '4th Estate' and government resources as your henchmen – Alinsky lives!
http://www.catholicvote.org/why-the-pope-is-right-about-inequality/
If I ever met P ( which will never happen) he deserves to get his A#% kicked.That's not terrorism. That's just karma.
I am public about who I am here. , I'm more in danger of being "offed" by some opus dei zealot/heilot than you are by me; but I don't worry about it. Telling the truth is so worth it.
You really have swallowed the Kool Aid D.; and you can not even return a pleasantry with me after I seriously thanked you for being considerate of Dennis Eckers difficulties.
Why is it religious zealots have no manners if they are so much about love?
Since I've posted here for 2 years almost. I've been targeted; isolated; ridiculed(by your insults) and attacked for just about everything including my being raped.Raped and then attacked for being raped! Where's the morality?
Oh sure I've returned those "favors/ insults" but with far, far less anger; vitriol and ravenous hatred that you and P have shown from the get go.
Why is that, if your "side" is so much more about love than mine?
I know you , D, are feigning an imaginary intellectual superiority that sadly you just do not have. The big bang is as proven as proven can be and so is evolution. What is terribly sad about this is: not one of your co-religionists has chosen to speak up and tell you those scientific truths are just that, true. Does love of god do this to people? If this is how one behaves in order to gain heaven, screw it! Talk about no morality! That's where you are bankrupt. That's right. I said you are morally bankrupt because no one here illuminated their ignorant cohort. That plain reeks. What are you all more concerned about individually gaining valhalla so hard that rank ignorance is ignored amongst your own?
If, ever, I want to check my moral compass about anything; the right wing of the church and America would be the very last places I need look.
I apparently stepped all over someone's religion here in proclaiming that I was not a Darwinian faithful. Atheists are very protective of their church, how ironic!
Please, figure out the difference between scientific theory and law.
Just because you may someday [be permitted to] figure out how the clock was designed does not mean you have, therefore, managed to replace the clockmaker.
I look forward to all of God's revelations-
Well, I would say that the 27th at 1145AM gives us genuine JR material – without a doubt.
I had written that “Humans need to give and sacrifice in order to catalyze their growth and development”. Does JR take issue with that? Humans cannot grow if they do not give of themselves in social interaction with other human beings; humans that grow up in complete isolation become deranged and humans who do not give of themselves or share themselves do not develop fully because humans are social creatures. Had he been otherwise informed?
What do I “know” about JR’s abuse (however defined)? What I have been told raises more questions than answers – as I have often pointed out.
The rest is too genuine (and revealing) to require comment.
But the subject of giving is relevant to the comment of the 28th at 1203PM: the Pope – according to the article to which he proffers the link – said that “belonging to the Church is essential to being a Christian”, because one cannot be a Christian in isolation. “The priestly class” as a term doesn’t appear at all in the article. Or are we to imagine now that the Church consists of merely “the priestly class”?
Who here has ‘pretended’ that the Church doesn’t “say it’s the ‘one true religion’”? But once again we see the kiddy-blocks piled up just-so: since all other religions are “false”, then (somehow) “the odds are so is yours” and JR can “clearly say” that.
Yes, he can clearly say that, but I don’t see at all from what he has written in this comment of 1203PM that he has explained how he logically formulated the conclusion that he has clearly ‘said’. What we have here is merely an assertion proffered as if it were a logical conclusion, but the actual content of the logic itself is not demonstrated. Mimicry of style does not equate with expression of substance.
Which leaves us with nothing more than his own preferred assessment of “the odds”. And readers may consider his reliability in the matter of “odds” and probabilities as they will.
And need it be pointed out that Pope Francis is not a saint? Or has he been otherwise informed?
[edited by moderator] Odds are if the vast majority of religions, 99% +, are judged false by one religion. THE ODDS are so is that one religion; percentile wise.
I know Frank's no saint. Oh, Believe my I know he's no saint!
My suggestion was given the new policies on saint making why not make Frank the first canonized living one; since the rules around somethings in the church have changed..
Quit trying to make me and reasoning, per se, sound unreasonable. Did I say, you ever tried to say your religion wasn't the "one true one"? Hell no. I just asked: Don't you say that? [edited by moderator]
Know that I got paid over a million bucks as COMPENSATION for my abuse. Live with it. You may not KNOW I was abused but somebody obviously believed me when I told the truth of what happened. That's over $1,000,000 worth of belief. [edited by moderator]
SCOTUS (5-4) gets one right (even if under RFRA, should/could have been under 1st Amendment)-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
You live in Fantasyland P.
Do you actually believe that anyone making a false claim will get a pay off?
if that were true, you would have a stampede. But it's not and so there is no stampede. Other wise you would be providing the readership with over whelming numbers of claimants; but you don't. Seems like the only one making false claims around here is you.
As far as my credability about pope Frank goes. Look he's stealing social justice from us communists and claiming, believe it or not that we, commies stole the idea of putting the masses of poor first, from the church!!! I guess if i ever need to find a liar quick ;all I need do is go to my neighborhood church, no matter what the denomination.
I hope that everyone at least cringes slightly when Delphin states that the 'jury is still out' on Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It is, after all, just a 'theory'! Has the jury come back yet on the Theory of Gravity? Classic.
I know, I know. Gravity is a reasonable, decent, god-fearing, self-reliant, conservative theory. Evolution is a liberal, fascist, communist, biggoted, anti-catholic, leftist theory.
It is far more likely that "everyone will cringe" at your ignorance of theory vs. law.
Newton's Laws are settled fact; Darwin's theory of evolution (as opposed to all those theories of evolution that preceded him) is anything but. It is a powerful (in some precincts) theory and model, but it isn't Law.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-law/
I'm willing to bet that you're also a 'climate change' ideologue/religionist, too. Ya know, 'cause "Algore" is your true savior.
Just another follower; just exactly what our leftist university system works so hard to produce.
If you feel especially brave today, read a rightwing pundits take on the lefts treatment of "Darwinian Deniers"- at a minimum, it's great humor- for those of you still capable of laughing (sadly, not most liberals)-
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html
For the especially and intentionally ignorant (you two know who you are), I will repeat; I concur with the Catholic Church's position on this theory because it is evident that the Church has obviously exercised great logic in arriving at their position, based upon the current state of knowledge.
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/e/evolution,catholics_and.html
C4C absoluely refuses to publish anything even remotely positive about the Catholic Church, but, they are ever so anxious to publish any negative, critical and sometimes downright evil comments against the Church.
That's the catholic left for you- no room for debate, full censorship of all opposition.
True to their oppressive ideology.
The last 5 comments submitted here (30 June pm -1 July am) are perfect examples of the lefts intentional distortion of others words, deeds and intentions.
From the distortion of Pope Francis' latest statement to feeble attempts to totally distort my comments, it is no wonder that many commenters, here and elsewere, question the claims of these so-called 'victims'.
The only thing that they may truly be victims of is their inability to discern the truth.
On the 29th at 258PM we see – nicely – the attempt to justify violence as not being anything more than “karma” deserved by the envisioned object of attack (with the attacker here marvelously assigning to himself the self-serving and grandiose role as Agent of Karma – the Wagnerian horned-helmet over the numerous Wigs and the Spear of Karmic Destiny brandished as well.
I have mentioned several times and in regard to various Abusenik commenters that there seemed to be a violent (and irrational) molten core underlying their material. It remains to be seen just what role such a violent and irrational molten predisposition played in the claims and allegations and stories themselves.
Then yet again the bit about being “public about who I am here”, as if the use of one’s own name did anything whatsoever to improve the credibility of one’s material (or reduce the effects of the violent and irrational molten core predisposition). And we have already seen how JR tries to explain-away his comfort with the ‘anonymity’ of Abusenik-friendly commenters, including especially the many-monnikered ‘Boston Survivor’/’Learned Counsel’/’LDB’: since they are truth-tellers – doncha see? – then it’s perfectly OK for them to be variously anonymous.
Supplemented by the casting of oneself as a (potential) victim in the whole thing: by the use of his actual name JR is “more in danger of being ‘offed’ by some “opus dei zealot/heilot” [I have no idea]. But – we are histrionically informed – JR doesn’t “worry about it” because – waitttt for itttttttttttttt – “telling the truth is so worth it”. Of course. But let us not be so oppressive as to judge whatever such “truth” is proffered – because then we may well incur the Karmic Destiny of violence for questioning whatever material the Abuseniks produce.
And a single “pleasantry” (about, interestingly, Dennis Ecker’s current “difficulties”) is chosen as the ground for further claims of victimization, since ‘Delphin’ “can not even return a pleasantry” [sic] … although one might tote up the number of ‘pleasantries’ and weigh them against the number of un-pleasantries. This demonstrated – waitttt for ittttttt – that “religious zealots have no manners when they are so much about love”. Of course. And who might “religious zealots” be on this site? (Short answer: anybody who doesn’t agree with the Abusenik theological cartoons.)
Then more of the usual victim-y spins as to JR’s status here: as if a) the quality (or lack of it) of his material hasn’t played a role in that status and as if b) otherwise competent material could be ‘made to look’ as if it were merely a hash of Playbook gambits from the cafeteria.
Then – but of course and yet again – the presumption of what has yet to be proven, in regard to the actuality of “being raped”.
And then – but of course and yet again – the histrionic brandishing of the Rape Shirt: not only was he “raped” but then he was “attacked for being raped!” (meaning: questions were raised about the material and stories he proffered).
But since we haven’t established the credibility of the core assertion (about being “raped”) then we can hardly proceed to answer the sly question about “where’s the morality?”.
Thus then – doncha see? – all JR has done is to have “returned those ‘favors/insults’” (i.e. being questioned about his material) … “but” (it gets a bit thick here) he has done so “with far less anger; vitriol and ravenous hatred” than has been shown to him. “Vitriol and ravenous hatred”? But this is a neatly-devised economy here: the more questions, the deeper the “vitriol and ravenous hatred”, which justifies the (already pre-existing) demonstration of a violent and irrationality molten core. A neatly closed-circularity of self-justification and excuse which would not be unfamiliar to various types of professionals.
Then – neatly – the effort to build further on that pile of blocks by asking (with a rhetorical plaint) why his bethumpers can claim to be “so much more about love” (when, clearly – to his mind – he is being so mercilessly and vitriolically bethumped with “ravenous hatred).
This is a perpetual motion-machine of a psychic economy that can keep on chugging until the Last Trumpet.
I detect not the merest hint of self-aware irony in the claim that ‘Delphin’ is “feigning an imaginary intellectual superiority” … one which (sigh) “sadly you just do not have”. And we have JR’s credibility and demonstrated chops to back up that assessment.
And again we are given the cartoonish assignment of anyone who doesn’t agree with him as belonging to “the right wing of the church” … and “America” to boot.
Then – the 29th at 312PM – we get another riff exercise, this time on the title word (“Crisis”) of a magazine. But it provides a nice lead in to yet again toss up, in best Playbook style, the ‘take’ about what has “caused your crisis” (i.e. the Catholic Abuse Matter). The Anderson Strategies, the media, “the raped”, and Obama (standing-in here, I imagine, for the entire secularist panoply) have nothing substantial to do with it. Rather, “you are responsible” [correction supplied] for it all. Which echoes, so very nicely, the self-justifying circularity about the Abuseniks being merely Karmic Agents of punishment (or vengeance) against targets who ‘deserved it anyway’ (which is itself a neat echo of the oft-claimed plaint that rapists frequently justify themselves by claiming that the person-raped ‘deserved it’ anyway).
The bits about JR’s take on things-political are what they are.
But – apropos of nothing in particular – there is then the repetition of the bit about “you defend the indefensible”. Which precisely presumes what has yet to be proven.
And somewhere along the way I recall the term “evolution” being brought into the matter. There are now two substantial problems with the theory of evolution: first, Darwin’s theory worked on how matter theoretically evolves (and thus the concept of the Origin of Species) but doesn’t’ at all address the problem of the origin of matter itself: whence comes the ‘matter’, the material, upon which the dynamics of evolution theoretically work?
Second, and this has arisen only in the age of high-power number-crunching computers: computer-assisted developments in Probability Theory now indicate that for the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian hypothesis to be accurate, it would have taken far more than a mere 4 billion years (the existence of Earth as a planet) for all that random mutation to naturally-select the stunning complexity of stunningly complex organisms as now currently exist on the planet.
Those two profound questions represent problems with the credibility of the evolutionary hypothesis that have not been credibly answered, much less refuted. There have been efforts to simply assert the problems and questions away, but such efforts remain merely that: attempts to explain-away the problems with the material by mere assertions (and epithetical characterizations of persons who might pose such questions) … which is a scientific variant of the problem with Abusenik material, nicely.
[edited by moderator]
I have proven my claim but you never prove yours. No herd of fake victims = no stampede. LDB doesn't attack victims. He is one. Why would any one answer so called "questions" (that aren't really questions but statements posturing as questions about the possibility and probability of my lying about my rape? When my rape is a fact.)
[edited by moderator]
Why should i "answer to" an anonymous poster who mocks every victim who has ever posted here. [edited by moderator]
More for those who are keeping a notebook on the Playbook:
On the 30th at 507PM – and without the merest whiff of self-aware irony – JR informs me that I am “living in a fantasyland”.
He then makes a stab at explicating that assertion: After all, do I “actually believe that anyone making a false claim will get a pay off?” [sic] To which I respond: given the right and carefully-arranged circumstances (such as have been developed under the Anderson Strategies) then I would say Yes, it is very possible – even probable – that “anyone making a false claim will get a payoff”.
But – again without the merest whiff of self-aware irony – he will declaim in further explication: “if that were true” then “you would have a stampede”. Yes, that has precisely been my point for quite some time here.
Then – and pay attention to the bouncing ball of JR’s mentation here – “But it’s not so and so there is on stampede”. Rather than work through the inconvenient and uncongenial facts that strongly indicate a Stampede (which we have gone over at great length and frequently here) he instead proceeds from his own unsupported assertion (“But it’s not so”) and thus deduces – without the need for any confronting of the facts – that there is no Stampede (because – doncha see? – he just said there isn’t one).
Neatly, JR’s is precisely the kind of deductive – rather than inductive – thinking which secularists have so often accused the Church of doing since the advent of the Scientific Revolution.
And – once again – we see the sly Playbook gambit again: having ensured that any actual examination of the actual claims and stories and allegations has been largely precluded, the Abuseniks then (and only then, and only after the checks have been safely cashed) start bawling that nobody can produce and evidence for the (highly probable) alternative explanation, i.e. that their stories were not altogether truthful and accurate. But what are the odds – under the conditions of Stampede fomented by the Anderson Strategies, including the almost guaranteed outcome of a whole lot of money – that this entire Thing has been on the level?
In regard to JR’s “credablity” (What word-processing system would let this howler through? Why would anyone purposely override the word-processing system’s automatic corrective function?) in regard to “pope Frank”: could JR quote (accurately and specifically) from Marx’s or Lenin’s works where either of those gentlemen mention “social justice”? And then – since the Church preceded both of those gentlemen by almost 2 millennia, could he demonstrate how those two gentlemen did not borrow the concept – if not also the term – from the Church?
In fact, could one demonstrate how those two gentlemen did not merely take (or filch) the concepts of salvation and the eschatalogical community of perfection and ‘the poor’ (anawim is the Biblical term) and simply deploy those concepts on the Monoplane rather than the Multiplane, defining the concepts not spiritually but economically and materially? Where, indeed, does the concept of the dignity of the individual come from in Western thought? It surely precedes the time of the “communists”?
Marx and Communism represent – and I am not breaking any new ground here – in a very substantial sense simply the deployment of essentially Biblical and Christian concepts and reducing them to the Monoplane.
Then on the 30th at 537PM we get ‘LDB’, proffering yet another demonstration of the elite-trained and professionally-formed philosophical and legal mind at full gallop: resulting in merely a concatenation of epithetical bits.
In my immediately prior comment this morning I raised some points about the theory of evolution which I will reproduce here:
And somewhere along the way I recall the term “evolution” being brought into the matter. There are now two substantial problems with the theory of evolution: first, Darwin’s theory worked on how matter theoretically evolves (and thus the concept of the Origin of Species) but doesn’t’ at all address the problem of the origin of matter itself: whence comes the ‘matter’, the material, upon which the dynamics of evolution theoretically work?
Second, and this has arisen only in the age of high-power number-crunching computers: computer-assisted developments in Probability Theory now indicate that for the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian hypothesis to be accurate, it would have taken far more than a mere 4 billion years (the existence of Earth as a planet) for all that random mutation to naturally-select the stunning complexity of stunningly complex organisms as now currently exist on the planet.
Those two profound questions represent problems with the credibility of the evolutionary hypothesis that have not been credibly answered, much less refuted. There have been efforts to simply assert the problems and questions away, but such efforts remain merely that: attempts to explain-away the problems with the material by mere assertions (and epithetical characterizations of persons who might pose such questions) … which is a scientific variant of the problem with Abusenik material, nicely.
And we of course are supposed to believe there's a "stampede" because you SAY there's one. Two can play at your game.
Oh yes, the church is so known for promoting "the dignity of the individual". They cetainly promoted Maciel's dignity to the skies. His victims' individual dignity NOT SO MUCH.
[edited by moderator] That's a statement posed as a question.
On other sites spell check show's me it's little red dashes but not here. Not for me, any way.
Last thought on evolution – the good doctor used logic to arrive at his position (hint, hint)-
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/opinion/l-theory-of-evolution-has-never-been-proved-151289.html
Delphin's 'last thought' on evolution is to link to the writings of some random medical doctor from 25 years ago. Awesome.
That LDB is the sad state of huge numbers of religionists in this country. They know so much more than science proves. Those kinds of delusions used to merit medical attention. This is the level of certain parts of the world's faithful. This denial of everything that even hints at real honesty.
But I do have hope. The young in first world nations are not frightened of the religionists' mumbo jumbo any more. They have, thanks in part to us victims, seen through the bull.
What does it matter that the Columbia U MD made his statement 25 years ago, does it matter to you that the theory he critiques is 150 years into producing little supporting micro and macro evidence for the two main principles of Darwinism?
Perhaps LDBs mother was a victim of the man-made (i.e. flawed) science that produced thalidomide? Maybe his great uncle was the postulator of the static state theory, before the latest and greatest 'big banger' came along or his grandfther was the engineer for the Space Shuttle Challenger that muffed up that little "O" ring thingie?
Perhaps a quick read of the glorious blunders of science (aka man) would benefit the servants of this false god?
The One True God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not have problems with theories, it is our people who are in the forefront of postulating them (since the pagans were/are otherwise engaged) and building the systems that support such endeavors. We're just not silly enough to think that any man-made theory that happens along (and, there have been quite a few) will replace the role of the creator himself, God.
Delphins statement, directly above, written July 2 at 1:32 p.m. is astonishing!
"The One True God"!!! And in capitals yet.
[edited by moderator]
Man is a blunder of science? That's what you wrote. Not what you intended; but what you, in fact, said.
You might want to talk to your deity about man being a blunder. Given we were created in "his" image and likeness according to you. We are the sons and daughters of Blunder.
On the 1st at 543PM JR proffers that he “has proven [his] claim but you never prove yours”. It is unclear whether he is referring to his claims about his own alleged abuse or his claim that there is no Stampede – but he has proven neither. If he thinks otherwise, he can give us the date/time stamp of the comments where he has done ‘proven’ anything, or perhaps give us a précis of his proofs, since – no doubt – such substantial achievements would be clear in his mind.
But immediately thereafter – perhaps on the not baseless assumption that the bits in his first paragraph wouldn’t fly – he then quickly tosses up a second bit: in any case, he doesn’t have to “answer” anything, especially – waittttt for ittttttt – “so called questions” [sic] that “aren’t really questions but statements posturing as questions” about possibilities and probabilities as to his “lying about [his] rape”. As in so many Abusenik bits in the Stampede, absent any evidence there is nothing left but possibility and probability or probable credibility. To cover this abyss, the Abuseniks have relied upon an incessant plaint that they must simply be believed and no questions asked. Readers may judge as they will.
Nor is there any evidence to support the assertion that “my rape is a fact”. For that, there is only JR’s credibility and readers may judge as they will.
And the séance concludes with yet another toss of the old bit that presumes questioning is the same as mocking.
Then, on the 1st at 546PM, he tries – at this late date in the course of events here – to claim now that there never was a Stampede and that I simply “say” [exaggerated scream-y caps omitted] that there is one. I have pointed out the elements, the actions, and the clear and large swing of the numbers of allegations; if JR wants to “play the same game” he will have to do the same in support of his claim. If he can.
Then, on the 1st at 554PM, he tries to avoid the inconvenient questions as to Marx’s and Lenin’s filching of Catholic doctrine by trying the epithetical – a distraction right from the Playbook.
And on the 1st at 557PM he attempts to avoid the question as to his word-processor on his own computer by trying to make it seem like only websites have spell-checks and the TMR site doesn’t have one. As if his own word-processing program doesn’t have one. Could he name his word-processing program? – because at this point his bit here seems, not to put too fine a point on it, incredible.
Publion's two questions are nonsense points.
With his first question, Publion flails around waving the idea that if science cannot answer every question then science should/can not be trusted to answer to any question in particular. And, of course, the most threatening scientific question, the one that the religious take issue with every time, is the origin of humans/life on Earth. That god made us in his image is so essential to Publion's catholic faith, morals and worldview, science cannot be allowed to undermine the idea.
The second question dealing with the age of the earth and the time it would take for evolution by natural selection to develop the biological complexity that we see today is simply wrong in its conclusion that the time required was lacking. Here is an address to take you to a 2010 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454.full) that addresses the faulty reasoning and math behind the incorrect conclusion. Anyone arguing for not enough time for evolution will most likely be a religious (usually christians of one or another stripe) apologist, so check your sources.
Publion really looks like a 'flatearther,' a person out of touch with science and reality, when questioning evolution.
At this point, LDB, being here is dealing with a subset of a subset. There is nothing mainstream in it. Maybe that's why it hates the media so much; the church used to be the media to catholics. Now they're largely ignored by the fleeced. But to deny science and replace truth with fantasy is crimial and to think they teach children this junk. You lot just can't stop abusing children.
I had mentioned that the only responses (not to say ‘answers’) available to Darwinists and neo-Darwinists would be to assert-away the questions themselves or try to distract from the problems by such (juvenile) gambits as the epithetical.
And along comes LDB (the 2nd, 1043AM), as if on cue, to demonstrate precisely that.
My points are “nonsense points” – my, my, can he demonstrate that effectively?
First, he tries to make the subject about “science” rather than the rather specific points I made about Darwin’s theory of evolution. And then he goes on about “science”.
Then he notes that the “origin of humans/ life on Earth” is a very significant religious issue (and “the most threatening scientific question”). The “origin of humans/life on earth” is indeed a very significant question, and threatening to the Darwinists and neo-Darwinists as well as to the Church.
But I had noted rather more specifically “the origin of matter”- a point that LDB either missed (somehow) or chose to avoid.
And rather than demonstrating any effort to deal with that rather significant issue, he simply tries to distract from the problem by going on about my “catholic faith, morals and worldview”.
Nor can we say that LDB has demonstrated how science might “undermine the idea” (what idea?) since he hasn’t even addressed the problem that science has not yet been able to answer with anything like a satisfactory hypothesis. For all we know at this point, “science” (meaning here the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories) have not even been able to lay a glove on the ‘origin of matter’. And yet the problem and the question have existed since Darwin’s own day and Darwin himself said he couldn’t address it satisfactorily. (Material which I covered in comments back when this issue was first discussed here.)
As for LDB’s linked-to article, a cursory glance would indicate the following:
The article begins with the given of “a newborn human” – but (to use imagery with which we are familiar from the Stampede discussions) this is the equivalent of starting the play at third base rather than with an at-bat at home plate: “a newborn human” is itself already the result of an astronomically vast amount of development . The article seeks to talk about mutations in already-formed humans, leaving (conveniently) behind the almost incomprehensible amount of development that has led to the existence of “a newborn human” in the first place.
The article uses an example that refers to “the correct” letters to be found; but what determines (or has determined) what is “correct” in the first place? The example itself presumes some prior organizing or confirming principle. And whence that principle?
The same example has adopted the example of a word with a certain number of letters (there are 26 in the English language). But this analogy is grossly insufficient to convey the complexity of developmental options and necessities when dealing with the development of even basic minute life forms comprising even the ‘simplest’ mono-cellular entities.
Thus, what we see in this article, is merely an effort to explain baseball by focusing on only the area between third-base and home, and ignoring the rest of the infield, the outfield, and the at-bat phenomenon, each of which adds its own layers of possibilities and complexities.
This represents nothing so much as the Abusenik just-so stacking of their blocks in order to make some explanation ‘work’. And it gives us an example of scientific method skewed in the service of trying to protect a theory that increasingly looks to be not only insufficient but fundamentally inaccurate.
Some months ago, when this topic was discussed at length here, I had recommended two recent books by Stephen C. Meyer: Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt. Therein readers may consider the numerous issues – including current probability theory – and graphic explanations and examples, that indicate clearly how insufficient neo-Darwinian theory is in light of recent developments.
For example, information-theory scientists observe that even more confounding than the evolution of matter is the question of the origin of the directing-information that appears to guide the evolution of matter. (You see an echo of this profound problem in the linked-to article’s reference to “correct” – whence the origin of the ‘information’ that determines what evolutionary step is “correct”?)
And computer-scientists have observed that the information that seems to guide the evolutionary development resembles nothing so much as computer-code, which directs the operations of computers. But then … computer codes do not evolve; they are designed.
All of which raises the prospect of the insufficiency and high-improbability of the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian vision.
I again invite readers so inclined to take some time with the two Meyer books in order to get a picture of the many problems and then follow their further thoughts and explorations from there.
Lastly, a note on process: Rather than explain the article to which he linked (if indeed he understood it in the first place) LDB has chosen – as so often – to simply ladle on the epithets, with a hefty dose of tea-leaf-reading. Thus “Anyone arguing for not enough time for evolution will most likely be a religious (usually christians of one or another stripe) apologist, so check your sources.” As if Darwinians or neo-Darwinians are not going to “most likely” plump for their (heavily-invested) theory … “so check your sources”.
Might one not equally say: Any one arguing for the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian theory is probably a professionally well-situated hack heavily invested in keeping the theory going no matter what dreck they have to put forward, in order to make it look like they still have a worthwhile theory to defend, so check your sources …. ?
Some readers may recall an episode of MASH in which Klinger tries to get himself to Tokyo by claiming to be held hostage by a crazed patient demanding a flight for himself and Klinger, yet the patient lapses into unconsciousness behind him even as Klinger is pretending to be held hostage. Might not the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian theory be collapsing behind them even as its indentured supporters are loudly proclaiming its conceptual health and vitality?
And then the “flatearther” bit, as if juvenile and ketchup-splattered epithets could make the profound and increasingly numerous problems with the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory go-away.
Curious – is it not – that the more we look at this Darwinian matter the more it resembles the Stampede and its Playbook?
TO ALL Who cared to write comments..Whay are we posting comments on the subject of clergy abuse ?? Because we cannot get a responce from our Arch Bishop, Cardinals or Pope Francis. No diolog, No comments from the Alter nothing..ie the reason for comments. If we do get comments from someone it is a cover. Nothing about Fr. Jiang of STL and AB Carlson even though Fr. Jiang admitts abusing children. I think maybe we agree somthing should be done by all Parishioners and demmand answers. If you have children or grandchildren I'm sure you dont want them abused by clergy or staff officials.
The reason for my comments concerning the Bishops Charter of 2002 "Protect Children and Young People".. Read the Document before commenting more..I dont think many parishioners know about this charter and the differences.. Then go read safe enviornment.
I for one do not want my children wounded by abuse by people we trust…
READ THE 2002 BISHOPS CHARTER "PROTECT CHILDRENS AND YOUNG PEOPLE"
Delphin..Read the 2002 Bishops Charter "Protect Children and Young People" then ask why has this document not been placed in every dioceses in the US. Why Safe Enviornment. Read about Fr. Jiang 2 time offender and the Arch Bishop cover. You must not have children attending Catholic School's or in any PSR Classes or you would not be interested in Darwin…If you want to help… Help. Parishioners need all involved or this issue will be covered and the beat will go on…
Pope Francis Vows today "Bishops will be held accountable". ????
Read 2002 Bishops Charter" Protect Children and Young People"
I missed JR’s bit on the 1st at 130AM: rather than continue to assert that Marx and Lenin (or “us commies”, with JR writing himself into the script) invented “social justice” and didn’t simply filch various Christian concepts and apply them only to the Monoplane, JR will now undermine his prior assertion for the sake of delivering a snappy one-liner comeback: OK, “us commies … stole christianity” (sic) but only because – waitttt for itttttttttt – “you weren’t using it”. The Commies – if you will – did ‘use’ it, did they not? With the demonstrated results we have seen.
But on the 7th, now, we are given some thoughts by ‘Jack’.
At 1110AM (introduced by unfortunately scream-y caps) we are (as best I can infer) given his thoughts on why “we are posting comments on the subject of clergy abuse”: “because we cannot get a response”. If this is actually meant to mean that in the past decades – especially the dozen years since the Dallas Charter (and as subsequently refined) – the Church has not ‘responded’ then I cannot see how ‘Jack’ can possibly be accurate as to his reason for posting comments.
Ditto the bit about “no dialog” (so similar to JR’s plaints, no?): If there is to be “dialog” about any Problem X then we must first establish the actuality and actual extent of that Problem X – and yet this is precisely where i) the Abuseniks not only avoid any “dialog” at all, but also ii) demand that their own clams as to the actuality and extent of Problem X be accepted at face-value without any analysis whatsoever.
And then the assertions that a) there have been “no comments” (from “the Alter” … and I have no idea what this means) and b) “if we do get comments from someone it is a cover”. While (a) has its own problems since we don’t know who or what “the Alter” is, yet (b) is substantially unsupportable.
And (b) is unsupportable because it is not a description of demonstrated practices so much as it is a preferred ‘spin’ deployed not to assess an actual historical pattern but rather to manipulate the public’s pre-judgment toward the Abuseniks’ preferred spin or ‘narrative’.
And just what does “dialog” mean in the first place, as ‘Jack’ envisions it? The Church has made itself into what may well be the safest environment for children on the planet, compared to any other organization. What “dialog” needs to be further implemented? What exactly does ‘Jack’ want here? A meeting with the Pope? A parish round-table?
But if it’s some sort of parish roundtable, then given the fact that there were 7 or 8 allegations in the entire country for the most recent year records are available, then what would the roundtables discuss? The past? (And here we run smack into the ‘genuine victim’ Problem – and does ‘Jack’ happen to have a solution to that?) Or some present allegations in the parish (but there are only a tiny few parishes affected by current allegations)? And in the cases where one of those (increasingly rare) allegations is made, then what can the parish discuss or “dialog” about in the case where Church or public investigatory processes are underway?
So what actually and exactly is ‘Jack’ looking-for here in this “dialog”?
My own thought on this “dialog” scenario: to Keep The Ball Rolling, the Abuseniks would like to now see every parish become a potential stage for the usual Abusenik soap-operas to be played-out (with local media invited or kept-informed, of course).
And as regards the “Fr. Jiang” case (with which I am not familiar): if there is a single instance, why should all parishes or parishioners in the country be involved in “dialog” about it and what actually would they “dialog” about?
And if anyone has “children or grandchildren” and – laudably – does not “want them abused by clergy or staff officials”, then have the Dallas Charter and subsequent policy-implementations not addressed that concern? What “answers” are to be ‘demanded’? And does the fact of the hugely reduced number of allegations not had some effect on the many parents and grandparents? Or is this just a pretext to try and lubricate the ‘parish roundtable’ scenario so the Ball Can Be Kept Rolling?
And has ‘Jack’ read the “Bishops Charter of 2002” (and whatever other documents to which he may refer, such as “safe environment”)? If so, what precisely in there has not served to address these concerns? (I am never comfortable when we are simply told to read an entire document by a commenter who doesn’t bother to explain his/her concerns about the content of the recommended document.)
And are we really to imagine that in the Year of Grace Two Thousand and Fourteen it is credible that not “many parishioners know about this charter and the differences”? And what “differences” might those be?
Then the concluding bit that, while it appears grammatically as a laudable enough statement of concern, yet – queasily – serves to imply that one’s “children” are or are at risk of being “wounded by abuse by people we trust”. Are the “children” more at risk of abuse by priests and staff or by parents, grandparents, friends, and relations? Is ‘Jack’s concern about the Church at this point the best use of his time and efforts? Is the Church (or his local parish) at this point the most accurate focus of those concerns and efforts?
Then at 1113AM – alas – we again get, and again in scream-y all-caps, an instruction merely to read the documents in their entirety.
Then at 423PM ‘Delphin’ is given the same instruction. And it is then proffered that apparently the documents have “not been placed in every dioceses in the US” (sic). They have not? What does “placed” mean here? Are we meant to infer that there is any Diocese in this country where these documents are unknown? There may be Ordinaries who take issue with this or that specific bit, I imagine (and so much for the idea that the Pope runs the Church like a Divine-Right monarch) but while that is certainly conceptually possible, I’d need to know of specific actual instances in some detail.
Then this “Fr. Jiang” case again: just what significance does ‘Jack’ assign to this case? What is any reader supposed to discover when reading about this case?
Then the utterly unsupported (and unsupportable) epithetical conclusion that ‘Delphin’ “must not have children attending” Catholic education facilities or else (even more illogically) “you would not be interested in Darwin”.
I will get to “Darwin” in a moment here.
We are then simply informed that the Pope “Vows” (surely an exaggerated metaphor) that “Bishops will be held accountable” with four question marks following it. This is again a queasily familiar Playbook gambit: we are given an innuendo (and a might vague one at that) but the commenter offers absolutely no indication of what we might find, or what s/he finds, of significance in the proffered bit. If this is an example of ‘discussion’ or “dialog” then it is a lazy example indeed: persons who wish to participate in such activity should do some work and help others to understand what they themselves wish to discuss or express.
Now about “Darwin”: I would say that to the extent that the Stampede draws upon a deep thread of Darwin-based anti-religious or ‘atheist’ or ‘secular’ thought and feeling in American and Western society, then the discussion of Darwin (initially raised here by the Abuseniks) is very apropos even if it is not directly and specifically concerned with the safety of children. Because – in a nutshell (and ‘Jack’ is welcome to review the comment record on this site for much more extended treatment of this issue) – if the Darwinian or neo-Darwinian position turns out to be substantially scientifically unsupportable, then the Church (and religion generally, and even the existence of God) regains a role the significance of which has been substantially undermined in the past era (since 1859) in Western and American civilization.
And – to save us some time here – please note the order of my thinking: first, “if the Darwinian or neo-Darwinian position turns out to be substantially scientifically unsupportable”… and only then second, a consequence of that scientific judgment will be the restoration of a sense of the Beyond in Western and American culture.
Thus – and especially in the most recent discussion on this thread – I have raised current new scientific problems with the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian hypothesis.
And I will go further and say that if the fresh questions I have introduced, arising out of new developments in science, are valid then the Church herself may be catalyzed into a fresh ‘rebirth’ of a sense of the seriousness of her purpose and the urgency of her mission in the world. Because it must surely have been de-moralizing for clergy and believers in the West and in America since 1859, to be continually bethumped with the intensifying Darwinian sensibility that Nature neither has nor needs any Beyond or any God and that human existence – for better or worse – can and must make do without any Beyond.
And that’s why the Darwin discussion is relevant here.
Publion. A way of eliminating a problem is a verbal exchange followed by a combined instruction document how to achieve goals. Well the Document ie 2002 Charter "Protect Children and Young People" is not Safe Enviornment. The Charter was approved by each bishop in the United States USBC. That Carter has words and Language SHALL/WILL "Canon Norm 1" that holds ignoring Bishops Accountable for Covering for Abusing Pedophile Priest and Clergy. The Safe Enviornment document has fragmentate this 2002 Charter into different publications and is not even referenced in that document. I have read these documents. My entry is to get enough interest and conversation so parents, grandparents, parishioners and concerned individuals to read each and form a opinion.
As I see the Safe Enviornment Document is eye wash. I has no Punitive wording that will apply legal punitive action against protectors of offending clergy.
"One can cry foul forever and not be heard" "with many crying problem could be resolved" My problem is the current Arch Bishop of St. Louis and his current position of protecting known pedophile priest.
My thoughts of resolution is for all Parishes initiate the 2002 Charter"Protect Children and Young People" as signed by all Bishops in the US. Discarding Safe Enviornment.
.
I see you posted the deposition. Too bad you didn't read it. Shame on you. As a Christian I detest it when so called Christian organizations behave so dishonestly. I suggest you post the deposition starting at page 108…………….
As I understand ‘Jack’ (the 11th, 425PM) he believes that “a way of eliminating a problem is a verbal exchange followed by a combined instruction document”. Is he possessed of information that there was no “verbal exchange” among the various ranks of hierarchs, from Ordinaries on up the line to the various Vatican authorities?
What exactly is this (or “a”) “Safe Environment”? Does he refer to a document or a condition or state of affairs? And if the former, can he provide a link to it (I presume that “Safe Environment” is not its formal title)? And if the latter, i) just what are the constitutive elements of such a condition or state of affairs, and then ii) in what ways is that condition not generally being met at this point?
Without answers to these questions it is hard to see just what the specific problem is at this point, and how some sort of general parish-roundtable is supposed to resolve it.
I got the clear impression that the goal of ‘Jack’s post was not simply to help parishioners “form an opinion” but also to get some sort of organized activity going (i.e. my thought about the parish roundtables). And yet I also find it hard to accept that at this point, after several decades, “parents, grandparents, and parishioners and concerned individuals” (and who might such “concerned individuals” be?) have not already ‘formed an opinion’.
And the term “protectors of offending clergy” strikes me very clearly as being suspiciously vague: what actions constitute ‘protecting’ such “offending clergy”? And are superiors’ actions respecting the rights of clergy who are allegated-against but not yet demonstrated to have ‘offended’ to be included as ‘protecting’ them? If so, then all we are seeing here is the old and lethally dangerous trope that the mere allegation is sufficient to prove guilt of “offending”; and thus (in this trope’s theoretical vision) convicting a) the priest of “offending” and b) the ecclesiastical superiors who do not instantly presume him guilty of “offending” as ‘protecting’ him.
Then we are informed that ‘Jack’s concern is primarily only for some particular specific case in St. Louis.
And in what ways, finally, have “all parishes” not ‘initiated’ the 2002 Charter? And in what ways does this “Safe Environment” document somehow water-down the original 2002 Charter? And does the term “2002 Charter” include its various refinements and emendations over the ensuing dozen years?
So there are numerous questions to be answered here. And absent any answers then the idea about (to use my term) “parish roundtables” seems unnecessary and certainly too vaguely conceived to have a clear and useful purpose in addressing the current conditions. (And also raises the question as to why the assorted parishioners, relatives, and “concerned individuals” in this or that parish could not already have instituted such group discussions on their own if they had wished to do so.)
So I will stick to my thought (expressed in prior comments on this thread) that there is something a bit off about this whole discussion or “parish roundtable” idea. It strikes me as a way of Keeping The Ball Rolling. Specifically, it reminds me of an effort to get some sort of Maoist Cultural Revolution mechanism going, whereby the local venue becomes a stage for various persons (perhaps those odd “concerned individuals”, such as – perhaps – SNAP types) to run Stampede soap-operas on the local level, giving anybody who wishes to tell a story (at this late date) a platform to whip up the crowd once more.
And to do so with the added but necessary touch of having the Church (through the parish) formally ‘mule’ this gambit in which – if I am correct in my surmise – an official gathering would be used for the ultimate purpose and to the ultimate effect of creating yet another stage for the Stampede soap-operas with which we are all too familiar.
Delphin. The 2002 Bishop's Charter titled "Protect Children and Young People" was to help resolve Clergy Pedophile Problems. The Safe Enviornment program was mentioned in the Bishops Charter. The internet explains what the Charter specifics are and includes Legal words that Legal Bind each Bishop to the intent of the Charter. All Bishops in the US. signed and approved the Charter. Some decending Bishop's returned to their dioceses and in compliance with the Charter incorporated a sub titled Safe Enviornment Program which is also available by Title on line. The St. Louis dioceses decided to incorporate the Safe Enviornment Program in lieu of just incorporating the 2002 Bishops Charter that included Legal Punitive words and Language via Canon, Civil, Fed, Law. The Bishop installed his own program without non binding legal language in subing.. must for SHALL / WILL binding words.
In regard to the comment by ‘Jack’ on the 14th at 1042PM: The Catholic ‘Safe Environment’ (hereinafter: CSE) program can be seen at this link
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/safe-environment.cfm
As can clearly be seen, the CSE program states that “parents and caretakers have a right to ask these organizations [i.e. “churches, schools, and youth programs”] if they meet the requirements of the Charter”.
Thus the CSE program is not a substitute for the Charter nor an alternative to the Charter (let alone some sort of ‘watered-down’ version of the Charter) but rather is simply a consequent implementation program designed to actuate the requirements of the Charter.
Thus I am having difficulty seeing what point ‘Jack’ has been trying to make here. As best I can infer, he is making an argument similar to this: Congress declared war on the Axis powers in its formal Declaration of War; the subsequent Army and Navy war strategy documents do not actually say that we are at war with the Axis powers, therefore the Army and Navy do not consider themselves at war with the Axis powers as Congress has formally declared.
You see the problem here.
Readers so inclined will also note that the link to the CSE program also includes a hyperlink to the actual Charter document (which the CSE program is designed to further) and that hyperlink’s first page specifically includes in its précis of the Charter’s requirements the tasks of “cooperating with civil authorities” and “disciplining offenders”.
So I am not sure what ‘Jack’ is on about here.
Also, I can’t see where – acting on the basis of what is written in the CSE documents – “parents and caretakers” can’t simply go to their pastor and ask. Or perhaps the parish-council can do so.
That still leaves this odd category of “concerned individuals” that ‘Jack’ mentioned and I have already raised some questions about who such persons might be and so on. But – again – I think that this category of “concerned individuals” is actually a vital giveaway: hidden in what appears to be an unobtrusive phrase, this little bit opens the door for SNAP-pies and assorted “concerned” Abuseniks to pack a bag, suit-up, and descend upon a parish to try organizing the old Maoist gambit I have previously described on this thread. And thus take another stab to try and Keep The Ball Rolling.