NY Times National Catholic Abuse Correspondent Laurie Goodstein
Her gig may finally be up. It has now come to the point that every sentient being now agrees that Laurie Goodstein at the New York Times is something less than an objective reporter when it comes to reporting about decades-old episodes of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
A recent Times podcast by Goodstein asks the question, "Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church: Why Is It Still a Story?" Goodstein then disingenuously claims, "The answer lies with the victims."
However, it has become crystal clear that Goodstein is really only concerned about victims of one institution, the Catholic Church. As we have repeatedly chronicled, Goodstein has written nearly 100 articles this decade about sex abuse in the Catholic Church, but she has written exactly zero articles about sex abuse in any other religious institution.
Say what, Laurie?
So we were surprised when a reader of this site passed on an email exchange he had with Goodstein in which Goodstein made the following claim:
"I have written about sexual abuse among Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Scientologists and Hare Krishnas."
Really, Laurie? We scoured the archives at the Times searching desperately for these alleged articles about sex abuse "among Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Scientologists and Hare Krishnas." Here is what we found:
- Goodstein wrote a single article 11 years ago about sex abuse in the silly 1970s "Children of God" cult.
- She wrote another single article 15 years ago about sex abuse in the "United Church of Christ" in Massachusetts.
- Goodstein wrote another single article about sex abuse among Hare Krishnas 18 years ago.
- She wrote a couple of articles about sex abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses (1, 2) 14 years ago.
- In 2010, Goodstein wrote another single article about "abuse" in the Church of Scientology, but she made no mention of sexual abuse at all, only of an alleged "abusive environment" (social/emotional/mental).
- The closest Goodstein came to writing about abuse in the Jewish community was "contributing" to a 2012 article, "Ultra-Orthodox Jews Rally to Discuss Risks of Internet."
Notice that not one of these articles was even written in this decade, while Goodstein has penned nearly 100 articles about sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
And as we have repeatedly reported, Goodstein has been radio silent on abuse among Protestant groups. An eye-popping 2002 article in the Christian Science Monitor stunningly reported that in Protestant churches "the pace of child-abuse allegations against American churches has averaged 70 a week."
70 abuse allegations in Protestant churches … per … week.
Yet Goodstein has written exactly nothing about this. Nada. Zilch.
"All the news that's fit to print"? Not even close.
I have to say, that if there were no sex abuse crimes committed or covered up by the "Holier than thou", catholic church, then no reporters would have anything to write about, concerning sex abuse among the phony churches of the world. I'm all for exposing sex crimes against the innocent in all religious and secular organizations. Let's open the statute of limitations and all the secrets files of all the perverts and pedophiles, imprison all of them and quit giving a pass to the politically powerful and religious hypocrites of the world. The catholic church would be a perfect one to start this cause. Then you can make some true claims that you're doing all you can to clean up the mess your surely a huge part of. Until then, I believe you shouldn't be too quick to insist on exposing and pointing the finger at others, because you surely will have three fingers pointing back at you. Step out into the light and clean up your own backyard, and then maybe the media can see past all your perversions and focus on the other hypocrite creeps of the world. Maybe that will make y'all happy, to judge and point out everyone elses faults. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Hopefully, when God destroys all your false temples, you'll have plenty of rocks to throw at others.
Is this woman what is known as a "hatchet man?"
Laurie Goodstein, at the NY Times, is an interesting example of modern journalism, or should I say advocacy journalism?. Because real journalism requires objectivity and impartiality…. ethics she clearly has thrown overboard. When any journalist takes sides then she becomes an advocate for a cause, and not an objective reporter… and no longer presenting a balanced picture to the general public. So kudos to Dave Pierre for doing the research that proves she is a liar.. Her excuses were so misleading that they can only be described as lying. Which makes me wonder about the accuracy and fairness of all those vehement articles she has written attacking the Catholic Church?
Yes
Generally speaking, the now decades-long focus on the Church has no doubt created a sub-specialty among some media types; this is their meat-and-potatoes and they’re going to stick with it for as long as they can. The Ball Must Be Kept Rolling.
And Goodstein helpfully puts her finger on the key dynamic of Victimism that has been the enabling pretext from the get-go: the reason she keeps it up, she says, is because of “the victims”.
But every problem or issue that has ever been the topic of media interest over the past 30 years has arguably had its ‘victims’, and yet few if any other story-lines or topics have remained so stubbornly in the news for all that time, such as has been the case with the Catholic Abuse Matter.
So I would say that there must be some other motivating factors that keep this focus going.
High on that list would be Victimism itself. It serves the agenda of engorging the government’s power and intrusive control: while the engorgement of government power over culture and society would appear dangerous and inimical to culture and society if it were merely overtly imposed, yet when done in the service of and for the relief of ‘victims’, then the government can present itself to all appearances as the Rescuer in the White Hat (rather than, say, merely the proverbial Leader on the Horse).
In that sense, ‘victims’ might be seen today as serving the same purpose for government as the Sudeten Germans did almost 80 years ago to another government: they are made out to be victimized and suffering outrageous oppression and assault and therefore … steps must be taken immediately and – fear not! – your government will do so and will not allow itself to be obstructed by law or fuddy-duddy principles of jurisprudence.
Thus Victimism serves as the pretext for secular government’s ongoing Kulturkampf against the Church (as being the largest and most intransigent opponent of secularism’s agenda for culture and civil society).
The Church remains the most significant and substantial “bitter-clinger” against the “fundamental transformation” envisioned by the secular and reputedly ‘progressive’ (I would say ‘regressive’) elements that have over the past decades established themselves.
Thus, the Catholic Abuse Matter (and the Stampede) must be Kept Rolling, regardless of the corrective changes the Church has made and regardless of the strong indicators not only that a) those corrections have had notable effect but also that b) there is no small probability that many of the claims could not survive or could ever have survived careful assessment.
Thus, on to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 907AM since it provides a useful vehicle for examining just this sort of stuff.
I will go along sentence by sentence:
The first sentence: we are to be lectured about the “Holier than thou” Church by someone who claims to be especially “Chosen” and assigned by God to deliver “prophecy”. And – nicely – “all the churches in the world” are “phony” (whereas the Chosen is the real McCoy and if you don’t believe that then you “mock God”).
The second sentence: who isn’t against “exposing sex crimes against the innocent”? The actual problem here is determining whether we are actually dealing with genuine sex crimes or rather allegations of such crimes. And from everything we have seen here, that is no small problem at all.
The third sentence: in which case removing the statutes of limitations would only make the problem worse since evidence degrades with the passage of time and we are simply opening the door to more allegations with even less chance of examining reliable evidence.
And in all of the “secret files” we have seen here, such as those released in this or that document cache by this or that media source, we have seen very few – if any – indications that Ordinaries were trying to do more than address the problems (actual or allegated) with warnings and admonitions and therapeutic intervention (although, as ‘Dan’ exemplifies, that route offers no sure-fire solutions by any means).
The fourth sentence: the Catholic Church is hardly at this point characterizable as “a perfect” place “to start” since we have seen all this Stampede stuff going on now for decades, with such results as we have seen.
But the Church was the perfect target (deep-pockets for the torties, record-keeping and files) and the Church had to be the target because it was the leading opponent in the Kulturkampf that the secular elements were waging to achieve their visions of “fundamental transformation” of culture and society.
And that Kulturkampf and – more locally – ‘Dan’s personal vendetta against the Church (and, apparently, against all religion that refuses to accept his Chosen-ness) is the actual “cause” at the heart of all of this.
Dan has absolutely no "personal vendetta against the Church". I am against any religious organization who spouts about being the true church of Almighty God or claims membership in the family of the One True God, in word, but by example are the most disgusting, lying, filthy, destroyers of innocence, ever to walk the earth. God will be their Judge, but I have every God given right to expose their wickedness, especially when some of their wickedness has been aimed towards me. "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret." Ephesians 5: 11-12 I need no one to accept my "Chosen-ness", but would like anyone to come to the One True God. Catholics have no idea how badly they are being deceived by Satan's Army, and their church has no resemblence to God's True Church. I'm beginning to think you have some connection to Neo-Nazism, and that's creepy, but not surprising.
The fifth sentence: we are lectured about “true claims” by someone whose assorted and various claims – such as they are – are now voluminously in the record here and readers may consider it all as they will.
And again we see the stupefying ignoring of all the indicators that demonstrate the Church’s success in making itself more abuse-preventive than any other organization on the planet.
Nor – as always – can we say with any certainty just how genuinely abusive the Church ever was, since all we have for ‘evidence’ are the numerous allegations that are themselves unexamined or – when examined – reveal significant and substantial problems with their veracity.
The seventh sentence: we are instructed to “step out into the light” by someone who walks in a cloud of self-delusion about his (or His) very special status as God’s Chosen.
And again – as so often with his material – that queasily suggestive and perhaps revelatory focus on “creeps” and “perversions”.
The eighth sentence: passing over that suddenly folksy “y’all” (perhaps to quickly reinforce the ‘normalcy’ of ‘Dan’s ideas as just a good ole homeboy).
But also a slyly manipulative advertisement for himself (or Himself) as being un-righteously bethumped by having his many ‘issues’ ‘pointed out’.
The ninth sentence can stay right up there where it was put.
The tenth and concluding sentence: a reference, yet again, to Catholic “temples”, as if his efforts on this site to characterize the Church as a pagan institution worshipping Mary as another Astarte haven’t already been demolished on the immediately preceding thread.
But ‘Dan’ is a plop-tosser and a ‘rock-thrower’ and he (or He) will no doubt continue. And good luck with that. But it’s not going to get a “free pass” here.
Publiar, I don't believe any of the ignorance and nonsense that you've spouted deserves any response, so I'll just let you be with all your excuses, mocking and lies and hope you can find some pride in your stupidity. Chosen servant of The Almighty God
Accusing me of your infantile "plop-tosser", just may be that your cult gives one a lot of plop to toss at. As far as a "rock-thrower" goes, then you must be firing boomerangs, because it's apparent that far too many have come back and smacked you in the head, Pee-brain.
And by the way, publyin', you demolished nothing with your suggested pius XII encyclical, but that and your comments further proved your ridiculous, idolatrous worship of your "Queen of Heaven". Keep bowing down and ignoring God's Word, to your own destruction. Later Mocker. servant
Did Publion post his opinion?
(I had overlooked this comment while posting the sequence on ‘Dan’s comment of the 28th at 907AM.)
The sixth sentence: thus fails here the Abusenik gambit of trying to distract attention from the general dubiousness of the allegations (and the Stampede itself) by claiming that it is the Church and Catholics who are trying to ‘point fingers’ at others (in this case, Goodstein). It is not at all merely a matter of ‘pointing fingers’; the evidence presented strongly indicates that Goodstein and the Stampede are highly questionable.
But the very use of the image of ‘pointing fingers’ is itself revelatory here: when you come right down to it, that’s all ‘Dan’ and the Abuseniks really do. They point fingers, insinuate, and try to manipulate people into accepting the (hugely dubious) veracity of the many claims and allegations.
Catholic sex abuse is still a news story; because the church hasn't helped all it's victims. Only 15% have been compensated.
Perhaps JR (on May 1) and Laurie Goodstein are singing from the same song sheet. She justifies her ongoing attacks on the Church as being "for the victims". Implying that there are more genuine victims, yet to come forward. JR bolsters this line by actually quantifying the number of such 'victims'….85% yet to come forward?. Wow! Surely a wild guess based upon wishful thinking? Given the saturation media coverage of the Abuse Matter, then any genuine victims would have already come forward. The promise of anonymity, and the lure of big bucks, would have overcome any personal reticence. The only source of claims now remaining would be from artful fabricators, encouraged by greedy lawyers.
Is that little man talking again? It's all just his opinion.
"Yet to come forward"? "Yet to come forward"? How do we know how many have come forward Princess?
the church aint sharing the info. Is it?
Do you really think so little of your fellow Catholics? You are more moral than we are. You wouldn't attempt a criminal fraud but we would? Got any proof for that? You are scum. Your arguements are specious. All fabrication and zero proof.
Tis a pity you're a whore. But a whore you are.
Puby the church's whore. He's the biggiest whore I know. (Sing to the Casper theme)
He hides; he prefabricates; he accuses without a speck of proof. A middling, muddying whore.
Malcolm, This post, 5/02/16 @ 9:07pm, is full of absolutely ridiculous statements. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Victims not yet ready to expose themselves to your cult's denials, threats and lies, have yet to come forward. Quit trying to fool yourself and others of that fact.
"The light shall shine in the darkness, and the darkness shall never extinguish it." John 1:5
It comes as no surprise that the only response ‘Dan’ (the 1st at 136AM) can make is to say that nothing merits his responding, which is an old and familiar dodge, larded thickly, of course, with a covering layer of epithet.
And as so often, he is alert to the presence of “ignorance and nonsense” and “stupidity”, but – as is required in order to keep his personal Cartoon going – assigns the source of “ignorance and nonsense” and “stupidity” to some source other than himself (or Himself).
I dare any catholics to Google "Cardinal Sean Brady – shroud of secrecy", and pick a website, any website. Thought you and your cult claimed you kept things secret for victims sake. You catholics can be the most disingenuous, lying creeps to exist. Between this and all the denials and questioning of authenticity of victims cases and their veracity, it's apparent that you fools will say just about anything to excuse your crimes and lies.
P.S. 5/1/16 @ 4:21am & 5.3/16 @ 9:12am – Seems like you're really falling back on that I'm Not/You Are gambit, your constantly accusing others of. Hypocrisy and ignorance at it's finest.
But then – again it comes as no surprise – he waits a bit and then essays a “response” (the 1st at 649PM): again he is alert to the presence of then “infantile”, but – again as is required in order to keep his personal Cartoon going – assigns the source to some source other than himself (or Himself).
Then (although the image gets itself somewhat confused here, not surprisingly): as to which of his or my ‘rocks’ have “come back and smacked [me] in the head”, he proffers no example. Nor, I would say, can he.
The Goodstein material and the Abusenik material in the comments give us, though, a rather clear view of the range and quality of material that seeks to keep the Stampede going.
Then JR (the 1st at 219PM) essays a comeback, while - of course – seeking to avoid the rather large elephant now demonstrably sitting athwart his own ‘victim’ performance: he will simply toss up his now-discredited 3×5 bit about “15%” of “victims” who “have been compensated” and will leave it at that.
While his percentage is utterly problematic on its face for the reasons explained in prior comments on this site, one cannot help but wonder – considering what we have seen of some ‘victim’ claims made here – if the credibility of the allegations themselves hasn’t played some part in the failure to satisfactorily “compensate”.
The only "large elephant in the room" is the amount of verbiage and length of your too, too, too many posts. You've got to keep the insults coming. That's all you've got. You are the Donald J. Trump of TMR. Narcissistic tool!
"Chosen servant of the Almighty God"? Don't quit your day job.
Jim, I guess you hadn't noticed, that I only used those titles to annoy Publyin'. Thanks for the advice, but I retired 10 years ago at age 52 and been working for the Lord for those 10 years, without donations, handouts or gov't assistance. Show me one of these phony cults that can say the same. Can't wait until stepping into eternity, when all the truth will be exposed, and all liars, deceivers and perverts will get their just desserts. Come quickly, Lord Jesus, for only "The fool would say in his heart, 'There is no God' ". Good luck, Jim. I think it's time I leave you great catholics to fight amongst yourselves. Have at it.
I understand that the NY Times is a publication which commands respect in some circles. Which makes it all the more reprehensible that Laurie Goodstein has clearly become a biased journalist, encouraging a witch-hunt against priests. During 2013, in Oregon, an extraordinary story emerged from a federal court, which should have made the front page of every newspaper in the country. But it didn't….because it would have spoiled the narrative, which Laurie Goodstein and others have deliberately created. Had the fraudulent exploits of prison inmate Shamont Lyle Sapp, against the Church, been reported, then it might have made people question the narrative. Therefore the public were kept in the dark, and the witch-hunt rolled on….as planned. Everything she writes basically assists the contingency lawyers to sue the Church… you could be forgiven for thinking she was working for these guys
And from JR (the 2nd at 1046PM) an epithet-laden performance. But what else at this point has he got?
And in what way do I ‘accuse’ “without a speck of proof”? No examples, of course, provided.
And how much of his epithetical rant here is actually applicable to his own claim?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 522PM:
‘Dan’ used those “titles” from the get-go. His effort here in this bit to try to minimize the queasy implications for his sanity by simply ascribing them to a (juvenile) effort to “annoy” me thus fails.
But now we know that we are dealing with a 62 year-old, which certainly sharpens the focus as to whatever happened at the schoolyard fence and the other six times.
He also doesn’t seem to have his “stepping into eternity” quite clearly figured out; unless, of course, he actually has and here reveals – as so often – more than he intended to.
Because when he steps into eternity, it will only be him (or Him) and the real Him there; so if “all the truth is exposed and all the liars, deceivers and perverts” will get what’s coming, then that can only refer to ‘Dan’. One might amuse oneself imagining his unpleasant surprise, perhaps, but the whole interview is best left to ‘Dan’ and the real Him.
Your sick, disgusting mind has made something innocent to be evil and that's why your a creep.
But wait – there’s more!
It would appear that – as we have so often seen with Abuseniks – ‘Dan’ is announcing his departure from the boards. We seem to be hearing a farewell honk from the god-spout.
Is this farewell to be relied upon? As much as any of his other material, I would say.
And I imagine that you will exhaustingly continue hissing your lies, deceptions, insinuations and mocking through Satan's-spout. Glad to be done with all you nasty, catholic hypocrites. Later creep.
On the 3rd at 246AM ‘Dan’ demonstrates yet again his marvelous ability to simply wish-away what in his material he doesn’t want to deal-with: he piously and indignantly brays that he “has absolutely no ‘personal vendetta against the Church’”. Readers may consider the veracity and reliability of that assertion as they will, taking all of his comments into consideration.
Instead – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ just happens to be against “the most disgusting, lying, filthy destroyers of innocence ever to walk the earth”.
But – doncha also see? – that would be “any religious organization” that holds itself as “being the true Church of the Almighty God or claims membership in the family of the One True God”.
There is actually a notably useful vein of ore in all of this.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 246AM:
What ‘Dan’ has constructed here, in the service of his personal Cartoon, is this: a) he is only against any group or religion that seeks to embrace God and His message but fails to live up fully to that ideal (which, given the crooked timber of humanity, would be any human organization seeking to embody ideals, whether religious or otherwise); b) since all such of those religious groups fail to completely realize their ideal then – by the convenient operation of his Cartoon – they are all utterly undermined and false; c) which leaves just ‘Dan’ who – by the convenient operation of his Cartoon – i) remains especially appointed, empowered and informed by God and ii) ‘Dan’ is, by implication though he may not dare to make the actual claim, the only “true” source of God’s message and the only truly faithful and reliable “servant”.
And thus, at the end of this equation (if you will), we have just ‘Dan’ left standing as the sole “true” Mouth and Spout of God on the planet.
As neat a little bit of (abnormal) psychic economy as one may have occasion to encounter.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 246AM:
He then also justifies himself (or Himself) by claiming that he has “every right to expose their wickedness”, but of course. And especially since – the Cartoon at work here again most clearly – “some of their wickedness has been aimed towards” him (or Him).
In other words: he is divinely authorized to carry on his exposures of “wickedness” but – he seems to forget – it was only after this 62 year-old man went after the kids at the schoolyard fence (and whatever the other six instances consisted of) that the school staff came out to deal with his troubling performance by the fence.
And, but of course, the Cartoon script requires that what ‘Dan’ does is merely ‘expose wickedness’ but when he (or He) is interfered-with, then that is simply a further example of that “wickedness”. In other words, when he (or He) does it, then it’s God’s Word; but when anyone tries to prevent his whackeries, then that’s just the “wickedness” that he (or He) claims has been there all along.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 246AM:
Which also – the alert reader may quickly notice – neatly and summarily neutralizes his own (apparently many and overt) ‘issues’ that manifest in thoughts, acts, and words.
And one may very legitimately consider to what extent ‘Dan’s sustained concern for “ignorance” and even more for ‘perversions’ and “creeps” and so on and so forth are actually the queasy fruit of his own ‘issues’.
And, reflecting the abiding fundie predilection for the Bible, he seems to imagine that by larding and marbling his hash with Scriptural quotations then the whole hash is raised to the authority of Scripture.
Wheeeeeee.
And he concludes his comment – apropos of nothing in the discussion – with an epithetical insinuation as to my being a Neo-Nazi. Readers may consider as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 557PM:
He simply wishes away the reality that the Church – through the clear statement from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself) raised – holds Mary to be a “creature” and not a goddess like Astarte. That, to him, ‘demolishes’ nothing in his claim that the Church worships Mary as a goddess like Astarte.
And he bolsters that assertion by simply repeating the epithetical material that has indeed just been ‘demolished’.
At which point, it would be time to simply have the nurse walk him back out to the sun porch.
While I was out on the sun porch, a snake, speaking with a forked tongue, slithered out from the darkness beneath, and had a name written across his forehead, "Publyin' (Prince) of Darkness". He spouted and belched out blasphemies against The Almighty and His servants, until the Son came forth to scorch his eyeballs, in which he quickly retreated and pussyfooted back into the darkness from which he came. End of the Lyin' Mocker's Cartoon.
You're going to tell me that the one word 'creature' in your catechism, demolishes the fact that your church, in total adoration and worship, calls Mary every possible title known to show goddess idolatry and worship, but doesn't worship her above the Creator. Totally against Bible principles, bowing down to her, placing overbearing crowns of gold on her head, and kissing the feet of some of her statues until all that's left are stubs. Referring to her even as the very "Mother of God" and praying the rosary, with 10 times more prayers to Mary than the Creator of all things. Wow, you really 'demolished' and annihilated me! Maybe someday I can grow up to be as wise as you, without the mocking of course.
On the 2nd at 1153PM ‘Dan’ will attempt to refute Malcolm through a) mere epithet (‘Dan’ does like to hear himself (or Himself) deliver epithets) and through b) the retreat to the old Abusenik insistence that indeed there are myriads more ‘victims’ but – even after 30 years or so – they just haven’t gotten around to telling everybody.
And that – he assures us – is a “fact”. And readers may consider the reliability of that declaration.
Even if it is then – as so often – piggy-backed on a Scriptural pericope for added – if fallacious – oomph.
Are you Malcolm's mouthpiece? There are horrific stories still coming to light, like pope RATS brother, George Ratzinger, for instance, concerning 231 cases of child abuse, which was exposed in 2010 and again in 2016, but Georgy Boy recently claimed he knew nothing about. Is your whole cult filled with lying, naive, hypocrite ostriches. Maybe you've found your calling to start an offshoot of the church, Cult of Liars. Sorry, too late. It's been that for close to 1700 years. "The light shall shine in the darkness, and the darkness shall never extinguish it." John 1:5
On then to the 4th at 923AM:
He then tries to introduce some website, and we may recall JR and his Fr. Tom Economus stuff about the “secret” committees set up by the American bishops and so on (SNAP, you may recall, is in this theory a “secret” committee), from that website that included ‘Vatican’ and ‘Satanic’ in its title.
I have no doubt that – beyond such sites as the NY Times and NC Reporter – there are indeed many dark and subterranean precincts of the Web where one can find all manner of stuff. The value and accuracy of such stuff is – to say the least – open to serious question and analysis, and perhaps any reader so inclined would like to take on that project.
As always with Abuseniks, they seem to imagine that by simply tossing up stuff they like to read then they have somehow ‘demonstrated’ and ‘proven’ their assorted assertions and claims. We’ve seen all that before.
And again with “lying creeps” … and one may consider the dynamics underlying that sustained trope as one may.
Oh! So the media and websites are all liars unless they're touting the extravagant pope, pomp and circumstance, ridiculous trips around the world. Catholics, don't listen to the Son of Satan, trying to convince you that several dozens of news agencies who must verify the authenticity when quoting a news story, tell you that their information is inaccurate. It seems that liars assume that everyong else is a liar, too. Why don't you take on the project, or are you too busy lying to have time to do something resourceful. Hypocrite, lying creep.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 923AM:
And then ‘Dan’ tosses in a familiar Abusenik deception: by “questioning of authenticity of victims” one is merely issuing veiled “denials”. Again: No, one is simply questioning as one has every right to do; and as we have seen so often on this site, questioning of Abusenik material does lead to even more questions as to the reliability and veracity of the material.
And that bit is buttressed by yet another epithet, this time “fools”.
Readers can review my comments referenced in his “P.S.” and consider the reliability of ‘Dan’s insinuation.
I wish I had enough time or interest to read P's obfuscations. Nothing new in any of them.To those of you who do read them: may I extend my condolences.
Dan insulting Catholics for being Catholics is unfair. It also only serves the corporate church who's been pushing this persecution of "Religion" nonsense to cover its' own, very real, crimes.
TMR was created to maybe launch a counter attack on their self -invented "persecution" and or if that failed to take off (which still seems to be true) then to muddy victims as criminals. The criminals calling out their victims as criminal.Amazing!.
Dan, You're insulting them for their faith, only fuels these false premises.
Look at how horrible P looks when he denigrates you and everyone else. He searched to find things to hurt you with. Where's the Christian, ala Jesus, in that? We both know the answer. It (love) isn't there. How can you love the people you lyingly call thieves? Love holds zero interest for P liar.
Sorry about the not picking up your sarcasm re "Chosen servant". Glad you're no longer a wage slave.
Dan, I know you are trying to "save" people with what you believe in; but the road to hell is paved with such good intentions. If calling me a "fool" because I don't believe in God or Heaven or Hell. Is how Jesus would behave? I'll happily risk it: both Hell and being a fool. That's how sure I am that the afore mentioned unp
Hey Jim, I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to stop responding to the lies and insults, but daily fielded something worse than the previous day. Think I've said that I'm no Jesus, and have no clue how He could turn the other cheek. If I was insulting, it was towards a hierarchy of hypocrisy, absolutely false teaching, and anyone denying real victims and the terrible crimes of the church against innocence. I'm not persecuting a true church. I'm exposing a false cult and believe that they persecute, slander and lie about others to keep the focus off themselves. I'm only calling a spade, a spade. You have the right to think that's unfair, but who will warn them if God's people aren't willing. You don't believe as I do, in a heaven or hell, so I think it would be impossible for you to understand the job I'm here to do. I can't "save" anyone, my work is to plant seed, in the hopes that others will want to read the Word, be sorry for their mistakes and come to know an Awesome God and Savior. You have not really lived until you do. Faith is believing without seeing. Not provable, Jim, unless you can open your eyes to all the wonders of His creation. I do wish you well. Take care. Dan
unprovable entities do not exist. Peace!
P's so wonderful. He declares who he's beaten. He just declares himself victorious; accurate; truthful without ever actually being any of those things. He's YUGE!
P, you are the Donald Trump of TMR.
A number of ‘Dan’s most recent bits don’t leave much trace at all, once you have filtered out the epithets and myah-myah stuff and the Scriptural window-dressing, and that stuff can remain where it was put.
But a few bits can be mined for useful insights.
On the 4th at 209PM, referring to the schoolyard fence episode, ‘Dan’ will claim that it is only my “sick, disgusting mind” that has “made something innocent to be evil” – and then there’s that always-interesting “creep” bit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 209PM:
Let me try to say this more bluntly: there was nothing “innocent” about ‘Dan’s actions and words at all, except in his own delusional Cartoon, which he has constructed to compensate for what are clearly some notable problems, especially in somebody his age.
The entire episode at the schoolyard fence was queasy and alarming, which was evident to the staff, who acted appropriately in trying to get him away from the children.
And I would say that there can be little doubt that similar dynamics were involved in the six cases that involved the police, the courts, and court-ordered psychiatric observation.
His sustained reliance on such bits as ‘disgusting’ and ‘liar’ and ‘pervert’ and ‘creep’ and ‘deceiver’ are rooted in his own issues, which he has projected onto others (the Church and priests and so forth being handy mules for his purpose). In his signature epithets he actually gives us an outline of himself.
Whatever, you lying, disgusting, perverted, deceiving creep, and you forgot despicable mocker. People all the time are able to project their perversions onto others, and that's why there are so many disgusting, pedophile perverts in your sick cult and among your nasty priests. And where did you happen to come up with that theory. This is proven fact that you are an ignorant, nonsensical, stupid idiot. Grow up and try speaking some truth, before you become a total idiot. Jim, as I told you, I think I've heard the worst from publyin', but somehow he digs deep into a demon's archive to come up with some ridiculous, imaginative, "Cartoon" fantasy of stupidity. PeeWee, you ought to apply to the vatican. Maybe they'll let you dress in one of the pope's swiss guard outfits, and nobody will be able to distinguish you from the rest of the clowns. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 209PM:
And this gives readers another lens through which to view the Stampede: the Stampede has created a seductive space not simply for overt Abuseniks such as we have seen here, but also for types such as ‘Dan’, for whom the Church and Catholicism can be made to serve as psychological piñatas upon which they can relieve themselves of the burden of their own queasy and disturbing issues.
Yet – to borrow one of ‘Dan’s favorite bits – such types deceive nobody but themselves.
But that deception is vital to the Cartoon they have constructed to avoid the realities within themselves, and thus this type of Cartoon isn’t going to be dissolved any time soon, and certainly not by rational means.
On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 537PM:
As so often, ‘Dan’ will try to create something more convenient for his purposes than what I actually did say. All websites have to be looked at and assessed before their claims are taken to be reliably veracious.
I have made no assumptions here beforehand. I have assessed, reached a conclusion from the material presented, and explain to readers how I reached those conclusions. That’s how it’s done.
Nor – aside from the predictable blizzards of distractions and epithets – have Abuseniks or ‘Dan’ put up anything in the way of a rational rebuttal or counter-explanation.
On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 557PM:
‘Dan’s comment to ‘Malcolm Harris’ was made on an open thread and anyone can comment in response.
Then, in support of his claim that “there are horrific stories still coming to light”, he proffers a claim about Benedict XVI’s brother and “231 cases of child abuse”. But ‘Dan’ offers no link or identifying reference. And I have not come across anything in major media that discusses what would appear to be quite a scoop, if it were true. (Would Goodstein or any media types similarly inclined let something like this slide by, if it were true?)
So it would be useful if ‘Dan’ could provide some supporting references. Unless this is just another whacko bit from the lower precincts of the Web. We’ve seen that before from Abuseniks here (for example, that the Church owns half of the ground under the city of Chicago).
Otherwise, ‘Dan has done nothing to shed actual “light” here, but rather is merely tossing around more dust to cloud everyone’s vision.
I thought you're Mr. Research, but you're unable to find a website unless the teacher holds your hand and shows you exactly where it's at. I've never heard of anyone so dependent, who tries to convince others of their brilliance by using stupid, uncommon words, but has no clue to navigating the internet. Are you serious? As I said previously, in regards to "Cardinal Sean Brady", admitting to the "Shroud of Secrecy" in the church, "pick a website, any website", because everyone was reporting on the subject. So as you've informed us, ad nauseam, "I have assessed, reached a conclusion from the material presented, and explained to readers how I reached those conclusions." True meaning of this phrase- I, publyin' will twist all truth into lies and if that won't work I'll question the accuracy of those news agencies and if they don't buy that, then I'll just claim, 'Dan'," is merely tossing around more dust to cloud everyone's vision". And to that dust you shall return. This is more proof of why I truthfully consider you a despicable, disingenuous, lying creep. Sorry, that's no lie. BTW, the N.Y. Times covered the story. Soooo…sorry, Mr. Research- but you've been assessed!!
On, then, to JR’s of the 4th at 527PM:
Not being well-equipped to keep up with the thread on his own, JR will try to piggy-back himself onto ‘Dan’s stuff.
As usual, he opens with an epithet, this time about my “obfuscations”, although – as usual – no examples of my “obfuscations” are provided. (And would a claim of “child rape” when one was neither a child nor raped qualify as an “obfuscation”?)
And then JR riffs for a while, masking his usual anti-Church bits in words of advice for ‘Dan’. And we’ve seen all of this stuff of his before.
Everything you write about the subject of sex abuse and COVERUP in the Catholic church is an obfuscation. EVERYTHING.
At 11.43 am, on the 5th May, JR makes his oft repeated accusation about a "coverup" within the Catholic Church. But I am a little bewildered as to how anybody can hide that which is being alleged. Remember this is serious stuff, the sexual abuse of minors, and it has always been a criminal offence, in my lifetime. Take JR's own case, of being molested by a lay teacher. How could anybody have prevented JR from telling his parents?. How could anybody have prevented the parents from going to the police? So if anybody has "covered up" then both JR and his parents were complicit in that "coverup". And the perp, according to JR, just moved on and continued as a schoolteacher.? Well… whose fault is that?. With no criminal record, then prospective employers would not have suspected him?. In other words we have to question, and not just be swept along by moral panic.
In ‘Dan’s comment of the 4th at 1044PM we get another demonstration of the type of mind we are dealing with: he can’t conceive how all the many words he has picked out in regard to his claim of the Church’s worship of Mary as a goddess can fail against the one word “creature” in paragraph 488 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
This is a mind that can’t or won’t grasp concepts, but rather simply totes up shiny numbers.
But there’s no way around it: one cannot simultaneously be i) goddess-queen and ii) “creature”. The concepts and terms are mutually exclusive.
Mary is a “creature” of the very “Creator” that ‘Dan’ goes on about.
The really interesting thing is that somebody else had to point this out to him.
And then and then and then: we are treated (the 4th at 1128PM) to yet another one of those catty little just-entre-nous exchanges, usually seen between JR and ‘Dennis’, but here ‘Dan’ will start one up. Shhhhhh – don’t disturb them and let’s listen in …
We’re not supposed to be reading or hearing this, but ‘Dan’ would reely reely like to stop ‘responding’ (far far too generous a characterization, I would say) to all the “lies and insults” with which he is daily bethump’t.
After all, poor little ‘Dan’ is only “insulting” to all that totally awful Catholic stuff and – really – he’s not actually “persecuting a true church” (of which there appear in his Cartoon of the cosmos to be none, except for the one he runs in his Cartoon-verse).
And – gosh and golly gee – he’s really “only calling a spade a spade” (if only he could marshal such robust reality-testing when looking in the mirror).
And – gosh and golly gee – God sure is Awesome (yes, and a pity that the god-grams ‘Dan’ receives don’t seem able to impart that quality to their earth-bound recipient).
And on the 5th at 1143AM, JR’s only way to avoid the rather large elephant of his own “obfuscation” (too generous, perhaps; ‘inaccuracy’ might be closer to it, and ‘dishonesty’ is certainly not off the table) is to simply assert – myah, myah – that everything I write is “obfuscation”.
And as usual, he attempts to compensate for the lack of any substance to back up his epithet, by simply repeating “everything” in capitals. Wow, that should do it.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1032PM:
In this ‘response’, ‘Dan’ opens with a string of epithets (“lying, disgusting, perverted, deceiving creep”) which, as I have said, are most usefully considered as self-revelatory projecta.
He then asserts that “people all the time are able to project their perversions onto others”. This is curious, since – despite his own numerous misadventures with forensic psychiatry – he has demonstrated himself to be rather innocent of actual knowledge in that area.
It would appear that he is trying to insinuate the position that what he does is more or less normal, since “people all the time” do it. Readers may consider whether a) people project “all the time” instead of – say – from time to time; and b) if “people all the time” display so sustained and intense a focus on specific particular elements, which they then c) deploy with such aggressiveness, which aggressiveness d) seems not only immune to rational assessment but also actually evades such rationality.