Hollywood unleashes superstars Mark Ruffalo (l) and Michael Keaton (r) on the Catholic Church
While Hollywood and the Boston Globe would want you to believe that the new movie Spotlight is an impartial dramatization of the paper's 2002 reporting on sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Boston, the truth is something else entirely.
As Spotlight slowly makes its way to theaters across the country, mainstream media movie reviewers are grossly distorting the truth about the Catholic Church sex abuse story.
For example:
"The Spotlight team found that those in power knew about the abuse. That included the head of the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law, who continued the pattern of moving Father John Geoghan from parish to parish despite his history of serially molesting boys." (WBUR, 9/4/15)
Not even close. The mainstream media won't tell you this, but the Boston Globe's reporting routinely minimized the critical role that secular psychologists played in the entire Catholic Church abuse scandal. Time after time, trained "expert" psychologists around the country repeatedly insisted to Church leaders that abusive priests were fit to return to ministry after receiving "treatment" under their care.
Indeed, one of the leading experts in the country recommended to the Archdiocese of Boston in both 1989 and 1990 that – despite Geoghan's two-decade record of abuse – it was both "reasonable and therapeutic" to return Geoghan to active pastoral ministry including work "with children."
The Globe's rank hypocrisy
And it is not as if the Globe could plead ignorance to the fact that the Church had for years been sending abusive priests to therapy and then returning them to ministry on the advice of prominent and credentialed doctors. As we reported earlier this year, back in 1992 – a full decade before the Globe unleashed its reporters against the Church – the Globe itself was enthusiastically promoting in its pages the psychological treatment of sex offenders ‐ including priests – as "highly effective" and "dramatic."
The Globe knew that the Church's practice of sending abusive priests off to treatment was not just some diabolical attempt to deflect responsibility and cover-up wrongdoing, but a genuine attempt to treat aberrant priests that was based on the best secular scientific advice of the day.
Yet a mere ten years later, in 2002, the Globe acted in mock horror that the Church had employed such treatments. It bludgeoned the Church for doing in 1992 exactly what the Globe itself said it should be doing. The hypocrisy is off the charts.
The Church's secrecy that wasn't
Another example:
"'As soon as we discovered that the church had made secret payments to victims of other priests – which one of the attorneys referred to as hush money – we began to realize that of course the church did know, that it had to know, and that its sole interest wasn't in the children,' [ex-Boston Globe editor] Walter Robinson said, 'it was in keeping the story quiet'." (WBUR, 9/4/15)
While Hollywood and the Globe would want you to believe that the Catholic Church demanded secrecy from victims when doling out settlements, the truth is that it was the other way around: It was the victims who had demanded secrecy from the Church.
How do we know this? For starters, even the Globe itself has finally admitted this.
In an article on Monday June 3, 2002, the Boston Globe buried this crucial admission from Boston contingency lawyer Mitchell Garabedian: "Garabedian said he harbors no regrets about the settlements he negotiated in secrecy, often at his clients' insistence. 'They were embarrassed, and many victims thought they were the only ones,' he said."
In other words, Robinson's claim is simply bogus.
Just the tip of the iceberg
As a movie, Spotlight appears to resemble The Wizard of Oz more than anything factual.
Suffice it to say that the Boston Globe' dishonest and biased reporting could fill a book, and that book is Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church.
Thoroughly detailed and footnoted, the fast-paced Sins of the Press will change your mind about the Boston Globe and its lauded reporting on the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
I don't go see movies anymore since I got Netflix.
I see your at it again! Trying to blame and acuse the media for being sinners and hypocrites,
when you and your church have the market cornered on hypocrisy and dark, disgusting sin.
You might want to work on cleaning up your own backyard before pointing the finger at others, thinking that will take the focus off of your nastiness. You make excuses and defend
pedos and you will share Hells eternal fire with them. Do you actually believe your dumb
sheep followers will buy into your horse manure. If so they are one sad bunch!!!!!!!!!
Thus sayeth the servant to the LORD JESUS CHRIST
Now comes ‘Dan’ on the 11th at 919PM.
Yes, it’s just another drive-by but there is a bit of usefulness in it nonetheless
It’s a compendium of a number of basic tropes of the Stampede:
First, that TMR is simply trying to blame ‘the messenger’ (i.e. the media).
But I would say that it is more than clear now that the media (already in the 1980s well-advanced along the deranging path of ‘soft’ news scripted like old silent movies, i.e. Pure Good Bethumped by Pure Evil and Rescued by Pure Heroism) / in alliance with torties and general tortie strategy / under the aegis of general Victimist-demanded derangements in law and jurispraxis / and synergistic with a secular-liberalist need to reduce the credibility of the Church in national political and social and cultural affairs / did a very great deal to ‘create’ the Stampede.
And this probability is supported by a) the greatly dubious and questionable record of priest-abuse cases (civil and criminal) and by b) the revelations of Federal judges themselves, such as Schiltz and Kosinski. To which we would have to add c) the stories and further commentary of Abuseniks themselves as we have seen all of that on this site.
Second, that the Church – being now ‘revealed’ as having “the market cornered on hypocrisy and dark, disgusting sin” – cannot be calling out any other organization (thus, neatly, neutralizing whatever sleazy and sly whackery the media is now seen to have deployed to help effect the Stampede).
This bit, of course, relies on the presumption that the media ‘reported’ thoroughly accurately and honestly about the actions of the Church and the priests – and that presumption is precisely the point which is now being called into question and examined. Which is not at all what the Abuseniks want to see.
Thus third, that therefore the Church should be “cleaning up your own backyard before pointing the fingers at others”.
But – theoretically – even an arsonist can call in an accurate report of another fire burning down the street, so this gambit stands revealed as simply another agitprop gambit to try to neutralize the problems with the agitprop’s own agenda and methods in order to keep the focus only on its selected target.
And – of course – from what we have been able to examine here, then we aren’t even really sure as to the extent that the Church was actually an ‘arsonist’ (in the terms of my example immediately above) in the first place.
Fourth – and by amazing coincidence – a reference to the “nastiness” of those who question.
And as so often we see here the remarkable (perhaps clinically so) tendency of Abuseniks to see “nastiness” in the simple act of being-questioned, while utterly ignoring the florid display of epithetical ad-hominems (“whore” was one most recently used, on the immediately preceding thread here) that they themselves toss at anyone they can’t seduce or cow into going-along-with their material.
Fifth – ditto – that those who question do merely “make excuses and defend”.
Actually, those who question simply – not to put too fine a point on it – question. But this is gall and wormwood to the agitprop and Abusenik Playbook.
And in a nice example of clinical projection, Abuseniks seek to blame the questioners for what they themselves do so very very often.
Sixth – and do we not see here the Wig of faux-Papal denunciation, so beloved of Abusenik posturing and costumed posing? – it is declared and proclaimed that “pedos” (meaning, no doubt, ‘pedophiles’, a charge not accurate in most allegations) and questioners “will share Hell’s eternal fire”.
Wow and whew. As might be expected, this bit of epithetical tea-leaf reading is not supported. Rather it serves merely to distract readers from the content (such as it is) of the Abusenik’s comment by proffering a vivid phantasm of what might be the case if the Abusenik point of view is accurate, which however is a point yet to be demonstrated.
Seventh, that Catholic “dumb sheep followers” cannot reasonably be expected to “buy your horse manure”.
The epithetical here is vivid but irrationally counterproductive: if the Catholics are “dumb sheep” then they might rationally be expected to believe anything; but the Abusenik mind cannot pass up a juicy epithet even if it actually works against their overall intention.
And again the epithetical, with the “horse manure” characterization which – to the Abusenik mind – is supposed to pass-for or substitute-for actual demonstration of the weakness of the Catholic position or the questioners’ questions.
And the third of the epitheticals: if anyone were to believe it, then such persons would be “one sad bunch” (reinforced, as it were, with a number of exclamation points).
I would say that “one sad bunch” is spot-on, but simply misapplied to the Church and questioners rather than – much more accurately – to the Abuseniks.
Eighth – apparently meant to reinforce, so to speak, the faux-Papal denunciation – there is an asserted argument from authority (to substitute for an argument from reason and evidence): the trumpeting of the concluding ‘signature’, honked in the style of Scripture: “Thus sayeth the servant to THE LORD JESUS CHRIST” (scream-caps retained).
Readers may consider it all as they will.
But, especially in the internet age, this level of mentation and processing has been given broad access to the public discourse and this general fact has been another factor in the success of the Stampede’s agitprop.
On the 11th, 'Dan' says. "'I see you are at it again….trying to blame the media for being sinners and hypocrites".
In his book, "Sins of the Press", Dave Pierre really blows the whistle on the media. In particular the Boston Globe. It is truly astonishing how it went into such rapid decline. Sold to the New York Times in 1993 for 1.1 billion dollars… but only a couple of years ago was sold off for 70 million dollars, only about 6% of it's former value.
Some say the real estate alone was worth that 70 million, so guess we can figure that the goodwill was actually worth zilch!
The staff had been gradually decimated over the last twenty years… to reduce costs.Today the new owner recruits college interns to replace the dumped journalists. Sounds like desperation to me.
But am sure the old journos would have found alternative employment, perhaps in Madison Avenue. As the advertising industry is always looking for people with creative imaginations. People with the talent to persuade us that we need things we never knew we needed, Or to persuade us to believe things we never previously believed.
The old boys and girls at the Boston Globe do have a proven track record in these things. Remember their merciless campaign against Cardinal Law, surely that was a very clear demonstration of their creative talents.
Fire that servant!
Jim R., I have seen your comments on websites now for several years. Want you to know
there are probably many out there, like myself, who believe your testimony. There are some
injustices that will have no solution during our lifetime. Be not deceived into thinking that
God hasn't taken notice to those done to you, and the many other victims in this scary,
wicked world. He says He can count the hairs on our head. In other words, He knows
absolutely everything. Rest assured that His eternal justice will be far more just than
anything we can hope for from this unjust world. Forget not that His gifts are worth more
than the finest gold or purest silver. He loves to see His true followers satisfied with what
little they may have, for that brings great delight to the eyes of the Lord. Remember also
that "All the money in the world can't bring back one soul from the pit".
Now Publion, What gives with your littles digs calling people drive-bys, agitprops and
Abuseniks. So humorous to think your capable of removing the splinters from someone
elses eye when you have a Twin Towers beam stuck in your own. Your responses to others
are chock full of agitation, propaganda and lies, in order to insinuate as if the church has
done no wrong and everyone is just picking on them(sob-sob). Abusenik- Did I see your
picture next to the definition- If you don't totally buy into their script(propaganda), then
they accuse you of 'attacking them' .The Boston fiasco and coverup is just one small
needle in one big haystack, and Jesus Christ, chomping at the bit,
waiting in anticipation to strike the match. Keep it up and I'll not only be driving-by but I'll
be driving thru. " But the Lord just laughs at the wicked, for He sees their day is coming." Psalm 37:13 Pleasure jousting with you, Servant/Friend of The Lord
‘Dan’ returns (the 12th at 615PM) with a curious performance indeed.
First, we find ourselves in that queasy little sub-universe – so reminiscent of grade-school snarks – where one individual holds a just-entre-nous type of conversation while yet in the presence of others. When Abuseniks are reduced to this gambit, you know they are grasping at straws.
The first section of his comment – not so surprisingly – takes the form of an Abusenik ‘Apostolic Exhortation’ in which the (self-)noted “Servant to the Lord Jesus Christ” doth bestow on JR various encouragements and approvals.
We may at least be thankful that the thing wasn’t delivered in Latin, but then … Abuseniks aren’t really that knowledgeable when it comes to Latin, despite their pronounced tendency to go-papal when they get their feathers ruffled.
The core point of the Exhortation is that the Servant doth “believe” JR’s – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttt? – “testimony” (deployed here perhaps in the sense of spiritual-witness and not legally-binding or rationally-persuasive testimony). And if the Servant doth believe JR after everything we’ve seen here, then readers may consider the Servant’s perspicacity and acuity as they will. Fine and dandy.
And this section of the Exhortation doth then trial off with a bunch of advice worthy of the late Bhagwan.
On then to the second section, wherein the Great Eye of the Servant is turned upon my own self, in the Chapter entitled “Now Publion”.
It is littered with the usual self-serving errors that lubricate the Great Cartoon and serve the convenience of the Servant’s little game.
I didn’t ‘call’ “people drive-bys”; I characterized certain comment submissions here as such. Nor did I call any persons “agitprops”, but rather pointed out that certain methods deployed by them are classical agitprop gambits. I do call some commenters Abuseniks, I will stand by that, and I certainly characterize the Servant as an Abusenik … and might the Servant not wish to add that to his no-doubt-many (self-assigned) titles?
The Servant – had you been waittttingggggggg for ittttttttttt? – finds this all “humorous”. Of course.
The Servant then launches into a variant of his prior gambit by adverting to the “mote in thine own eye” pericope from Scripture (of which, one might imagine, he fancies himself owning an autographed copy).
The Servant then shares some revelations from the Servant-ile tea-leaves: my comments in response to others “are chock full of agitation, propaganda and lies” – the first assessment coming from the Servant-ile treasury of psychological diagnosis and the latter two from the even more familiar Abusenik larder of epitheticals. And, as always with them, unsupported.
But I do not “insinuate as if the church has done no wrong and everyone is just picking on them” (sic). I ask questions and I draw conclusions from the material presented. I have never said the Church has done no wrong nor that “everyone is just picking on” the Church. However, the Abuseniks and the Stampede and the various interests involved with them … yes, there is every probability of a synergy operating in those precincts. As I have explicated at great length on this site.
But then but then but then: the Servant doth suddenly break character (as they say in show-biz) and indulge in some juvenile snark (that “sob-sob”). Ooops.
The sentence beginning “Abusenik” makes no sense that I can see. He proffers an accurate take on my characterization of Abuseniks but it appears his mind has gotten derailed with the “picture” bit.
We are then informed – as so often, without explication – that the Boston “fiasco and coverup” was “just one small needle in one big haystack”, but in all the instances where Abuseniks introduced material here to ‘prove’ their Stampede-visions, such has not at all proven to be the case. Nor is it here.
But then: the Teeth of Vengeance chatter loudly in the faux-papal Wig as the Servant declaims that it is “Jesus Christ” Himself, “chomping at the bit” and “waiting in anticipation to strike the match”. The Servant here is channeling not Jesus but rather strikes the notes so often seen in apocalyptic fanatic types across the ages and in clinical cases of assorted delusions of grandeur fueled by an unstable but frothy rage. We are deep into the swamp here.
Then: apparently some vaguely-formulated threat to the effect that the Servant will be “driving thru” if I “keep it up”. Yup – there is something rather queasily familiar about this type of presentation.
And then, again deploying Scripture as epithet (and no doubt trying to costume his own rather queasily rage-y remarks with Scripture), the Servant doth deliver yet another pericope, which – by amazing coincidence – implies that those who don’t agree with him and his ilk are “the wicked”. And so on.
And in conclusion, as if trying to recover the high-ground after what even the Servant somehow – and however inchoately – realizes has been a rather too-revealing performance, he attempts to straighten his Wig by purring with professional detachment “Pleasure jousting with you”.
It is at this point that one can only smile noncommittally, close one’s notebook gently, and ask the nurse to take the gentleman back to the sun-porch til next time.
Sex-Abuse Victim Settles Clergy Claims
Max Mitchell, The Legal Intelligencer
November 10, 2015
The plaintiff in a civil clergy sex-abuse case has settled his claims against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the three men who allegedly abused him.
Billy Doe, who alleged he was abused by priests Charles Engelhardt and Edward Avery and Catholic schoolteacher Bernard Shero, agreed to dismiss his case against the three men pursuant to a settlement in the case. Doe had settled his claims with the archdiocese in August for an undisclosed sum.
Doe's suit was filed under the pseudonym "Billy Doe." The Legal does not name confirmed or alleged sexual-abuse victims.
The case against the remaining clergy defendants was set to begin trial this week in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, but Judge Rosalyn Robinson entered the order approving the stipulation Monday.
Doe's attorneys, Slade McLaughlin and Paul Lauricella, who handled the case with Michael Boni of Boni & Zack, said they could not comment about the specifics of the settlement.
"As we got closer to trial, it became pretty apparent that there was no money to go around with the other individuals we sued," McLaughlin said. "The criminal system is designed for punishment. The civil system is designed for monetary remuneration. To the extent that there's no monetary remuneration, there's no reason to pursue it."
McLaughlin noted Engelhardt had taken a vow of poverty when he joined the priesthood and Avery had signed a petition that he could not afford counsel.
Shero's attorney, Burton A. Rose, said his client did not contribute to the settlement, and he was not found to be culpable by the civil court.
"As far as I know, the case was simply discontinued by the plaintiff for unknown reasons," Rose said.
Rose also noted Shero's direct appeal of his criminal conviction is pending before the state Supreme Court.
Both Nicholas Centrella of Conrad O'Brien, who represented the archdiocese, and Thomas Hurd of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, who represented Engelhardt, did not return a call for comment.
Engelhardt had been convicted of indecent assault, corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of a child. In March, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed Engelhardt's sentence of six to 12 years in prison to be followed by five years' probation. Engelhardt died Nov. 15, 2014.
According to court records, Avery pleaded guilty to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and conspiracy to endangering the welfare of children. He was sentenced to two-and-a-half to five years of incarceration, court records said.
Shero was found guilty in 2013 of rape of a child, endangering the welfare of a child and indecent assault, court documents said. He was sentenced to eight to 16 years in prison, according to court documents.
According to Lauricella and McLaughlin, the civil case got a bit of a head start by using some of the work done during the criminal case.
However, the diocese also turned over some 17,000 pages of documents for review, and about 45 depositions, including bishops and cardinals, were taken in the case. McLaughlin also noted that, in the lead-up to the trial date, his client had taken a polygraph test about the allegations, which Doe "passed with flying colors," McLaughlin said.
"We really dug very, very deeply into the case," McLaughlin said. "It was an awful lot of legwork."
The case had also named Monsignor William Lynn and former Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua. Those claims were resolved as part of the August settlement, the case docket shows.
In May, the plaintiff had pointed to the reinstatement of Lynn's criminal conviction in asking the court for summary judgment.
Doe had claimed that, in his role as an archdiocese administrator, Lynn had knowingly shuffled priests accused of misconduct from parish to parish across the state where they could come into contact with children.
Lynn was the first Catholic Church administrative official convicted of endangering the welfare of children abused by other priests. While his conviction was initially overturned, the Supreme Court in April reinstated that conviction, finding Lynn could be convicted for endangering the welfare of children he never directly supervised.
Lynn's conviction left the archdiocese with liability concerns, Doe had argued.
Lynn's attorney, Thomas Bergstrom of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, did not return a call for comment.
Two civil cases brought by plaintiffs alleging they had been abused by priests from the archdiocese settled their lawsuits for undisclosed amounts in the spring.
McLaughlin said few clergy sex-abuse cases remain in the Philadelphia court system.
And along comes – had you been waitttttttttingggg for itttttttt? – ‘Dennis Ecker’ (the 12th at 826PM).
Funny thing: I had been thinking of this commenter while reviewing the performance of ‘Dan’ for my immediately prior comment.
And what do we get? Nothing but what is apparently the text of an article from “The Legal Intelligencer”, about the Doe cases in Philadelphia. As so often with some of the more sly Abuseniks, it is submitted without any comment by the Abusenik himself (for which he might later be held responsible, of course).
As some readers may be aware if they follow the BigTrial site, the much-awaited civil trial for Doe’s lawsuit against the Archdiocese there was suddenly withdrawn a few days ago (the article mealy-mouths with “discontinued”, but torties can’t ‘discontinue’ a Complaint or lawsuit – they have to ‘withdraw’ it), and by amazing coincidence, the lawsuit was withdrawn just after a judge ruled that Doe would have to go undergo psychiatric examination (the article here makes no reference to that, but – curiously – only refers to Doe’s having successfully passed a lie-detector test).
And from what we have often seen of Abusenik presentations, it is truly regrettable that Doe will not be given a thorough psychiatric examination and evaluation. But avoiding such has been an abiding maxim of torties in the Stampede cases, and one can see why.
But the article is of some use: it quotes one of Doe’s attorneys thus: “The civil system is designed for monetary remuneration. To the extent that there’s no monetary remuneration, there’s no reason to pursue it”. We recall that the majority of Abusenik claims that we have seen here – and indeed among all the formal Abusenik claims – are based precisely on “civil system” lawsuit settlements.
And we see here with utter clarity just how the Stampede – especially as it was first developed by Anderson with Blaine of SNAP, and even more so as it was refined and expanded when the ‘Globe’ struck up its noxious alliance with the noted and “ambitious” Boston tortie – was in so very great part all about the … “monetary remuneration”, although I think the phrase is a tad “over-dressed” and “money” would do quite accurately here.
The article also indicates that “few clergy sex-abuse cases remain in the Philadelphia court system”. This is certainly indicative, but I would expect that the desperation it induces in Abuseniks will result merely in even more outré performances.
Dennis Ecker, on the 12th, makes a contribution which reminds me of the "Dragnet" series on T.V.,…. some years ago. The main actor, playing a detective, would often say, "Just give me the facts…. ma'am"
Dennis quotes from a publication called 'Legal Intelligencer', which some of us would assume to be impartial and objective. So that Dennis is apparently… just giving us the facts…ma'am. .Neat, but I still have a small problem with these 'facts'.
Namely that even as a kid, I realized that if some facts were deliberately omitted, that could change our perception of the whole case.
What Dennis and his professional source have omitted was that everything rested on the testimony of Billy Doe . And who is this Billy Doe? Just a guy who had been arrested six times for drug trafficking, and been admitted to hospitals and clinics twenty-five times, for chronic drug addiction.
And on this man's word alone…, the four accused men went to prison. But why?. Because the Judge would not allow the defence to tell the jury what I have just told you. The court would not allow what 'Dragnet' demanded from any witness…."Just the facts, ma'am"
A triumph for bigotry.
I am curious to know why Ralph Cipriano of Bigtrial never mentioned to his readers the fact Billy Doe did indeed pass a polygraph test ?
not admissible in court. Some of the defendants in the criminal trial took a polygraph and passed with flying colors. Remember those results for billy doe will never be released so what's to say McLaughlin is telling the truth. What would he get out of saying his client failed? He got his 50% cut of Billy's settlement from the AOP. Also, why not ask Ralph himself?
That would be a question for Ralph Cipriano; he’s on the BigTrial site.
The figures given by ‘Malcolm Harris’ (the 12th at 828PM) as to the ‘Globe’s economic situation prompt this thought: on top of that then-new editor’s need to make a splash 14 years ago, the current leadership of the paper may now hope to increase its ‘value’ and ‘worth’ by garnering more kudos (perhaps even – the dream lives on – an Oscar) for the ‘Spotlight’ flik, as well as for the ‘reporting’ (which got the paper a couple-three Pulitzers for the 2002 stuff).
Hello Dennis! Hope things are going o.k.
Dan your analysis of P is spot on.
I can't worship an unseen diety that would allow a hell to exist. That's me. Fire and brimstone for eternity is evil; and not possible, or even probable, coming from an all good "God". I get that those are your beliefs.
I also get that in catholic belief a sincere act of contrition gains god's forgiveness.
If Hitler said he was sorry in his heart before he killed himself he's in Heaven. That makes your ideas of a vengefull god who brings justice after death no matter what, moot.
I wish you well Dan. You sound like a born again christian who was once catholic. I don't know if that's true about you; but i wish you well no matter your faith. The fact you get the uselessness of P's rants definitely places you on the side of the angels, if there are any.
Hey Jim, A few things I would like to make sure you understand in regards to where I'm
coming from. Your right, I was once a catholic and altar boy, and in my search for truth
experienced many 'so called' top Christian religions of America. Problem was, in my thirst
for truth, also had a bible to cross reference lies and brainwashing that was being forcefed
from all of them. Right again, I'm a born again Chistian unlike most who call themselves
such. I have no affiliation with any manmade religions and am definitely not seeking to
join one. I have been verbally and physically attacked by several of them, and yet still
standing. Right again, the all good "God" is so perfectly good that He abhors any and all
evil. In my knowledge of the Creator, Hitler has no chance of forgiveness after the
predjudices and attrocities he's committed. Nor mass murderers or those who would
dare harm an innocent child, let alone several of them. I don't think there is enough
prayers in the world to save their souls. Oh I can hear the throngs telling me to "judge not'.
They'll never quote this from the bible; " But he who is spiritual can judge all things, yet
he himself is judged by no man." (P or hypocrits) 1 Cor 2:15. God also says there is
sin so heinous, He asks us not even to pray for. Yes my God is good. He is also fair, most
just, at times disappointed, sometimes angry, forgiving and also the final judge of all men
and women. I wouldn't sell Him short and hope someday day you will come to know the
'True God' and Creator. He's responsible for the creation of everything, which gives Him the
God given right to justly judge us all. He would like all to come to truly know Him, yet isn't
willing to force anyone. With Much Love, Dan
As can be seen, the sun-porch is getting a bit crowded. But there are more than enough similarities all around to make, no doubt, for some consoling bonhomie. And that’s nice.
P, Why are you on the "sun-porch" that you've invented for the rest of us? Could it be you are the Dr. Caligari here? That you are the craziest of us all? You are certainly the most boring. Why don't you ask the nurse for some anti-depresants? Or maybe go to Lourdes for some magic water to wash the sleep from your eyes.
Dan, I'll never be fooled by the lie that is called "faith" again. Thanks for your kindness towards me. I'll stick with the here and now and let " after death" take care of it self.
As readers can see, we are being treated to an extended demonstration of that catty little juvenile gambit wherein two commenters have an ostensible entre-nous in full view of everyone. They couldn’t just email each other and make sure their intimate sharings would remain beyond the reach of assessment? No, they couldn’t: because this little gambit is precisely designed to be overheard, as it were, by everyone else and thus they can get their stuff put up without being responsible for having it ‘overheard’. Who didn’t see this little soap-opera in grade school?
Anyhoo, now comes – had you been waitttttttingggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – not the Servant but ‘Dan’. And ‘Dan’ is going to have a little intimate sharing with ‘Jim’ and – ostensibly – shame on everyone else for reading this little intimate exchange. This is the type of whackery which the internet enables and which so usefully fueled the Stampede’s presence in the webverse.
‘Dan’ shares his variant-version of the basic I-was-a-Catholic script and scenario (minus any ‘abuse’ claim, however).
He is so possessed by his “thirst for truth” that he only relied on the Bible (which, he apparently missed, is the product of the Church’s winnowing in the early centuries of the Christian era). So we get just the usual profoundly problematic Protestant substitution of the ‘Bible’ for the Bible-and-Church-doctrine; this is a problem that was evident even in the Reformation era itself.
But ‘Dan’ – still trailing the sanctimonious whiffs of his Servant-hood – is a “born again Christian”, but – doncha see? – “unlike most who call themselves such”. A truly rare and very speshull bird indeed, then, who is above and beyond any “manmade” religions (thus his own variant of religion is … not “manmade”?).
And – as so very often with Abuseniks – his position (and, but of course, he himself) has been questioned and doubted (or “verbally and even physically attacked”) by … “several” of those “manmade religions”. Apparently, either ‘Dan’ or The Servant has gotten into some brawls.
But – as so very often with Abuseniks – he is a ‘survivor’ and thus he is “yet still standing”. Good for him.
Then a sharing of some of the doctrine of his personal (and not apparently “manmade”) “religion”: God is “all good” and is “so perfectly good that He abhors any and all evil”. True enough, as far as it goes; but Catholicism would add that in His love for sinful humankind, God doesn’t go around smiting everyone who deserves a good whack (as St. Peter observed to Jesus: if God settled for nothing less than all-perfection all-the-time then “Lord, who can stand?”). It has somewhat to do with the death of Jesus on the Cross – but why quibble here at this point?
But St. Peter here won’t help ‘Dan’s abiding effort to justify himself and St. Peter here won’t provide ‘Dan’ and or The Servant with a bat with which to whomp “manmade religion”.
‘Dan’s “knowledge of the Creator” tells him that “Hitler has no chance of forgiveness”. But who knows how, at the Ultimate Moment, God chooses in His love to deal with any errant (even monstrously errant) human being? I’ll leave the problem of Hitler’s ultimate fate to God, Who seems far better equipped and authorized to deal with it.
That won’t be enough for ‘Dan’s construction here, however, since “Hitler” provides a nice tie-in and lead-in to abusive clerics (and, presumably, other child-abusing types) whom ‘Dan’ and The Servant would very much like to consign to perdition, and in so doing, ‘prove’ their own marvelous sanctity or at least sanctimony). Not an unfamiliar gambit in the history of Christianity.
Then we get a pericope from I Corinthians – had you been waitttting forrrr itttttt? – which ‘Dan’ and/or The Servant uses as a bat to take a swipe at all those non-spiritual types such as – had you been waitttting forrrr itttt? – “P or hypocrites” (correction supplied). But the problem with ‘Dan’s reading of Paul here is this: who dares to proclaim himself “spiritual”? (Answer – had you been waitttting forrr itttt?: ‘Dan’ and/or The Servant is indeed “spiritual”. Of course.)
I am not familiar with any Scriptural pericope wherein God considers a sin “so heinous” that God even “asks us not to pray for” … the sin? Would that not be ‘the sinner’ and does ‘Dan’ have a Scriptural basis for that bit?
This non-Apostolic Exhortation then exhorts JR (and the readers who aren’t supposed to be reading it?) to know “the ‘True God’” (Dan’s and/or The Servant’s ‘God’, apparently), who – another whack at just about everybody – has apparently given Himself (or ‘Dan’ and/or The Servant) the “God given right to justly judge us all”. Abusenik theology gets to be as confusing a hall of mirrors as Abusenik claims, allegations, and stories.
And the mash-note concludes with an observation designed to reinforce ‘Dan’s self-justification against “manmade religion” that doth ‘force feed’ and ‘brainwash’ in the service of – had you been waitttting forrr itttt? – “lies”.
And on this basis, ‘Dan’ doth profess “With Much Love” to JR (but not, apparently, to the rest of us who read his mash-note).
Are you jealous?
Publion, 'With Much Love' was directed towards anyone having an ear to hear. Glad to see your dirty litte mind attempting to twist it into meaning something else.The bible
quote you ask for is 1 John 5: 16-17. Also Jeremiah 7:16. Any catholic searching for truth would do themselves well to read Jeremiah chapter 44, Matthew 23 and 24, Romans ch.1, 1 Cor ch.1, Revelations ch. 17 and 18.
P- I had fun playing your infantile game of back and forth, but have come to find you to be a vindictive, judgemental and mean spirited little boy. Go find someone else to play in your nasty sand box. I'm done. See ya!
You don't have to be a psycholgist to know that child molesters have to be tuned over to the police.The cover up goes all the way to St. John Paul II
It goes back to 1962 and John XXIII and all the way back to the Roman Empire.
Time after time, trained "expert" psychologists around the country repeatedly insisted to Church leaders that abusive priests were fit to return to ministry after receiving "treatment" under their care.
(1) Do we have any information re the identity of the psychologists who treated the priests who were sent for treatment?
(2) Do we have any original documents or correspondence verifying the fact that priests were sent for psychological treatment after allegations of sexual abuse?
(3) Do we have any of the reports submitted by treating psychologists with their findings and recommendations?
To answer (1), yeah, there's a fair amount out there if you dig through coverage and archives. The problem is that the "experts" were frequently not actually psychologists (and if they were, they weren't trained for this sort of specialty), and then places like the Institute of Living insist that they told the Church their reports on departing priests were NOT to be used as guides for placing anyone back at a parish.
Ironically, some genuine experts were asked by Law in 1993 to give the Church some guidance about the pedophilic priests. Law had one meeting with them and never talked to them again: http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/060702_law.htm
Same thing with the 1985 report put together by Father Tom Doyle that got buried – it looks like the best advice was also the most difficult to follow/implement, and the Church went the easy route instead. Until the easy route got really, really bad.
Commenter ‘Mike Skiendzielewski’ comes back (the 14th at 348PM) and tries his hand at neutralizing the fact that for quite a while the ‘Globe’ was quite supportive of expert professional therapeutic interventions.
However, he offers nothing except questions (for which there are answers in the past years of comments and articles here – if only, alas, he didn’t feel that reading here was “physically” dangerous to his health.
For starters, he can refer to the sections of comments in the archive here that dealt with materials and documents released (and made available on-line) by various media sources, such as the Los Angeles cache of documents published on-line by the ‘Times’ of that city.
Did he have any specific observations on where he was going with his questions here?
tries his hand at neutralizing the fact that for quite a while the ‘Globe’ was quite supportive of expert professional therapeutic interventions.
If you hear that a professional theraputic intervention is working, then of course you would be supportive of it. You rely on what statistics you can, and the claims of the practicioners, because healthcare is an area riddled with privacy requirements.
In the case of the Archdiocese of Boston, they had PROOF that it DIDN'T work – these "recovered" men kept coming back and abusing more children, and being placed back in therapy, only to emerge and abuse again.
If your employee is a kleptomaniac and a compulsive gambler, and you put him in therapy and the therapist says he's cured, then feel free to let him around your cashbox again – the collateral you're putting up against your belief in this employee is your own money, so if you're wrong and he runs off to Vegas, the only one hurt is you. But the Church wasn't using its own collateral. It was using children. It was making a risky bet knowing that if that bet was wrong, children would be irreservibly damaged.
So my quesion here would be: what on earth does the Globe's support of expert therapy have to do with the Church's firm knowledge that their therapy of choice WASN'T WORKING?
John XXIII ordered excomunnication to anyone who brings "scandal to the church". The threat was only used against victims and our families and witnesses never against the perpetrators.
On the 14th at 514PM JR will try (maybe he thinks we’ve all forgotten) to run by us yet again his 3×5 about John XXIII (whom he once reported was giving an audience at the Vatican in the early 1990s) and his 1962 protocol about secrecy.
As was pointed out here at length at the time, and with reference to the text of that 1962 document, John’s strictures bound only those who were the official (i.e. ordained) participants in any canonical proceeding that would involve scandal and harm to any (lay) person making a complaint. Thus the objective of that document was to prevent clerics from revealing any information outside of the canonical process that might bring harm or scandal to the person – today we might say ‘the victim’ – making the complaint. It was – we might say today – a very ‘victim-sensitive’ and ‘victim-friendly’ papal order.
Well James, excommunnication today from the catholic church is virtually nil. Maybe only a handful every couple of years. Those who are catholic and have committed what the catholic church defines as mortal/deadly sins such as murder, rape, euthanasia only to mention a few have nothing to worry about of being excomminicated. Even the act of having an abortion that carries an automatic excommunication, ladies fear not you too are safe. The catholic church today cannot excommunicate anyone they barely have enough to partialy fill the pews now. Since in the eyes of the church I am still catholic I can walk into a church get my hands on some blessed communion wafers and with the priest standing on the alter fling them around the room like little friz-bees and still not get excommunicated. Sadly enough comes the second part. Those like me who want to be officially excommunicated from the catholic church cannot be excommunicated even after writing letters to pastors, bishops and the holy see denouncing the catholic church. The motto once a catholic always a catholic I guess. That's not a rule I follow and many others follow who left the church. So James excommunnication is used mainly as a threat and not a rule and even if somehow you do get excommunicated its built into church law ways to wiggle your way back in. So excommunication is far from being permanent. p.s. drop me a line fill you in on what's going on if not everything is going great.
You're attempting to shoot the messenger here. The Catholic Church had a moral responsibility to its congregants to protect them, and it didn't. Even sidestepping the responsibility of reporting abuse to civil authorities, we see that the Church routinely reassigned their pedophile priests to new parishes, with no safeguards or proper oversight.
You seem to want to defend the Church by claiming that they were misled by secular mental health professionals. Really? If you go to a dentist and the crown he cemented keeps coming off, you get a second or third opinion – if we exercise that sort of rigor with dentistry, how can we possibly defend an organization that repeatedly saw "cured" priests relapse and injure children? At that point common sense should step in. It didn't.
("The Institute of Living" was hardly a secular organization, by the way, and it does you a disservice to paint it as such: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/06/09/fathers-helper)
The Globe was right to point out that child abuse was a corruptive, systemic problem at the core of the Church's organizational structure. The Church protected priests and power over children. They utterly deserved this comeuppance. Coming from a Boston Catholic family, it was compeletely stunning to see the older generation's reaction to this series – the sad resignation and admission that they'd known there were "funny" priests.
I just don't see what your goal is here in trying to throw mud when the fact is: Cardinal Bernard Law and his predecessor, and other cardinals across the globe, turned a blind eye to the ongoing abuse of children under their care. There is no honor or glory in shielding an institution from having to face up to its own bad actions.
Your New Yorker article does nothing to refute the undeniable fact that the Institute of Living was indeed a secular organization.
We invite you to check out the book Sins of the Press to learn more about this issue.
Very few truly secular organizations feature this sort of structure:
The article also makes it clear that the Institute was firm that its conclusions were NOT to be used as a recommendation for whether or not a priest should be placed back in a parish, and the Institute also says that the Church withheld very pertinent information about lapsing priests.
And then there's the specific example of Geoghan getting out of the Institute with a warning against his contact with minors, then Banks REAPPLYING for "clarification" that would clear him for parish service. Note that Geoghan was already the parish at this time.
The Archdiocese were using the Institute as a fig leaf, another version of the priest warehouses. The responsibility for monitoring the behavior of an employee remains with the employer, not the treatment facility – especially when the facility has explicitly said "we can't make any guarantees about this guy and kids".
And it is of course also worthwhile to point out that the Institute was financially reliant on the Church by the 80s. But on paper, yes, the organization was secular. That's not actually the point, other than acknowledging anything eminating from the Institute was likely to be very favorable for the Church. It's much more relevant to ask why anyone should care if a secular organization provided the Church with counseling services? It was the Church's responsibility to monitor the behavior of priests in its organization. The Institute would only be responsible for inpatients under its care.
As for the book? You're not really convincing me on the merits of your writing in your blog post or in your (disturbingly juvenile in tone) responses, why on earth would I buy a whole book?
‘Miranda’ comes (the 14th at 738PM) to assert that ‘you’ (presumably TMR and DP) are merely “attempting to shoot the messenger here”.
But this simply runs the old Abusenik gambit of starting the play at first instead of with an at-bat at home plate. We have been assessing here whether the ‘message’ that ‘the messenger’ delivered was actually accurate.
And, for that matter, whether the ‘messenger’ was reliable. It is a curious fact that in all the PR tied to the release of the ‘Spotlight’ flik, that ‘Globe’ editor and that tortie did not permit themselves to come before the cameras and microphones. They may well have attended the gala screening for the media on Thursday the 5th, and the “swanky” party immediately after. But they didn’t show themselves in any way in which they would have to take questions (or even – amazingly – be photographed).
That “help” that the tortie agreed to give the editor: brushing aside the literal – and as used by them quite probably misleading – sense of that term “help”, what were the terms and conditions of this alliance between the editor looking to make a splash and the tortie looking to make a bundle ‘for’ or ‘on’ clients who at that time were not even known to exist? This question will have to be dealt with when the actual history of the Stampede comes to be written.
The Church did not “routinely” re-assign accused priests – not from any material we have seen on this site over the years, and that includes the sizable and much-ballyhooed document dump by the LA ‘Times’. Priests were sent for evaluation, in many cases to centers specifically set up with professional staffs, in order to prevent the accused from being insufficiently examined and/or treated in mainstream institutions that were used to dealing with violent and deeply-deranged sexual predators, the parameters of whose behaviors and problems did not often apply to accused priests. (The Stampede solution to this uncongenial reality: claim that the Church only set up such institutions to ‘hide’ the clerics and treat them with kid gloves.)
And while we have seen on this site some cases where either a) priests continued to fail after then being allowed back for ‘another chance’, and while we have seen some cases where cognizant hierarchs were far too hopeful and optimistic that a priest could be ‘salvaged’, yet there we have seen many cases where priests were removed from ministerial duties permanently and even laicized. Although to do that, Rome had to make the decision and – given especially the history in Europe of priests being accused of sexual improprieties as a way of weakening of the Church that extends back to Bismarck’s Kulturkampf against the Church and on through Soviet and Nazi efforts along the same lines – Rome was leery of contributing to something of that sort starting up again.
Which is not in any way to deny that some priests should have been permanently removed from ministry far earlier than they were, but then those decades existed in a different time from the Victimist ‘present’ or ‘nowadays’.
At this point, the Church has the strongest protocols in place of any organization of comparable or even lesser size, public or private, in the world.
Nor is psychological assessment as simple and clear and palpably demonstrable as a defective crown on a tooth. Nor, for that matter, as clear and ‘simple’ a diagnostic challenge as a physical problem such as a broken bone or a ruptured appendix.
“Common sense” is a vital and necessary element, surely. But when you are talking about a person’s livelihood, then the responsibility for ending it weighs heavily on any official, especially if there is doubt as to the validity of the accusation or claim or story made against him.
All of these elements weighed in the decisions – good ones or bad ones – made by hierarchs. I am certainly not seeking to “defend” every instance and every decision made by every hierarch in every case, but I am certain of the basic principles governing (what now has to be) historical assessment of past events in other times.
And those principles, taken in conjunction with the evidentiary record and a knowledge of the substantial difference between one era and another, and specifically in regard to the many ‘changes’ introduced in public opinion and law and jurispraxis in regard to sexual accusations, and further specifically in regard to the asserted visions of a Church consisting primarily or largely of rapine-besotted priests and cynically enabling hierarchs that has existed for centuries or millennia … when all of these elements are brought into play, as they must be, then one should be very careful in presuming the validity of claims – even and especially ones that ‘everyone knows’ – about the matter.
There no doubt were “funny” priests as there were and are “funny” teachers and “funny” professors and “funny’ police officers and “funny” elected officials and even, in that sense, “funny” parents and relatives of children. Surely, if current claims by certain advocates and politicians are true, the military is shot-through with “funny” types.
And I would say that the ‘Globe’ was right to take up the subject as a focus for its research and for any genuine reporting and journalism it could provide. But what we saw with the ‘Globe’ was something else: a heavily-strategized and seriously one-sided and hostile focus on whatever furthered what I call the Stampede (to the great benefit of the tort attorney(s) who ‘helped’ the paper) and the failure or even systematic refusal to more fully and complexly explore and genuinely report on the entire issue.
And the recent ‘Spotlight’ movie, and the PR gambits surrounding it, does very much the same thing.
Thus nobody is trying to “throw mud” here and – in light of what I have said here – one must be careful about what one terms a “fact” (as in a demonstrated fact) and the conclusions one draws from such actual facts as are demonstrated and relevant. That’s just Historical Method 101.
The Spotlight team have spoken about the case. I've seen video of all of them taking questions, and I've read an interview with Baron. You're trying to make a fuss about peripheral characters in the film not joining the press junket?
I would agree that the view of how to treat pedophelia morphed significantly over the 30-40 years covered in the Spotlight articles. But the change in understanding of pedophelia becomes much less relevant the moment a priest had his first relapse, abusing a new victim, because at that point it's pretty clear that whatever the treatment is, it hasn't worked sufficiently to prevent harm to a child. This in particular I have difficulty sympathizing with:
The priesthood is not a livelihood that mandates close contact with children. All of these priests could have been placed in environments where their contact with children was minimized; not only did that not happen, but they were frequently placed in parishes where their direct superiors were not given a hint of warning to watch out for relapse. These men were not doomed to lose their employment in the Church, though the nature and oversight of that employment might change – instead the Church placed these men in the midst of children and then looked away. You do not give men second, third, sixth totally unmonitored chances to prove they won't rape a child.
You seem to think the Spotlight approached the entire issue in a way that was somehow unfair to the Church. Exactly what approach would you have preferred that the Spotlight team take?
PS - If you want to engage new participants in this conversation, don't use your own created, inside-baseball language. "Abusenik" is not a word. "The Stampede" is not a helpful catchall. "that tortie" is meaningless and derisive. Just speak plainly.
I thought that the Roman authorities had stated that it was the Jews and Masons that made up those stories of abuse. Roma locutus est, casus finitus est.
FOR DAVID PIERRE……………PLEASE RESPOND…..
Time after time, trained "expert" psychologists around the country repeatedly insisted to Church leaders that abusive priests were fit to return to ministry after receiving "treatment" under their care.
(1) Do we have any information re the identity of the psychologists who treated the priests who were sent for treatment?
(2) Do we have any original documents or correspondence verifying the fact that priests were sent for psychological treatment after allegations of sexual abuse?
(3) Do we have any of the reports submitted by treating psychologists with their findings and recommendations?
http://www.themediareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Geoghan-1989-letter-reasonable-therapeutic.pdf
[Addendum: There is reportedly a second letter – from 1990 – in which Dr. Swords wrote, "From what I could gather [Fr. Geoghan] continues to do well and remains psychologically fit for pastoral work in general, including children. He monitors himself well and from what he tells me has his sex drive under firm control." I have not seen the hard copy.]
Several things to keep in mind. In many instances these "prpfessional Psychologiosts, were themselves members of the clergy, a fact not noted here. Further these same clergy members answer to a bishop, So what logical conclusion do you think they would come to?
Then we have several grand jury reports, Philadelphia is one such example, where cleary those "professionals" said the priest MUST NOT be returned to ministry or be left alone with children. The Cardinal ordered the report to be re-written so as to allow the Cardinal to return the priest to ministry. Just read the report and you will see several such examples. The final decision was ALWAYS the bishops or Cardinals who were in charge, not the counselors. You mean to tell me these Officials of the church had no idea that the molestation of children was against the law? Nonsense, all nonsense and an atempt to deflect thier own responsability.
The well known and highly respected, TV appearing Franciscan therapist, Fr Benedict Groeschel, used to treat and clear priests from the New York Archdiocese and for many religious orders, as he worked at Trinity Retreat House, in Larchmont NY. He cleared the way for several clergy mebers to return to ministry, who then reoffended. This is the same man who was forced into retirement after BLAMING teenagers for seducing these priests which caused public outrage and a huge backlash. Now do you understand the mindset of the men who cleared these priests for a return to ministry? I have no doubt that some who post here might agree with his assesment, it was the childs fault.
Yet our church ALSO had other well known Phsychologist who tried to warn church officials about the devestating impact of clergy abuse and the impact it would have on the church if the practice of "recycling" these men was not stopped. THAT REPORT (I think was it the early 70's) which was to be presented to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, was deep-sixed at the last minute and never presented. They choose to ignore that professional….you decide why? Yes that was Father Tom Doyle, a Dominican priest who once worked at the Vatican Embassy in Washington DC. , who wrote it along with a layman. It is just awful to hear church officials or other layman repeat Catholic Officials attempt at deflecting resoponsability when they say…."Professdionals told them it was okay to return him to ministry". Again, some of you fail to understand, such a response doesn't hold water, and does not serve our church well.
Do we need to buy your book "Sins of the Press" so we can hear more of the excuses, lies, accusations blaming everyone else, defending pedophiles and child molesters, threatening anyone with excommunication who exposes the deception and hiding offenders behind the Vatican walls to protect them from the proper authorities. Would you also like to applaud Bishop Robt. Cunningham for his court deposition when referring to the victim of a priest; "the boy is culpable".and in regards to victims called them "accomplices". Maybe you guys can have a seance and conjure up the spirit of Father Groeschel, so he can explain to all of us how " A lot of the cases the youngsters-14-16-18- is the seducers." Maybe he could tell you how as a church appointed counselor, with a doctorate in psychology, that he was the revolving door, forgiving guilty priests, blame the mean old Devil for doing it, say ten Hail Marys and get back on the horse and we'll send you out to another unsuspecting church or orphanages full of young virgin flesh. Maybe if your good the Guinness World Record for a priest or bishop molesting children is under 400. Seems doable and maybe you can even win some of those Pullitzer Prizes like the Boston Globe did. Heads up guys. I think we're all onto you. Read the bible, for unless you've committed the unforgivable sin, there still may be a chance to change.
I say it would be a waste of money to buy the book. That is unless your interested into reading more whining that you can already here for free from Dave or Publion, and if this site is not enough you can always go to Bigtrial.net and read from this guy who in his own mind claims to be a journalist.
What's the "unforgivable sin"? Not believing in god?
**No you moron. Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people. **
You mean the catechism that teaches "THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON" and the Virtue of "CHARITY"? The same Catechism that probably forbids calling people "morons"?
**Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people. Fidelity to the Chair of Peter. Not a person enthroned who attempts to steer his people away from it.**
The call to "Fidelity"! It started with a few kook priests and Carol McKinley telling people not to follow them, but to follow the local ordinary (Cardinal Law) who carries the authority of Rome here in Boston.
Then they took away Cardinal Law..and replaced him with Bishop O'Malley. Carol Mckinley had high hopes, but soon found out that O'Malley wasn't to Carol's liking. Carol told people, he's only a Bishop…makes sure you are following a Price of the Church…a Cardinal! They are the only ones that carry the authority from Rome….not just any "Bishop".
They, guess what? They made O'Malley a CARDINAL! (Just like CARDINAL Law! SO he must carry the authority of Rome to Boston, no?)
But…we quickly found out that even a Cardinal Archbishop….a "Prince of the Church" didn't have enough authority for Carol. Now, she claimed "Fidelity" to the Pope…not Bishops, not priests, not Pastors, not Cardinals.
THEN..The pope retires…and is replaced by another Pope. And quickly Carol McKinley finds out that possibly she has been wrong all along…and her claim of "Fidelity" as just a "cover" to follow only her own desires and really not submit to any authority. So much for "Fidelity", eh?
All this talk of "Fidelity"…had to change, because it became clear that she was only Faithful to her own thoughts and ideas. She had "Fidelity" to anyone that agreed with her. With all her blogging and busybody work, she realized onething…that, in effect…SHE wanted to be a pastor, a bishop, a cardinal…SHE wants to be the Pope! The arbiter of what is allowed, what isn't. Carol wants to be the disciplinarian! All this is at odds with someone who claims to follow Spiritual Authority and has "Fidelity".
So we have seen through the veneer of, so called, "Fidelity. (Notice the old "Magisterial Fidelity" blog has gone fallow.) We have already pointed out that this claim of fidelity to the Catechism is flawed as well, calling people names, etc., no talk of charity, respect or the worth of the individual The fidelity to the Catechism is only in effect when she agrees with it.
I don't see any indication that the Catechisms teaching of humility and pride are being adhered to. Do you?
I Think we've pointed out the fallacy of Carol McKinley's "Fidelity".
As far as Magisterial or the Magisterium, Carol here is a refresher course:
"In Catholicism, the Magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested UNIQUELY in the POPE and the BISHOPS who are in communion with him."
Sorry Charlie….err…Carol.
Get on thy knees and meditate of the teachings of Humility and Pride.
Well I have to say I don't know what to make of all this, but I would like to get this and Dave's other two books, even if I don't agree with everything in them. Then again, I mightn't agree with everything in Spotlight either. I mean, I think it is hypocritcal of Hollywood to be releasing such a film when so many other Hollywood films seem to mock Christianity, but I will probably go to see it anyhow.
Now this is not an attempt to let the Church off the hook here, as Miranda and Dan point out, the Church deserves all the scorn it gets, but so many critics are only doing so to justify their desent from Church teaching on things like abortion and same sex marriage and things like that, making them just as bad as the Church itself. They are not that worried about the poor victims.
I also trust that Miranda and Dan are just as upset about falsey accused priests as they (rightly) are about the same sex scandal.
I've known a lot of really wonderful priests, both as part of a parish and as part of educational institutions. It's also pretty important to note that the percentage of pedophiles in the Church is around the same as in the general population. The difference is that the Church had a perfect storm of institutional respect, political power and religious insulation that led to this weird, myopic view of the priests as repenting sinners, and a huge crazy blind spot for Catholic children.
I don't have much faith that the Church gets it, even now. Cardinal Law is in the Vatican somewhere, and I don't think he understands what he did – in fact it sounds like he feels he was unjustly persecuted. Part of the reason I left the Church is that I realized exactly how marginalized women are inside of it, and I think that's part of what we saw with this situation – when you look back in the records there are a hell of a lot of laywomen blowing their tops, and they're told to quiet down, that the Church will take care of it. If there had been some women inside the actual power structures of the Church, I don't think this would've ended up this way. I also wonder if we'd've seen some different results if priests were allowed to marry – again, this isn't talking about the pedophile priests themselves, but more wondering about the culture of silence that somehow allowed many celibate men to hear about this state of affairs and then let it continue.
As for falsely accused sexual predators – they're rare, whether they're a priest or a teenager or a math teacher. And in this case there's a financial motivation, which puts me more in mind of the scammers who claimed to be victims of the Boston Marathon bombings more than anything else. Falsely accused priests are upsetting on a micro level, in that it's an individual interaction that's very damaging. I am far more upset about the Spotlight scandal because it exposed the macro level of abuse: a well-organized process that didn't just impact one individual, but practically industrialized they whole thing.
On the 14th at 946PM we get a performance that will not be unfamiliar to regular readers here.
First, as to the Scriptural references:
As to 1 John 5: 16-7: Within the overall context in 1 John 5 of the contrast and dichotomy between light and darkness, the specific pericope refers merely to the Spirit/Paraclete as being modeled on Christ as the Paraclete (vs. 16). And a person who had not embraced or turned-toward God could not be purified.
But this pericope does not at all address the questions of i) how ‘Dan’ considers himself as being ‘of the light’ (while, of course, those whom he indicts are indubitably ‘of the darkness’) nor ii) since the Bible is surely a product of “manmade religion” (since it was the Church that determined its final content) then how or why is ‘Dan’ relying on it and quoting it to us and referring back to it? So we are not back to square-one here; we have never left it – as far as ‘Dan’s pericope goes.
As to Jer 7:16: This is part of a speech on cultic issues. Jeremiah is told by the Lord to “pray not for this people”, since they had stolen, murdered, committed adultery, sworn falsely, and burnt incense unto Baal, on the basis of which God will cast out “even the whole seed of Ephraim”.
This is a) a blanket condemnation of “the whole seed of Ephraim” for its general sinfulness and idolatry and b) this is an Old Testament passage that has to be somehow squared with the New Testament and Christ’s Gospel. And in Peter’s “Lord, who then can stand?” we hear an echo of precisely the problem posed by this pericope in Jeremiah.
This is the type of problem you are going to run into when you flit from Book to Book simply looking for ‘proof-texts’ that you find personally appealing: you lose the tremendously complex but comprehensive overall Sense of the Bible’s message, as it was fulfilled in Christ. As has been seen throughout the ages, there have been many who have picked out this or that strand in the Bible and on that basis and only that basis, have set up for themselves while claiming the absolute validity of their personal illuminations.
As to Jer 44: The chapters from 42 through the 30th verse of 44 relate the end of Jeremiah’s life and how he has failed to alter the idolatry and immorality of the whole of the Jewish people. What are we to make of it here? That ‘Dan’ and/or The Servant sees himself as an un-respected Jeremiah against … an entire people? And if so, what or which entire people?
And the 44th chapter specifically deals with Jeremiah’s last words – which in the context of its inclusion in comments here suggest nothing so much as some sort of histrionic J’Accuse! against … well, pretty much everybody on the planet.
What we are getting here are simply a bunch of Scriptural bits that ‘Dan’ and/or The Servant has put together for himself and his own personal consolation or some such.
As to Matt 23 and 24: This is an assemblage of Woes and an Eschatalogical Discourse that speaks of – among other things – The Great Tribulation, the Coming of the Son of Man, the Faithful and the Unfaithful Servant (we know that ‘Dan’ has appointed (or cast) himself as The Faithful guy), the Wise and the Foolish Virgins (ditto, mutatis mutandis), and the Judgment of the Nations.
We are still left with Peter’s acute observation to Jesus that if all-perfection-all-the-time is the only thing that will keep God pleased, “who then can stand?”.
But clearly, in either the ‘Dan’ or The Servant hat, this commenter is really deeply into getting-back-at a whole lot of people for their failures (to heed his revelations?).
As to Romans 1: Paul introduces himself to the Christian church in Rome, establishing his authority to speak to them.
What relevance this has here is uncertain, unless ‘Dan’ sees himself as also having established his authority to ‘pronounce the Woes’ against all and sundry. I can only remind him that in the third chapter at verse 23 Paul says that “all have sinned” and I’ll leave that daunting complexity for The Servant’s further private consideration. In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary the Scripture scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. puts it thus: “Christian salvation, embracing all human beings, copes with the universality of sin among them”. Does The Servant see himself as included in this category or does he see Paul’s point here as somehow not applying to him?
As to 1 Cor 1: Paul makes two basic points. First, that if there are divisions in the Christian community then Christ is also divided by them and second, that God does not judge by the standards of fallen humanity. But of what relevance is this to The Servant’s reference to it here at this point? Is The Servant – in his own estimation – somehow beyond humanity in his (asserted) judgments (somewhat like a wizard judging the lowly muggles of humankind)? For if The Servant is just another member of the muggle-mob that is humankind, whence then his ‘authority’ and his judgments as to who should be in perdition and so on and so forth?
As to Rev 17 and 18: These chapters simply contain more visions of the punishment of Babylon. And here they simply reinforce the already strong impression that ‘Dan’/The Servant is reely reely into punishment … of others. And that’s as may be.
Continuing with my thoughts on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 14th at 946PM:
And we are now given the following excuse: “With Much Love” was directed – in a nice Scriptural tone – to “anyone having an ear to hear”. And yet his comment (the 13th as 630PM) was specifically addressed to ‘Jim’ (“Hey Jim, A few things I would like to make sure you understand in regards to where I'm coming from.”) – this is not an address to everybody.
Or did the Authorial and Servant-ile mind suddenly change course at the end of the comment and imagine itself talking to a larger audience all of a sudden?
But it can come as no surprise to regular readers here that ‘Dan’/The Servant starts – in a very old and familiar gambit seen here on this site more than a few times – heading for the curtains to get off stage.
In light of my “dirty little mind” – doncha see? – and although he’s reely reely “had fund playing [my] infantile game of back and forth” yet – alas and ahem – more pressing responsibilities and duties summon him elsewhere forthwith since – had you been waittttting forrrr ittttt? – I am found by the True Servant and his Great Eye to be “a vindictive, judgemental and mean spirited little boy”.
And since that’s all I am, then the True Servant – so much like the disrespected Jeremiah and having pronounced his favorite Woes – doth proclaim and declaim thus: “I’m done”.
Nor does he intend to further expose himself by “playing in [my] nasty sandbox”. It’s really all a game to Abuseniks, or a show, and when they don’t get applause and a bouquet of roses then they will shake the dust off their costume and head for some other place, but certainly off the stage.
But then but then: that last “See ya!” pretty much gives the game away: the authoritative tiara of the authorized True Servant suddenly slips off and we find some sort of juvenile little boy. As the brethren and sistern of the eighteenth century would have said: La!
Note to all readers: when you encounter Abusenik presentations, you are expected to see yourself as attending a performance, and you are expected to have the decency and good manners to keep quiet during the performance and not ask questions. At the end, of course, you may strew or even toss roses (preferably not cheap ones) if you so desire. And you must realize that there is no post-performance Q&A in showbiz.
There is an op-ed in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal that brings us something almost marvelous (and in order not to give the point away too soon, I will identify the article at the end of this comment).
Reflecting on recent events on a number of college campuses – wherein various students managed to effect the resignation of ranking university officials on the basis of assorted complaints and demands – author Roger Kimball identifies what he calls “the rise of the college crybullies” (italics mine; you can also hyphenate the word as cry-bullies or, in the singular, cry-bully).
A ‘cry-bully’, simultaneously “tender and vicious”, has “weaponized his coveted status as a victim”.
Thus, while claiming to be a ‘victim’ and to have been ‘victimized’, a cry-bully will use this claimed status to aggressively … well, agress-against assorted persons or institutions he sees as rightful targets of his agenda. (Kimball uses the masculine pronoun throughout, and I am following him here so as not to interfere with the quotations from his piece.)
Decades of Victimism have led to this – although what is just coming to wide attention on university campuses is something with which readers here might consider themselves familiar.
The op-ed is entitled “The Rise of the College Crybullies”, authored by Roger Kimball, and it appears in the print edition of the Wall Street Journal print edition of Saturday/Sunday, November 14-15, 2015 (informally known as the Weekend Edition of the paper), in the ‘Opinion’ section, page A-9.
You should know about "crybullies' you're the biggest one here. The Wall Street Journal!
So David, are you a bit peeved that the movie "Spotlight" is getting more attention than your new book? Can I ask, does this book have anything to do with the movie Spotlight as the graphic above implies? If so I would like to know when you saw, or if you intend to see this movie as it was only released a few days ago. You wrote and published this book in just a few short days? You must have done some mad research…or more likely, none at all. Hoping to peddle your own book to the few. I am guessing you self published. How many copies did you have printed…15, maybe 20? I imagine you will tell us you have thousands of orders so far, or at least hope for that. But by seeing the same 5 or so who post here, I hope you don't loose too much money.
The only reason I post here is because I have tried numerous times to unsubscribe from your e-mails but no matter what I do, they just keep coming.
Alright Publion…I am awaiting your 10,000 word response.
We’re not sure why your attempts to unsubscribe were unsuccessful, but we have unsubscribed you as you wish.
Thank you.
‘Another Mark’ comes (the 15th at 942AM) true to form, merely tossing up a pastiche of the usual distractive Abusenik and Stampede gambits: innuendo, epithet, and a great deal of his own ‘guessing’ and ‘imagining’.
And as if that weren’t enough to reveal the gentleman, we are then given a fundamentally incoherent excuse for his putting up a comment at all: He only does so – doncha see? – because he can’t unsubscribe from TMR emails. Readers so inclined can a) try to suss out the logic in that bit and b) consider the quality of mentation that could produce it.
We are back to the lesser-precincts of the high-school cafeteria.
A “10,000 word response” is hardly necessary to deal with such stuff.
'Miranda' on the 15rh at 5.50 pm, gives an analogy which appears superficially plausible, until you think it through.
She talks about an employee who is a known kleptomaniac and gambler, presumably he is thought to me a reformed character, so he is given another chance. Put back to work… with access to the cash box. Then he reverts to form, and again starts dipping into the cash box, but remarkably is given even more chances?? Can your believe it??
So surely that is irresponsible, maybe the boss is in collusion with the guy. Her point being that it wasn't the Church's cash, but the sexual abuse of altar boys. Yeah right… we get the analogy. Just one small problem… it's rubbish.
Speaking as a former altar boy (and former auditor)… it is rubbish. The proof that he was stealing again would be that the money was again disappearing, from the cash box. We know that a crime has been committed, so that is the tangible red flag.
But in the case of an accusation from an altar boy…we do not have proof…we only have an accusation. But why would he make it up?. Well personally I did not want to get up at 6.00 am on a cold morning to serve at mass. Were I a convincing liar I might have used the rumour, regarding Father X ,and said he was getting too familiar with me. A perfect excuse to convince my protective parents.So I artfully get out of being an altar boy. Great! But as collateral damage the priest's reputation is further damaged. What do I care? Maybe the rumour was true…. or not? But if you give a dog a bad name……..?
Miranda is desperately trying to justify the merciless media campaign against Cardinal Law, it won't work…. not by using rubbish analogies.
Malcom Harris, here's the flaw in your example:
What rumor. These parents, and these kids, had no idea that there was a sex abuse problem in the church. As Geoghan (and others) were moved from parish to parish, no one within that parish was given warning that he might have a sexual attraction to young boys. There WAS NO RUMOR. Hard to believe in an internet-connected society today, but before the mid-90s if a priest moved to a parish 60 miles away, then he was pretty much out of your life. When you then also factor in the Church's urging that parents basically bury what happened to their kids on the rare occasions they figured out what was going on, there were just no opportunities for rumor to start. Parents weren't talking, kids weren't talking, the Church certainly wasn't talking, not even to its own staff. And you're floating the idea a sixth grader somehow heard his priest had fiddled young boys and decided to claim he'd been molested? Seriously?
Everything we know about this scandal shows how impossible it was for young children to disobey the commands of "godly" men in positions of authority without a massive amount of courage or coincidental discovery. The idea that altar boys ducked early morning wakeup calls by just so happening to level incredibly accusations at priests who had unknown-to-the-parish backgrounds including sexual offenses against children? That is laughable.
Malcolm, I should also note that you've missed the core of the analogy, which is that the Church made a gamble with a resource that wasn't theirs to stake. The analogy is highlighting the step before the step you focus on, the reoffense.
To streamline the example: I am totally okay with you inviting your kleptomaniac friend Jake into your home because you believe he is recovered. That's your assessment, and it's your risk. You're choosing to trust that this individual will not steal your stuff, and if he does end up relapsing, well – you're missing some of your stuff.
But if I'm your neighbor and tell you I'll be out of town for a few weeks and ask you to do our usual neighborly exchange of watering each other's plants while we're out, and you then hand my housekeys over to Jake and tell him to housesit for me for a few days? That's no longer your stuff you're gambling with. Now you're not only gambling with my belongings, you have carefully avoided telling me "Hey, Jake once sold all of my sister's good silver and most of her jewelry". You've lied by omission, probably because you know full well I wouldn't want Jake near my stuff.
Why on earth would I not hold both you and Jake responsible when I return and discover that all of my family antiques have vanished?
Shame on you! For you to think that catholic children would lie about being sexually abused to avoid serving mass, denegrates your own children. That seems to be a given in real catholicism. Blame all to protect the few.
On the 15th at 605PM ‘Miranda’ reveals a point of some interest as regards her take on matters: to consider “the priests” (i.e. those whom she considers – whether clinically or popularly – as “pedophiles”) to be “repenting sinners” is “weird” and “myopic”.
From someone who has just said that she has had (presumably extensive) experiences of the Church through participation in parish life and “as part of educational institutions”, it seems a rather jangling dissonance that she would consider it “weird” and “myopic” to consider any human being – and we are all sinners – from the point of view of repentance.
“Repentance” is, of course, not a simple affair; one can re-orient one’s soul and self to God while still remaining responsible for accepting consequences of any sinful actions one has committed. But there is hardly anything “weird” or “myopic” about the Church’s concerns here.
And while ‘Miranda’ – as she says – may not “have much faith that the Church gets it, even now”, the fact remains that the Church now has as an organization and institution a set of protocols in place that surpass any other institutions one might think of. And their success is evidenced by the precipitous drop-off in current-time allegations (as well as ‘historical’ allegations) in the years since those protocols were initially implemented.
In other words, her “faith” about this may be her choice, but I don’t see how it can claim to be supported by demonstrable facts (which, as with the numbers just mentioned, appear clearly to demonstrate just the opposite of what her chosen “faith” here might be telling her).
What she thinks about what Cardinal Law thinks is her speculation but nothing more; and in light of her “faith” comment immediately preceding the Cardinal-Law reference, she would appear to be pre-disposed toward speculating in a negative way. Which is as may be.
You misunderstand. It is not the extension or forgiveness or possibility of repentance that is myopic – the Church's one-on-one dealings with their wayward priests is largely their spiritual business. The problem is that the Church viewed these events and SOLELY sins within a single individual and applied spiritual solutions, again only to that individual.
That's what myopic means: missing the forest for the trees. The myopic view comes from the shortsightedness of hearing a priest had molested a child and then focusing ONLY on that priest's spiritual salvation. In focusing so intently on the wayward priests and the reputation of the Church, the Archdiocese utterly neglected children who had already been terribly harmed…. and then set up more children in situations where they had a higher chance of being harmed. Again, without oversight, because apparently the Church was so afraid of damaging a priest's reputation that they didn't bother to inform his coworkers that safeguards should be put in place. It is utterly weird that no one within the Catholic Church realized that children had been terribly harmed and needed to be cared for. Instead, they were ignored.
Continuing in regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 15th at 605PM:
Then we start heading into women-in-the-Church bits and they are there for anyone to consider as they may. However my own thoughts do not tend toward that now-familiar trope to the effect that if women had more authority in the Church then abuse would not have happened: surely in fields such as politics and diplomacy we have seen and are seeing that women have not amassed a much better – if any better – record than men. The profound frailties and frakkeries of human nature are far too robust to be subdued by the contemporary ideology of gender and its politics and rhetoric.
However, her concluding paragraph yields a clear demonstration of ‘convenient presumptions’: in the matter of “falsely accused sexual predators – they’re rare”. This wishing-away of uncongenial and inconvenient possibilities or probabilities is a classic warning sign that one has departed from the narrow path of rational and factual assessment. Its obverse form is the ungrounded assertion of entities or phenomena that do exist.
I could refer her to Judge Kosinki’s material, discussed in prior comments on this thread (as well as Judge Schiltz’s comments in the archives here), as elements to be considered in weighing the probability that the instances of falsely-accused (and if Judge Kosinki is correct, even falsely-confessed) persons in sexual cases is not “rare”; meaning, of course, that there would also be false-accusers.
Nor is it any great consolation to read her effort to i) explain-away the problem further with her distinction between the “micro level” (where one might become seduced, perhaps, into some amount of sentimental feeling for the individual accused) and the “macro level of abuse” (where one must presume the existence of ‘structural’ enabling elements). One must surely consider both.
But can one then go further down that road and presume or assert that in the service of the “macro” then the “micro” chips must be allowed to fall where they may? This gets perilously close to the old Leninist saw about eggs needing to be broken to make an omelette; which itself betokens the praxis of ‘revolutionary justice’ (i.e. in a great and good Cause, no mere individual concerns can be allowed to interfere-with or obstruct the implacable march of the Cause). It also, nicely, trails such ancillary but necessary phenomena as ‘show trials’, the connection of which with sex-abuse and Stampede trials is a rich lode yet to be sufficiently mined.
No institution is well-served by a homogenous ruling class, especially one that has been further constricted by eliminating marriage. I never made the claim that the abuse would not have happened at all, but I do think it would have ended differently. Part of what I do is researching group dynamics – there are marked differences when women get involved in politics. The US is only beginning to see the impact of women in politics because the numbers are starting to shift from standalone politicians to groups working together. When groups of women start coordinating within political frameworks, you'll see those impact figures rise.
Go ahead and post some figures about false reporting on sex crimes, I'll come right back with more reliable sources that aren't cherry-picked judges.
Micro/macro: I was asked if I felt as upset about false priest accusations as I am about the Spotlight-covered scandal. I thought I was making myself clear in noting that I'm more upset about Spotlight because it's on a macro level, showing a concerned effort to bury many, many micro instances (the individual assaults). If you show me an organized effort by many individual (micro) false priest accusations, then I'll get angrier about that then I am about a single false abuse allegation. Does that clear things up for you? One is a single instance; the other is a machine. The machine is capable of replicating the act again and again. That's why the machine is scarier and more outrageous.
Continuing in regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 15th at 605PM:
Nor is it anything less than ‘minimizing’ to characterize false-accusers as nothing more than “scammers” looking for cash, whether specifically in the Stampede or more generally in sexual-accusation cases.
First, the consequences for the integrity of the jurisprudential and even legislative processes and the product of those processes, and for the integrity of evidentiary parameters, are dire, reducing and regressing so much back to the era of presumption and ‘spectral evidence’ – as I have often discussed here.
Second, and surely clear in the Stampede specifically, the prospect of much money to be obtained with little evidence and at little risk can only act as a powerful potential attractor for persons so inclined, and significantly increases the probability of abuse, up to and including the formal filing of perjurious accusations and allegations.
Nor can the mere presumption of their veracity provide sufficient grounds for so cavalier dismissal of a possibility – actually a probability – of mischief in the formulation and lodging of accusations. (Some may recall the mantra, adopted by media, advocates and even legal personnel, during the unhappy McMartin Pre-School Day Care Ritual Abuse fiasco of 3 decades ago: “Believe the children!”. While the mantra has a certain and indubitable charm, it’s efficacy as a principle of conducting investigations proved not only nugatory but toxic to the integrity of the investigation as well.)
Third, the probability of such an attractive but in so many ways injurious a route being selected by many persons because of the close and broad synergy between media and plaintiff bar (such as the ‘Globe’ and the tort-attorney(s)), is far too significant to be ignored, wished-away or explained-away merely by the positing of presumptions (such as that ‘victims’ are presumably genuine and their veracity is either complete or at least more than sufficient to justify their monetary awards).
Consequently, the micro-macro analysis must be seen for what it is: as a) an effort to distract from the most basic principles of Modern (i.e. pre-Victimist) and Western justice and b) as itself constituting an active element in deranging those most basic principles.
And I would surely say that the Stampede itself constitutes an instance (greatly exemplified in the ‘Globe’-tort attorney alliance) of ‘industrializing’ the lodging of accusations and allegations of hardly-indubitable quality against the Church.
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here. Speak plainly. Strip out some adjectives and adverbs and made-up flourishes and just speak plainly and factually. You're producing the conversational equivalent of a Mobius strip.
And ‘Dennis Ecker’ (15th at 731AM) continues the familiar Abusenik gambit of holding a little tete-a-tete with (this time) ‘James’. We are not supposed to eavesdrop on this stuff?
The content need not detain one: he laments the fact that his ongoing histrionic efforts to get the Church to excommunicate him have not borne the fruit he would like. It’s not that he hasn’t tried, mind you; it’s just that the mean old Church won’t write itself into the script of his Cartoon here by playing the heavy.
And his theological deficiencies are displayed clearly: he apparently imagines that simply committing a mortal sin should/would trigger or justify an excommunication. And apparently reveals that he is not interested in ‘automatic excommunications’ since there is no ceremony, in which, no doubt, he might play the role of oppressed but stalwart truthy truth-teller, bethumped by venal and ignorant ‘ecclesiatchiks’ (yes, I have coined another term). What, after all, is the use of being excommunicated if you can’t actually be photographed in the role? Or take a selfie during the proceedings?
Add a repetition of his usual toss-ins to the effect that the Church is on its way to the scrap heap of History.
And the whole bit concludes with a specifically personal bit about “drop me a line”, as if the point needed to be made in the public forum here.
From ‘Dan’/The True Servant (the 14th at 1129PM) we get a submission for which I would suggest the following exercise to a reader: block out the epithetical bits; block out the unsupported assertions; block out the insinuations and innuendo; and then see what’s left that precipitates out of the reaction as being of any use in furthering the considerations here.
I would also note that in terms of tone and authorial voice, we are hell and gone from the Apostolic Exhortation persona of just a few days ago. And, as well, ‘Miranda’ might thus see the grounds for my use of the ‘Wig’ imagery in assessing this type of presentation.
In regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 15th at 535PM:
Given the quality of questions and answers mentioned in the very ‘Spotlight’-friendly Wall Street Journal op-ed which I discussed at length earlier on this thread, I would wonder if the quality of the questions rose to matters of journalistic integrity and the various aspects of the team’s interactions with persons relevant to their investigations, rather than being simply some softball Q&A material.
I would be interested in reading the interview of the ‘Globe’ editor; might ‘Miranda’ have some specific identifying information to share in that regard? I would certainly be interested in his ideas on how his ostensibly straightforward journalistic investigation somehow became involved in what I have called the Stampede, with especial reference to the interactions and agreements between the editor and the tort attorney (who had agreed, we recall, to “help”).
This alliance was not an instance of ‘journalism’ but rather points rather clearly to something else going on. A series of articles – especially if well-done – would be ‘journalism’, the objective of which – ideally – is to inform the public. An alliance with a tort-attorney, even though the lineaments of that alliance and that attorney’s “help” are not at all clear, point toward some other objective and any light the editor might shed on that would certainly be worthwhile. Presuming, of course, that the interview to which ‘Miranda’ refers is not simply a soft-ball opportunity for self-puffery, presented to the editor with a guarantee that no ‘hard’ questions would be asked nor uncongenial lines of inquiry pursued.
And neither the editor nor the tort attorney are “peripheral characters” in the history of this whole affair. Indeed, as best I can make out, their alliance and the “help” that the tort attorney provided goes to the heart of the matter here in this discussion of the movie and of the Stampede.
‘Spotlight’ itself – referring back once again to the lengthy discussion of the revelations in the WSJ op-ed noted above – deliberately chose to focus on the investigative team and casts them in an essentially heroic light. But the team was hand-picked by the editor (who – as D’Antonio’s book revealed – had his own agenda) and was guided by the editor, and the editor had entered into some sort of alliance with the tort attorney. All of which are absolutely necessary for a full historical comprehension of the matters under consideration.
As usual, stop this. It doesn't mean anything except to you.
Are you talking about Garabedian telling Spotlight where to find his sealed court documents? Documents that should have been public anyway? The way you phrase things implies that Garabedian (I assume that's who you annoyingly keep referring to as "the tort attorney") slid over some sort of illicit information. What information are you talking about? And why, exactly, is it bad that the Globe got it if it's factually correct?
Here, are you saying that Baron joined the paper and created the Spotlight investigative unit? That's fast work for one day on the job.
I'm not going to go digging through the archives to unearth material you should certainly have yourself already, if you really are remotely honest in criticizing the Spotlight work. There's a recent video Q&A with Singer moderating, and I think the LA Times linked to the Baron interview, possibly – it's from a while ago. Both times the reporters/editors are talking to journalism students, I believe.
Continuing in regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 15th at 535PM:
‘Miranda’ presumes the accuracy of (all or most or many of) the allegations against the priests and that too is a presumption too easily made, especially in light of the many factors heightening the questionability of that presumption, which have been discussed at length on this site. I would refer her, if to nothing further back in the archive, then simply to the relevant material on this thread.
The clinical conceptualization and treatment of pedophilia – which is significantly distinct from the conceptualization of that phenomenon in public opinion (informed by media reporting such as is lionized in ‘Spotlight’) – has indeed changed. And that change took place within a larger context of how public opinion changed. And the history of how that change was influenced by media reporting that – under the initial kinetic impress of the ‘Globe’ efforts in 2002 – might not have been as objective as one might have hoped … is also of vital and necessary interest for any adequate comprehension.
Diocesan priests are primarily providers of pastoral ministry, unless their specific gifts are sufficient to make them eligible for some specialized work. If they are disqualified from pastoral ministry then they face a serious challenge, as does the hierarch who must decide their professional fate. I do not make this point as dispositive of anything, but it certainly would have weighed on the mind of any Bishop or Ordinary.
And then there is, again, the question of whether the accusations were credible in the first place, which, again, is not dispositive but remains a significant element for consideration.
I would also point out, as a matter of clinical relevance (that has been discussed at great length on this site), that the concept of “harm” in this type of case has also changed tremendously; in a prior era it would not be easily accepted that a single instance of some experience (short of rape as classically defined) could credibly be imagined or presumed to be capable of causing the panoply of life-problems so often claimed (as is the practice in tort cases) to be so greatly damaging.
Polanski is a good reference point for how views on sexuality and children have changed radically over time – I actually agree with you that the Church might not have had any idea that these early incidents would blossom into serious psychological issues for the victimized children. There is certainly room there to see where the Church might have been blindsided.
What is much, much harder to understand is how the Church did not follow up with these kids, did not stay current with changes in the understanding of the impact of child abuse, and most importantly did not see it necessary to sequester repeat offenders from children. Margaret Gallant wrote this in 1982:
"“Regardless of what he says, or the doctor who treated him, I do not believe he is cured; his actions strongly suggest that he is not, and there is no guarantee that persons with these obsessions are ever cured”.
1982. If she knew that in 1982, and the Church had already been dealing with this problem in one way or another for 20 years and knew their solutions weren't working, are we really supposed to shrug it off as a consequence of the time? As I think you mention elsewhere in this thread, that weird satanic panic/McMartin preschool craze was happening at the same time, and at that time it was crystal-clear that sexual assault screwed up young children. That was a national story, and yet the Church kept shuffling priests for another 10 years.
Continuing in regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 15th at 535PM:
I would have preferred that the ‘Spotlight’ team and its guiding editor had kept to their own patch and not gotten involved with an “ambitious” tort attorney whose “help” cannot have been anything less than a collusion for the purposes of amplifying the actual proportions of the problem under investigation.
And in regard to the “P.S.”: Specifically, the term ‘Abusenik’ is rather clear and self-explanatory and hardly introduces a daunting level of complexity and/or obfuscation or confusion to the discussion. And my use of analogies (had ‘Miranda’ here conflated my coinage of the term with my use of analogies and metaphors from – among other things – baseball?) is designed to enlighten; does she find a particular one inapt?
Lastly – and here I will adopt her own style and tone from her admonition/instruction to me: Don’t come to a site discussion with an extensive archive of comments and relevant material, without bringing yourself up to speed on the status questionis, i.e. on the state of the questions as they have been developed up to the present time.
And while she reports some experience in the educational line, she apparently is not quite clear on the efficacy of metaphors and analogies in furthering understanding. ‘Abusenik’ is a term I coined and, as I said, seem both apt and effective in conveying a meaning. ‘Stampede’ is, I would say, a very helpful descriptor indeed and is not merely a “catchall”; ‘Miranda’ is welcome to bring herself up to speed on the very extensive explication of the term in the archives here. (Although, of course, if her educational experience has been with students at the pre-collegiate level, then such pre-participation research might seem a bit much; but it remains necessary here.)
And what, exactly, would an investigative journalism team consider "its own patch"? What did Garabedian provide, other than access to his clients and hints as to what documents the team might want to sue to get unsealed (court documents which, based on the final ruling, should never have been sealed at all)? Where are you sensing foul play?
Nope, it's not self-explanatory. It's actually been used elsewhere with totally different meanings, such as referring to "a woman who has been abused but claims she hasn't". It's an effort to be clever and coin a phrase but ends up just looking silly.
Using coded language and overy flowery rhetoric is a well-known device to try and get the upper hand in any conversation – not particularly subtly, either. The flowery rhetoric I can live with, but constantly introducing self-created shorthand is just obnoxious and it halts honest discussion. It's like littering a paragraph with trademarks. It's not actually contributing to the discussion, it's just a self-congratulatory ploy to try and get your own creation mirrored back at you.
Speak plainly. When you create "catchy" slang for groups in a way that pre-packages your disrespect for them, it damages the rest of your argument. It would be like me trying to convince you that I had a totally logical, reasonable dislike for my neighbor while constantly referring to him as "Jerkface" or "Hitler Junior".
Dan's bible commentary taught to him by the Lord. Old Testament bible prophesies predict New Testament events or episodes(i.e. Psalm 22 precisely predicts Christ on earth in every detail, right down to v.18, "They divide my garments among them and roll dice for my clothing."). So Jeremiah 7 and Jer. 44 is speaking to a peoples that were consumed in worshipping idols and burned incense to their goddess they called the "Queen of Heaven". Sound familiar to anyone?
Now Matthew 23 gives several of examples of Pharisees and false teachers and describes them in detail so we will recognize them. v. 5- "They do their works to be seen by others, and enlarge the fringes(borders) of their garments.". v.6-9 "They love the place of honor at feasts(dinner parties), and the most important seats in the synagogue(church). They love respectful greetings in the public and to be called 'Rabbi'(special titles) by people. But as for you, do not be called 'Rabbi', because you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on eafth your father, for you have one Father, and He is in heaven", Christ continues with Woes to help us recognize the other traits that describe them.
Matthew 24:1-14 is Jesus prophesying and predicting the future in detail, describing almost precisely events happening in our time. Right down to verse 12, "troubles abound and most peoples love grows cold".
Romans 1: 18-32 Speaks again to idolaters and the sexually immoral. "Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way. Men stopped wanting to have sex with women, and instead had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds." So how do you think our Father feels about child molesting of any kind, let alone older men with young boys. It scares me to think how disappointed our Immaculate God is with mankind. Thankfully he knows our weaknesses and forgives those who truly come to know and follow Him.
1 Cor 1: 19 As God says in the Scriptures, " I will destroy the wisdom of all who 'claim' to be wise. I will confuse those who think they know so much." What happened to the ones who think they have all the answers? Didn't God show that the wisdom of this world is foolish? God was wise and decided not to let the people of this world use their wisdom to learn about Him. Instead, God chose to save those who believe the foolish message we preach, (turns out it's not so foolish). Jews ask for miracles and Greeks want something that sounds wise. But we preach Christ crucified(for us), for many Jews a stumbling block and for Gentiles utter foolishness.
Revelations 17 The woman dressed in 'purple' and 'scarlet' robes, and she wore jewelry made of gold, precious stones and pearls. In her hand she held a gold cup(challice) filled with all the filthy and nasty things she had done. On her forehead a mysterious name was written,
I AM THE GREAT CITY OF BABYLON, THE MOTHER OF EVERY IMMORAL AND FILTHY THING ON EARTH
Anyone with wisdom can figure this out. The seven heads the woman is sitting on stand for seven hills.
Let's not make understanding God's word to difficult or think we can change or interpret it to fit our own meaning or agenda. Let's use the beautiful mind the Lord has blessed us with. This teaching is for anyone having an ear to hear. With Much Love, Dan
Dan, the bible supports slavery; polygamy; child killing for disobedience; and death for homosexuality. It forbids eating shrimp. The bible is an ignorant rant that like most religious texts supports the dominance of heterosexual males over everyone else. All 3 of "God" are male. I mean if it weren't so deeply sad it would just be silly. That's what I know to be true.
Trying to be rational with P is impossible Miranda. He's here to control the conversation not to enlighten it.
Jim Robertson: the Old Testament forbade eating shellfish under Mosaic law. The stories of polygamy and slavery are meant as teaching moments, not examples for living! When Christ came he instructed his followers to abandon much of the useless customs in the Mosaic law. When Christ was rebuked for not following a Kosher diet he answered that it is more important to consider what comes out of the mouth than waht goes into it. Perhaps if your actually studied scripture on a serious level you might then know what you were talking about!
more like bury the conversation with his extensively verbose style. I think he figures if he writes enough nobody will ever get to read anyone elses response. He will go on and on and on. Publion are you by any chance related to Sheldon Cooper, you know the "Big Bang Theory". You sound just like him.
Publion wrote " ‘Another Mark’ comes (the 15th at 942AM) true to form, merely tossing up a pastiche of the usual distractive Abusenik and Stampede gambits: innuendo, epithet, and a great deal of his own ‘guessing’ and ‘imagining’.
Why it sounds just like you Publion….Not saying much, I am ready for the Abusenik classification, you are so fond of using.
In reference to the fact that USA RCC leadership relied on "expert advice" regarding the suitability of the return of credibly accused clergy to ministry, the following is submitted:
The head of Servants of the Paraclete, the Rev. Gerald Fitzgerald, wrote to then-Duluth bishop Thomas Welch in 1958, "We are fully convinced from our wide experience that this type of aberration is not curable." That statement was in regard to Manning's "unfortunate ailment" that he was sent to Servants of the Paraclete for.
Right you are, Michael.
First of all, Miranda your intelligence and clarity of writing is a pleasure to behold.
Secondly, Publion is either a self appointed defender of pedophiles and their enablers or a church appointed apologist for it's abhorant behavior. I think it's a bit of both. Which ever; he is the true face of the church. Not a loving Jesus; but a judging lying hypocrite.
Gee Miranda! Don't you know that the one true church dedicated to the one true ( who's really 3) "God" couldn't possibly do anything wrong? Perfect god; perfect church = perfect life. End of story.
Whore-ish little kids throwing themselves sexually at innocent priests is what happened Miranda. "Doncha know?" I personally did a cooch dance to lead my perpetrator into sin. I think the priests should be suing the families of the seducer kids for luring them to abuse.
Thanks – if nothing else, he seems set in his ways. Hopefully this discussion is resulting in reexamination of some of those convictions, if only in pursuit of something solid to counter one of my points.
On the 17th at 953AM JR will stand in front of the mirror and admire his Wig of Compliments (“your intelligence and clarity of writing is a pleasure to behold”).
He follows that with an assertion: I “must be” either/or. Must I? I am a questioner, I have raised questions from the available material, and those questions (which are not “convictions” or beliefs but simply questions) irritate the Abuseniks to no end, in response to which we get assorted efforts to avoid them as are in the record here.
And he follows that with one of his familiar epithetical runs at the Church’s theology and it’s “abhorant” behavior (which presumes the genuineness and accuracy of the various elements of the Stampede vision, which is a very large presumption indeed).
And that leads into another self-advertisement for his own ‘story’, which is in the record here as having raised far more questions than he has ever been able or willing to try and answer.
And on the 17th at 710PM ‘Miranda’ thanks JR and shares with him in one of those faux-private asides that I “seem set in [my] ways”. Yes, I do tend to question ungrounded presumptions if the probabilities of their inaccuracy or insufficiency seem apparent.
But while I have questions, I do not have – as ‘Miranda’ mistakenly classifies them – “convictions”. I pose questions, based on material that I provide that grounds questions and probabilities. Again, we see that Abusenik tendency to ascribe to others what actually describes themselves, more concisely known as ‘clinical projection’.
She also notes that I proffer nothing “solid” to “counter [her] points”. We are into the realm of probabilities here, and I am questioning in light of probabilities, and I am precisely not insisting on assertions – grounded or un-grounded – that I make merely to hammer home any “convictions”. Or, we might say, I proffer solid questions: solidly grounded and rationally and clearly explicated.
It's hardly "faux-private" when I write it on a public message board. But this example is kind of useful in that it shows how you've taken a very simple comment and decided to view it through a lens of secrecy and deception: I state you seem set in your ways, and you envision this as me slyly stage whispering to your opposition.
There's no conspiracy here. I'm not whispering secrets. I think you're set in your ways. That's why I wrote it on a message board you frequent.
Except that I don't see anyone saying that you have solid questions, or that they are solidly grounded and explained. Quite the opposite. You pose a bunch of hypotheticals, mining the gray area between fact and total, utter conjecture. Given your ability to turn a simple statement of opinion into a scene out of a spy farce, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you thrive on conspiracy and supposition.
Any "God" who created a hell is not worth acknowledging let alone worshiping. A "God " who creates a hell for people not loving him enough, is a billion times worse than a Hitler. And anyone who "sees" such a "God" as "pure" isn't looking.
In regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 16th at 354PM:
To suggest that the Church only “applied spiritual solutions” is not, I would say, accurate; priests were sent for evaluation and therapy according to the tenets of the times (and even beyond those tenets, since generally-focused mental-health facilities would have classified most of the (allegated) offenses as far lesser and less pressing therapeutic challenges than their more serious mentally ill patients).
And, again, both the general clinical opinion of the times and the concept – again – of “harm” caused by the type of (allegated) instances we saw in the Jay Reports differed from the heightened sense of “harm” that even single instances of ‘abuse’ or ‘molestation’ caused, as compared to the Victimist-sensitized current sense of the matter.
As always, this is the problem we run into when we try to apply the tenets of one era to another, prior, era. And especially when the cause of the difference has been effected by some sort of ‘revolution’ in sensibility, whereby the thinking of the current era differs almost 180 degrees from the prior era.
Again, you're conflating two different elements:
1) Psychological trauma as a result of sexual abuse. In the 60s a lot of clinicians thought that kids would forget about sexual abuse; turns out that was wrong. The Church does have some valid defense in pointing out that it was not widely known that kids would remember these events, at least until the mid-70s when the tide started turning pretty quickly. For the last 15 years or so of Spotlight's coverage target, it was known that sexual abuse required theraputic intervention for the child.
2)Pedophilic impulses in adults. Again, earlier beliefs held that this was not a deeply-rooted sexual orientation, instead being impulsive or opportunistic. But by the 80s you again see a change of course, and pedophilia being treated as a permanent psychological disorder. Modern medicine still hasn't caught up to treating pedophelia, since it's difficult: it's essentially asking someone to take a vow of chastity regarding their preferred sexual partners (which looks ironic now I've written it, but wasn't intended to be so pointed).
Now here's the problem: throughout ALL of those time periods, pedophilia was a crime. And THAT is where things go wrong for the Church, because no matter what you think about the victims or about pedophile treatment, you can't deny that sodomizing a child was crossing many, many secular taboos and resulted in jail time for those who crossed that line.
The Church might be given a pass for overlooking the abused children given the times. The Church might be absolved of ignorance in trusting outmoded therapy. But it is incredibly difficult to forget that the Church knew full well that this was a civil crime, and when their therapy didn't work and the priests reoffended, they did not turn the criminals in and instead allowed them access to more victims.
On the 17th at 708PM ‘Miranda’ tells me that I am “conflating” – and doing it “again” – two different elements. She doesn’t identify the comment(s) where I supposedly have done this (at least twice, if that “again” is to be credited), which may indicate that she’s not really into careful explication such that readers may follow her presentation clearly. And that’s as may be.
The postulated “psychological trauma as a result of sex abuse” is – as the Rind meta-study indicated – a questionable presumption, especially, I would say, in the case of a single instance short of rape (as classically defined). While there is far more probability that sustained and serious sexual abuse over the course of time can cause significant “psychological trauma”, there is far less probability for the presumption that even a single instance of low-grade sexual abuse will do so.
Nor is it quite accurate to say that clinicians in the 1960s “thought that kids would forget about sexual abuse”; the presumption was more that children would ‘get through it’ as being one more experience, however unpleasant (or not) it might have been, that children would in their own way deal-with; children were – I would put it – presumed to be like little ice-breakers, banging and bumping their way through (if not around) the ice-floes that choke the transit-routes of life.
This, I would say, might be considered a ‘masculine’ way of approaching the matter; the increasing feminization influence (supported by researchers who realized where the government was going to be giving its research funding – evidenced in the reverse by the Rind meta-study incident) emphasized the ‘trauma’ template and things have gone on from there. Whether the ‘trauma’ template is more accurate or not remains to be seen, certainly in single or low-grade instances of ‘sexual abuse’.
Whether it is “known” that children who have experienced sexual-abuse “required” therapeutic intervention or whether that ‘requirement’ was created by the revolution in cultural values and templates is a very interesting question, especially in instances of single and/or low-grade experiences of such abuse. In this sense the ‘Globe’ played its part in surfing that trend in the larger culture. In 1985 the Doyle proposal, as I have said before on this site, noted the possibilities that would make this developing trend attractive to tort attorneys, although it did not consider the role of the media as the ‘Globe’ refined and deployed it in January of 2002.
Now somehow I am supposed to have “conflated” this – and done so “again” – with “pedophilic impulses in adults”. Perhaps ‘Miranda’ could offer a quoted passage from my material where I did that.
Her section on “pedophilic impulses in adults” seems accurate enough: pedophilia is seen today as some sort of fixed derangement of sexual attraction and – compared to attractions to an age beyond that of infants and young children (there is a variety of views as to the exact age) – the sexual attraction to the very young is considered for all practical purposes to be intractable and incurable, requiring the person so afflicted to refrain from the only type of sexual attraction that – so to speak – worked for him (the question of female pedophilia has not received anywhere near the same amount of attention).
And while “pedophilia” has been a crime, the first problem is to define it as it was considered through all those eras of history: what was the age of the younger person, and what act or sustained acts or habitual orientation was considered by this or that era’s culture to qualify as “pedophilia”?
What level would police and prosecutors and courts tolerate before bringing charges? Surely, if the general Victimist line is followed, then for much of all that time, the police/courts did not pursue the quantum “pedophilia” with sufficient rigor. (Raising another question: if so much ‘pedophilia’ existed, how did the species survive?)
And the second problem is that there have been different ways of dealing with it, even when it was on the books as a crime. This aspect, connected to the history of both crime and the way criminals were dealt-with, also depended on various cultural elements of this or that era. ‘Rehabilitation’ was for quite a while in the late-19th and early-20th centuries considered a better route than mere incarceration. We recall that as late as the 1990s there was a consensus of sorts that therapeutic intervention was called-for. Certainly this was a great debate in the 1960s when rising rates of crime moved public opinion to incarceration while the growing therapeutic profession considered ‘treatment’ to be a better approach.
All of which factors legitimately complicate an assessment of just what an Ordinary might have considered the best route to take, at least until repeated instances in a given individual priest required more stringent action than the ‘rehabilitation’ route would have indicated.
And I would also point out – again on this site – that “sodomizing a child” did not figure largely in the formal allegations lodged against priests, as the Jay Reports tallied those formal allegations. So what we have here is an instance of presuming that all accused priests raped or sodomized “a child” (which is one of the most extreme forms of sexual abuse) when the extant evidence indicates that such an accusation was one of the least-lodged against priests. This is a greatly unwarranted and indeed inaccurate assumption and yet it has fueled much of the Stampede position and the course of its advance through contemporary public opinion (assisted, of course, by a collusive media seeking the sensational through its insufficient and skewed ‘reporting’).
And lastly, in regard to what the Church knew to be a civil crime, there remains the fact that the then-culture and even the police/courts were not predisposed to consider spending resources on sexual allegations involving – if we consider the Jay Reports’ compilations – matters far less grave than outright sodomization and rape (which is not, of course, to deny that some priests were guilty of those extreme acts).
Once. All I need to do is prove that you've done it once previously, as obviously the "again" notes you've done it for a second time in the post I'm responding to. An example of a first post would be here, where you throw together a blend of the changing clinical treatment and understanding of pedophilia; the concern over priest job security; allegation credibility; and the idea that even a genuine report ("short of rape"!) may not ACTUALLY have harmed the child: http://www.themediareport.com/2015/11/10/lies-boston-globe-spotlight-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-22289
So as I was saying: AGAIN you are conflating the changing understanding of the impact of child abuse and the treatment of pedophiles, and ignoring the fact that it was a criminal act for these priests to do what they did to these children.
The Rind study is deeply flawed, and it is disturbing and unfortunately telling that you keep referring back to it. The Rind study do-over did not find that sexual abuse doesn't cause trauma, just that it's not an irreverible consequence – ie, that's it's possible for children to recover without psychological trauma. Hardly a ringing endorsement (and I'm not even going to touch upon you setting your own standards for excluding sexual assaults that don't include rape or serial contact).
I'm starting to think you genuinely don't understand the dynamics of sexual assault, especially with your aside about handling it in a "masculine" way (you do realize that women are assaulted more than men by an order of magnitude, right? And yet we continue to have children and keep moving?). Sexual assault, particularly from an authority figure, breaks trust. It's a betrayal. It changes your entire view of the world, sometimes in a way you can work with and sometimes in a way that comes close to breaking you. You seem to be stuck thinking this is about physical damage – it isn't. It's about another individual using force or influence to do something to you. Someone looked at you and wanted to do something to you for their own pleasure and decided they didn't care how this would impact you, and then did it anyway.
All of which factors legitimately complicate an assessment of just what an Ordinary might have considered the best route to take, at least until repeated instances in a given individual priest required more stringent action than the ‘rehabilitation’ route would have indicated.
Sounds reasonable right up until you realize that "repeated instances" mean that a priest's second and third and eighth chances resulted in an ever-growing number of abused children. No safeguards were put on these men, there were no monitors. The Church tried a course of therapy, and decided the best way to see if it worked was to put unmonitored men in parishes full of oblivious families and not to tell even the other priests. That is flat-out dereliction.
In the early 80s Massachusetts police were clearly ready to investigate based on reports of sexual touching between a teacher and a child in the Fell Acre case. Why do you think they would have been less interested in a priest and a child?
The Church had multiple instances of priests who were not responding to therapy and were reoffending with more kids. The cultural climate obviously was recognizing the dangers of sexual abuse, and obviously the Church decided that telling the members of the parish about a priest who should be watched out for was not in their best interests.
This is why the Spotlight series was so important – it showed how these priests wriggled between the gaps left by a dithering Church, an easy-to-manipulate local government, and the iron-clad faith of Boston Catholics who chose to trust the Church so blindly.
In regard to the Skiendzielewski comment of the 17th at 903AM:
We have what purports to be a letter from the director of a treatment facility to an Ordinary concerning his final opinion as to the particular case of an individual priest in 1958.
Let us presume its reliability.
We do not know what action the Ordinary took.
We do not know the specifics of this individual priest’s case: was he indeed a classically-defined ‘pedophile’, for which then and current clinical opinion held and holds little hope of cure? If this is the case, then that simply indicates that the Center assessed a genuine clinical pedophile and reported to the Ordinary accurate and honestly.
What we cannot conclude from this snippet is that it ‘proves’ that the Church was replete with ‘uncurable’ sex-abusers and Bishops a) knew it and b) did nothing about it.
In regard to the assorted new bits by JR and ‘another Mark’: we simply see efforts of these two to piggy-back themselves on the ‘Miranda’ series, although their own proffered material – both presently and in the record here – can stand for itself as revealing their customary level of discourse.
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 16th at 354PM:
Relevant to this is the experience of the 1998 Rind meta-study – as some may recall – of the effects of child-sexual abuse. Bruce Rind and others conducted a meta-study (meaning a study of all the extant studies) of the effects of child-sexual-abuse consequences and discovered that i) the actual research did not support the (political) claims of pervasive and profound damage then (and still) in vogue and that ii) both the prevailing template of ‘child sex abuse’ and the weakness of the empirical testing claimed to support that template were of questionable reliability and validity (their results were confirmed by another study seven years later, although the later research-team was careful not to endorse the Rind team’s conclusions). This caution was due to the fact that the Rind meta-study’s resulting brouhaha had led Congress to pass a Sense-of-Congress declaration that – in a queasy replay of Soviet Lysenkoism – informed the research community that there would be political consequences for any researchers who tried to follow Rind’s path (federal funding, of course, is a major element in much scientific research).
While I do not at all deny a) that there would also have been Church concerns for ‘scandal’ nor b) that some priests should have been removed from ministry earlier than they were, yet i) the state of psychological consensus in that era and ii) the legitimately questionable validity of the allegations remain factors that have to be considered in assessing the actions of various hierarchs. And to this must be added the Vatican’s position and attitude as I described in an earlier comment on this thread and in prior comments on this site.
Thus too – and again – it is not accurate to introduce the “terribly harmed” trope into the analysis of that era; it is an anachronistic reading-back into a different era.
In regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 16th at 410PM:
‘Miranda’s assertion as to the “homogenous” reflects, I can only surmise, some element of gender-politics, i.e. that the mere fact of the Church hierarchy being composed of human beings is insufficient and that gender considerations must also apply. Readers may consider that as they will. However I note that religious polities that do allow married ministers or clergy are not immune from sex-abuse issues. And while the Church has been subjected to the Stampede and those other polities have – for whatever reasons – not been subjected to the Stampede, yet the ‘marriage’ point does not seem to be of as much relevance in this matter as some would like.
As for the claim that if women were more deeply involved then such abuse-issues that arose “would have ended differently”, that’s a speculative possibility that readers are welcome to consider as they will. But in the extant record of public affairs I don’t see where events of the last two decades supports the presumption or conclusion that women’s participation have significantly changed the quality of government or public policy in a beneficial way such that outcomes were remarkably different and better.
I think it can be said that if women are more involved, then women’s or feminist issues are brought to the fore, certainly. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that public affairs are conducted such that better outcomes are effected.
And that things might (merely) have ended “differently” is in itself a clear indication of the vagueness and softness of the whole conceptual enterprise along these lines.
Thus the rosy vision of what American politics and society and culture will be like (at some point in the future) when women assume more political influence as elected officials or government bureaucrats remains a vision and can be considered as such. However, we have surely seen in the various Department of Education efforts to impose ever-intensifying burdens of Political Correctness on universities (that receive federal funding) that such influence is not proving an unalloyed boon.
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 16th at 410PM:
We are then given the truly devious bit about “cherry-picked judges”. This accusation is on its face ridiculous and manipulative: Judge Kosinski was speaking – as I clearly noted in my comments on this thread – in a prestigious forum about the general state of criminal law and praxis; Judge Schiltz was speaking specifically to the Catholic Abuse matter but it would seem that any judge who doesn’t deliver ‘Miranda’s desired outcomes is “cherry-picked”. If she has – as she claims – some the statements of some judge who contradicts the gravamen of the Kosinski and/or Schiltz remarks, then she is welcome to put them up; which – I see – she has not actually done here, and instead has merely made a somewhat snarky (and to readers here hardly unfamiliar) unsupported assertion.
I would also point out that in the matter of probability of false-accusations we have the many factors often discussed in comments on this site: the very nature of the changes in evidentiary parameters, the selection of the civil litigation route followed by a ‘secrecy’ demanded in many cases by the tort attorneys, the highly dubious nature of claims and allegations that we have been able to examine here, the questionable types of jurispraxis resulting from such court cases as have taken place, the notably skewed nature of much of the media reporting surrounding them, the clinically problematic presumptions and assertions as to the nature of later life-problems as being clearly caused by (allegated) abuse, and the basic Stampede dynamic which offers much remuneration for little risk. And the statements of the afore-mentioned judges.
Apparently the Church of a prior era may allowably be strictly assessed on the basis of anachronistic sensibilities and parameters, while the Stampede may not be strictly assessed on the basis of current actualities. This is a highly skewed game that the Abuseniks are playing.
Regarding “micro/macro”: ‘Miranda’s effort at self-exculpation here are irrelevant to the basic reality of the conceptual consequences of her analysis as I pointed them out in my prior comment.
And conceptually, her explanation here still relies on her presumption that there actually were all those genuine “micro” instances of abuse as ‘evidenced’ in the many claims and stories lodged in the many lawsuits. That is – I trust it is clear – a very shaky ground for basing her presumption.
And lastly, in a very very familiar Abusenik gambit, ‘Miranda’ will run the old ‘proof’ dodge in regard to false claims: there is no proof of them. Well, as has often been pointed out, there are all the elements heretofore discussed as to the probability of false claims, the statements of Judge Schiltz, and our own assessments of such claims and stories and cases as we have been able to examine.
In addition to which is the overall dynamic of the Anderson Strategies, by which the claims are lodged in formal Complaints, they are settled for very large sums, and then – often at the behest of the tort attorney – the case (including the stories and claims) are deliberately shrouded in secrecy. From which Abuseniks can then claim that their stories and allegations were validated as well as ‘compensated’, secure in the knowledge that their stories and claims will never come to light for actual adversarial examination. And then the Abuseniks can come and claim that there is no ‘proof’ of false claims. This is like the child who murders his/her parents and then claims the privilege of being an orphan.
A review of the Billy Doe criminal case in Philadelphia and even of the suddenly-withdrawn civil lawsuit certainly demonstrates a number of the elements supporting the high-probability of false claims, among all the other elements weighting probability in that direction.
Thus too, her concluding analogy with “the machine” is inapt: to a genuine ‘victim’, I would say that the actual perpetrator is more frightening than some abstract “machine”. And in the “macro” sense, we have not at all established the validity of the Stampede/Abusenik fever-dream that the Church was or is a “machine” operating as a producer of rapine and cover-up.
On the 16th at 412PM, regarding mine of the 16th at 1057AM, ‘Miranda’ now claims that she has no idea of what I am trying to say in my comment. And she instructs me – la! – to speak more plainly, tossing in the trendy zingy about “a Mobius strip”.
She might well feign confusion, since in that comment of 1057AM I am discussing her attempt to minimize false-accusers as merely “scammers”. Was my 1057AM comment somehow more than usually (in her take on it) confusing and so forth?
Thus she resorts to claiming she is confused by the “adjectives and adverbs and made-up flourishes” and once again demands that I “just speak plainly and factually”.
There is an abiding tendency of Abuseniks to not-like too many words and compound or complex sentences. And perhaps ‘Miranda’ might give an example of “made up flourishes”, especially ones so complex that they utterly and genuinely confused and confounded her.
Possibly her criteria for clear conceptual writing is Twitter or some such. She seems to imply a collegiate level of faculty experience – and if that inference is correct then she should be able to handle my material.
And as for speaking “factually”, we need only tote up the number of presumptions or unsupported assertions upon which she bases her presentations.
On the 16th at 418PM I am again instructed to stop using the word ‘Stampede’, since, she asserts, “it doesn’t mean anything except to you”. And she knows this … how? Once again, the Abusenik tendency to dismiss uncongenial elements by assuming the mantle of knowing what everyone thinks, in order to somehow make it all go away. I have explained the concept of ‘Stampede’ at length and rather comprehensively in the past few years here; if she hasn’t done her homework and reviewed the material that is easily accessible, then I advise her again to do so.
I am talking about both the specific instances of Garabedian’s activities and the resulting synergy of the ‘Globe’s selective-reporting and the lawsuits that so enriched the tort-attorneys. D’Antonio’s book is my source, and he is – if nothing else – competent in his documentation of his material. Is ‘Miranda’ simply going on the script of ‘Spotlight’? If so, that is not necessarily a reliable basis for her presumptions about the dynamics and actual events involved. We discussed this all back when D’Antonio’s book came out and it is in the archive here.
Nor did I ever suggest that it took the editor only “one day on the job” to assemble his team to make his splash as “the new gunslinger in town”. Had ‘Miranda’ not read the WSJ piece to which I referred and which I clearly identified in a prior comment on this thread? But within the first few months of his tenure he had gotten things going, and by January of 2002 was launched upon the project.
Ah but then … ‘Miranda’ is “not going to go digging through archives to unearth material you should certainly have yourself already”. Clearly, whatever her experience and credentials, ‘Miranda’ is not about research before making her assertions. The archives are here on this site and she might well inform herself by reading D’Antonio’s book herself. She seems content going-on about rather large and complex issues, but not about researching relevant material, even when it is only a few clicks away on the same site.
As far as “criticizing the ‘Spotlight’ work”, she need only read the WSJ piece referenced above on this thread to discover the (pre-emptive) admission that the scriptwriter involved has had criticism about factuality and “dramatizing” in his prior work.
She has a vague recollection of the material she claims backs up her assertions and “possibly it’s from a while ago”.
Readers may consider as they will.
On the 16th at 429PM ‘Miranda’ allows as how there are possibilities that the Church “might have been blindsided”, given the ‘radical change’ in views. We agree, then, to that point.
But there still remains the Causality Problem about which I have often written here: there is still no clear way to reliably and demonstrably link an instance of child sexual-abuse to “serious psychological issues for victimized children”. First we have to establish the genuineness of the claim of sexual abuse, then we have to establish the direct line of causality between the act and the consequences. And we have the Rind study of 1998 (and its queasy political ramifications) to demonstrate that these are profoundly difficult challenges for legitimate psychological theorizing and conceptualizing. It is as easily conceivable that a troubled adult might use the claim of child sexual-abuse to ‘explain’ the later failures in life, especially if there is the promise of a big payout with little risk of serious examination nor consequences for making a false claim. And the Doe case in Philadelphia, as assessed in detail on the BigTrial site, gives us a clear indication of how all this works out in a Stampede case.
All of which should have served as major cautionary elements, yet they have not been given the consideration that they should have received.
The problem of the Church ‘following up’ with allegants has also been discussed here at length: by the mid-late 1980s the Anderson Strategies (allied with SNAP) were up and running and this put matters in the legal forum. At that point, the challenges facing any Ordinary became seriously intensified.
And, as we have seen even from adult-allegants posting on this site, adult-allegants did not often wish to receive therapy that was in any way liable to the influence of the Church.
And as for “stay[ing] current with the changes in the understanding of the impact of child abuse” we must factor in both the prior point about legal-forum constrictions and the prior point about the questionable nature of the presumptions and conclusions made in the service of the new paradigm of child sex-abuse and its (asserted and presumed) consequences.
Margaret Gallant is entitled to her opinion and that’s what she wrote (which is not to imply that I do not think the priest involved, then-Fr. Geoghan, now deceased, was suitable for ministry – as I have said before). She did not however ‘know’ anything; she had her opinion as to whether “these obsessions” were ever “curable” and she had every right to express those opinions.
As to the McMartin Pre-School Satanic Ritual Day-Care Abuse cases of the early-mid 1980s: no such determination came out of those cases that the children had been abused, let alone that the abuse caused life problems (indeed, at that point, the children were still children and not the variously-troubled adult-allegants so typical of the Stampede). Indeed, none of the accused were convicted and all charges were dropped seven years later, if memory serves. There was a similar case (known as ‘Fells Acres’) in Massachusetts where all but one of the convictions were reversed on appeal, the convictions re-instated by the state Supreme Court, and the State finally coming to some agreement with the two convicted women (that included a ‘secrecy’ stipulation); but in the case of the adult male the State refused to do so and he served a sentence and was released over a decade ago.
One can see simply from reviewing the history of these two watershed trials that my concept of Stampede is hardly ungrounded.
Thus the point that the Church did not take sufficient notice of them is not so simple at all.
Although I will say that the Doyle proposal (it is not actually a Report) submitted to the Bishops in 1985 (with those two above-noted cases then already encountering problems) was accurate in predicting that from a legal point of view and in light of the psychological changes, the mechanisms that lubricated those cases could easily be turned against priests or even so deep-pockets defendant as the Church itself or its individual Ordinaries. As did come to pass.
In regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 16th at 440PM:
The “patch” of the investigative journalism team of the ‘Globe’ would have been balanced and comprehensive reporting of the matter in all of its factual complexities (as sketched in my comments on this thread and extensively discussed in prior comments on this site). That did not happen and indeed provided a well-rewarded (those ‘Globe’ Pulitzers) example of how journalists could succeed in the type of skewed reporting that simply focused on the sensational, lubricated by the many presumptions and assertions that have now been demonstrated to have been highly-questionable and I would say remain so now.
As to the competence of “Abusenik” as a descriptor for what I have been discussing on this site, then it works quite well and I have explained it in detail in prior comments on this site. I have no knowledge of its being “used elsewhere” but for the purposes of the extended and extensive commentary I have put up on this site, it works quite well (as I trust anyone who read the material would realize). Thus the concluding epithetical stabs can remain right up where they were put.
But this leads into another run at the language of my material being “flowery” and “coded”. “Flowery” is, as I have said, quite probably the result of somebody being more used to Twitter posts than serious and extended conceptual discussion posts.
“Coded” simply refers to the terms “Abusenik” and “Stampede”, the meaning of both of which I have explicated at great length on this site (one doesn’t go to the trouble of explicating a ‘code’ at great length). And if my complex style is off-putting to Twitter-types, that is simply the result of persons so-inclined not being familiar with extended complex conceptual discourse or averse to it.
And the run at the language of my material then takes a further and more sinister turn: my use of “coded” and “flowery” language – and doing so “constantly” – is just more than she can accept. Aside from the two terms “Abusenik” and “Stampede” – which is more of a shorthand to save time in discussing two long and well-explicated phenomena – I think she will have to provide more sufficient evidence for that “constantly”. And the imputation to me of some sort of manipulative purpose fails in light of the extended explications I have put up on this site. As I have said, complex conceptual problems cannot be handled except by complex and careful explication; this is not the Twitter style and may not be the preferred Abusenik style (which prefers punchy one-liners and vivid ‘stories’) but that is precisely part of the problem with the Stampede and has been from the beginning.
And the section continues in that vein, characterizing my style – epithetically – as “not contributing to the discussion” and being “self-contgratulatory”. They do like to toss the epithets, these Abuseniks. But epithets do not suffice for dealing with complex conceptual issues.
The lecture continues with another order to “Speak plainly”. I do – I just do it complexly, and that is a type of discourse that Abuseniks (and the Alinsky from whom much of their stratagems derive, whether they realize it or not) try to avoid at all costs.
On the 16th at 145PM ‘Dan’/The True Servant now refers to himself in the third person and declares that his “bible commentary” was “taught to him by the Lord”. And that assertion can stay right up where it was put.
The overall gist of his Scriptural reflections remains the same as I noted in a prior comment and readers may consider those reflections as they will.
On the 16th at 418PM I am again instructed to stop using the word ‘Stampede’, since, she asserts, “it doesn’t mean anything except to you”. And she knows this … how? Once again, the Abusenik tendency to dismiss uncongenial elements by assuming the mantle of knowing what everyone thinks, in order to somehow make it all go away. I have explained the concept of ‘Stampede’ at length and rather comprehensively in the past few years here; if she hasn’t done her homework and reviewed the material that is easily accessible, then I advise her again to do so.
I am talking about both the specific instances of Garabedian’s activities and the resulting synergy of the ‘Globe’s selective-reporting and the lawsuits that so enriched the tort-attorneys. D’Antonio’s book is my source, and he is – if nothing else – competent in his documentation of his material. Is ‘Miranda’ simply going on the script of ‘Spotlight’? If so, that is not necessarily a reliable basis for her presumptions about the dynamics and actual events involved. We discussed this all back when D’Antonio’s book came out and it is in the archive here.
Nor did I ever suggest that it took the editor only “one day on the job” to assemble his team to make his splash as “the new gunslinger in town”. Had ‘Miranda’ not read the WSJ piece to which I referred and which I clearly identified in a prior comment on this thread? But within the first few months of his tenure he had gotten things going, and by January of 2002 was launched upon the project.
Quite simple: because you created a term for your own purposes and then choose to use it instead of normal English. It would be like me picking up a grape and telling you I'm calling it a "chokebulb" now because sometimes people choke on it (as evidenced by warnings to toddlers and posters of people getting the Heimleich), and then referring to it as a "chokebulb" from then on. "I don't want any chokebulbs", "apple juice isn't as good as chokebulb juice", "watch out, wasps are attracted to chokebulbs". Do you see how nutty that end up looking? I guess I could also call the time after noon as "The Shadowy Times" and then insist to people that "afternoon" or "evening" just aren't encompassing enough, as it's also a time that makes me feel sad. "I'll meet you on the beach in The Shadowy Times." Again – you see how this looks?
I'm not trawling through your archived posts. If you can't sum things up in a paragraph or provide a link, then it's probably more conspiracy than fact.
Baron kicked off the sex abuse investigation during his first day on the job. He gave an already-assembled investigative reporting team a task, prompted by a column written in the Globe by a regular columnist. Pretty straightforward stuff – you'd be on firmer ground if he'd recruited someone from Miami or had created the investigative unit as a pet project, but neither of those things were true.
In regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 17th at 727PM:
I did indeed create the term for my own purposes, which was to provide a short-hand for a phenomenon that was going to be coming up a very great deal in discussions. I also explained it thoroughly. Nor is her analogy here in any way apt: I did not arbitrarily name something with an utterly irrelevant alternative name, nor focus on some inconsequential aspect. Rather, ‘Abusenik’ is quite apt since it combines ‘Abuse’ and the Russian suffix “-ik”, which indicates someone who is an describable as being deeply involved with the main term in a substantive way. Thus an “Abusenik” is ‘all about’ abuse, as contemporary usage would have it.
I would also point out that what we have been seeing here in ‘Miranda’s complaints is a variant of the old Abusenik dodge: when the material is too difficult to deal with successfully, try to denigrate the style in which the material is presented. She joins other Abuseniks on this site in trying to run that now-familiar dodge.
But in doing so, it seems to indicate – if her plaints are to be taken seriously – that she is not familiar-with or conversant-in a complex expression of complex realities. (And yes, something can be both ‘complex’ and ‘clear’; it would appear from the record on this site that only Abuseniks – of whatever educational background – find my material too complex to comprehend.)
If she considers herself knowledgeable enough in these matters under consideration here to be making so many assertions as if they were sure and certain knowledge, then I would suggest to her that a capability to deal with some level of complexity is necessary. Which, admittedly, is not how much typical internet or Twitter commentary operates, but so what? And it is precisely the simplistic and un-complex tendency of the usual internet and Twitter-type comment that has fueled the Stampede’s derangement of public opinion in this whole matter; it is itself an element of the Stampede.
She then further demonstrates her approach by (proudly?) declaiming that she’s not going to be “trawling through [my] archived posts”. As I had said, if she isn’t interested in getting up to speed on the ‘status questionis’ then she doesn’t indicate the type of approach necessary for assessing (and making numerous assertions-about) a complex and fraught major issue. And that’s as may be.
She now also says that the ‘Globe’ editor indeed “kicked off the sex abuse investigation during his first day on the job” (although in a prior comment on this thread she had imputed that inference to me as if it were an exaggeration on my part). Well, then, he most certainly did come to town looking to be “the new gunslinger”, as the WSJ piece put it. Which doesn’t do much for weakening my position that the ‘Globe’ team he assembled was under pressure to create the results he wanted for his own professional advancement. And are we to imagine that even an already-assembled team (the paper’s Spotlight team was at that time in existence, but it was he who focused it quickly on the abuse matter) wasn’t going to be influenced and indeed pressured by ‘the boss’ to produce the results that would prove his “new gunslinger in town” creds?
And if ‘Miranda’ is basing her presentation here merely on the script of ‘Spotlight’ itself, then she is already relying on dubious material, as admitted even by the friendly WSJ article I referenced in an earlier comment here.
No, on a previous comment on this thread I said it wasn't true he "assembled a team". The Spotlight Team had been around since at least 1972 (that's the first Spotlight Pulitzer listed, I'm sure it existed before that too). You make it sound like Baron came to town, pulled together a team of reporters and sicced them on the Church, when in fact the paper had already a lot of disparate coverage on the sex abuse in Boston and an active columnist who kept bringing it up. Baron just directed the already-existing Spotlight Team to see if there was a story there that went beyond the piecemeal sex abuse cases already being covered. There was.
I'm not, actually – I believe it's in the Singer interview with the Spotlight team where he notes that a lot of people think that the script is taking liberties by filming that Baron suggested the sex abuse investigation his first day on the job, and the response is that yes, it really was on his first day. No dramatic license needed.
Contemporary? My apologies, I had no idea your missives were arriving from the Cold War era.
You ever hear of the saying "you run into a jerk in the morning, you ran into a jerk; you run into jerks all day, you're the jerk"?
Merely drawing a line in the sand. You should be able to clearly and precisely defend your point without demanding that your interlocutor read everything you ever wrote, or internalize your own personal glossary. It's Communications 101.
Meanwhile, I provide you links to five sources and you immediately prove that you don't follow your own advice by claiming I've linked to "Spotlight reviews", when none of the five feature a film review.
Continuing in regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 16th at 418PM:
Ah but then … ‘Miranda’ is “not going to go digging through archives to unearth material you should certainly have yourself already”. Clearly, whatever her experience and credentials, ‘Miranda’ is not about research before making her assertions. The archives are here on this site and she might well inform herself by reading D’Antonio’s book herself. She seems content going-on about rather large and complex issues, but not about researching relevant material, even when it is only a few clicks away on the same site.
As far as “criticizing the ‘Spotlight’ work”, she need only read the WSJ piece referenced above on this thread to discover the (pre-emptive) admission that the scriptwriter involved has had criticism about factuality and “dramatizing” in his prior work.
She has a vague recollection of the material she claims backs up her assertions and “possibly it’s from a while ago”.
Readers may consider as they will.
Sigh. Really? You need me to Google for you?
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/spotlight/
http://www.traileraddict.com/spotlight-2015/interview-marty-baron
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/video/spotlight-team-interview/
http://www.boston.com/entertainment/movies/2015/11/03/here-why-the-fourth-member-the-spotlight-team-has-been-pretty-quiet/hcTljNzLJDdBgIdglXFyMJ/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2014/11/29/spotlightfilm-intro/d8Tp3MQ4Y0OQA3JZgABkeO/story.html
There. That took two searches and maybe four minutes.
What exactly are your "credentials" P?
On the 17th at 735PM ‘Miranda’ proffers – with a “sigh” of seemingly exasperated competence – a bunch of ‘Spotlight’ reviews, many from the ‘Globe’ itself. Which simply leads us further into the hall of mirrors here.
As if out of the blue, JR snarks yet again his question as to my “credentials”. As always and to repeat yet again: clear and rational thinking, backed up such demonstration as is available, are all the credentials anyone needs here.
Again, What credentials?
By your own definitions you fail to show any.
Your premises for "rational thinking", aren't.
Publion, not a single one of those links leads to a "Spotlight review", which implies that you didn't even bother clicking on them.
Every link either leads to an interview with one of the reporters, or an aggregated Q&A that provides sources for each answer. You wanted sources, I got you sources, and then you couldn't even be bothered to click.
So: yes. Exasperated sighing.
Jim and anyone else reading this post. I love ALL people. Does that mean I also must love all there sins and faults. I am among one of the worst of sinners. My God and Savior forgave me and pulled me out of the darkness. I don't believe anyone is so great as to question the very Creator who is responsible for there very existence. I see you have some pretty harsh words, I am unwilling to repeat in Jim 11/17 10:11am, against God and myself. I believe it may well be your pain that is doing the talking, I hope. If anyone thinks they can assemble a better book of knowledge, then do it. I'm surely not interested in reading it. If you were to take all the material ever written and any good knowledge from the internet, it still would pale to just the New Testament alone. There is not to much and not to little. It is the handbook for living a decent life on earth, and the prize is eternal life. You don't like or agree with what it says. Fine, but don't blame God for all the evil and wicked in the world. He reaches out His hand to pull you from the wreakage. Refuse to accept His kindness and that's on you.
" For wide and easy is the road that leads to destruction and there are many who walk it's wicked path. Narrow and difficult is the way that leads to life and few will ever find it." Matthew 7:13-14
Anyone out there who thinks they have a better plan than the Almighty, might want to check their enormous pride and ego at the door, for Satan waits with open arms to gladly welcome you into His chambers. Please don't think you will stand before the One who loves you and say you were never told or warned. Respectfully with Love, Dan
P.S. Also your little bickering and backbiting is becoming both annoying to both myself and my God. Are you the ones that are supposed to teach us all about our love for each other, since you're unwilling to accept God's teaching? Don't worry Publion. This letter is directed towards you too. Have at it ,children!
On the 17th at 620PM ‘Dan’/The True Servant returns, this time to take an above-it-all approach (which is a familiar dodge as dodges go): he is above it all – doncha see? – having been rather directly illuminated and informed by God; thus all this quibbling he must consider through rueful but loving eyes. Of course.
Apparently, as well (his third paragraph), he informs us all that all of this discussion here merely indicates that there are those here “who think[s] they have a better plan than the Almighty” and that merely indicates an “enormous pride”. Thus the Bhagwan. Readers may consider it as they will.
But, having delivered this remarkable indictment, he assures one and all that it is done “Respectfully with Love” and it comes from ‘Dan’ here (and not, for this episode, The True Servant).
And then in a marvelous “P.S.” he also informs us that the “bickering and backbiting is becoming annoying both to myself and my God”; this tendency to conflate himself and God is familiar from assorted type throughout the ages. I applaud the fact that he is not also speaking for Napoleon.
Oh! no! I better correct my misspelling of WRECKAGE before I'm reminded about my pre-college education and lack of commmuunniiicccaaattttiiiioooonnn skills. I'll "Waaaaaiiiitttt foorr iiiiitttt." LOL
But then on the 17th at 638PM, minutes after his prior comment where he had assumed the Wig of Detached and God-informed Omniscience, the Wig is off and it’s snarky time, which seems his more genuine level of approach.
The large elephant in the room is that almost all these priests were homosexual. I was an altar boy dying this period at Chicago where this also went on. These priests preyed on pubelescent boys for their own pleasures. Many bishops knew that sending these people to jail was basically giving them a death sentence. This was the mistake. However reforms happened and things are a lot better now. Terrible mistakes were made! However now boy scouts of America is opening themselves to the same scandal.
Dan SJ, Both my perpetrators were heterosexual. They just had easier access to boys than girls. I was a target of availability, not preference.
Also, Dan SJ, We do not live (I hope) in a "Bishop" run world.
The law is higher than "Bishops".
The actions that they decided to take to save perp priests from jail to save them being murdered for their crimes is a crime in and of itself. They hobbled justice and the law. They were accessories before; after; and during the crimes. Yet because of the church's wealth and power no "Bishops" have seen prison as they deserve to.
On the 17th JR really heaps praise on 'Miranda". Saying that her intelligence and clarity is a pleasure to behold. No surprise there…. as he just found a welcome ally.
On the 16th this same lady took me to task, describing my earlier assertion as "laughable" She justified this conclusion on the basis that….any gossip and rumours about a new priest would be unlikely to follow him, to his new parish. So the altar boys would never hear anything bad regarding their new priest.
Well even in my childhood, back in the fifties, one third of families had telephones, and about the same number had cars. I would also estimate that a quarter had relatives and friends living in neighbouring parishes, even as far as 100 miles away.So it would only be a matter of time for any gossip about a new priest to reach us. How much more likely for that to happen in the seventies and eighties, and beyond, with the breathtaking advances in communications and transport.
I reminded everybody, in my post That if you give a dog a bad name, he will never live it down. And that is as true today as it has always been. Miranda seems to me like a person who establishes a line of argument, and then sticks to it like glue. To make her argument appear more plausible she will artfully build her constructed reality around it.
Sadly her constructed reality does not always match the actual reality.
Actually, what I found laughable is that an altar boy would hear this information and then decide to use it by claiming to have been sexually abused by the priest. Kids don't want to talk about being sexually approached by adults, and with the stigma of homosexuality, boys especially don't want to talk about being attractive to men. Your suggestion that claiming sexual abuse is a good way to get out of altar boy tasks is nuts, especially when the same kid telling his parents "I heard Father New Guy fondled a kid in his old parish" would work just as well.
It would be like me not wanting to take calculus and telling my mom that the math teacher raped me. Seriously? When I could just say "My math teacher raped a kid at his old school"?
Except that it didn't. Unless you have access to reports I never saw, there was not knowledge within the new parishes that their new priests had child-molesting habits. If you want to claim that this rumor somehow transferred from parish to parish, you're going to need to back that up with some sort of contemporaneous account. At the moment, you're blithely assuming that against all available evidence, the sexual predelictions of these priests were known enough that children not only heard them and understood them, but willingly claimed to have been sexually abused in a ploy to escape chores.
Publion:
"Plain" and "complex" are literally antonyms: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/plain.
"Abusenik" isn't a word. The phrase "the Stampede" means absolutely nothing to anyone else but you. "Tortie" as a nickname for an individual is disrespectful shorthand. "Anderson Strategies" is a consulting business in Michigan. Much like Scientology, you've made up an entire language to make yourself sound special and different, but it's not the good sort of special and different.
It's called editing. The concept appears to be as new to you as Twitter, but it's actually been around quite a while.
As for diversity in the Church? The priesthood in Boston was largely white Irish men, whose main contacts were (by religious requirement) other white Irish men. Homogenous groups like that aren't good, when they exert control over a much larger, much more diverse group. And yeah, I do think that if women (or nuns!) had had more power in the Church, this wouldn't have gone on so long. If you draw a relationship map in a community, the link between a young mother and a single childless man in a position of religious authority is one of the weakest you can draw. The everyday conversational conduits that would have surfaced problems with the kids just weren't there, especially in the early 60s.
Miranda, you are wonderful! I may be straight after all.
In regard to ‘Miranda’s of the 17th at 1101PM:
She doesn’t deny giving orders, but rather passes over that to inform me that “plain” and “complex” are “literally antonyms”, because she looked them up in a thesaurus.
A thesaurus gives approximations; one familiar with language would realize that a thesaurus is not a precise instrument; one can find a number of words in this or that thesaurus listing that won’t actually fit the bill for every purpose.
Complexity does not mean obfuscation (although it may appear so to a Twitter-formed mind). Nor do compound-complex sentences (ditto). Nor has she provided yet any quotations from my material to exemplify what she considers to be not-plain-speaking. So this bit can stay up right where it was put.
Then she again goes on about the term ‘Abusenik’. She’s not going to let go of it, apparently, but perhaps she needs some distraction from the substantive issues on the table.
She then informs us that she clearly sees herself as speaking as an editor (“editing”); whether she has any experience along that line is anybody’s guess, but there are any number of editing styles and it depends on the type of piece that one is editing: a childrens-book editor is going to be looking for a style that wouldn’t be the style of an adult-book editor.
Nor is there some Great Editor in the Sky to whom – in a curious similarity to the gambit of ‘Dan’/The True Servant – she might claim herself to be omnisciently informed.
And in another giveaway, she reverts to some snark – another familiar gambit of Abuseniks here when they are trying to avoid the substantive.
About the ethnic sameness of the Boston “white Irish men” in the priesthood, she doesn’t think that much homogeneity is a good thing and I don’t disagree. Although whether that is sufficient to ground her familiar genderist theme is something else. And readers may consider it as they will.
I prefer to think of them as suggestions, but have it your way. I hardly had to look up a commonly-known antonym pair, but I linked to the thesaurus to prove the benefits of providing third-party sources. Call it "leading by example".
And here I thought I'd been pretty clear. So let's have some fun. Ready? Blast from the past!
Miranda's the kind of woman who should be leading your church.
Dan I say what I believe; as do you. I'm certain.
If saying you're not "looking" is an insult to you. Stick around Pub will give you real insults.
I just say what I think Dan. You brought up "God". As THE answer. For you perhaps but there are other people here who don't believe what you do. God bores me. "He" as a concept means nothing to me. And besides "God's" not the issue here. Maybe it is your issue but not mine.
Hey Publion, I happen to notice that you sent out 13 posts today, without anyone responding or answering you. Is it necessary for you to control the whole conversation hoping to brainwash everyone else with your poor excuses, criticism of others and your Napoleon/Einstein complex. Is it possible for anyone to be that stuck on themself?
I fail to claim I'm as brilliant or well schooled as you, but I get your little mocking of me as Dan/Servant. Along with your infantile digs at others(i.e. Victimist, Abusenik, etc.etc.), would seem to me a man with your vast, self-proclaimed intellegence would have come to the realization long ago of how childish you were acting and desist. Speaking of your sarcasm to others and your repetitive insistence to push Miranda into looking into the archives, cause she might learn something. How about taking some of your own advice and check the archives/comments of "Spotlight debunked; Oct. 26,2015". Scroll down about 2/3 and look for my first comment on this topic- Nov.12, 2015 @ 12:29. You'll spot mine easily because then I was leaving a large space between each line. This was written in defence of others, before you started childishly mocking me and my beliefs. ENJOY!
One more thing I would like to ask you is why you continually try to bring doubt into the subject of every child molestation accusation, as if you were the proverbial 'fly on the wall' and seem to know that many, if not all, were false, "crybullies", absolutely untrue or dreamed up by "scammers" because of the "Victimist" mentality "nowadays". Interesting choice of words but definitely not accidental. Were you hoping that most who google that (Victomist)would see both the Webster's def. and Urban dictionary version in hopes your slander would cut both ways, seeing that the urban def. pops up first. Simply VICIOUS.
Finally, what I find most interesting is your defence of the church and it's sins, and yet you refer to the bible as "man-made", which in your opinion makes all my arguments, Scriptural reflections and bible quotes invalid. Am I sure glad that your not my judge! I think it would be most appropriate to end with one of those unacceptable bible quotes;
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, to this very day." Romans 11:8
Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear. Jeremiah 5:21
He said, "Go and tell these people: Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving." Isaiah 6:9
"You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, otherwise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return to Me, and I would heal them." Matthew 13:14-15
Hopefully, you're not claiming to know more and better than these great prophets and men of God. Oh, the Humanity and horror of it all! With Much Love, Dan
P.S. There you go. You don't have to feel you're left out or ignored anymore.
On the 18th at 1234AM, ‘Dan’ returns, and not smarmy The True Servant.
He apparently hasn’t gotten a grasp on the time lapse between comments being submitted and their being moderated and actually put-up by Dave Pierre. Thus the utter failure of his point in his first paragraph is, by now, crystal clear.
But – in yet another marvelous example of Abusenik projection – he snarks about my having a “Napoleon/Einstein complex”, an assertion for which he submits no evidence.
I point out the discrepancies between ‘Dan’ and ‘The True Servant’ because they are clearly there in the text of his material and because they certainly suggest something a bit amiss with him and because it is relevant to the discussion here since it a) demonstrates a certain tendency in a number of the Abuseniks we have seen commenting here and b) on the basis of whatever is amiss he then doth declaim, declare, and instruct one and all as a specifically and directly-informed something of God.
Thus his psychological characterization of me as “childish” is not, I would say, something that should be of large concern to him since there are far greater issues on his plate, if his material is any indicator.
I am not being ‘sarcastic’; I am pointing out that some very large assertions are coming from people whose material would indicate that their reliability (and thus the reliability of their assertions) is not all that could be hoped for.
And the snarky “Enjoy!” (scream-caps omitted) at the bottom of his second paragraph indicates yet again that there is some molten core in there that is bubbling and frothing, contrary to the ‘True Servant’ persona which doth declaim and declare, either thunderously or ruefully as the mood may shift in him.
Continuing in regard to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1234AM:
He then wants to know why I “continually try to bring doubt into the subject of every child molestation accusation”: I do so because there are more than sufficient aspects that induce questions, as I go to great (and complex) lengths to explain in each case. Some types don’t like questions and they don’t like doubt, especially once they’ve latched onto something they find a congenial and useful belief.
The “crybullies” point I made was apropos and actually originally made by someone else (as I indicated in my identifying reference in that post). “Scammers” was ‘Miranda’s bit and it appears ‘Dan’ is now getting rather confused. I have explained “Victimist” at great length and if he finds it inapt he can confer (with God, if necessary) and then demonstrate or explicate his objections.
He is quite right, however, that my choice of words is not (never, I would say) “accidental”. Very acute on his part.
His concluding epithet in scream-caps can stay up right where it was put.
He then finds “most interesting” my “defence of the church and its sins”. He will have to a) provide some accurate quotations from me as to where I have done that, and then b) explain-away the many times I have specifically made clear that what I have just said is not to be taken as implying that I approve of this or that aspect of hierarchs’ actions or priests’ actions or some such.
Good luck with that. The ball’s in your court on this one.
Continuing in regard to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1234AM:
I am conducting a historical type of assessment of the Catholic Abuse Matter, trying to take all the relevant extant factors into account, and following the path to questions that thus arise. If it seems like I wind up asking a lot of questions about the Stampede, that’s simply because the Stampede itself has been so very un-historical, focusing merely on the aspects (real or imagined) that are congenial to its purposes and ignoring everything else relevant (a gambit well-rewarded when the ‘Globe’ refined it to an art-form with its ‘reporting’).
This is gall-and-wormwood to the Abuseniks, whether they have only the resources to make snark and epithets or whether they have enough resources to try to take the high-ground and go on about ‘complexity’ and language that isn’t “plain”. Which, again I would say, reveals far more about the Abuseniks and the Stampede than it does anything else.
The True Servant then returns, concluding the comment with the prouncement of various Woes and the now obligatory (and clinically remarkable) “With Much Love” bit.
And in the “P.S.” we then get a somewhat weird bit that I think is his way of trying to justify this performance: I, apparently in his mind, had felt or actually was “left out” and “ignored”. Which then reveals the method in the madness in the comment: building on his greatly mistaken knowledge of how posting works on this site, he has convinced himself that he had an opening for his comment here by telling himself that nobody responds to me.
I hope it is now clear why there are times when I am moved to smile at some of this stuff.
Boy, Jim, God "bores" you? Have you seen the lastest photos from Hubble of Saturn or any of the other magnificent shots. What kind of world would it be without people, animals, fishes, birds, babies of all species and the rest of our world's wonders. I can understand your beliefs being different, but it's hard for me to realize a world void of His hand. "BORING"
Do you buy into the scientific theories and explanations of Creation. I guess that is your prerogative, but nothing yet in their theories have convinced me. Take care and I wish you well in all your endeavors.
Thank you Dan.