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.
On the 27th at 1128PM ‘Miranda’ now claims that it isn’t my “material” at all, but rather that I “keep hinting that there’s some mysterious ulterior motive”.
I do. Whether that ulterior motive is due to the fact that a) she reports herself a “professional researcher” and her time is worth a lot of money (leading to the possibility that her presence here is a professional engagement) or b) that we are dealing here with another – though higher-functioning – form of some typical Abusenik personal whackery is – as I have said – still open to consideration.
Conspiracy theory (correctly applied, since you imply I've been hired to comment) and silly. Everyone has free time. I'm a professional researcher who happens to be willing to spend time asking you for a definition.
Per your definition on previous pages, this would read: "some typical [a person all about abuse] personal whackery". What does this have to do with you refusing to define the term "the Stampede"?
On the 27th at 1143PM ‘Miranda’ will start quoting dictionary definitions, although she seems to have missed the part about that “request” (“solemn”?) being made “to a superior authority”. But it is not I who have made claims to professional chops and creds as she has here. I am not a “superior authority” here, have never claimed to be, and just call the shots as I see them, often stating to the effect that it is up to the readers to judge as they will.
And I remind her that the definition she seeks is in the archive and she “petulantly” refuses to look it up, though she is a “professional researcher” and that she herself introduced the ‘debate’ metaphor/analogy which requires debaters to do their research before engaging their interlocutor(s).
You claim to know the definition. Stop evading and just provide it.
On the 27th at 1152PM ‘Miranda’ now claims that it would be a “ridiculous” ‘demand’ from a client that she has to “trawl through archives”. She can scan the archives without having to read them in the thick sense of that word – or is this news to her? There won’t be a quiz or test – although she of course will need to quote accurately if she chooses some part of my material to discuss here.
She then offers the charmingly ambiguous bit that she has come onto this site as – “let’s call it” – a “passion project” on her part. This would without difficulty point in the direction of some obsession or obsessiveness; and her self-consoling spin of that uncongenial possibility as merely a “passion project” is a gambit that we also have seen and continue to see with ‘Dan’: an effort to endow a lesser personal reality with the aura of a better or higher personal reality.
And again, her “interest” here is not going to find fulfillment in the way she insists-upon. She will have to deal with that as she may.
This is contradictory. You'd have to read closely to assess what areas are relevant for quoting, even after scanning for keywords. And of course you'd then claim that any quoted piece was lacking the context of the surrounding paragraphs and conversation, etc etc, requiring more reading… You seem to think I haven't encountered your type before?
I'm being pretty persistent (or in your words, "obsessive") about getting you to commit to a concrete definition of "the Stampede", but am now quite interested in your parsing "realities" – how many "realities" do you consider yourself part of?
On the 27th at 1158PM ‘Miranda’ now tries to justify her stance here as necessary because (in her opinion) it is “ridiculous” to “send” her on a task-trip into the archives. She can think and spin that as she wishes.
She also tosses in a bit to the effect that her presence here is as both herself and her “employer”, and readers may consider that bit as they will. If it be true, then the obsessiveness enters into the picture.
Her position here does no credit to her claimed chops as a “professional researcher” nor as a ‘debater’, to use her own imagery.
As I have said, my “obstinacy” here is based in my almost-immediate sense that we were up against some sort of Abusenik gambit here on this thread and it seemed (and seems) to me more useful to see if things can be sussed out. And I repeat that from what I have seen (and see) here, my surmise and purpose seem rather accurate.
Could I “ask” her? I think that we have seen with ‘Dan’ that any such question would simply invite a load of bits similar to what we have gotten from ‘Dan’ and which I would say we are increasingly seeing from ‘Miranda’.
As I have said, my “obstinacy” here is based in my almost-immediate sense that we were up against some sort of Abusenik gambit here on this thread
Please, do describe this "gambit". It sounds like nonsense to me, but since you claim to almost immediately have detected a disturbance in the force, go ahead and englighten me. (Also, are you using the royal "we" here? After all your badgering about not speaking for others, I'm not sure what other use there would be for the phrase "we were up against".)
What a convenient way to absolve yourself of any duty to back up your bizarre conspiracy allegations.
On the 28th at 1226AM ‘Miranda’ now tries an extended apologia to establish her position.
She feels herself in “no particular need of consolation”. I doubt ‘Dan’ feels such a need either.
Her “performance here on this thread” could have taken an entirely different course had she simply done her “professional” ‘research’ for herself and then lodged whatever points she wished or wishes to make.
The material is all there in the archive. And by now some readers may actually have refreshed their memories by looking it up for themselves. And her insistence on trying to spin my refusal to do things her way as merely being an effort at avoidance can hardly hold water when the material is right up there for anyone and everyone to see for themselves if they are so inclined.
Ah, but I don't regret my "performance here on this thread". So no thank you.
In the origin of the Cinderella story, a stepmother throws lentils into the ashes of a cold fire and tells her stepdaughter that she can go to the ball only if she picks out all of the lentils. It's a mean, spiteful act – the stepmother had the lentils in her hand, and she's got more in her pantry, but she wants to assert her position and make her stepdaughter's life difficult by forcing her through symbolic drudgery.
The stepmother is not viewed as the hero of this story, you might recall, even though Cinderella is very good at cleaning and surely is capable of picking out lentils. It's a time-wasting, inconsiderate act that's meant to set up a hurdle between the girl and her goal.
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 28th at 1226AM:
She then descends – had you been waittttttting forrrrrr ittttttttttt? – into epithet in her next paragraph (I am “an obtuse, obstructive individual quite full of [my]self]” … and I simply recall to her the dynamics of clinical projection and leave it at that.
And in the next paragraph she seems not to notice precisely that she has indeed spent “a ridiculous amount of time asking the same question” when she could have had the answers she sought for herself in far less time. We are into some sort of psycho-dramatic soap-opera, it would surely seem, that she has constructed for herself and that she seems quite content to play. I don’t intend to participate. If she wants to bring her researched questions and thoughts to the table, then we can proceed.
Thus it is not that her gambit is not “getting through” to me; it is – to repeat yet again – that I am not going to participate in her gambit. She can do her research, lodge her points here, and – again – then we can proceed.
Seek an exorcism, the spooky ghost is back.
What, my researched questions about your self-created definition for the phrase "the Stampede"? Why on earth would I research a definition that you should have at hand? You put the term on the table, and then refused to provide a definition. I'm not doing busywork that you've created out of thin air.
Miranda – In reply to your post that a comment from Publion was posted under “TheMediaReport.com.”
As long-time users and commenters of this site know, sometimes users receive a pesky 403 PHP error when trying to post.
When this occurs, users can email their comments to us at “contact@themediareport.com,” after which we can publish them to the site.
This occurred in this instance with Publion, but we neglected to change the user name.
I hope this clears up that confusion.
TMR – that is not WordPress functionality that I'm familiar with. Can you link to anything describing that function?
Miranda – I have been trying to address this issue for quite some time – a lot longer than you have been commenting – but to no avail.
The best I have been able to come up with is that WordPress or my comments plugin limits the number of submitted words from a user during a certain time.
Pulblion has no affiliation with TheMediaReport.com whatsoever.
Thanks TMR, I was actually referring to the posting-as-another-user feature – is that an admin function, or is it just posting content and typing in the user's name in the Name field?
When someone – anyone – sends us a comment via email to post, we have to post it as the administrator, then we change the Name field to the person who actually made the comment.
Now to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 805AM:
What ‘Dan’ doth “think” is or is not humanly possible is for readers to consider as they will. Had he not observed in his numerous stays in mental facilities just how much is “humanly possible” to certain minds?
He then helpfully proffers a decent definition of “delusional”, apparently oblivious to the substantial danger of its recoil in the context of his use of it here.
And again we see the old familiar Abusenik effort to sidestep my material by dismissing it as merely being an effort “to impress others”. Compound/complex grammar and vocabulary will have that effect on certain minds, as I have often said, especially on minds far more comfortable with lesser evolved forms of information processing and on minds that have convinced themselves that their processing is yet more than sufficient if not superior to any other types of processing.
And he then nails it home with his plaintive epithet that despite my “great intellegence” yet I cannot understand “plain english” (that would be ‘English’). And remains oblivious to the point that much of his material is reducible to epithet, undemonstrated and quite possibly inaccurate assertions, and topics such as his Scripture collection that have no relevance to the matters under consideration on this site.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 805AM:
As to his “Fact”(s):
His first merely asserts – and “absolutely” – that none of his jail and mental hospital stays were “based on false accusations”. We have, then, his word for it (as with so many Abusenik assertions) and nothing more and readers may judge as they will.
The sentence is not hard to understand; the psychological dynamics that produced it are what constitute the main question.
His second claims that he wasn’t ever sexually abused and never said so. On the 27th at 625AM he wrote that “From my perspective, sex abuse from a supposed 'man of god', or should I say many men of god, surely changed my entire worldview”. If my conclusion from that statement – i.e. that he was now claiming multiple incidences of sexual abuse against him – was inaccurate then perhaps he might want to spend more time on the formulation of his points and the composition of his comments.
It might also appear from his second-point excursus that he was walking along the street and initiated some sort of lecture or exhortation to the children behind the fence in the school-yard. And he does not find this odd?
He will then try to justify what appears indeed to have been the case by declaiming upon the Freedom of Speech element and also the “freedom to go wherever we please”. The police and “mental hospital” authorities apparently came to their own conclusions.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 805AM:
My thoughts on his third point are covered by my thoughts on his second point.
I would only add that he himself says “can” change, and that instantly removes this scientific claim from the status of universal to the status of possible, thereby opening up as well the possibility that such an episode does not have that effect.
He then – marvelously – tells me I need to “do some serious research” as to “the effects of child abuse”.
I would first point out that “child abuse” is a larger category within which “child sexual abuse” is wholly contained. Thus studies on the effect of the former do not of themselves constitute conclusions made in regard to the latter.
And I would then ask if he has any particular studies in mind. I had mentioned in comments on this thread the 1998 Rind meta-study and the scholarly discussion that followed upon it (a topic about which ‘Miranda’, the “professional researcher”, had initially made a greatly inaccurate assertion and subsequently seems to have dodged or avoided). Did ‘Dan’ have any particular studies that struck him as particularly noteworthy?
He can also enter terms such as ‘resilience studies’ into his search engine, if he wishes, since that topic is closely tied to the abuse-effects and sexual-abuse-effects topics.
And he might realize that in making these observations and suggestions and in posing this question I am not in any way trying to “impress” him or anyone else. He made a point, I responded, and let’s see where it goes.
His fourth point continues his Woes theme and enough said.
Appreciate your recognizing my sureness and certainty of faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Heb 11:1 Also that he (Dan) "speaks with the undeniable and irrefutable authority" of the Almighty God and His Precious Son Jesus. Thank you again for such a compliment to His lowly servant. May I also show my gratitude for acknowledging my posts, well seasoned with a "clearly hefty pile of Scriptural things" and quotes to backup my material. Much better than the "hefty pile" of repetitive, pretentious nonsense you spew for days and possibly for years, though I'm surely not interested in searching your archives to find anymore of your garbage. Glad to see you titled "Scriptural" to show it's importance, and yet haven't stopped mocking or shown proper respect to the Almighty God, the One and Only True God. So continue to mock-on and bow down to kiss the feet of your goddess, Mary 'Queen of Heaven'. Is that you, P, I see trampled under her feet? Dan, the Lord's Servant
On the 28th at 551PM, faced with some rather specific and hardly insubstantial issues, ‘Dan’ will – if we prescind from the epitheticals – simply choose to see “a compliment” in the whole thing. That must console him.
He still seems to be convinced that his spiritual telegrams are coming from God and not a or some or any or his own god. And that must console him.
And on that note I will leave him to his further misadventures with various authorities and so on and so forth.
As for ‘Miranda’, especially in light of her most recent crop, I can’t see that she’s interested in anything except prolonging what she could easily resolve, which makes me think that for her her game is more of a priority than even her own putatively precious professional time and effort.
She can access the Stampede material if and when she wants to and things can proceed from there.
Otherwise, I think we have now reached a point of diminishing returns and the record now can stand for itself.
I see there is now a question arising from one of my posts that has TMR rather than ‘Publion’ as the by-line.
For years on this site I have often encountered the error message ‘PHP’, especially with longer comments (and – yes – there have been a lot of those). It is for that reason – as readers may have noticed on more recent threads – that I have taken to breaking my comments up into smaller segments (thus that “Continuing with …” introduction to comments that are broken up). As far as I can tell, length-of-text has something to do with triggering the error message.
But even when I break up comment text, I still sometimes get the ‘PHP’ error message.
Sometimes I find that by posting in the ‘Reply’ mode permits longer comment-text than if I post directly.
But at those times when the error message pops up and can’t be gotten-around on my end, I submit the text to DP via email with the text in an attachment and he posts the text as a comment from me, although this is the first time in all the years that he apparently posted the text under the TMR by-line rather than mine.
I comment on the site, but I am not connected with the editorial or technical management of the site in any way whatsoever and I never have been. All my material is my own and it doesn’t reflect and isn’t and has never been intended to reflect any implication or support any inference that I speak for DP or the TMR site.
‘Miranda’s unfamiliarity with the site’s ongoing error message/PHP issue is what it is.
"I think we have now reached a point of diminishing returns." says Publion.
That's hilarious! It took you all this time to figure out what the "Abusenik Stampede" realized all along, ever since you joined the conversation. Your great awakening must console you.
Dan, who has compassion for your lethargic mind