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.
It cannot be surprising that JR finally had to somehow remind everyone he’s still around (and should be getting some attention), without – of course –actually addressing any of the material on the table.
For this task, the role of rodeo-clown appears best to him.
But – since the material has taken something of a theological/Scriptural turn – then it would have to be a rodeo-clown with a (mimicry of a) theological bent, but also epithetical, of course.
And that’s what we get in this short sequence of comments.
If I'm a rodeo clown at this roundup? You must be the bullshit.
Thus on the 10th at 1237PM we get the “juvenile” bit “Yawn. Isn’t religion boring?”. Perhaps – getting ahead of myself in the comment-material in this sequence – that comment, coming as it does from a man just south of 70, doesn’t appear to him to be “juvenile”. We are once again regressed to the tables at the back of the cafeteria or the trees at the far end of the school recess lot.
But he is genuinely irritated: he has no 3x5s to match ‘Dan’s Bible-games collection and no doubt anything that doesn’t focus on him and his card-collection would be “boring” to him in any event.
However – doncha see? – he really finds it all “boring” simply because he is in possession of the genuine theological key to it all and the “bozos” who don’t get it are no doubt just “ignorant”, to use one of ‘Dan’s favorite terms.
Try and remember your imaginary savior has been symbolized as a sheep.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1237PM:
And what might that key be?
Why that key is (in quotation marks, although without identification of the reference): “What if God was one of us? (all of us?)”. (The grammatical misuse here is perhaps intended to mimic deeply complex thought.)
If God were one of us, then that would sound rather Christian. If so, then that bit is just a point that Christianity has been on about for millennia.
If God were “all of us” … well, what exactly is he going for here? That we are all gods? That we are all God (and not ourselves)? That God is somehow “in” each of us like a divine spark; that starts to sound like something from the Kabbalah or even Sufism, and certainly Gnosticism. Is that what he’s going for?
Or does he mean something like: God is in each of us through the soul, which reflects God’s presence in us as His creations, toward the fulfillment of which presence the Holy Spirit constantly prompts us …?
Or does he know what he means at all here? Or, really, does he care?
On, then, to JR’s of the 10th at 1242PM:
Here he has apparently decided he has delivered enough of a vatic utterance so as to impress the impressionable and now reverts to something far more congenial: painting himself as ‘victimized’.
“Every critic who posts here”, he bleats, “is defamed by the misnomer ‘juvenile’”.
Alas, his own material indicates that neither is he “defamed” nor is “juvenile” in any way a “misnomer”. If his voluminous record of scatology and epithets, buttressed by the “Yawn” and “boring” bits, doesn’t – to his mind – prompt thoughts of juvenilia, then one might well wonder what on earth would finally jolt his awareness in that regard.
And has he some particular “critic who posts here” in mind, whose material reflects sustained adult reflection and explication? If so, might he name that paragon whose material has thus far remained undeservedly un-noticed as such?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1242PM:
I’m going to imagine that he has no particular such “critic who posts here” in mind.
Rather, the whole bit is designed to a) enable him to assume the mantle of victimization yet again, while also b) provide the basis – such as it is – for his scheduled epithet.
And that epithet is: I “pretend” that some material is “juvenile” simply so that I can – by implied contrast – appear to have “gravitas”.
This is a sly and nuanced bit; too much so – I would say – for JR’s demonstrated chops or the lack of them.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1242PM:
As to whether, instead, we have seen on this site more than one “propaganda tactic” deployed by the various Abuseniks in their efforts to burnish the Stampede (and their own status) … readers may also judge as they will.
When, a near, 70 year old can reference a pop song by Joan Osborne called "What if God was one of us?", and Mr. Punctuation doesn't know the reference? Who's the cultural back water.?
As far as juvenile goes: Who's more juvenile? The person always be called such or the person doing the calling?
P-rincess Religiosity, If God is everywhere "he" is most definitely in us. If he doesn't exist "he " is nowhere, man. So very like you.
I wish some real Catholics would post here. Just to see if they are insulted as regularly as your victims are here.
Who, the fuck, could admire a religion that creates a P? All he does is insult people like a schoolyard punk. This is how you entice fools to believe you follow a god of lov
a god of love?
For P and Dan, Your faith was created the same way as these symbols were; for somebody else's profit. http://giphy.com/gifs/xTiQyl76faOdmrgmB2
Our case study continues with ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
For ‘Dan’ there is no need of explanation or explication because – doncha see? – “for those who have the Lord’s Spirit the Bible is self-explanatory”. This bit, of course, brings us right back to square one of ‘Dan’s personal Cartoon: that he is somehow in possession of “the Lord’s Spirit” (whatever that may mean in his Cartoon-verse).
Nor has he “given [us] simple verses to explain [his] points”. Rather, he has merely followed the usual fundie tactic of the ‘proof text’: he has an agenda / he has found some Bible quotes that have sufficient similar words or terms such that they might seem applicable to his present agenda / and thus he simply i) makes his (otherwise un-grounded) assertions, accusations and claims and ii) tosses in the quoted Scripture bit as his (Cartoon-version of) ‘evidence’ and explication and explanation.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
As may have occurred to readers, this tactic is designed not to enlighten those who – in the Cartoon’s terms – do not “have the Lord’s Spirit”. Rather, it is designed to a) enable the asserter to make his/her claims and b) shroud the oddities or weaknesses or problems with those claims under the mantle of Scripture through the deployment of the selected pericope.
Thus, the performance is already rigged by its own scripted-dynamics to be a consoling ego trip for the asserter: s/he is already presumptively in possession of “the Lord’s Spirit” (that 007 warrant) and is merely announcing the results to the unenlightened.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
And we see this again when he continues the game by claiming that he has “told” us “before”, again (and manipulatively) presuming that his material is for ‘telling’ (as if it were indubitable and factually demonstrated) and therefore is not open to doubt, question, or contradiction of any sort.
And this bit is deployed in the service of his presumption that “Old Testament prophecy often predicts New Testament future things”.
The problem is in the “predicts” or prediction bit: there is more than the whiff of the magical in it, as if the OT writer could foresee specific later (even current times) events.
The Church uses the concept of ‘foreshadowing’, in the sense that God’s plan and Spirit provided in the writings of the Spirit-inspired OT writers templates or images that would find their fulfillment in Christ (thus, for example, Isaiah’s ‘Suffering Servant’). But there is nothing of the fortune-teller or the tea-leaves in any of it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
Also, much of what the OT writers (such as Jeremiah in the passages under consideration here) ‘saw’ was simply a general human dynamic (falling away from Yahweh into idolatry, for example, or theft or murder or sin) that any observant human of any era could reasonably understand to be a deep-seated and thus recurring human characteristic.
Thus from looking at the human situation of his own era a writer might predict further human idolatry or unfaithfulness or even wars in future human eras, without at all having specific later events in mind.
This is the great mistake that fuels – as we have so often seen – frenzied efforts to apply the Book of Revelation, for example, to any era’s current events to ‘prove’ that this or that current situation in any era was or is indubitably a sign of some Biblical ‘end –time’ or ‘final days’ that was or is just about to break through into history.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
One can certainly see in OT passages where references to Christ’s coming could be seen as ‘foreshadowed’ or even ‘foretold’, according to God’s plan.
But once you move beyond that into an attempt to use the Bible as a specific map or menu of current events that were ‘prophesied’, then you wind up on mushy ground indeed, since the general forms of human unfaithfulness and failure are endemic to the species and could be ‘true’ in any era.
But some mentalities need such magic and the certainty it seems to bring, and some personalities also – in so many cases – crave or need the status that derives from claiming to be a ‘successful’ fortune-teller or – if you wish – divinely-inspired or divinely-authorized ‘prophet’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
And ‘Dan’s conclusion in that first paragraph is purely circular: the ‘prophet’ claims that some present entity or event X was foretold in this or that Bible passage, but the only ‘proof’ is the ‘prophet’s own claim that he has seen the present X in the past statements and thus the ‘prophecy’ must be true. Others may not see it so (and raise substantial objections) – but then that simply means that they reject the ‘prophet’ and the (or his) ‘truth’.
What was “true” in the Scriptural writer was his accurate insight into human nature, which he saw playing itself out in the events of his time and place. That such elements of human nature would then also play out in other (future) times and places is no proof of tea-leaf, fortune-telling ‘prophecy’ as the fundies (and ‘Dan’) like to use the term.
Rather, it is simply a perfectly expectable playing-out of the weaknesses of human nature in other (future) times and places.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
One thinks of somebody claiming that he will keep elephants off the streets of Manhattan by snapping his fingers, and then claiming the status of such insight and power by pointing out that there are no elephants in Manhattan, so clearly his efforts are vital to the continued safety and security of Manhattan.
And – if you like – you can factor God into this mix: one might claim that one is directed and authorized by God to keep elephants off the streets of Manhattan by snapping one’s fingers / there are no elephants on the streets of Manhattan / ergo one is ‘proven’ to be God’s instrument for saving Manhattan from rampaging rogue elephants.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
Nor can one demonstrate that the weaknesses and failures in human nature that a Biblical writer accurately perceived can be uniquely and specifically and totally to any and just one future entity or event.
Rather, those weaknesses and failures – since they are grounded in human nature itself – will manifest in many times and places, entities and events, in the future that followed the writer’s own era.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
Then ‘Dan’ – in his second paragraph – turns his attention (not to say skills) on the “queen of heaven” (not capitalized in Jeremiah; this is an addition by ‘Dan’ to create a conveniently more vivid illusion of a connection between the worship of Astarte and the Mary’s role in the Church).
But to support this bit, ‘Dan’ merely – and as so often – tosses up some pericopes, while merely presuming that the Church is specifically and uniquely and totally characterizable as what ‘Dan’ wants the Church to be: “worthless lies”, “steal and murder” and so forth.
But are these imprecations from Jeremiah uniquely and totally specific to the Church or to any other human institution? Would they not, rather, be applicable to a wide range of human institutions over the course of the ensuing millennia?
Thus his giveaway “sound familiar?” bit also simply reveals clearly the usual magical approach to Scripture. It would indeed “sound familiar”. But not because Jeremiah foresaw or predicted the Church; rather, because Jeremiah realized how human nature could and probably often would play out.
Are you convinced that you can deceive others so well as to keep them from reading or listening to God's Word, or is it just that your so deceived, you don't even realize what a lying, manipulating, word-twisting pawn of Satan you are. "Deceiving others, but being themselves deceived."
First off, regarding your 1st accusation that I capitalized "QUEEN OF HEAVEN", "to create a more vivid illusion of a connection between the worship of Astarte and the Mary's role in the church)". Some versions of Jeremiah 44:19 capitalize "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" and as I shall prove, so does your heathen cult. And also your "worthless lies" help cement what a lying group of hypocrites you hang with. No pun intended.
Your ridiculous statement and claim: "Mary is most certainly not seen as any sort of queen of all the gods in catholic theology." Now we'll see who truly "fails" with his lame excuses. I've already given, "Hail Holy Queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope, Hail Mary, Holy Mary, Mother of God." The brainiac doesn't know the meaning of "Hail".
THE LITANY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
Holy Mary, Holy Mother of God, Most honored of virgins, Mother of Christ, the church, divine grace, most pure, chaste love, Mother and virgin, Sinless Mother, Dearest of Mothers, Model of motherhood, Mother of good counsel, Mother of our Creator, Mother of our Savior.
Virgin most wise, Virgin rightly praised, Virgin rightly renowned, Virgin most powerful, Virgin gentle in mercy, Faithful Virgin.
Mirror of justice, Throne of wisdom, Cause of our joy, Shrine of the Spirit, Glory of Israel, Vessel of selfless devotion, Mystical Rose, Tower of David, Tower of ivory, Ark of the covenant, Gate of heaven, Morning star, Health of the sick, Refuge of sinners, Comfort of the troubled, Help of Christians.
Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs and prophets, Queen of apostles and martyrs, Queen of confessors and virgins, Queen of ALL saints, Queen conceived without sin, Queen assumed into heaven, Queen of the rosary, Queen of families, Queen of peace. Blessed be the name of the Virgin Mary, Now and Forever. (Notice Queen capitalized and worshipped.)
This prayer is so plaqued with blasphemy, idolatry and unbiblical statements, that even you, as the Publiar, should be ashamed of your blatant ignorance. I'll explain just a few terrible lies. a) Christ said, "All have sinned and fallen short" b) "All who came before me are theives and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them." John 10:8 c) "While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Jesus spoke to his disciples, Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:46-50 So it's possble that your "Queen of Heaven" you worship, wasn't even saved, and left out in the cold. d) I do agree with one title, "Refuge of sinners". What could more perfectly describe your cult of liars, hypocrites, pedophiles and perverts, thinking you can hide under Mary's dress to find forgiveness for your crimes against humanity and God. Maybe better than under your priests and hierarchy's dresses, which your known for.
Your cult "most certainly" does honor, revere, idolize and absolutely worship Mary, "Queen of Heaven", even above God, the Creator. It is the most disgusting, despicable bunch of lying hypocrites, including yourself, to ever exist on earth. Look up the meaning of honor, revere and idolize and find the synonym "worship". servant and friend of the Almighty
P.S. I believe you're confused, it's your cult that worships images. So maybe you're seeing "illusions" of a "tuna- [fish-head]- sandwich" on the crown of pope francis. Be nice and maybe he'll let you nibble at his delicacies, Perverter of Truth.
Yeah. I see I misspelled thieves. By the way, you need a thorough lesson on prophets, prophecy and prophesying in the Spirit, because you haven't got a clue of the meaning or how it works. I think you've been to too many psychics for your readings. Good luck with that.
Addendum: Mary the Gate of heaven, Morning star. These terms are definitely statements defining Christ and to substitute Mary in Christ's place is utter blasphemy, goddess worship and idolatry.
" Jesus says, "All who came before me [Mary] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved"
Catholics- Don't allow hypocrites and liars to substitute Mary for Christ and make excuses that she's a mediatrix, another Gate to enter heaven or worship as another Morning Star. Lies, lies and more lies. Something your cult has the market cornered on, besides it's pedophilia and perversions with little boys. Read the Lord's Word and find true freedom from false cults.
Addendum 2- Other "human institutions over the course of the ensuing millennia", don't have a duplicate of Astarte named Mary, a)"Queen of Heaven", b) burn incense to her, c) make cakes in the form of the moon (host), and d) have images of her with a similar crescent moon or bull's horns. Wrong once again, mocker. servant of the Lord
Addendum 3- I forgot, e) Raise the chalice to her, full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immoralities" , as a blood sacrifice to their "Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World", also known as the catholic, "Queen of Heaven". Revelations 17: 1-9 For the complete description. This describes your church, and let no lying deceiver tell you different. Later, mocker!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
And of course he gives more of his own game away as he slyly tosses in his usual bits about how he has “witnessed your [referring to whom or what?] personal lies” in his multi-variant stories about his assorted misadventures with the police, the courts, and psychiatry. (And since he has personally witnessed “priests flat out lie in court”, then clearly he has been in court before.
And again with the sly if simplistic attempt to equate the Biblical “queen of heaven” (referring to Astarte) with the Church’s reverential title for Mary, “Queen of Heaven”. But while Astarte may have been seen as the queen among the gods of heaven to her adherents, Mary is most certainly not seen as any sort of queen of all the gods in Catholic theology. And thus one of his favorite 3x5s fails here.
Refer to 'Dan's on April 12 @ 11:48 pm.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
His further efforts in this paragraph to grasp for assorted equivalences are just that: efforts to try to connect dots that are not connectable in any rational way. (But of course in a Cartoon-verse, anything can happen and thus ‘Dan’ preference for operating in a Cartoon-verse.)
I would classify these efforts of ‘Dan’ here with those of people who claim to see the image of Jesus in a tuna-sandwich or in the moisture patch on a refrigerator door.
Refer to the P.S. on April 12 @ 11:48 pm.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
In his next paragraph ‘Dan’ will attempt to improve his mimicry-performance of a competent assessor by quoting a bit about Astarte and the crescent moon symbol. But the key issue is – rather – whether Mary is considered a goddess or queen of the gods in Catholic doctrine, and she is not. Nor has ‘Dan’ proffered any substantive evidence to the contrary; instead, he plays his word-games and tries to connect dots in visions that he claims to see – and that’s a game that can go on and on and no doubt has for quite some time.
"Substantive evidence to the contrary" on April 12 @ 11:48 pm. And by the way, your obsession with "Cartoons", most likely manifested itself from being so deeply immersed in the Cartoon fastasy called the catholic cult. When you come from the day-room after you've enjoyed your playtime with Napoleon, you might want to mention that to your psychic. Maybe she can read your tea leaves and afterwards make some of your favorite kool-aid, catholic apologetic ale. It might help with your sleep and you wont be so irritable and nonsensical in the morning. Maybe you'll stop your ignorant mocking.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
What ‘Dan’ has “stated plain as day” are merely his own eructations, which in his Cartoon-verse he considers to be “plain as day”. All that’s “plain as day” is that he has some whacky personal visions and eructations and that’s all there is to it.
Nor will anybody’s undertaking to “read and study the Word for themselves” necessarily lead to any such “plain as day” conclusions as have fixated ‘Dan’. You have to hold your head at a very odd angle indeed to see ‘Dan’s stuff as being on the level “plain as day”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:
And again: the problem is not that we don’t “trust Jesus’ Words”; it is that Jesus’ Words don’t clearly indicate what ‘Dan’ is convinced they indicate as “plain as day”, i.e. that the Church is an almost anti-Jesus organization.
As many who have fashioned Napoleon hats for themselves cawn’t see why they aren’t accorded the respect and status due so accomplished an imperial historical figure.
But ‘Dan’ – with the god-hat he has fashioned for himself (or Himself) – has an explanation for that: it’s all because of “ignorance” and “lies”. Thus both his (or His) Scriptural fever-visions and the testimony lodged against him about his own acts and words in court are all due to “ignorance” and “lies”.
And thus we get this stupefying hash that we see here.
On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1223AM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will toss in a further advertisement for himself (or Himself) by attempting to include himself (or Himself) among all of the servants and prophets, among the ranks of whom he (or He) has awarded himself (or Himself) a membership card.
And he does so in a typically evasive and manipulative fundie way: he contents himself (or Himself) with toting up the number of times his advertisement occurs in the text of Scripture. And doesn’t that look imposing?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1223AM:
But the real question is not how many times the Bible makes reference to servants and prophets. Rather, the key question is whether ‘Dan’ is genuinely to be numbered among them or whether he is simply really off the rails.
Again: the stereotypical inmate in the self-fashioned Napoleon hat doesn’t actually get at the nub of the (or his) problem by demonstrating the historical reality of the person known as Napoleon. The real problem is whether this person in the day-room is now actually and genuinely Napoleon-returned.
Off the Rails? Your rusted out, delapidated train of lies and excuses has been waiting decades to be thrown into the fire pit of hell and melted down through eternity! How's that for an "eructation" you can stick in your mocking pipes and belch out more of your nonsensical garbage.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1223AM:
And the whole bit concludes – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – with a threat (or “warning”, if you prefer) that God’ll getcha for not believing that ‘Dan’ is “sent by the Lord Himself”.
In the sense that all human beings are “sent” into this world by virtue of their creation by God, then ‘Dan’ may rightly consider himself thus “sent”.
But as a 007, super-specially informed and guided Mouth of God … ‘Dan’s performances and whatever fuels and drives them are something else rather entirely.
On the 11th at 1108AM JR demonstrates one of his life accomplishments: he is familiar with a range of pop singers. I haven’t kept up with pop-singers.
Did she ‘sing’ the grammar? Or has he actually – could it be? – consulted the text of the song? If he has consulted the text, then that’s a good habit; he should use it when considering his assertions as to texts (such as the 1985 Doyle proposal or the 1962 Instruction) here.
As to his juvenile attempt to evade and deflect the juvenility of so many Abusenik comments: readers may consult the record here and consider as they will.
"One of my life accomplishments".
What are your life accomplishments, Sunshine? Lying about people who were raped as children?
What have you "kept up on"? Life after death? Now there's the penultimu
The rest of my above statement vanished. I can not bother to type it again. FYI
As to JR’s comment of the 11th at 1112AM:
Not much indication of any reflection on the rather significant theological points as issue. But he does manage to conclude with an epithet, and that’s about the best he ever does.
Says you! A lying protector of rapists and their enablers.
Who would believe you about anything?
On the 11th at 1117AM JR bleats the wish that “some real Catholics would post here”.
I have often wished that some genuine victims would post here; and perhaps some competent pro-Stampede types. But as I have said, after all these years and all the comments amassed, that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Perhaps because there are so few of either.
And then some scatological epithetical stuff.
But – marvelously oblivious to the recoil – JR then deploys “insult people like a schoolyard punk”.
If you don’t give JR what he wants, then you “attack” and “insult” him (for his epithets, scatology, un-grounded assertions and false claims) and don’t Christian-ly “love” him. And maybe he’ll try to get back at you by making false claims. That doesn’t seem to be an impossible scenario at all, come to think of it.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAA! You are a humbug.
Jim, You make a big mistake when you equate God with all the false religions of the world. I want you to know that my beliefs have nothing to sell, no temples, no crosses to wear and no fleecing whatsoever. The God I know is far from "imaginary" and my walk with Him has been anything but "boring", yet maybe so to the unbeliever. Maybe you think David was a fool, but history says different. This is his Psalm 14:1-4
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up My people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?
All God asks is that we seek Him out and believe in him, make an effort to change our ways and He'll help us through our struggles in this world. Is that too much for a perfect Creator to ask from sinful man. He is under no obligation to love us, yet He not only loves immensely, but also sacrificed His son to show how great His love and forgiveness reaches. I feel sorry for your not realizing that. I'd appreciate your not grouping me with p. We are polar opposites.
God and life after death are inventions of man. Created to control and enslave their fellow humans. All without a smidgen of truth or proof to back up such a gigantically silly scam.
Do you still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy? (You know Santa's how they got you to believe in a "God' in the first place. He knew who was naughty or nice too.)
I would guess your answer to be: No.
But God and Jesus and Original Sin and heaven and hell. That nonsense not only do you believe but you spend huge parts of your one life trying to convince other people that your brand of stupid is smarter than P's brand of dumb. A waste of everybody's time.
If there is a god; He; She; It ;They are silent. Mum's the word according to "God".So really "God" asks for nothing from us nor does she offer anything to us but silence.
Other animals don't pray; nor do they proselytize. Follow their lead.
The Taoists don't believe in a "God" they just stand in awe of the Universe. Good enough for moi.
If there were a "God" who created a Hell? He's a psychopath.
You want to worship a mass murderer? 6 million children, under the age of 4, starve to death every year or die of some horrible diseases created by this "Big Daddy". Some God O' Love! No wonder fools worship "Satan". He has to be better than a "God" who burns people forever.
Of course, I'm kidding about the "devil". "He" doesn't exist either.
Please! Could you all just go and sin no more and shut up about "God"? He ain't saying bugger all. Why should you?
Tell me, what have I said or done, so bad to you, to deserve this. First, I'm a bozo on the bus with p and now you've found some excuse to blast God. Blaming God for the evil actions of man's greed, wickedness and falsehoods, not to mention Satan's role in this world's evilness, is totally asinine. You are not aware that much of starvation and disease is caused from man's wicked behavior. You are definitely a very confused person, and from your material, I fail to see you coming up with any better choices, unless they're selfish and greedy. God didn't rape you, nor has he yet sent you to Satan's hellfire. I think you might want to rethink who's to blame in Jim's madeup "Universe". Are you aware that Taoists have manmade temples and worship false gods and goddesses. Sounds to me like, out of the frying pan and into the fire. And good luck to you with all that.
"Change my ways"? "Change my ways"?
Let your mass murdering firebug change "His" ways.
"He" gets a big fat F as far as compassion and justice goes.
I'm sure God is very concerned on how you grade him when it comes to "compassion or justice". I'm sure you'd give yourself a big fat A, because you're really the true creator of everything and have done such a good job of it. Let me know where I can go to bow down to Jim.
One might claim he's an atheist and I can accept his opinion, but blame God for everything bad in the world, call Him names along with illusions that He is a She or an It, thinking Satan is a better choice, well go ahead, cause apparently you've made yours. I had some respect for you and some of the things done to you, but you surely won't get any more respect from me.
If your "God" is everywhere and is the creator of and owner of the universe and created a hell where humans who don't "love him" enough burn forever and ever; who else is there to blame for such a system's failures. You give him all credit but none of the blame for its' failures. No! it's little old us that's the problem? If the product doesn't work "correctly" I blame the maker.
Dan, you've, at worst, only bored me with your "God" stuff; and allowed the dialog here to become a rehash of the Reformation.
Bozo on the bus" is a lyric from the Joan Osborne song. "What if God was one of us? Just some bozo on the bus". I'm a bozo; you're a bozo; God's a bozo. You are in good company.
If God chooses to remain silent why d
If your "God" is everywhere and is the creator of and owner of the universe and created a hell where humans who don't "love him" enough burn forever and ever; who else is there to blame for such a system's failures. You give him all credit but none of the blame for its' failures. No! it's little old us that's the problem? If the product doesn't work "correctly" I blame the maker.
Dan, you've, at worst, only bored me with your "God" stuff; and allowed the dialog here to become a rehash of the Reformation.
Bozo on the bus" is a lyric from the Joan Osborne song. "What if God was one of us? Just some bozo on the bus". I'm a bozo; you're a bozo; God's a bozo. You are in good company.
If God chooses to remain silent why don't you?
As I said, the “Queen of Heaven” bit was one of ‘Dan’s favorite and perhaps core 3x5s and he is not at all happy to have it exposed.
For readers who have never run into a fundamentalist-type mentality, both ‘Dan’ (as a religious type of the fundamentalist) and JR (as a Stampede/Abuse type of fundamentalist) serve as usefully informative and demonstrative types for consideration and so I continue with their material.
As a liar, you are fundamentally abusive ,P.
Listen we all know you're a priest.(Only a priest would wax on, so boringly, about religion. Shouldn't you be out playing gol ; or haunting the boys shower room?
golf. Sheeeesh!
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:
As usual, he opens by trying to spin his following material just to make sure he’s made a hefty effort to manipulate any reader’s response. And don’t forget the numerous epitheticals (“pawn of Satan” is nicely vivid, although a bit predictable).
He claims that “some versions” of the Bible will capitalize Jeremiah’s “queen of heaven” phrase. He proffers no actual examples. But there is every chance that fundie Bibles may well so do, precisely to achieve the same agenda that ‘Dan’ is trying to push here.
He then dons the Wig of Competence with his insistence that he will prove it (“ as I shall prove”). Oh goody; let’s see how he does it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:
A handy bit of advice: excise all of the a) epithets and b) mere undemonstrated claims for which mere repetition of his usual bits are proffered … and see what ‘substance’ is left in ‘Dan’s material here.
He then tries to base his position on the use of “Hail” in the prayer “Hail, Holy Queen”. He apparently presumes (or needs to presume, anyway) that “Hail” is a greeting only reserved to royalty or divinity. No demonstration of that, and readers may consider as they will.
Nor has he in any way addressed the vital and glaring and massive problem for his ‘theory’: Mary is not in any place in Catholic theology proclaimed to be a goddess, nor a queen of all the gods. So all he’s got here is the usual fundie word-game and word-play gambit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:
And then we just get the prayer itself, quoted.
At the end of which, ‘Dan’ will then deliver a whole passel of his usual bits (i.e. epithets and irrelevant Scriptural pericopes).
Although the rhetorical word-play with “Refuge of sinners” is a nifty one, the way he tries to weaponize it against – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – the Church and Catholicism.
And is ‘Dan’ actually now trying to say that in calling Mary “my mother” then Jesus Himself was proclaiming her ‘queen’? But then “my brothers” would also be proclaimed gods of some sort.
Although how, then, ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ gets to the possibility that Mary “wasn’t even saved, and left out in the cold” does stretch things. Is it possible that Jesus wouldn’t ‘save’ Mary, His mother, along with the rest of humanity?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:
And none – absolutely none – of what ‘Dan’ has tossed up here even begins to justify his assertion that Catholicism “does honor, revere, idolize and absolutely worship Mary” as a queen-goddess among the many gods of heaven.
The words “honor” and “revere” (accurately enough deployed here) are not synonymous with “idolize” and “absolutely worship”. This is simply another of ‘Dan’s efforts to scoop in anything he can to push his agenda on this point of Mary-as-Queen of Heaven.
And – for the cherry on top of this sundae – ‘Dan’ will then proclaim that the Church doth “worship” Mary “even above God, the Creator”. And how he reached that stupefying claim is anybody’s guess; it’s not in any of the material he has proffered here, nor in any Catholic doctrine, dogma, or theology.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:
And he concludes that penultimate paragraph with another demonstration of fundie, ‘Dan’-verse word-play: the words are in a thesaurus as being synonymous. It may very well not occur to persons unfamiliar with books and language that a thesaurus is not in any way a precise instrument, but only a general sort of ‘help’ or ‘prompt’ resource.
Thus, for example, in Roget’s 2nd edition of its “Super-Thesaurus” the term “embellish” is proffered as a synonym for “emblazon”. But that isn’t quite accurate since there are many usages (such as, say, to “embellish” a story or claim) where the purported synonym (“emblazon” in this case) won’t work at all.
So ‘Dan’ – now sitting surrounded by both Bible and a thesaurus – may seem to himself to be doing ‘research’ in order to ‘prove’ stuff, but it’s all just a mimicry.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:
And at this point, I permit myself a “P.S” along the lines of ‘Dan’s oft-preferred style: I believe ‘Dan’ is neither altogether well nor competent in the skills necessary to demonstrate, to prove, or to establish. He has, rather, all of his little 3x5s on the basis of which he makes assertions that he cannot demonstrate or prove or establish.
And – marvelously – he introduces “Perverter” into the epithetical mix, with – as always – utterly no awareness of its potential for recoil.
On the 13th at midnight he then opines that I “need a thorough lesson on prophets, prophecy and prophesying in the Spirit” since I “don’t have a clue of the meaning or how it works”.
I will let the record here provide readers with the material to consider and judge ‘Dan’s assertion as to my capacities as to “prophets” and “prophecy”.
But his “prophesying in the Spirit” bit is useful: it is a fundie theory wherein anyone who feels so moved can declare that “the Spirit” is upon him/her and s/he has a “prophecy” to deliver and that “prophecy” must be taken as God’s Word.
This remarkable bit was inherent in Luther’s first foray into sola scriptura, the theory that Christians need no Church, but instead can and must wade into the Bible for themselves and see what they find for themselves there. Of course, Luther never imagined that when they did so, anybody might claim to find anything at all in the text.
And – sure enough – within a short time Luther’s movement was riven to its core by numerous persons who claimed not only not to find Catholicism in the Bible but also not to find Luther in there either. And thus the orchestra, shorn of its conductor, simply dissolved into a cacophony where each instrument played its own tune at its own tempo. And thus we get ‘Dan’.
On the 13th at 217AM ‘Dan’ will note my point about “substantive evidence to the contrary” but doesn’t actually address it.
Instead, he goes into an epithetical riff about “Cartoons”, essentially doing the old I’m Not/You Are softshoe.
On the 13th at 249AM ‘Dan’ will toss in more terms of reverence as if they somehow established that they demonstrate irrefutably that in Catholic theology Mary is a queen of all the gods in heaven.
They don’t, as I have explicated above.
And then – again utterly oblivious to the dangers of its recoil – he again wades into another epithetical riff about “lies”. Because if ‘Dan’ doesn’t want to hear it – either about Mary or about his own hugely questionable proclivities as demonstrated in his words and actions around children – then it can and must be only “lies, lies and more lies”. (Stage directions here: center stage, spotlight on ‘Dan’, back of one hand to forehead, other hand clutched over heart, music swelling to crescendo; use caution so back of hand to forehead doesn’t knock Wig askew or completely off.)
On the 13th at 3AM ‘Dan’ will then try to introduce as evidence what hasn’t been demonstrated and what is precisely in question: Has he indeed demonstrated that Mary is “a duplicate of Astarte”? He has not. Except in his own mind / which is to say, the ‘Dan’-verse / where he (or He) is pope and king of the ‘verse.
And then at 318AM on the 13th ‘Dan’ will merely pump in some more effluvium: here he simply deploys some of the characteristics of the worship of Astarte as if he has already demonstrated that Astarte = Mary.
I'm perplexed, Are you really that dense, stupid or ignorant, or is it just about disputing anything I put out there, in hopes that your cult will not listen to my advice and will remain brain-dead and brainwashed goats, bleating as the pied-piper leads them to destruction. I have not only demonstrated, but I have proven and established that your cult worship of Mary, "Queen of Heaven", is worse and deeper than the pagan worship of Astarte. How do I claim that? Your slew of prayers and statements (i.e. Mother of God), your proliferation of statues and temples dedicated in her name and honor, and your popes crowning and bowing to her image. You need more proof? I've watched programing on your catholic channel, EWTN for years and it's splattered with images of Guadalupe and statues of Mary, and consistently pushing the praying of the rosary. Not enough? Then check out these statements from your catechism.
963- "The Virgin Mary…is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer." You clowns labeled her "Queen of Heaven."
971- "From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs." I don't know about you catholics but I go to God and to my Savior in all dangers and needs. To do otherwise would be to put Mary before God and Christ, which they do. They only give lip service to God and Christ, while worshipping the works of their hands, statues, images temples, stained glass, mosaics and all the other garbage they sell to the lost, while they claim their idolatry will bring you closer to god. Blatant liars, telling blatant lies. servant
P.S. In regards to my "fundie" Bibles capitalizing "Queen of Heaven". I read and love a Catholic Bible and Good News Bible with the catholic imprimatur, and both versions capitalize "Queen of Heaven". And again, Publiar, wrong again. Boy am I getting used to saying that, often.
As for the most recent JR crop: readers may consider it all as they will in terms of “juvenile”.
And have we not discovered at least one person “lying” about being “raped as children”?
Let's see I'm attacked sexually at school by my teacher; yet I'm the one lying? I'm lying because I use the word, rape to describe an adult religious forcing a child to touch his (the abuser's) genitals?
And the defender of rapists, P, thinks he's made a major point? Well! that's sure caught me out as a liar! If I wasn't penetrated I wasn't harmed? Fuck you!
On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
In a fresh attempt at mixing-and-matching, ‘Dan’ now dons the Wig of Sober Bemusement (he’s “perplexed”) while also playing the same one-note tune on his kazoo (am I “really that dense, stupid or ignorant …?”).
Because – doncha see? – once ‘Dan’ has put up his god-gram inspired stuff, then it only remains to agree with him or to “mock God”. There can be no other alternative. This presumption of his derives from that fundie ‘prophesying in the Spirit’ bit discussed yesterday. ‘Dan’ has declared himself (or Himself) possessed of a “prophecy” / it has to be accepted as such / therefore it is God’s Word and ‘Dan’ is God’s Mouth.
Then an epithetical riff on Catholics and the Church (so much for the Wig of Sober Bemusement).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
Then – in just another deployment of the I’m Not/You Are softshoe, he doth declare and proclaim that he has indeed “not only demonstrated, but I have proven and established” that Catholics consider Mary a goddess and indeed queen-goddess of Heaven.
He has, alas, done no such thing(s).
He asserted his claim / he accepted that Astarte is the subject of Jeremiah’s indictment / he pointed out some of the characteristics of Astarte-worship / he quoted a bunch of reverential prayers addressed to Mary as the Mother of God.
But he hasn’t demonstrated a) that Jeremiah was ‘prophesying’ the Catholic worship of Mary as a goddess and queen of all the gods of Heaven; nor b) that Catholics actually worship Mary as a divinity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
And, indeed, ‘Dan’s ‘theological’ foray to the effect that by naming Mary as His “mother” He may be considered to have acknowledged her own god-hood fails:
If Mary is a goddess, then she did not need to be “saved” in the first place;
If, by the terms of ‘Dan’s interpretation of Jesus’s statement, Mary is a goddess, then His “brothers” are also divinities;
There is absolutely no Catholic doctrine or dogma – past or present – proclaiming Mary to be divine.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
And, instead, all that ‘Dan’ has tossed up has been fundie word-play and word-games, accompanied by assorted pericopes that either don’t clearly establish ‘Dan’s assertions or else create even more theological problems than they purport to solve.
It would certainly appear that the ‘Dan’-verse definitions of “prove” and “demonstrate” and “establish” mean nothing more than a) making your assertions (or – if you wish – “prophecy”) and then b) larding on whatever pericopes might be shoe-horned into a simulacrum of evidence, either by word-play or by simply accepting the presumptive and irrefutable accuracy of ‘Dan’s “prophecy”.
This is a script and performance that will only work in front of a certain kind of audience, i.e. one that already agrees with the presumptions underlying it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
Thus, to cap it here, the “slew of prayers and statements” (and does ‘Dan’ deny Mary’s maternity of Jesus here?), the “proliferation of statues and temples dedicated in her name and honor” (the Church has no “temples”; this is just another slyly deceptive rhetorical effort by ‘Dan’ to establish the appearance of the Church as “pagan”), and various Popes “crowning and bowing to her image” (as reverence, not as worship – there is a distinct difference) … all of these favorite preferred bits from ‘Dan’s pile of 3x5s do not actually establish or prove his original assertion at all.
But, sunk in his “ignorance” (driven by whatever personal dynamics are on the boil within him), ‘Dan’ can on this basis assume the Wig of Outraged Knowledge and denounce any doubters and questioners as full of “ignorance” and “lies” and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
‘Dan’ will then try his hand at quoting from “your catechism”. He refers to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (For whatever editorial purposes, pronouns referring to God and Christ are not capitalized, and I will follow that protocol here in quoting from the Catechism.)
But, as usual with fundies merely looking for weapon-izable ‘proof texts’ for their own agenda and eructations, ‘Dan’ has simply picked a paragraph (963) that doesn’t actually reach the key point.
That key point would be in paragraph 488: “’God sent forth his Son’, but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free cooperation of a creature.” (Italics mine.) Mary is neither a goddess nor a divinity but rather “a creature”, i.e. a human being.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
And having quoted paragraph 963 the only thing ‘Dan’ can then do is to huff and sniff that he personally prefers to go to “God and Christ”. That’s as may be; but some human beings – and not a few – have chosen over the ages to deal with a human intermediary, and Mary is that human intermediary.
And – let’s face it – if ‘Dan’ has made a habit of going to “God and Christ in all dangers and needs” then that doesn’t seem to have been working for him.
And that paragraph then trundles on in a further ‘Dan’-riff presuming to know the mind of all those who call on Mary for help (“they only give lip service to God”, doncha see?) and we need go no further into ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse about it.
And he concludes with the histrionic but worthless “blatant liars, telling blatant lies” bit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:
On, then, to his “P.S.”:
The Good News Bible is put out by the American Bible Society and is not a translation officially embraced by the Church.
There are a number of translations authorized by the Church but there is no single translation that would be characterizable as “a Catholic Bible” so ‘Dan’ would have to be more specific here as to the particular translation to which he refers.
Readers so inclined may want to review the Cathechism, both paragraphs 488 and 963. They may also want to consider Pius XII’s encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam issued on October 11, 1954, which deals very specifically and at length with the topic of Mary as “Queen”.
In the encyclical, Pius XII notes that since Christ is King, then (if you follow the royalty-protocols) Mary can be considered and has always been considered “Queen”; I would say that perhaps Queen-Mother (i.e. Mother of the King) would be more precise but she remains, as paragraph 488 of the Catechism clearly states, “a creature”.