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.
Everybody does it. Even more then us. They attack our hundreds of child-rapings priests. While turning a blind-eye. To the sex abuse by Prostatant abuses in Detroit, alone. I'm glad we have Bishops like Mahoney, Finn, and Nienstedt. Who protect us.By lieing, for these guys. And all the other bishops, and cardinals, who keep quiet. And support Mahoney. Like the Pope. They can try. But they'll never break our Brotherhood of Silence.
Yes, there has been a great silence after tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of articles, and news stories—to say nothing of the countless apologies by church officials.
I guess you missed the Fast Facts section of this site about that fact that any sex abuse by priests in years past is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of overall sex abuse in society but the church receives alll of the media attention for some reason.
Ergo the name: "The Media Report"
Bee! Listen up! I don't give a shit about apologies when no compensation for the horror your employees and bosses created for your victims is never mentioned or even aimed for by you or your church. Morally you are all frauds.
Oh yeah Jim the church also paid out billions that is with a capial B to victims–most maybe legit but many many of which were bogus.
"Many many"? Trot out these "many many" fake claims. Or does one need "faith" to believe they exist?
I have been working on some other projects and apologize for my absence.
I have some ideas on the ‘Spotlight’ movie, and I will get to them shortly.
But in this comment I would just like to offer a few bits on some comments and developments since my last post in early August.
On the 22nd of September, prior to the papal visit to the US – by amazing coincidence, over on the Crux-Now site (affiliated with the ‘Boston Globe’), an article entitled “He has his faith” went up ‘reporting’ the travails of a gentleman now in his mid-60s who has become significant in the local SNAP organization. The article provides a nicely comprehensive demonstration of all the now-classic (or predictable) Victimist and Abusenik tropes and memes, with which readers here may now be rather familiar.
But when one seeks to get to the ‘meat’ (or, as they say in the porn industry, the ‘money-shot’), i.e. the specific instance of ‘abuse’ or ‘molestation’ which this gentleman claims to have undergone or suffered, we find only a quick reference (not further discussed or explored by the Crux-Now “spirituality” reporter) to this effect: as a troubled boy he attended a summer camp; a priest at that camp – perhaps known to his mother – in some sense befriended the boy or showed him some special attention; and somehow abused and molested him, of course, but – most curiously – neither the article nor the story-teller actually describes the alleged offending action; and thus to 2002, when this gentleman bases his entire plaint on the claim that he was ‘abused’ or ‘molested’ (however these elastic terms might be defined here) and on the fact that at that point in 2002 he suddenly realized (or decided) that that summer-camp relationship experience was merely a grooming incident, whereby – as the current Victimist dogma has it – a sex-abuser builds a relationship with a targeted victim for the purpose of perpetrating later abuse.
And that’s it: the entire panoply of Stampede tropes and memes is deployed in the article to burnish the simple claim by this gentleman that at some long-later date he decided – in 2002, just after the ‘Globe’ had initiated its phase of the Stampede, by amazing coincidence – that he had been groomed and then somehow or other ‘abused’ and/or ‘molested’ by this priest.
You see how this sort of thing works.
A troubled or even problematic child by his own recounting, he is sent to summer camp by a mother who – from the story – may well have hoped that, in the last resort, a priest might be able to have better luck helping the kid straighten out … it’s hardly a rare or implausible scenario.
I don’t imagine that – except in the old Pat O’Brien or Bing Crosby scripts – a single priest (or any other helping source) would be able to effect permanent fundamental improvements; once a child’s development becomes deranged. then – except in certain variants of the miracle-medicine or intervention narrative – there’s increasingly less possibility that even the most advanced (whatever that may mean here) ‘intervention’ can effect fundamental repair and restoration, especially among the very large population of troubled children and youth.
(Which constitutes a very good reason why, I would say, a realistic assessment a) of the dangers and afflictions rife in human existence and in human interactions and in human nature and b) of the limited possibilities and probabilities of effecting widespread and fundamental rework and repair … would impel any rational person to embrace in all humility a deep and habitual Prayer and Hope, since human science and agency on its own has small prospect of making all well or even substantially better.)
Also: since the Crux-Now site is rather victim-friendly – one might say – then a number of commenters hopped onto the safe bandwagon afforded by the site and went on about the usual things. A few of the screen-names are familiar to readers of TMR, although it seems clear enough that many eager Abusenik-type commenters prefer not to actually post on a site such as TMR where their usual stuff is questioned; they no doubt console themselves with thoughts such as ‘to be questioned is to be attacked’ and ‘questions only prove that the questioners are pedophile-defending and pedophile-enabling shills for the Church’ and so on.
The actual dynamics beneath this phenomenon, I would say, are this: since the whole Abusenik and Stampede dynamic is based upon – and must absolutely presume – the unquestioning acceptance of the claims (not often justifiably termed ‘reports’) of ‘abuse’ and/or ‘molestation’, then Abuseniks and their cheerleaders are not going to be comfortable going near a site (such as TMR) where that fundamental and essential initial presumption (of not being questioned or doubted) is not given its ‘proper’ (in their game plan) ‘respect’. Like the proverbial Emperor’s New Clothes, once they are looked-at carefully, they quite literally reveal themselves not to actually be there at all.
By tomorrow I hope to have a ‘Spotlight’ comment submitted.
Hey Pub, I occasionaly read and have infrequently commemted on this website. My only reason for looking at this site is to try and get a better understanding of why so many, you included, have the opinions you do about priest sexual abuse and church gross negligemce. All of your opinions are based on the "stampede" of false reports to get money and the media's desire to tarnish the church. We simply disagree, and I have no intention to change your mind.
I have been questioned by police, prosecutors, judges, church officials, lawyers, media, family and friends. I have never presumed to receive unquestioning acceptance of my claims. I am certainly not intimidated or afraid to answer your questions on TMR. What do you want to know?
I am working on my ‘Spotlight’ comment which should be ready later this evening, but ‘David’ comes on the 2nd at 916AM with some bits that I would like to answer.
He has put his finger right on the nub of the issue and the problem: “What would you like to know?”, he asks me.
But that is precisely the problem here and in the Stampede generally: what can we really and actually ‘know’ about all these claims and accusations? That’s it exactly.
We have a claim (not even on its own acceptable to any third-parties as a ‘report’).
He seems not to credit the reality of the Stampede so let me repeat the gist of my points about the Stampede in a nutshell: every human being not present for the claimed or alleged act of perpetration (whatever it may be called among the wide and elastic terms such as ‘abuse’, ‘molestation’, or ‘rape’) is a third-party to the event / therefore every such human being needs some form of evidence to persuade and convince by rational assertions of fact or logic that the alleged and claimed act actually took place / and only thus can we establish the actuality – or at the very least the convincing probability – that the alleged and claimed act actually took place / and yet this is precisely what cannot be achieved either a) on-line or even b) in the various arenas and forums (media and courts especially) upon which most people rely for some help in formulating their assessment of the actuality or at least probability that the alleged act actually took place as described.
Let me add then a bit more about (b): the Stampede, specifically defined here as relating to the Catholic Abuse Matter, has comprehensively and most shrewdly (and effectively) worked to manipulate third-parties to ignore and quickly move-beyond the claims without any dispositive demonstration of their accuracy and credibility when subjected to examination.
How so? Evidentiary principles (in both the media and the legal forums) have been weakened / much of the mainstream media simply accepts the claims as if they were ‘reports’ (although ‘claim’ and ‘report’ are not at all synonymous) and focuses merely on the vivid and sometimes prurient spectacular particulars of the alleged act or on the claims of the consequences of the (still undemonstrated) act.
To this we add the stunning impact of the pressures generated by the prospect of huge-sum ‘settlements’ pursued by enterprising tort attorneys as an almost-guaranteed outcome of any (Stampede-enabled) civil legal action / further bolstered by the almost certainly guaranteed (thanks to the success of Victimist demands upon the legal and media) reality that false claims will not be investigated and even more surely will not be prosecuted, such that there is no ‘downside’ of possible prosecution if claimants and allegators are somehow exposed as having made essentially fraudulent claims to the media and/or to the courts.
And we have seen in such cases as the Billy Doe criminal prosecutions in Philadelphia that the criminal justice system, especially (as in Philadelphia) when run by politically-minded prosecutors, is able to produce only the most highly dubious and improbable results even when they succeed in gaining a conviction.
Thus I have no questions to ask of ‘David’ because – and he is welcome to demonstrate that my opinion here is groundless or inaccurate – that all we will get from such actualities as he might relate are more instances of the claim-trying-to-be-a-report dynamic that we have already seen and dealt with at very great length on this site (he is welcome to peruse the site’s archives for the past few years).
Lastly, it has been – as the theory of manipulating public opinion by propaganda always predicts will be the case – the success of the Stampede that the entire ‘probability’ problem has been greatly sidestepped simply by so sousing the public with claims-as-reports that many people are now prepared as a matter of normal course to presume that if a priest is claimed to have perpetrated such an act, that it’s most likely and most probable that he did and the claim need not be examined further. Presumption of the guilt or probable guilt of the priest is now the ‘new normal’ – and it is precisely that which is the most effective success of the Stampede as a propaganda exploit.
As a synergistic networked system to manipulate toward the success of goals (i.e. to weaken the Church’s credibility and to lure claimants with the prospect of substantial payouts without much risk and to provide a vehicle for success for assorted anti-religious or anti-Church groups and for ever-hungry tort attorneys … as all that, the Stampede indeed constitutes a vivid and thought-provoking demonstration of success.
David you answered Pub saying "What do you want to know?" and he responds with, what can he "know" for sure. So he complains about no information and when you offer to give information he denies it's validity without his ever seeing any thing you might offer. ?????
Why bother telling the truth if it will be denied and decried without even reading what you have to say?
Just when you thought it was safe. Jaws is back.
And he leads with supposition. All assumption. No proof of fraud just fear of it; and just enough fear to color all claims as questionable. All that, is all that P does here. His fear of being taken is completely nonsensical. Because he offers no proof the church has been taken even once. Without one example of fraud for him to show he will go on posting his smears ad nauseam.
Wellcome back evil.
If I might return to ‘David’s, of the 2nd at 916AM:
He only (and only “occasionally”) reads this site, and his only reason for doing so is “to try and get a better understanding of why so many, [myself] included, have the opinions you do about priest sexual abuse and church gross negligence”.
And though he only reads this site “occasionally”, has he not gotten a sense of the many complications and problems with the Stampede that a) justify my terming it as a Stampede and b) work so very strongly against the probability that the Stampede’s basic dynamics, claims, and core narrative are profoundly problematic and dubious?
He doesn’t say. Instead he moves quickly to the hardly unfamiliar gambit that he and I (or Abuseniks and questioners) merely have a difference of “opinions”.
He then excuses himself from further engagement with this substantial issue by piously declaring that he has “no intention to change your mind”.
Neato. But has he any response from his side as to the many complications and problems with the Stampede? I appreciate his not setting out to change my mind, but that’s not really the point here. I don’t try to change people’s minds either; I simply conduct an assessment of what material is presented and follow the track of fact and thought to where it seems to me to lead.
In a larger sense, I think that what we see here with ‘David’s comment is the confusion as to just what I (and the site, although I don’t claim to speak for Dave Pierre) are doing: my commentary here is not simply blowing off steam or trying to change people’s minds or dismiss obvious problems through various pyrotechnics such as epithet and insinuation. Rather, I try to use thought and basic principles of assessment to explore what can be explored about the whole Thing.
This has, as the record of this site shows, mostly elicited efforts – of greater or lesser quality – to simply shout the Abusenik ‘narrative’ even louder, while also deploying the age-old agitprop tactics of denigrating the other side.
But I am not engaged here in any sort of dueling-narratives dynamic. I am simply questioning what seems in need of being questioned. But as the age-old agitprop tactics require, the very act of questioning must be shouted-down, denigrated, and avoided.
This is the source of ‘Political Correctness’ itself. In the early Soviet era, one could find oneself up against a wall or in a gulag simply because … there were indeed many possible ways of restructuring Russia, many possible outcomes of assessment of the basic facts. And precisely because there indeed were so many possibilities, the Vanguard Party in power had to squelch any consideration of alternatives to its own Vision and plans and ‘narrative’. Thus it became Politically Un-correct to consider any alternatives, and conversely it became Politically Correct to only mouth and hew-to the Party’s ‘line’.
In the Catholic Abuse Crisis, the role of the ‘Vanguard Party’ is that of Victimism: Pure Innocence was brutally (fill-in-the-blank) by Pure Evil for ages and ages and universally, and now some Pure Heroic Good must Rescue Pure Innocence from Pure Evil (and Exact Retribution from Pure Evil).
Thus all the agitprop tactics we have seen deployed here and in the larger culture, and thus too the abiding agitprop deployment-of and focus-on the claims and allegations and stories, and conversely the abiding agitprop need to squelch both a) any questioning of those claims and allegations and stories and b) any deeper assessment or rational and thought-directed investigation of the dynamics of the whole Thing.
Let's be clear about compensation: Hardly any victims have recieved any compensation for their injuries let alone large amounts. Thanks to the false flagged efforts of the church, headed by Jeffy Anderson and Fr. Tom Doyle O.P. and SNAP and VOTF. Victims worldwide have gotten less than what they deserve, if they ge anything at all. That's just the truth.
Thus to the 3rd at 923AM:
We are now treated yet again to that particular 3×5 that deals with “compensation”. He asserts that “hardly any victims received any compensation for their injuries”. We have somewhere in the vicinity of 3 billion dollars paid out to allegants. Does JR have a master list of allegants (‘victims’, if you wish) that form the basis for his claim that “hardly any” of them have “received any compensation for their injuries”? Can we see the list? Does this list distinguish who on the list had “injuries” that were non-existent until the alleged abuse/molestation/rape was perpetrated? Can we distinguish who on the list had “injuries” that were non-existent until the alleged abuse/molestation/rape was perpetrated?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that JR is in possession of no such list and instead bases his assertion only on his own personal phantasm. He is, of course, welcome to demonstrate here that such is not the case.
Then another 3×5 we have all seen before: the “false-flagged efforts of the church” and we have been over this bit many times before. Ditto the attempt to manipulate us into presuming that the Church is actually the puppet-master controlling Jeff Anderson, the still-Father Doyle, SNAP, VOTF, and just about anyone else and any organization that doesn’t acknowledge JR as the ultimate and utterly truthy resource in all of this.
And as for the “victims worldwide” … their names are presumably on JR’s list.
And after all of this highly dubious asserting, we are merely given as proof of those assertions of his, JR’s own further assertion that all of his assertions are “just the truth”. Readers may consider as they will.
Yep, Pub Has put his finger right on the nub of his problem.
"But that is precisely the problem here and in the Stampede generally: what can we really and actually ‘know’ about all these claims and accusations? That’s it exactly."
No amount of evidence, an arrest, a conviction, a church document, an article, a grand jury investigation will ever convince him of a single act of priest abuse or church negligence. Nothing but his personal presence witnessing a crime will ever be enough proof for him.
I understand your "Abusnik" and "Stampede" opinions completely. Do you doubt your own ability to explain your position? I understand, I get it, and I disagree.
The only reason I posted here was to show you victims (me included) are not afraid of this site. I offered to answer your questions of which you had none. Maybe because you don't want answers that will disprove your narrative? Was i horribly abused by a catholic priest? yes. Did i tell someone immediately? yes. Was the priest arrested and convicted? yes. Was the church already aware the priest was a serial child rapist when they put him in our parish in charge of the altar boys? yes. Did I sue the church and receive a large settlement? no.
There is no confusion about what this site is and what you believe. Give yourself some credit.
‘David’ then returns on the 3rd at 1143AM:
‘David’ opens with a nice slyness by attempting to characterize the many actual problems facing us as being merely “his problem”, meaning my problem. In other words: Nothing to see here, folks, except Publion’s personal problems; and rest assured that the Stampede has no problems that you can see or that you can consider.
Then, however, we get in the third paragraph of his comment a recitation that includes “evidence, an arrest, a conviction, a church document, an article, a grand jury investigation”. Do all of these elements appear in a particular case of which he has knowledge? Might we have the name of the accused (and apparently convicted) priest in the case he appears to reference here?
While we are waiting for an answer on that, I will simply state again what I have often said and explain at great length here before: given all the elements in play in the Stampede, there is no rational way to not-question the dynamics of the Stampede and the results that the Stampede has produced.
With the result that the probability of the Stampede vision of myriads of myrmidons of child-raping clerics gleefully pursuing their career of lust and rapine, enabled by further myriads of myrmidons of enabling hierarchs must be considered highly questionable and dubious and therefore must be examined with – as the Supreme Court has it – “heightened scrutiny”.
‘David’ then assures me (and the readership) that he most certainly does “understand” my “opinions” and that he does so “completely”. My my. But he has undermined himself since I haven’t put forward many – if any – opinions; I have posed questions and I have explained whence the questions logically arise from the material we have available. But “questions” need answers or at least assessments as to probable answers, and that’s not what ‘David’ wants to do; whereas “opinions” need only be acknowledged and then conveniently ignored, if one has a mind to do so. Neato.
‘David’ says he doth “disagree”. Fine. Let him explain the basis of his disagreement with my assessment of things. Then we might get something useful. But this ‘opinion’ gambit is precisely and shrewdly designed to avoid his having to do any of that. Neato again.
Then in the fifth paragraph he works another angle whereby he can excuse himself from dealing with the points I have raised in regard to the Stampede: he only put up comments – doncha see? – “to show you [that] victims (me included) are not afraid of this site”.
A few allegants (we have not established ‘David’s status as a genuine victim at this point) have posted here, yes. But only to toss up assorted bits of claim and epithet and n-o-t to address the problems that have been raised and identified. All we get here is the same stuff we can see in the comment sections on any of the Abusenik-friendly sites. And so what then?
A few allegants may not be afraid of this site; but they remain afraid – or for whatever reason unwilling – to actually grapple with the problems that have been raised. That much is clear as a bell.
Does ‘David’ have some “answers that will disprove [my] narrative”? Fine. Let him share those answers with us. I haven’t seen any at all so far. Perhaps if he could cite the criminal case wherein the priest was convicted, then we would have something to go on. But as it stands now, we have just another claim and assertion tossed up on the internet. What then are we supposed to do? (Short Abusenik answer: we are just supposed to accept his bits as truthy.)
And in light of what I have just explicated in this comment about ‘David’s “confusion” as to what I and the site are about, then his final assertion fails as well.
Again David. Pub postures as merely "questioning"; without ever asking any questions or listening to any answers. He's a dead end. So very like the church he feigns to defend. He's an illogical contraption full of sound and verbosity and self admiration posing as a moral high ground. At the same time being completely amoral. Quite the contradiction. Exactly like his owners.
On the 3rd at 518PM, we continue to be treated yet again to that queasy high-school type gambit wherein one commenter biddy-biddy-booms with another as if nobody else were – as these things go on the internet – present.
I don’t ask any questions? We have actually received “answers”?
But in yet another of his signature marvelous demonstrations of clinical projection, JR will console himself with yet another epithetical declamation: I am “a dead end”. Readers may consider as they will whose position and material constitutes a “dead end”.
I only ‘feign’ to defend the Church? Does JR not realize how this statement of his works against his entire position in regard to my material?
And then, in yet another of his signature marvelous demonstrations of clinical projection, JR describes someone who is “an illogical contraption full of sound and verbosity and self admiration posting as a moral high ground”. It is, I would say, a remarkably acute and relevant description. But not of me.
And the Wig of Denunciation is then donned in order to also pronounce that I am “completely amoral”. Ditto.
And the further insinuation that I am ‘owned’. We’ve seen it all before. And the repetition indicates just how much of a “dead end” the Abusenik material really is.
"Ditto"! You second the fact that you are completely amoral? Thank goodness for Freudian slips.
The ‘Spotlight’ film is not due to be released until the 6th of November (released only in Boston, NYC, and LA), but there are a number of pre-release reviews around. I have selected the one in the ‘Wall Street Journal’ edition of Friday, October 30th, page D4 in the print edition, because it works very hard to present the film as a good one and the manner in which it goes about trying to achieve that objective is itself revealing.
The review is not by the paper’s primary film reviewer, the acute Joe Morgenstern, but rather by one Don Steinberg, a Philadelphia-based occasional writer who contributes material for the paper (and for assorted magazines). If you can access some of Morgenstern’s reviews (in the print edition I reference here, he has two nice examples on page D3) you might get an idea why either he or the WSJ decided to pawn the review of this flik off on somebody else.
The review is entitled “’Spotlight’ Sticks to the Story” – which, as regular readers here may imagine, is a use of the word ‘story’ that might reveal more than Steinberg intended.
Steinberg (hereinafter: ‘DS’) sets it all up in his opening paragraph: the director and screen-writer “knew they had a compelling story” but “the trick was to turn it into a riveting movie”. As you may imagine, DS will be working you to imagine this flik as both “compelling” and “riveting”. We shall see.
At this point, I invite readers to recall Michael D’Antonio’s 2013 book “Mortal Sins” which was discussed here on this site at length. D’Antonio was trying to make the Stampede look good, but in writing a revelatory ‘here’s how they did it’ book his residual interest in facts actually revealed some very interesting bits indeed, especially about the relationship between a fizzling-out SNAP and Jeff Anderson, and about the new ‘Boston Globe’ editor’s need to make a splash, and about the machinations (not altogether legal, as D’Antonio’s text reveals) of a noted Boston tortie. The ‘Globe’ editor and the attorney are portrayed in the ‘Spotlight’ script.
Shrewdly, DS starts things going right in January 2002, with only a glancing reference to the prior six months or so of Globe’ investigations into “child sexual abuse by area priests and a coverup by the archdiocese”. This enables him to avoid the un-heroic complications that exist in D’Antonio’s account, wherein the new ‘Globe’ editor is in need of something to make a splash and mark his territory, as it were; the editor needed ‘results’, one might say, and he put together a (heroic, of course) team that would create some for him.
Without complicating his review with any assessment of the myriad complications of the many aspects of the Stampede (as they have been aired at length on this site), DS immediately puffs breathlessly that the series of articles by the ‘Globe’ in 2002 “led to similar revelations around the world”. Tah-dahhhh! Except that as we have seen on this site, what happened “around the world’ – let alone around the US – might more accurately be characterized as efforts to run a lurid and remunerative variant of the old classic disability-injury tort play well-known in tortie strategy books.
Thus avoiding all the complications that exist in actuality, DS then quickly heads for the high-ground: “the filmmakers had broad themes to work with, such as the abuse itself, the inaction of those who knew something was wrong and the importance of local investigative journalism” (and with this last bit you can see why the ‘Globe’ got its Pulitzer nods).
But then – instantly – DS sighs that while all these high themes were great stuff, yet “nonetheless, these rich subjects could yield a dry, procedural story”, thus a story merely “about a team of reporters embarking on a six-month investigation where breakthroughs emerge from legal filings, interviews and library research”: ah yes, that boring and silly stuff that can’t hold a candle to the well-burnished excitements of – it has to be said – a ripping and grippingly good ‘story’.
So – had you been waittttttttttting forrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – “the movie dramatizes”: ah yes, that simple technical term that instantly and comprehensively breaks down the walls between fact and fiction and thus opens up “rich” and gripping and ripping new vistas of dramatic possibilities for story-telling (so very much – is it not? – like the Stampede itself).
Quickly, DS then admits pre-emptively that this flik’s screenwriter’s earlier scripts for similar movies about other subjects “have been called out for playing with facts to heighten the drama”. This is the problem, precisely, of trying to make a dramatic movie (rather than a documentary) about a complicated and highly-charged public matter: as the movie-maker you are going to want to ‘grab’ people quickly and deeply, and most people’s attention and interest are not easily (and remuneratively, as measured by box-office sales) ‘grabbed’ by facts and complexities. Especially in the current era, in fact, even ‘news’ is now deeply skewed-toward (you might wish to say ‘corrupted by’) an emphasis on emotions and presumptions, and away from acute analysis of facts and soberly careful drawing of conclusions from those facts.
Quickly again, DS shifts the topic away from any such uncongenial complexities to the screenwriter’s feelings about this flik: “I would be lying to you if I said I wasn’t scared” (note the seductive use of personal sharing of feelings here, and feelings of fright, nicely enough, to prime you for going to see the flik frightened of the Church and its alleged myrmidons of rape and coverup).
As DS burbles it, the screenwriter admits that he and the director “could have oversimplified or altered the investigation story” (leading you to imagine that they ultimately decided not to do so). But ‘dramatization’ as defined in Hollywood feature-film usage pretty much demands that you simplify and – as I have often said here – somehow get the script into something along the lines of the script-line that was evident even in the earliest silent films: Pure Innocence Bethumped By Pure Evil and Rescued by Pure Heroic Good.
Duplicitously, DS then jiggles the terms of the problem here to come out with this: Precisely because they didn’t want to “oversimplify”, the director and screenwriter decided to include the investigative reporters’ stories and back-stories.
That’s supposed to help accuracy? This was the team that the ‘Boston Globe’ editor hand-picked to produce the results he needed for his big splash.
And what we wind up with then is that we are going to get a latter-day twist on the old Pure-Innocence/Pure Evil/Pure Good and Heroic element: these sturdy and still heroic reporters are not Pure Good types; rather, they are ‘humanized’ as being flawed and full of quirks and doubts (not, apparently, about their professional integrity, however).
And – had you been waittttttttttting forrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – even the key local tortie (who later made quite a bundle on this type of Church-abuse lawsuit case) is even presented as being merely “ambitious”, although D’Antonio’s text reveals clearly that “ambitious” doesn’t even begin to accurately characterize that attorney’s actions, legal and – to put it nicely – extra-legal. But he “agrees to help” the editor and the team. “Help”? This is indeed a classic instance of lip-sticking the pig.
And to demonstrate just how heroically discerning the production team was, DS then burbles that they had showed the script to some of their peers in Hollywood and had (heroically, no doubt) rejected suggestions to jazz-up the script dynamics by “making one of the lawyers or reporters be a committed Catholic or even a priest”. The production team said No, since none of the reporters (DS doesn’t even speculate about the tort attorneys) were committed to their (or perhaps any) religious faith. Such heroic principles: they wouldn’t compromise the facts for “bigger drama”. Not in that particular instance, anyway.
In a further demonstration of heroic principle, DS relates, the production team allowed as how a lot of the material is “dry” and “pretty deep” but they wouldn’t try to “make it more sleek”. But, of course, that’s precisely what you have to do if you are going to make a feature film that will have to show some results at the box office.
And – I would add – if you are going to use the Stampede as your arena, then you are most certainly going to have to do a fair amount of lip-sticking the pig if you are going to make its agents look good (and Pure and Heroic).
How will they “establish dramatic tension”? The new editor needing to make his big splash is cast as both a) the “outsider” who is not cowed by old Catholic and local sentimentalities and b) the guy who shows the Cardinal that he is “the new gunslinger in town” (the photographs I have seen of that editor suggest Woody Allen or Roman Polanski far more than they do – take your pick – Brynner, McQueen, Bronson, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, or (pious pause) Randolph Scott).
Thus he will go up against the Church and “the many tight-knit Catholic neighborhoods”. (This last bit recalls the Boston busing crisis of forty years ago when the suddenly radical-liberal ‘Boston Globe’ took its leave of those neighborhoods and (with the support of the local Archdiocese) plumped for a school-busing scheme that, forty years later, reveals itself to have created far more wrack and ruin than ‘progress’. As Charles Krauthammer said in a ‘Time’ review of Spielberg’s latest film ‘Bridge of Spies’, the movie is designed as a sop to make liberals feel like they have been right and very clever all along.)
Thus: heroic outsider ‘gunslinger’ editor and hand-picked crew of reporters set out to make their mark against stodgy, rotten, traditional, townsfolk. One is reminded here of one of Mel Brooks’s less happy giveaway lines in the 1974 Western send-up ‘Blazing Saddles’ where Gene Wilder’s character says to Cleavon Little’s black sheriff (and I am quoting only from memory here) “These people are the salt of the earth, in other words, morons!”. Yuk yuk.
DS also notes that the editor is Jewish and that when he first met the Cardinal there that prelate gave him a copy of “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” – not that I am sure that was the appropriate gift.
So, DS, finally gets around to admitting, the script-dynamic is “the new gunslinger in town against the forces resistant to change” – which, as I alluded to in the Krauthammer reference, recalls the ever-more important need of ‘progressives’ to console themselves with the feeling – if not demonstrable thought – that all of their “change” has been i) good and ii) successful. And one may consider whether such self-consolations are justified.
But then, no doubt for ‘balance’, DS relates that the production team did not want to just “make them [i.e. the Church and priests] the bad guys”. But, of course, such demonization is precisely what is called for both by a) Hollywood script requirements for box-office draw and b) the Stampede ‘narrative’ and doctrine.
For added sentimentality (but of a PC sort) one of the team (almost all of whom DS describes as “lapsed Catholics”) worries about how her mother will react to such a campaign against the Church. Sigh, puir auld mither, bereft o’ the many consolations o’ religion by her own daughter’s hand and the whole a’yez should be ashamed. What John Ford might have done with this scene.
And for added integrity, DS burbles, the production team would often stop and take stock, asking each other “Does this still feel true to the spirit of it?”. But, of course, the “spirit” in which the whole thing was undertaken had already been determined and indeed twice determined: first by the new gunslinger editor in town who needed to make a big splash, and second by the Hollywood requirements for box-office attraction and success.
Oh, and for an added layer of integrity, the production team had the actual reporters (and the editor who had been made the hero, no doubt) read over various versions of the script. But in a charming giveaway, DS reveals the type of questions that were asked: “Would you be reading off your pad in this scene? Would you close your door? Would you use a red pen?” And perhaps: Is this the color your office walls were painted and did you have a credenza in the office? They were real sticklers for fact.
Certainly, great effort was made, as DS relates, to make sure that the khakis and jeans and not an “overly pressed shirt” were faithfully reproduced by the costume department. But in this sort of thing, costumes are important.
From all of which, DS continues, the production team were satisfied that “these characters were compelling”. To which I would only add: if not compelling on their own merits, then simply because of the dramatization and the fact – in script dynamics – that they had been cast as the Good Guys and the viewers’ take on them would always be seduced by that basic principle of film-making and presentation.
But also: the production team was also sure that these characters “would ultimately be the thing that would not only draw the audience into the story, we would end up experiencing the horror of this discovery through those reporters’ and editors’ eyes”.
But this bit of puff actually works against the project they and DS have undertaken: if the characters, and not the core nature of the conflict (between the gunslinger editor and the Cardinal) would be the ‘ultimate’ draw, then what of the “horror” which, given the way the script was manipulated and constructed, is supposedly the Thing so awful that it is (supposedly) capable of standing on its own merits?
Apparently, audiences couldn’t be relied upon to be drawn simply by that Thing.
But why not? I would say because the Thing – as has been so often discussed and, I would say, demonstrated on this site – a) cannot actually stand too much simple direct investigation and b) at this point, there is a lack of general interest stemming from a deep if un-articulated public awareness that either i) the Thing has been corrected and/or ii) the Thing has seamy undersides and perhaps a queasy overblown-ness that its supporters hadn’t revealed to the public when the Stampede was in its heyday.
That, of course, is not what the production team thinks. Rather, in yet another remarkable DS giveaway in his review’s final paragraph, the production team feels that ‘One advantage we had is that we were telling the story of the journalists as opposed to the survivors”. The reason for making this choice as to script’s and the flik’s point-of-view is so that people would “walk away from this movie inspired as opposed to depressed”.
A deeper reason: their Hollywood sense told them that to simply rehearse and rehash the standard ‘survivor story’, which hews to a now-‘classical’ form, would reduce the flik to merely a variant of what is politely called j’ust another ‘Lifetime’ TV movie’.
And a deeper reason than that: The flik was made as a valentine to the media (that indispensable ally of studio publicity departments) and to a ‘progressive’ mindset (that governing sensibility of most of the denizens of Hollywood).
And ultimately: because the Thing itself is too dangerously capable of being revealed as the constructed and fabricated monstrosity it has always been, and it was ‘safer’ – to put it nicely – to go with the (equally constructed and fabricated) Good and Heroic than with the iffy nature of the Thing itself.
Will this flik do well? The very fact of its initial highly-limited release says that the Hollywood wisdom doesn’t want to risk too much on it. It is, rather, a product designed to appeal to a highly-limited audience of ‘victims’, advocates, and – far more importantly (from the Hollywood point of view) – the media that would like to salvage as much kudos as it might out of its role in the Stampede, perhaps repeating in Hollywood mode the success of netting a Pulitzer or two that the paper and the gun-slinging editor garnered from its efforts a decade and a half ago. That, after all, is what valentines do.
Wow, a brief visit to this site can indeed be hazardous, dangerous and injurious to one's health….mental, psychological and physical. What's this movie, SPOTLIGHT, all about? Must be an important event to garner this much attention here.
While we are waiting for ‘David’s further answers, a couple more bits to consider have been tossed up on the screen.
On the 3rd at 909PM ‘Michael Skiendzielewski’ (whose material is delivered in a no-nonsense, whaddya-you-know?, sort of tone) attempts a typical internet (and Abusenik) ‘drive-by’ comment. He offers us nothing more than his own asserted characterization of this site without any further explication: this site “can indeed be hazardous, dangerous and injurious to one’s health … mental, psychological and physical”.
This gambit of his doesn’t leave much room for useful discussion or consideration, but perhaps that wasn’t his intention in the first place anyway.
It is, however, a tad over the top: “hazardous” and “dangerous” a largely synonomous, and “injurious” is not far away.
But then: “injurious to one’s health” … ? Fear not, for Doctor Skien will explain his diagnosis: that “health” is defined as “mental, psychological and physical”. Could the Doctor kindly explain his distinction between “mental” and “psychological”? And “physical” … ? Is there an actual physical risk to reading on the internet or even reading material on this site? (Perhaps he wanted to throw-up; alas if his burdens include a strong mind in a frail and delicate physical constitution.)
But then this purportedly well-informed gentleman undermines himself, in the tactical interests, no doubt, of a whizz-bang drive-by zinger: he appears not to know of the existence of the ‘Spotlight’ movie. (Hint: if he hasn’t heard about it, then it cawn’t possibly be of significance, doncha see?)
Well, I wouldn’t call the flik an “important event” but it’s certainly a revealing event and that’s why it garnered “this much attention here” (we were supposed to conclude that if he hasn’t heard about it, then whatever discussion of it appears here is not worth any thinking person’s time).
Thus he has absolved himself of the necessity of dealing with a Hollywood film about the Stampede, which surely might be of interest to Abuseniks, whether ‘victimized’ and ‘compensated’ or merely ‘concerned’.
And with his tail-lights fading rapidly into the darkling distance, we may pursue our queries none the worse for his efforts.
Michael, Spotlight's about the Boston Globe newspaper breaking the story on cardinal Law's cover up and passing around of known perpetrator priests in 2002. It opens today starring Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffallo.
P's attacked all 3 victims who've posted in this thread. And why are we to believe he's just?
On the 3rd at 908AM JR tries to run yet another familiar gambit: I ask for information but reject the Abuseniks’ “information” when they give it. In other words, Abuseniks are indubitably reliable sources of information (as is the media reporting and the various other effluvia and elements of the Stampede).
But that is, again, precisely the problem.
And I haven’t yet seen “anything” that ‘David’ “has to offer”. (I have seen JR’s stuff and have examined it at length – with results with which all regular readers are now very familiar).
So … ummmmmm … ??????
Chatty Cathy's back and she pulls her own string to tell us all, why a movie, one he hasn't seen, is a lie.
Somebody's mighty scared of this film for the verbose defender of the church to rail on at this length.
As far as "familiar gambits" go. You are their master as well as their inventor. Everything you write here is a gambit. It's your tiny evil mind trying to turn truth into fraud. You are TMR's resident liar.
Dave Pierre attempts to do something with his posts, to discredit any truth told; but you P are Canut attempting to turn the truth tide all on your own.
How lonely it must be for you. I can relate because I too am alone in attempting to turn your church's fraud "tide" created by fr. Tom Doyle O.P. and enacted by clowns like you P
You pose as an "examiner" but you present no facts only supposition dressed up, by you, as fact. Who are you to examine anything? you always act like you're the judge. And who, but you, says your "examinations" are honest; relavent, accurate. You examining things, and reaching your maleficent conclusions, means nothing. You pose as authorative with out credentials or facts that would make you an "authority". You are all gambit all the time. You are a shot in the dark, hoping to spark a fire; and attemptng to start your own stampede. But no one's rallying to follow you. Pose away you poseur. You're like a broken down Mephistopheles, offering nothing of value; and lying to do it.
On then to the 4th at 910AM.
Ever reliable for the revelatory (though not as he intends) JR now delivers a finely compact opening that manages to compress three of his signature whackeries into one sentence: a gender-bendy epithet, a sexual innuendo, and a now too-familiar epithet to the effect that my material is “a lie”.
Which amusements are then intensified as we realize that his reading comprehension (or the lack of it) has betrayed him yet again: I didn’t say I was reviewing the movie; I said I was discussing the pre-release review and in my comments I hewed very closely to the text of that review (readers may consider for themselves the probability that JR has read the review which I referenced and discussed).
Also, he doesn’t seem quite clear on the definition of “lie” – but that’s just another of the myriad elastic terms that enable Abuseniks and their Stampede to twist and turn as convenience or necessity dictate.
Then, in a too-remarkable gambit, he tries an even more subtle innuendo: if I spend so much time on the film (actually, though, the pre-release review of the flik) then I must be “mighty scared of this film”. Well, actually, I’m no more scared of this flik than I was of JR’s apocalyptic (or apoplectic) visions of the Pope’s visit somehow ‘blowing up’ in Philadelphia.
And again I am ‘verbose”, but then JR has a low tolerance for words – especially when they are polysyllabic and assembled together into complex compound sentences that convey concepts and ideas. Commenter Skiendzielewski seems to have something of the same issue, to the point where, apparently, it becomes physically injurious for him to read the material on this site.
The third paragraph then showcases another old JR stand-by dodge: the famous I’m Not/You Are bit.
The fourth paragraph then takes a swipe at DP, whose articles attempt to “discredit any truth told” (time-saving hint: JR here refers to his own truthy truthiness). I, however (and however inaptly) am characterized suddenly as “Canut” (the perfesser no doubt meant King Canute and shame on those who think ill of JR’s not-quite-solid grasp on his material). What JR is going for here, as best as can be inferred, is that the Stampede is a “tide” and it cannot be turned back. Let’s see how ‘Spotlight’ does at the box office.
The fifth paragraph again tries to run the old crocodile-tears gambit, about how “lonely it must be for me”. But while that silly bit can stand and fall on its own, we see that it has actually been designed merely as a lead-in for – had you been waittttttttttting forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – one of JR’s signature self-advertisements: it is he and only he, ya see, who is the only True and Good Hero in the Stampede (which we should have seen coming, since in his Cartoon everyone else, all of whom don’t buy his stuff, are merely tools of the “false-flagged” Church efforts to make him look like … well, whatever).
Oh, and a charming epithet about my being “a clown”.
And a muffin-basket of a final paragraph, including a misch of some of his old epitheticals: I only “pose” as an “examiner”; I “present no facts”(as opposed, apparently, to JR’s many “facts”); I only present “supposition dressed up” (it doesn’t take many syllables to make JR think a sentence is too dressed-up); and who am I to examine anything? (this is a comment-enabled website and anybody is welcome to comment on material put up on the site); I always act like I’m “the judge” (no, I just judge the material presented; as Harry Truman said: I never gave anyone hell; I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell); I am the only one who says my “examinations” are “honest, relavent [we are back to the spelling problem again, after it had miraculously gone away] accurate” (who says they’re not and where have I ever plumped for my own material?).
Then – the Wig of Denunciation now teetering on an increasingly agitated faux-papal head – JR claims I have “no credentials” – but a) this is an open website and anybody can comment and b) the only credentials or authority useful here would be the competence or usefulness of the material submitted here and I am happy to let readers judge as they will.
And the conclusions arising from my “examining things” here are “maleficent” (is that not a bit over-dressed?). As I have so often said, Abuseniks are all about truth and investigation until it is their stuff that is investigated for truthfulness and then they are quick to claim they are being attacked and re-victimized by persons who can only be – had you been waittttttting forrrrr ittttttttttt? – “maleficent”.
And then a concluding string of epithetical bits that can stand and fall on their own.
But we’ve seen it all before.
"Heres to Boston. the land of the bean and the cod, where the Lodges speak only to the Cabots and the Cabots speak only to God."
November 4th at 12:50 pub writes, "While we are waiting for ‘David’s further answers". Huh ?what ? What answers the hell are you talking about? You didn't ask any questions! In addition you said no information I provided would be believed anyway. Kinda sounds like beating a dead horse doesn't it?
I do have one question for you. Is there even one case of priest sexual abuse and church negligence you believe? Please be specific.
You can stop using the single quotation marks around my name indicating your belief of the dubious status my name. My name is David, unlike 'publion'.
The convicted priest is Robert Petrella, who was employed by the Archdiocese of Washington for 25 years knowing he was a sexual predator.
I use quotation marks around commenter's names in order to maintain an appropriate distance and avoid the sort of faux-chummy type of exchanges we see here and elsewhere on the internet and/or to reduce the chances of a more negative 'personalizing' as exchanges continue. Although 'David' seems already predisposed to go that route; nonetheless I will continue using the quotation marks.
We have the name, now, of the priest. If the case documents can be accessed online then we will go from there.
On the 2nd November 'David' enters from stage left, and says to his audience, "what do you want to know?". Such a great entrance, but he is slow with his answers. All that Publion has managed to draw out of him is the name of the priest, and the archdiocese. No doubt we will be hearing more, now that 'David's' story can be verified.
What puzzles me is he says he never claimed compensation, after the conviction. Really? Reckon his lawyer would have gone down on this knees… begging him to sue the Church. Remember that the lawyer's cut is up to forty percent of the payout. So the lawyer would have seen it as the opportunity of a lifetime. Particularly as 'David' says the hierachy knew that the priests was a child molester all along. If this were true then any lawsuit would certainly have been a winner.
Am now wondering if any of the earlier alleged victims (from the other localities) gave evidence at the trial?. Did any of them later sue the Church for compensation?
It's just that…. the dots don't connect?.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/royal-commission-compiles-disturbing-profile-of-sex-abuse-20151104-gkqx61.html
Above link is from the Australian institutional sex abuse commission.
P when you behave like a fool expect to be called a clown (and in your case a Stephen King kind of clown). You're creepy.
On the 4th at 523PM ‘David’ is perplexed since he cawn’t seem to recall any questions that were put to him that require the “answers” I mention in my comment of the 4th at 1250PM.
Abuseniks seem to have such curiously selective memories.
In the eleventh paragraph of my comment of the 4th at 410AM I asked if he might cite the name of the priest to whose case he referred in the second paragraph of his comment of the 2nd at 916AM and in the fifth paragraph of his comment of the 3rd at 1143AM and/or – if it was a different one – the case he mentioned in the third paragraph of his comment of the 3rd at 1143AM.
In a giveaway juvenile style (“Huh?what?”) bolstered by the equally juvenile addition of some racy language (“What answers the hell are you talking about?”) ‘David’ tries two different dodges:
First, that I “didn’t ask any questions!” – and he can refresh his memory by checking the paragraph of my comment that I have just referenced above.
Second, that he sees no need to provide any ‘information’ since I had said that any that he provided would not be believed anyway – but there is a difference between a) telling his story and b) simply providing something specific and demonstrably factual that would help us identify the court case and perhaps documents available in the case of the priest who was, he says, molested him and was convicted of that offense.
In regard to the case to which it appeared that he made reference in the third paragraph of his comment of the 3rd at 1143AM: is it possible that he actually wasn’t referring to any case at all, but simply – but also slyly – reciting a laundry list of assorted things which would not convince me prima facie?
Thus when he said that “No amount of evidence, an arrest, a conviction, a church document, an article, a grand jury investigation” would convince me, he was not referring to a specific case but just tossing up a laundry list.
If that be true, then he is simply tossing out a list of generalities, each of which – if we are to examine them properly – would have to be considered carefully.
Because if – as I hold – the Stampede is a networked synergy of derangements to the legal system and the media ‘reporting’, then “evidence” and an “arrest” and even a “conviction” and a “grand jury investigation” would be of questionable value as proof per se of guilt. And we would have to examine whatever actual “church document” was (supposed to be) relevant.
Surely Ralph Cipriano’s close textual reading and examination of the two Grand Jury Reports in the Philadelphia cases offer more than sufficient grounds for giving closer examination to the those Reports (and the prosecutorial actions taken on the basis of them).
And the very odd saga – considered at length here on this site – of the police investigation of the priest accused of having child-porn on a computer hard drive in Minnesota, to say nothing of the problematic nature of the police involvement and activity in the investigation of the Billy Doe case in Philadelphia, offer more than sufficient grounds for looking more carefully at “evidence” and “arrest”.
If ‘David’ is not familiar with those cases and the discussion of them on this site, then he might want to inform himself and bring himself up to speed.
And surely the articles and comments on this site (and on the BigTrial site) about this and that reporter and his/her articles yield enough problematic aspects to justify looking at them more carefully and closely.
In addition to all of which, I will add another significant justification in my comments that immediately follows this one.
In his Preface to the 44th Georgetown Law Journal Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, Judge Alex Kosinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals points out twelve substantial and serious problems with criminal law and process as it currently exists in US courts today.
You may access the text of his Preface here: http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Preface.pdf
His listing and discussion of those problems (he structures them as “myths” about criminal law and practice) take up the first twenty or so pages of his Preface and they are very well worth the read.
I will list them here and try to summarize them briefly, focusing especially on those that have heightened relevance to our concerns on this site and in this present discussion.
And I will point out that Judge Kosinski’s remarks were made in regard to a general review of criminal law and practice and were not made in the context of analyzing the Stampede and thus cannot be characterized or construed as indicating any bias he has in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter or the Stampede.
First, “Eyewitnesses are highly reliable”: Eyewitness testimony is actually “highly unreliable” and is a factor in more than a third of wrongful conviction cases.
Second, “Fingerprint evidence is foolproof”: This is “not so” and latent fingerprint identification is largely “more art than science”; beyond which “rigorous scientific” examination reveals that “fingerprint examiners turn out to have a significant error rate”.
Third, “Other types of forensic evidence are scientifically proven and therefore infallible”: What goes for fingerprints goes double and triple for other types of evidence.
Fourth, “DNA evidence is infallible”: While this is true conceptually, it requires significant care and competence in actual testing in order to work in practice and those factors “are not nearly so foolproof”.
Fifth, “Human memories are reliable”: It is “fundamentally flawed” vision to conceive of stored memories as being like videotape or film. Rather, “the mind not only distorts and embellishes memories, but a variety of external factors can distort how memories are retrieved and described”.
This, of course, is a very significant point for accusations of a sexual nature, since – as I have often said – there is often very little evidence to corroborate such accusations and thus Victimists have had to base almost all of their approach merely on the accusation which the accuser – and only the accuser – ‘knows’, through memory. We recall, for example, that the theory of ‘repressed memory’ was for quite a while during the past couple of decades considered ‘scientific’ justification for the almost-total reliance on accusers’ memories.
And the judge goes further by noting that since police and prosecutors very often get to question an accuser before a defense attorney for the accused can do so, then that very interplay between the accuser and the interviewing officers or prosecutors can actually work to “shape and augment a witness’s memory to bring it into line with the prosecutor’s theory of what happened”.
And, of course, if the police and prosecutors are interviewing an accuser whose intent and memory has already been shaped by the now omnipresent ‘victim narrative’ and perhaps even burnished by consultation with Victimist or tortie types even before the encounter with the police or prosecutors, then the judge’s point here is tremendously amplified.
Sixth, “Confessions are infallible because innocent people never confess”: “We now know that this is not true. Innocent people do confess with a surprising regularity.” Why would they do so? “Harsh investigation tactics, a variant of the Stockholm syndrome, the desire to end the ordeal, emotional and financial exhaustion, family considerations, the youth or feeble-mindedness of the suspect, can result in remarkably detailed confessions that are later shown to be utterly false.”
In the Catholic Abuse Matter and Stampede I would also add this: given the success of the various elements of the Stampede in becoming the accepted, ‘everybody knows’ type of conventional ‘wisdom’, and given the derangements in evidentiary standards, jurispraxis, and public opinion that have been effected so successfully by the Stampede, it may simply seem to an accused (and even his defense attorney) that successful defense is not really possible. Worse, it may even occur to possible defense counsel that they will suffer professionally in a variety of ways for simply taking on the case of an accused and may either refuse the case or simply turn in a pro forma performance of their duties.
Seventh, “Juries follow instructions”: “This is a presumption – actually more of a guess – that we’ve elevated into a rule of law … we know very little of what juries actually do when they decide cases. But we have no convincing reason to believe that jury instructions actually constrain jury behavior in all or even most cases.”
And I would add that given the success of the Stampede as I noted it in point Six immediately above, in regard to public opinion, then the Stampede has actually succeeded in i) tainting the jury even before the jurors are chosen and ii) this tainting may be so subtle – if also powerful – that the potential juror may not even be aware of his/her bias or prejudice.
Eighth, “Prosecutors play fair”: Although even the Supreme Court has insisted that the prosecutors’ primary responsibility is to ensure justice and is not merely to obtain a conviction, yet “there is reason to doubt that prosecutors comply with these obligations fully” and that this is especially so in the matter of prosecutors turning over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Ninth, “The prosecution is at a substantial disadvantage because it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt”: We don’t know if juries pay careful attention to the various gradations of evidence such as ‘preponderance’, ‘proof by clear and convincing evidence’, and proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Nor whether jurors consider the presumption of innocence to be in effect “until it is overcome by persuasive evidence” or whether it remains in effect only until any evidence at all is presented.
The judge then continues: “Even more troubling are doubts raised by psychological research showing that ‘whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later”. This is a huge issue, since in courtroom praxis the prosecution makes the first presentation to the jury (and may well have slyly leaked information about its charges to the media before any trial begins and may also have had a romp in the Grand Jury forum – about which Ralph Cipriano’s articles have given us a clear picture of the utter advantages the prosecution enjoys in that forum).
And the judge continues: “So is it better [for a defendant] to stand mute rather than to deny an accusation? Apparently not, because ‘when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true’”.
The judge observes that “To the extent this psychological research is applicable to trials it tends to refute the notion that the prosecution pulls the heavy oar in criminal cases”. And I would add that while the judge is writing about criminal cases, very much of his analysis is also applicable to civil litigation cases.
And while we presume that all jurors maintain a clear mental picture of all the evidence and hold it in their mind until they can formulate an analysis based on all the evidence presented, so that they can weigh its credibility and probability, yet “the reality may be quite different”, i.e. “it may be that jurors start forming a mental picture of events as soon as they first hear about them from the prosecution”.
And in a long trial, where defense evidence is not presented until well after the jurors have first heard a lengthy prosecution presentation, then – the judge notes – this problem may be greatly intensified since jurors will have already been soused (my term) with the prosecution’s version of events.
Readers may consider how they would handle the cumulative weight of these problems as an accused defendant in any case or in a Stampede case, and/or what an accused in one of these Stampede cases faces and might feel, all of which would affect his defense-position substantially and profoundly.
And the judge concludes this point by stating that “If this is so, it substantially undermines the notion that we seldom convict an innocent man”.
Tenth, “Police are objective in their investigations”: While this is a “bedrock” presumption in our criminal justice system, yet “police have a vast discretion” as to what they will investigate and what witnesses they will interview and what evidence they will forward to the prosecutors and “countless other aspects of the investigation”.
Further, they have “a unique opportunity to manufacture or destroy evidence, influence witnesses, extract confessions, and otherwise direct the investigation so as to stack the deck against people they think should be convicted”. And, I would add, one can only imagine the distorting pressures added by working on a Stampede case, with a media friendly to loud and prolonged Victimist insistence that sex-crimes are so very awful that one simply cannot allow oneself to be hindered by fuddy-duddy rules and regulations and principles when it comes to convicting the accused (quickly conflated with a presumably guilty perpetrator).
And, the judge adds, this does not simply hold true for “small town police in Podunk or Timbuktu”.
Eleventh, “Guilty pleas are conclusive proof of guilt”: This consoling and widely-held presumption “fails to take into account the trend bringing multiple counts of a single incident – thereby vastly increasing the risk of a life-shattering sentence in case of conviction – as well as the creativity of prosecutors in hatching up criminal cases where no crime exists and the overcriminalization of virtually every aspect of American life”.
In this regard, we can recall noted defense attorney Harvey Silverglate’s book of a few years ago – entitled “Three crimes a day”, if memory serves – in which that attorney claims that the vast majority of Americans commit three federal crimes a day and don’t even know it.
He continues: “And, of course, if the trial process is perceived as highly uncertain, or even stacked in favor of the prosecution, the incentive to plead guilty to some charge that will allow the defendant to some charge that will allow the defendant to salvage a portion of his life, becomes immense.” And readers again may consider being in the shoes of an accused in a Stampede trial.
Twelfth, “Long sentences deter crime”: this makes it very difficult for prisoners to re-integrate once they complete a long sentence, while crime rates have been dropping since the 1990s for reasons that are not clearly understood. And yet, I would note, the Stampede and Victimist dogma insists we imagine that crime is rampant, and this dogma began to receive publicity at the same time as the amount of crime began to decline).
Thus Judge Kosinski’s professionally significant and informative ideas. I can only urge readers so inclined to read his document, which is replete with citations and examples and demonstrations of the points he makes.
Jesus the bull never ends! 48 paragraphs in the last series of posts alone. Over all in this one thread over 171 paragraphs from Pub. And what are P's great contributions that require over 171 paragraphs? You tell me. And we are to think that this is a rational discourse? That this isn't all a big smoke screen? Un – – believable!
So far on this thread, I have posted an analysis of the pre-release review of the “Spotlight” flik and a summary and commentary on a major piece by a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge which outlines some major problems with the criminal justice system. Both of which create substantial questions for assorted major Abusenik and Stampede assertions, claims and preferred narratives.
In response to which the Abuseniks have simply tossed-up the material that is now in the record here.
There is little to be said for JR’s material, which consists mostly of epithetical juvenilia, and the most useful of which would be his dodge of the 5th at 1032PM: he merely counts the number of paragraphs in my comments and – in a signature move – leaves it to anybody else to tell him what any of it means (the implication, apparently, being that he cannot see any relevance at all.
To JR, the material I have put up appears to be “a big smoke screen”. Thus that it is I who is trying to avoid and distract from the major topics of concern here. About which the best can be said is that JR continues to be both a) utterly unaware and b) completely self-undermined by the dynamics of clinical projection.
And plaints that he cannot see how my material constitutes “rational discourse”. Who can be surprised?
On November 5th "Malcolm Harris" is concerned dots don't connect with the limited info he has on Petrella. You will know more when your research is done but I can help you a little.
On November 4th "publion" wanted to know the name of the convicted priest. On November 4th I replied. I did not initially see his request, as he said in the eleventh paragraph (I didn't count) but when I saw it I replied immediately. For future reference, expect that will be the fastest I ever reply.
Since you haven't completed your research on Petrella's case, I will connect the dots for you about why I didn't file a civil suit. Jim has told you all repeatedly that only a small percentage of victims ever receive a settlement. Believe this if nothing else, if I wasn't precluded from filing a civil suit because of the statutes of limitations in Maryland, I would have. You are absolutely correct in predicting the judgement would have been significant if allowed. That is why the Archdiocese of Washington spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent window legislation similar to what was passed in California.
In the criminal case, Maryland is one of a few states that has no statute of limitations for felonies. Not a lawyer but I don't think prior bad acts testimony is allowed in a criminal trial. However two earlier victims did come forward who were include in the criminal case. They were also precluded from filing civil suits. I am guessing Jim would say (JIm, I apologize for speculating) he would have preferred his perp going to jail instead of whatever settlement he received. I am proud for my role in exposing and holding partially accountable a heinous criminal, but also wish I had the chance to hold the diocese accountable as well.
I am disappointed in "publion's" reading comprehension skills. I clearly was not referring to any particlar case when I said “No amount of evidence, an arrest, a conviction, a church document, an article, a grand jury investigation” would convince him of the truth of any priest abuse case or church negligence. For what it's worth, all of those elements exist in Petrella's case except for the Grand Jury investigation.
In conclusion "Malcolm Harris", would you like to answer the question I posed to "publion" 2 days ago that he has not responded to?
Is there even one case of priest sexual abuse and church negligence you believe? Please be specific.
‘David’ (the 6th at 213AM) has chosen the dodge route as well.
In light of the material I put up – and the Kosinski material directly and substantively undermines his and the Abuseniks’ and the Stampede’s reliance on such criminal convictions of priests as there have been – David will complain (the 4th at 912PM) about my using quotation marks around his name.
And in his reply to ‘Malcolm Harris’ (THE 6TH AT 213am) he manages to combine several dodges:
First, he ignores what I presume he has already realized are the basic textual questions and issues with any documentary material that might be extant in the case of the priest he claims molested him: i) the specifics of the charges on which the priest was convicted; ii) the appearance of somebody named ‘David’ as the victim of the acts for which the priest was convicted (if there is no reference to anyone named ‘David’ in the material then we have an authenticity problem there); iii) if there is indeed clear reference in the documents to a person named ‘David’, then is the ‘David’ commenting here the same person as the individual in the documentation (or, in the alternative, are we simply dealing with somebody who claims on the internet to be the ‘victim’-named-‘David’ in that case. And then we can go from there. And all of this presumes that sufficient documentation is available online in the first place.
Second, he runs a dodge similar to JR’s dodge: I put up so much material – doncha see? – that ‘David’ simply didn’t read it all or if he did he was so overwhelmed by the amount of my material that he didn’t notice my question.
And – for whatever it is worth – we are then informed that the timeline we have here is “the fastest [he] will ever reply”. As I have said, while they love to toss out questions, Abuseniks are not really too eager to answer any (which presumes, as always, that we distinguish between a) actually answering a question and b) merely reciting yet again their preferred and assorted stories.
On November 6th David asks me if there is any case of sexual abuse by priests that I consider to be genuine, and would I please be specific.
Well common sense tells me that there must be hundreds of such cases, and there is no need to cite a specific example. Because we are talking about human weakness here, sexual temptations being one of our biggest vulnerabilities. My objection to the Stampede is that it creates a group-think that a particular profession is more likely to sexual abuse children than other profession or occupation. It is like me walking past an orchard and shouting out that all the apples in the orchard are rotten to the core. Those in the community who have never liked the orchardist will believe me…despite a complete lack of evidence to prove the trees are infected with disease. Let's me call him Mario, this orchardist. Right back from school I disliked Mario, and so did many others. This is our chance to cause him trouble, in spades. But our vengeful efforts might be frustrated if somebody has the courage to try to balance the shouting match by doing some analysis. To count the number of actual rotten apples and compare with other orchards. That's a definite worry, in the context of a witch-hunt, and that is why you object to somebody like Publion, and this site in general.
David, I would have wanted both: compensation and jail time. Compensation for damage done to me. Jail time so the perp would not be able to get near kids again.
Compensation is very important. Paying damages is the only thing that forces the church (or any corporation) to change it's libertine behavior towards the catholic young.
Publion says, "I have been working on some other projects and apologize for my absence."
——-No worries, I did not miss your essays after reading one of your drawn out spun essays. I've since skipped all the rest. Yet hey, that's just this person's opinion.
P.S.Publion:
I have had to bury family and friends raped, sodomized and sexually abused by Catholic clerics. So, I say, yeah,….definately see "Spotlight." And don't give me one of your long spun essays asking if those crimes were reported. As I said before, I will not read it. Yet of course, you probably cannot resist writing another long spun essay. Again, just this person's opinion.
On the 6th at 415PM ‘Carrie’ puts up what looks to be another Abusenik drive-by. Fine and dandy. And, but of course, both a) excuses the fact that she has not read most of my material and b) justifies that self-excusal by offering her opinion that my “essays” are “drawn out” and “spun”.
In regard to (b): As I have often said, it takes some significant time and space to examine the Abuse Matter and the Stampede and if she hasn’t the patience for it, then that is what it is. But then too, Abuseniks aren’t particularly interested in any analysis, no matter how long or how short, that doesn’t simply presume the credibility of their material and then proffer some variant of sympathetic acceptance and the clucking of sympathetic approval.
‘Carrie’ then goes around the block and returns at 448PM with a “P.S.”.
And here she provides another opportunity to observe precisely the problem that exists with these ‘personal history’ claims in the online forum: there is utterly no way of knowing whether what she says is true or not.
Yes, a reader could weigh the probability of one person ‘burying’ a number of “family and friends” who were so comprehensively either and/or “raped, sodomized and sexually abused by Catholic clerics”. But that clearly puts us into the realm of weighing probabilities, which is particularly irritating and uncongenial to Abuseniks (who are robustly and vociferously eager for ‘proof’ … as long as it isn’t required of them).
Regular readers may recall that during this and that discussion of the still-Father Tom Doyle, we have seen a commenter whose moniker is ‘Tom Doyle’ suddenly appear and post what in effect is a drive-by of some sort. Is this person the actual still-Father Tom Doyle? Is this a person with the same name who capitalizes on that to toss up a comment? Is this somebody who merely seeks to impersonate the still-Father in the online forum? Impossible to say, but there remain the abiding questions.
And I would certainly agree with ‘Carrie’ that one should go and see the ‘Spotlight’ movie. I think it would demonstrate clearly that my assessment of it is accurate: it is a Hollywood effort to send a valentine to its oh-so-necessary friends in the media and try to reinforce the ‘narrative’ of heroic and truthy reporters going against massive and evil organizational power, just like its predecessors in this genre that were so trendy in the 1970s and subsequently.
Really interested persons could also read Michael D’Amato’s 2013 book as well, and thus enjoy an even more comprehensive basis on which to evaluate the flik and its efforts to cast a heroic narrative.
Third, he relies on JR’s frankly non-credible and unsupported assertion (to the effect that most victims are never compensated) to then construct the following little structure with his set of blocks: the local Statute of Limitations (hereinafter: ‘SOLs’) were what prevented him from filing a civil suit.
One might have presumed, from the wording of his initial story, that we were dealing here with a ‘victim’ who was not going for ‘the money’ and was therefore more credible on that score than the Abuseniks who did go after the money. But no, it appears that ‘David’ was merely frustrated by the SOLs, whose strictures prevented his following-up the conviction (which is now under the cloud of the Kosinski revelations) with a lawsuit.
And he then ventures into a larger forum of reference with his bit about the Church and its attempts to prevent SOLs from being enacted. We have considered the general SOL issue on this site before and at length: the Church is not the only source of resistance to weakening the SOL strictures; defense attorneys are also opposed to it and for a very good reason: the SOLs exist because of the basic reality that ‘evidence’ degrades over time, whether it be physical or testimonial (i.e. human memories). In consequence, in order to ensure the rationality and legitimacy of trial process and outcome, relevant evidence must be presented before either the physical evidence degrades or the circumstances surrounding the charged act dissolve or human memory becomes potentially so degraded that it cannot be relied-upon.
The removal of SOLs is strongly supported by the torties, of course, since it will open up broad new vistas of potential claims and cases for them. And the SOLs remain as one of the last barriers left standing in the Victimist campaign to weaken evidentiary standards so as to smooth the path for the stories and memories and claims and allegations which, so very often otherwise unsupported, constitute (in the manner of the old witchcraft trial era’s ‘spectral evidence’) the only basis for criminal and civil process against whomever might be accused.
He mentions California, and it is of some interest here that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (thus Judge Kosinki’s Circuit) includes California.
We note that although ‘David’ appears to have pretensions to credibility and reliability in telling his story, yet he has struck up one of those chummy alliances with JR, which – alas – certainly doesn’t work in his favor in all this.
Fourth, he then chooses to run one of JR’s signature dodges: he attempts to turn one of my critique parameters against me. Specifically, he professes himself “disappointed” in my “reading comprehension skills”. To wit: he claims that he “clearly” was not making reference to any particular case in his recitation (which I noted; “No amount of evidence, an arrest, a conviction, a church document, an article, a grand jury investigation”).
Reading the text of his original comment indicates that there was nothing “clear” about that at all. Rather, it was sufficiently vague as to be ambiguous. And further, such ambiguity – as I noted – could serve the purpose of leading (or tricking) a reader into thinking that his objections to my position had the weight of a particular case behind him, in which all of these elements were (conveniently) concentrated. Which, of course, would have intensified his attempted critique of my point.
Nor does he care to refute the many problems with each of those elements upon which he relies, as demonstrated in my recitation of particular historical instances and as Judge Kosinki’s piece so comprehensively impugns.
But, nicely, he informs us that all of those now-dubious and now-impugned general elements existed in his criminal case (with the exception of the Grand Jury element, which Ralph Cipriano’s analyses have so thoroughly cast into question).
He then puffs himself up (is there something of the Wig in all of this?) to lodge his final zinger: he asks ‘Malcolm Harris’ if that commenter would care to answer a question ‘David’ put to me: “Is there even one case of priest sexual abuse and church negligence you believe? Please be specific.”
Answering for myself: When I see a credible case I will let him know. So far, nothing presented on this site by Abuseniks rises to that level.
Further, ‘David’ gives us here a precise and crystal clear example of the abiding and fundamental Stampede-Abusenik problem: it is not a matter of ‘belief’ at all. Rather, it is a matter of being rationally persuaded by the presentation of credible evidence as to the actuality or at least high probability of the veracity of the claimed perpetration in any such specific case.
Whence this abiding and serious Abusenik confusion? It stems from the fundamental gambit underlying the Stampede and all Victimist cases: there isn’t any such evidence, and therefore one must ii) make an insistent claim upon third-parties’ ‘belief’ rather than upon evidence. And in order to most effectively achieve that then a) public opinion and third-parties must be manipulatively pre-disposed to accept mere ‘belief’ rather than rational persuasion by credible evidence.
And this is why – I have always said here – these Stampede cases must be given heightened-scrutiny by any third-parties and readers. And thus there can be no blanket acceptance or ‘belief’ of the stories that create these cases. And thus: when I encounter a credible case, I will be sure to mention it.
I will also take this opportunity to point out the fundamental (and fundamentally necessary) circularity in the Stampede-Abusenik gambit, one that we have seen run in the Billy Doe case as well as here and there on this site.
Specifically, the chain of ‘logic’ in so many of these stories goes like this: I am so screwed up because I was abused / how do you know I was abused? / because I am so screwed up.
Readers may consider the various aspects of this circular reasoning as they will.
Further: imagine Billy Doe walking into a psychiatrist’s office and presenting the (many) symptoms and problems – behavioral (the drug use) and mental or characterological (the many contradictory statements and claims) – that he has displayed (as related in the reports on the BigTrial site) … but n-o-t claiming that he was abused.
Would any competent psychiatrist, given the presentation I outlined immediately above, instantly and conclusively decide that Billy Doe had been abused?
No. There are any number of possible causes for the elements of the presenting-problem posed to the psychiatrist by this hypothetical encounter with Billy Doe.
There are however individuals – of varying levels of training and competence – who would follow the therapeutic and diagnostic skein introduced in those 1970s self-help or self-diagnosis books wherein a reader was assured that if s/he had present adult life problems then s/he (most often a she in those days) was incestuously abused. (The example I use: If you can’t stand hot coffee then you were probably abused by your father because daddies drink hot coffee … See? It’s science!)
These practitioners are pre-disposed to ascribe a broad menu of possible adult dysfunctions and issues to ‘abuse’ (or ‘molestation’ or ‘rape’) and a person going to them stood a good chance of being assured that they had been ‘abused’ and – if the person didn’t recall any such thing – of being assured that they had merely ‘repressed’ the ‘memory’.
And things would proceed from there, to the abiding interest of the media, always interested in a ‘story’, especially in those days when ‘soft’ news was taking the place of the traditional ‘hard’ news.
From such as this the Stampede has deeply drawn.
"But when you pray, use not vain repititions as the heathen do: for they think that they
shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew chap. 6:7 Publion, you use
longwinded nonsense to make people believe you have some great knowledge
regarding the subject, when in reality it only adds up to a whole lot of cow dung.
I believe you are deceived by what you think is some great debating and
philosophical reasoning, when all it amounts to is a load of repetitive garbage.
You are most definitely ' A LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND ', and possibly
in Satan's mind also. Keep up the good work defending hypocrits, deceivers,
and pedophiles. I bet they are impressed with your work!!!! My God and Savior
Jesus Christ are most definitely not. I will be waiting for your nasty retort !!!
P.S. I don't need to see 'Spotlight' to condemn your 'Goddess Worshipping Cult'.
Just read Revelations 17, that spells it out for those who have wisdom!
The ‘Spotlight’ flik was released today, at least in those limited venues mentioned in the WSJ article about which I commented above.
Readers so inclined may keep an eye out for the reviews of the now-released film by established media outlets.
If my surmises are correct, one should expect to find a focus on the journalists (and their competence and – of course – ‘heroism’) and an effort to keep the focus rather tightly kept on only that aspect of the film. This would support my theory that the fiik was made primarily to attract the support of the media and the journalistic trade (who will also review it now)
One will also probably find – if I am correct – that more specifically-focused outlets, especially sites on-line, that are specifically Stampede or Abusenik oriented, will attempt to make whatever use they can of this (deliberately not victim-oriented) flik for their own usual purposes, most likely treating the flik as simply a jumping-off point for launching into a typical recital of the typical Stampede and Abusenik talking-points.
Just returned from "Spotlight". As I walked out of the 2/3rds filled theater for a 1 PM showing. I saw a young man in his 20's weeping in his girl friends arms. I asked if he had seen the same movie. He had but was not a clerical victim but still a victim of childhood sex abuse. You think it's so easy to get over this shit. It isn't.
JR, in his post on 7th at 8.02 pm, tells us that he went and saw the 'Spotlight' film. Guess he left with a nice warm glow, after seeing all those Catholic clerics given such a big hammering.
This reminds me of a film made about 25 years ago, called 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. The producer was Martin Scorcese. It lost 30 million dollars at the box office, despite getting enormous pre-release publicity from the mainstream media.
Thought that Universal Studios would sack him, after such a big loss, but I was wrong… he just went on to bigger and better things. Guess the film had a dual purpose, to make a profit, but also to carry a propaganda message (in an ideological sense). Although it failed in the first purpose… it must have pleased somebody with the second purpose. Namely that Christ was sensationally portrayed as a flawed pretender and nothing more.
I reckon that this film, 'Spotlight' will be the same. A commercial failure, but succeed in discrediting the Catholic Church. And by extention, it's founder, Jesus.
Malcolm, Kazanzakis' Last Temptation of Christ had nothing to do with Christ being portrayed as a false anything. It filled out all his human nature and that's all it did. Unlike the Sado-masochistic; anti Semetic, Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson; that raked in the dough.
By the way the journalists aren't painted as heroes; just the opposite. The Globe had info in the 1990's that they never followed up on and they blamed themselves for that. So unlike the irresponsible church who blame everyone but themselves.
By the most amazing coincidence, JR (the 7th, 802PM) has a convenient story to tell arising from his attendance at the flik.
And goes around the block to come back at 807PM to give us his take on the portrayals of the ‘Globe’ team: they were not heroic. Fine and dandy; we have a nice counterpoint to the many media reviews that are gushing about it (and I haven’t yet come across one that pans it). As I said, the flik was, as indicated by its own makers, made for the journalists and designed to make them look good so that people would walk away from the flik feeling uplifted (and, by amazing coincidence, so that the media would have a rather direct self-serving interest in plumping for it).
The key point isn’t that the ‘Globe’ had any information about this or that individual priest – there appears to be no organization on the planet immune from such offenses. Rather, the key point is that the ‘Globe’, with the “help” of that local tortie (since then much enriched by fees and expenses), was vitally instrumental in fomenting the Stampede – with its vision of centuries of world-wide rapine and cover-up by priests and hierarchs whose primary calling was to perpetrate and enable a ‘culture of rape’ against innumerable ‘victims’, the vast majority of whom are, you simply must believe, still ‘out there’ and have not yet ‘come forward’, despite the prospect of hefty paydays for almost no risk.
For purposes of gauging attendance, its box office take for Friday, its first day, was $90,000. For comparative purposes, the “Spectre” movie’s first day take was $28,000,000; “Hotel Transylvania 2” made $800,000; “Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse” made $188,000 and “Suffragette” made $220,000. And “The Free Speech Apocalypse” made $490.00.
Readers so inclined can track the box office take at
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/
Perhaps the untold myriads of those interested in the flik and the Stampede were busy and plan to see it at a later date. Or – one is welcome to imagine – the Church, as omnipotent puppet-master, kept most of the population from going to see it.
Referring back to my imagined interview between Billy Doe and the psychiatrist: that clinician, after hearing Billy Doe’s recitation of his many (and very real) problems but without any reference to ‘abuse’ as a cause, might well advise him that “You think it’s so easy to get over this shit. It isn’t.”. That advice would be true of a vast range of psychiatric, long-standing behavioral, and/or emotional problems and ‘abuse’ need have nothing to do with it at all.
As for the concluding epithetical against the Church in the 807PM comment, it will require some credible demonstration of “the irresponsible church who blame everyone but themselves”, especially in light of papal requests for forgiveness and the institution of the most comprehensive child-protection of any large organization – religious or secular – on the planet. Otherwise, this concluding epithetical zinger seems actually to be merely yet another marvelous demonstration of clinical projection.
Publion is an exercise in avoiding responsibility. He rude. He's a liar. He's mean. In other words he's the face of catholicism at it's most honest. The real catholicism not some pr contraption. The simple fact that the church could have solved this problem by doing the right thing in the first place, protecting the children, is always avoided by the resident apologist for child rape. Victims are abused for not calling the police as children but he church's "adult" leadership failed at every opportunity by protecting rapists, known to them as such, instead of catholic children. Those universal policies of priest protection above all are why your church is dying. You never seem capable of telling the truth, ever.
Your church's claims to "morality" are false.
On the 8th at 1019 JR opens – rather predictably – with an unsupported epithet; this time it is not the Church that avoids responsibility; rather, it is me. Which gambit neatly gets him off the hook of having to explicate his assertion (the 7th at 807PM) that the Church avoids responsibility.
The muffin basket yields more of its sourdough gems: I am “rude” (this from somebody who a little further on in this series of comments will call me a “whore”). And I am – yet again – a “liar” (with, of course, no explication and quite possibly with no clear concept of what the term actually means).
And I am “mean” (since I don’t simply cluck sympathetically like the trained chicken that Abuseniks expect all third-parties to be).
Having laid that foundation, this craftsman of plop then tries to build on it with the bit about my therefore and thereby being “the face of Catholicism at its most honest”.
So far so not so new.
But then we are taken for a ride in the way-back machine: All this (the Stampede and so forth, one must presume) could have been avoided “by doing the right thing”. So at this point, the Abuseniks want to bring us back 30 or more years and pretend it’s 1985 or so all over again.
And what – for the umpteenth time – might “the right thing have been”? Start writing checks for everybody who turned up at the chancery door with a pinata stick in hand? And if memory serves, did not the Church or some sub-organization offer JR 12 or 17 thousand dollars? That would not possibly have provided the wherewithal to solve all of his problems, I freely admit; but then there was no clear way of knowing if the ‘abuse’ was the cause of them.
And is it not an element in the Stampede dogma that the Church did offer payouts before the Stampede began? But then the Stampede came along and promised far far heftier payouts. Who was going to be dumb enough to settle for an ‘honest’ (I use the term here merely for the purposes of this discussion) few thousands when one might hook up with a tortie and score bigtime?
And it would appear I am also characterized – in typical Abusenik fashion – as “the resident apologist for child rape”. Another familiar epithetical Abusenik gambit that can hang up there with the rest of them.
And then more of the standard Abusenik narrative, which has yet to hold up under analysis of any story we have seen on this site.
And the whole densely compacted pile then roofed-over with the concluding zinger that “your church is dying”.
Clearly JR is not familiar with trends in Catholic membership worldwide.
Even more clearly, this is far too densely compacted a pile for the little trowel that JR brings to the sandbox.
And the whole thing concludes with a neatly rhetorical circling-back to toss a variant of the “liar” epithet at me and then – but of course – to toss a similar zinger at the Church’s “claims to ‘morality’”.
"Flik"? You are so hip! Misspelled but nice try.
Is it imaginary that Ireland; Canada; Britain; Australia; Germany; Poland; Netherlands; Belgium , Cyprus etc. etc. all found priestly sex abuse coverups and transfers by the cardinals and bishops?
On the 8th at 145PM we are taken out of the way-back machine and taken on a whirlwind world tour, guided – we are supposed to presume – by JR’s knowledge of world events and affairs. Readers may allow themselves to get as excited with anticipation as they think is warranted.
To repeat points made several times on this site: I have no doubt that the Church, like any other organization, has had some cases of actual and genuine abuse, and I would not at all be surprised if even rape (classically defined) was perpetrated in some few cases cases; and I have no doubt that – as in any organization – some managerial types did not handle things as well as might be hoped today or, in a few cases, even back then.
But I also point this out: the legal aspect of the Stampede, as I have often said here, is not new; the Stampede’s legal aspect is based upon time-honored tort-attorney praxis and strategy: ignore individual defendants who don’t have much money, find a deep-pockets defendant that can be sued, and make as much of a case as you possibly can. This strategy in the 1980s was hugely assisted by developments in Victimist pressures on courts and legislatures and by a media increasingly drawn both to ‘soft’ news ‘stories’ and the sure-fire seductions of the old Pure Good/Pure Evil/Pure Hero script.
Under those circumstances, put yourself in the place of a hierarch: if you pay out what may not be a credible claim, you are merely inviting a run on the Church and paving the way for the Church to become a piñata; if you don’t pay out then you are bethumped for not being sensitive to anybody who, despite the absence of evidence, claims the mantle of genuine victimization. What do you do?
(And in propounding this problem, I am not implying that there were utterly no cases of genuine victimization and even predation. But as always, I am pointing out that the number of such instances cannot – as the Stampede and its assorted interests would have it – be merely presumed to be astronomical. And surely from the cases we have been able to examine here, and from the dynamics we have explored, and from the material we have seen from Federal judges Schiltz and Kosinki, then my insistence upon ‘heightened scrutiny’ is not out of place.)
As far as the listing of assorted nations goes: it can hardly be ruled-out that many nations might be trying for their own purposes to start up a version of the Stampede in their own dominions. We have heard little if anything from the Irish case of a year or so ago, and the full text of the Dutch ‘Abuse Report’ – which was examined at length here) – from half a decade ago has not even made it into an English translation; and that effort by some sub-organization within the UN of a year or so ago has also borne no fruit for its proponents.
Now I didn't meet that young man weeping?! The readership is to believe everything you say here but nothing victims say. How fair!
So I made up a story about that man? I was with a highschool friend who happens to be a probation officer right now. Shall I have him contact Dave Pierre as to what he witnessed yesterday? You scum bucket. You filth. You shameless whore.
But now a most curious bit: Although my reference to JR’s claim about some young man crying outside the theater was – as was his mention of it – one of the very first elements in my comments, yet here we are with JR (the 8th at 345PM) referring to it as if he had just seen it … although it was the first point made.
Rather then it being addressed in his come-backs immediately, it comes – replete with that sense of (affronted, of course) surprise – only after a series of (notably uncharacteristic) comments.
I find this rather odd. I think JR put up a bunch of comments not quite completely his own (how much more politely can it be put?) and only then got around to putting up his own about the story outside the theater.
But how can he be surprised (let’s leave ‘offended’ and ‘outraged’ and all the other standard tropes out of it)? A man who has claimed here to be the descendant of popes and kings and princes and archbishops and saints; who conveniently ‘reported’ that when he went back to his high-school reunion he helped do some heroic stuff at a nearby house fire; who claims to have been rapidly promoted by the military in handling vital documents although he is supposed to have a notable spelling problem consequent upon his ‘abuse’ … is the cumulative weight of his record of claims sufficient to justify doubt and heightened scrutiny? I would say Yes.
And as if the impossibly-convenient and ‘dramatic’ encounter with a crying guy wasn’t enough, JR – by the most amazing coincidence – was in the company of a probation officer. Is the probation officer placed here in the story to neutralize any residual doubt about JR’s already-shaky credibility? Why – one could wonder – might JR be in the company of a probation officer in the first place? And was this the same police-type official who once advised JR that the key to all of his legal travails was “mandated reporter” – even though, as was pointed out when this particular story was examined, the “mandated reporter” element was not even in relevant effect nor applicable to his own case?
And the bit about having that purported official contact Dave Pierre is simply too … “overdressed”. This is far too much frosting on an already-dubious cake.
But, having – in his own mind, at least – indisputably established his creds, JR then considers himself thereby at liberty to indulge his Inner Epithetical … which he proceeds to do with such zest.
227 paragraphs from P in this thread so far. (Compared to 34 paragraphs from me and 18 paragraphs from David, and 2 from Carrie) As if P's mass of verbage equated to being truthfull.
On the 9th at 1016AM JR will yet again try to make some hay off his prior irrelevant bit of plop-tossing to the effect that the Abuseniks have put up far fewer paragraphs than I have.
So what? What would the point be here?
The best he can do is that – we are to supposed to infer – I put up a “mass of verbiage” which is then supposed to be (he would have it believed) “equated to being truthful” or, in this instance, not-truthful (correction supplied).
It is not the size of the comments, but the quality of their content, that counts.
And when one is dealing with the accumulation of decades of assorted manipulative gambits designed precisely to hoodwink readers, then it takes some work and no small amount of material to examine that mighty pile rationally and completely (or as completely as possible).
Christopher Bermingham? I was on the RadioBoston website listening to an interview of Mitchell Garabedian and Tom Doyle about Spotlight and their advocacy. There was a comment section with one comment in it. I was surprised to to see the commenter, 'Christopher Bermingham', use the phrase 'anti-Catholic agitprop'. Who writes like that?
Then comes ‘LDB’ (the 9th at 1256PM). He claims to have a Harvard degree in Philosophy and some sort of a legal degree (perhaps an attorney, though not one who does trial work), and – had you been waitttting forrrr ittttttttt? – a ‘victim’.
We are into the territory of inference here, since – by amazing coincidence – ‘LDB’ doesn’t actually have an assertion to make.
As best I can infer, there was a comment put up on some Boston site by one ‘Christopher Bermingham’.
And ‘LDB’ sees that in that comment, the named commenter used the phrase “anti-Catholic agitprop”.
And what has this bit prompted in the purportedly highly-educated professional mind of ‘LDB’?
He wonders: “Who writes like that?”.
Well … Somebody familiar with English? Somebody who has read this site? The term “anti-Catholic agitprop” is surely not one I invented all on my own, and is a phrase composed of two generally-established and familiar concepts.
Is there indeed a ‘Christopher Bermingham’? A check of the internet reveals that there is certainly at least one, holding a faculty position in the Education department at Boston University.
It is certainly not me, and readers may take my statement here as they will.
Had this purportedly well-trained professional legal mind not considered the possibility of faculty member Bermingham’s being the author of the comment?
Had this purportedly well-trained professional legal mind not considered the possibility of contacting that gentleman’s office and finding out?
Apparently not. Because, really, what good would it have done? It would have merely deprived ‘LDB’ – purportedly highly educated and professionally trained and presumably mature – of the chance to do a drive-by plop-toss of innuendo.
Who does things like that?
Abuseniks.
Was Tom Doyle elected "our advocate"? If no wasn't he self chosen? So he represents who exactly? Why is he here? What's he done for victims beside speak for us without any victim ever asking him to.? I would never ask THE canon lawyer at THE vatican embassy in Washington D.C.; who knew all about our abuses to speak for me.
Doyle suggested in the paper he offered the bishops in 1985 that secret committees should be formed to control victims and our families. Why did it take Doyle so long to start seeing victims as such? He just got how to be moral one night in his mid '40's? It just fell on him like a ton of bricks? What are the odds of that?
The cononization of sainted J.Serra had more moraliy going for it than Tom Doyle O.P..'s "transformation" in the "80's from hider of the abuse in the U.S. to exposer of the abuse but .he exposed nothing did he? He just spoke "for" us deciding how our issues should be presented to the world and never ever mentioning once victims' NEEDS.
canonization sorry.
I wish Tom Doyle would shove his "advocacy' up his Hersey highway. What's he advocating changing the church? Just using the word every now and then: "survivors"?Advocacy sans inclusion is just manipulation.
On the 7th at 321AM I had suggested that the ‘Spotlight’ flik was a deliberately-constructed valentine to the media and to ‘journalists’ and that we would see media coverage remain tightly focused on the kudos that the ‘Globe’ team (and, by implication, all ‘journalists’) deserves and that the assorted victim interests and interest-groups would have to somehow make do in order to use the film as a platform for their usual talking-points.
I underestimated the ‘strategizing’ (some might want to say ‘guile’) cooked up and deployed by the ‘Globe’.
In its Sunday print edition of the 8th – on page A2, no less, just beyond the front page and placed at the top of the A2 page – there is another ‘Spotlight’ article (entitled ‘Seeing ‘Spotlight’ a step in survivors’ recovery’).
It is a remarkable and marvelously revelatory demonstration of what capable agitprop and competent strategizing can do.
And the manner of it is on this wise:
In the Sunday article, we are informed that after the screening “some of the well-heeled and high-heeled crowd headed down Beacon Street, into Kenmore Square, for a party at a swanky bar”. Where, no doubt, the assembled ‘journalists’ continued their sober and serious celebrations of themselves.
That, I thought, was a pretty clear demonstration of the dynamics actually underlying this thing, although it did seem that the ‘Globe’ was distancing itself from the ‘victims’ (in much the same way that it had suddenly distanced itself from those “traditional” Boston neighborhoods during the busing crisis of 40-plus years ago).
But now comes a fresh revelation: the PR strategists had come up with a neat gambit indeed: three weeks ago, an even more private screening was held – for just two ‘victims’, “in an 18 seat screening room in the South End” (and while such facilities may be relatively plentiful in the Hollywood area, they are not in the Boston area). Well, perhaps just the two ‘victims’ and apparently – according to the article, that says eleven were present – then nine assorted handlers and journalistic observers on hand to take down every drop of those two viewers’ reactions.
Which jottings become the basis for the ‘Globe’ article under consideration here.
This shrewdly-arranged little gathering provides the perfect scenario for the ‘Globe’ to guard its ‘victim’ flank, and it does so quite nicely, tossing in almost all of the classic Victimist and Stampede talking-points and tropes (with the notable exception of the now-suppressed ‘repressed memory’ gambit of unhappy memory).
I won’t rehearse the misch, all of the elements of which have been looked-at at one point or another here in the past few years and the article can be accessed by those so inclined.
But the most interesting twist is this: the implication is that the viewing of ‘Spotlight’ might well be so very painful for ‘victims’ that they (or at least the two somehow selected by the ‘Globe’ and studio PR flaks) would need to ‘vent’ and that it would be reely reely nice to just let them watch the thing in private (and then hold what was in effect a press conference for the press already assembled and taking notes).
And it also – very nicely – kept the official pre-release viewing, that tasteful orgy of professional self-adulation on Thursday, from becoming distastefully, un-helpfully, and far too vividly cacophonous – striking two strongly dissonant and incompatible notes, what with the ‘journalists’ congratulating themselves and calling for their cars to take them to the “swanky bar”, on the one hand, and on the other hand, spotlighted ‘victims’ carrying on in their own now-familiar fashion.
The two selectees perform their assigned roles like champs.
And well they might: both of them are portrayed in the film (Hollywood pays nicely for things like that) and, charmingly, after the screening one of the depicted then hugs the actor who played him (so two ‘victims’, two actors, and then seven flaks, handlers and/or ‘journalists’).
In fact, the article burbles, both ‘victims’ have now become good friends with the actors who portray them. It is an ending worthy of Disney.
Neither of the two ‘survivors’ who inked permission to be portrayed in the film was involved in the Geoghan case, one of the early poster-cases of the Stampede in Boston. But one of them, although he didn’t know one of the primary individuals in that case, went to that individual’s wake years later.
It’s a thin reed, but this gave the ‘Globe’ the opening here to remind everyone of that first big case.
As I opined previously on this site, then-Fr. Geoghan, who was the poster-case of the ‘Globe’s’ initial Stampede phase, seemed to me – and all I have to go on are the ‘reports’ – to be far too unripe and sexually immature and even damaged to ever have been ordained a priest. But he was the nephew of an influential cleric in that Archdiocese, who had served under the early-20th century William Cardinal O’Connell, and he was ordained.
He apparently had a tendency to maneuver himself into grabbing (or ‘fondling’) young boys in swimming pools while ostensibly lifting them out of the pool – as best I can recall the case – and he was convicted of one count of that, although the judge in the case sentenced him to the maximum because, she said, she ‘just knew’ he had done it so many other times as well. He was shortly thereafter murdered in the state’s maximum security prison in a still-unexplained incident wherein a convicted murderer was able to egress his own (weirdly) opened cell and then access Geoghan’s (weirdly) opened cell in the middle of the night; the murderer then claimed he was, in effect, doing it as an act of justice and readers may consider it all as they may.
Whether any of the elements recently outlined by Federal judge Kosinki were applicable in the Geoghan case I do not know; but after the Kosinski revelations, all of these (relatively few) priest-convictions need to be looked at with ‘heightened scrutiny’ indeed.
(And I would add here: this TMR thread includes that remarkable Kosinski material; did that material attract the professional attention of the purportedly highly-educated attorney ‘LDB’? It did not. Instead, we merely got that little exercise in drive-by innuendo of the 9th at 1256PM.)
There was much sobbing and hugging and the term “courageous” was bruited.
But wait – there’s more:
That same ‘victim’ himself was “raped” by and accused Fr. Paul Shanley, a then-priest who worked with gay teens, and which ‘victim’ was then “passed … on” by Shanley “to other men”; Shanley was eventually convicted of “sexual abuse”. (Does the ‘Globe’ here use ‘rape’ and ‘sexual abuse’ interchangeably or was Shanley not convicted of ‘rape’ and if so, why not? One cannot know from this piece.)
Watching that conviction moment was “the real beginning of my recovery”, said the first ‘victim’. Perhaps so. Although alcoholism – from which this ‘victim’ is now in-recovery, as they say – is not of itself any indisputable diagnostic indicator of childhood abuse.
But it does lead to the article’s next bit: “The film is also part of that recovery”. Of course. As neat a tie-in as anyone might wish, to keep the victim-interests content to go along with “the film”, grateful for some now-too-infrequent attention, yet without getting in the way of all the journalistic self-celebration.
And the article gushes further that this recovering survivor/victim had “never imagined that his story would be included in a major motion picture”. So many people no doubt hope for such a boon, and no doubt – like winning a lottery – would be moved to tears simply on the basis of their good fortune in that regard.
There’s nothing on the ‘story’ of the second ‘victim-survivor’, but no doubt there were space limitations and all the Geoghan and Shanley stuff had to be squeezed in so that the paper’s own purposes could be fulfilled here.
And had you noticed the sly advertisement for the flik? It was – ahem – “a major motion picture”. And readers can keep up with the box-office site to which I linked in a prior comment to see just how major a major motion picture this thing turns out to be.
But wait. There’s more.
On the night after the premiere (thus Saturday, the 7th) both of these gentlemen had recovered enough to have “hosted” another screening on their own, just for the assorted victim-interests and the usual groups. No doubt SNAP sent some folks, who are here described only as “advocates” but the ‘Globe’ avoids actually naming it or any other group, as it also avoids identifying any notable torties, who would have every reason to attend out of gratitude for their windfalls. I would imagine that the torties would have attended the journalistic love-in on Thursday the 5th, or at least would have shown up at the “swanky bar”.
I also get the sense – taking the long view – that the ‘Globe’ has been trying all along to recover or re-forge its links to the sturdy working-class ‘traditional’ communities that it so thoroughly kicked to the curb and trashed 40 years ago, by creating this new solid and sturdy ‘victim-survivor community’ for whom it can now claim to have done so very very much (while also having done, far more quiettly, so very very much for the local tortie ‘community’.)
And after the screening there was a “Q&A” – and one need only imagine how that rolled along. The article itself doesn’t say.
And the piece concludes thus: this victim-survivor here “knows movies, and he thinks this one is well-made, well-acted, well done in every way” … if he does say so himself.
So the ‘Globe’ is trying every gambit here to up the box-office, even to the point of anointing some Everyman as one who “knows movies” (in this sense, what American doesn’t?) and then letting him deliver a glowing encomium (and dog-whistle) to his fellow ‘victim-survivors’.
Perhaps wisely, it did not assign this piece to one of its ‘reporters’ but rather to one of its ‘columnists’.
Why I spent so much time on this is: first, this entire ‘Spotlight’ roll-out gives us a blazingly clear example of shrewd and manipulative strategizing, of the type that has gone into the Stampede from Day One and that can be ascribed in no small part to a newbie editor looking to make a splash in town and among his peers, and a shrewd tortie who saw the tortie heavens open before his eyes: a working alliance with a major metropolitan newspaper to create the wide public climate that would enable the Anderson strategies to be taken to astronomical new heights.
What is of even more concern is: second, so overtly fabricated a manipulative plan has been run, not only ‘in broad daylight’ but with as much fanfare and public relations gimmickry as the ‘Globe’ could manage, without apparently any concern that the public would see through it (and, after all and so very shrewdly, what ‘journalist’ is going to help the public in this regard?).
Whether the ‘Globe’ is right on this second point remains to be seen.
49 more paragraphs from P.
Giving us in this thread , so far, 276 P "thoughts". None of them truthful. All of them, catholic propaganda; all the time.
The execution of the obviously damaged Geoghan was more than likely an act funded by the church as a "happy" ending for the church. Out of life; out of mind; and off the front pages. Law was sent out of the country and Geoghan was sent out of this world. Bye bye father.
You think my assumption is far fetched? Who else has the "power" to make cell doors magically open in the middle of the night in a lockup? Why the lord and his heavenly minions "doncha know"?
"quiettly"? Someone's spelling aint what it used to be. :^)