Fighting back: Heroic St. Louis priest Rev. Joseph Jiang
Ever wonder about some of the characters who file questionable abuse accusations against Catholic priests? Well, look no further than the case of Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang, a falsely accused priest in St. Louis who has bravely filed a defamation lawsuit against his accuser as well as SNAP and the St. Louis police department.
Fr. Jiang and his lawyers have been trying to serve court papers on his accuser. But, lo and behold, his accuser – identified only by his initials in pleadings and represented by SNAP contributor/lawyer Ken Chackes – has never been found at the address listed for him publicly, his residence appears vacated, and by all appearances he has been actively evading service.
[**Click to read Fr. Jiang's court filing regarding his accuser**]
And as a recent court filing now reveals, Fr. Jiang and his legal team have found that they are not the only ones trying to locate the guy. It turns out that Fr. Jiang's accuser already has 2 liens and 16 judgments entered against him, and still other process servers are trying to serve him with even more legal papers.
In the brief, Fr. Jiang's lawyers note:
- "First, [the accuser]'s address listed on the summons and derived from official records has the neglected and dilapidated appearance of a domicile that is not in regular usage";
- "A person acquainted with [the accuser] indicated that other process servers have been making attempts to locate and serve him in other cases";
- "A records search indicates that [the accuser] currently has 2 liens and 16 judgments filed against him, establishing a strong motive to seek to evade service of process"; and
- "Numerous attempts to locate [the accuser] using vehicle information, as well as that street address, met with no success."
In response to Fr. Jiang's filing, a judge granted his request to chase the shifty accuser some more.
SNAP's continuing defamation of Fr. Jiang
Despite the fact that law enforcement has now cleared Fr. Jiang twice on ridiculous abuse charges, the gang at the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP has still branded the innocent cleric as a "cunning predator" on its web site as if he were a convicted serial child molester. Shame on SNAP – were it even possible.
We applaud Fr. Jiang for continuing his brave fight to expose the shifty individuals behind bogus abuse accusations against Catholic priests in order to extort money from the Church.
May this be the beginning of a new and happy trend in 2016!
Why didn't they use the accuser's name in their suit?
These bogus suits only happen because accusers can get away with filing lawsuits without using their real names.
Even though the accuser has avoided being served, I expect Rev. Jiang's defamation lawsuit against SNAP and the St. Louis Police Department can proceed. Perhaps, SNAP is also hiding this guy so the case against them is weakened or dismissed.
SNAP does not care about justice, all it cares about is publicity. Shame on them for supporting a scam artist. I hope this priest wins his law suit.
Makes you wonder why some people won't hear a word said against SNAP.
And here we are back in St Louis, a catholic town named after one of my grandfathers, again.
St. Louis the matrix of SNAP itself and coincedently where David and Barbara live. (So much easier and cheaper for court appearences "Doncha know?")
St. Louis where SNAP was founded laying in a manger by a church needing a false flagged "Savior" for the victims the church knew were coming to get them.
SNAP the holding pen for the church's injured that our righteous anger might be controlled and manipulated by our oppressors. The very same people whose shit behavior caused all the problems in the first place.
You know, someday this contraption will be outted. From SNAP; to VOTF; to Bishop Accountability (!!!); to fr. Tom Doyle and his "Project" ;to Jeff Anderson being the controller for lawyers and victims; all will be exposed for what they are THE largest SCAM ever perpetrated by a religion against it's own raped children.
Since all religion is a scam in the first place. The catholic rulers have merely widened the margins of it's usual lies.
Your church is so obvious in it's manipulations and so cheap. "Let's have a showdown in St Louis. We'll create the whole migillah. But let's do it in St Louis so SNAP won't have too far to travel and money won't have to be spent on hotels and travel for SNAP."
You want to know how I know SNAP's the church? Because it's cheap just like the church.
Penny pinching; lying money grubbing misers: the soul of catholicism
How hard would it be to create a false victim throwing false accusations against an innocent priest? That fake victim accuses then magically "disappears" ( So very much like the founder of VOTF and Bishop Accountability. A kind of a drive by "founder") leaving perhaps a truely innocent priest outraged and who then is magically handed a group of lawyers to aid him in a fight to protect his name. All for publicity that feeds the very lies pushed by TMR and Publion.
The lies being: that criminals passing themselves off as victims are the norm in this scandal When, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Only 2000 out of 11,000+ victims have recieved any compensation for our injuries inflicted by you. And once again all this black magic is created convient to SNAP in St Louis. What are the odds of that occurring naturally. (Remember the contempt of court battle against SNAP was also conveniently located near where Clohessy lives.) Both making SNAP (and thereby us victims who SNAP falsely "represents" look bad.
Even a child can see this incident is way too convenient a creature to just have "happened".
Now if Fr. MacRae in New Hampshire could be similary exhonorated. He, too, was accused by a miscreant with a history of false pretense. Father now serves a very long jail sentence because he would not accept a plea bargain that required him to admit guilt. Stop now and pray for Fr. MacRae.
Can recall that a lady posting on this site, about 3 months ago, was pleased about the lawsuit taken out by Father 'Joseph'. She said something like….'Good, we must push back'. How true!. Because those persecutors are already taking evasive action. A key accuser now going to ground, just to avoid being served with the summons.
This raises interesting questions about the St. Louis Police Dept. Did they do a background check on A.M., the boy's father? Father Joseph's lawyer has discovered that A.M. has two liens and sixteen judgements against him. Surely the police would also have been able to discover his dubious background?. Yet they not only went ahead and charged the priest… but left the charges hanging over his head for over 6 months?. Why? Surely the 'artful dodger' character of the accuser should have created doubts in the minds of the detectives?.
I would have expected them to proceed with caution…and not rush in… the way they did.
In order to deal himself in here, JR (the 6th at 1239PM) tries yet again to revivify his old claim that he is the descendant of – if memory serves – a king, a saint or two, assorted other medieval or renaissance worthies, and a Pope.
Thus he riffs on – with notably uncharacteristic rhetorical grace – about “St. Louis” (the city, not his alleged king-saint ancestor).
The gist of his riff – familiar now to regular readers of this site – is that SNAP is a tool and creature of the Church and in its pretense to be opposed to the Church it is simply “false-flagged”. (My own theory is that SNAP is indeed “false-flagged” since it is a tool and front for the tort-attorneys – who otherwise would be reduced to advertising for clients on TV in the type of commercials so familiar to many readers.)
While also working in a commercial for himself, as so often before: he hath the “righteous anger” of – had you been waitingggg for itttttttttt? – the genuine victims, tribune of their struggle against “our oppressors”. Readers may consider it as they may.
I look forward to the day when SNAP will be revealed for what it has been for so long. And for other similar types of revelations as well.
And thus we arrive – unsurprisingly – at JR’s effort to deal with this Fr. Jiang case: it’s all a put-on, arranged by the Church.
Do we want to know how JR ‘knows’ this? Read and realize.
And on the 6th at 1256PM JR riffs further on this bit:
“How hard would it be to create a false victim …?” he asks. Why, that is the very question I have been asking here for quite some time.
And the disappearance of this allegant – with a kite-tail of a variety of types of legal process hanging behind him – is simplistically explained-away: he has “magically” disappeared. That a habitual scam-artist, already under the shadow of much legal process, might figure it’s time to lie low … that apparently does rise to JR’s criteria for an explanation.
And who can be surprised? JR’s criterion is that an explanation has to serve his pre-conceived purposes and agenda.
What “lies” are “pushed by TMR and [myself]”?
And then he himself raises a thought-provoking vision: “criminals passing themselves off as victims”. Why, that thought had occurred to me as well, quite a while ago.
Continuing with JR’s of the 6th at 1256PM:
But I have not asserted that such is “the norm”; I have merely assessed the possibility and probability of such a gambit being pulled-off, given the various elements of the Stampede ethos that I have discussed at length. The probability is high – that much is obvious from the many elements involved. JR has introduced nothing to indicate that the probability is low. He simply expects readers to accept his assertion that it’s all “lies”. Readers may consider as they will.
Then the bit about the “2000”, the inadequacies of which bit have already been pointed out and to which JR has made no response (what response can he make, really?).
And the bit about “compensation”, trying to manipulate us beyond the glaring problem that actual injury demonstrably caused has hardly been demonstrated or established.
And then the bit about ‘victims’ looking-bad only because they have been ‘made’ to “look bad” and not because some base dynamics underlying the Stampede have been noted and discussed at length here.
What, then, is it about the Stampede and about this current St. Louis case that “even a child can see”?
And while JR may be reliably counted upon to demonstrate childish mentation, that does not mean that he is actually an expert on the subject.
“What are the odds…?” – he asks – that this false-allegant is just what he appears to be, i.e. a false allegant? He claims it’s all “way too convenient” for the Church. I would say, rather, that it’s really just “way too” inconvenient for his cartoon explanation.
Spin away "P"enelope, Odysseus aint coming to save you.
This is the core of the lying used by P to blow his smoke. It is the summation of false analysis: subtrafuge and his own, personal mendacity.
2000 out of 11,000 victims compensated. Both John Jay report numbers. No new figures have replaced these old ones. therefor it's quite easy to believe that these numbers still stand.
Again the John Jay report was a catholic effort so who knows what the real numbers are. Catholicism isn't very good with numbers. It can't even tell the world how much it owns.
The number of faux pas that make victims "look bad" are always and only created around SNAP. No one else.
St Louis is the key that's where SNAP was founded. It sprang fully formed to life in St Louis and nowhere else to create similarly false flagged "Survivor" groups world wide. The odds of that happening "naturally" are as small as SNAP's fuck ups: like hiding evidence from a judge and being found in contempt. Hiding evidence the very same way that SNAP's been berating the church for doing since SNAP's inception. Hand made hypocricy that was completely unnecessary. Created from SNAP per usual. SNAP is the only organization that makes victims look bad. Victims don't do that. SNAP does it only and all the time.
fr. Jiang, according to my analysis would have to be innocent in order for this church plot to proceed. Then we have a drive by then disappearing accusor. Then a posed suit against the St Louie police dept for false arrest then the spinning of it all for maximum damage to all the real victims of your pedophile child raping fraternity.
And again all this bullshit coming out of St Louis, named after a saint/king who was my 24th great grandfather according Ancestry.com. I told you before the pope was not an ancestor. I had made a mistake. Names were similar but he was not related. I said that clearly before.
P you remind me of a typical torturer trained at the School of the Americas. It's how you speak to and about people as you go about harming them. Like we are not you. It's that seperation and dismissal in your tone. You don't like people nor can you empathize with anyone. I have never read one word of empathy for anyone from you. You are very damaged. Sociopathy is a horrible disease and you've got it bad.
You are here to torture two groups: Victims obviously but also catholic true believers. You torture the later by giving them the unbelievable lie that the church is being victimized by it's own raped children. So that they will back the criminals believing that child rape enablers and co conspiritors in those rapes are the real victims in all this.
You are evil. Evil because you never tell the truth and you are doing it to protect monsters. That's the essence of religion for you.
And from JR on the 7th at 1145AM:
He opens with a stab at literary chops (the reference to the Odyssey) although the bit is based merely on a rather silly play on the word “spin”.
The second paragraph is mere asserted epithet as to my “false analysis” and – had you been waitingggg forrrr ittttt? – “subrtrafuge”.
The third paragraph represents the sum of the quality of his ‘facts’: the John Jay Report (whether the first or second he doesn’t – again – say) used that approximate number of “11,000” (although whether allegants or ‘victims’ he also doesn’t care to say). But the “2,000” number (of the “victims compensated”) is not from either Jay Report but – again – comes from his own reference to a Wiki article that lists only a few States and is now almost a decade old.
He then – marvelously – undermines his own claimed source (the Jay Report or Reports) by pooh-poohing the Jay material as “a catholic effort” which is not accurate at all: the Jay Reports were compiled by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, with funding from the DOJ as well as the Church and other sources (and what brouhaha might be raised if the Church had not contributed to the funding?).
But what he’s working toward with this bit is that since there are no reliable (in his cartoon) numbers anywhere at all, then he can’t be said to be lying or (largely mistaken) then, can he? Neato.
And this paragraph ends with what is most charitably to be construed as a backhanded epithet as to how much the Church “owns” (perhaps recalling his snippet, already assessed here quite a while ago – that cannot by verified as being sourced in anything else than a snippet from an Al-Jazeera ‘documentary’ – to the effect that the Church owns a sizable chunk of all the real estate in downtown Chicago)
Racist ass! Who you trolling for the Trump voters? Al-Jazeera is more honest than you and your myth selling church.
Continuing with JR’s of the 7th at 1145AM:
Onward then to fifth paragraph where we simply get an assertion – based, of course, on nothing but his own creds as a reliable source – that all of the facts” (“faux pas”, which actually means a social blunder or more properly plural social blunders or breaches of etiquette, misused here) that “make victims ‘look bad’” are actually from SNAP and from “no one else” (such as, say, himself).
(No doubt we are meant also to recall here JR’s basic explanatory cartoon that SNAP is a tool and creature of the Church.)
The sixth paragraph claims, in JR’s considered cartoon of the Jiang case, that the “key” to everything about it is nothing more than or else than the geographical co-location of SNAP and Jiang. But if SNAP is headquartered in city A, and you are going to file suit against SNAP, then your lawsuit would very likely be brought in the court jurisdiction in which SNAP falls, which in this case is St. Louis.
That’s how easily the “odds” bit fails here: the co-location happened through the ‘natural’ workings of the legal system. Then the simply paragraph goes on about some of SNAP’s skullduggery, and nobody here whom I can think of is going to dispute it.
And he will wrap up the paragraph with a repetition of his cartoon-claim that (Church-run) SNAP is “the only organization that makes victims look bad”. As I have said, when “victims look bad” it is so very often the result of a closer assessment of their own actions under the aegis of the Stampede. To the extent that SNAP issues press-releases and such that describe those actions, then SNAP itself helps to expose them.
Continuing with JR’s of the 7th at 1145AM:
In the seventh paragraph we get JR’s effort to establish his creds for his “analysis”: if this whole case is (as his cartoon constructs it) a set-up run by SNAP (and thus by the Church) then Fr. Jiang “would have to be innocent”. But since his SNAP-Church “analysis” bit is already a cartoon, then he’s already off the rails here. Absent that bit, then what remains is that Fr. Jiang actually is innocent, and the lawsuit is brought on that basis.
And what successfully sly and manipulative organization (SNAP) or organizations (SNAP and the Church) would then try to take on the local police/investigation authority? When you are running a scam, the last thing you want to do is to gratuitously incite the local police. (Time-saver: the cartoon here would perhaps have to then also claim that the local police/investigation authorities are also tools of SNAP and/or the Church.)
And the paragraph then tries to finish with an epithetical zinger (“your pedophile child raping fraternity”) in order to distract from the gaping problems with the “analysis” itself.
SNAP's a false flag. P's a false flag. Your entire religion is one big false flag. There is no "God". Get used to it.
Gee! Fooling cops in St. Louis? How hard to do? They have to take any report of possible sex abuse of a child even if it never happened. If the disappearing father of the child was so egar to attempt to illegally gain money; then where is he? the whole point of scam is to get the pay off. Unless the scam is not to get the church's favorite child: money; but to protect said church's child from further real applicants for compensation. Or perhaps, more accurately, to color all victims as fake to make the rapists out to be the "real' victims in all this.. It's been tried before by cardinal Bernadin and his accusor. Who's paying for fr. Jiang's lawyers?
Continuing with JR’s of the 7th at 1145AM:
Then the eighth tries to further distract by continuing to run the old JR-ancestry scam (although he now claims that – contrary to his initial claims – “the pope was not an ancestor”; but if his claim as to the Pope (Gregory XII, if memory serves) not now being an ancestor” was wrong, then how credible remain the other claims?). And, in any case, of what relevance to the current matter at hand is anything about his ancestry anyway? (Short answer: … well, let the readers consider the short answer as they will.)
The ninth paragraph then goes further off the tracks with what can only be charitably construed as a seriously whacky reach for epithet: I remind JR of “a typical torturer” who was “trained at the School of the Americas”. Readers may consider his explanation of this bit as they will. But no doubt, to be carefully assessed on the basis of his own claims, stories, statements, and assertions does – for JR – constitute a form of “torture”. How wise his tortie was, then, in not allowing him onto the stand to face serious adversarial examination.
Continuing with JR’s of the 7th at 1145AM:
And he will then riff further on the “torture” bit in the final paragraph: I am “here to torture” not only “victims” (genuine or otherwise?) but even “catholic true believers”.
If it is indeed “torture” for “victims” to be assessed rather than simply to be accorded ‘empathy’ (playing on the “empathy” and trust of hearers in order to lubricate the passage of one’s dubious stories is indeed a genuinely sociopathic type of behavior), then that is what it is. As Harry Truman said: ’I never gave anyone hell; I told them the truth and they thought it was hell’. And to paraphrase Harry’s admonition to a Soviet ambassador: Don’t tell stories like that and you won’t be spoken to like that.
So – to put a clarificatory point on it all: while JR has glommed onto one convenient potential element in sociopathy – lack of empathy – he conveniently ignores a far more relevant sociopathic indicator: deliberately and with forethought consistently playing upon the empathy and trust of others to lubricate one’s own agenda and claims. And to do so for personal gain.
Aren't you doing that here; Oh great defender of catholicism's rape culture?
Continuing with JR’s of the 7th at 1145AM:
He then tries to nail down his bits here by not simply mentioning assorted potential sociopathic indicators, and not only by directly and overtly claiming that “sociopathy … a horrible disease” (which, even in its inept phrasing here, is true) but also then by delivering himself of a professional diagnosis (I’ve “got it bad”).
Alas, neither the Wig of Diagnosis (one of his favorites) nor any experiences and notes he’s perhaps taken from his own misadventures in the clinical realm can substitute for genuine professional clinical diagnostic chops – but of course to a long-time simulator of truthiness, such a distinction would appear irrelevant to JR.
He then tries to wrap it all up by trying to connect my extensive assessment of stories and probabilities with an agenda of ‘backing’ “criminals” (sublimely and marvelously unaware, apparently, of the fact that obtaining gain from perjurious claims is itself criminal). And he riffs on that bit for a bit further.
And then – to bring home this matinee with a bang – he will don the Wig of All-Seeing Denunciation and proclaim that I am “evil”. And – but yet again – sublimely ignorant of the dynamics of clinical projection.
And an interesting show it’s been, for this matinee performance.
The one thing you will never be called is "interesting".
Evil is as evil does. So evil you are. Not because we victims are questioned but because when honest answers are given you. You never believe them. You are the one with the belief problem not me.
When the very town, where one of the sleaziest attempts by a decadent church to attack it's own raped children, turns out to be named after one of my grandparents, who also happens to be a saint in that corrupt church, then I thought i had the right to defend my ancestors name.
You know P; take a laxative you're full of shit.
Have you ever met a human you liked??????
On the 9th at 1250PM JR informs us as to what we must “get used to”. As to himself, there is a great deal that readers must get used to. As we shall see below, as well as in the record here on this site as it now stands.
On the 9th at 101PM JR will try to resolve his problems here by impugning the local police.
Rather, I would say, what is to be impugned are the Victimist-driven police procedurals that now apply in the allegation of sexual abuses and offenses.
Since the allegant in the Jiang case is not a child, then I am not sure of the relevance of the “disappearing father”. Perhaps if the allegation was the fruit of the adult allegant’s own devising, then the father back in the years of childhood is not and was not involved. And this might hold true as well for many adult-allegated cases: the parents did not take action because the allegations stems from the adult allegant and do not reflect something that happened decades before in childhood.
Beyond that, I can’t make too much further sense of the rest of the paragraph.
On the 9th at 102PM we get from JR a mere one-liner drive-by bit. Clearly JR does not find concepts and careful thought “interesting”. But his own presentations and proffers are always interesting, although probably not for the reasons he would like to imagine.
On the 9th at 105PM he attempts to bolster his assertion that I am “evil” with a hoary old saw about “evil is as evil does”. For this bit to work, one would have to presume the accuracy of his assessments and presumptions and claims and assertions. Readers may consider that as they will.
One would also have to accept as presumed and demonstrated the veracity and accuracy of his characterization of his stuff as “honest answers”. And readers may consider that as well.
And then he seeks – in a now-too-familiar old dodge – to reduce the Veracity Problem to merely one of “belief”: I have a problem – doncha see? – because I will not ‘believe’. But we are into the realm of accusations and claims and stories, and in that realm evidence and coherent analysis and logical thinking are the criteria by which one must persuade hearers as to the possibility or probability of one’s veracity and accuracy. Readers may consider how well JR has managed to do that.
And on the 9th at 114PM JR will attempt to burnish his ancestry distractions: he will somewhat histrionically provide a commercial for himself by repeating his bits about his ancestry and the fact that he thus has some proprietary interest and responsibility for “the very town … named after one of my grandparents” and indeed one “who also happens to be a saint” (he forgot King, too). Thus he has “the right” – doncha see? – “to defend my ancestors name” (sic).
Of what relevance any of this is to the matter at hand, even if one were to presume its veracity, is anybody’s guess.
But then the high-born Wig of Aristocratic Honor is suddenly allowed to slip to the stage floor, and we get – had you been waittttttttingggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – a juvenile and scatlogical bit of epithet. There’s the actual JR.
And then an attempt to imply that I don’t buy his stuff because I just don’t like any “human[s]” at all. Which itself is a cover for the insinuation that I just don’t “like” him. As if that could explain my questions and doubts in the face of the type of material we have gotten from him here.
I'm beginning to think you don't like me.
Lets run a little test. You say something nice about me. Actually why don't you say 3 things nice about me. I can do that about Hitler even. He liked his dog (till he killed her). He built the autoban and invented the VW. There 3 nice things about Adolph.
Now it's your turn.
David's dead. My hero
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgcc5V9Hu3g&feature=share
**No you moron. Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people. **
You mean the catechism that teaches "THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON" and the Virtue of "CHARITY"? The same Catechism that probably forbids calling people "morons"?
**Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people. Fidelity to the Chair of Peter. Not a person enthroned who attempts to steer his people away from it.**
The call to "Fidelity"! It started with a few kook priests and Carol McKinley telling people not to follow them, but to follow the local ordinary (Cardinal Law) who carries the authority of Rome here in Boston.
Then they took away Cardinal Law..and replaced him with Bishop O'Malley. Carol Mckinley had high hopes, but soon found out that O'Malley wasn't to Carol's liking. Carol told people, he's only a Bishop…makes sure you are following a Price of the Church…a Cardinal! They are the only ones that carry the authority from Rome….not just any "Bishop".
They, guess what? They made O'Malley a CARDINAL! (Just like CARDINAL Law! SO he must carry the authority of Rome to Boston, no?)
But…we quickly found out that even a Cardinal Archbishop….a "Prince of the Church" didn't have enough authority for Carol. Now, she claimed "Fidelity" to the Pope…not Bishops, not priests, not Pastors, not Cardinals.
THEN..The pope retires…and is replaced by another Pope. And quickly Carol McKinley finds out that possibly she has been wrong all along…and her claim of "Fidelity" as just a "cover" to follow only her own desires and really not submit to any authority. So much for "Fidelity", eh?
All this talk of "Fidelity"…had to change, because it became clear that she was only Faithful to her own thoughts and ideas. She had "Fidelity" to anyone that agreed with her. With all her blogging and busybody work, she realized onething…that, in effect…SHE wanted to be a pastor, a bishop, a cardinal…SHE wants to be the Pope! The arbiter of what is allowed, what isn't. Carol wants to be the disciplinarian! All this is at odds with someone who claims to follow Spiritual Authority and has "Fidelity".
So we have seen through the veneer of, so called, "Fidelity. (Notice the old "Magisterial Fidelity" blog has gone fallow.) We have already pointed out that this claim of fidelity to the Catechism is flawed as well, calling people names, etc., no talk of charity, respect or the worth of the individual The fidelity to the Catechism is only in effect when she agrees with it.
I don't see any indication that the Catechisms teaching of humility and pride are being adhered to. Do you?
I Think we've pointed out the fallacy of Carol McKinley's "Fidelity".
As far as Magisterial or the Magisterium, Carol here is a refresher course:
"In Catholicism, the Magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested UNIQUELY in the POPE and the BISHOPS who are in communion with him."
Sorry Charlie….err…Carol.
Get on thy knees and meditate of the teachings of Humility and Pride.
On January 12th, 'Child of God" makes a comment that appears to relate to in-fighting amongst the laity.
The comments seem to centre on the question of what is the ultimate authority… in the Catholic Church?. When internal arguments arise, then who should we turn to?,
Dare I suggest that these matters pale into insignificance… when we look at the big picture. Because the big picture reveals a situation in which Catholic clergy are being singled out for attack, by the mainstream media. Singled out in the court of public opinion, our priests are being subjected to a cruel propaganda campaign… that will harm their reputation as a profession.
The sins of a very small minority are being re-cycled and magnified to tarnish all priests. This is not justice…surely not justice as most western countries understand the word justice.
It is said that we should "know our enemy". Well the real enemy would be delighted to see us fighting amongs ourselves.
Because it is always their strategic objective to "divide and conquer"?
Malcolm the crimes of the minority of abusor priests were super charged to color he entire priesthood because your bishops and cardinals protected them and not your own children. If you had turned these people over to the justice system no one would blame the clergy as a group but your bosses failed and were not punished. That's the price, the loss of credability of the church. You murdered yourselves.
Going over comments (and ignoring irrelevancies such as the death of David Bowie or JR’s inane but distracting efforts to reduce the discussion here to a personality contest) I notice I missed the JR comment of the 10th at 1049AM (responding to mine of the 8th at 1142AM).
Readers may recall that my point in the comment of the 8th at 1142AM was this: JR has glommed onto one of the possible (but not exclusive) characteristics of a sociopathy diagnosis – i.e. lack of ‘empathy’ (which ‘empathy’ of course to JR means presumptively believing all his stories, claims and assertions, preferably with an empathetic cluck and oooh) – while ignoring a far more definitive (and I would say relevant) sociopathic element, i.e. “deliberately and with forethought consistently playing upon the empathy and trust of others to lubricate one’s own agenda and claims. And to do so for personal gain”.
His solution to that conceptually thorny problem is – as we see on the 10th at 1049AM – merely to run the old I’m Not/You Are dodge: apparently what he’s going for is that I am the one “playing on the empathy and trust of others” here, although for what “personal gain” (like, say, a million dollars instead of a 12 or 17 thousand) is hard to pin down.
I play on no empathy or trust of the readers. I present my points, explicating my reasoning and presenting (with identifying references) such information as I have used to come to my points. Readers may then consider and decide for themselves as they will. I do not accuse them of sociopathy or lack of ‘empathy’ if they disagree or demur; I do not simply toss out this or that claim or story or assertion and then demand that I be ‘believed’ simply because … (fill in the blank).
Continuing with my comment of the 15th at PM:
As I have mentioned before when this matter came up here, it seems more than odd that Abuseniks who demonstrate little if any in-depth psychological knowledge or chops are so quick to not only toss around psychological terminology but even to assert definitive diagnoses. (And would it then be demonstrating a ‘sociopathic’ ‘lack of empathy’ not to believe their asserted diagnoses forthwith?)
A far more probable alternative possibility – as I have pointed out before here – is that this or that Abusenik has retained in the 3×5 file some particular psychological tidbits gleaned not from the study and practice of psychological assessment and diagnosis, but rather from that Abusenik’s own uncongenial experience(s) of being assessed and diagnosed.
And thus we arrive – far more coherently – at JR’s glomming onto the particular ‘sociopath/lack of empathy’ bit that we have seen him so often deploy here: it’s a bit he himself encountered from the ‘unhappy’ side of the clinical desk and then saved on a 3×5 for more congenial use as a weaponized bit of what in his deployment of it can only be termed ‘epithetical psychobabble’.
The credibility of the Wig of Diagnosis, as with so many others, can be enhanced if you’ve got an actual term or phrase you can toss around as if you were well-grounded in the competence you’re trying to mimic.
That’s how Abuseniks play the game.
And, but of course, he attempts here to distract from all that by trying to bring his little two-step home with – had you been waittttttinggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttt? – an epithet about my being a “defender of catholicism’s rape culture”.
I defend nothing here; I question the stories, claims and assertions made by the Abuseniks/Stampede and I go to great length to explicate the material on the basis of which I formulate the questions I raise.
But the Playbook – shrewdly – requires that the fomenters of Stampede and the Abuseniks avoid trying to explain their stories, claims, and assertions and instead try to insist that if you question their stuff then you are merely ‘defending’ the “rape culture” (and thus, slyly, such questioning can only be ‘sociopathic’ and indicates nothing except a sociopathic ‘lack of empathy’ for the stories and claims and assertions the veracity of which you refuse to presume and instead seek to question).
That’s how their game is played and has been all along.
Name one victim you've believed, P?
On the 18th at 1127AM JR will try to avoid matters by repeating a gambit we’ve seen before here and I respond to it as I did before: when I see a credible or even credibly probable scenario-story proffered, then I’ll be sure to say so. But that hasn’t happened on this site so far.
On another topic: I had mentioned in a recent comment the 2006 book Follies of the Wise, a collection of essays written in the previous two decades by Frederick Crews, many of which dealt with repressed memory syndrome and other elements of the sex-abuse mania that began in the early 1980s.
He takes a careful look at several of the ‘incest-survivor’ self-help books that began to be seen in the late 1970s (and were soon amplified by the then-new format of TV talk-shows taped before largely female audiences, such as Geraldo’s show and others).
Two of the big names in this burgeoning movement were Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, who codified their ideas in their 1988 book The Courage to Heal. Neither of them were psychologically trained or professionally experienced in that area, but they resolved that uncongenial problem rather neatly and conveniently by taking the bull by the horns: “none of what is presented here is based on psychological theories”, they crowed. Instead, as Crews notes, they appealed “directly to the experience of survivors”.
As you can quickly see, this gambit presumes the validity of the stories and claims and such “survivors”, thus starting the play on base and not with an at-bat.
Continuing with my comment of the 18th at 206PM:
In their book (p.173) then they make this seductive assertion: “When you first remember your abuse or acknowledge its effects, you may feel tremendous relief. Finally, there is a reason for your problems. There is someone, and something, to blame”. (Italics mine.)
That this assertion may strike some readers as something that today ‘everybody knows’, simply indicates how deeply Victimism’s take on such matters has become the accepted conventional wisdom today. I recall the news reporting (the case and appeals went on from 2007 to 2010) the statement of a father of one variously and long-troubled young man who at a late date claimed he had been abused as a minor: once I heard about the abuse, the father said, then everything fell into place and I knew the reason for all his problems. Which is a precise echo of the Bass-Davis proposition.
It should not be difficult to see how this seductive combination of a) this explains all my life’s problems and b) somebody else is to blame for it all … can create fertile ground for all sorts of troubled and failed persons looking to somehow get out from under their life’s issues.
Add to this – as the Stampede did – the prospect of hefty payouts for reciting the story you have put forward, with little risk of being adversarially examined and great prospect of easily acquiring the mantle of ‘victimhood’ and you can see what tremendously attractive possibilities (I would say probabilities) and opportunities are created.
Continuing with my comment of the 18th at 206PM:
Now, one might rationally presume that in a situation wherein there is such powerful prospect of derangement to the legal process, based on such dubious theories as repressed-memory and such glaring evidentiary issues, that it would seem immediately clear that even greater care must be taken in the assessment and evaluation of any such claims and stories.
But – as readers may quickly realize – that is precisely what did not happen.
Instead, and following the Bass-Davis line, law and jurisprudence and legislation and media coverage simply ignored all the dangerous possibilities and probabilities and proceeded to presume that an allegant is both a veracious ‘reporter’ of actual events and also a ‘victim’ (or ‘survivor’).
Toss in a ‘plaintiffs’ bar’ (i.e. the tort industry) to smooth the legal pathways, and you are well on your way to a stampede, and – given the Church’s deep-pockets as a ‘defendant’ and its uncongenial opposition to much of the political-cultural agenda of the day – the specific Stampede against the Church.
Crews covers much of this ground (though he doesn’t focus specifically on the Stampede, which in its post-2002 phase hadn’t yet happened) in his two-part article “Revenge of the Repressed”, which was published in The New York Review of Books on November 17 and December 1 of 1994. The two articles are included in Crews’s book.
I just saw the movie, Spotlight, this weekend. It is excellent. Everyone should see it.
On January 16th, LDB informs us that he has just seen the Spotlight film and he recommends, "everyone should see it."
Why? Was there so many empty seats in the theatre, that he fears the film may flop?
Gee….a commercial failure might discourage the entertainment industry from joining in this popular witch-hunt. We can't have that happen….can we? So get on the internet and drum up some business.
These people are so predictable, perhaps because the Playbook is predictable.
On the 19th at 1227PM, ‘LDB’ – who, regular longtime readers may recall, says he is an attorney and a Harvard Philosophy major – apparently has nothing to proffer except a roadie recommendation to go see a movie. Nor do his alleged skills nor his various levels and areas of education move him even to explain just why we should go see the movie. We are simply to take his word for it that “it is excellent”.
And – as the Cartoonist once said – “That’s all, folks”.
Spotlight was nominated for Best Picture of 2015 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science.
I would also point out that there is actually very little – if any – chance that any given ‘victim’ can dispositively vouch for the veracity of any other ‘victim’s story or claims or allegations.
As I have said before here: the stories and claims and allegations are as opaque to other ‘victims’ as they are to any other third parties.
The ‘deal’ at the bottom of all this is: you believe my story and I’ll believe yours and we’ll go forward from there.
If we victims didn't post our views here; it would be all P and Malcolm all the time. Saying none of our sex abuse happened.
That's the right wing catholic bull that has cost your church billions not in compensation but in money not coming in because the parishiners won't pay for an arrogant priesthood that raped their children.
It's so f'ing obvious. That neither of you 2 dolts gives a shit about raped catholics as long as the raping is being done by priests. That makes you liars and cowards. And not worth spit morally. Have a not so nice day. I only wish there was a Hell for you two.
Rather than face up to the complex actualities of the problem as I have outlined them , JR (the 20th at 1120AM) will simply try to reduce matters to something more amenable to a cartoon approach.
In a neat job of packing, he loads a single two-sentence paragraph (the first) with a slyly manipulative presumption (“we victims”) – which may actually be a double presumption, come to think of it – and the further assertion – grossly inaccurate – that I and Malcolm Harris are “saying none of [the] sex abuse happened”.
JR will not be able to back up that second assertion with any accurate quotation from me (which, no doubt, is part of the reason that he doesn’t even try to do so).
I have been making the point that the probability of mischief is high for a number of reasons, and I have explained those reasons at length here. And that therefore such claims and allegations must be looked at even more carefully.
Continuing with my comment of the 21st at 304AM:
My position is that if there is no credible or persuasive evidence of a crime then the sovereign power of the state (through its judicial system) cannot be deployed against an accused. The Victimist position (upon which the Stampede has been built) is that if the claim/story of a crime is put forward, then the very nature of the crime is so urgently abhorrent that the lack of persuasive evidence cannot be allowed to stand in the way of punishment by the sovereign authority of the state through its judicial system.
And my position is thus that the Victimist approach instantly and profoundly undermines the entire hard-won concept of Western law as it has evolved, regressing it back to guilt being determined merely by the sovereign whim or fiat.
That the ‘sovereign’ in this matter is a ‘democracy’ rather than an absolutist monarchy or totalitarian command-government is not only of mere secondary importance, but the dynamic thus established can easily extend and engorge itself to the point where the ‘democracy’ becomes increasingly nominal and substantively more absolutist and authoritarian.
Continuing with my comment of the 21st at 304AM:
And, of course, there are very few “raped catholics” in the first place, as is demonstrated by the first Jay Report’s tally of the actual allegations lodged (which themselves must then be subjected to the heightened scrutiny necessary in such cases).
But – to use the structure of JR’s concluding trope – it’s clear that Victimists and Abuseniks don’t give a sxxt about the legitimacy of American law nor the future of any genuine democracy. Perhaps because they don’t even realize what is at stake in the matter.
And I would say that history thus indicates that the road upon which Victimism has launched us will lead to more than enough hell in this world, regardless of anybody’s belief or disbelief in a Hell in the next world.
Every catholic child touched sexually by an adult is a raped catholic, Dope.
We'd be considered raped by you only if the priest stuck his dick up our asses?
Gee thanks. How kind of you to define my child rape by your "adult" terms.
If only my perp had screwed me then I really could consider myself harmed? Fuck you!
The idea that a sociopath like you would give shit about democracy is a sad joke.
Crawl back in your hole!
When have you ever defended a rape victim here? Ahhhhhhhh NEVER. Therefore, you don't defend rape victims only the rapists and their enablers. Therefore, you are a constant bigot. a systemic denier of truth. Against every raped catholic who has posted as such here. You can pretend to be fair, like fox news pretends to be fair, by telling us again and again: how fair you are. No matter the truth.
On the 21st at 1110AM JR tries to build a bit based on his favorite ‘statutory rape’ theory. It is curious, though, that we have seen very few – if any – criminal cases where a priest was actually charged with statutory rape.
And ‘sexual touching’ is a convenient blurring of the legal realities here: statutory rape involves an adult having sexual relations with a minor (who because of age is presumed incapable of consent; the age of minority varies among jurisdictions).
Thus JR’s signature claim here – the mimicry of authoritative knowledge insisting upon his own personal definition – is inaccurate, to say the least.
Thus being “touched sexually” is not legally statutory rape.
Victimists have to some extent prevailed upon the FBI to include forms of sexual touching as ‘rape’ in that agency’s reporting statistics, no doubt to ‘keep up the numbers’ and to ‘keep the ball rollling’. But the laws have not actually been changed and they thus continue to retain the ‘classical’ (as we would now have to say) definition of ‘rape’ – even statutory rape – as requiring some penile-penetrative involvement.
Continuing with my comment in regard to JR’s of the 21st at 1110AM:
But JR here not only participates in the general Victimist effort to frame any ‘sexual touching’ as ‘statutory rape’. He also has to embrace this inaccuracy in order to keep up his own creds and retain the validity of his own personal cartoon.
And we see the usual JR effort to reinforce his (inaccurate) assertion with epithet (“Dope”), although – as so very often – this gambit works far more effectively in the recoil to highlight his own incompetence when making an assertion about the subject.
And ditto in regard to his convoluted (and almost nonsensical) effort to complain about my using “adult” terms in the analysis here. And to “adult” here we would also have to add ‘actual legal terms, accurately deployed’.
And again we see the echoes of the point I made in a prior comment on this thread about the Bass-Davis line: JR’s assorted life-problems are somehow connected to his being … (fill in the blank in regard to the consequences of his allegedly being ‘sexually touched’); that instance is, as Bass-Davis would have it, totally and completely responsible for, and is completely to blame-for, his various life-and-self problems.
Reinforced, yet again, with scatological epithet in order to avoid the weaknesses in his position and claim here.
Continuing with my comment in regard to JR’s of the 21st at 1110AM:
And his signature “sociopath” bit appears again; this time, to epithetically suggest (or assert) that I could be in any way concerned about “democracy”. A ‘democracy’ is not going to be able to sustain itself absent the rule of law, and it has been a fundamental built-in consequence of Victimist law ‘reform’ that the legal system is regressed back to the pre-Modern era. Readers may judge as they will.
On then, to his comment of the 21st at 1120AM:
Once again, mere repetition from one of the well-worn 3x5s left in his file. To which I again respond: when I encounter a credible “rape victim here”, then his question will have relevance. Until then, his question is merely an irrelevant effort to distract from the core issues.
Thus, too, then: he gives away more than he knows by observing that the answer is “Never” (scream-caps omitted). That’s actually correct in its way: I have never encountered a credible “rape victim here”. If that fact should change, I’ll be sure to let him know.
And his “Therefore” – another effort at the mimicry of logical thinking – fails because it presumes that on the basis of my not having encountered a credible “rape victim here” then it is sufficiently grounded in logic to claim that I also ipso facto “defend … rapists and their enablers”. Once again we see the old Playbook gambit: if you don’t agree with allegants then you are ‘defending’ “rapists and their enablers”.
And having launched himself off the rails with that bit, he then riffs on further along that line: I am “therefore … a constant bigot” and “a systematic denier of truth”. Readers are welcome to consider for themselves who might be the better candidate for those epithets.
As to how many actually and genuinely “raped catholic[s]” we have encountered here: readers may also consult their notes as to what that number might be.
As to who does more ‘pretending’ here: readers may also consult their notes as to who that person might be.
AP May 07,2014 " The Vatican revealed Tuesday that over the past decade, it has defrocked 848 priests who RAPED OR MOLESTED CHILDREN and sanctioned another 2,572 with lesser penalties, providing the first ever breakdown of how it handled more than 3,400 cases of abuse reported to the Holy See since 2004. These figures, however, only cover cases handled directly by the [UN]Holy See, not those handled by local diocesan tribunals, meaning the total number of sanctioned priests is likely far higher."
For anyone to use this forum, in an attempt to manipulate fact and deceive truth, is most deplorable and disingenuous, knowing that the Vatican did everything in it's power to keep it's despicable crimes from the proper authorities. Catholics beware, deceivers will use any tricks to twist the facts. "But evil people and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving others, but being themselves deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13