See no evil: Philadelphia Inquirer editor-in-chief Bill Marimow
One would think that the scandal of a drug-addled Philadelphia man making false abuse accusations against multiple Catholic priests – all of whom were convicted and landed in prison, where one has already died – would merit at least a tiny mention in Philly's newspaper of record, the Philadelphia Inquirer. Heck, it was noteworthy enough to merit a huge cover story in Newsweek magazine only a couple weeks ago.
And indeed during the trials against these priests, the Inquirer gave wall-to-wall coverage with countless stories and hysterical headlines.
But the Inky's editor-in-chief, Bill Marimow, has made it clear that he has no interest in informing his readers about a fraud being perpetrated right in his own backyard against the Catholic Church.
[For readers unaware of the shocking story of the accuser's fraud against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, here is one place to start.]
Handing the Inky a story
Journalist Ralph Cipriano
"[Marimow and the Inquirer] are staunchly in the pocket of the prosecution, serving as the D.A.'s press office," says Cipriano.
Cipriano reports that back in October 2014, he emailed Marimow with a "no strings attached" offer to give the Inquirer all of the grand jury transcripts and police files from the Philadelphia Church sex abuse cases that he had in his possession.
He even added that the Inquirer "could conduct their own investigation of the investigation of the church, and that grand jury report, and come to their own conclusions. It would have been a public service for the region, and for justice."
But Marimow had no interest in the story, showing a commitment to his own biases rather than the truth.
So while Marimow and the Inky fall over themselves to loudly trumpet each and every accusation against Catholic priests in Philadelphia from Church-suing contingency lawyers and careerist politicians – no matter how suspicious or flimsy – they staunchly refuse to acknowledge a false accusation even when they themselves have been party to promoting the fraud upon the public.
At the Inky, it seems, the truth is always second to its hatred of the Catholic Church.
On the 29th at 1215AM ‘Dan’ issues another threat to retire from the stage, and readers may consider it as they will. As usual, faced with far too many problems in his material, he resorts to the threat to retire from the boards and the footlights.
He continues that I apparently cannot and could never see that I was already “from the beginning told” that he was “falsely accused”.
Yes, I was “told” that, but the facts – as ‘Dan’ himself related them – clearly indicate another route for explaining the incident, i.e. that he chose to verbally accost children at a schoolyard fence and staffers became alarmed at his performance and attempted to stop him. (Whether the police and courts were involved in this specific instance – resulting in one of the “six jailings” and “six” judicially-mandated stays in a mental institution – or whether this schoolyard instance is a seventh that is not part of that “six” … is unclear since ‘Dan’s attempts at evasion under the guise of explanation have somewhat muddied the waters here.)
And – again through the wonders of clinical projection – ‘Dan’ introduces into every reader’s mind the probability of “sick and disgusting”, which seems hardly inappropriate here, all things considered.
I have in detail pointed out the many lies you have put on me. Now for the umteenth lie you add that I "choose to verbally accost children". You are again a lying, mocking, worthless, accomplice of Satan, and think you can fool people with your ridiculous vocabulary, that you know everything, including interpreting Scripture. Let me go back to where i started this conversation with you. "YOU ARE TRULY A LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND." servant
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1215AM:
Then, on the basis of the little cartoon he has constructed for himself thus far, ‘Dan’ reverts – had you been waittttttinggggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – to epithet.
And that would include the claim – as always, completely unsupported by specific example – that I have “added … lies”. (Short possible explanation: in ‘Dan’s cartoon world, anything he doesn’t want to hear or read must be “lies” – and, oooohhh, you’d better believe that.)
And while I would like to think – as he here asserts – that he has not successfully “manipulated” anyone “to believe something that wasn’t true”, I don’t think that it can be honestly claimed that he hasn’t tried to do so. After all, if he did not deploy his manipulated and manipulative efforts as we have seen them here, then he would have to face some seriously uncongenial actualities about himself.
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1215AM:
I am content to let readers judge as to whether I have “added nothing to the conversation” except for – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttt? – “the lies you have fabricated against me”. And what “lies” those might be, ‘Dan’ – of course – doesn’t care to explain.
Nor have I claimed to be “the [only?] one who can expose [his] misinterpretations of Biblical truth”. I have nowhere claimed to be “the one” or ‘the only one’ … anyone modestly educated in Scripture studies (from, say, a single course in college or simply willing to read up on exegetical praxis) could do the same.
And he is indeed well-advised to take to the bathroom mirror his advice from Ephesians 4:26: “Be angry but do not sin”. And he would be well-advised to read a bit further to verse 31: “All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice”.
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1215AM:
And indeed the entire section of Ephesians from 4:25 to 5:7 might be considered “community rules” as to how one’s anger can lead to sin if left unaddressed. ‘Dan’, instead, has constructed a ‘theology’ out of his (deep and variously fuelled) anger, and has weaponized Scripture to satisfy his angry purposes, which – in a hardly-surprising irony – has led him to play somewhat deviously with the actual truth as well, which can easily lead believers astray. Has all of this escaped him?
And in regard to his assertions as to unforgive-ableness, he is well-advised to try to reconcile verse 32 with his ‘theology’: “Be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ”. Had he missed those verses when constructing his cartoon exegesis here?
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1215AM:
Then – and again slyly – he does some preemptive work: apparently presuming that there are those who would not buy his cartoon exegeses, he doth pronounce and instruct that he doth “wish [them] well” if they “prefer to listen to” … and so on about my being a “persistant liar and mocker of everything that is the truth” (which in Dan-speak means ‘anything that Dan insists is the truth’).
And he concludes – yet again – with the histrionic request that I – for all practical purposes – “leave [him] out of” my comments. Not going to happen. If he posts his material here, and I see fit to comment, I shall.
But if he is also under the impression – as he says – that he is ‘defending himself’ with his assorted proffers here, then he yet again has missed the truth by a wide margin.
Thus then his one-liner drive-by of the 29th at 1155AM, utterly unexplained, as to my having “donned the Wig of Liar” remains yet another instance of the juvenile Abusenik gambit of I’m Not/You Are.
On then to his of the 29th at 1232AM:
Readers who have been following these exchanges may now notice that – once again – he clouds the already-muddied waters of his schoolyard-fence story: first he had said “thugs” as if there were now four more individuals involved in the scenario; then he claimed that those “thugs” were actually the school-staffers; now he sarcastically (and distractingly, slyly) suggests that we consider that the “four, cowardly catholic thugs were all nuns” … the relevance and coherence of which suggestion readers may attempt to suss out for themselves.
As best can be inferred, the four were school-staffers, and we don’t know just how violent and aggressive ‘Dan’ had become, so if they did attempt to restrain him that would be an interesting possibility indeed. Or perhaps this bit is merely another one of ‘Dan’s outré irrelevancies that he deploys when he is trying to evade the consequences of his own actions and of his own reports of his actions.
Oh, and he concludes with an epithet that once again weirdly but revealingly evokes a child-like environment, as do so many of his epithetical proffers.
On the 29th at 1223PM ‘Dan’ will simply try to lard on more epithet to back up his mere assertion as to “how wrong” I am.
And borrows – who can be surprised? – JR’s signature bit about “sociopathic”, but then can’t really go too far with that and he instead yields to the childish impulse to simply play on the words (yielding “socio-pathetic”, another epithet).
But again – through the wonders of clinical projection – he describes himself in trying to attack me: I do “question and analyze” (with the results from this or that “opponent” that are now in the record here). It is precisely ‘Dan’ who seeks to impose “false assumptions in order to assassinate … character”, although in the Dan-verse, he does not seek to assassinate an individual’s character, but rather an entire Church and all its believers (or at least all of those believers who don’t go along with and believe his attempted impositions).
As for the uncongenial possibilities about his own “character” that arise inherently from his own material, ‘Dan’ seems not to see any problems there except that he is being ‘lied about’.
And he concludes this bit by – once again – trying to deploy the now too-familiar Abusenik gambit of I’m Not/You Are.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1027AM:
‘Dan’ will now try to evade the consequences of his ‘theological’ position that a seared conscience is not an occasion for metanoia but rather for some form of (Scripturally-weaponized) utter condemnation.
He quotes 1 Timothy 4:2.
The pericope itself specifically refers (verse 1) to “the last times” – which, unless one wishes to subscribe to a fundamentalist-literalist tendency – have not yet arrived. It was written in a time of assorted heretical dissonances in the early Christian community, whereby some sought to introduce such Orientally-derived ideas as the utter evil of all created matter or the need for a perfect and withdrawn asceticism as the only proper Christian response to the world and its weaknesses.
"Such teachings come through 'HYPOCRITICAL LIARS', whose 'CONSCIENCES HAVE BEEN SEARED' as with a hot iron." 1 Timothy 4:2
Peewee, You really need to work on your scriptural pericopes exegeses jibberish, 'cause I have no idea where your off the wall interpretation came from (i.e. Oriental derived ideas). Take a simple look at the first half of the following sentence (1 Timothy 4:3), and a third grader can figure out who the verse is pertaining to. "They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods." 1 Tim 4:3 Your cult forbids hierarchy, priests and nuns from marriage and have made rules about eating certain foods during lent or on Fridays. It's most definitely talking about you and your cult's practices, so in context 1 Tim 4:2 is describing the both of you. Man, you make correcting you as easy as 'shooting fish in a barrel'.
Maybe your not "anyone modestly versed in Scripture studies" or haven't had " a single course in college or simply willing to read up on exegetical praxis", so I'll try to go easy on you. I just thought with all the Bible lessons I've been giving you, that you might have learned something about explaining scripture by now. Too bad I'm not like false churches and charging fees for my teachings. Utter con artists, charging for their false teachings and lies. Dan, unpaid servant of the One and Only True God
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1027AM:
Thus the “hypocrites” would be those who saw evil everywhere around them … but not in themselves (thus exhibiting a ‘false asceticism’ since no amount of withdrawal and ‘perfection’ can free a human being from the burden of sin and thus total withdrawal from the world in order to establish one’s lack of sinfulness or one’s ‘perfection’ is a life-stance doomed to fail).
In any case, a conscience “seared as with a hot iron” would result from those who present themselves as perfect and without sin or blemish. And the more accurate translation would be “branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron”.
None of which actually works for ‘Dan’s present purposes (and indeed, might be seen to work precisely against his position).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1027AM:
But then – slyly as ever – ‘Dan’ will simply move on from the vivid (but not quite relevant to his purposes) image, and indulge in the spin he seeks to impose: and that preferred spin is – by amazing coincidence – that I am “a habitual liar” because my interpretation is “the complete opposite of what is truth” (translation: in the Dan-verse, “truth” means whatever ‘Dan’ wants it to mean and whatever he says it is).
Oh, and I am “the devil’s accomplice”.
And thus ‘Dan’ quickly plops on the Wig of Truth and Servant-hood to implore people to simply believe him. (And – might it be added? – not their own lying eyes or their own minds.)
Thus endeth the lesson or the service –or the show, as the reader may think best.
A couple of the usual suspects have put up comments about the ‘Spotlight’ film winning an Oscar.
Since I expect DP is going to put up an article and open a thread on the subject, I will refrain from making any comments until he puts that up.
"I will refrain from making comments". Yeah! Like that will ever happen. How will we survive, "waiting in anticipation" for your lies, false accusations and spin on the matter.
"SUSPECTS"????????????????? SCREW YOU! You are the only one suspect around here.
Look at all the smoke you blow. No real issues only smoke. You are a fraud.
That's criminal to call people the "usual suspects" because they rightfully disagree with all your cult's excuses and lies. Not suprising coming from you, but a better description of your suspect material and misinterpretations of obvious Scripture verses. servant
Following ‘Dan’s comments at this point is valuable only to demonstrate just how far sunk in his cartoons and evasions he actually is.
On the 29th at 1022PM he will bray that he has indeed “in detail pointed out the many lies you have put on me”. But he hasn’t. He has simply claimed that the points that are inherent in his own material are “lies” but doesn’t at all demonstrate how they are not or cannot-possibly-be true. Indeed, much of his material here supports the possibility and even probability that the material inherent in his proffers is indeed true.
They're lies because I know what transpired. Stop acting so childishly stupid. It is immature and ignorance, but I imagine it will continue.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1022PM:
If an adult walks up to a schoolyard fence (and specifically at recess or some other time when the children are out in the schoolyard) and then starts delivering to them the type of presentation we have seen from ‘Dan’ here (or for that matter starts up an exchange with them at all in the first place), then that very scenario is indeed characterizable as ‘choosing’ “to verbally accost children”. And the fact that the staffers were sufficiently alarmed – and even drawn to the exchange down by the fence in the first place – further supports that characterization.
And then he merely falls back onto his usual epithets.
And clearly he does not see that having appointed himself (Himself?) a Special Agent or Servant of (a, some, any, his, the) divinity does not strike him as being ‘a legend in his own mind’.
Your 'hilariass'!!! You were there, so you know how the whole "scenario" went down. So keep adding to your stupid lies and mockery and keep following "deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons", Satan's little helper. servant Dan
On then to his remarks about his chosen pericope of 1 Tim 4:2 (the 29th at 1131PM):
He opens by quoting his favorite part again.
Then (passing over the queasily childish epithet) he simply plops himself into a swampy pool of more epithet to the effect that I don’t really know Scripture.
And he bases that assertion on the fact that – had you been waittttingggg forrrrrrr itttttt? – he doth “have no idea where [my] off-the-wall interpretation comes from”. In other words, since ‘Dan’ – who, we recall, long ago was instructed by ‘god’ not to read books – has no knowledge of something, then that something cannot possibly exist (and any discussion of it, no doubt, is merely more “lies”).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1131PM:
He will then try his own hand at referring to the text of a pericope to explain his asserted interpretation: Since the text (at verse 4) says “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods” then this clearly refers to the Church (i.e. “your cult”) since a) the Church forbids nuns and priests to marry and b) the Church made various fasting rules for Lent and so on.
His effort here faces several problems:
First, there were no “nuns and priests” in the era that the Letter was written.
Second, the text specifically refers to “they” (i.e. those Eastern religious types whose presence or existence ‘Dan’ knows nothing about) who “forbid people” to marry; this “people” is clearly not any specific religious “priests and nuns” (who did not in that era exist as such) and that “they” could not refer to the Church, which in that era did not exist as such, but rather existed in the more primitive state as being the early Christian community presided over by the Apostles and Disciples.
First off, the verse your quoting is verse 3 not 4. You know, how I taught you last week your little ABC's and 1,2,3's. You see 3 comes after 2 and your quoting 1 Tim 4:3. "They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods."
Your effort to twist truth "faces several problems". a) You have a serious problem understanding God's prophetic word, and if the Lord has closed your eyes and ears to that fact, then you most likely will not get my explanation. b) 1 Tim 4:1 reads, "The Spirit clearly says that in last, [later or latter], times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." There you go, Paul wasn't speaking in regards to the present time, but sometime in the future, or last times. c) So my statement would most definitely apply to your false church and it's false teachings, forbidding marriage and abstaining from certain foods, (lent).
And since you bring up the point that " 'priests and nuns' (who did not in that era exist as such)" and "Ditto, then the fasting rules for lent, which did not exist for centuries after the Letter was written." You are proving the fact that your cult never has followed the teachings of the early church, Christ's, His Apostle's or Paul's teachings, which were from God, the only Father. And Peter was in no way your first pope. Just more lies. Instead they "abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." "Such teachings come through 'HYPOCRITICAL LIARS', whose 'CONSCIENCES HAVE BEEN SEARED' as with a hot iron." 1 Tim 4:2 servant Dan
P.S. If this continues, I might have to charge you for my Scripture "exegeses". For everyone else, it is free. Schoolin' you is like shooting dead fish in a barrel.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1131PM:
Ditto, then the fasting rules for Lent, which did not exist for centuries after the Letter was written.
The prescriptions that that “they” embraced flowed from those Eastern-influenced persons who – as I had initially said – sought to achieve some sort of earthly ‘perfection’ by avoiding involvement in a material world that they presumed was utterly and thoroughly evil, a theological presumption that ran contrary to Genesis and the awareness of God’s abiding Grace even in the midst of historical sin and temptation.
The Church’s long-later imposition of celibacy and fasting rules were designed to help keep people focused on the Divine and Ultimate Realities amidst the temptations of this world, but the fundamental goodness of Creation as made and ever-accompanied by God was always the paramount belief.
"The Church's long-later imposition of celibacy and fasting rules were designed to help keep people, [hierarchy, priests and nuns], focused on the Divine and Ultimate realities" that they would succeed in housing and concealing the largest group of perverts, pedophiles and sexually immoral, greedy creeps, than any other faction on earth. And I'm not of the group that says if they would allow them to marry, then they might have normal sexual relationships. They would still be greedy, self-righteous hypocrits, idolaters and pious creeps and I don't believe any of that is conducive to ever being normal. Oh, did I forget blatant liars and mockers. Time you might want to become informed in Scripture, instead of promoting your own agenda of nonsensical jibberish. I suggest you might start by paying more attention to what the Bible says and putting down your books of fiction and fairy tales.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1131PM:
This is what happens when largely uninformed people, especially when sunk in their own present-day agendas, start trawling through Scripture texts looking for close contemporary historical references they can use as weapons for their own purposes.
Thus ‘Dan’s exhortation to merely “take a simple look” fails rather abysmally and clearly, since it is one thing to be “simple” and another thing to be grossly uninformed as to the historical realities surrounding the texts when they were written.
Which simply throws into ludicrous relief ‘Dan’s self-congratulatory crowing that “correcting [me] is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel”. As does his further riffing on “the Bible lessons I’ve been giving you”.
And he then – ever so slyly but hardly unsurprisingly – slides in that “unpaid” bit, as if I am being paid to do all this. And his reasoning that might underlie that accusation is … ?
I never accused or insinuated that you were being paid. If you are, seeing the material you present, I'd have to say someone deserves a refund. Another false accusation from publyin'.
Have long been curious about 'Dan's' self-bestowed title of "Servant of the Almighty". I think he said that God warned him against reading books?. But surely that would not include the Gospels?.
So perhaps I can fairly ask a question which does relate to the gospels. Does he remember the passage when Jesus said to Peter something about… that if Peter loved Him, then Peter should feed his sheep. I think he said it three times, so that it sank in.
By a remarkable co-incidence I was at mass on Sunday, and there was this priest feeding the sheep.. There was this priest, actually called Peter, giving communion to the flock (parishioners).
I understand that 'Dan' calls our Church a 'cult'. Well that 'cult' now has about one billion members, out of a world population of six billion. Now that is some cult?.
Incidentally what does 'Dan' actually do to justify his grandiose title of 'Servant of the Almighty'?. How many sheep is he feeding?
If I was feeding sheep the lies of your cult of hypocrits, then God would be better served if one might keep his mouth shut. Speaking in that regard, Malcolm, servant of the Almighty is a term of humility. Your mentor, Publyin', twisted it into what you now call a "grandiose title". Notice, most of the time it was spelled with a small s, unless at the beginning of a sentence or send-off. And that accusation I find odd, seeing that your hierarchy considers themselves as another Jesus Christ on earth. Utter blasphemy, let alone, though untrue, a truly "grandiose title". Maybe it's time you find a new mentor, like maybe Bible truth. In regards to your claim of one billion dumb sheep, let me quote a friend that says, "There's a lid for every garbage can." And this Bible passage will help prove that size means nothing.
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14
P.S. If you cared to notice, you would have seen that signing off servant was to bug peewee
Also Malcolm, when Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, He was talking about feeding them with the Word. He wasn't telling him to feed them food, let alone a cake in the form of a full moon. Didn't know your pagan cult worships the sun, moon and stars, besides false gods and goddesses. Take a good look at the monstrance. The worship of the sun or moon in the form of the host, held by a gold crescent moon and surrounded by a sunburst. Then check out the image of guadalupe, standing on a black crescent moon. Be careful of what information your being brainwashed with.
Hey Malcolm , I wanted to get back to you on this subject of you and others thinking I'm bragging about my place with God the Creator. I have a direct quote from Mary, Luke 1:47-48
"My spirit exults in God, my Savior, because he has looked favorably on his humble "servant".
If you read the whole prophetic message given to Mary, Luke 1:47-55, you'll find in just about every verse she is exalting "God my Savior". She calls herself His "humble servant", but boasts that He is mighty and He is mercy and merciful. So the humble servant of the Lord morphs from humility to "grandiose" according to your church's teachings.
Mary becomes Mother of God, Hail Mary, full of grace, Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope, gold crowned Queen of Heaven, Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin, sinless, Assumed into Heaven and Immaculately Conceived, etc.etc. All these "grandiose titles" were given to one of God's "humble servants" by the Catechism of the Catholic church, but you still claim you don't worship her. You call her co-redeemer and mediatrix, when the Bible says there is only one redeemer and one mediator, The Lord Jesus Christ. For this and many other reasons, I rightfully call your church a "cult", one of the worst cults to inhabit God's earth. They are most definitely anti-Bible, Antichrist and enemies of God the Father, and refuse to follow His Word. Sorry if that is rough, but sometimes the truth does hurt. So run from their heathen apostasy and read the Bible, live it and don't let Satan's workers fool you into thinking I'm some bad guy that hates Catholics. I can't stand that they teach their followers nothing but lies from the Prince of Darkness.
Publion, Got a God-gram today for you, but I will only give you the sentence that applies to you and your poor interpretations. If anyone else would like to hear the rest of God's beautiful message let me know. It's as good as the beautiful prophesy that was given to the children by the Lord. Otherwise, I'm getting the impression that I might be wasting my time and typing these for nothing. I'm not a very good typist and for me this is time consuming.
"I AM the Word of the world and My Word will always stay the same, and it does not matter how hard they try and change it, it cannot be done, ever." Thus saith the Lord