Shining the light on 'Spotlight'
Fabricated episodes. Character defamation. Devious storytelling. This is the definitive review of the Hollywood movie Spotlight, which purports to chronicle the Boston Globe's 2001-2002 investigation of the Catholic Church sex abuse story.
The heavily hyped Hollywood production – starring A-list actors Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo – professes to dramatize the paper's pursuit of the troubling crimes committed by abusive priests in the Archdiocese of Boston.
However, after thoroughly studying the film, TheMediaReport.com's Dave Pierre reports:
"Spotlight claims to be 'based on actual events,' but it does not bode well when the very first scene of the film is a complete fabrication.
"It also does not bode well for the film's authenticity that a possible lawsuit looms as at least four individuals have now stepped forward to say they have been falsely portrayed in the film.
"And the film grossly misrepresents the way that Church officials responded to cases of abusive priests years ago and essentially ignores the role that secular psychologists played in the crisis.
"The film also conveniently ignores the Globe's long history of hypocrisy when it comes to reporting the issue of child sex abuse. While Spotlight kindly refers to Church officials as 'scumbags' and 'good Germans,' the Globe never applied any of those pleasant labels to others who committed child sex crimes and whom the Globe often celebrated in its pages."
Our detailed review of 'Spotlight':
• Real-Life Characters Portrayed in 'Spotlight' Threaten Lawsuit Claiming Fabricated Depictions (November 2015, w/Addendum, 3/16/16)
• 'Based on Actual Events'? Except the Very First Scene From 'Spotlight' Is Completely Bogus (November 2015)
• 'Cardinal Law Knew of Abuse and Did Nothing'? Actually, Cardinal Law Did Exactly As He Was Told To Do By Psychologists (November 2015)
• 'Spotlight' Neglects to Mention the Boston Globe's Own Long History of Rank Hypocrisy on the Issue of the Sexual Abuse of Minors (November 2015)
• No, Cardinal Law Did Not 'Call Down the Wrath of God' To Punish the Boston Globe (November 2015)
• Fact Checker: More Ways That 'Spotlight' Got It Wrong (November 2015, w/ Addendum, 12/5/15)
———————
[See also the new book: Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com)]
Please tell me: how come many priests from the same diócesis of Card. Bernardo Law said out loud to expel him from the Church?
Very convinient for Bernard Law to follow the advice from the Psicologists that were under the diócesis payroll.
Don't you see it? The Catholic Church reeks of hipocrecy it's been like that since the early times.
Thank you for letting me writte this comment.
Rafael Garcia Zuazua.
Hollywood, probably out of malice, is using a sword against the Church, true. But it was priests and bishops who fashioned the sword and handed it to Hollywood. Let's not forget that the fundamental fault lies with priests and bishops, not with Hollywood.
Well said.
Only 2000 out of 11,000 of your child victims given any compensation at all*.
That's the real scandal going on today. Again a scandal created by your church. The church is waiting for all it's uncompensated victims to die without help.
Meanwhile i wonder who's paid for the mother Teresa** movie to be made? I don't think there's been a reel (pun intended) need for such a film in the market place. i think the church needs such propaganda but few others.
And just think of all the money the church has paid pr firms to refashion their "image". (Could the m.Teresa show be part of that tailoring?) Millions upon millions of $. While it hides the fact it's paid nothing for the vast majority of it's crimes against children to it's victims.
* John Jay report.
** Read the real story of Teresa called The Missionary Position, by Christopher Hitchens.
You're not serious, right? This must be a joke. Am I supposed to take this seriously? Or is it just a way for David Pierre to use the victims’ pain to sell copies of his book?
1. When the movie shows Globe reporters making comments about the Church leaders, they are not statements that were printed in the paper. They were comments made in private. You have no way of knowing that reporters did not make those same comments in private when researching other stories. I challenge you to prove that no Globe reporter ever referred to a child abuser by a derogatory name in the office when talking with colleagues.
2. The fact that four people have complained about their treatment means nothing. Almost anybody negatively portrayed in a film will complain about it regardless of whether it's true. You seem to suggest that if people file lawsuits then the allegations are true. Well, thousands of people, including myself, have filed lawsuits declaring that church leaders were grossly negligent. Therefore, by your reasoning, it must be true. Case closed.
3. Your claim about ignoring the role of private psychologists would be valid if Spotlight were a documentary about clergy sex abuse. It's not. It's a dramatic portrayal of the investigative journalism process in uncovering the scandal. It doesn't claim to be exhaustive. It leaves out many details, most of which would make the Church look even worse. I haven't researched the issue enough to know for sure, but many people involved in the scandal believed that some the Church's claims in this area were very weak. Nothing about the involvement of psychologist absolves the Church.
The bottom line is that even if the globe were as evil as you suggest, it doesn’t matter. The documents and depositions prove the truth. This happened. Accept it.
When an institution does something so bad for so many decades/centuries with such little regard for innocent children, the reaction will be inevitably fierce. There will be inaccuracies, and some people will be so angry that they won't want to look at the whole picture. It doesn't matter. The Church erred gravely and admits it. I'm sorry that the reaction offends you and that the Church gets 100% of the blame when it should only get maybe 98% of the blame, but it doesn't matter. You need to accept this and move on.
This whole website is an egregious offense to be people impacted by this tragedy and is shameful. It's almost as bad as being complicit in the scandal.
In my opinion David Pierre can continue his pathetic attempt to try and disgrace the movie Spotlight it keeps him safe and off the streets. I will continue to watch it win awards and national praise like Time magazine calling it the # 1 movie of the year.
The truth does hurt sometimes.
Oh I just can't take anymore! You know why Dave Pierre and the Church behave badly don't you? Because they are sinners, just like everyone who goes crook at them. If you don't believe me, look up Romans 3:23 in the Bible, which I do believe is the inspired and infallable word of God.
Look, I don't know what to believe anymore. Anyhow, I stopped caring about a lot of things when my dear cousin, who was the closet I had to a real friend, moved away to live with her boyfriend and instead of feeling sorry for me, like any good father would have done, mine told me off for being selfish. Then one year later, he did it again and also had the audicity to take the Lord's name in vain, which really removed the scales from my eyes.
Then some time later, Mum told me how one sex abuse victim commited suicede. That made me see how serious this problem is. But Mum told me that story to justifiy her decent from Church teachings on things like abortion. Which makes her a stupid bitch and a hypocrite because disobey your church leaders – however un-Christ like they may be – is just the same as disobeying your parents and teachers, which Mum never wanted me to do. Never mind that as far as God is concerened, my dad and the headmaster of my first school deserve to go to Hell just as much as the John Groghans of this world do.
In regard to the ‘Rafael’ comment of the 1st at 1043AM:
Does the gentleman himself have any information as to how many priests from the Archdiocese of Boston “said out loud” that Cardinal Law should be ‘expelled’ “from the Church”?
And does the gentleman have any alternative for the Church retaining the services of a psychologist other than paying that psychologist for his/her services?
And the concluding comment – “it’s been like that since the early times” – standing alone without any demonstration, and merely on the basis of the rather dubious bits the gentleman put up in his prior paragraphs, remains merely a convenient and epithetical assertion and nothing more.
On the 3rd at 1140AM we are now treated to a modestly encouraging bit: JR actually footnotes his references, or tries to – at least.
Was he referring to the first or the second John Jay Report? (There are – to remind him yet again on this site – two of them, separated by a period of years.)
And in regard to the point of compensation: we see – as almost always – the conflation of ‘allegant’ and ‘victim’ as if they were synonymous terms (and realities) and that is most surely not the case.
And would the figure of 2,000 receiving pay-outs have any alternative possible cause – such as, say, their allegations not being found credible? (My point here presumes, for purposes of this discussion only, the accuracy of his claim of 2,000.)
Continuing in regard to JR’s of the 3rd at 1140AM:
There is – I will say – a very real “scandal” involved in all of this, and that is the scandal of the Stampede, whereby so many presumptions and assorted misuses of language have been drummed-up and drummed-into the public mind, that public opinion comes to presume the veracity of those presumptions (much as, for a while back there in 2002-3, public opinion, initially skeptical, came to accept as veracious that Saddam actually had WMD and was trying to buy yellow-cake from Niger and therefore the invasive war on Iraq was justified).
JR will then try his hand at insinuation, wondering “who’s paid for the mother Teresa movie” (referring, I presume, either to a 1997 film or a 2003 film – there have been at least two of them on this subject). To what end? Are we supposed to start wondering who might have “paid for” the ‘Spotlight’ film? Once again, he rummaged through his pile of 3x5s, found one on a ‘movie’, and since ‘Spotlight’ is a movie then … that was enough relevance to satisfy his mind.
Which then gives, however, gives him a convenient opening into speculative insinuations or assertions – entirely un-supported – as to how much money the Church “has paid pr firms to refashion their ‘image’” (sic). Does he have a reliable figure – or source?
What a vicious ol' queen you are. Bitter! Just plain bitter!
A new MT flik is at the market door. Selling catholic "groveiness" and white wash one more time. It's called Letters.
The more they yammer nonsense; and safety in a not so safe world the more likely the dumb will believe them. Pr. wise: your religion is making a Hail Mary pass. The church bears the responsibility of aiding it's victims; but that's the last thing it intends to do. Here we go talking about the church again and never it's harmed. Once again focus on the unchangeable. The church. Not on it's injured.
This isn't about your faith but your deeds and responsibility.
In regard to the comment by ‘Dave Carlin’ of the 2nd at 1244PM:
I will certainly agree with him that if anybody “fashioned” the sword and “handed it” to Hollywood, then the Church bears some real responsibility.
But we still really don’t have a clear idea as to just how extensive and substantive the “sword” actually was.
We have a given number of formally lodged allegations and claims; we have payouts made through settlements; we have all manner of media ‘reports’. But there are hardly impossible (and perhaps hardly improbable) alternative explanations for them. Yet whether we have actual and demonstrable evidence as to the real and actual extent of genuine victimization and cover-up … we don’t actually have that. All we have is a great deal of noise and sound and fury, but when we stop the spinning wheel or reel to look at a specific frame or claim or instance, then things don’t always appear so demonstrable at all. As we have seen on this site when examining this or that proffered story or even cached-and-released document.
In regard to the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:
He touches the nub of the matter with his reference to “victims’ pain”: we still don’t really and actually know just how many genuine such types we are dealing-with in all of this. That there were some such genuine victims I personally have no doubt. But that the myriad claims and stories and allegations can be or should be presumptively assumed is something else altogether and it always has been.
Yet such a presumption has always been a mainstay of Victimist dogma and of the Stampede (to use my term) which derives from it. We have seen precisely the same dynamic in play (and at play) in the recent and ongoing brouhaha over collegiate ‘rape’ in the US – which actually extends back at least as far as the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case if not also to the late-1980s Tawana Brawley case and the early-1980s McMartin Pre-School Satanic Ritual Child Abuse case(s) and similar cases.
Continuing with the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:
His point about ‘Spotlight’ being a movie primarily designed to showcase a “dramatic portrayal” of the journalists involved is surely accurate. Whether the movie – or the sum total of the ‘Globe’s efforts as time went on – are shining examples of “investigative journalism” is another question altogether. And surely there are a number of other examples of such “investigative journalism” as this site has examined here, and far more recently, wherein “shining” would better be replaced with “glaring”, and not in a positive sense of that term.
Thus his rather too-simple conclusion (that “the documents and depositions prove the truth … this happened” is rather too-simple by half. We are precisely left wondering as to the veracity of the claims and we certainly have seen on this site (in, for example, the release by the LA ‘Times’ of its document cache) that even the revealed Church documents do not fully support assertions made about them.
That, I would say again, is the trouble with ginning up a Stampede that runs roughshod over evidentiary integrity and journalistic caution and completeness in order to achieve a desired grand-effect: one later finds that the credibility has somehow disappeared – if not dissolved – under all the ‘dust’ that has been raised.
Continuing with the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:
It is relevant that in today’s Wall Street Journal (page A-13 of the print edition; the piece is entitled “The Injustice of the Plea-Bargain System”, by Lucian E. Dervan, identified as an associate professor at the Southern Illinois University School of Law) that gentleman makes precisely the same point as made by Federal Appeals Court Judge Alex Kosinski of the 9th Circuit: plea-bargains are now coming to be seen, as the Supreme Court had warned when it initially supported them in 1970, as providing pressure on defendants in such a situation to “falsely condemn themselves”. So, then, even the existence of plea-bargains hardly constitutes irrefutable proof of guilt. This goes precisely to my points and is relevant to such (few) cases as there have been of defendant-priests striking a plea-deal with prosecutors.
Continuing with the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:
Lastly, ‘1993 Victim’s very sensible point is useful here: i.e. that a “reaction” might indeed be “inevitably fierce” and that “there will be inaccuracies”. Very true, I would say.
But when media and court-process and the powerfully politically-connected ‘plaintiffs’ bar’ and a media looking to make a splash as a “new gunslinger in town” are all toted up into the equation (supported by so-called ‘advocacy science’), then there cannot but exist some very real possibility – and I would go so far as to say probability – that so much pressure and so many pressures will work to create a structural distortion that far outpaces any merely ‘natural’ elements of an “inevitably fierce” public “reaction”.
And that’s what this site – as I understand it – has been trying to work on, and that’s why I would very much dispute his final assertion that “this whole website is an egregious offense” to anybody.
And I would say that “the scandal” will prove to be – as I believe it always has been – the Stampeding of public opinion by the pressures and derangements introduced and deployed in the consideration of the Catholic Abuse Matter.
Response to Spin Doctor Mocker Publion,
They will slander My word. They will curse My name. They even stop and change My word. They try and translate the word in order to make money off of Me. They are always there with their riches, with no concern for the poor. As we say, the world has the hatred, but these people think they have the world by the tail. They don't have My faith, hope, or love. THEY HAVE NOTHING IN LIFE.
Keep preaching your propaganda and thinking you can bend someone's mind. You're the perfect member for your deceiving church of hypocrisy. You think you can fool others and probably believe, in you own mind, that you've even fooled God. Good luck with that!
Yawn!
To again, prove my point about the church manipulating compensation follow this.http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/catholic-church-saves-62-million-on-sexual-abuse-claims-20151205-glgavf.html
The church like any other corporation bases promotions on moneies brought in and or saved. Your church doesn't give a damn about it's own catholic children. It only pretends to care about it's kids now.
Money Money Money is what really matters to you and all of it coming in; and the barely minimal going out. The cardinals and bishops never see jail and cheat victims while all along pretending to be just. Shame and guilt belong at your church doors forever.
I and every other decent person curse you.
Readers may consider the comment of ‘Dan’ on the 7th at 1054AM.
By his own admission (on a recent thread) having been jailed and sent for mental hospital stays multiple times (all based on “lies” or ‘lies, lies, and more lies’ – as he has assured us) ‘Dan’ considers himself a particularly favored receiver of Divine guidance.
Which – conveniently and probably as no surprise to those readers clinically-experienced or inclined – means that one cannot disagree with his Scriptural quotations, excurses, and Woes (and he does like to pronounce his Scriptural Woes, larded with epithets the tone of which is rather substantially at odds with the demeanor and tone of a Favored Mouthpiece of the or a or some or any Divinity) without disagreeing with God.
They are what they are, he is what he is, and readers may consider it all as they will.
But it raises the question as to just how the internet has helped fuel the Stampede by providing a forum where – under the mantle of either a claimed victimization or a claimed Divine Authority – various types have been given a forum for glomming onto something by which they can go on with their assorted bits against the Church, religion, or whatever floats the boat of their personal psychic economy and makes their day seem (to them, anyway) worthwhile.
Then – nicely – comes JR (the 6th at 246PM) with a link to an Australian media article. The significance (to his mind, anyway) of which – as always – he fails to explain.
Looking at the article, several points seem clear:
The Church in Australia was clear-eyed enough to realize rather quickly the implications of what the (American) Doyle proposal of 1985 recognized as a clear and distinct possibility: that legal and cultural trends were making it far easier for a classic tort-strategy of suing the Church for large sums on the basis of allegations which would – by the workings of the developing Victimist Zeitgeist – be largely presumed to be veracious and accurate.
Thus the Church in Australia developed its internal “Melbourne Policy”, by which all Bishops were to take the bull by the horns and contest any lawsuits and were, in cases where private settlements were dealt with, not to exceed payouts of fifty thousand dollars.
Continuing with the JR comment of the 6th at 246PM:
This, of course, was a far different policy from that into which the US Bishops – whose approach was far more disparate and lackadaisical and far less proactive – found themselves drawn.
Which is not to make the error of presuming that the hierarchies of the US and Australia were confronted by completely similar situations.
In the US, certainly, there was a synergy (I have called it the Stampede, for short-hand purposes) among sensationalist media; a politically-connected tort-attorney or ‘plaintiff’s bar’ element; a decades-long political and cultural Zeitgeist that opposed the Church’s stance on a number of major politically-charged cultural issues; a consequent intensification of public focus on sex-‘abuse’ (however defined) and child abuse; a general increase in the litigiousness in American society; an established basic ‘script’ whereby truthy whistle-blowing truth-tellers would take on large corporate entities (and for big bucks, when done in the civil-action ‘lawsuit’ forum); a ‘culture war’ that pitted American secularist political and cultural and media ‘elites’ against ‘religion’; a largely ‘victim-friendly’ (I would call it Victimist) sensibility diffused throughout society and public opinion; numerous consequent instances of official legal weakening of evidentiary and jurisprudential processes to make them more ‘victim-friendly’; a profound division within the American Catholic polity itself as to the proper course to be taken in light of either the actual demands of the Second Vatican Council or at least the ‘spirit of Vatican Two’; which itself led to a subsequent disparate approach to the functions and disciplines required of priests.
Continuing with the JR comment of the 6th at 246PM:
To which I would also add a certain – not entirely misplaced – complacent presumption among the American hierarchy in regard to their religious polity which had come from ‘outsider’ status in the preceding two centuries to a 20th-century efflorescence that saw major Church growth in Catholic stature through the success of the Great Immigration generations (so very many of which immigrants were Catholics), vigorous participation in both World Wars, the election of a Catholic President, and the successes of the pontificate of John Paul II that reached even to the Church’s role in the dissolution – amazing to behold at the time – of the Soviet system and of the USSR itself.
Continuing with the JR comment of the 6th at 246PM:
The Australian hierarchy’s plan greatly reduced the pay-outs for settlements based on the assorted allegations and claims. But once one withholds a knee-jerk (Stampede) presumption that all allegations and claims were demonstrably veracious, then this success appears far less sinister and far more effective than what developed in the US.
I do not know whether the Australian government analysis itself realizes this and the media reporting (such as we see in this link) is skewed and selective, or whether the Australian government ‘study’ is itself attempting to set the stage for a replay of the American experience as to the Catholic Abuse Matter.
But in any case, the bare fact that a) Australian allegants did not make as much money as they might have in the US setting, and that – hardly unexpectedly, given any Australian societal similarity to the larger societal elements to which I referred in my immediately prior comment in regard to the synergy of elements I term the Stampede in the US – b) allegants who made their efforts in the civil-lawsuit forum made more money … does not in and of itself demonstrate any injustice.
So – as always – JR’s “point” remains to be ‘proved’.
2000 compensated out of 11,000 victims. 9000 uncompensated victims (at least) in the U.S. alone. You are shameless.
NIV "Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing? Job16:3
New Living Translation "Won't you ever stop blowing hot air? What makes you keep on talking? Job 16:3
All your long windedness and arguments substantiate, is the fact that the "catholic child abuse matters" range long and wide, around the world. United States, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, etc. etc. etc.. Need I list more? In other words, every location where the catholic church established themselves and brainwashed the population, sooner more than later began to molest children. It just may be beyond time you wake up to reality.
Dion, a roamin' catholic singer, sang a song that sounds perfect to describe the church heirarchy and priests. Take his song, The Wanderer, and substitute, little boys, for 'pretty girls', and you've just about got the catholic church pegged to the tee.
Keep on mocking God and think your just mocking me and see where that leads you, blasphemer. You think your years spent on the porch of Napa State Hospital qualifies you to be "clinically-experienced", but all it proves is that you're legally and clinically insane. Join with all the rest of the catholic liars, and further prove that birds of the feather flock together.
As if on cue, ‘Dan’ returns (the 8th at 505PM) with more Scriptural bits, epithetically deployed against my “long-winded speeches”; his own performance on recent threads, with extended Scriptural excurses, also epithetically deployed, seem not to strike him as eligible for Job’s denunciations – and no surprise there. But rational discussion and compound/complex sentences do tend to be off-putting for certain mentalities.
As to the recitation of other countries in which the Catholic Child Abuse Matter has also now popped up: if my theory of the Stampede is correct, and since these other countries’ efforts post-date the Stampede in the US, then it is quite possible – as I have said on this site before – that we are largely seeing imitations, nurtured by media or other interests in those countries for their own local purposes.
Readers will recall that the Dutch Abuse Report – as it is colloquially known – from almost half a decade ago has actually never been published in English in its full text, and that – when you actually tote up the figures – that document found 109 cases (however defined) in the preceding half century. Which would work out to two cases (however defined and if veracious) per year. There are many links to media ‘reports’, but there is no actual document; and we have heard nothing else from that country since.
Ditto the Irish ‘Magdalene’ cases, about which nothing further has been heard since the initial splash, although the author of a best-selling book on her own victimization experiences was later exposed as a mentally-ill confabulator (perhaps with an eye for the main chance) who was never a resident in any such facility. The fact that the book yet remained for some time longer a best-seller in that country may well indicate some local predilections, which contributed to such a Stampede as may have been sparked in that country, although the spark did not result in the type of major fire we saw in the US.
The Australian variant is still in the process and whether it proves itself any more reliable in its ‘discoveries’ than the Dutch remains to be seen.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 505PM:
And none of the other countries mentioned seem to have developed much ‘newsworthy’, again supporting my theory that efforts at imitation have not been successful.
‘Dan’s suggestion that I “wake up to reality” will be given every bit of the consideration it deserves, coming from the source it does.
I am not familiar with contemporary rock or folk songs – even from a “roamin’ catholic singer” but if that’s the basis for ‘Dan’s material here, and the level on which he operates, then it is what it is.
And the whole bit concludes – as almost always – with a reminder that “mocking” ‘Dan’ is tantamount to “mocking God” (or at least the entity sending ‘Dan’ those spiritual telegrams or emails); and that anyone who takes issue with ‘Dan’s bits is thus a “blasphemer”. I don’t know where he gets his Napa State Hospital reference, though perhaps it is a reflection of his own admitted misadventures with the mental health system.
And his further assertion that my material only “proves … that [I am] legally and clinically insane” – simply provides a sterling example of the familiar Abusenik dodge of I’m Not/You Are, while also demonstrating his substantial lack of legal and clinical chops and yet also his readiness to weave anything he can find ready-to-hand in order to construct an epithet.
Which then conveniently enables him to claim that he thereby “proves” this, that, and the other thing.
A nice enough demonstration, all told, of the psychic economy constructed by certain types in order to feel like they’ve done a good day’s work and must surely go on since “God” (however the term may be defined in ‘Dan’s hyperventilating usage) wills it.
Dear Mr. Legend, in your own little mind,
More excuses, on top of previous excuses, backed up by more excuses, followed by a few more excuses, etc.etc.etc.. Time you realized, that all your deceptions and lies have only come to fool yourself. I'm surely not impressed by any of your propaganda, and since according to your assessment of my mental incapabilities, I would infer that no one else is either.
Got a nice one that suits you perfectly- "But evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving others and being themselves deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13
Birds of a feather, should be all caged together. – Dan
P.S. I'll be waiting for your nauseating, long-winded return.
Publion, I'm trying to understand the motives to all your excuses and insistance on being the catholic church apologist, in ad nauseum. All of us can easily access the net, to find it plastered with cases where priests and bishops admitted guilt to their heinous crimes of child molestation. Do you need help finding them; Try to google 'catholic child molesting' and you'll find several websites, wiki, bishopaccountability.org, etc., where these cases were tried with the consequence of some penalties. In several of these, the settlement included hush money, bankruptcies, threats of lawsuits, or just refusal of the church to accept culpability and pay off victims. So out of all the countries I mentioned, you've cherry picked a meager two examples("Dutch Abuse Report" and "Irish 'Magdalene' cases"), where you can raise some infinitesimal doubt to suit your agenda(whatever that may be?). With this you expect us to ignore all the thousands of cases where the church or perpetrator admitted guilt, of which the majority were settled in silence to protect the 'catholic churches high moral standards'. Are you that dense, to think were all as blind and stupid as you? I would have to say, "Your ignorance is beginning to annoy me.", but it's way passed that.
Servant of TheTruth, waiting for some form of truth from you.
On the 9th at 937PM, and from the self-styled “Servant of the Truth” I am epithetically referred-to as “Mr. Legend in your own little mind”.
But I say that this should not be held against the Napa State Hospital; I doubt they would have had enough time to resolve the issues in ‘Dan’s mind.
When problems are pointed out with their preferred and carefully-constructed little piles of blocks, then to certain types of minds that simply constitutes “excuses, on top of previous excuses, backed up by more excuses, followed by a few more excuses” – which bit does nothing but remind us of his own excuses to the effect that his multiple arrests and stays in mental facilities were based – but of course – on nothing but ‘lies, lies, and more lies’ and so on.
Thus the Abusenik mind seeks to preserve its preferred illusions and scare-visions.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 937PM:
‘Dan’ reports himself “not impressed” and who could be surprised? He apparently (and rightly) realizes – on some level, at least – that there is no way he can deal with the points I raised, and so – in a hardly unfamiliar gambit – he reverts to epithets: the “excuses” – doncha see? – are also “propaganda” and, of course, “long-winded”.
But now, in addition to his dwelling in the sure and certain ‘knowledge’ that (his, a, some, any, the) ‘God’ is also not impressed, he will also “infer” that “no one else is [impressed] either”. Thus, to bolster his own mush he will try to speak for everyone else as well, in addition to speaking for (his, a, some, any, the) Divinity. And who – he would have us think – would dare presume to question creds like that? (Short answer: ‘Blasphemers’.)
He then tosses in another (epithetically-deployed) Scripture text, perhaps hot off the wire from Dan-God Central.
But his conclusion – in that marvelous way that appears invisible to the rather unwell – gives him away: certain types of “birds” – doncha see? – “should be all caged together”. The authorities have tried that on several occasions (as he has admitted) but it didn’t seem to work.
But again, instead of “waiting for my long-winded reply”, “The Servant of the Truth” (with ‘servant’ capitalized, thank ya vurrry mutch) returns on the 10th at 934AM.
For those keeping a notebook on the Abusenik Playbook we get another interesting dodge: rather than deal with the points I raised (which, as I said, he cannot really do) he will now ‘try’ “to understand the motives” of all my points.
To do this, of course, he has to make a number of presumptions:
First, that I am indeed ‘insisting’ on “being the catholic church apologist”: I am not; I am simply raising questions that arise from the material Abuseniks such as himself proffer.
Second, that on various sites on the Web one can find (sure and certain?) evidence “plastered” there to the effect that “priests and bishops admitted guilt”: he is welcome to deal with the points I raised here recently about the substantial dubiousness of even plea-bargains and the uncongenial (to his position) reality that Stampede-type ‘victim-friendly’ jurisprudence has now largely been jiggered to the advantage of the allegant and against the presumed innocence of the accused. When even a Federal Appellate judge writing at length in a prestigious legal journal raises formal and well-explicated doubts, and when the possibility of self-condemnation such as the Supreme Court noted in 1970 now appear to have come to pass, then what does one make of such few criminal cases as there have been?
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 934AM:
Third, he then appears to confuse civil-action lawsuit settlements and criminal cases – and who can be surprised? And the probabilities arising from the civil-lawsuit tort-attorney gambit have been identified and explicated at length on this site, and recently.
Fourth, he then claims that I merely “cherry-picked” the examples of the Netherlands and Ireland. Those were the two on his list that received the widest media play, and even those two – as I pointed out – have fallen far short of establishing the Abusenik/Stampede claims and assertions. Nor are the problems and doubts arising from those two instances “infinitesimal” nor “meager”. If he has found far more decisive and convincing evidence in any of the other national venues he mentioned, he can put them up here.
And where he gets his “thousands of cases” is anybody’s guess, but who can be surprised? As always, the Stampede has been fueled by a circular house-of-mirrors approach whereby various types simply presume and repeat until the mere fact of the repetitious presumptions can slide by as if it were demonstrated actuality.
And with that (rather weak and obvious) gambit tossed-up here, he then resorts – as so very often – to epithets in order to try and do the job that his ‘facts’ are incapable of doing.
And the self-devised signature, demonstrating his own legendary status (in his own mind, at least) as the “Servant of The Truth” – and who can be surprised?
As I have said, when you filter out their whackeries and their epithets, and look more carefully at what they proffer, then Abuseniks have very very little to bring to the table.
Blah Blah Blah: What To Do When Word's Don't Work by Dan Roam
Thought this book might help you. I can't open the eyes or ears of the deaf, dumb and blind. Maybe God would, if you ever stop mocking Him and thinking you're awful cute with your nasty sarcasm. I am through wasting my valuable time with your ignorance.
Dan, Servant of the Almighty
If I had wanted to devise a more revealing bit from ‘Dan’ to demonstrate my points, I could not have done a much better job than his of the 11th at 1259AM: “Blah Blah Blah” indeed.
The question is only secondarily about “words”; it is primarily about concepts and their relationship to demonstrated actuality. “Words” unanchored from concepts and demonstrated actuality become nothing more than distractions.
And we see yet another dodge: ‘Dan’s “time” – doncha see? – is far too “valuable” to be “wasting” here. I have no doubt that he has received this advice before from various professionals encountered in his assorted misadventures; but it seems rather clear that he has been unable or unwilling (or both) to take that advice to heart and spend his energies on more urgent problems that require his full attention.
And at the end of it all, a reader might suddenly realize that ‘Dan’ has proffered nothing to resolve the issues that were on the table, i.e. the problems with his material.
Hey Dave, I know I have taken exception with some of the things you have written, but this link should leave you feeling vindicated:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/shining-a-spotlight-on-hollywood-duplicity-and-bias
(I bet Dennis Ecker and Dan won't be impressed, though.)
"Crisis" Mark?
What's the "Crisis"? Getting one's knickers in a twist over a movie? Living for an imaginary diety? Anybody who isn't a catholic?
JP2 absoutely ruined your church. It's been in the dark ages for a very long time.
2000 compensated out of 11,000 victims. 9000 uncompensated victims (at least) in the U.S. alone. You are shameless.
Mark 12/11 5:20am If the thousands of priests, nuns, catholic teachers and laity kept their filthy little hands off of children(minors) of any age, there would be no need to cover for their crimes or transfer them to other locations to continue the nastiness. Popes, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, pastors and monsignors would not have had to lie, deceive, hide and secretly settle with victims, the perversions that I would suppose they are also guilty of. If all these crimes against underage children never happened, there would be no need for the Boston Globe story, the Hollywood movie, the Media Report.com and no other deceivers, liars or hypocrites(like Publion) to skew the truth in an attempt to take the public eye off of who really is the guilty party here; All the sick perverts and anyone one who excuses and tries to cover up their nasty deeds. Keep your dresses(gowns or vestments) on, your zippers up and your mouths closed and we would all be able to experience a safer world for our children and our children's children. Please stop all the smokescreens, they will only fool the ignorant and no one else.
I'm against anyone who slanders, lies or persecutes those who seek and speak the truth. I have suffered personally from malicious catholic liars and could care less what other catholic slanderers(i.e. Publion) have to add to their vicious, disgusting lies. Dan
P.S. Don't forget Mark, "It's only a movie!" and that's Hollywood for you and the reason I'm not interested in seeing it. Much more interested in reality and truth, something hard to come by these days.
Either I am too sensitive or you are blaming me for the scandal!
Took a look at the John Jay Report this evening- Starts out and I quote, "ALL researchers acknowledge that those who are arrested represent only a FRACTION of all sexual offenders. Sexual crimes have the lowest rates of reporting for all crimes." Chapter 2.1
Catholic priests preferred sexual encounters with young boys(81% of the time) compared to young girls(19%), very different than that of the general population.
We've been led to believe that most priest sexual abuse occured among children between ages 14-17 years old. Not true. Just over 50% of allegations were from children ages 11-14 and over 70% ages 10-15. Page 70
They would have us believe that many offenses were minor(i.e. hugs, kisses, touching). False, the truth- "Very few priests have allegations of only the least severe of the abuses." Page 72 – "If incidents that include acts of oral sex or sexual penetration are counted alone, they total 3,280, or 34%." Also page 72. My addition among boys alone totaled closer to 40% and that excluded masturbation which also registered higher marks. Check out the chart for yourself on page 73.
So if we add to these facts that very few violations were reported to the authorities, leading to even fewer convictions, settlements(hush money) made in secrecy, threats so priests remain anonymous(i.e. excommunication), and this represents only a fraction of offenses and many more go unreported(see quote in paragraph 1), yikes to say the least!
And is it any wonder that the number of cases declined as pope john paul II took the reigns, along with the RATSzinger by his side, telling the bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug, in regards to priestly homosexual acts or "any gravely sinful external obscene act with prepubescent children of either sex or with animals". I'm glad they were able to describe it as the disgusting vile sinful act it was, but too bad they didn't handle it as such and report the violators to the proper authorities. I haven't seen francis make any significant changes to policy, and anyone with the least bit of intellegence isn't fooled by his Kangaroo court tribunal. Is it possible that he was elected pope because he's done such a good job hiding child molesting priests down in remote parts of South America, where they can continue raping children. This isn't past history folks. This is happening throughout the past ten years and probably continuing as we speak. Time to wake up, all you catholic ostriches.
Nothing too useful from JR on the 11th at 1159AM; and on the 11th at 1201PM we simply get a repetition of his un-supported 3×5 about only 2000 “victims” being “compensated” out of 11,000 “in the US alone”.
We have been around the garden about this claim before. Where does he get these figures or how has he reached them?
And on the 12th at 358AM ‘Dan’ will now demonstrate his fact-and-research chops, which he has – we are to imagine – been holding back all this time.
He says he “took a look at the John Jay Report”. Before we go any further, which Report would that be? There were – it apparently escaped his researches – two.
I just want to say that I have no time for atheists (such as Jim Robertson) or anti Catholic fundementalists (such as Dan). As a Catholic Christian, I don't consider them to be any better than pedophile priests or bishops who protect them at the expense of the victims.
Mark dear you are an ahole. But that can't be news to you. How about us athiests not having time for you? And your tax free church? How bout that?
Mark, I am not anti-catholic. I am anti-pervert, anti-pedophile, anti-child molester, anti-hypocrites, anti-liars and anti-excuse makers for all of the above. If they happen to be catholics then I am anti or against those catholics. Please get that straight. Later hater.
And by the way. Most catholics are not christians and those two words should never be linked together. Try reading and following a bible and then you might be able to call yourselves christians. Also, saying that someone trying to lead you to the truth of Almighty God is no better than a pedophile priest or bishop who protected them is absolutely asinine.
And no Mark. I was never blaming you for the scandal, but I do wish all catholics will come to recognize it as such and leave the cult, to find the one and only true God and quit thinking He dwells or lives among the false, manmade religious institutions of the world. All they really love is money and disobeying God and thinking they've pulled the wool over His eyes. What nerve they have to think they can harm His children and get away with it. They will and are going to pay a mighty high price, if not now, then through all eternity. Sorry you misunderstood. Dan
Well, the ‘Dan’ comments of the 13th at 1109AM, 1120AM, and 330PM certainly provide a couple of footnotes for those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook. Readers may consider it all as they will.
And since ‘Dan’ doesn’t appear to recall which of the two Jay Reports he had ‘looked at’, then I’ll go with the first one, covering the period 1950=2002, published in June of 2004, and now thus more than a decade ago.
That being decided, then the actual text (almost 300 pages) of the document can be accessed here
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
Let’s go over the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
First, I’ll clarify a basic reference point: there is a 6-page difference between the pagination of the original document and the pagination imposed by the PDF format; thus, for example, a page of the original document numbered 23 would appear in the format-counter as 29. I will refer to a page with both numbers, thus, for example ‘page 23/29’. A reader can then either scroll down to the original document page-number (23) or use the formatter’s page-finder number (29).
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
The report doesn’t ‘start out’ with the material he quoted; that material comes – as he himself should have realized – in Chapter 2. Clearly the ‘look’ that he ‘took’ was rather cursory.
Actually, the Report starts out with an Executive Summary (p.3/9), in which it explains the “mandate of the study”, which was to “examine the number and nature of the allegations of sexual abuse of minors under the age of 18 by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2002. In that section on that page, it refers to “alleged victims” and “alleged abusers” and “allegations of abuse”.
So from the get-go we are already into the fraught but (to regular readers of this site, certainly) hardly unfamiliar Problem of Veracity: how can we be certain of the veracity of the myriad “allegations”? To some extent – it has to be admitted – the Report begins the game on first base rather than with an at-bat at home plate. (Although it does try to restrain itself by its continued use of the assorted variants of ‘allege’ as verb or adjective or noun.)
Further, this section of the Report then goes on to describe its core research methodology, which was the ‘survey’ method: you send out questionnaires, take the ones that are returned, and use whatever you have gotten in those returns as your basic database (upon which you will focus your analysis and from which you will derive your conclusions).
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
To no small extent, the questionnaires that were sent to the chanceries would contain the allegations made by the allegants or “alleged victims”; so there is a bit of the hall-of-mirrors effect in this.
And as the Report acknowledges on page 5/11, “it is impossible to determine from our surveys” just what percentage of “all actual abuse cases” for the period 1950-2002 were reported; as matters stood in 2004, fewer than 13pct of allegations were made in the actual year of the claimed abuse, while a full 25pct of allegations were made in regard to some point in time extending back beyond 30 years.
Reflecting the sense of its times, the Report surmises that many more allegations would surface in the future, since – as was thought – it takes a long time for allegations to be made by ‘victims’. (The second Report –published in 2011 – will note with some bemusement that the presumed or anticipated surge of allegations (beyond the original 10,667 allegants the first Report tallies) not only did not materialize, but actually fell off with increasing precipitousness.)
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
On then, to ‘Dan’s first quoted material, from Chapter 2.1 (beginning on page 23/29).
Chapter 2 begins with a curiously shaky title: “The Prevalence of Sexual Abuse of Youths Under 18 Children in the United States” (sic). I would imagine that the authors of the Report were torn between trying to accurately describe the “alleged victim” pool while also not appearing so scientifically detached as to overlook the dramatic impact of the term “children”.
The first paragraph – where the text “starts out” – actually begins with a clear disclaimer that “the estimation of any form of deviance in the general population is a very difficult task” and “it is impossible to assess the extent of sexual offending”.
Only then does the text approach the bit ‘Dan’ quoted: the only available method of trying to assess the extent of such offenses (against adults or children) is “forensic”, i.e. using those arrested or convicted as samples. I would point out here that if my theory of Stampede is correct, then this basis is already somewhat dubiously reliable (for reasons rather carefully explicated most recently by Federal judge Kosinski and discussed at length recently in comments on this site).
And it is then only at this point that the text states – as ‘Dan’ quoted – that “all researchers acknowledge that those who are arrested represent only a fraction of all sexual offenders”. In its most basic sense, this is something of a truism: for any crime, the chances are that those arrested for that crime represent only a fraction of those who have committed a crime (the number of speeding tickets issued, for example, represents only a fraction of those who actually ‘speed’ when driving).
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
But just how large or small a “fraction” we are dealing with remains so very difficult to determine. We can think, in contemporary events, of the ‘campus rape’ or ‘campus date-rape’ brouhaha.
But – again, I would say, reflecting its time – the Report goes on to state that “sexual crimes have the lowest rates of reporting for all crimes”. This is a gratuitous presumption, for which there is little if any solidly reliable evidence; what most ‘researchers’ presume is that the claims of sexual-abuse are presumptively veracious reports of sexual-abuse. And as we have nowadays seen with the ‘campus date rape’ brouhaha, such a presumption is no longer so easily made or tenable.
The text (again on page 23/29) admits that the “prevalence of victimization”, as determined by “several studies” yet “vary somewhat” – which is in any scientific research a warning-flag indicating that reliability is dubious. And I would say that surely the ‘survey’ methodology, in which a) answers to questionnaires are taken as presumptively veracious, and in which b) questions are carefully formulated by different research teams for their own purposes … would surely contribute to this variance.
Indeed, on page 24/30 the Report acknowledges that the best that can be done is an “estimate”; and further that while such claims of sexual-abuse “peaked” in 1992 and declined annually through the year 2000 (the last year for which data might have been available to the authors here), yet nobody among the experts can quite understand or explain why (“professional opinion is divided” as to how and why the decline happened).
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
We then get what appear to be a random collection of points that ‘Dan’ has assembled.
As opposed to the general population, “priests preferred … young boys”. That may be an accurate factoid, but its significance remains unclear since is at least one large possibility that would affect what ‘Dan’ rather gratuitously terms a ‘preference’; that in the course and scope of his activities, a priest so inclined might have far more access to boys than to girls. And thus it would take quite a bit more careful research to establish the accuracy and veracity of that “preferred”.
We then get this trope: “we’ve been led to believe”. And more specifically: “we’ve been led to believe” that the largest amount of (alleged) priestly sex-abuse occurred against victims in the 14-17 age range, whereas actually it was in the 10-15 age range.
I don’t recall such specific discussions, and certainly not that “we” were “led to believe”. The distinction that I recall is that between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent (from which in a general way the distinction between ‘pedophilia’ and not-pedophilia arises). And that discussion would hinge upon the age of male pubescence, and even that ‘fact’ is debated among experts: some authorities consider that age to be 10 for white and Hispanic boys and 9 for blacks, and some hold that puberty can take place in individual boys anywhere between 9 and 14 (readers so inclined can enter a term such as ‘age of male puberty’ into their search engine).
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
Thus from this deeply unpromising base, ‘Dan’ will continue that “they would have us believe” to the effect that “many offenses were minor”. He claims this is “false”, but the very figures he quotes (from page 72/78, a chart entitled “Alleged Acts of Abuse, by Gender”) indicates that just over one-third – of, we recall and the Report here specifically reminds us, “allegations” –involved “oral sex or penile penetration”. That leaves about two-thirds of allegations that do not rise to that level.
And certainly one axis or area that the team did not consider sufficiently was: how many allegants had consulted a tort attorney before they presented their claims or ‘reports’ to the Church? Because it is in the very nature of the tort enterprise to burnish (some might say embellish) a claimed tortious act in order to achieve the maximum possible leverage in negotiating for money.
None of my above observations are meant to imply that no genuine victimization might have taken place in this or that specific case or instance. But – as always – I am concerned to keep ‘conclusions’ within the justifiable limits and boundaries set by the demonstrated facts and actualities that are purported to ground those ‘conclusions’.
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
In his stab at summation ‘Dan’ then tries to pile all of his blocks into a workable structure: i) if one takes all of “these facts” of his, and adds to that ii) the presumption that “very few violations were reported to authorities” (which as we have seen above is dubious in itself and is surely implausible in the post-1990 ‘victim-friendly’ era and the post-2002 ‘Spotlight’ era) which thus iii) disposes of the inconvenient problem of few trials, while iv) presuming that secrecy stipulations in settlements were demanded by the Church rather than the allegants’ attorneys, while also building on v) the already-discredited-above JR claim about “excommunication” wrongly claimed to be embedded in the 1962 Instruction from John XXIII then … if you take all of those blocks and put them in a pile in just the right way then ‘Dan’ is clearly justified in his histrionic “yikes to say the least”. And if not, not.
And he then takes the train even further off the rails by then adverting to the alleged ‘fact’ that “the number of cases declined” as John Paul II “took the reins” – and tosses in, apparently, Benedict XVI as well (referred to in snide bit of juvenilia). But “the number of cases” increased during the pontificate of John Paul II (1978-2005). Thus some other explanation will have to be put forward for the inconvenient fact that “the number of cases” has declined (and dramatically so, as the second, 2011 Jay Report notes); and the quotation beginning “any gravely sinful …” is from the pontificate of John XXIII and the 1962 Instruction, which further derails this choo-choo ‘Dan’ is trying to drive.
And ‘Dan’s further effort to cast his pall over the current Pope has to ignore the protocols developed under John Paul II, refined under Benedict XVI, and amplified by Francis I who has actually raised up a papal Commission (including victim-advocates) with jurisdiction in these matters.
Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:
As to ‘Dan’s reliability and credibility in determining who does and does not possess “the least bit of intellegence” … readers may consider it as they will.
But he quickly tries to move us beyond any such considerations by tossing up that trusty Abusenik gambit of innuendo and insinuation: perhaps Francis “was elected pope” precisely because of his (alleged) success in hiding abusive priests in (all of or at least “the remote parts of”) South America (which bit might be imagined to conveniently dispose of the inconvenient reality that there have been so few successful efforts at igniting the Stampede on that continent).
And in a rather uncharacteristically chummy final rhetorical flourish, ‘Dan’ exhorts all of us “folks” (aka “catholic ostriches” with heads in the sand) that “this isn’t past history”. Whether it is ‘Dan’s grasp of “past history” or of current-events that is more in need of major re-work … is a question for readers to consider as they may.
Clarification: I stated, "the number of cases declined as pope john paul II took the reigns, along with the RATSzinger by his side, telling the bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug" when I should have said, "the number of incidents of sexual abuse declined as pope john paul II took the reigns, along with the RATSzinger by his side, telling bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug".
Thanks for pointing that out P, cause it much better proves my point that pope john paul II and RATSzinger were complicit in the coverup of abuse of young children and did everything in their power to hide and deceive the church and society at large. In regards to my "snide bit of juvenilia" you claimed, it's not my fault that God gave "RATSzinger" the name that was so befitting his collusion in the scandal. You think not? He named one of the greediest TV ministers, Creflo DOLLAR (the one demanding a 47 million dollar plane from his sheep).
I'm going to try this one more time and see if you can understand. I used an easy version because I know you have problems understanding complex sentences and explanations. "They claim to be wise, but they are fools. They don't worship the glorious and eternal God. Instead, they worship IDOLS(statues or paintings) that are made to look like humans who cannot live forever, and like birds, animals, and reptiles. So God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do, and their filthy thoughts made them do shameful things with their bodies. They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshipped God's creation instead of God." Romans chapter 1: 22-25 Another example of idolatry, the monstrance is the pagan worship of the sun(host), moon(luna), and surrounded by a sunburst. It is so revered (worshipped), that the priest will not touch the vessel with his hands. And what could be a more shameful thing to do with your body than to molest a child of God. Their are no excuses or rationale for a supposed man of God to commit such horrible sins. Please stop the nonsense!!