Wrongly convicted: Msgr. William Lynn
For the second time, a Pennsylvania Superior Court has overturned the historic conviction of Philadelphia's Msgr. William J. Lynn and ordered a new trial for the wrongly convicted priest. In June 2012, a jury unbelievably determined that Lynn had supposedly "endangered the welfare of a child" even though he never had any supervision over any minors.
In its ruling the court also blasted Judge Teresa M. Sarmina – who was cited numerous times for bigoted and warped rulings during Lynn's 2012 trial –
[**Click to read the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling (12/22/15) (pdf)**]
As always, we encourage readers to get the full story – without the mainstream media bias – from veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano. Check out Cipriano's latest here and here.
Once again, it becomes clear that in the Stampede type of court case we so often see this remarkable inability to achieve a solid and legally persuasive conclusion.
Nor is this merely the result of ‘appeals’; any appeal beyond the trial court could easily be turned back by a higher court … if the higher court found the appeal to be without merit.
But that is not the case here. Even the courts and the judges/justices themselves are having a difficult time.
But this extraordinary situation does not arise out of the blue.
One might easily imagine some hefty political dynamic at work – especially at the State Supreme Court level where the State Superior Court panel’s reversal of Lynn’s conviction was itself reversed – and without very much legal explanation at all.
On the Superior Court level, the overturn of the conviction was, at least, carefully explained and the reasoning behind the overturn was fully laid-out for any concerned person to follow.
Continuing with my comment of the 1st at 118PM.
On the level of specifics, the questions of a) whether a law that originally didn’t cover Lynn’s situation was retroactively applicable b) even after that law was amended at a point in time after the actions allegated in the original Complaint.
Against the decision of the prior D.A. (who decided – or, you might rightly say, realized – that both (a) and (b) had to be considered disqualifiers for any prosecution), the current D.A. decided to go ahead with a prosecution.
On that basis, the State Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court panel’s reversal.
Then the State Superior Court panel, presented with another appeal, reversed the conviction again, this time on the basis of the trial judge (Sarmina) allowing the bulk of the actual trial to revolve around the presentation of allegated instances many of which took place either before Lynn was born or before he was in office, and in any case his office did not have the final say in how to handle priests against whom allegations (even informal ones) had been lodged.
It appeared that – as might be dictated by the Stampede Playbook – the current D.A. was simply trying to pad the Lynn case with vividly-presented but legally extraneous scare-stories in order to manipulate the jury’s emotions rather than persuade the jury’s rationality.
Continuing with my comment of the 1st at PM.
Of course, one might argue that the twenty-odd scare-stories were not legally extraneous since they arguably demonstrated a pattern of action on the part of the Church. But the Complaint was against an individual, Lynn, in this criminal trial and not against the Church as a Party-Defendant, and thus it can also clearly be argued that since a number of those scare-story examples did not involve the prior actions of Lynn (who at the time was not clearly covered by the law on the books at the time) then they are indeed legally extraneous and also clearly ‘prejudicial’ in the formal legal sense of the term.
In response to the current D.A.’s stated intention to appeal, we would look for either the full State Superior Court or the State Supreme Court to rationally explicate whatever Decision it handed down, either sustaining the State Superior Court panel’s reversal or reversing that reversal.
If – as has already happened in the prior round of appellate review – the higher court reversed the reversal without any convincing or persuasive rational explication, or without any explication at all, then we would see once again a situation that would indicate some amount of extra-legal dynamic at work in the case.
Continuing with my comment of the 1st at 118PM.
None of this can be considered to have come ‘out of the blue’, dismaying as it all may be to anyone concerned for the clear and just application of the laws and of the rule of law.
But this goes back to the very basis of the Victimist-inspired ‘sex offense’ type of legislation and jurisprudence that has effloresced in the US in the past quarter century or so: the entire legal basis for so-called ‘victim-friendly’ law and jurisprudence is grounded in a regressive reversion back to the era of Western legal praxis when ‘spectral evidence’ – the claim by the allegant of knowledge that nobody else can know but that must be taken by everybody as true and worthy of constituting per se a grounds for criminal conviction and penalties – was deployed, most notably in the witchcraft jurisprudence such as seen in Salem in 1692.
Continuing with my comment of the 1st at 118PM.
In his national column yesterday (“2015 full of the ludicrous, laughable”) George Will quoted Hillary Clinton: “those allegating sexual assault have ‘the right to be believed’”. (Italics mine.)
Clinton’s thought here is as succinct and precise a demonstration of such legally regressive Victimist thinking as could be desired.
It demonstrates a clear ignorance (or ignoring-of) the fundamental principles of rational, reason-and-evidence-based Western law as it has (or had) been developed and refined. While any individual has the right to his/her own personal beliefs as to just about anything, yet when a public claim is made i) against another individual that ii) would require not only the public but also the legal and institutional authority of the government or the courts to be deployed against the accused individual, then there is absolutely not preclusive ‘right to be believed’.
Rather, one must submit such claims as one makes to rational (and adversarial) and open analysis.
And that analysis must be conducted according to the principles of a Western law that is itself governed (or had been governed) by clear principles of rationality and evidentiary demonstration.
Otherwise we wind up with the type of ‘trial’ so marvelously and acutely satirized by Monty Python in their ‘Holy Grail’ movie: the local lord, egged on by the crowd, declares a woman a witch on the basis of impossible faux-logic (if you drown you are innocent, if you float you are guilty).
And one recalls the objection of one of his barons to King Arthur’s insistence (in the early 1960s movie Camelot) to the requirement of evidence in order to justify the deployment of the King’s authority against an accused: so, the old-school baron sneers, ‘no evidence, no crime’.
That, alas, is almost precisely the nub of it.
Continuing with my comment of the 1st at 118PM.
More precisely: no evidence, no deployment of the sovereign authority to deprive an accused of liberty or property or life.
And that is not quite the same thing as ‘no evidence, no crime’.
But it’s the closest human justice (human justice, “with its flickering lamp” – to paraphrase Churchill’s eulogy for Neville Chamberlain) can come, since human judgment is not possessed of the omniscience of God yet human judgment, lodged in a humanly-sovereign authority, is all-too-easily capable of wrecking lives on the basis of no evidence at all.
It has been the queasily ominous hallmark of ‘modern’ (and now post-modern) justice-doing that the sovereign authority of the government – acting as a replacement for the ‘old’ God – a) considers whatever it decides to be ‘justice’ to be full and complete ‘justice’ and b) such determination is not-to-be-questioned or doubted.
Thus raison d’etat, the overriding agenda of the sovereign authority, overrides any fuddy-duddy concern about principles.
This fundamentally lethal and irrational tenet was then amplified by the French Revolutionary idea that the Cause of the Revolution (rather than the Cause or Authority of the Crown) is so Great and Good that it justifies whatever it done for the sake of the Cause (i.e. the end justifies the means).
Which in time was modified by the Soviets and Fascists: the Cause of the ‘proletariat’ or das Volk is so Great and Good – and Urgent – that even Terror, administered by the courts or the secret police, is justified.
And if you disagreed with that, then you were ‘counterrevolutionary’ or traitorous.
Continuing with my comment of the 1st at 118PM.
Which brings us to the present theorization of the problem, where the ‘proletariat’ and the Volk have been replaced by the ‘Victim’: the Cause of the Victim is so Great and Good and Urgent that no fuddy-duddy concerns for abstract principles (that merely continue the oppression of the oppressed by the dominant hierarchy of power – as Foucault would put it) can be allowed to stand in the way.
And if you disagree with that then then you are oppressive and/or you are ‘blaming the victim’ and/or you are an ‘enabler’ or ‘defender’ of the (alleged) crime and/or you are most likely a criminal yourself.
And so on.
Continuing with my comment of the 1st at 118PM.
Readers might also be interested in a 2006 book by Frederick Crews entitled Follies of the Wise: Dissenting Essays.
Crews is most notable for his sustained efforts at pointing out the fundamental derangements in psychological thinking that fueled the ‘repressed memory’ theory, considered so ‘cutting edge’ in the 1980s and 1990s and quite supportive of ‘victim-friendly’ legislative and jurisprudential changes effected (or wreaked) in those times – the effects of which are still with us today.
He is readable and follows carefully and clearly the development of this psychological theory and its consequences for law and legislation in the US, amplified through a sensationalist Geraldo-type media eager for ‘soft’ news that was also emotionally gripping (as if that would qualify as ‘serious reporting’), as well as for its effect on public opinion.
And it all gives rise to some sobering thoughts on how opinion among an increasingly sensation-hungry and unreflective public could support such whackery (including the stunning fact that children who had ‘remembered’ abuse by dragons and demons and their parents and neighbors grilling babies on backyard Weber grilles were taken as factual by investigative authorities).
In the book, a good pair of essays to start with might be the two he published in The New York Review of Books entitled “The Revenge of the Repressed”, in two parts, November 17 and December 1 of 1994. (Those essays, the many comments and replies to it and his replies to those actually then became the basis for his book The Memory Wars in 1995.)
For readers interested in the deeper background dynamics of the Stampede and/or in recent developments (or derangements) in American culture, Crews will be a meaty and informative read.
"No Evidence". Except the fact that Lynn lied, and covered up child-rape.
And on the 1st at 456PM ‘True Catholic’ – running true to form – simply waves away all the issues by repeating – without any explanation – some handy mantras about Lynn. Thus cartoons are deployed to preserve the scare-visions dear and necessary to the Abusenik agenda.
Msgr Lynn is a lying son of a bitch.
Msgr. Lynn only won an appeal, which doesn't mean he's automatically considered to be a "wrongly convicted priest". Also, cements the fact that priests molested children wherever they were placed, most all knew to deny charges until being backed into a corner and then sent elsewhere to continue their criminal acts. Whether Lynn is convicted or not, will only be to his advantage or not. Does nothing to change the fact that way to many children have been harmed by your church. Do you really care about that or are you to busy trying to put the focus somewhere else, while giving lip service to how the church has done more than any other institution in preventing future crimes. They still handle cases in house and prefer not to call the authorities. These smokescreen tribunals that do nothing, aren't terribly convincing to anyone, other than your brainwashed sheep.
Publion, I see your ramblings continue with 8 pages of comments and garbage that really changes nothing, except maybe in your own mind. Since you apparently don't understand the quotes I've taken from the Bible or realize yet that the Bible is the Word of God, and mockingly call them "God-grams" in your ignorance, thought I might enlighten with more. As I quoted for you 2 Peter 2, in regards to the "depraved conduct" of your church's hierarchy and you have a problem comprehending God's perfect description of your cult, thought maybe this analysis from the Bible Book of Ephesians would be helpful to you, or someone with understanding.
"That we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into HIm who is the head, even Christ. So walk no longer as the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness." Ephesians chapter 4: 14,15,17-19 P- When you see the Bible book, chapter and verse, this means it's God's word from His Book. Know that's difficult for you to grasp, but I believe God has you and your despicable cronies described and nailed perfectly. Try to restrain from mocking, even though I expect an infantile response.
Dan, why don't you piss off out of here?! We Catholics don't want to be told that our Church is not God's Church. In fact, I have read enough to take the view that it is the Church that Jesus founded. Even the sex abuse scandals shall not change that.
This is the judgement (condemnation) : the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light,. for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his dees will be exposed. John 3:19-20
This quote explains all the secrecy, confidentiality, secret memos and ultimate deception, in hiding the disgusting crimes of the church at the expense of all victims and their families. You should all be ashamed of the things hidden in the darkness, but they are slowly being exposed and brought out into the Light. No thanks to the wicked deceivers and enablers of the world.
What could be darker, then child-rape. And a point man. Who spends years, lying, and covering it up ?
Of course "dees" should be deeds.
On the 5th at 1054AM we see a charming example of the perhaps inaptly self-monnikered ‘True Catholic’.
A few minutes later, at 1058AM the same commenter will simply deploy the old Stampede scare-visions about “child-rape”. Msgr. Lynn was not accused or charged or convicted of that, nor was he accurately characterizable as a “point man”: he reported to the Ordinary who had the sole authority to consider what to do with allegations and with a priest against whom allegations (such as they may have been) were lodged (in whatever way they were lodged).
Nor can it accurately be said that he ‘covered it up’ since it has not often been established that the allegations were true, accurate and veracious in the first place.
All of this, of course, is far too much complication for a good catchy Stampede scare-vision.
On then to ‘Dan’ at on the 4th at 1203AM:
The “appeal” which Msgr. Lynn “won” was then reversed (by the State Supreme Court), as I pointed out at length in prior comments on this thread. And now there is a further appeal on different grounds.
Which brings us back to my point that this case demonstrates how fraught u dubious and questionable this priest-abuse type of case has proven and demonstrated itself to be.
And to readers familiar with the dynamics and complexities of this type of priest-abuse case, and with the gravamen of the appeals (past and present) that arise from the trial itself, then it becomes clear, I would say, that there are profound problems with the case as it was theorized, formulated, charged, and conducted at the trial level.
So at this point, I think that the various conflicting appellate court decisions indicate that even the courts involved are having difficulties. Further, I think that the performance of the Supreme Court indicates that the dynamics involved do not revolve so much around the very real problems with the case, but rather indicate that there are extra-legal (i.e. political and legitimacy) factors involved now.
Specifically, we are now facing both i) the problems inherent in the case and now ii) the problem that if the D.A. is ultimately defeated in his efforts, then the integrity of the State legal system itself will be tarnished – and once you are into this type of territory, then courts become far more leery of sustaining reversals-of-convictions, even if it means allowing injustices or unjust convictions to stand.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1203AM:
It is also hardly accurate to say that the current status of the case “cements” anything along the lines of ‘proving’ the global assertion that “priests molested children wherever they were placed”.
If the current status of this case “cements” anything, it is that Stampede type trials and jurispraxis are inherently questionable and dubious almost by their very nature.
But – with uncharacteristic shrewdness – ‘Dan’ then tries to solve his problems by jumping ahead to assert that no matter how the Lynn appeal is ultimately resolved it “will only be to his [own] advantage or not”. Thus, that it doesn’t make any difference, really, how the appeal is ultimately resolved because “it does nothing to change the fact that way to[o] many children have been harmed by your church”.
Where to begin?
First, we are not actually dealing with demonstrated “fact” here; we are dealing, rather, with the effort to manipulate (or stampede) readers into the old Abusenik Stampede presumption that ‘allegation’ and ‘fact’ are synonymous, and they are most surely not.
Second, of course, is to give thought to the possibility or probability that religious polities – and all other sorts of institutions – that do not maintain so high a level of records and authority have allowed many of their ministers to commit such types of acts as are allegated against priests.
This, however, may not be as relevant for ‘Dan’ as it is for many adherents of such polities, since ‘Dan’ appears to be a church-of-one, based on his self-proclaimed direct-line to the thought of God and his handy 3×5 file of Scriptural pericopes.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1203AM:
Thus he then slyly tries to accuse the Church (and perhaps myself) of trying to “put the focus somewhere else”, presumably meaning that all of the material I have put up is merely trying to change-the-subject.
But what is that “subject”? It is – had you been waittttting forrrr itttttttt? – the Abusenik presumptions as enshrined in their manipulative presumptions that allegations are the same as demonstrated facts.
Which he then tries to support with the familiar (and subtly epithetical) Abusenik appeal to emotion: do I “really care about that” … ? Meaning: do I really “care about” the presumptive scare-visions that the Abuseniks are trying to manipulate people into presuming are demonstrably factual … ?
To which I respond: I do very much care about those manipulative Abusenik Stampede scare-visions.
And I very much care about getting to the truth. Which is not actually congruent with the Abusenik Stampede agenda, which has already determined what the truth must be and thus now only aims to manipulate people into accepting that pre-determined ‘truth’.
And we see once again – and again with uncharacteristic rhetorical subtlety – the effort to dispose of the Church’s current and remarkably comprehensive child protection protocols with such epithetical terms as “lip service” and “smokescreen”; which also serves to conveniently keep the focus not on the present but on the (Stampede-imagined) past of decades ago.
And we see once again the effort to support this entire effort of his here by claiming to speak for everyone (i.e. that my points “are not terribly convincing to anyone”, which phrasing itself is so uncharacteristic of his usual style of presentation and mentation). While also conveniently disposing of anyone who might disagree with him by preemptively terming such persons “brainwashed sheep”.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1203AM:
Thus his first paragraph. On to the second:
We get merely epithet (“ramblings”, “8 pages of comments and garbage”) that then tries to justify the assertion that my material “really changes nothing”. But of course, since the Abusenik agenda and position and ‘truth’ are all predetermined, then no material that stymies their objective can be allowed to ‘change’ anything; if one block is taken out of their little toy-block structure, then the whole thing starts to collapse.
And then we are back to my not ‘understanding’ his Scriptural pericopes. And thus to repeat once again: his pericopes are all based on a presumption that has not been sufficiently demonstrated, so why would I waste my own and everyone else’s time here by indulging in comments on them? The play has been improperly begun on first or second base rather than with an at-bat at home plate, so why waste time arguing over whether the player is safe trying to steal third? The entire play is undermined by its initial insufficiency.
And then – again with that marvelous inability to see how projection reveals itself – ‘Dan’ will try another epithetical run at me: my position is valid only “maybe in [my own] mind”. And readers can take that bit of comic diversion – unintentional as it may indeed be – thankfully.
As to whether his own “conduct” as regards young people, which has several times brought him to the attention of the police, the courts, and the mental health folks is somehow “depraved” … this seems not to be an issue for him. As I have said, he should try applying the substance of his god-grams to himself by delivering his imprecations in a mirror; it might be quite revealing and perhaps even constructive an exercise.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1203AM:
Thus his second paragraph. On to the third:
It is mostly a quotation from the 3×5 pericope file.
Followed by his lecture to the effect that “when you see the Bible, book, chapter and verse” then “this means” – tah-dahhhh, had you been waitttttttttting for itttttttttttt? – that “it’s God’s word from His Book” (or at least, “it’s God’s word” as ‘Dan’ understands and tries to apply it). It is upon such simplistic bits that ‘Dan’ not only consoles himself but also gives himself the launch-platform for his many epithetical and manipulative efforts.
He then slyly and cattily tries to bolster that bit with the sarcasm that he doth “know it’s difficult for [me] to grasp” that point. But as I’ve said, it’s not the Scripture but rather the applicability of the pericope to the matter at hand.
Whether “God” has me and my “despicable cronies” “described and nailed perfectly” is only clear in whatever god-gram ‘Dan’ has consulted. But I think we have ‘Dan’ aptly described here.
It is ‘Dan’ whose material has demonstrated itself somewhat mock-worthy here. He should stop trying to use ‘God’ as a way to avoid that reality, however uncongenial. In that way, he might perhaps in some small way be able to move beyond the “infantile”. It’s never too late to try.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1PM:
No doubt it’s merely a theological version of a Freudian slip that results in ‘Dan’ putting up the (or his) “judgement (condemnation)” without quotation marks: his thoughts and God’s thoughts are pretty much the same, doncha see?
And once again the simplistic mentation demonstrates and reveals itself: “this quote explains [it] all”, doncha see? No need for thinking, doncha see?
And the presumptions, once again, that all allegants are genuine victims and all allegations are genuine reports. But these presumptions serve the manipulative rhetorical purpose of appealing to emotions and side-stepping thought. Stright out of the Stampede/Abusenik Playbook.
And the whole bit thus platforms his puffing out his feathers to deliver that “you should all be ashamed” bit.
And has ‘Dan’ given much if any thought to how his material has rather demonstrably “exposed” his own issues and “brought them out into” the light? That might prove useful for him.
Blah! Blah! Blah! Received the "infantile response" I was expecting. You ever heard, "what goes around comes around" or for those with the mind of God, and far beyond your under- standing, "You reap what you sow." Far be it for me to seek revenge against your deceiving cult, so I'll just let my Lord do it for me. As your dense mind has already been informed, your clergy, both priests and nuns, "FALSELY ACCUSED ME", without one shred of evidence, misdemeanors, of which the courts believed the wholly (not holy), lying imposters. So if God felt your organization should reap what it sows, who would I be to lay blame on Him. Though I find that not to be the case, looking at a few of msgr. lynn's list of 35 "whacked" priests, I find a few, quite disturbing acts of collusion on the part of the msgr. I can place some blame on the fact that your dictatorship wrongly places unqualified losers in positions of "sole authority". And underlings in dresses, brainwashed into a somewhat feminine submission, bend over and dare not overrule their superior's poor decisions, and instead join in the secret deceptions, and help to perpetrate and conceal all the lies. So these so-called men, some who even take on the name of Mary, in their damaged pride, take out their frustrations and sexual hang-ups on innocent little boys and more rarely, girls. Why would anyone one have a problem in calling it what it truly is? Child rape, child molesting, disgustingly sick and perverted. And the wheel keeps on turning!
Seeing that in your infantility, you prefer analogies of cartoons and baseball, thought I'd help you along with how the game is really going. I hit a home run a long time ago, and you've yet to make it past security. They wouldn't allow you into the park with your case of poisoned kool-aid you'd been drinking and trying to force down people's throats. I'm not buying any of your piss-poor excuses and would hope that catholics and Christians will wake up and smell the coffee, and dump the kool-aid down the vatican secret round file.
I'll spare you the Bible quotes this time, because I understand your fear in facing them and in that fear, dare not confront them or their truths. Later coward, keep on mocking.
As I said before, I don't know what to make of this but predictably the folks who post on Catholics4Change are not impressed. They seem to think he's guilty. Maybe he is; as I said before, I don't agree with everything Dave Pierre says, but I don't agree with everything Susan Mathews and Kathy Kane say either.
One example, Susan predictably went crook at Bill Donohue for calling out Sabrina Erdely going as far as to say, "Not one aspect of Sabrina Erdely’s article in Rolling Stone is untrue." But as we know, Sabrina has since been discredited over her uni campus ramp story. So it looks like Bill was right. Yet Susan has not publicly apologized to Bill.
And now for something pretty much the same.
On the 5th at 717PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate – with a vivid and pitch-perfect clarity – his level of mentation: “Blah! Blah! Blah!”.
He is justified in this response – doncha see? – because – had you been waitingggg forrrr itttt? – he had “received the ‘infantile response’ he was expecting”. Because – doncha see? – if you don’t agree with him you must obviously be “infantile”. A neat psychic economy, bolstered – but of course – by the fact that he speaks the thoughts of God. Sort of like Madame Blavatsky channeling the thoughts and messages and instructions of Koot Hoomi, the deity with whom she so privately and definitively communed.
And perhaps it is just another theological Freudian slip that he refers to God as “my God” – and clearly Madame Blavatsky has not left the building.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 717PM:
And then a further venture into the epithetical (my “dense mind”) which then provides the lead-in to the claim that “your clergy, both priests and nuns” had, he screams, “falsely accused” him (scream caps omitted). I take it, then, that it was staff members at a Catholic school who called the police when ‘Dan’ took it upon himself to deliver his assorted bits to children at recess through the playground fence.
But we are not to take this too seriously – doncha see? – because he was only charged with “misdemeanors”. That must console him. Although these were misdemeanors that somehow convinced a court and also triggered court-ordered psychiatric observation. And did so several times.
But – he assures us – he does not “seek revenge”. Ovvvvv courssssse. It is – doncha see? – not ‘Dan’ but (a, the, some, any, his) ‘God’ that doth seek revenge for the gross un-truthiness of considering ‘Dan’ to be not altogether well.
What ‘Dan’ doth find in his assessment of Msgr. Lynn is something readers may judge for themselves.
And once again he seems far more easily able to find “disturbing” things somewhere else besides inside his own self.
And the first paragraph thus trundles on with variations on his favorite themes.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 717PM:
On then to the second paragraph:
My “infantility”, he proffers, is demonstrated by my use of “analogies of cartoons and baseball” – although he doesn’t demonstrate that my metaphors in any way fail to convey the actuality of his game here.
And anyway – he assures us – he “hit a home run a long time ago”. And that cartoon must console him.
And the paragraph trundles on with some epithetical bits, and a further whack at my material, none of which he is “buying”. What else could he say, though? If my metaphors are accurate, then his whole game here collapses like a house of cards.
And he concludes by convincing himself that I “fear” his 3×5 card file of favorite pericopes.
But that simply provides him a lead-in to calling me a “coward” for not facing the eructations flowing from his god-grams. And that must console him.
But then he starts to lose it with his bit about – whatever it may mean – “the vatican secret round file”. One thinks of some alien computerized robot on the old Star Trek TV show, with smoke coming out of its casing as it begins to overheat and lose control.
The “mocking” will continue as long as the mock-able material keeps coming.
Liar, mocker, wholly imposter and troll. Your in good company.
I don't think Publion writes enough here. He should write more and more and more. He, incredably, makes the English language dull. Not an easy thing to do. With a bit more effort he could kill the language off completely. Word Armagedon.
My question is: Why does he do it, write so much boring crap; defending the power-archy of the church?
Because he is the power-archy of the church. He doesn't listen. He doesn't care to. Not his job. He's here to control not to converse.
Your church needs to die (and it will. It will be a suicide). Not because it's evil, per se; but because it doesn't tell the truth about anything. And that's evil, per se. Get my drift?
And as if on cue, ‘Dan’ on the 6th at 729AM simply vents a bunch of epithets.
In what way am I a “liar”? And in what way am I “wholly [an] imposter”? The “mocker” bit we have dealt with at length already. The “troll” bit we can take – I trust – as deliberate if somewhat histrionic exaggeration, to which ‘Dan’ is not infrequently given.
You question, in "what way am I" these things? To make it simple for your dense brain, I'd have to say in every way. With every comment you add to your deceiving, rationalizing flood of excuses, further advancing the lies and deceptions of your church. You weren't even there to witness the beautiful Word"s the Lord had for the children, yet you think you know what transpired that day, falsely accusing me of things that are untrue. So when you add to the lies of your church cronies, more of your own ridiculously false statements, proves you to be just as big a liar, imposter, mocker of truth, troll and I must have forgotten hypocrite and defender of some of the most vile, wicked people to walk the earth. Did I answer your question to your liking or maybe I'll get to respond to more of your stupidity? Dan, servant of the One and Only True God
P.S.Glad to know your gods or goddesses aren't mine.
Mark, 1/6 @ 1:01am, It's gullible, brainwashed catholics like yourself that have allowed your disgusting cult of child molesters and perverts to get away with the crimes they have imposed on innocent victims. I believe you when you say, "you don't want to be told that your [c]hurch is not God's church." This doesn't make it God's church because you don't like being told the truth. Let's review. In the Holy Bible there is no leader called a pope, no church called catholic, no rosary, no bowing down to saints or the blessed ever virgin mary and no immaculate conception or assumption of mary. In conclusion, all you've been force-fed is lies, on top of lies by some of the most experience deceivers in the world. The whole "sex abuse scandals" issue, further demonstrates a 'Pandora's box' of pedophiles and perverts, with a lying and deceiving hierarchy willing to do just about anything for the good and protection of a sinking church of hypocrisy. If that's not enough to change your view of the false cult you belong to, well my guess would be that nothing will. Good luck to ya!
You're right. Nothing will. But the protestant church isn't any better. I could tell you a few things about Martin Luther that would make your skin crawl.
I'm sorry, publion, It was juvenile for me to say you had a "dense brain" ( not mind[sic], as you misquoted, but now that you mention it, the mind is pretty dense also), should of used a more adult and appropriate term for you. You're an imbecile. You are a manipulative liar that makes a slimy troll appear to be clean. Just the kind of agenda your church hierarchy lives by. It being fairly obvious that you're a liar, so I'll explain why you're an imposter.
Imposter (def.)- someone who assumes a false identity [phony] or title for the purpose of deception- (syn.) charlatan- a person who falsely pretends to know or be something in order to deceive people: one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability (syn.) publion- one making unusually showy pretences to knowledge or ability, when nothing could be further from the truth, a blatant liar and deceiver.
So continue with your mocking nonsense and we'll wait for the Lord God to decide when he's heard enough of your demonic manure. Later Coward.
On the 6th at 1211PM JR proffers that I – “incredably” – make the English language dull. That’s his best shot and there it is.
I admit I make the English language a bit more predictable than JR’s on-again/off-again spelling whackeries, but the ideas are what really irritate him. Whether because they are actually ideas or because they are ideas he doesn’t want to deal with … let the readership decide.
Readers may make what they can from “Word Armagedon”.
But it’s all just a lead-in for – had you been waitinggggggggg for itttttttttttt? – a “question” to which, but of course, JR has already stitched together the answer that he wants: I don’t just – he says – “defend the power-archy of the church”; rather, I am “the power-archy of the church”. And readers may make what they can of it.
And what irritates him is not that I don’t “listen”; it’s that I listen all too well and find things even in his own material that he would rather nobody notice was there. And the whole bit neatly wrapped up in his signature bit juvenilia: I’m Not/You Are. Specifically, that he would have it that I am the one who tries to “control” and not he who runs the Abusenik scam of manipulation. And to “converse” with JR means – in his personal dictionary – to agree with him and cluck agreeably to whatever he tosses up.
Then he’s on about the Church and nothing new there.
I would say that his “drift” is perfectly clear, all too clear, and has been for quite a long time here. And he can “drift” on and on.
‘Dan’ (the 7th at 503PM) gives us his best shot at ‘answering’ my question.
He has to mask it in juvenile epithet (my “dense mind”) in order to try to hide its utter inadequacy, but that doesn’t work.
In what way am I the various things he said I am? And the answer is – tah dahhhh! – “in every way”. He clearly doesn’t grasp the pitfalls of a global assertion, as he makes clear here.
But we are then apparently given a glimpse of some revenant-recollection of his unhappy experiences by the schoolyard fence (the “troll” lurking under the bridge in order to go after the billy-goats – as readers of a certain age may remember from their grade school primer story about “The Three Billy-goats Gruff’): I wasn’t “there to witness” – doncha see? – “the beautiful Word”s [sic] the Lord had for the children” … so apparently his god-grams and erstwhile divine warrant authorized him to accost the kids with his assorted bits and material.
Of what did I ‘falsely accuse’ him? As far as I can make out from his own reports, it would appear that he attempted to deliver to them his god-gram stuff just as he does here. The staff, the police, the court all saw it for what it was; ‘Dan’, however, sees it as something “beautiful”. Let the readers consider as they will.
What “false” statements, then, did I make about his misadventures by the schoolyard fence?
Rather, I pointed out what was there in his own material that he does not wish to see. Not my problem.
And his comment trundles on to its unsurprisingly juvenile conclusion on with his usual creaking and groaning.
Mark 1/6 @ 11:42pm, We're not justifying the despicable perversions of your church by claiming that it's ok, because everybody else is doing it? Any established religion that claims they're godly, holy or moral and then performs any of the disgusting things your church has or anything close to it, would be considered just as guilty. Problem is that your cult has done some of the most horrid acts and much worse, for they prefer little boys (4 to1). And that is not to say raping little girls is ok. Problem with all religion is the fact that leaders present themselves as better than everyone else, and in their lack of humility lead weak followers into a misguided respect and sometimes worship of their hierarchy, instead of God or His Son. That's why it is very important to examine their failure to practice what they preach, by depending on the Lord's Word to expose their wrong doings. The Bible explains the condemnation for anyone, let alone a church who claims affiliation with Him, who would dare harm one of His little ones.
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6 And I'm not positive, but in the case of lurid sexual acts with a child, that Jesus wasn't referring to a sea of fire. Either way, you'll be dead, condemned and doomed. Beware of those (i.e. publion) who want you to believe that I don't know what I'm talking about when quoting the Lord's Word. Read the Bible for yourself and let the Lord guide you into His truth. Don't allow the hypocrites to blind and fool you into believing their lies and misinterpretations. "Beware of the wolves [phonies] in sheep's clothing." They're getting desperate in these last days, to drag people down with them. Satan's flock. Michelangelo drew a perfect depiction of this on the Sisteen Chapel wall, right at eye level, for your popes and bishops, especially during their conclaves, that they might know for sure the direction in which they are headed. Dan, servant of the truth
P.S. I have no problem reading and following the Catholic Bible version. I only wish your church would. Read the short Book of Jude in the Bible and you'll get a pretty good description of your church and many other religions. Let God be your guide, seems like He just happens to know everything.
Dan, no-one is defending child abuse so it is very wrong of you to say that we are. My point was that it is pointless leading the Catholic Church on that basis for while you seem sure it is worse in the Catholic Church, others say it's worse in the Protestant Church. Among them, Billy Graham's grandson. You seem so fond of quoting scripture. Let me quote from John 6:68 where Simon Peter says, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" That's why I remain Catholic.
Most priests are sincere men of God who do their best to love Him with all their hearts, souls, strength and mind. They are just as disgusted about this scandal as you rightfully are. Believe me, I am just as much so. And it was also wrong of you to say that I shall be dead, condemded and doomed because I was born again when I was 24. (I am now 43.) Oh, and the fact that I continue to feel the precense of God when I attended Mass along with the writings of Karl Keating, Michelle Arnold, Jimmy Akin, Jennifer Fulwiler and Peter Kreeft convince me that my decison to remain Catholic was the right one.
On the 7th at 1220PM the first paragraph gives us yet another fine example of ‘Dan’s basic operating level and mode.
One can only imagine how he might have responded to the children on the other side of the schoolyard fence when they did not instantly acknowledge the marvelousness of his harangue. And in whatever venues he might have pursued his Dan-god activities, if he didn’t simply repeat his schoolyard harangues in order to get arrested and sent for observation the other two times.
The second paragraph is epithet cast in the form of a definition of “imposter”, the gist of which is that I am an “imposter” for “making unusually showy pretences to knowledge or ability”. That would perhaps be his own dictionary that he’s working from (the “unusually showy” bit doesn’t at all seem an element that an actual dictionary would deploy, and it is rather too convenient to his purposes here).
I have made no claims as to my skills; I certainly haven’t claimed to be speaking on the authority of (a, the, some, any) god through some fancied direct link to a divinity. Where does ‘Dan’ get the idea then? I would propose this is simply another instance of clinical projection working its marvelous way to induce further self-revelation from somebody who actually is – and on some deep dark level knows himself to be – an “imposter” who claims some sort of direct divine knowledge and Scriptural chops.
And clinical projection works its revelatory magic again in the concluding epithet “coward”: what adult would pick on schoolchildren to harangue if not a “coward”? Or perhaps ‘Dan’ will try to weasel out of his actions here by claiming that ‘God’ made him do it?
I know I'm going to regret this, but I will try one more time to educate you. This quote is from The Beatitudes, Matthew 5:10-12.
"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
So in accordance to this quote, the catholic losers who insulted, persecuted and lied about me, help to cement the fact that I'm a prophet (teacher) of the Almighty God. Since you've added to their insults, persecution and lies, that must make you the biggest loser and catalyst that further hardens the cement. Furthermore, may I inform you to the fact that I don't "claim" to speak on the authority of the Almighty God, I do speak on behalf of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. The difference between myself and you and your cronies is I don't claim to be infallible or think I am. I so much appreciate you making "no claims as to [your] skills", but of course you'd have to possess skills in order to claim them. Oh! I found a skill you can claim, liar, mocker and perverter of truth. I have never come across anyone who has more perfected those skills.
I'd like to close in saying, I shall "rejoice and be glad" for your contribution of slander, helping to solidify my standing with the Almighty. I wish it made me as happy as the smiles on the beautiful, innocent catholic children, when over 150 of them, against the orders of their superiors, ran to the fence to hear the magnificent prophecy from the Lord. For you to attempt to make something sick or disgusting from that, when you weren't even there, displays not only your cowardice but would further qualify you as a complete sicko.
If your an example of a good catholic, I dread to run into any more of the bad ones. Thankfully, through the strength of my God, I can move mountains, I surely won't have any problem with stepping on catholic dunghills.
Catholic alert- Give up on thinking you can change your church. The best you can do is run from it, before you're caught in the undertow and sucked down with the sinking ship.
What's the problem ? He was just following orders. Like all the other priests.
Mark, With the information that's been brought to light so far, I can say without doubt that the catholic church has the market cornered on molesting underaged boys. There may come a time when other establishments show their true colors and as I said, they will be considered no better or possibly even worse than your church. Problem is that no religious organization, let alone their hierarchy should ever be involved in such atrocities, cover-ups, lies or transferring of perverts. Yet I have even heard comparisons to the secular world or suggestions of why doesn't the media attack them. Simply atrocious, for a supposedly godly church to ever compare themselves to secular sinners, like God will weigh them on a scale and proclaim, "Geez, you weren't that bad." To lie, conceal, defend, deceive or reverse blame on innocent victims, compounded their sins with worse results than the original, horrible incident. Ask publion, he's a master at it.
Catholics are phenomenal at protesting abortion clinics or rights, same-sex marriages or contraception, but I've yet to see these "most sincere men of God" and their sheep stepping out to protest with signs or voice the most terrible, outstanding crimes against the Creator. See my quote, Matthew 18:6. Are they just to busy inventing excuses and lies? And by the way, I was in no way condemning you or anyone else. Only God the Father has that right, and He will condemn those guilty of harming His children, as Christ spoke.
Good to see you checking what the Word says, but did you catch the end of John 6:68. "Your words give eternal life." Likewise, to deny or go against His word would mean eternal punishment. Catholic teaching does not follow much of the Word. I previously pointed out in the Bible, there is no pope, no catholic church, no rosary, no statue or mary worship, and no immaculate conception or assumption of mary. Let me add that there is no other mediator except Jesus Christ. "For there is only one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as ransom for all." 1 Tim 2:5,6 No mediatrix or saints, unless you enjoy being trixed. Also, if we don't agree with the Ten Commandments we just simply remove them from catholic teaching, the one we don't like and refuse to follow. That would be the second one. So if you'd rather read and depend on the catholic apologists you listed and believe in all the lies and apologies for disobeying the Bible, that would be your choice. Believe and trust in the word of man or the Word of God? I'll go with God. I've seen and heard enough from man.
Catholics do not worship Mary. Also what Protestants consider the second commadment is considered part of the first by the Catholic Church. And if you are going to accuse the Catholic Church of dropping the second commandment, will you do the same to the Lutheran Church? They have the same version of the Ten Commandments as the Catholic Church, you know.
Mark, I am not in agreement with any manmade religions. None of them follow the Bible and most of the so called christian ones spun off the teachings of the catholic church. They even keep and defend some of your favorite holidays, like "mary" christmas. catholics don't worship mary. Really? You crown her with terms like Hail(or is it Heil) and mother of God(which is absolute blasphemy). A good catholic is told to repeat 50 times a day her prayer, excellent catholic 100 times/a day and 150/a day and your guaranteed sainthood or at least eternal life. Have you been sipping the Koolaid. Christ says, " And when you pray, do not babble on with meaningless repititions like pagans (unbelievers), for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Matthew 6:7 Need more- Hypocrites "They pile heavy burdens[manmade rules] on people's shoulders and won't lift a finger to help. They lengthen their robes and garnish with tassels. They love the best seats at banquets and front seats in their churches. They love special greetings in the marketplace, like teacher, rabbi and father. Call no one father, you have one Father." Matthew 23 But were the holy roman catholic church, we can do what ever we please, and we'll have a lame excuse to give to our brainwashed sheep, while we molest their babies while their back is turned. None so blind as those who refuse to see. Sorry if that was harsh, but the truth sometimes does hurt. If it wakes up one person, I would be satisfied. I believe they call it tough love, and their is none better than the love that comes from the Almighty God. Both strong but truly awesome love.
On the 9th at 1223AM ‘Dan’ – with a sly pre-emptive disclaimer – shares with us the cartoon he has constructed to explain-away his misadventures with the law and mental-health folks: he is – had you been waittttttting forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – merely “persecuted” and “for the sake of righteousness”, doncha see?
Because – ya see – it was “the catholic losers” who “insulted, persecuted and lied about” him.
And the fact – one can only marvel at the psychic economy here – that he has been thus “persecuted” doth “help to cement that fact” that he is – had you been waittttttingg for itttttttttt? – “a prophet (teacher) of the Almighty God”.
And since – try to follow the logic here – I have “added to their insults” then that “must make” me “the biggest loser”.
This is logic on a par with the old saw about the fellow who keeps snapping his fingers on the streets of New York in order to keep the elephants away, and can ‘prove’ that his finger-snapping works because – look around – there are no elephants on the streets of New York.
And we are ‘informed’ that he does not claim to speak on the authority of (a, some, any, the, his) “Almighty” but rather he actually does.
And yet, nonsensically even on his own terms, he doth not “claim to be infallible” nor does he “think” he is. If he is not “infallible” then perhaps he could point out some places where his theories and assertions are wrong. Or is it that he is not “infallible” but rather he just happens to be always right?
We are deep into a swamp here.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1223AM:
He then claims he’s been ‘slandered’ and he is welcome to demonstrate that with accurate quotations. Which he can’t do unless he takes as presumed and demonstrated that he is not batplop crazy but rather is indeed a genuine and presumptive “prophet and teacher” of the generally accepted God (as opposed to his particular version of a god).
We are then treated to his vision of what happened with the children at the schoolyard fence (before the police arrived) when “over 150 of them [i.e. the children]” verily and “against the orders of their superiors [i.e. teachers and staff], ran to the fence to hear the magnificent prophecy from the Lord”.
We are very deep into a swamp here.
I did not attempt to make that look “disgusting” but I indeed pointed out the abnormality of the whole scene. “Sick”, I suppose, would work here, as ‘Dan’ proposes.
And does one have to have been there in order to grasp what was transpiring?
He then runs afoul of clinical projection again by trying to make me seem the one who qualifies as “a complete sicko”.
His magic shield will protect him, nonetheless, from such Catholics and he “can move mountains” – but not, apparently, any delusions closer to home than any mountain range.
In regard to ‘Dan’s comment of the 8th at 716PM:
I would merely point out that “with the information that’s been brought to light so far” he is hardly accurate and justified in asserting that “the catholic church has the market cornered on molesting underage boys”; the public school system clearly has a serious issue in this regard, although as a government entity it is protected from the type of Stampede fomented against the Church (and, by amazing coincidence, public teachers’ unions are a significant and politically influential element).
Nobody should molest children, but it is an imperfect world. Batplop crazies shouldn’t be going around claiming to be “prophets” and “teachers” of the Almighty, but they do. It’s an imperfect humanity and no human enterprise is free of the effects of humanity’s derangements (except, we should believe, the church-of-one that is ‘Dan’s personal fiefdom bestowed by (a, some, the, any, his) god.
And we see his rather primitive theology at work: a “godly” church is not at all comparable to “secular” institutions. But all human institutions are – not to put too fine a point on it – human, and therein lies the abiding problem.
‘Dan’ has solved that abiding problem – to his own deep satisfaction, at least – by presuming that if one is “godly” then one is without sin or derangement. Neato. But I would say that he has clearly demonstrated the insufficiency of his theological construct here.
Yet it is a convenient bit of conceptual legerdemain, and works for the purpose for which he designed it: to make him seem not only “infallible” but genuinely sane in a way nobody who disagrees with him can possibly be. Neato again.
And a human – however deranged – need only mouth “the words” (of the Word) and those magic talismans will ward off any derangement or insufficiency or inaccuracy.
We are deep into a swamp here.
Oh geez, I'd better correct my spelling of repetition before the grammar police (publion) catch it. And were should be we're. Wow, I guess God didn't make me divinely as perfect as ^ him.
p- Where's your proof that "the public school system clearly has a serious issue in this regard". You're telling us that the public schools have a rampant, yet hidden majority of so-called heterosexual men who enjoy and prefer committing despicable homosexual acts on little boys. Or is it just peewee again, making outlandish false statements when nothing can be further from the truth, as you've done towards victims of your perverted creeps and also slandered myself. Understand this, that you are the biggest loser because, once again, you weren't even a witness, and yet you feel compelled to add to your cronies (creeps), vicious lies.
I never said that people who claim to be "godly" would never sin. The Lord says that any disgusting, perverted creep who lays his filthy hands on a child, and "causes one [1] of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble" (Matthew 18:6) , shall be doomed, condemned and sent into Hell's fire. For they are surely "deranged" and shall reap their just reward. Sin is forgiveable, habitual liars and despicable perverts are not. Find it yourself, for it is written.
One has to question, your obsession with "cartoons, batplop and building blocks" (are those the ones with your A,B,C's or your 1,2,3's), am I debating with a 3 year old. Oh! Forgot about your preroccupation with swamps, so you must be a 3 year old slimy, swamp troll and would you mind slithering back from whence you came.
P.S. Have one of God's prophecies describing again in perfection both yourself and your apostate, pagan church and all apostate churches. You know, "[G]od-grams" mocker.
You protect me from the evilness in the world.
You will bring their darkness out of the closet.
They are so proud of how they sin against innocent people.
Your righteousness is shameful to them.
You see how they keep lying to the world and profiting off other people and Yourself.
They put their arms around people, holding them back from the truth.
But You see how they praise themselves.
You're our Lord, we should be humble and give You praise instead.
Thus saith the Lord
On the 9th at 1216PM ‘Dan’ will apparently try to back away from any taint of perfection by adverting to his imperfect spelling. He then confesses eagerly that he doth “guess” that “God didn’t make [Dan’] as perfect as him”. That’s a good guess; I would simply recommend that ‘Dan’ apply this potentially fruitful line of thought to some aspects of himself more significant than his spelling.
On then to the 9th at 534PM:
Had ‘Dan’ bothered to read up in the archive here, he would learn about the problems in – among others – the Los Angeles Unified School District, known as the ‘LAUSD’. Or perhaps he could peruse the New York Post for the almost weekly announcements of this or that teacher in trouble for sexual abuse. Or enter some phrase such as ‘sexual abuse at famous prep schools’ to see how things are going there. Or perhaps just consider the claims of sexual abuse on college campuses or in the military.
So … No, it’s not “just peewee again, making outlandish false statements when nothing can be further from the truth”. Rather, it’s just ‘Dan’s highly selective and self-induced ignorance on display.
And again with the bit about my not being present at the schoolyard fence so therefore I can’t really have any legitimate thoughts about it. Based on what he has told us, one can get a remarkably clear picture: an adult at a schoolyard fence, haranguing children at recess, refusing to stop until the police are called and arrive and – upon assessment – arrest him, whence he appears before a judge, is convicted of a misdemeanor, and sent for psychiatric observation. And this general scenario played out several times (perhaps not in the schoolyard venue in the other instances).
I don’t “feel compelled to add … vicious lies”. The story, as ‘Dan’ has related it, speaks for itself.
The fact that I don’t think his spin on it (i.e. marvelous instance of prophet declaiming to the worshipful multitudes) is the most accurate assessment of the matter … is not at all to his liking. But whose problem is that?
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 534PM:
What ‘Dan’ thinks he said and what ideas lay hidden in what he actually did say may indeed – to him – be two different things. But only to him. There are ideas within his material that he may not at all like, but they are there in his material nonetheless.
And if the “godly” can sin, as he has admitted, then he is going to have to contort himself significantly to justify his semi-apocalyptic opposition to the Church on the basis of some of its priests’ failures.
Which contortion he quickly proceeds to deploy with his paraphrasing of what “The Lord says”. But where is the phrase “disgusting perverted creep who lays his filthy hands on a child” in Scripture? It is not there in any of the original languages or any reliable version of the Bible, nor in any reliable text of Mt 18:6; it exists only in ‘Dan’s mind – which seems quite drawn to the “disgusting” and the “perverted” and to “filthy hands”. And readers may consider it as they will.
He then goes even deeper into the swamp with his incoherent theologizing: If “sin is forgivable” then why are not such sinners as “habitual liars and despicable perverts” not forgivable? Have they not committed “sin”?
And he then tries to further weasel out of his problem here by simply tossing off an instruction to “find it for yourself, for it is written”. Thus saith the prophet-in-his-own-mind.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 534PM:
He then tries his version of I’m Not/You Are by claiming that I am ‘obsessed’ with “cartoons, batplop and building blocks”and “slimy swamp troll[s]”. I have used them as what I consider to be very apt and acute descriptors of, in order, his scenarios and visions and spinning, his overall mental status, his method of trying to construct his expositions in order to achieve his desired outcomes, and the general sense to be derived from any adult who would accost and harangue unknown children through a schoolyard fence.
Is he “debating with a 3 year old?” he asks. The same question occurred to me at the outset of our exchanges, and the fact that he is presumably an adult has done nothing to render the question less relevant. Let readers judge as they will.
And on the 9th at 543PM we simply get one of his homemade ‘prayers’ seeking to mimic a Psalm.
Readers can consider it prayerfully or clinically as they will.
"And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out." John 1:5
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." John 3:19
Today the Belgian choir child abuse, tomorrow back to Ireland, next week Austria, next month Malta, back to Italy, return to the U.S., etc. etc. etc. No catholics see an ongoing problem, the world keeps on turning. Brother to ex-pope Rat-zinger who oversees the choir says he knows nothing. "I see NOTHING! I know NOTHING!" I think the whole bunch have watched a little to much Hogan's Heroes. Oh! That's right they are a bunch of nazis. Here, sign this vow of silence, wait until the bishop dies or we'll excommunicate your family. Will just blame you for wanting it done this way in silence, as we fleece are dumb sheep.
Cathoilcs, wake up. Your being takin' advantage of. There's only so long that you can close your eyes to this horrific conspiracy. Walk out of the pitch-black darkness, and into his marvelous light, before evil consumes you and takes you down with it.
"While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become children of the Light", these things Jesus spoke." John 12:36 Don't let wicked hypocrites steer you wrong, for they're not happy until they bring others down with them.