Continuing the fight for truth and justice: Journalist Ralph Cipriano
If there were still any doubt about the criminal fraud committed against the Catholic Church in Philadelphia by D.A. Seth Williams and his publicity-seeking prosecutors, look no further than the eye-popping cover story this week in Newsweek by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano.
Over the last few years on the blog BigTrial.net, Cipriano closely followed the trials against Catholic clergy which received widespread local and national attention.
The accuser at the center of it all, Dan Gallagher, claimed that during the 1998-1999 school year, when he was a 10-year-old altar boy in Philadelphia, he was serially raped and abused – sometimes for hours on end – by the late Fr. Charles Engelhardt, former Catholic school teacher Bernard Shero, and ex-priest Edward Avery, all of whom barely even knew each other.
The mainstream media wakes up
The $5 million man:
Accuser Danny Gallagher
Numerous times over the past several years Cipriano has written about a mountain of indisputable evidence indicating that Gallagher most certainly falsely accused the trio of Engelhardt, Shero, and Avery.
However, in his Newsweek piece, Cipriano expands the story even further. Cipriano now reveals details of a 40-page psychologist report concluding that because the "immature," "manipulative," and "hedonistic" Gallagher has admitted providing false information about his past repeatedly, there is no way to conclude "to a reasonable degree" that Gallagher has ever been abused by a priest, or by anyone in his life.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any clear-thinking person, not to mention 12 individuals sitting on a jury, believing Gallagher's crazy and unbelievable tales. The evidence for the convicted men’s innocence is beyond overwhelming:
- Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even put Engelhardt and Shero on trial.
- Triple-accuser Gallagher has been arrested at least six times – once for possession of 56 bags of heroin – and has been in-and-out of some 23 drug re-habs.
[Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record] - Gallagher even explicitly told drug counselors that he had "no history of physical or sexual abuse."
- Gallagher has admitted that he lied when he said he worked as a paramedic and a "professional surfer" (yes, a professional surfer from Philadelphia);
- On three separate occasions, Gallagher told drug counselors that his older brother had been arrested for molestation. In truth, Gallagher's older brother, James Gallagher, is a recently licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and has never been arrested at all.
- An alternate juror even came forward after the trial with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts against Engelhardt and Shero were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."
- Fr. Engelhardt easily passed a polygraph test denying that he abused Danny or anyone, and the test administrator was a guy often hired by the Philly D.A.'s Office itself.
- Ex-priest Avery not only passed a polygraph test indicating that he had never abused Gallagher, but he also told authorities he never even met him before. In addition, records later revealed that Gallagher never even served as an altar boy at Mass with Avery, as Gallagher had claimed.
- Fr. Engelhardt previously waved his fifth amendment rights and voluntarily appeared before the Philadelphia grand jury, at which he asserted his innocence and testified, "I have no knowledge of who the person is. If he's sitting in this room today, I can't pick him out … I found it to be a very humbling thing to be called on the phone … when you know, there was no truth or that was something unrealistic that was happening to you."
- And as we have relayed before, Gallagher has told separate tales of abuse by the trio of men that not only defy any reasonable belief but have varied wildly over time.
Paging Rolling Stone magazine
Discredited – again
Sabrina Rubin Erdely
Cipriano reminds readers that Gallagher's bogus rape story was the subject of a splashy 2011 story in Rolling Stone magazine by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
The crusading Erdely wrote, with no shortage of lurid detail, of how Gallagher, described only as a "sweet and gentle kid," was repeatedly raped and sodomized by the three men and forced to perform stripteases after Mass.
Does Erdely's name sound familiar? Well, she is the same Erdely who wrote an incredible, 9000-word piece in 2014 for Rolling Stone about "Jackie," a University of Virginia co-ed who claimed she was gang raped by seven men at a fraternity party. The story received huge national attention.
However, after the Washington Post did a little digging, the Jackie story was exposed as a hoax. Rolling Stone retracted the story, and defamation lawsuits are currently pending.
The question now is: Will Rolling Stone retract its bogus Gallagher story?
Many kudos to Newsweek for publishing Cipriano's piece and helping get the truth out about this egregious miscarriage of justice.
When I put up my most recent comments, the JR comment of the 26th at 1148PM was not up; my reference to the ‘most recent crop’ thus did not include it and I consider the 26th at 1148PM here now.
JR – if we move beyond the juvenile epithet – now claims that the conspiracy theory isn’t quite his after all; rather, he “got [his] entire conspiracy theory” from the material in the Doyle proposal made (in 1985) to the American bishops.
But even so: JR’s theory – as regular readers will quickly realize – is based upon the “secret committees” bit. We have dealt with this before and at length here: the term “secret committees” does not appear in the text of the Doyle proposal.
I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if the matter of ‘confidentiality’ was present in Doyle’s approach: after all, what Doyle was discussing can be distinguished into a) the possibility of a concocted Stampede-like campaign against the Church in the USA and b) the validity of the basis of such a concocted campaign.
In reference to (b) Doyle wanted to deal with such actually abusive priests as there might be.
In reference to (a) – which Doyle does not go into in depth – the elements that would enable and lubricate such a campaign (which would later become the Stampede) were present and coming together in American society at that time. (The Bass-Davis approach would be codified in 1988’s Courage to Heal, but its dynamic was already active.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 1148PM:
And ‘confidentiality’ would be required for the same reason it was required in the 1962 Vatican directive (also discussed here at length on a recent thread): the protection of both allegants and accused in the canonical investigation and (if warranted) trial processes.
I would also accept that ‘confidentiality’ would be required to protect the Church – especially in the matter of allegations that were not proven to be demonstrably veracious, but there is hardly anything irrational or sinister about that.
However, as things turned out (and with the script of truthy lone individuals exposing corporate misdeeds already finding much traction in Hollywood and in the media) it was precisely the Victimist Playbook strategy to cast the entire situation in a sinister light, and we see that echoed in JR’s “secret” bit here. (Neatly, the myriad conferences between allegants and torties in which stories and claims were burnished and doctored are ipso facto protected by law and thus most people wouldn’t think of them as ‘secret’, but in effect they are similarly ‘secret’.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 1148PM:
JR is far too humble, I would say, in his assessment of his ability to ‘make [stuff] up”, but the “secret committees” bit is certainly one such demonstration of that ability.
His question as to why Doyle would ask for “secret committees” to be set up and funded is thus rendered moot for the reasons I have already pointed out in this present series of comments today. That is to say: he didn’t ask for “secret committees”, and certainly not with the implication that such committees would be set up expressly to hide and confuse.
And had he said something to the effect that ‘let’s just publicly admit that the Church is and always has been nothing more than a rape-culture and that every present and future allegation and claim and story is true’ would have failed outright since it presumed what was not at all demonstrably accurate and true (and remains so to this day).
But JR’s train of thought then once more runs off the rails with the “money” bit and the further bit about ‘hiring’ “needy young people” who would somehow be convinced to do something and so on.
Thus the neatly and slyly-inserted self-advertisement about “intelligent adults” who would “figure out” all of this … also fails. The Stampede was not ‘figured out’; it is a heavily-scripted Cartoon that was constructed. (Providing, in the process, roles in that script for heroic and truthy truth-tellers, as we see.)
My side "scripts" things; while your side doesnt "script" things?
What are you and TMR doing here? Counting bunny rabbits? You have quite the "script" yourself.
Your script says that you and the church are the real victims; and that we real victims are lying.
That's quite a script. Wonder why Hollywood hasn't optioned it? They used to push your religions "miracles" as true.( Ten Commandments; Ben Hur; Song of Bernadette etc.). I don't know how they can pass up this scenario? You must make your script more believable. I know! Get some real evidence proving Billy Doe a liar. Then they'll buy it. Meanwhile Spotlight holds the limelight in it's nomination for best film.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 1148PM:
The riff on “democracy” (scream caps omitted) is what it is. It comes from one of JR’s well-worn 3x5s about SNAP not being a ‘democracy’ and so on and so forth and need not detain us here.
Ditto the bits about Doyle – which apparently seek to limn him as a high-ranking (and presumably greatly influential) Church canon lawyer yet he couldn’t get the Bishops to agree to his 1985 proposal nor did ‘the Vatican’ lean on the Bishops to back up his proposal.
But we see here again the incoherence in JR’s efforts: if Doyle was a whistle-blowing hero by making his 1985 proposal, then why is he not counted (in JR’s cartoon schematic) among ‘the good’? (Short answer: because Doyle later went over to SNAP and SNAP didn’t ‘elect’ JR the way JR wanted to be elected.)
And so on.
JR then reveals that he doth “trust no one” connected to SNAP and so on. But – slyly – that’s not ‘sociopathic’ (according to his cartoon schematic of sociopathy) because he’s “not usually that way with people” he meets. I can sympathize: I find Abuseniks always have to be handled with caution and carefully heightened scrutiny, which is how I also approach used-car dealers and telemarketers.
And once again: to question ‘victims’ and point out problems with their various assertions, claims, allegations and stories and ‘theories’ is to “do a job on them”. Readers may consider as they will.
Hey Stupid, SNAP; Anderson; VOTF and my own lawyer handed Doyle to us victims in L.A. as a hero FOR writting that paper. As usual with most Americans, few victims ever read what he wrote. When I did it illuminated the whole shebang. SECRET COMMITTEES! Secretly funded!
Why the need for such secrecy for the church? What's to hide?
Please,You tell me why the church's TOP Canon lawyer in the U.S. would suggest to American bishops that they create secret committees funded and headed by 3 cardinals, mind you? The only reaon the bishops rejected the paper (publically) was it got outted by Fr. Econimus before he died. The cat was out of the bag.
Having given you this analysis before. Why is your reasoning so haphazard and mine as precise as a Frank Gehry building.
Deride and mock away (which is all you ever do here) but your reasoning just doesn't measure up.
For YEARS i'd been dealling with the difficulties inconsistancies and out right manipulation of victims by and for SNAP et all's benefit and at zero benefit for victims. But never in my wildest dreams could I concieve that this and all the other media validated "Survivors" helpers were in fact the church itself. Which is exactly what they are.
According to the now dead but truely good priest Fr. Econimus.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 1148PM:
Why, JR asks in his conclusion, would he ever “imagine” such a convoluted scenario?
Since he asked, I would consider such possible answers as: for gain, either in the status of ‘victim’ and truthy heroic truth-teller in our Victimist-soused contemporary milieu or in some financial way or both. Those would be some possible answers that would occur to me.
And the whole thing based on something Doyle didn’t actually write at all.
So – and once again as so very often before – JR’s concept of “the whole truth” reveals itself to be somewhat deficient. Demonstrating – and once again as so very often before – that the Anderson Strategies and all the torties who deployed them were wise to avoid putting their allegants up on the stand in open court to face sustained adversarial examination.
Doyle didn't write what he wrote to the American bishops? Oh really!
Eliminating history again are you Big Brother?
You always forget what happened to me was the truth. I know it now and I knew it then.
I'm one of the few compensated sex abuse victims. Cardinal Mahony wrote me a personal letter apologizing to me for my abuse.
Why would I need to go after the Doyle scammers: SNAP VOTF Anderson; Berry? I got compensated.
One of only 2000 out of 11,000 according to the John Jay report.
I could, if I was a liar, have taken the money and run. But instead I'm attacking the very people who pretend to help anyone "scam" the church according to you.
You don't like these people because you call them frauds, who are criminally against the church.
I don't like them because these frauds are criminaly FOR; BY and FROM the church.
We both know they're frauds. Your problem is: You've never worked with them to know why; and for whom; and to whom they are fraudulent. I have and I don't HAVE to be doing any of this. I've been compensated. Why would I spend all these years writting this information here? Cui bono?
p- 'Personal truth' would be 'opposed to actual and objective truth', if the person is an out and out liar, of which you and your church have aquired quite an experience with. You know darn well that most sin is done in the darkness, so for you to need absolute proof to make a victims story believable is absurd. I do agree with you when on 1/27 @ 2:25am you wrote, "the 'crisis' was accurately grounded in reality (i.e. that the [c]hurch is and for centuries or millennia has been nothing more than a rape-club of abusive priests enabled by hierarchs who also controlled and control all the other major elements of civil society)." You just may be a peewee bit smarter than I thought.
Read the Bible, everybody. Learn the truth that sets you free from all the lies and liars. Don't expect God's Word to conform to your lifestyle, rather work on your lifestyle to bring it into conformity with His Word. "For He can take sin as red as crimson and turn it white as snow." Of course that would exclude child rapists or molesters, as previously explained.
P.S. Maybe you shouldn't have left out the nuns, coaches, catholic scout leaders, catholic school teachers and laity, complicit in these wrong doings. We wouldn't want to add to their sin, that of jealousy, for not being recognized.
Right at the start of this particular thread Dave Pierre said that a criminal fraud had been perpetrated against the Church and it's priests.
Well speaking as a former auditor, it is my considered opinion that he is almost certainly right. Because I do smell a rat.
In fact I smell a whole nest of rats.
In this situation, where there was and still is, such an innumerable amount of cases of child rape and molestation, there will most definitely be a small percentage of fraud committed by those who game the system. We must all be concerned that no one is falsely accused, speaking from my own experience with your churches false accusations against myself, for it is terribly unfair and unjust. Where I find a problem with this forum is with those cherry picking these minority cases, while at the same time making excuses or trying to justify the horrible crimes of priests and enablers, by trying to shine a spotlight on the fraud. You say, "I do smell a rat. In fact I smell a whole nest of rats." The many rats your smelling are most likely the perverted priests and their hierarchy, led by JP II, cardinal Big RAT- zinger and pope francis. If their perversions, lies and secrecy never occured, then the fewer sue happy fraudsters probably would not have existed. Evilness and darkness will attract more of the same, like vultures to a kill or flies and maggots to a dead carcass. While on the subject, be careful about praying to the dead, for they will not bring you salvation, mercy or anything. They are dead! Pray to the living Savior, Jesus Christ and to the Father (the one and only).
May be the rats u think you are smelling are only P and yourself. Him what smelt it dealt it. The last time I heard some one comparing people to rats was what was said about Jews in Nazi Germany. You are in such wonderful company Malcolm.
Futher to my post at 7.01 pm on the subject of rats. This really needs an Abuse Fraud Task Force, to investigate the whole thing, in an objective and rational way.
Am saying that after reading about a remarkable 'rat' called Shamont Lyl Sapp, who perpetrated criminal fraud against four separate dioceses, between 2005 and 2010, from his prison cell in Pennsylvania. The website, Prison Legal News, carried the full story, dated October, 2015, written by Mark Wilson.
He was in the prison for a series of bank robberies. He perpetrated his frauds under the usual anonymity of 'BillyDoe'. His target was usually a diocese that was in the process of bankruptcy. Almost certainly with legal assistance, he added his story and claim to the list of claimants. Predictably the media eagerly published all of his lurid and shocking allegations, against whatever priest he had selected to destroy.
In 2014 he pleaded guilty, in Oregon, to all four charges of mail fraud….brought by federal prosecutors. His only mistake being over-confidence and greed. But can we surmise that if he hadn't been greedy he would have got away with it? Can we further surmise that most false claimants have not been as greedy, and have succeeded, without risk to themselves..
Shamont's case is like the tip of a big and ugly iceberg. How many other diocese will hit this iceberg….. and sink under the weight of bankruptcy?.
Abuse fraud task force? Really? Like the Republican voter fraud task forces that found only 2 fraudulent voters both of whom were Republicans faking as fraudulent voters? So very like what I say the church is doing in this situation?
continuing with my comment on Malcolm of the 27th at 7:01
I must agree with his statement regarding those nest of rats. Especially that big rat who had his own list of 35 little rats who did want to behave, and this big rat who claims a cat caught his tongue could not speak up for what is right.
…..and today we have the largest rat of all who is fighting not to rat-out his fellow friends.
It is sad there is no large rat trap to rid the bad vermon from spreading disease they do so well.
On the 27th at 655PM ‘Dan’ will try again.
Where to begin?
There can be a number of possibilities as to why anyone’s ‘personal truth’ can be “opposed to actual and objective truth”. One possibility is that the person is “an out and out liar”, perhaps, but a liar knows s/he is lying.
Of course, one can become so habitualized to a lie that one eventually loses the ability to distinguish its unreality from actual reality.
Another possibility is that a person lacks the ability to distinguish a personal fantasy from actual reality. The classic person in an asylum who is convinced he is Napoleon is not, strictly speaking, a liar; even though an un-reality has been embraced, yet it is on a level prior-to or immune-to the normal human reality-recognition capability.
Thus the first phase of his effort here to construct another of his favorite pile of blocks fails.
"habitualized to a lie" = Your entire modus operandi. Whether it's your religion or your take on this scandal.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 655PM:
He proceeds to his second block: “most sin is done in the darkness” so – tah dahhhhhh! – for me “to need absolute proof to make a victim’s story believable is absurd”.
His error here is to conflate/confuse ‘a) sin’ and b) ‘crime’. For the sovereign coercive authority of a government’s legal system to be deployed against an accused, proof is required (the “absolute” bit works here merely as a rhetorical flourish) or at least a rationally persuasive establishment of some high probability of the crime having been committed by the accused.
Governmental legal systems do not deal with ‘sin’ as such; they deal – they can only deal – with ‘crime’.
This is the problem that instantly arises when one tries to use ‘the Bible’ as the basis for deploying a legal system against a person who may have committed a sin.
Interestingly, the Church dealt with accused priests as sinners first, and then secondly as persons who may have violated canon law, and only thirdly (and a distant third) as persons who may have violated the laws of a particular national legal system. To no small extent, it is precisely this that fed the claims of ‘cover-up’ and ‘enabling’ that became the accusations of choice lodged against the Church and various hierarchs by the Stampede.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 655PM:
Then, in an effort to deploy some semblance of rational cogitation (without endangering his preferred cartoons), ‘Dan’ will quote me with date/time reference.
But – who can be surprised? – he utterly ignores the fact that I proposed that particular bit as merely an insufficiently grounded and demonstrated framing of the situation.
I wrote: “But the fact that a ‘crisis’ was constructed does not of itself demonstrate or establish in any way that the ‘crisis’ was accurately grounded in reality (i.e. that the Church is and for centuries or millennia has been nothing more than a rape-club of abusive priests enabled by hierarchs who also controlled and control all the other major elements of civil society).”
So ‘Dan’ – it has apparently escaped his capacity to read – does not “agree” with me but rather – who can be surprised? – ‘agrees’ with the insufficiently grounded and demonstrated framing of the situation that I limned. I may indeed be smarter than ‘Dan’ thinks, but he has not demonstrated himself here to be as smart as he thinks.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 655PM:
And the whole bit then swings into his signature exhortation for everybody to “read the Bible”. And that riff – masquerading as yet another of ‘Dan’s divinely-authorized Sermons on the Mount – goes on in its predictable way. What ‘Dan’ really means here is that readers should i) read the Bible ii) as ‘Dan’ reads the Bible. And there is an abyss between (i) and (ii) that he would very much not like anyone to notice.
And once again we see an example of the incoherence of ‘Dan’s theological thinking (such as it may too generously be characterized): on what Scriptural basis does he “exclude” child rapists and molesters, and where has he “previously explained” this rather glaring incoherence?
If persons who commit such sins are sinners, then on what basis are they excluded from the status of sinners such that they are ineligible for the genuine repentance and forgiveness that is available to all sinners? And on what basis and authority does he presume to exclude them?
This is a matter distinct from the legal considerations, but ‘Dan’ has gone with the Bible and the ‘sin’ aspect here and his ‘theology’ shows itself to be sorely insufficient and incoherent on his own chosen ground.
Instead, what we are seeing here is the effort to manipulate the Bible in order to ‘weapon-ize’ it against his own personally-preferred targets and twist the Bible into the service of his own dark fantasies against the Church.
One wonders if that isn’t something of a grievous sin itself. (Unless he is sufficiently deranged that he cannot tell the difference between the Bible and his personal take on the Bible – but then while he would thus be out of the ‘frying pan’ of sin he would be into the ‘fire’ of noteworthy derangement.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 655PM:
And he concludes with a “P.S.” – apparently to me. But in his effort at juvenile snark – a signature temptation for Abuseniks which they rarely manage (or desire?) to overcome – he loses control of the thing and we wind up with the rather silly vision of “nuns, coaches” and all the rest being jealous “for not being recognized”.
But I recognize ‘Dan’… his bits here reveal an age-old figure, that of the bloody-minded manipulator who seeks un-sleepingly to use and twist God and the Bible to serve his own personal darknesses. And that is his ‘personal reality’ and no doubt his ‘personal truth’ and it is what it is. But it isn’t actual objective reality.
Quite the accomplishment to twist the Bible anymore than it twists itself.
On the 27th at 1151PM ‘Dennis Ecker’ will try to piggy-back himself onto the ‘Dan’ material by riffing on “rats”.
But the whole thing gets away from him, perhaps due to the lateness of the hour.
With what comment of his is he “continuing”? Or did he, as so often, fail to distinguish what he is quoting from what he is himself saying?
And – seriously – am I supposed to be “the largest rat of all”? (Or did he mean somebody else but his point got away from him here?)
But the Abusenik mind is excited by epithet; so much so that a) it doesn’t – perhaps can’t – really keep on track once the excitement of what seems to be a juicy epithet is upon it and b) when in this hyper-excited state it can’t really be bothered to think-through even its own points. But gosh it just feels so good to just toss some plop up and call it a day.
Upon such frailties and infelicities the Stampede was built and continues to find its support. A peanut-gallery most gleefully alive only when it is tossing peanuts.
On then to ‘Dan’s further bits of the 27th at 1045PM:
To accept it, one must first accept some hefty presumptions.
First, that there were “such an innumerable amount of cases of child rape and molestation”. Whenever one encounters such hyperbolic bits as “innumerable” or its sibling ‘countless’, one is best advised to take a deep breath.
‘Allegations’ would be a more accurate word here, rather than “cases”, since there are really not that many legal cases (unless we count the tortie compilations in the Anderson Strategy lawsuits as individual “cases”, but those are highly dubious for many reasons often discussed at length here).
There were very few allegations of “child rape” compared to allegations of some form of (the ever-elastic) “molestation”, as we saw in the first Jay Report.
If such cases were indeed “innumerable”, then who could know this and how could anyone know this? “Innumerable” – after all – involves infinity and that’s a bit beyond any human ken (and while it is doubtful enough to imagine that ‘Dan’ receives god-grams directly from (his, a, the, any, some) deity, it is ludicrous to imagine that he is being directly and divinely infused with specific numbers).
Second, that such an “innumerable amount” still exists. There is absolutely no way ‘Dan’ can make this assertion from a base of actual knowledge and this bit remains as merely a preferred assertion of his that must be accepted for this whole contraption of his to work.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1045PM:
‘Dan’ will draw on his statistical chops to allow as how in any matter with so large (“innumerable”, actually) a base, then there surely will be “a small percentage of fraud committed by those who game the system”.
But we aren’t dealing with an “innumerable” base here, in the sense of infinite.
And have we not seen on this site so many factors that not only a) strongly indicate the probability of ‘gaming the (Stampede) system’ but also b) surely support the possibility that the Stampede system was set up as largely a ‘game’ from the get-go? It is precisely for that reason that I insist that some form of ‘heightened scrutiny’ must be applied to all such cases and allegations arising within this system.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1045PM:
And while ‘Dan’ then generously and slyly allows as how “we must all be concerned that no one is falsely accused” yet that concern is for all practical purposes nullified by his own experience “with your churches false accusations against myself”.
(Readers may recall from prior recent threads that on several occasions ‘Dan’ took it upon himself to harangue school-children in a school-yard, refused to stop when asked by staff, was arrested by the police, convicted, and sent for observation to a mental-institution. The “false accusations” to which he makes reference involve the staff/police/judge presuming that he was somewhat noticeably unwell rather than accepting that he was divinely instructed to deliver Sermonettes on the Mount to children, possessing perhaps as it were a divine ‘007’ warrant to deliver same. Readers here may consider as they will.)
Drawing, I would surmise, far more on his personal feelings and experiences (as outlined immediately above) than on any larger concern for the priests falsely accused, ‘Dan’ does manage to accept that unjust accusations are “terribly unfair and unjust”.
They certainly are, yes indeed. And even more so when – as he acknowledges must have happened, at least occasionally – such an accused then is subjected to a legal system that itself participates in the game. And even more so when the public sees a form of official legislative and jurispraxial shenanigans that would lead the unsuspecting citizen to imagine it as ‘progress’ rather than the ominous regression to pre-modern law and justice that it actually is.
peewee jackass, 1-There was no haranguing of children. 2- I never refused to stop, especially since I was never asked to stop. 3- Was not arrested or convicted. 4- Was sent to a mental hospital based on the lies of 4 thug hypocrits, of which you have added your numerous lies and hypocrisy. You are a total jackass, who has no right to consume the oxygen of this beautiful planet. It would bother me if I was the only one you've treated as such. I hope your sick, lying mind brings you some form of pleasure, because you truly are a disgusting piece of dung. You should take that as a compliment because I've come to know you as less than that. You cowardly, lying, slimeball of a jackass troll. Later mocker.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1045PM:
Having thus delivered himself, ‘Dan’ then turns his attentions to “this forum” (i.e. TMR).
This site – he conveniently concludes – merely ‘cherry-picks’ “those minority cases” … meaning, it would seem, that “minority” of cases where false accusations are – at least by the abstract working of his statistical schema – in play. I would say that given all of the relevant factors enumerated and discussed at length on this site, then the probability of such cases being a “minority” is not high at all.
And he would then require us to presume that in pointing out such problematic elements, inconvenient to his fever-visions as they may be, one is “making excuses” or “trying to justify the [presumed] horrible crimes of priests and enablers”.
And how would one engage in such admittedly repellent activities as ‘excusing’ or ‘trying-to-justify’? Why merely by trying to “shine a spotlight on the fraud”. (In regard to my own material, that would have to be phrased as ‘the probability of fraud’, since I am not so easily given to presumptions as are the Abuseniks.)
In brief I would describe ‘Dan’s gambits here as: being rather fixedly wedded to his dark animus, that has itself glommed onto the Church, which animus – along with his various and unhappy personal infelicities – he seeks to both justify and glowingly burnish with the assertion of a divine and Scriptural warrant.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1045PM:
He then seeks to deploy the familiar Abusenik defense to the effect that if such (alleged) “perversions, lies and secrecy had never occurred” then those few or very few “sue happy fraudsters probably never would have existed”.
I can certainly agree that if such (alleged) sins had never been committed then things would have gone differently indeed; but this is true of all human affairs, is it not? Had ‘Dan’ not taken it upon himself to do what he did – several times – he would not have been subjected to the unhappy experiences with the law and the mental-health authorities.
“Sin” – not in the tactical sense of specific acts but rather in the strategic sense of the sum-total of derangement introduced into human affairs and human history by the abiding dark quantum in the heart of each human being and all human beings – is a profound ‘given’ in humanity (and let he who is without it cast the first stone).
Dan’s own infelicitous life-trajectory surely demonstrates precisely that.
I would say, therefore, that “sue happy fraudsters” will always exist; they were not created by the Church and they will always be with us.
But the Stampede gave opportunity, status, prospect of gain, and shape and form that in all probability a large number of persons so inclined chose to avail themselves of. As has ‘Dan’ for his own needs and purposes.
Now since Madame jackass thinks he can consult his Tarot cards and know all about me, tell me how I'm in this forum for my "needs and purposes". And what might those be? To listen to all your lies and slander and all your excuses for why your cult is rampant with child rapists, molesters, enablers and gutless excusers. You've got to be kidding! My main reason, from the outset, is to bring anyone capable of hearing, to know the Lord's truth. Not my own truth and definitely not your catholic lies and deceptions. If while I'm pursuing leading others to the one true God, I can at the same time expose your lies, false accusations, slander and stupidity, I'd have to say that would be a win-win situation for all of us. All my own "needs" are met through Christ my Savior, something you apparently have not a clue. My "purpose" for even putting up with your nonsense, I do find questionable, especially since I usually make it a point of avoiding dealing with assholes, of which I find you to be one of the biggest. My only reason for dealing with you is like I said, that I would possibly bring others to know my Lord and Savior. Later mocker-bird, you could fly right out of here and I doubt many would miss you. I sure wouldn't! Dan, servant to the Almighty
Why do I get the feeling here, that you were never young P? Every thing is so "juvenile' to you which is supposed to make your thinking what? More adult? LMFAO!
Orson Wells directed Citizen Kane when he was 24. Mozart wrote concertos at the age of 4 or 5.. They could be classed as juvinille. The difference is they were GOOD. Right in what they did and that's what's important. Hey I'm either right because I'm telling you the truth or wrong because I'm lying. I hold you to that same standard. I know I've only told the truth here. You can call me any names you make up but I've still told you the truth. You are a human who wouldn't care what the truth is here. That's not what you are about here.
juvenille sorry!
And still I spell it wrong! Tired sorry ! Juvenile.
Please explain for us, with your fetish for cartoons and baby building blocks, how you with your infantile mind, would have any concept of reality. Not much of any of your material comes close to reality or truth, but more like childish speculation, or just outright lies. I'll repeat, one more time, the reason that child rapists and molesters are excluded and doomed, with this one simple quote, "Whoever causes one[1] of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matthew 18:6 If you need me to break this down and define each word, let me know. You have a problem understanding plain english, while you think you impress us with your ridiculous vocabulary? Or is it the fact that you can't stand the Lord's Word, because you know it convicts you and your cronies of their sin.
In regards to your last paragraph on 1/28 @ 3:22, you wrote how "the church dealt with accused priests" in 3 steps. They didn't even deal with the first step well, when anyone with a brain would have known they violated legal laws, let alone some of the worst of God's moral code. How can we expect a people to comprehend the depth of their heinous sins, when they hate and refuse to understand or follow the Bible. Here's another quote for you to hate and refuse to understand, mocker.
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceiful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Timothy 4:1-3
For any catholics or christians: You realize that these quotes are directly from the Word and not "masquerading as yet another of 'Dan's divinely-authorized Sermons on the Mount". Read them well, for they are much deeper than any human wisdom and do cut both ways, either convicting or forgiving humanity. The obvious 'abyss' that I can tell exists is the one between you, publion, and the Almighty God. You might try to put a stop to you're attempting to push others into that abyss, with your lies and mockery of God.
One may be an adult asshole with out a trace of juvenile fire but an asshole all the same. Adult you may pretend to be but an asshole you truely are.
p on 1/28 @ 3:25am- Your absolutely ludacris assessment of me, again shows your juvenile stupidity. You're the one who attempts to twist or plain ignore God's Word because you know damn well that it exposes your cult church and yourself of all it's wickedness done in darkness. Get real, mocker. God's onto your lies and deception, even if you think you've convinced and manipulated your little catholic groupie followers.
I’ll deal with JR’s most recent material first. Some of them are one-liners that needn’t detain us but in some others there is some useful stuff.
On the 28th at 122PM JR now tries to avoid the problems with his “secret committees” bit … not by putting up a quotation as to where in the 1985 proposal Doyle wrote it but simply by accusing me of saying that “Doyle didn’t write what he wrote”.
Doyle did write what he wrote in the 1985 proposal and we have looked at the text and content before on this site. But in no place did Doyle write about “secret committees” and the term does not exist in the text of his 1985 proposal.
Who, then, is “eliminating history” here? And for his own whacky and manipulative convenience?
He wrote that the funding of his committees by the church regulated by 3 cardinals should be kept secret or the church "would have a bigger scandal than it allready had" hence "secret committees". I wasn't quoting Doyle directly with my " secret committees" quotation marks I was emphassizing the reality of what he was proposing and what was later made fact: Church created "secret committees" "Secret" meaning false flags made by the church; for the church to control victims.
On the 28th at 250PM JR claims (somewhat nonsensically, if you give it a moment’s thought) that I “always forget” that “what happened to [him] was the truth”.
What he probably meant to say – or should have said – is that what he says happened to him is the truth.
And on that basis I would say – and yet again: nobody was there except himself and the man he later accused, so nobody can really know if what he says happened is the truth or not. Thus anyone who wasn’t there, confronted with JR’s claim, must rely on evidence (and there is none) or else must assess the coherence of the story and the credibility of the story-teller in order to reach some conclusion as to the probability of his claim being “the truth”.
Nor can this be reduced merely to a side-stepping ‘solution’ to the effect that JR must simply be believed (and that only sociopaths would not believe him).
Thus what JR doth “know … now” and “knew … then” is of little use to anybody else trying to reach some rational conclusion in regard to his claim.
And again with the Cardinal Mahony letter. It would hardly be surprising if the torties handling the case asked for such a letter to be sent to each allegant; the ‘apology’ is a standard fbit of furniture in any classic Victimist scenario-script. But what that letter contained, or what the Cardinal admitted-to or whatever was said in the letter is not something anybody here has had access to, so that leaves us exactly nowhere. As it did when the matter of the letter was first considered here quite a while ago.
Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 28th at 250PM:
JR then asks why he would “need” to “go after” anybody at all, since he got a hefty payout (or – if you prefer – since he was “compensated”). To which question I would respond: because he saw a way not only to get money but to get status, the status of heroic truthy whistle-blower and tribune of the victimized – perhaps the only one around, if you have been keeping track on the number of persons and groups he has banished from sharing the heroic podium in comments here and there on this site. Readers may consider as they will.
I have status. I've always had status. With some of us it's endemic. Status is an inside job.
The heroic podium you've made up for me was just as easily made up by Tommy Doyle O.P. and his committees for his committees SNAP; VOTV; TMR. I don't call any of those people heroes nor do I think of myself as one. I do see myself as an exposer of sham; of fake "information". No medals required.
Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 28th at 250PM:
JR then goes back to the now-familiar and ridiculous bit about “2000 out of 11,000” as if that bit came from the (first or second) Jay Report. The “2000” bit came from an almost decade-old partial listing on Wiki; only the “11,000” number came from the first Jay Report.
And in regard to his slyly manipulative bit to the effect that he “could have taken the money and run”: he certainly could have, as just about everyone else who got a check and cashed it has done – but there were, for him, other bennies to be harvested (as I described in my immediately prior comment here) and so he is still dining-out on his story.
He then tries another familiar bit of sly manipulation: “we both know”, he says to me, that the Victimist groups “are frauds”. I am pretty convinced of it, yes, but I can’t say I “know” it in the sense that I can produce hard evidence of it. But, yes, I am convinced that there is a very high probability of their fraudulence; they are front-organizations for the torties, scooping in potential plaintiffs that the torties cannot go out and drum-up themselves.
But I do not at all “know” or agree that the Church is somehow the puppet-master behind all of them. The Stampede didn’t need the Church; it is a variant of the familiar disability-scam type of lawsuit, erected into a Plan and sustained by media amplification and an internet that allows all sorts of stories to be put up, often without serious questioning or analysis.
Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 28th at 250PM:
And he concludes by trying to neutralize any doubts as to his bits by claiming that since nobody else has “worked with them” (i.e. these fraudulent front-groups) then nobody else can really disagree-with or doubt his stuff.
Cui bono, he asks (quoting the Latin accurately for once). Who benefits? JR benefits, I would say; of that we may rest very assured.
On the 28th at 135PM JR will then get back to his more congenial level of mentation, epithetically wondering if I was ever “young”. There is a method to the irrelevance here: he doesn’t like my frequent deployment of the descriptor “juvenile”. He’s an almost 70 year-old adult; if he doesn’t like the descriptor he might consider putting up a more “adult” level of material.
"Adult" As defined by who? You?
I'm telling you my experiences dealing with Doyle O.P.'s committees, I'ver met and dealt with them al:l Doyle; SNAP; VOTF; TMR; Jeff Anderson; Jason Berry.
I'm sharing with you my intelligence as a human being and every word I've, at times misspelled, is true.
I've been more inside this beast than anyone else here. I've always tried to be as an honest a person as I know how to be.
I accepted, at first, all these committees as they posed themselves to be: virtueous; but none of them rang true.
It took me and others, years to figure this sham out.
But the big light went on for me when I read Doyle's paper to the bishops and Fr. Econimus's one sentence analysis of Doyle's paper: That these secret committees funded by the church were created "…To control victims and their families".
There's the smoking gun that illuminates all the action by these groups that has purposely failed for victims and all the nonaction, the direction not taken, for victims that has never been allowed to be done.Thanks to these same groups. Likethe stupid crap we are arguing here. Are victims liars or aren't they? Total shit. Smoke screens. Ignoring those still injured and unaided.
On the 28th at 145PM JR will then seek to lead us further afield with an excursus on Orson Welles (correction supplied). Once again, there is a method to the glaring irrelevance here: Welles and Mozart produced a lot of great stuff when they were young / they were therefore “juvenile” (correction supplied) / therefore (we are supposed to ‘logically’ conclude) I am not like them because they were “good” (scream caps omitted).
And that stupefying bit is then followed by another retreat to the mere assertion that he is telling the truth here. And we’ve been all around the garden on that bit already.
And the prior stupefying bit is then followed by another stupefying bit: JR will “hold me to the same standard” … as – whom? Mozart and Welles? I think it would do him more good to hold himself to some standards before he tries anything else. Rationality, coherence, credibility, even perhaps maturity … those are some nice standards he might try for.
"Around the garden"???? "Around the garden" !!!! What is this? the language of the Civil War era? Well spelt but irrellevant?
Do you walk around your "garden" in the convent Sister Scum? Picking nosegays and pineing for a beau?
On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 145PM:
He opens with an epithet about my “infantile mind” that readers may consider, perhaps with any popcorn and soda that might be handy.
And the question in which that epithetical bit is wrapped is to the effect that he cawn’t see how with my “infantile mind” I “would have any concept of reality” at all. Given his own rather vividly demonstrated difficulties with “reality”, readers can consider his question as they may.
And he goes on riffing in that vein for another sentence or so, trying to dismiss my thoughts as “childish speculation, or just outright lies” (he doesn’t bother to identify or accurately quote any such “lies”, however).
After that opening trumpet blatt, he will – the Wig of Exasperated Knowledge and Rational Adulthood – “repeat one more time” his usual stuff.
He quotes – predictably – MT 18:6 about those who lead children astray better to have millstones hung around their neck and so on. But what the pericope does not say, and cannot be claimed to support, is the assertion that a) any such sin is unforgivable by God or that b) any such sinners are excluded from any prospect of God’s grace and forgiveness.
But neither (a) nor (b) are in the pericope; they are, rather and merely, add-ons reflecting the convenience and predilection of ‘Dan’s own dark and twisty perturbations, presented manipulatively and inaccurately as if they were divinely and Scripturally sourced and warranted.
p,p,p, If I have to explain to you how having a 1,750 lb. cement block hung from your neck and thrown into the deepest, darkest sea, is God's metaphor for complete and final condemnation, devoid of grace or forgiveness, then I must say that I'm at a loss of words for explaining anything, let alone scripture for you. And you have the audacity to claim that I'm not quoting scripture properly. Keep adding to your list of lies, mocker.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 145PM:
Thus ‘Dan’ appears to have a very serious problem interpreting Scripture without deforming it through the lens of his own profoundly problematic personal predilections and perturbations.
I seek to “impress” no one. I put my points forward with as much complexity and nuance as they require in order to convey the complexity and the seriousness of the points and the problems and issues they seek to address. None of which is congenial to a cartoon-mentality seeking to create its own ‘reality’ and then trying to pass of that ‘reality’ as if it were the Word and Will of God.
Although I prefer not to go correcting everyone's mispellings or typos, including yours, in this case I didn't want readers to be confused. You misspelled "nuance". You meant to write that your a utter nuisance, which does have a very different meaning. As far as the "complexity" of your material, if your talking about how you go out of your way to try to confuse, trick, manipulate and deceive the truth, I guess the illiterate might consider your material to be complex. In my God's opinion, as you have already realized would also be mine, we just plain consider your "complexity" as simply the lies of a liar. Readers may consider as they will. Mock on, little twit.
You earlier said, "(he doesn't bother to identify or accurately quote any such 'lies', however)". Where would I start? That's almost like asking me to list the number of child rapists and perverts in your cult. I guess you can start by checking out my post on 1/28 @ 11:22pm, cause I'm tired of repeating and explaining things for your simple mind to comprehend, including scripture. You have truly become a nuisance extraodinaire. Let me repeat ,that you might understand. Mock on, little twit.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 145PM:
As to ‘Dan’s opinions as to whether the Church dealt well with accused priests as sinners – especially in light of the fact that he tries to telescope the first level into the third level (although accusation does not equal proof of guilt) – … readers may consider the weight and value of his assessment here as they will.
As to what constitutes “some of the worst of God’s moral code”: i) readers may consider just what “the worst of God’s moral code” might be and ii) accusation does not constitute proof of guilt – an utterly foundational principle in Western law (greatly influenced centuries ago by the pre-existing canon law of the Church) that has to be eliminated if Victimist law is to succeed.
If ‘Dan’ doesn’t like to be ‘mocked’, he might consider not putting up such mock-able material. I would only be ‘mocking God’ if we presumed – as ‘Dan’ would have us presume – that his material is an accurate and authoritative representation of God’s Word and Will. And from what I’ve seen from him on this site so far, that is an utterly un-embraceable presumption indeed.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 145PM:
He concludes with a broadcast Sermonette on the Mount to “any Catholics or Christians” (capitals supplied) and no doubt to Mr. and Mrs. America and all the ships at sea (as Walter Winchell would have put it): he attempts here to claim that his own perturbed bits are of equal authority and validity and legitimacy as the Scriptural pericopes in which he wraps them. Neat and sly, but such an equivalence does not exist in any reality except ‘Dan’s own personal reality, consoling as that ‘reality’ must be for him.
And he departs the stage once again muttering low guttural threats on behalf of (a, the, some, any, his) deity.
Refreshments are available in the lobby.
God shmod! More smoke.
The Reformation is to be refought, here and now? How is any of this crap relevant?
The real battle here is between Bullshit P and Bullshit TMR and the damaged victims of clerical rape. On one side are the raped and on the other side is the smoke machine.
Walter Wiinchell!!!!! Wow! (Au currant you ain't.)
Civil War Era prose skipping to mid 20th century gossip columnists?
You must be much closer to death than even I am, Gramps.
No wonder you think me "juvenile".
You're over 150 years old.
Thought it would be nice to kill 2 birds with one stone, maybe that way I'll only be wasting half of my time. This is for 'God shmod Jim' and heathen mocker peewee.
"So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself judged by no one. For who has understood the mind of the lord so as to instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2: 11-14
May those who have received the gifts of the Spirit, to understand the treasures of the One and Only Almighty God, come to know through His Son, His peace, love and forgiveness.
"Thou shalt not kill" Sayeth the Lord. That includes 2 birds with one stone. :^)
Ever read any other books?
In regard to JR (the 29th at 1146AM) and the “secret committee)” issue: Readers may note that JR doesn’t provide any quotation or even the reference to any particular paragraph in the text of the 1985 Proposal that might support his assertion.
Instead, he simply proffers – as so very often – his own spin and we are apparently supposed to take that as all the proof that is necessary for the accuracy of his claim.
He also – and who can really be surprised? – now claims that his use of quotation marks was not intended to convey a direct quotation, but merely … for some other purpose of his own. This vivid little display of his goes directly to my concern for grammar and the usage of language generally among Abuseniks: when the language isn’t used properly, then the ideas are not expressed clearly and accurately.
Which – come to think of it – might be the Abusenik objective in the first place, and may always have been the Abusenik objective in the first place. And on that basis, we may consider again their various stories, claims, assertions and allegations.
In regard to the “status” issue, JR (the 29th at 1052AM) will now don the Wig of Pious Outraged Dignity to claim that he “always has had status”. This is in response to my observation that “status” is a benny of the Stampede for him. As to his pre-Stampede “status”, I’m sure he has made it into this or that file in various venues, but nothing as heroic and truthy as being – as far as he can tell – one of the only Tribunes of Victims around.
But let us – for the purposes of discussion – take his self-declaration at face value and assume that he is indeed not “heroic” but only “an exposer of sham … [and] of fake ‘information’”. Readers may consider whether he has succeeded; and whether he might best be advised to take his campaign to the bathroom mirror.
In regard to JR’s of the 29th at 1119AM in regard to the “maturity” issue: Readers may review his comments here, even if only the most recent few threads, and then consider that they are the product of an almost-70 year-old mind that considers itself quite sufficiently “mature”.
Little then remains to be said; it remains for any reader so inclined to imagine the further quality of that mind. Once again, we are confronted with JR’s habitual conflation of his own personal and conveniently-constructed ‘reality’ and its relation (or lack of it) to any actual ‘reality’.
Hey! I just turned 69 last week don't push 70 on me yet. I've got to warm up to that number.
Continuing with my thoughts on the JR comment of the 29th at 1119AM:
JR then will fall back – and have us rely – merely on his own assertions as to his experiences. Readers – by now familiar with his material – may consider the reliability of those assertions.
In his next paragraph he will then – and rather slyly – burnish what even he might realize is a dubious gambit in his immediately prior paragraph: he will go for the emotional manipulation: he is “sharing” – doncha see? – and only a sociopath would disbelieve somebody who is “sharing”. By playing on this particular element in human nature – floridly over-developed in contemporary society – he demonstrates precisely the type of genuine sociopathic scheme: manipulatively play on people’s presumptive belief in order to lubricate one’s own plans and agendas.
JR then claims that on this site he has “always tried to be as an honest a person as I know how to be”. Let us – for the purposes of discussion – take that assertion at face value: what, then, does it say about how “honest” it really is that JR knows how to be?
Continuing with my thoughts on the JR comment of the 29th at 1119AM:
To what “committees”, precisely, does he refer, such that he has sufficient working knowledge of them that he knows them to have only “posed” being virtuous? Was he a staffer on these “secret committees”? Presuming – from the grammar and context here – that he is referring to those “secret committees” (allegedly) set up by the Bishops, how did he gain entrée to them at all?
And if – in the alternative – he refers only to the assorted victimist front-organizations, then while they may surely be characterized as “posing”, they are far more probably fronts for the torties, not – as in his cartoon – for the Church.
And – with these suddenly-revealed “others” – did it take him “years” to “figure this sham out” or to construct his cartoon-theory of their being master-minded by the Church?
Say what?
Continuing with my thoughts on the JR comment of the 29th at 1119AM:
But then but then but then: he now claims – and one has to follow the purported time-line here – that it all came together for him … in 1985 when he read Doyle’s Proposal (the text of which, in regard to the “secret committees” bit, he now seems unable to locate or unwilling to actually quote).
Oh, and he also read a “Fr. Economus”, a writer who – if memory serves from the first time we went round the garden on this – published on a Vatican-as-Satanic site quite some years ago.
One also quickly realizes the head-we-win, tails-the-Church-loses game the Abuseniks have been playing: if the Church set up a committee to deal with the allegations, it was trying to “control victims” (and we also see here the slyly manipulative presumption that allegants are “victims”); if the Church didn’t set up any sort of organizational instrument to deal with the allegations then … what? It was trying to cover up or ignore “victims”. Neat game.
“There … “, declares JR, is “the smoking gun”. What is the “smoking gun”? But this vaguely defined “smoking gun” just happens to conveniently ‘illuminate’ “all the action”. This dynamic recalls vividly the Bass-Davis deployment I discussed in a prior comment on this thread: once you can imagine you were abused – even if there’s no evidence at all of it – then all you’re problems are explained and you now have somebody to blame for all your problems.
He will then go on against all the various “groups” (meaning the front-groups for the torties) as if they were demonstrably tools of the Church, working in the heart-tugging manipulative emotional bits, and we’ve seen all of it before.
Your memory serves you zip.
Fr. Econimus was dead when "published" on one wacko satanic bull shit site (So very much like this one. One more fr. Tom Doyle committee, no doubt).
The church always and only uses the "devil" for it's benefit.
Fr. Econimus tells the truth so smear him after his death by posting his accurate info on a satan site. Smear accomplished.
I'm reminded of the huge mosaic devil head in the babtistry in Florence Italy. There the imaginary Satan was used to scare real people into obedience to the church. The Devil's the church's best friend. All the churchs not just Catholics. Keep'em frightened. Keep "em paying.
The cover up just keeps on covering up. Never a logical answer from P only SMEAR and SMOKE.
On the 29th at 1128AM JR will try to blow more distracting smoke by trying to set up the following cartoon spin: it all revolves around myself and TMR trying to blow smoke on the one side, and – says the heroic and truthy exposer – “the damaged victims of clerical rape” on the other hand.
As to trying to determine the accuracy and thus relevance and legitimacy of his latter characterization here, he can’t see the relevance of any of it.
But of course.
And this current crop has a couple of more comments in his usual style of epithetical ‘humor’, going on about my use of this or that phrase and my age. The usual efforts at distraction, but perhaps coming from a mind easily distracted.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1122PM:
The self-declared (-appointed … ?) Servant of God and/or Truth doth open with a juvenile epithet, only mildly scatological. Thus saith Dan’s ‘god’ indeed.
He then tries to change his story: he now claims he was never “arrested and convicted”, although he had initially claimed on a prior thread that he was convicted of a “misdemeanor” (which would require an arrest) and if this new story of his is true, then it remains to be explained how he got before a judge and on what authority the judge then had him “sent” for psychiatric observation. Several times. Such Truth it must be that ‘doth serve.
Whether ‘Dan’ delivering his customary Sermonette on the Mount to the children in the schoolyard is to be taken as a ‘harangue’ or as a marvelous and grace-filled demonstration of God working in the world through His Servants … readers may consider for themselves.
And if the staffers didn’t come over, or didn’t ask him to stop, then who called the police and on what basis was he taken before a judge who then sent him for psychiatric observation?
On top of all of which, ‘Dan’ then claims that the basis for his being “sent to a mental hospital” was “the lies of 4 thug hypocrits” (sic). But then – who were these “4 thug hypocrites”? And what “lies” did they tell about him that a) convinced the police to take him before a judge (which requires arrest) and b) convinced the judge to convict him of a misdemeanor on the basis of which c) the judge then had him sent to a mental hospital and d) this happened several times … ?
As we can see, Abusenik stories tend to become rather dubious indeed as they go on, and this is apparently doubly so for self-proclaimed ‘Servants’ of God or Truth or both or fill-in-the-blank.
There was NO misdemeanor charge in this case.
There was NO conviction because there was NO charge.
There was NO judge because there was NO charge and NO conviction.
There were 4 catholic thug liars, who falsely accused me of threatening and saying dirty things to the children.
In every case, including the ones that were misdemeanors, catholic lying clergy or staff falsely accused me, because like yourself they hate God, Truth and anyone exposing their greedy, lying organization of child rapists, perverts, abusers, molesters and evil, wicked men and women, and their lying, excusing enablers. Just say ten hail marys to your false god, "queen of hell" and she'll grant you mercy, grace and forgiveness. Wake up, catholics.
"But evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving [fooling] others but being themselves deceived [fools]". 2 Tim 3:13
The prior thread your referring to is 1/5 @ 7:17pm and reads "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 unless the "4 catholic lying thug hypocrites" crossdress as "priests and nuns" after schools out, which is the basis of your accusing me of changing my story, I believe this to be an addition to your many lies. Don't get me wrong, I believe that your church staff is capable of crossdressers, seeing that there are countless other creeps in your cult. So there we have it. All your gross accusations, insinuations and lies against me, turns out that the true servant really is true and loves truth. You on the other hand, hanging, excusing, and agreeing with a bunch of perverts and liars, of which you might possibly be both, seeing that at the very least you're a perverter of truth, think everyone outside your cult is as corrupt as you and your cronies.
My daily quote, "Liar, liar, pants on fire, cowardly peewee might have to crossdress into his priestly vestments and don't forget your habit and white wimple, wimpee."
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1122PM:
The Servant then delivers himself of more epithet (“You are a total jackass …” and so on), as if that might fortify his already incoherent re-construction of his story.
And through the wonders of clinical projection he deploys the phrase “sick lying mind” and readers may consider it as they will.
And the Servant concludes the service with more epithet.
I would assume that since I was able to debunk your theory of the "incoherent re-construction of his story", you might be more willing to accept the fact that "You are a total jackass" and let me add "mentally deranged" as you falsely accuse me of being. Madame Jackass may want to look into another profession, cause you suck at psychic evaluations and just about everything else I've heard spewing from your forked tongue. Servant Dan
On the 30th at 1238PM JR asks – as if we had just begun here – why I must “discount all victims who post here?”.
My answer:
First, because I am not convinced of the stories that I have read here, as I have explained at great length here for a period of years.
Second, because I am convinced that the probability of substantial non-veracity is very high, for the numerous reasons I have explained at great length here for a period of years.
JR tries to cast his question in a what’s-in-it-for-you form, as if I were going to derive from benefit from the questions I have raised and explained.
Well, I do derive some benefit: I feel a certain satisfaction by raising questions where questions seem warranted in matters of great import where there is great probability of misconception and deception.
JR then tries to sidle by his “secret committees” bit by simply whining – again – that he doth “tell [me, us] the truth about these committees and who founded them”. But – of course – he hasn’t done any such thing, as I have pointed out and explained on this thread.
JR then tries to reduce my questioning to merely a matter of belief (“You don’t believe me”). But I don’t believe because I am not persuaded, and I am not persuaded because I find so much questionable in his material, as I have explained at great length here for a period of years.
But this is the Abusenik scam: you don’t need evidence or proof or even reasonable grounds of probability; you only need ‘belief’ and if you don’t believe ‘victims’ then you must be a sociopath.
Which is as good an example of circular reasoning as you are going to run into on the Web or anywhere else.
And then suddenly the Wig of Righteous Whine is suddenly cast aside, and we get epithet and scatology.
Of course.
Now to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 150PM:
Before I make comment, I am reproducing here the text of ‘Dan’s comment on this site dated the 23rd of November, 2015, at 1219PM:
“Someone had asked if I was equally upset about falsely accused priests. Absolutely, but not sure about equally upset, because child molesting is a horrendous crime. But yes, being falsely accused is terribly unfair and brings unfair doubt to valid accusers(victims) cases. I’m speaking from experience because Catholic clergy and laity have laid upon me terrible accusations that were completely false. They lied and claimed I wanted to kill them. Said I trespassed when I didn’t. Threatened me and then put that charge on me. Four thug cowards, of the church of my youth, jumped me from behind because I had a beautiful, prophetic message to the school children. Two weeks later reported this to the vacationing principle, and she said the thugs were accusing me of saying dirty things to the children. Lies, on top of lies, backed by more lies. Been called by church clergy and members, Satan, devil, crazy, pervert, child molester, threatened and cursed several times and called every other rotten, vulgar name in the book. On false accusations, been thrown in jail 6 times and in mental institutions 6 more times times. Paid restitution for accusations that were absolute lies and forced to plead guilty if I didn’t want to spend more jail time. My only crime was speaking to lost souls about the bible and speaking out about the crimes of the church and exposing them. No Publion, I don’t need proof to prove it. I lived it and do have plenty of proof. When confronted they admitted to the police that they were lying but I received the information from the courts 6 months later, after being forced to plea guilty and pay the fine. Corrupt, corrupt, did I happen to mention CORRUPT.”
Having read ‘Dan’s comment of the 23rd of November at 1219PM, readers may quickly see that:
He has been “thrown in jail” – which requires arrest.
He has been sent to mental institutions – which requires the power of a judge.
All this has happened six times.
He has “paid restitution” – which requires the power of a judge and some sort of conviction.
He has pled “guilty” on at least one occasion and has “paid a fine”.
In his present comment, ‘Dan’ then – with no apparent notice of the glaring incoherence and self-contradiction that his statement creates – refers to “misdemeanors”, which is a class of criminal charge.
Readers may consider as they will the secondary material in his present comment here, in which ‘Dan’ puts his preferred spin on the actual facts.
Thus the Servant of God and/or Truth.
‘Dan’s comment of the 30th at 627PM is thus undermined by both his presumption that he has “debunked” my points and by the text of his own comment of two months ago.
I stand by all my material in this matter.
Readers are welcome to consider and judge as they will.
And “the Servant” concludes with assorted epithet both juvenile and gender-bendy.
We proceed then to the Servant’s of the 29th at 235AM:
He opens the service with a gender-bendy epithet – and now we are getting into familiar Abusenik territory indeed.
Like so many who manipulatively pose, he cawn’t imagine that anyone could “know all about” him. Alas, certain diagnostic elements are common to certain afflictions. Nor do I claim to “know all about” him; it’s just those characteristic bits that reveal those certain elements. And those elements will certainly drive the afflicted’s “needs and purposes”.
He asks what those “needs and purposes” might be. Since he asked, I will venture a response. My primary purpose in making this response is to demonstrate just how personal issues can get mixed up in the Stampede.
My response to ‘Dan’s question: To somehow compensate for assorted real or feared personal characteristics by assuming the authority of some (preferably) unassailable authority; some wind up convinced they are Napoleon; ‘Dan’ has assigned himself the 007-warrant of being some sort of Servant of God and/or Truth – thus, to not-accept ‘Dan’s stuff is to not-accept and to “mock” his adopted Authority, in this case, God.
Let me start with an observation, that you could talk and lie the hair off a chinchilla.
I'm done with your stupidity. They were all "false accusations and lies", so it wouldn't matter what consequences I had to suffer. "Now if we are children, then we are heirs– heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." Romans 8:17 Thank You for adding to my sufferings, for you have shown yourself to be a royal pain in the ass. You think if I truly was a criminal, I would be stupid enough to feed fodder to a jackass, p. All the incidents fulfilled Matthew 5 v.10-12. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You don't know how to comprehend, interpret or understand Biblical truth, you only know how to mock it, along with God and His chosen.
Wish everyone else the best in your search for truth in your life. Hope it will bring you to a place of peace, hope and happiness, but most especially, love. Sincerely, Dan