Journalist Ralph Cipriano continues the fight for justice and the falsely accused
During a confidential deposition over two full days in May and June 2014, Dan Gallagher – the Philadelphia native whose varying and preposterous tales of abuse as an altar boy in the late 1990s landed three Catholic priests and a school teacher in prison – stated more than 130 times that he could not remember some very basic facts about his claims.
That is just one of the many eye-popping new details appearing in this week's issue of Newsweek uncovered by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano, who continues to doggedly pursue the cause for justice for the wrongfully incarcerated men. (For those who are new to the Philly story, we suggest background here and here.)
Simply unreal
According to Cipriano, Gallagher stated in his deposition that he could not remember telling his doctors and drug counselors in the past that he had been:
- sexually abused by a friend at age 6;
- sexually abused by a neighbor at 6;
- sexually abused by a teacher at age 7;
- sexually molested at 6 (or 8) by an unknown assailant;
- sexually molested at 8 (or 9) by a friend; and
- sexually abused at 9 by a 14-year-old boy.
And Gallagher admitted at the deposition that none of these prior allegations were true.
[Note: Graphic descriptions of abuse accusations follow]
Dan Gallagher celebrating
with a stogie
In addition, when Gallagher was asked about whether he remembered telling a drug counselor that his hands were tied during an alleged sexual assault by a priest, Gallagher simply replied, "I really don't remember what I told him."
"Were your hands ever tied up during any of the sexual assaults?" the questioner asked.
"No," Gallagher replied.
Remember that these admissions are in addition to many other facts that Cipriano has already uncovered, which call into question Gallagher's claims, such as:
- Gallagher has admitted that he lied when he said he worked as a paramedic and a "professional surfer" (yes, a professional surfer from Philadelphia);
- Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even move forward with the case;
- An alternate juror even came forward after the trial in which Gallagher put two priests and a teacher in prison with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."
Scientific evidence
Yet in his deposition, the one story that Gallagher did obstinately stick to was his wild drama of being raped by two priests and a schoolteacher.
Oh, and Gallagher did admit to being a drug dealer and being arrested a half dozen times for drugs and retail theft. [Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record.]
And as far as the oft-heard claim from victim advocates and Church-suing lawyers that "memory lapses" from Gallagher stem from the trauma of his sexual abuse, Cipriano quotes Dr. James I. Hudson, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the director of the biological psychiatry laboratory at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, who declares:
"There is no legitimate scientific evidence that psychological trauma can cause the massive amount of inconsistencies and contradictions that is exhibited by Mr. Gallagher's reports of the allegations of sexual abuse."
Q.E.D.
And the Philly Inky remains silent
After Cipriano's second article about the case appeared last week in Newsweek – his first article was in January – TheMediaReport.com wrote to Philadelphia Inquirer Editor-in-chief Bill Marimow and other editors at the Inky to ask if there were any plans to finally expose this fraud to its readers in Philadelphia.
It would seem to be the least they could do after running scores and scores of front-page articles promoting Gallagher's dubious claims and giving free publicity to publicity-hound D.A. Seth Williams, who organized the witch hunt against the three priests and Catholic school teacher.
Not surprisingly, we have received no response.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1051PM:
He is partly right in his next sentence: my material is indeed prompted (or “spawned”, if you wish) by “some dark … mind”. But it is ‘Dan’s material from ‘Dan’s mind (and – we are supposed to presume – from the Mind of God as well).
And for the recoil to his further claim: ‘Dan’ is clearly “willing to say absolutely anything to demean and destroy” the “reputation” of the Church and Catholicism and Catholics.
But as for ‘Dan’s “reputation”: it is his own material, and the actions and words that have led to his numerous misadventures with police and courts and psychiatry, that constitute the abyssal problem for his “reputation”.
Then a string of epitheticals that includes myself and the devil and so on and so forth.
And the whole thing concludes with his favorite daydream: that one day all who “mock” him (or Him) will face God and – as Maude used to say – “God’ll getcha for that”. The sitcom continues.
Get it straight – It's the actions and inaction "of the church and catholicism and catholics" that has "destroy"ed the "reputation" of your cult, if there was any good "reputation" to begin with. Any words or quotes I have used to describe your cult, are only based on the truth regarding what you and others have done in destroying the church. May there soon come an end to their greed, idolatry, sexual lusts and lies.
On then to JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:
JR doesn’t go much for qualified surmises; he’s a ‘simple assertion’ kinda guy. That has worked so well for him, as, for example, in his own claims of ‘child-rape’.
Underlying this bit of his is this cartoonish script-dynamic: simple and honest and plain-spoken and liberal truth-teller vs. complex and (therefore) un-truthy and ‘conservative’ thinker and questioner.
And then a repetition of his insinuation that the Stampede doesn’t exist (rather, I ‘invented’ it) – and yet in all the instances where I have explained at length and in detail the Stampede’s dynamics on this site, JR has never proffered any rebuttal that would establish his insinuation as probable, let alone as indubitably accurate.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:
He then – as so often – tosses up his SNAP theory, only this time he slyly edits it: he merely describes what I have held all along: that SNAP indentured itself to Anderson and the torties as a front-organization.
He then tries to insinuate that I “recommend” Anderson. (No accurate quotation of mine establishing that is provided, but of course.)
And then quickly moves on to more of his ‘investigative logic’ chops with a series of questions. But these questions leave untouched my theorization (based on Michael D’Amato’s revelations) that Anderson saw the vital value of having a ‘victims’ front-organization as a feeder route, approached the failing SNAP in that coffee klatsch with Barbara Blaine, and made her that offer she chose not to refuse.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:
His series of “would have” presumptions remain merely that: presumptions.
I don’t know – and who does, really? – if ‘victims’ “love SNAP” and so forth. But if ‘victims’ (or, rather, allegants and prospective plaintiffs) sensed the possibilities of getting hooked-up with some torties who could parlay their allegations into a pile of cash (say, a million dollars instead of 12 or 17 thousand), then their attraction to SNAP – or rather to the torties to whom SNAP could provide access in a tasteful way – is clear.
And then he appears to verify the idea that the front-organization receives ‘donations’ (or, if you wish, kick-backs) from the torties whose purposes it serves. As for how much such allegant/plaintiffs donate to SNAP from their own swag, there is no evidence I can find. Leaving us with JR’s mere assertion, which hardly rises at this point to the level of persuasive and credible evidence at all.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:
He then declares the SNAP-tortie collusion to be “a façade; a fraud; a fake” and that has been my point all along.
But he then has to somehow try to continue taking a whack at his other target, the Church, and thus we are back to the non-existent “secret committees” … of which, we are now informed, “SNAP is first and foremost”. SNAP is a “secret”? And nothing from JR as to why SNAP, if it were indeed a vital cats’ paw of the Church, would be so financially strapped that Anderson could see his way to making his offer to Blaine and Blaine would accept.
Nor – to repeat yet again – have I ever suggested or ‘pretended’ that “SNAP works for victims”; it is a front for the torties, and has been since Blaine indentured SNAP to Anderson and the torties.
But JR has to keep ludicrously objecting to something I never said or propounded, in order to keep his personal Cartoon going.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:
The comment then descends into a rant comprised of familiar JR bits that has nothing to do with my actual position and readers may consider it all as they will.
Nor will I “defend that odd behavior” since I do not take and never have taken SNAP “at face value”.
JR’s real irritation here is that I have never taken his stuff “at face value” either, for reasons I have long and at length explained in detail.
On then to JR’s of the 4th at 953AM:
Here he tries to somehow head for the Victim-y high-ground and don the Wig of Outraged Victimhood:
He hides himself behind all “people who are victims of sex abuse as children” as if I had indicted all of them as being “at the bottom of a barrel”. I referred to JR’s material with that “bottom of a barrel” comment.
And it is also to be noted that he slyly refrains from his once-usual ‘child-rape’ trope and simply and slyly limits himself to “sex abuse as children”.
However, somehow he can’t refrain, even when the recoil – in light of the parsing of his own claimed ‘child rape’ – is so powerful: he then refers to “our rapists”. Readers can consider the veracity of that rhetorical gambit as they may.
And the tries to bring it all home with an “If I were you” threat. Again, oblivious to what “ideas” readers may form about him from his material and his performances here.
Then he circles back on the 4th at 1003AM:
I “debate Dan over religion”. No, I don’t. I am pointing out from ‘Dan’s own material just how little actual “religion” is in it, and just how much ‘Dan’s assorted and demonstrated infelicities govern his material and his performances here (and, from his own reports, elsewhere).
As to JR’s pious bleat about “compensating victims who deserve compensation”: once again, how determine if we are dealing with such persons as opposed to persons … otherwise classifiable? JR has proffered no way of making that determination. Rather, we are merely supposed to ‘believe’ the allegations and let the Ball Roll On from there.
So I am not trying to “distract” from the “compensation” issue. I am pointing out that there is no way anyone has come up with to legitimately demonstrate who deserves “compensation”.
It is JR who is always trying to “distract” and “blow smoke” in order to avoid and evade that abyssal and “real” problem at the heart of the Stampede. He would urge us just to “pretend” that all allegations are veracious and just let the Ball Roll On from there.
On the 3rd of April, on page 14 of its print edition, the Boston Herald ran an editorial entitled “A non-victim as ‘victim’”. (Which is especially significant since Boston was the font-site of the 2002 phase of the Stampede.)
The editorial deals with one “Jackie”, who – some readers may recall – was the U/VA student whose claim of being multiply-raped two year ago in a frat house “turned out to be a complete fabrication”.
She had told her story to both Rolling Stone and the Washington Post (that paper now presided over by that same Boston Globe editor who started the 2002 Phase of the Stampede to demonstrate he was “the new gunslinger on Main Street”).
Continuing with my comment of the 4th at PM:
Now Rolling Stone (which eventually retracted its article) is being sued by a U/VA dean who was cast as the evil and insensitive and cover-up enabler in Jackie’s story. That dean’s attorneys now want a deposition of Jackie as part of their lawsuit against Rolling Stone. Think of it! A chance to tell the story of one’s victimization on the record.
And under oath, this time.
And what do the ‘victim’s attorneys say? No way. Why? Because “Forcing her to revisit her sexual assault, and then the revictimization that took place after the Rolling Stone article came out, will inevitably lead to a worsening of her symptoms and current mental health”. (Had she herself not told her story to Rolling Stone and WaPo?)
As the editorial drily observes: Jackie’s attorneys “say that medical research confirmed that”.
Continuing with my comment of the 4th at 1251AM:
Apparently, Jackie’s attorneys had proposed that Jackie might “skip the deposition” and/or perhaps “’streamline’ her testimony” (meaning that she might leave out a whole lot of the allegation she had originally proffered as veracious). The dean’s attorneys have refused.
The issue is now before a judge in Virginia.
It is a sign of just how far Victimism has infiltrated the legal system that the judge has a range of legal options: requiring Jackie’s attorneys to engage experts “to testify on the chances of ‘revictimization’”; placing her deposition testimony “under seal”; and even requiring judicial permission before anything from the deposition can be introduced or even repeated in trial proceedings.
The editorial concludes that “allegations of campus sexual offenses need the most careful scrutiny”, that the dean deserves her day in court, and that the allegant (ex-‘victim’) here “should not be permitted to deny it to her” (the dean is a female).
We have now reached the point toward the bottom of his barrel where ‘Dan’ will deploy the most juvenile of gambits in order to have something to say (while, of course, evading any of the real issues on the table).
So on the 4th at 608PM he tries yet again to make it seem as if a characterization of his own material equals an approval of his own material.
I want to address the modicum of useful content without feeding the juvenile myah-myah dynamic.
In response to his question at the end of the first paragraph: I will continue to point out the problems with his material; the fact that his desperately clung-to Cartoon requires that anything he doesn’t want to hear is “lies” remains his problem and not mine.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 608PM:
In his second paragraph, he seeks to whistle-away the glaring truth-problems in his material by the further juvenile myah-myah bit that since I am a “blatant, habitual liar” (a comment which he deploys utterly oblivious to its recoil as a self-revelation through projection) then I couldn’t recognize truth anyway.
And he attempts – unsurprisingly, to anyone who has now realized the depth of his mental infelicities – to bolster that through a Scriptural quote that refers to “unbelievers”: the pericope refers to those who don’t believe in Christ, not those who don’t believe ‘Dan’s whackeries. But, of course, in the ‘Dan’-verse, ‘Dan’ and Christ are … (fill in the blank).
And I would say that some of his (carefully selected) quotes are indeed relevant … as revelatory of his (or His) own issues.
And he concludes, yet again, with his “ignorance” bit: in the ‘Dan’-verse, if you don’t believe his own non-veracious whackeries, which whackeries he presumes to be ‘truth’, then you are clearly “ignorant”. A neat little construction, designed to Keep The Cartoon Going, but built on the bed of sand that is his own web of infelicities.
This response is so full of misquotes and ridiculous statements, that I don't even feel a need to respond. Between you and Publiar, I don't know who's worse. My guess is Publiar, only because he spouts more ignorance and stupidity, and yet has this grand illusion of his own brilliance.
This previous comment was directed to Malcolm and at the same time is about all I have to respond to Publiar's nonsense, also. Nothing, just a waste of my time.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:
Here he simply tries to run another version of the I’m Not/You Are gambit: it is I who am “unable to comprehend anything that doesn’t line up with your illusion of your pure infallible church of hypocrites”, rather than – as I have been saying – he who is unable to handle anything he doesn’t want to hear and anything that threatens the personal Cartoon he has constructed for himself (or Himself).
But to do so he has to imagine that I have claimed that the Church is “pure” and “infallible”. He produces no accurate quotation from my material, and he cannot, since such a quotation does not exist in my material.
Rather, it is he who raised the point of infallibility in his comment of the 3rd at 542PM. And moreover, in that comment he specifically connected infallibility to what he characterizes as “harboring, hiding or excusing pedophile priests”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:
When I pointed out in my comment of the 4th at 404AM that no Pope has ever made an infallible declaration in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter then that point created a serious problem for his assertion.
So what does he do? He quickly tries to change the subject with his bit about “So no harm, no foul”, which bit makes no sense at all in regard to the point at issue and the comment I made.
That’s the nub of it here: he made an assertion, I pointed out that his assertion was not accurate, and all he did then was to try to change the subject.
And the remainder of his comment of the 4th at 1256PM is simply further evasive riffing, tossing in some of his predictable epithetical bits similar to what you can find on many a fundie website or similar precincts.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:
The mistake in ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ here is that he has – for his own rhetorical and epithetical and Cartoon purposes – set up the Church as a strawman that claims to be “pure” and “infallible” in all things.
Which is not anything that the Church has ever proclaimed about herself; all human beings (perhaps excepting ‘Dan’, in his own Cartoon) are liable to sin and all human beings can fail in living out their ideals and no human being lives a life in perfect conformity to his/her ideals and no human being perfectly ‘practices what s/he preaches’.
A doctor, for example, may fail in his/her Hippocratic Oath. Does that erase the validity of the ideals enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath? Does that undermine the validity of the practice and profession of medicine? Does that failure even necessarily utterly disqualify the errant doctor him/herself?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:
Again, and similar to the dynamics of the Stampede, ‘Dan’ is using the Church here as his personal piñata. Only his purpose is not to score some money and/or victim-y status but rather to project his own myriad personal issues onto the Church and thus preserve his personal Cartoon that it is not he with serious issues but rather the Church.
The Church certainly has issues. But – alas – so does ‘Dan’. And while the Church has taken serious and public steps to correct herself, ‘Dan’ remains tootling the same old tune: he is without error and anyone who points out otherwise simply “lies” and is “ignorant” of his (or His) marvelous stuff.
Readers may consider that as they will.
Truth and fact is the only thing of any importance-
1) The church should never claim, but still does, that they are the "moral authority" of the world. They are so plagued with immoral followers, but most especially among it's hierarchy.
2) For this very reason they should never claim "infallibility" in any thing they have to say.
3) You're under the impression that your church is filled with "believers in Christ". Idolaters, statue makers and worshippers- goddess worshippers burning incense to the "Queen of Heaven"- The greedy (wealthiest org. in the world)- deceivers and habitual liars- and mockers of God and His Holy Spirit- They can make claims that they are "believers in Christ", when truly they believe only in the one brutally crucified and mutilated, displayed as trophies in their temples. They make sure you know every step of how they punished Him, with the stations of the cross. "Belief in Christ" is just another of their lies.
4) I have never claimed to be without error, and have made every attempt to correct mistakes I've made, only for you to add more lies to my corrections.
5) "the church has taken serious and public steps to correct herself"- Are you kidding? First off, these horrific sins should never have been committed, by those leaders parading themselves as God's only true church. The church has done everything in it's power to conceal it's crimes, deceive, excuse and enable their criminals. All done, so they can protect their beautiful "reputation", and continues on this platform until today, fooling only themselves.
6) The Bible is full of scripture that your church disobeys, ignores or feels there is no need to follow, so long as you obey them, join in their pomp and circumstance, and feed their greed to pay for elaborate costumes and ceremonies, while they make ridiculous claims of being the church for the poor. Poor, dumb sheep followers. Need I say more?
Same old shit. New day. The smoke continues to blow.
Your popes; cardinals; and bishops all covered up sexual abuse of children and supported the abusers while at the same time they denigrated and automatically excommunicated any victims or our family members who told. You are still doing it. Right here. Blow your smoke. You fool no one.
**No you moron. Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people. **
You mean the catechism that teaches "THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON" and the Virtue of "CHARITY"? The same Catechism that probably forbids calling people "morons"?
**Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people. Fidelity to the Chair of Peter. Not a person enthroned who attempts to steer his people away from it.**
The call to "Fidelity"! It started with a few kook priests and Carol McKinley telling people not to follow them, but to follow the local ordinary (Cardinal Law) who carries the authority of Rome here in Boston.
Then they took away Cardinal Law..and replaced him with Bishop O'Malley. Carol Mckinley had high hopes, but soon found out that O'Malley wasn't to Carol's liking. Carol told people, he's only a Bishop…makes sure you are following a Price of the Church…a Cardinal! They are the only ones that carry the authority from Rome….not just any "Bishop".
Then, guess what? They made O'Malley a CARDINAL! (Just like CARDINAL Law! SO he must carry the authority of Rome to Boston, no?)
But…we quickly found out that even a Cardinal Archbishop….a "Prince of the Church" didn't have enough authority for Carol. Now, she claimed "Fidelity" to the Pope…not Bishops, not priests, not Pastors, not Cardinals.
THEN..The pope retires…and is replaced by another Pope. And quickly Carol McKinley finds out that possibly she has been wrong all along…and her claim of "Fidelity" as just a "cover" to follow only her own desires and really not submit to any authority. So much for "Fidelity", eh?
All this talk of "Fidelity"…had to change, because it became clear that she was only Faithful to her own thoughts and ideas. She had "Fidelity" to anyone that agreed with her. With all her blogging and busybody work, she realized onething…that, in effect…SHE wanted to be a pastor, a bishop, a cardinal…SHE wants to be the Pope! The arbiter of what is allowed, what isn't. Carol wants to be the disciplinarian! All this is at odds with someone who claims to follow Spiritual Authority and has "Fidelity".
So we have seen through the veneer of, so called, "Fidelity. (Notice the old "Magisterial Fidelity" blog has gone fallow.) We have already pointed out that this claim of fidelity to the Catechism is flawed as well, calling people names, etc., no talk of charity, respect or the worth of the individual The fidelity to the Catechism is only in effect when she agrees with it.
I don't see any indication that the Catechisms teaching of humility and pride are being adhered to. Do you?
I Think we've pointed out the fallacy of Carol McKinley's "Fidelity".
As far as Magisterial or the Magisterium, Carol here is a refresher course:
"In Catholicism, the Magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested UNIQUELY in the POPE and the BISHOPS who are in communion with him."
Sorry Charlie….err…Carol.
Get on thy knees and meditate of the teachings of Humility and Pride.
Billowing clouds of smoke.
The following comment concerning Daniel Gallagher may sound cynical. But I hope I will be forgiven… because have just been thinking about Fr. Engelhardt. The wrongfully convicted priest who died whilst handcuffed to a hospital bed. In a deposition that Daniel Gallagher made, in May and June 2014, he was asked about notes in the medical record of a drug clinic he had been admitted to. In particular that the notes said he had been employed as "a surf lifesaver". Danny could not remember saying that at all?. However he added that he would like to have been a surfer, but his drug addiction "sort of got in the way" Well I conclude that he has been a remarkable and exceptional surfer….because he has surfed the dark waves of bigotry, with such skill, that he collected prize-money of five million dollars. I doubt that any professional surfer in the world could boast that he earned so much money from just one event. I can only hope that one day Danny Gallagher is dumped by a really big wave.
On the 5th at 1153PM ‘Dan’ will attempt to wave away both my own (of the 5th at 1255AM) and ‘Malcolm Harris’s comments with the mere assertion that those comments are “so full of misquotes and ridiculous statements” that – alas and alack – poor ‘Dan’ just doesn’t “know who’s worse”.
No demonstrations of where I have made “misquotes” of any ‘Dan’ material, nor of just which comments of mine are “ridiculous”. But of course this is just smoke-blowing (as JR would say) which in old (pre-electronic era) naval tactics is what warships do when they are trying to retreat.
And – as usual – marvelously oblivious to the recoil, ‘Dan’ will try to toss as epithet the bit about “the grand illusion”, as if his personal Cartoon of himself (or Himself) and the Divine is something other than that.
And on the 5th at 1159PM ‘Dan’ further tries evasive tactics by simply sniffing that he need not respond to my “nonsense” since – doncha see? – it would be nothing but a “waste of [his] time”.
Which assertion he himself (or Himself) then undermines by putting up another comment ( the 6th at 237PM):
He opens with the solemn and sober Wig of Truthy Competence: “Truth and fact is the only thing of any importance” (sic).
Readers who have been keeping a chart of his zigs and zags might find themselves bemused.
What has he got to say? Let’s see.
His first point is neither a fact nor truthy. It is a “should” statement of ‘Dan’s own opinion.
And the Church does not claim herself to be “the ‘moral authority’ of the world” (italics mine; and perhaps ‘in’ the world is what he meant). The Church claims to be the divinely-instituted and Spirit-guided community of human beings who seek to follow the Gospel ideals (which, readers might quickly notice, immediately makes the Church a rival to ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself)).
Such “moral authority” as the Church might exert flows from the Spirit and Scripture as the Church tries to keep that flame alive (and again, one quickly sees how ‘Dan’ is going after what is clearly a ‘rival’ to his (or His) own personal Cartoon).
But the Church herself is composed of human beings and immersed in a human history and reality that is shot-through with imperfection and failure. As William of Ockham realized, salvation comes through intention – because no human being and no human institution could meet the standard of perfection-in-action. As Peter also understood when, reflecting on the enormity of Christ’s injunction, he asked Christ “who then can be saved?”. (In the ‘Dan’-verse, it is, rather, a matter of status: ‘Dan’ declares himself (or Himself) “Chosen” and that’s all there is to it.)
His second point is also not a “fact” but another of ‘Dan’s “should” assertions. And there are very few matters on which the Church has formally pronounced under the rare and special rubric of infallibility. Perhaps ‘Dan’ left the Church before reaching that point in catechism class. His own material, of course, is “without error” in matters of Scripture and what he likes to call his “prophecy”.
His third point, again, is neither truth nor fact.
He asserts that I am “under the impression that the Church is “filled with ‘believers in Christ’ when actually, according to Dan’s unsubstantiated assertion here, it is actually filled with “idolaters, statue-makers, and … goddess-worshippers” (referring to Mary). You can find this stuff in any fundie tract or on any fundie site, and ‘Dan’ is particularly fond of the Mary-as-goddess bit, which he has used here many times. That Mary is not held to be divine in Catholic teaching deflects ‘Dan’ not a bit here; and his scheduled plop-tossing continues.
But as usual, what he’s really on about is that the Church is filled with believers who – alas and alack – don’t believe in ‘Dan’s being “Chosen” as – to borrow from Tolkien – the Mouth of God (and a zestfully vituperative potty mouth it is, at that).
Whether his (or His) riffy characterization of Christ Crucified rises to genuine “mockery” is for readers to consider as they may. The Passion and Crucifixion vitally remind one and all just how dangerous humans can make their world, even when they might think they are doing something pretty good. Curiously, for someone who has tried on this site to wrap himself in the mantle of “suffering servant”, this profound reality seems to escape ‘Dan’ here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:
As to his fourth point, it is surely neither fact nor truth: he now claims that he has “never claimed to be without error”, although he has on this thread claimed that in matters of Scripture and (his) “prophecy” he is “without error”.
But since he’s raised the point: what might be – for him (or Him) some of his larger errors? Or error; even one might do. (Time-saver: no deployment, please, of any juvenile come-back bit such as ‘My biggest error was paying attention to this site’ or some such.)
And such “corrections” as he has tried to make to his reports of his various and numerous stories as to his misadventures with police, courts, and psychiatry merely a) raise more questions than they purport to answer and b) merely cast more doubt on his credibility, veracity, and – I would say – sanity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:
His fifth point is also not fact. He seeks to change the subject from my point that “the Church has taken serious and public steps to correct herself” to a backward-looking fixation on actions “that should never have been committed”.
As is true of any human failure and sin, such should never have been committed. But – in some cases (the extent of which we are still not actually certain) – failure and sin were committed. And the Church has corrected herself in that regard (with far more care and credibility than any ‘correction’ of himself (or Himself) that ‘Dan’ has come up with here).
As to the reading from ‘Dan’s personal tea-leaves as to the state of the Church’s “reputation”, and whether the Church is fooling itself, readers may consider as they will. But as for ‘Dan’s reputation, and the effect on it of his (or His) own stories and claims and words and actions … I would not say the Church compares unfavorably to ‘Dan’s performance to date.
And he may well reveal more than he cares to with the bit about “fooling only themselves” the next time he looks in the mirror (where, however, he pronounces himself (or Himself) quite pleased – and no surprise there).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:
His sixth point is simply more of the fundie-type ranting we have seen from him so often before. And it drags in “the poor”, suggesting rather strongly that he is simply riffling through his 3×5 pile for more stuff.
“The poor you will always have with you”, Christ said, with something of a gravid ambivalence. On the one hand, there will always be poor (was He referring to materially poor or spiritually poor?) present in human history; on the other hand, what is to be done in regard to poverty (material and/or spiritual)?
He seems to answer that (in that same pericope, in the 26th chapter of Matthew) by then saying that humans would not always have Him with them (physically alive in this world). So Christ Himself is somehow the ‘response’ to the poor (whether in the material or the spiritual sense).
Thus while He doesn’t reject the classical Jewish theological concern for the poor and for justice, yet He adds to that the very reality of Himself, by which (or, actually, Whom) even poverty and justice are to be assessed. If one – through belief – becomes ‘rich in Christ’, then how ‘poor’ is one, in the deepest sense?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:
The Christian community from the earliest times lived this bi-valent vision, seeking to foster belief while also distributing alms in charity.
But – in much the same way as ‘taxing the rich’ functions in contemporary American political discourse these days – the Church could sell all the art treasures and close down the whole shebang and give the proceeds of the sales to … whom? And would that much money eradicate poverty in the world? It would not. So the answer must lie in some other direction or path, and that is the ongoing challenge: what path to take? Somehow the original path of the early Christian communities – belief and alms – seems the most promising, while not in any way a complete and total ‘solution’.
‘Dan’ needn’t – as he himself (or Himself) implies – “say more”. He should think more. Even if it means – the horror! – reading a few books as well.
From JR on the 6th at 1107AM we get more of the usual and same.
However he once again – no doubt drawing on his own dated pile of 3x5s – refers to that grossly inaccurate reading of the 1962 Instruction of John XXIII (discussed at length several times on this site): only official clerical members of a tribunal judging a case of alleged Solicitation During A Sacrament, and persons involved in such a case as formal participants, are enjoined to silence under pain of excommunication, and for the non-clerical participants that stricture lasts only until the tribunal concludes; nor does it prohibit accusers from other legal recourse.
I don’t recall any allegant in the Stampede era ever being excommunicated on the authority of that Instruction or its successor-documents.
And – as ever utterly oblivious to the danger of its recoil upon him – JR then puffs up his pinfeathers and declaims “Blow your smoke. You fool no one”. Just so.
"But evil people and imposters will go from bad to worse as they deceive others and are themselves deceived." 2 Tim 3:13
On April 7 @ 5:24 pm, p states, "The [c]hurch claims to be the divinely-instituted and Spirit-guided community of human beings who seek to follow the Gospel ideals". Can one be that ignorant, that blind or that deceived. I have exhaustingly quoted Scripture passages of Christ's Words, that the church ignores and refuses to follow. The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5 thru 7 and Matthew chapter 23, exposing many of the churches failures. I personally and in my research, have never experienced a bigger group of unkind, selfish, mean and cruel, merciless, deceiving, lying, pretentious, egotistical and perverted bunch of hypocrites, ever in my life. You can childishly call me "potty mouth", when this is just the truth, something you find hard to grasp. This is why your false cult is my "rival", because almost everything they're about is full of deception and lies, and in conflict with God's Word and Truth. You are a perfect fit, mocker of truth.
Get this straight- God's Word, Scripture and His Prophetic Word is "without error". I am human and servant to the Perfect One. I never claimed to be perfect or "without error". Stop twisting everything to your liking. And to constantly rehash the false accusations of your lying cult of thug hypocrites and phony priests and nuns, is absolutely childish and cowardly. And your insinuations, as to my sanity, you can also add to your portfolio of lies. You are truly a lowlife. I bet your proud of that.
Your cult of death worships Jesus Christ crucified. True Christians recognize His sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but believe and trust in the risen Christ, the living One. Your cult is by no means, "Christian". They claim that they are, but just one more of their many lies.
In regards to my "unsubstantiated assertion" that your cult "is actually filled with 'idolaters, statue-makers, and … goddess worshippers' (referring to mary), [Queen of Heaven]", your cult's prayers and actions substantiate my assertions. Temples filled with your statues and museums boasting pagan examples, while still producing statuary as we speak, under the approval and watch of your so-called poor and humble fraud, pope francis.
You claim, "Mary is not held to be divine in catholic teaching." Are you that dumb or do you just believe your cult's sheep will buy into your stupidity. The pope at just about every mass goes over to burn incense to the Ever Virgin Mary, "Queen of Heaven", as I've pointed out that false worship in Jeremiah 44, several times. You pray, "Hail Mary- Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, sweetness and hope- Holy Mary, Mother of God". There are pictures of every pope for the last century bowing down to her statue, blatantly against the 2nd commandment and some putting a gold crown on her head ( against God's Word in Baruch 6:9 ).
Catholics- How much longer are you going to listen to the lies of these hypocrites, who tell these made up fairy tales, make all these excuses of why they don't obey the things of God, and keep you living in darkness, while they rob you blind, both Spiritually and physically.
And now to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:
With a truly marvelous obliviousness – especially in light of everything that has arisen from ‘Dan’s material and performances here – ‘Dan’ selects a pericope from 2 Timothy that pretty much describes himself (or Himself). ‘Dan’ left “deceived” in the rear-view mirror a long way back.
The only thing new here is the pose: deploying now such a term as “exhaustingly” (no doubt he meant “exhaustively”) and such a phrase as “I personally and in my research”, ‘Dan’ will don the Wig of Sober Competence to mimic – not to put too fine a point on it – sober competence.
But as I have often said, these Wigs can only provide the appearance, but not the substance, of whatever it is they are trying to mimic.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:
Thus he commits the now-familiar mimicry-mistake of simply referring to an entire book or chapter, rather than explicating precisely what points in his references he considers relevant and why he finds them relevant. (And this, we recall, from so sterling an intellectual talent as to have written a 50-page term paper on evolution in the eighth grade – or so he claimed a while back here.)
And on top of that he delivers conclusions (as to which of “Christ’s Words” the Church “ignores and refuses to follow”) for which he has not provided a) the reasoning by which such conclusions have been reached and b) on what basis the assertion/accusation against the Church has been made.
Either he hasn’t really read many books or he has been reading too many god-grams that also don’t appear to have revealed to him how to proceed rationally.
But then, if ‘Dan’ were to proceed rationally, his entire personal Cartoon would collapse.
Greetings to all my fellow catholics. This is Mr. p for pretentious, here, claiming I'm so well read and intellegent, yet not capable of reading one chapter in the Bible to find what 'Dan's referring to in regards to the worship of the false goddess they called the "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 44, hundreds of years before Our Ever Virgin Idol ever existed.
I did not pull out a single verse, because the whole chapter explains how ridiculous and stupid is the worship of false gods and goddesses, of which your church has thousands, (saints and popes). I see that you still feel the need to "childishly" mock God, His Word and the power of His Holy Spirit, and must be so proud of yourself. The "Cartoon" has ended and it's time to run home to mommy, little peewee.
The same goes for the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 23. The full chapters describe the things in which the church fails to follow or obey. Don't repeat your prayers, call no one Father and explaining in detail how the showy hypocrites dress and act, are just a few of the many examples of their failures. Read it and live it or stay away from it completely.
"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." Rev 3: 15-16
This describes phonies that profess to be Godly, when truly they are only lying hypocrites.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:
My calling him “potty mouth” flows directly from his numerous scatological epitheticals with which his material is replete. If there’s anything “childish” here, it’s the god-grams that apparently direct him to deploy such queasy bits in the first place. Or are the queasy and non-rational bits not from the god-grams but from ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself)?
And yet he absolves himself (or Himself) by declaring – as always – that his stuff is “just the truth”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:
I don’t find “truth” hard to grasp; that’s why I find his material so problematic.
And the conclusion wraps it up nicely: he needs the Church to be “full of deception and lies” precisely so as to be his “rival”, thus providing his personal Cartoon not only with i) the authority of the Divine but also ii) a nicely vivid monster whom only he can destroy. If every self-appointed St. George needs a dragon, then the Church as ‘Dan’ likes to characterize it provides the status to this self-fantasized dragon-slayer.
But in the end the Church ends up being not the enemy of God but rather the Rock upon which ‘Dan’s personal Cartoon tears itself apart, Wigs, pericopes, accusations, epithets, and all.
The only "Rock[s]" in your church are the ones in the heads of you, your hierarchy and all the other corrupt liars and phonies of your cult, who again deserve everything they get.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1143PM:
Here – and with an imposing mimicry of authority (“Get this straight”) – he will try to evade by avoiding my point and substituting one of his own: On the 3rd of April at 542PM he wrote “I have never claimed my material to be without error, unless it was a Biblical quote or prophecy”.
Where to begin?
I then wrote that I didn’t doubt the general accuracy of his Biblical quotations themselves but rather a) his interpretation and application of them and also b) the fact that since he had not long before in a comment delivered himself of a “prophecy” that turned out to be just his own eructations, which he then claimed were somehow pretty much akin to Scripture in their authority (since they came from his god-gram faxes), then his deployment of the term “prophecy” appeared to indicate that any of ‘Dan’s eructations were “prophecy”, so most of his material would thus qualify as being “without error”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1143PM:
So now what can we rationally make of his present claim in this comment of his here?
Are we to imagine that since he did not specifically declare this or that bit of his material a “prophecy”, then it is ‘Dan’s own material – and that therefore ‘Dan’s own material is not necessarily “without error”? That would surely open up the situation: ‘Dan’s material would be reduced to just being his own material, and not formally God’s material.
But if that be the case, then where are the grounds for his claiming that disagreements with his material constitute “lies” and “mocking God” and so on and so forth?
And if that be not the case, then ‘Dan’s claim in this comment of his here is not true.
But – and no surprise here – he actually evades further by piously bleating that “I never claimed to be perfect or ‘without error’”. But I had been referring to his material, not actually to him.
There is so much of the shell-game and the hall-of-mirrors in both Abuseniks’ and fundies’ material and performances.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1143PM:
Thus – and to repeat yet again – I am not “twisting” anything he says; I am pointing out logical points that are inherent in what he says that he himself (or Himself) either doesn’t see or doesn’t want anyone else to see. Not my problem if he doesn’t like it. He can consider the realities inherent in his material more carefully and then he won’t be surprised. But, as I have said before, if he were to consider the realities inherent in his material and revealed in his material then his whole personal Cartoon would collapse like a house of cards.
And while we have been over his favorite “childish” trope before, I haven’t sussed out just how any of my material is “cowardly”; especially in the eyes of some adult who chose to go after school-children in a school-yard to deliver his rants (variant reading from the ‘Dan’-verse: “beautiful prophecy”).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:
The Catholic focus on the Crucifixion ‘Dan’ now declares to be an indication that Catholicism is a “cult of death”.
But if Christ did not die, then He did not rise. And does ‘Dan’ not believe in the Resurrection (which is utterly of a piece with the Crucifixion, as is also indicated by the fact that Good Friday is inevitably followed by the Church’s most important focus, Easter Sunday and the Church’s utterly foundational and primary event, the Resurrection)?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:
And there can be no Resurrection without death – which Catholic theology holds to mean that in this broken world, one must never lose sight of the fact that sin and Sin will exact their toll and must always be taken into account as Christians encounter the world and human history and their own fallen nature, which is the fallen nature of all human beings.
‘Dan’s attempt here to stop the music at Good Friday so that his personal Cartoon will have a chair is typical of a self-serving selectivity often seen among both atheist and fundie criticisms of Catholicism.
And thus we get his frankly ridiculous conclusion, asserted as if it could ever be demonstrated to be logically derived fact or truth, that Catholicism “is by no means ‘Christian’”. Which is also typical of what is often seen among both atheist and fundie criticisms of Catholicism.
And since this blather is also then asserted to be yet another example of Catholic “lies”, then we can consider to just what extent ‘Dan’ is a reliable guide to what is and what is not “lies”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:
In regard to the problem with ‘Dan’s take on Mary’s position in Catholic thought and theology, he merely offers a repetition of his claim, with no further explication or demonstration of how he reached this conclusion or on what (possible) material his conclusion could be accurately based.
And he tosses in such bits as “temple” (for church) and “pagan” for good rhetorical measure, although such deployments here do nothing to actually demonstrate or ground his claim.
And the rest of the paragraph trails off in further riffing on that theme.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:
He then again tries his usual no-demonstration assertion tactic by asking if I am “that dumb” as to imagine that “your cult’s sheep” (i.e. Catholics) “will buy into your stupidity?”. Thus merely an epithet trying to mimic rational demonstration that Mary is actually a “goddess” in Catholic thought. Has he any demonstrable proof – from the entire body of Catholic doctrine – that Mary is held to be a “goddess” and is divine? He has not.
Indeed, if he tried to comb Catholic doctrine for demonstration of his assertion he would find precisely the opposite: Mary is not divine. (Which is a good reason why he has slyly decided that he shouldn’t be reading books: his Cartoon could never survive if he did.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:
As to his claim of there being “pictures of every pope for the last century bowing down to her statue”: he’d have to provide the “pictures” of a pope “bowing down to her statue”, and then establish that bowing is not simply a gesture of reverence but is rather an affirmation of divinity.
And why but why limit his rant here to Popes “of the last century”, when Mary has held her place in Christian and Catholic theology and iconography since earliest Christian times?
Would it be because of the doctrine of the Assumption? That doctrine clearly indicates that Mary is not divine.
And the whole bit concludes with an exhortation by ‘Dan’ to all Catholics and readers may judge it as they will.
And now a new twist: ‘Dan’ (the 8th at 1004AM) issues a pronouncement of “Greetings to all my fellow catholics”. Readers may consider, if somewhat bemusedly, the veracity and validity of that bit.
Where can this performance possibly go? Let’s tune in and see.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1004AM:
Alas, the remainder of the first paragraph doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. I, surely, didn’t claim that he’s “so well read and intellegent”. (sic)
And in what way does calling Mary “the Queen of Heaven” constitute proof of her divinity, especially in light of the formal Catholic doctrine on the point?
And we call the President’s wife the First Lady without in any way imagining that she has any Constitutional authority as an elected official.
And how does he establish that Jeremiah’s “queen of heaven” (referring, as it does in Jer 44: 16-7, which repeats Jer 7: 16-20, to the Mesopotamian and Canaanite fertility cult of Astarte) is not simply part of his indictment of Israelite infidelity in Egypt (where Jeremiah’s speech of chapter 44 takes place, addressed to the Israelites there)? She, along with other gods, had been popular among Israelites under the reign of Manasseh, as indicated in 2 Kgs 21 and 2 Kgs 23: 4-14.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1004AM:
And does it make any sense at all that the Church specifically chose the title “Queen of Heaven” for Mary, knowing of the term “queen of heaven” in Jer 7 and Jer 44, as some sort of code for a goddess?
Rather, what we see here in this bit is another instance of that type of word-play popular among certain fundie elements: they find something in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and then presume some sort of magic whereby the Old Testament speaker foresaw the particular bugbear the current-day fundies have glommed onto as a way of weaponizing the Bible against the Church.
So we what we have here is merely an interesting combination of a) the fundie need to somehow trawl the Bible for bits that will satisfy their current antagonisms and excitements and b) ‘Dan’s need to somehow find stuff with which he can build his own personal Cartoon.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1004AM:
He then tries to evade his incompetent and incomplete Scriptural explications by now claiming that he “did not pull out a single verse because” – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “the whole chapter explains” – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “how ridiculous and stupid is the worship” (i.e. instituted by the Church and practiced by Catholics).
And here we see clearly that ‘Dan’ really isn’t interested in understanding Scripture, let alone in explicating and explaining it so that others can better understand it. Rather he simply uses this and that pericope to lubricate his vituperative epitheticals against Catholicism and the Church.
And the comment ends with a further familiar riff on some of his favorite epithetical themes, including again the queasy use of “peewee” so often noted before.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1010AM where he merely tries to word-play epithetically on “Rock”. More juvenile word games, for lack of anything better.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1143AM:
Once again he evades any serious explanation of explication of his chosen pericopes by simply declaring that “the full chapters” of Matthew 23 and the Sermon on the Mount (that would be the 5th, 6th, and 7th Chapters of Matthew) “describe the things in which the church fails to follow or obey”.
In other words, ‘Dan’ is saying that you just have to read what Jesus said, and then presume that the Church doesn’t “follow or obey” any of what Jesus said – and there’s your Biblical lesson for today. See? It’s all reeely reely simple!
We are deep into the shallow but fetid fever-swamps here.
And the whole bit riffs to its conclusion with a bit from the Book of Revelation.
You claim, "he evades any serious explanation of explication of his chosen pericopes". For those who have the Lord's Spirit the Bible is self-explanatory. I have given you simple verses to explain my points, but you seem to prefer something "reeely reely" difficult, as you try to make things. So you want things explained more clearly, and is that so you can claim they're "irrelevant, incoherent, inappropriate, incompetent and incomplete", as you have already done. As told you before, Old Testament prophecy often predicts New Testament future things. Jesus and the Messiah's coming was predicted verbatim in the Psalms and among the prophets. That's how to tell the difference between true and false prophecy, true will actually come to pass.
The "Queen of Heaven" of Jeremiah 7+44 and your idolatry of false goddesses absolutely lines up in several ways. Jer 7:8 "You put your trust in worthless lies. You steal and murder; you lie in court and are unfaithful in marriage". Sound familiar? Instead of unfaithful in marriage, your cult doesn't allow marriage, and goes further in raping little boys. I've witnessed your personal lies and priests flat out lie in court. Now Mary (goddess Astarte), same title, Queen of Heaven. Same worship, Jeremiah 44: 17-19 — You burn incense to her and I've seen it done in churches and by the popes. You hold up the special loaves of bread shaped like her, in the form of the moon (large host). Followed by the wine offering, which you claim is Christ's blood. So in other words your offering a blood sacrifice, much like pagans or satanists. Your image of Guadalupe resembles the horns or black moon on Astarte's head, but your church slyly moves it to her feet, to be less noticeable or obvious.
"Astarte's most common symbol was the crescent moon (or horns), according to religious study scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell, in his book, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity." (from 'Astarte' in Wiki)
I stated, plain as day, the passages your church refuses to "follow or obey: Don't repeat your prayers, call no one Father and explaining in detail how hypocrites dress and act are just a few of the many examples of their failures". I want people to read and study the Word for themselves and wrongly assumed you were capable. I'll help get you started. "And when you pray, do not keep babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Matthew 6:7 This most definitely describes anyone one babbling "Hail Mary", 50 times, let alone those who must do it 150 times, while praying to a false goddess. It also fits you and all your longwinded nonsense, thinking you'll be heard. Now I think you might be capable of looking up Matthew 23 and read verse 9, pertaining to titles your cult has adopted, and all the other descriptions of false leaders and hypocrites. You can do it ?!?!
If you can't trust Jesus' Words then that would explain your not understanding His prophets or servants words. I'm surely not presuming your "[c]hurch doesn't 'follow or obey' any of what Jesus said, it's absolutely obvious they don't "follow or obey" much of anything he said, unless it's His instruction of what not to do.
And if I've gone "deep into the shallow but fetid fever-swamps", it would only be to find where you and your unbiblical cult has been hiding. Wake up and read the Book, catholics. Don't allow hypocrites and liars to keep you from knowing the truth.
P, I have a great study assignment for you to look up in the Bible. Find out how many times the Lord had said, He sent His servants the prophets, again and again, but they would not listen. I found 8 times in the Book of Jeremiah, alone.
"And though the LORD has sent all His servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention." Jeremiah 25:4
You can keep believing and trying to make others believe the same, that I am not sent by the Lord Himself, but it will definitely be to your detriment and hopefully not to others. I say that as a warning and not a threat.
Yawn. Isn't religion boring? Or, at least, the versions
Yawn. Isn't religion boring? Or, at least, the versions that these hustlers of faith sell as Gospel.
Two bozos on a bus; never asking: "What if God was one of us? (all of us?)"
Every critic who posts here is defamed by the misnomer: "juvenile". that P liar might pretend to have gravitas. A propaganda tactic the church has used for eons. We, humans, are lost children lest we follow religions lead to the sheep fleecing, and that's according to the fleecers.