Hollywood unleashes big guns Mark Ruffalo (l) and Michael Keaton (r) against the Catholic Church
This is the book that Hollywood and the Boston Globe do not want you to read.
On the eve of the Hollywood release of the new movie Spotlight – starring Hollywood heavyweights Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo – which purports to dramatize the Boston Globe's 2002 Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on sex abuse and the Catholic Church, SINS OF THE PRESS sets the record straight on the Globe's reporting, its unabashed history of animus toward the Catholic Church, and its past indifference to sex abuse.
Thoroughly researched and meticulously documented, SINS OF THE PRESS exposes:
- How the Globe's reporting was only the culmination of a relentless, decades-long campaign against the Catholic Church for ideological reasons;
- How the Globe flagrantly misled its readers about the Church's response to abuse complaints;
- How the Globe has dismissed abuse and cover-ups in other institutions;
- How the Globe has routinely celebrated child molesters in its pages over the years;
- How the Globe frequently promoted an author who supported incest between fathers and daughters;
- How the Globe was flat-out erroneous in its reporting;
- How the Globe facilitated the foundation of the notorious gay pedophile group NAMBLA;
- The truth about Cardinal Law and his response to cases of abusive priests;
and much more.
Time to turn the tables.
Who is this P "person"? I don't believe he exists. He's not even here . There has been no sex abuse scandal only an anti catholic church scandal.
P's an invention; a catholic clerical wet dream. A "man" who can eliminate the past by denying it ever happened and or that anyone was ever abused by a priest. He's a concoction. A contraption.A vapor; a phantom. A will o the wisp. The good catholic fairy godmother.
Does this clown like anything, besides ritual and fantasy? Jesus' little Nazi, that's P.
P, the ultimate Phantom of this Opera.
Yes the probation officer was the one who told me about mandatory reporters. The 2 people I told at my 20 Year high school reunion about my abuse were both mandatory reporters when i told them about my abuse 21 years after the fact at the 20 year reunion. They both were mandatorally required to report my accusations when they heard them. They did not. They then lied about my ever telling them. (so typically for the catholic faithful it seems. When in trouble: lie.
While the remarks of the 10th at 1028AM have a certain repulsive revelatory charm, the only informative bit in the recent crop is that of the 10th at 1110AM:
This ‘mandated reporter’ bit was dealt with quite a while ago when JR originally brought it up (or, if you wish, ‘reported’ it).
As the CA mandated reporter law stood in his high-school years, it did not include those faculty as mandated-reporters and the mandated-reporter law of that era also required only that reports be made if the mandated-reporters of that era thought or felt the claims were credible.
Thus, if his advice has been accurately passed-along by JR, then this purported probation officer would have been notably misinformed as to the applicable law. Which simply leaves us, even in JR’s own story universe, with JR relying on people who don’t seem to know what they are talking about. Readers may consider that as they will.
And that leads to the following point: Clearly, JR is not the type to research information ostensibly vital to his positions on his own. Rather, he simply takes the words of people (the existence of the probation officer is here presumed merely for the purposes of this discussion) and tries to piggy-back himself on the credibility and accuracy of those people. Sort of a pack-rat approach to things. Or perhaps piggy-back approach.
But then: what would he have left if he accurately researched all the elements of his stories?
And the same goes for the Stampede generally.
In 1984, at the time of my 20 year reunion, mandatory reporting by a police officer and a school administrator was the law in California.
Anyway, moral people don't need a law to do the right thing. They just do it.
And now for more gambits – one can only wonder whether it is the result of ignorance or design.
The alleged crime took place in or about 1964, not 1984. Was JR – after all the stuff about his own story – so uninformed as to the applicable laws regarding it?
But he then – slyly indeed – pooh-poohs the whole "law" thingie that he himself had introduced by claiming that "moral people don't need a law to do the right thing".
How very true. But not quite to the point: very "moral" people in 1964 may have had – by amazing coincidence – legitimate concerns about the veracity of his allegations, stories, and claims. Just as some moral people do nowadays.
I wouldn't take your word on morality, ever.
You are a "designed ignorance".
Who is this Publion guy?