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)]
OMG! SHUT UP!
There. I'm better now. He, P, thinks he's dueling or something. He never wants peace. No who what kind of person never wants to be peaceable? He weaves a blanket of words that puts it's readers to sleep. Have you ever seen read one kind thing written by the man in all his manipulative spew? Me either.
‘Dan’ returns on the 15th at 1207AM.
He now proffers a “clarification”, although the “clarification” doesn’t do much of anything except – as so often with Abuseniks – raise more questions than it tries to appear to answer.
Specifically, he now wants to say that “the number of incidents of sexual abuse declined” … and how in any universe would he actually know that? Does anybody actually and really know “the number of incidents of sexual abuse” (within a range from zero to infinity)?
And his ‘clarified’ proffer still retains the assertion that John Paul 2 and Benedict XVI both were “telling bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug”. Where is the evidence for that assertion? (And if ‘Dan’ is going to try to proffer the 1962 Instruction of John XXIII as his ‘proof’ here, then that gambit has already been demolished in prior comments on this thread and the text of that Instruction is also available for any readers so inclined to consult for themselves.)
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1207AM:
Thus his effort at snark that begins his second paragraph fails. Which means that pretty much the entire second paragraph fails.
However he then demonstrates a marvelous bit of juvenilia: he will attempt to excuse his reference to Benedict XVI as “RATSzinger” by claiming that it “not my fault” that “God gave” Benedict XVI that family name. But “God gave” Benedict XVI the family name of ‘Ratzinger’ and there is no ‘s’ in there. And he tosses in a further epithetical trying to tie Benedict XVI into Creflo Dollar.
So …. juvenilia, ignorance, epithet, and a queasy effort to avoid his own screw-ups … and ‘Dan’ economically delivers them all in one single bit here. Thanks for revealing yourself, O great Servant of Truth.
And this bit of his also serves to remind one and all that there are precincts of the Web where this sort of stuff is considered valid and viable.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1207AM:
The third paragraph sees a Wiggy effort at posturing as the exasperated Servant of Truth: he’s “going to try this one more time and see if [I] can understand”. Actually, I think I understand his shtick rather well and have explicated it at length; it is he who appears to harbor quite a few mistaken conceptions of his material and his stature (as one-half of the Dan-God Central dynamic duo).
Because – he now tells us, doncha see? – up to now he has been using “an easy version” of his material (so … to further his claimed effort at inducing ‘understanding’, he is now going to use a more complicated version …?); he is doing this because he “doth know that [I] have problems understanding complex sentences and explanation” – which bit a) digs him in even deeper into the hole he has just dug for himself and b) demonstrates nicely the old Abusenik dodge of I’m Not/You Are.
And his more complex and not-so-easy version is – had you been waitttttting forrrrr itttt? – a Scriptural pericope. Ovvvvvv courssssssssse. That clarifies a great deal – although not in the way ‘Dan’ no doubt hoped it would.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1207AM:
After which he then attempts to avoid the precise problem at issue in all of this: he will presume the accuracy and veracity of the allegations (whether all of them, or most of them, or some other fraction enroute to zero … he doesn’t care to say).
So I would respond: it is indeed a grievous sin to “molest a child of God”. But that isn’t actually the problem with the Stampede. The problem with the Stampede is to determine how many actual instances of such a sin, perpetrated by a priest, actually took place. The Abuseniks would tend to imagine that answer to be somewhere well along toward ‘infinity’ and I would say that the probability is much much less than that (but not zero).
And who but who could disagree with ‘Dan’s plaintive plaint to “Please stop the nonsense!”? But alas, I don’t think ‘Dan’ is going to be able to achieve that.
Then JR weighs in on the 15th at 146AM:
There’s not much to it, but there is something.
After relieving himself with his opening screams, he then reports himself thus: “There. I’m better now.”
No, alas, that’s not quite accurate at all. He may ‘feel’ better, but that’s not at all the same thing as actually being or having-become “better”.
And “peace” with Abuseniks is only to be achieved by agreeing with their stuff. But they don’t think they are “dueling”; rather, like ‘Dan’, they imagine themselves as fearless and truthy truth-warriors who only speak truth. Again, as Dame Margaret would have said politely: “That must console you.”
“Words” put JR “to sleep”. They will have that effect … on certain minds.
And the bit concludes with a now too-obvious manipulative epithet that readers can enjoy for themselves.
That's just like the Catholic Church. Taking up for the lawers, and child-raping priests. And attacking the messengers. So we need to attack the Boston Globe, and the movie ? If it wasn't for the Boston Globe, this problem wouldn't even exist. This article is proof. The Catolic Church still sees no problem, in child rape, by priests. The only "problem", according to the Catholic Church, is the fact that it's being exposed.
"No who" makes no sense in my last post. Sorry.
Publion, and I quote, "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."
I've realized by now, that you go out of your way to make others look like were stupid and don't know what were talking about. Funny how it backfires on you, by your own nonsensical, longwinded explanations. Let me explain for the slow minded- Chapter 1 of the report is the intro, background of the study, and brief studies of sexual abuse in other organizations and religious institutions. I know you excusers would like to point the finger at everyone else, to try to rationalize how everybody else was doing it (molesting little children), so it made it alright that you were. But I was under the impression that we were discussing 'catholic abuse matters' and the damage your church has caused. Also, I question the collusion of the USCCB in providing the funding and material for the Report, which should have been an unbiased, impartial and neutral party doing the study.
Back to your poor analysis of myself in above quote- The meat of the study doesn't get started until Chapter 2. I believe I realized that since I referenced the quote, Chapter 2.1, and know that meant it wasn't the very first chapter of the report, as any simple mind would figure out, Mr. Persnickety. Maybe your 'look' at other's comments is 'rather cursory', and you may want to read their material closer, before giving your nasty retorts. You may have the time to read every little line of the Report and make a longwinded analysis of it, but some of us actually have a life, and enjoy living it.
Dan, servant to the simpleminded
On the 15th at 1045AM ‘True Catholic’ deploys two familiar bits.
First: the problem is simply that some somebodies on this site are “taking up for the lawyers, and child-raping priests”.
If ‘True Catholic’ can demonstrate (with an accurate quote) where I have “taken up for the lawyers” then that would be interesting indeed, since the tort-attorneys are – in my theorization of the Matter – major players in fomenting the Stampede.
And as for the second bit – about “attacking the messengers”: my entire point has been that we aren’t really certain as to just what the ‘message’ is. My position is that the ‘message’ of the Stampede vision is not supported either by demonstrated facts or by any rational probability, but instead is a scare-vision designed to further the assorted purposes and agendas of the various ‘interests’ participating in the Stampede.
But, of course, for the Abusenik/Stampede cartoon, questioning the ‘message’ equals “attacking the messengers”. But are the messengers actually delivering an accurate message?
And that question cannot simply be presumed-away with the various bits we have seen Abuseniks deploy here on this site.
‘Dan’ returns on the 15th at 115PM.
For those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook, we get an infrequently-deployed but not unfamiliar Abusenik gambit: I “go out of [my] way to make others look like were stupid and don’t know what were talking about” (sic).
So thus, it’s not about their “intellegence” at all, is it? It’s about me doing … what? Pointing out the problems with their material? Was I the one who put up incoherent or factually-inaccurate material?
And if somebody puts up material that reflects a lack of attention to detail in any way (i.e. in the content or expression of their material), then that raises the question: if they haven’t paid attention to accuracy or factuality or detail in this instance, are they presumptively reliable in other instances?
Does that seem strange to ‘Dan’? Apparently so. And readers may consider as they will.
‘Dan’ quickly then tries to bolster his bit with epithet (my “nonsensical, longwinded [sic] explanations”).
And how that is supposed to ‘backfire’ on me is not something ‘Dan’ cares to explain, once he has tossed his plop up onto the screen. Once again, Abuseniks are undone by their inability to see the problems in their own material and presentation, and then have to come up instead with some other excuse that might lay the blame on somebody else.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 115PM:
He will then add a bit more excursus on the (first) Jay Report. But only to somehow try to make it seem as if the Jay Report team (whose material he himself introduced here in support of his presentation) are now part of the “excusers” who “would like to point the finger at everyone else” (which is a neat bit of clinical projection here all on its own).
The Jay Report team here is simply providing the introductory background information as to the ‘state of the question’, which is a standard – and necessary – step in conducting a scientific examination. This may not be familiar to ‘Dan’ since he is clearly not in the habit of conducting such examinations, nor even thinking along the lines of a mind trained to think in such a fashion. But that’s how objective analytic examinations are carried out.
Thus too, we see his effort to burnish his (otherwise weak) presentation here by tossing in a gratuitous epithet: “Let me explain for the slow-minded”.
And what ‘Dan’ doth claim to “know” (“I know you excusers” and so on) is an assertion for readers to consider as they will. I would say that ‘Dan’ only ‘knows’ what he wants to ‘know’, and that’s all he wants others to ‘know’ too.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 115PM:
He is quite correct in being “under the impression” that “we were discussing ‘catholic abuse matters’ and the damage your church has caused”.
The problem – which appears to continually escape his notice – is that we aren’t really sure a) how the Catholic Abuse Matter has been handled in terms of exaggeration and presumption and manipulation and b) we thus aren’t really sure how much “damage” the Church has “caused” (since we haven’t actually been able to determine the veracity and accuracy of the allegations).
Are we supposed to simply presume those points according to the script ‘Dan’ appears to favor? If so, then I would point out to him that that’s not how it works.
Then more epithet: I am “Persnickety”. Which in Abusenik-speak means: you are focusing on facts and rationality and coherence when we want you to presume the veracity of what we want you to believe even if our stuff isn’t actually factual or rational or coherent.
But this is precisely how the Stampede managed to take root and sustain itself for so long.
The only “simple mind” at work here is his own. If he hasn’t taken the time and trouble and effort to express his thoughts clearly (or even to work out his thoughts coherently) then that’s his problem, not every other reader’s.
And while it clearly not a consolation for him to imagine that his own mental machinery needs some time in the shop, that doesn’t mean that everyone or anyone else is required to accept the more consoling phantasms he has developed in order to avoid the problems with his mental machinery.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 115PM:
I do not treat any comments in a “cursory” manner; surely that is what irritates him (and other Abuseniks here): I precisely do read their comments, closely and carefully, and comment on the material they have thus provided.
And does he have any accurately-quoted instances in which I have failed to read their material “closer”? (Hint: “closer” in the Abusenik dictionary here means that readers must read their minds and not their material as they present it – thus, if there’s a problem, it’s not in their material or their mind but rather it’s in the failure of the reader to suss out their actual meaning from the words that the Abuseniks themselves have provided.)
Thus, he is upset that his material is indeed being read ‘closely’. It’s just that his material gives rise to objections and problems that he doesn’t want to deal with. Not my problem.
And the whole bit concludes with yet another familiar gambit: he ‘has’ “a life” – doncha see? – and he doth “enjoy living it”, and so … what? He therefore doesn’t have the time to compose and express his material carefully? He therefore doesn’t have the time to read carefully the Report material that he himself has introduced in support of his assertions and visions?
And the corollary implication is that I must have no life if I take the time to carefully examine his material and carefully explicate my responses to it? This is a sly juvenile bit indeed.
P- If as you say, "I precisely do read their comments, closely and carefully, and comment on the material they have thus provided." Then how is it that you have such a hard time understanding plain english and 'proffer' to offer your lame excuses and challenge common sense and truth. I know. It's the gambit abuseniks stampedes fault. Oh yeah! We're onto you.
In regards to the "1962 Instruction of John XXIII as his 'proof' here, then that gambit has already been demolished in prior comments on this thread". Are you trying to tell me that you've already established as many excuses as you could concoct in regards to the document. Maybe you should hone your research skills to find that cardinal RATSzinger declared, "Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16,1962, (3) in force until now", on May 2001. It reads:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER- "To Bishops of the entire Catholic Church REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Dan says, "I was not aware that child molestation was specially 'reserved' for the catholic church.)
- "A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years."
"Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." "All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties. Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical SECRET."
So taking into account the "CONFIDENTIAL 1962 Instruction of John XXIII" and the number of times he mentioned keeping things secret and oaths of secrecy, and the RATSzinger's reiteration with his CONFIDENTIAL secret document, maybe you might understand why I believe "the number of incidents of sexual abuse declined" only because pope john paul II and RATS were "telling bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug." Why do you think they're rugs are preferably bloody red?
Also, someone might want to let your false cult know that the sixth commandment is really the seventh, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. They can't conveniently remove the 2nd commandment in their teaching because it condemned their worship of false gods (idols) and bowing down to them. Catholics beware. The punishment by God for this will be given from generation to generation.
P, you agree, "It is a grievous sin to 'molest a child of God'." Why then do you attempt to dispute most claims, questioning "how many instances actually took place?" and trying to make us believe through your nauseous repetition that numbers are closer to zero. If the proven cases and those admitted to by clergy, according to all experts represent only a fraction of violations, then that would suggest you stop spewing your propaganda and twisting the truth.
Knowing you are troubled by my use of RATSzinger, you might want to do one of your in depth scientific research studies and contact an exterminator. I'll start you off by informing you that where you find one RAT, you'll usually find several RATS, and they can be zingers (Devil's food). They tend to multiply almost as fast as the perverts and pedophiles in your church. When you complete your in depth comprehensive study, we will reward you officially the title, PUBLION-EXTERMINATOR OF TRUTH. Dan, servant of Truth and God
Only 2000 out of 11,000 of your own Catholic victims compensated. Tsk Tsk Tsk!
Here's the latest from Australia's hearings. I share these to counter act the dis- information offered at this site. Especially by P.
http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/3580387/royal-commission-full-wrap/?cs=4170
‘Dan’ returns on the 16th at 656PM.
What will the dynamic duo of Dan-God Central produce for us today? Will the ‘God’ part be able to make itself clear through the ‘Dan’ part? Let’s stay tuned and see.
In the first paragraph, ‘Dan’ will try a familiar gambit: starting the play on first rather than having to actually wield a bat and hit the ball.
Specifically: he cannot square my claim to read comments closely and carefully (though he himself has already called me “Persnickety” for doing just that) with his presumption that he speaks in “plain english” (that should be a capital ‘E’, shouldn’t it?) and his stuff is “common sense and truth” – so he has convinced himself.
The problem is not only easily addressed but has already been addressed with extended explication in prior comments: he doesn’t and it isn’t.
That pretty much deflates his point, and with it the whole of the first paragraph.
But – to repeat – if the Abuseniks really want to spend their precious we’ve-got-a- life time getting “onto” something, they should postpone their usual recreations and get “onto” the quality of their own stuff.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:
He will then turn his attention to the 1962 Instruction of John XXIII.
Here he will simply deploy – had you been waitinggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – epithet. Specifically: my explications were merely “excuses”.
He then continues with his juvenile “Ratszinger” bit (hysterical scream-caps omitted).
The 1962 Instruction was issued over the signature of Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the particular office in the Vatican organization responsible for formally issuing such documents; the pontificate and ultimate authority was the Pope’s, John XXIII.
When Cardinal Ratzinger held that position under John Paul II, the 1962 Instruction was replaced (April 30, 2001) by a new document (the motu proprio entitled Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela), which built upon the new Code of Canon Law of 1983, which itself was followed in 1994 by a special Indult to the US Bishops that raised the age of the minor from 16 to 18 and allowed for a 10-year period of “prescription” (i.e. what we call the Statute of Limitations was canonically raised to 10 years from the 18th birthday of the allegant). Local hierarchs retained responsibility for conducting canonical process.
In 2001 John Paul II decided that cases involving certain types of allegations were so serious in their import that direct Vatican involvement would be required (thus removing certain types of allegations/cases from the tribunal jurisdiction of local hierarchs).
Readers may consult the link below, and the section entitled “Delicts against morality” is the one specifically relevant to matters under consideration here.
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_introd-storica_en.html
It is clear that from 1962 onward to 2001 the Vatican was intensifying its disciplinary grasp of various types of priestly mis- or mal-feasance, and that in removing certain types of cases to a more direct Vatican jurisdiction the intention was to sidestep any hesitations or prejudices that might induce a local hierarch to handle such cases too lightly.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:
Which also raises an interesting ‘timeline’ issue: it was in 2001 that the Boston Globe (preceded, actually, by the reporting of the now-defunct Boston Phoenix), under the leadership of a new editor who “needed to make a splash” as “the new gunslinger in town”, began what would become the Stampede that we now know, in conjunction with local tort-attorney interests.
I don’t think that even the Vatican had imagined that such a blatant agitprop ploy as the Stampede became could be run and amplified and sustained in a modern Western nation, especially after the examples of Nazi and Soviet and Maoist propaganda stampedes, and especially the US. That is regrettable, because the Doyle proposal of 1985, submitted to the US Bishops and incorporating input from a US legal professional and a psychological professional, had surmised just such a possibility.
But in any case, ‘Dan’s sophomoric effort to claim that it was the work of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger that led to a “decline” in reported abuse claims fails rather spectacularly here. And in the ensuing almost decade-and-a-half since 2001 we saw an initial efflorescence of such claims.
Although the “decline” that has happened since that efflorescence (noted in the second Jay Report of 2011) is far more rationally ascribable to the Stampede running out of steam (for whatever reasons) rather than – in ‘Dan’s vision – a Vatican-controlled clamp-down on the ecclesiastical processing of such allegations.
He then tries to make a point about “reserved”: what is “reserved” to that particular Congregation is the handling and treatment of the listed phenomena within the Church, not the phenomena themselves as they exist in the world generally. (Although, soliciting certain crimes within the sacramental boundaries of confession is specific to the Church; and that’s the gravamen of all but four of the Instruction’s 74 paragraphs.) Now if there is a ‘persnickety’ aspect to all this, it is ‘Dan’s effort to somehow imply he has made a significant and relevant point here.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:
He then proceeds onto the matter of a “Pontifical secret”. The “Pontifical secret” here indicates that more-than-usual confidentiality is required and it is a grave offense to violate that confidentiality.
And, as a reading of the document would reveal, the “Pontifical secret” applies in this matter to any Church officials formally conducting a tribunal on any of the offenses noted in the Instruction. Thus the grave responsibility of confidentiality here is imposed on those formal tribunal officials who are conducting canonical process in such a matter.
As I noted in prior comments here: the purpose was to protect all of those involved (thus allegants as well as accused) in such a claim until such time as the formal tribunal decision is reached and that formal canonical process is concluded. This much was realized even by the somewhat ‘liberal’ Catholic commentator, John L. Allen, Jr.
This perfectly rational and prudent practice is hell-and-gone from the type of trial-by-media dynamic that has become so widespread on the American scene if the past decades of ‘advocacy journalism’, a practice that also creates innumerable soap-opera opportunities for a sensationalist media. It’s not un-related to, say, the confidential nature of Grand Jury proceedings.
And – as I also pointed out in prior comments – this requirement does not preclude allegants from consulting civil counsel nor does it bind allegants after any formal canonical process is concluded.
Thus ‘Dan’s effort here has simply been to glom onto the word “secret” and try to spin the entire Abusenik ‘secrecy’ scare-vision on the basis of the mere appearance of that word or terms of similar meaning in the document.
And thus his effort fails. And its failure should have been obvious almost immediately after a careful reading of the document.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:
But his selective and insufficient piling up of his little blocks here then enables ‘Dan’ to try yet again one of his little toy-block constructions: the Instruction was designated “Confidential”, there’s a whole lot of use of the terms “secret” and “oaths of secrecy”, and – again with this error – he refers to Cardinal Ratzinger’s “reiteration” of the document (which his Office actually only issued on the authority of the Pope).
And again with the juvenile “Ratszinger” bit (hysterical scream-caps omitted), which merely indicates the level on which ‘Dan’s mind most congenially operates (and, as we will see later in his comment here, continues to operate and cannot seem to operate without).
But he will then try to bolster his bits here by tossing in the juvenile “hidden under the rug” riff.
But what had Bishops been told to do? Ensure the confidentiality of all (allegants and accused) during formal canonical process and – later – to refer such allegations/cases to Rome (which is the Church equivalent of ‘making a federal case out of it’).
How ‘Dan’ can then claim to proclaim the rationality of his ‘belief’ as to the hiding-under-the-rug bit … simply says more about the quality/credibility of ‘Dan’s belief capacities than it does about anything else.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:
And we are then given further elements of ‘Dan’s chops as a Scripture reader or scholar: he raises an almost-sophomoric point about the numbering of the commandments, which is an old chestnut that goes back at least to the era of the Septuagint and received new life during the Reformation. All ‘Dan’ has demonstrated here is that he is rather selective (and limited) in his Scriptural ‘knowledge’ – and hence rather largely uninformed as to actual state of the question.
His bits here indicate that he has allowed himself only one version of the explanation for the difference in numbering.
He then – rather illogically – wonders why, since I agree that “it is a grievous sin to ‘molest a child of God’”, I then and yet “attempt to dispute most claims”. I do so because it is a) one thing to agree that “it is a grievous sin to ‘molest a child of God’” and it is b) a completely different and other thing to determine whether indeed such a molestation took place. Is that English not sufficiently clear and plain? Is that difference not sufficiently clear and plain?
There is a further difference between i) “proven cases” (such few as there may be) and ii) cases where priests have “admitted to by clergy” (and Judge Kosinski’s observations are rather crucial here) and iii) what “all experts” (which – as I have said in prior comments – is not and was not the case, even as stated by the first Jay Report a dozen years ago) claim as to the number of actual violations (in the general populace, it has to be recalled).
So there is nothing dispositive here either; all we have is ‘Dan’s effort to pile up his preferred and selected blocks in his preferred way to reach his preferred conclusion.
But to repeat: Yes, between ‘zero’ and ‘infinity’, I will say that the numbers are closer to zero than to infinity.
And as to who is “twisting the truth” here, readers may consider as they will.
And – as so very very often – the Abusenik mind will attempt to wrap up its lucubrations with epithet, in this case an extended riff on ‘rats’. Readers may consider it as they will.
On the 16th at 1123PM JR – apparently for lack of anything better – will simply repeat his dubious numbers (the source of which was a partial and half-decade old compilation on Wiki and which only tallies settlements – leaving untouched the profound question of the veracity of the allegations on which the settlements were based); which serves merely to provide a chance for some juvenile snark.
Hey A hole 5 years is nothing and when did the last settlements occur in the U.S.? California in 2007? Nothing's changed as to the amount of compensated people in the U.S. for 8 years.
So where is the "Stampede"? 18% of the injured compensated is no "Stampede". it's a trickle.
So your "Stampede" premise is moot. Now if you could be mute on your fantasy of a "Stampede". Real actual problems could be dealt with here. But as long as you throw out your smoke screen of non issues and falsehoods. Nothing positive for catholics or their victimized children can be resolved here. So shut up.
On the 17th at 1147AM JR – as always – tosses up a link without any discussion.
It would appear that the Australian Royal Commission is based rather largely – if not entirely – on the case of one serially-abusive priest. The Commission says that both the Church and the police covered up this man’s activities for a number of years.
I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable as to this particular case; I certainly don’t deny the possibility that it is true. (Thus, on a scale of ‘zero to infinity’ this case might with some reasonable probability indeed move the number to ‘one’.)
Be that as it may, we see here a long-standing national commission of inquiry that appears to have based its results on one man’s possible misdeeds. It certainly seems possible to me – and I will go so far as to say probable – that there is in any diocese in the world at least one priest who is, or at least was in some prior era, capable of such (alleged) acts. That would only be expectable, given human weaknesses and assorted distorted proclivities.
Is that the sum total of the results obtained by the commission’s inquiries? If so, then it remains well short of ‘infinity’ or even of the type of Stampede scare-visions that are the core phenomena that I have been working-on these past years here. Even the Dutch commission – from what little we know of its claimed findings – could claim only 109 (allegated) instances among priests in that country in the prior half-century.
2000 out of 11,000 victims compensated and that's a "stampede"? It's more like a walk around.
I believe P is here to make ignorant catholics believe there's been a race for the church's money when only 2000 have been helped out of 11,000. He's also here to make non catholics believe that masses of people are making false claims against the church and either winning these fake claims or are being helped by a good hearted chrch when they don't deserve help. Neither of which are true.The false flagged church owned and run SNAP and church lawyers headed by Jeff Anderson have kept the actually "helped" to 2000. Meanwhile 9000 get zip but more pain. I wish there were a Hell for all of you and them. You've so richly earned it.
Jim Robertson says, on the 18th, that he believes Publion is here to make those ignorant Catholics think there has been "a race for the Church's money".
Shucks….surely not?. Who could believe that?. How could anybody imagine such a thing? All we have to do is close our minds to the 3.5 billion dollars already paid out, in the U.S. alone. Not to mentiion that cool million JR himself eagerly accepted. Nope, it's not about the money….it's about justice…isn't it?. Yep… justice is the noble lie under which this dubious industry has been operating… virtually from day one.
Well…how is it that there is so little effort by the alleged victims (and their lawyers) to put the alleged perpetrators into prison. The name of the game is clearly to extract large sums of money from the Church, negotiated behind closed doors, then the accused man just walks away??? Funny that…if I really thought the guy did all those alleged horrible things….then would want to see him brought to trial. Now that would be justice….surely?
Nope, I'm getting it wrong.. Because this is just a game, in which the object is money. Who cares if the accused priest walks….the poor sucker is only a fall guy anyway.
No real danger to anybody, he just made the mistake of joining the wrong profession. A profession that has made itself into a soft target… for hordes of faceless liars and their rapacious lawyers.
I challenge any and all catholics to google and watch PBS's FRONTLINE – Secrets of the Vatican on the internet. Witness what is obviously the tip of the iceberg, for it only covers a few stories, with comments from priests and seminarians and victims. Then have the gaul to come back on this forum and defend their heinous crimes and actions.
And at this moment I have no comment for you, Publion. However I notice you insist on mocking God, "the dynamic duo Dan-God Central". What does that make you? The dynamic duo Devil-Publion of perverts and pedophile demons of the world. God has a comment for you, one you apparently have a serious problem understanding.
"They claim to be wise, but they are fools." Romans 1: 22 Also, pay special attention to Romans 1 verse 24-25. "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." This covers all the secrecy and liars of the church, defending and excusing the perverts and pedophiles and their DESPICABLE DEEDS ( not simply stated 'misdeeds'P). Wouldn't be a bad idea to take a look at all of Romans Chapter 1 and follow it up with Revelations Chapter 17, to really understand what the future holds for your church.
Calling on any and all catholics who have an ear to hear. I am a friend and not an enemy. I believe all souls are precious in the eyes of the Almighty, One True God. Don't let them fool you and keep you from the truth and your eternal reward. With Love, Dan
And from the studios of JR we get a triad of charming tosses.
On then to the 18th at 1106AM:
To solve the problem of his out-dated and partial Wiki source, JR simply declares (bolstered, but of course, by juvenile epithet) that “5 years is nothing” and “nothing’s changed”. Naturally, he has no support for those assertions.
Leaving us with the fact that we don’t actually have a count of settlements (as opposed to allegations – tallied in the first Jay Report of 2004, and noted in the second that the number of allegations had largely fallen off by 2011). We do have estimates of payouts, ranging from two to three billion dollars; does JR want to do the math and divide that sum by his 2,000?
We then encounter today’s trope, riffed-upon like a mantra throughout the triad of comments: “where is the Stampede”, he asks, since – and he has done the math here, doncha see? – only “18% of the injured [were] compensated”.
Where to begin?
First, there’s no basis for claiming that those who collected monies were genuine ‘victims’ or genuinely “injured” and thus also no basis for claiming that the monies they scored were ‘compensation’.
Second, the Stampede deals not with the number of settlements but rather with the number of formally-lodged allegations (tallied in the first Jay Report as somewhere around 11,000).
Thus the current “trickle” of settlements (compared to the hey-day years of the Stampede) may well have something to do with the current “trickle” of fresh allegations (compared to the hey-day years of the Stampede).
Thus his stab at drawing a ‘logical’ conclusion fails since his establishing steps are – to put it politely – insufficient. My “’Stampede’ premise” remains quite viable if not indeed rather greatly probable.
And let us not be deceived: the only “real actual problems” the Abuseniks want dealt with here are their assorted plaints, distractions, scare-visions and stories which – so problematically, for them – are not getting the stampeded-herd response they so insistently and consistently desire.
JR’s of the 18th at 1109AM simply continues his own “walk around”.
On then to the 18th at 1118AM:
Here JR will attempt to spin the matter further, but it all relies upon the failed material he has already put up in the prior two comments of this triad.
I am not “out” to “make non catholics believe that masses of people are making false claims against the church and either winning these fake claims or are being helped by a good-hearted church” (some corrections supplied).
Rather, I have pointed out problematic points with the material the various Abuseniks have proffered. Do those problems then indicate the possibility or probability that the allegations cannot be taken as presumptively accurate and veracious? Does my (extensive and frequent) explication of an alternative explanatory hypothesis increase such a possibility or probability?
If so, the only Abusenik response is to keep repeating their initial talking-points, salted by the usual juvenile distractions and epithetical bits.
And to keep up mere assertions (based on their own presumed veracity) that my hypothesis is not “true”.
I’d say it’s mighty probable, and far more probable than the Abusenik vision to the effect that a) all or almost all of the allegations were accurate and veracious, were not motivated by pecuniary gain for little risk of exposure, were not the fruit of a well-established tort-strategy that induces settlements rather than trials, and b) that there remain myriads of un-lodged allegations still ‘out there’ to be lodged.
And as for the so-familiar repetition here of JR’s favorite bit about the Church running SNAP (and the other front organizations for the torties) as a “false flagged church owned and run” operation, joined by “church lawyers headed by Jeff Anderson” (thus: the most notable practitioner of such lawsuit-settlement tactics and strategy is himself merely a tool of the Church): readers may (yet again) consider this whole bit as they will.
And now comes ‘Dan’ (the 18th at 601PM).
We had discussed the PBS Frontline episode entitled “Secrets of the Vatican” quite a while ago here.
A substantial chunk of the show does not deal with the Catholic Abuse Matter at all, but goes on about other aspects the show wanted to play-with. It provides, I repeat, a rather clear example of the type of ‘reporting’ you get in matters Catholic from mainstream media in the Stampede era.
So I will have the “gaul” (surely the Servant means ‘gall’) to come back on this forum and say so. Since I don’t “defend” but rather question and try to establish closer approximations to the actuality (‘probability’ for short) in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter, then I will stand behind all my material on this site.
But the show certainly would appeal to the favorite concerns of not only secularist types but also more fundamentalist, Bible-thumping types … as is clearly evidenced by ‘Dan’s eager embrace of it here.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 601PM:
And we then get his admission that “at this moment” Dan has “no comment” on all the other material that actually is on the table on this thread (i.e. his assorted forays into Vatican documents and problems with his Scriptural proffers). What else could he say?
However he will quickly try to distract from that hugely uncongenial actuality by tossing up yet again his “mocking God” bit (pointing out the problems with ‘Dan’s material and noting his fixed presumption that he is an especial “Servant” of (fill in the blank) is tantamount to “mocking God”, doncha see?).
And he will riff on that bit for a bit.
I can only suggest that ‘Dan’ apparently has “a serious problem” in the “understanding” department, namely he seems to have a rather fixed and grandiose mis-understanding of himself. And enough said about that.
More Scriptural pericopes are then tossed up. With the conclusion that – prima facie and ipso facto – this misch “covers all the secrecy and liars of the church” who are “defending and excusing the perverts and pedophiles”. Because – doncha see? – to question the Abuseniks’ proffers, especially those of Abuseniks who are also of a fundamentalist bent and also not perhaps altogether well, is tantamount to “defending” etc etc.
And he will wrap up the show by issuing an exhortation and a declaration: he is “a friend and not an enemy” to “any and all catholics who have an ear to hear” and they absolutely need to listen to his stuff. (Otherwise they can read Revelation 17 to see what’s in the future for them and their Church.)
THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SEE!!!
Enjoyed hearing the vatican has the "Queen of Heaven Prison". Would be the perfect name for your religious cult organization. Servant of the Almighty
Thanks Publion for suggesting that catholics should "read Revelations 17 to see what's in the future for them and their church." May I suggest they pay special attention to the description of the "shameless prostitute who sits on the red beast", "dressed in PURPLE and SCARLET ROBES, adorned with JEWELRY MADE OF GOLD, PRECIOUS STONES, AND PEARLS. In her hand she held a GOLD CUP (CHALICE) filled with the FILTHY AND NASTY THINGS SHE HAD DONE." Rev. 17: 7-8 "Anyone with wisdom can figure this out. [so we'll exclude Publion] The seven heads that the woman sits on stand for seven hills." Rev. 17: 9 If there is still a problem realizing how these words pertain to and describe in detail, Rome (vatican city), I ask that you might continue to read all of Revelations ch. 18. God describes through prophecy, the destruction of Babylon (Rome) and in finer detail all the riches and greediness of the vatican. He lists GOLD, silver, jewels, PEARLS, fine linen, PURPLE CLOTH, silk, SCARLET CLOTH, frankINCENSE, and WINE, just to mention a few. Rev.18:12-13 He continues in verse 16, "She [the whore who sits on the beast], dressed in fine linen and WORE PURPLE AND SCARLET CLOTH." So do you think it's only a coincidence that the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and curia dress in these colors. During lent and advent, purple cloth adorns statues, alters and vestments, along with purple candles. Vatican churches, special occasions and rooms filled with scarlet red rugs and purple draperies.
"Deep in her heart Babylon said, I am a queen!" Rev. 18: 7 As in "Queen of Heaven". " But now, you shall see in Babylon gods[idols] of gold, and of silver, and of stone, and of wood borne upon shoulders, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware therefore that you imitate not the doings of others." Baruch 6:3-4 "Their gods[idols] have golden crowns upon their heads." v.6
Don't allow Publion to try to deceive you, that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to scripture. I'm only quoting it the way it is written, but Satan's angels will do everything in their power to try to trick and lie to you. Thank God that He has already won the victory through His son Jesus Christ. Be not deceived and allow them to steal your prize.
Dan 12/19 @ 6:54 alters should be altars- I like to leave a misspelling now and then, so P feels he has some purpose for living and taking up too much oxygen on this planet.
Also, "Their gods[idols] have golden crowns upon their heads." v.6 Should be Baruch 6 v. 9. Sorry P for taking away some of your enjoyment you receive correcting and criticizing others.
As might have been expected, when ‘Dan’ got around to making more comments, he yet had no comments to make about the material on the table.
Instead, he went rummaging in his 3×5 file card collection.
And what do we get?
On the 19th at 203PM, a scream-capped Scriptural pericope. One wonders if ‘Dan’ had not heard something similar – though perhaps not with its Scriptural trappings – from any of the staff during his various stays in those institutions he mentioned.
And that bit is followed by an epithet the snark of which is surpassed only by the ignorance that produced it.
Specifically, the Regina Coeli was a convent begun in 1642. It was taken from the nuns by Napoleon and turned into a prison by French Imperial forces for the duration of their hegemony in the area, from 1810-1814. It was then returned to the nuns, who abandoned it in 1873. It was then taken over by the Kingdom of Italy and turned into a prison by the Italian royal government in 1881. It currently serves the Italian State as a prison and police academy and school for forensic and criminological studies.
So ‘Dan’ would be well-advised not to ‘enjoy’ what he hears and rather concentrate more on establishing the veracity and accuracy of what he hears.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 654PM:
He opens with a weak effort to build on his Revelation-17 bit.
And that gives him an opening to – had you been waitinggggg for itttttt? – riff on the specifics of some of his favorite bits in that Chapter.
You can get much the same type of presentation from any number of fundamentalist-type sources, if you’ve a mind to go trolling in those precincts.
And he exhorts the readership not to be deceived by me to the effect that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Readers may consider it as they will.
And he concludes by apparently trying to channel St. Paul or one of the other Epistolary writers. ‘God’ apparently isn’t sufficient to ‘Dan’s purposes here.
On then to the 19th at 703PM and at 721PM:
‘Dan’ – doncha see? – doth “like to leave a misspelling now and then”; he doth do it on purpose – doncha see? – because he consoles and sustains himself with the thought that otherwise I wouldn’t feel I had “some purpose for living”.
He was also working on an epithet (i.e. that I take up “too much oxygen on this planet”) but his grammar wasn’t quite up to the job.
And ditto at 721PM, where he apparently has checked his 3x5s.
For all anyone knows, he set this little scene up for himself, merely to pretext his epithetical bit to the effect that I enjoy “correcting and criticizing others”.
But as so often, the Abusenik mind (or, as we have here, a vivid amalgam of the Abusenik and the fundamentalist mind) – in its eagerness to deliver a zingy epithet – reveals for all what it would rather not see about itself. Specifically, we have here ‘Dan’ whose “correcting and criticizing of the Church” knows almost no bounds and is based on few if any rationally accurate grounds.
But if you point out the problems in the Abusenik-fundy material, then you are “mocking God” and so on and so forth.
And they do like to make excuses for themselves. And make themselves out to be the victim.
P- Don't forget to go to your "Queen of Heaven Prison" to celebrate the winter solstice on friday. Have a very Mary xmas, and don't leave out Satan's Claws pulling you down into the depths, with the perverts, pedophiles and materialistically greedy priests and hierarchy of your klan. Any catholics who think I'm being mean, just google "pope santa claus" and check out the images, especially RATZINGER. P-Too bad you can't go to vatican city, so you can bend over and kiss his…. waaaiitttt foorr iiitt…………ring finger. Dan, fighting the good fight.
P says, "he yet had no comments to make about the material on the table". Are you trying to understand why I'm not buying into the trash your trying to serve. Time to wake up sleeper, and realize no one's buying into your excuses and garbage except the rare catholic who jumps into the conversation, with a hit-and-run, and then disappears. My bible quotes, which you apparently don't understand, prove beyond doubt that your cult fits every deceiving, lying, filthy, disgusting, greedy and perverted description in the Word. If you've yet to figure out how this answers to your excuses and garbage in regards to the catholic abuse crimes, then that would be a testament to your intellegence, which I am surely not terribly impressed with. I hate being repetitive, but sometimes that's the only way to approach a foolish mind. You are truly a "Legend in Your Own Mind". You make the drugged out zombies I ran into at your mental ward look pretty smart. At least they didn't talk much, so they had less chance of getting their foot stuck in their mouth. I know, you're going to ask me for examples, but some things are best figured out for yourself, ostrich. Dan, servant of truth
Publion, You become more irritating and irrational by the minute. You claim, "Dan would be well-advised not to 'enjoy' what he hears and rather concentrate more on establishing the veracity and accuracy of what he hears." First off, apparently you have a problem with others enjoying anything. So sad. You say, I should "concentrate more on establishing the veracity and accuracy of what he hears". Aside from your being redundant, tell me how the "Queen of Heaven Prison" is inaccurate when it's the translation of the Latin "Regina Coeli". I know you go out of your way to display your great intelligence, but your history lesson on the "Queen of Heaven Prison" did absolutely nothing to prove what I said to be inaccurate.
Moving on to a similar accusation, "Dan whose 'correcting and criticizing of the church' knows almost no bounds and is based on few if any rationally accurate grounds." Most of my criticism is based on fact and information available to the public. Many times I've backed up my argument with scripture, which has only given you an opportunity to mock and blaspheme God or myself. You ask others to give examples or proof to you, and yet you've never disputed or come close to challenge my interpretation of scripture other than your false claims that I'm wrong. And as far as anyone gathering evidence in proving all the facts in the catholic abuse of children, it's fairly difficult, when as you know, the church did everything in it's power to keep crimes secretive and is most unwilling to open the abuse files for all to see. It's laughable that your cult calls itself the moral authority of the world, when with what information we do have, makes them absolutely the immoral authority on earth.
No one is making themselves out to be a victim, when they have truly been victimized by your wicked, lying, evil cult, of which you have found a perfect fit.
As if to provide even more vivid evidence of his juvenile – and at this point clearly childish – level of mental operation, ‘Dan’ (the 20th at 106PM) will now take the following tack in regard to his egregious “Queen of Heaven” howler: he will simply repeat it (can you hear a whiny falsetto going ‘myah, myah’?).
The meaning of the reference to the winter solstice is anybody’s guess to make.
And then he riffs on for the rest of the comment, simultaneously achieving (with a marvelous economy that is no doubt the fruit of long practice) both juvenility and irrationality. And had we noticed that the Wig of the Servant has come off and we are into that queasily repellent adolescent territory (familiar from other Abusenik material on this site) of scatological epithet?
But – for the clinically inclined – we see, and yet again from an Abusenik commenter, the indications of the phantasm constructed to make the whole unripe mess seem like a good thing: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is now “fighting the good fight”, so anything he writes is ipso facto and prima facie ‘good’ and justifiable and – but of course – the voice of (fill in the blank: a, some, the, any, Dan’s) god and therefore shame on those who think ill of it.
One also begins to see a bit more clearly why he chose to engage children (through the fence of that schoolyard or playground, presumably) and not adults with his assorted eructations: that’s fundamentally the level on which he operates. That the authorities took so dim an official view of his behaviors is – of course – merely another instance of ‘lies, lies, and more lies’ and constitutes merely the trials and tribulations of the heroic and truthy truth-teller.
Ovvvvvvv courssssssssssssse.
On then to several hours later (the 20th at 545PM). Having had further time to apply his capabilities, ‘Dan’ proffers … what?
He doesn’t have to deal with “the material on the table” – doncha see? – because it’s all just “trash” and he – the canny shopper – therefore doesn’t need to consider it.
On with more Scripturally-cast epithets (“wake up, sleeper”) and then the effort to burnish the presumptive validity of his gambit here by swathing it in the voice of Everybody (i.e. we have his word for it that “no one’s buying” the “excuses and garbage”). So ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – speaks not only for (a, some, any, the, his) deity but also for Everybody.
That must sustain him.
Alas, I understand both ‘Dan’ and his “bible quotes” (no capital ‘B’ here?) and – to repeat: the quotes are irrelevant until it has been established that they are being applied to a demonstrably evident phenomenon, which remains – to put it nicely – not the case at all.
This bit is followed by a string of descriptive epithets that – in that ever-revelatory dynamic of clinical projection – tells us more about the level and quality of ‘Dan’s mentation than it does about anything else.
And on and on it goes, for the rest of the comment, revealing as well the level of his “intellegence” even as he tries to land an epithetical whack by proclaiming himself “sure not terribly impressed” with mine. It escapes his notice, clearly, that his whack is far more dangerous in the recoil than in the projectile.
He doth “hate to be repetitive” … and yet repeating his well-worn 3×5 collection of pericopes and epithets is pretty much all he’s got, unless we count his occasional howler-forays into the historical, the theological, and other such areas which are, clearly, for him terra incognita.
On then to several hours later (the 20th at 1119PM). Having had further time to apply his capabilities, ‘Dan’ proffers … what?
More epithet, this time putatively grounded in his creds as generally-knowledgeable prophet, denouncer, and all-around mouthpiece of (fill in the blank: a, some, the, any, his) deity.
Then he will specifically turn his skills to the “Queen of Heaven” prison howler.
First, he will simply try a distracting riff on “enjoy”, seeking to land an epithetical whack.
He then ignores the gravamen of his historical reference, focusing merely on the fact that his translation of Regina Coeli as “Queen of Heaven” is accurate. So it is, but that wasn’t at all the point. It is not a Vatican prison – which was the primary point of his assertion. Thus his translation was accurate, but his core assertion that it was/is a Vatican prison is and remains an egregious howler.
And thus his effort here to make excuses for himself and avoid the consequences of what he asserted in the first place … does “absolutely nothing” except to demonstrate the quality (or lack of it) in his mentation and his character.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:
He will then address himself to the larger issue of his “correcting and criticizing” of the Church.
Most of his stuff – alas – is based on presumptions and misinformation, little if any of which is accurate, although – thanks to media complicity in the Stampede – is widely amplified among the public.
And since his presumptions are inaccurate, then his application of his favorite Scriptural bits remains ungrounded and hangs in the already-toxic air of his own predilections. (Nor can it be realistically presumed that he might come to grasp this, since his entire ‘purpose and mission’ is precisely constructed upon the self-serving presumption that he is not only right and very clever, but is also the mouthpiece of (a, some, any, the, his) deity.
Thus – to repeat yet again – I don’t engage his assorted Scriptural eructations since it has not at all been established that they are accurately applied in the first place. The play has to start with an at-bat on home plate, not on (his preferred) first or second base (which is a major sleight-of-hand in the Abusenik/Stampede trickery generally).
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:
And anyway – doncha know? – it’s “fairly difficult” (as we “know”, he adds in a slyly manipulative aside) to have any “evidence” of abuse since “the church did everything in it’s [sic] power to “keep crimes secretive”.
Now this last phrase is grammatically and conceptually odd – and when dealing with Abuseniks, even when you factor in their lack of capacity of competent expression, such oddity is usually a sign of some conceptual legerdemain.
What he is trying to do here is to get some mileage out of that 1962 Instruction while not having to repeat the mistakes he made (that I have already pointed out on this thread) in his prior effort to deploy it.
I will simply point out a) my analysis of the 1962 Instruction and subsequent Vatican efforts on this thread; b) the statement long-ago discussed on this site from Federal judge Schiltz as to the role of tort-attorneys in getting secrecy established in the settlements; c) the quite rational defensive tactic by Church attorneys of going-along with secrecy to prevent a further expanded run on the Church as a pinata; and d) the extended and acute analysis of Federal judge Kosinski considered at length on a recent prior thread here.
Thus his sly and manipulative “to keep crimes secretive” says both too much and too little, when more carefully examined.
And I would further add (e): the insinuation that there are yet innumerable “abuse files” yet to be disclosed (which joins its sibling phantasm that there are yet innumerable ‘victims’ out there somewhere) is a scare-vision from decades ago that retains very little (if any)rational traction in the present.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:
But we see here as well the basic objective of so very much of this synergy among secularist and Victimist and fundamentalist agendas in regard to the Church: if the Church can be demonstrated to have failed morally in the Abuse Matter generally, then the Church cannot retain any stature as a moral authority in the world.
And that’s the nub and the rub here: these synergistic interests very much want to reduce – if not obliterate – the Church as being the largest remaining institutional obstacle to their assorted dubiously-moral agendas.
Do any of these synergistic interests have any other institutional alternative to replace the Church? They would each perhaps consider themselves as being such an alternative (although if the Church suddenly disappeared their own respective interests would no doubt clash among themselves).
But the even more sinister and ominous possibility is that the secularist interest (which, with its government backing, is the most organizationally influential of the three) would actually rather reduce all human existence to the Monoplane, i.e. that there is no objective ‘morality’ or Source of morality at all – which is the old Materialist agenda tricked-out in contemporary rags.
Readers might well consider the screeching irony of fundamentalist mindsets trying to ride the back of the secularist tiger in the Catholic Abuse Matter, getting their digs in at the Church while remaining stupefyingly oblivious to the fact that if objective-morality (grounded in the Metaplane or the Beyond or ‘God’) goes, then they themselves will be next on the secularist target-list. Or rather: they will resume their place on the secularist target-list.
In any case, whatever failures the Church exhibited in the Catholic Abuse Matter (and such failures, I say again, do not demonstrably reach the precincts of infinity) yet a) the Church as a human institution is subject to all of the deranging pressures of human nature and human history (as are, it must be recalled, secularism, Victimism, and fundamentalism).
And b) the Church at this point has implemented the most comprehensive abuse-prevention protocols of any large (or small) organization on the planet.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:
And lastly, we see once again the slyly manipulative effort to start the play on a base and not with an at-bat at home plate: we are to presume that “no one is making themselves out to be a victim” because “they have truly been victimized” … which – to repeat yet again – is a characterization has not at all been demonstrated to be largely veracious and accurate and which, indeed, under even modest examination appears to be far more unsupportable a vision than the Stampede would want us to believe.
'Synergy' is code for conspiracy and there is a theorist afoot.
'Interests' want to 'reduce' the church and they have 'agendas'. Spooky. Church as victim. Say it, until it is true, Publion.
Say, let's have a take on the NY embezzlement/sex scandal and Mr. Dolan's supervisory dealings with the matter.
The smoke blowing is as thick as pea soup here. It's degenerated into a debate between P an evil paid for idiot and Dan who's going after catholics' relationship to Mary and obviously the protestant reformation. So it's a bible quoter versus a lying apologist for child rapers. This is religious thought? (There's an oxymoron.)
Still, through all this fog like bullshit, only 2000 out of over 11,000 victims compensated. The insurors have paid half of the $3 billion you rave on about. So the church paid 1.5 billion; and we all know how "poor" the richest organization on the planet is. Poor in spirit, perhaps, but loaded with gold.