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.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1032PM:
But in his urge to toss more epithetical plop, he then loses track of his material here and claims that it is because of such projection that “there are so many disgusting pedophile perverts” among Catholics and priests.
But what he says here thus asserts that it is mere projection by others (in this case – by amazing coincidence – ‘Dan’) that causes it.
And he further demonstrates how he has lost control of his material here: he has also claimed (whether he realizes it or not) that the projection has created the fact; when actually the projection could only create the appearance of a fact, i.e. that there are so many of those types among Catholics and priests; but, of course, the projection could not actually create the fact. That “there are” is a simple declarative assertion of a fact, not of an appearance; but to claim here that a fact is created by a projection is merely to put the cart before the horse.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1032PM:
He then heads for the deeper precincts of his swamp by asking “where did [I] come up with that theory”. If he means (and it’s not easy to follow the bouncing ball of his mental process here) the theory of clinical projection, then that’s an established element of psychological assessment and dynamics – perhaps not covered in any of his god-grams but easily researchable in relevant books or even online.
And then proceeds to sink himself in those depths by concluding in his next sentence that “this is a proven fact that you are an ignorant, nonsensical stupid idiot”. Any reader who can suss out the logical connection of these already dubious elements is welcome to share the revelation here.
And, as usual with so much of ‘Dan’s mentation and the stuff it produces, his string of epithets is most usefully considered as self-revelatory, however unintentional that result may be.
Is all your nonsense in these last 3 posts, supposed to demonstrate your brilliance. Because all I see is a flashing neon sign saying, "WARNING !!! WHACK-JOB ON THE HORIZON, STEER CLEAR to avoid a serious collision with stupidity. When I stated, "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." That statement was total sarcasm. I wasn't aware that it's possible to learn about "forensic psychiatry" from "numerous misadventures" in the looney bin. I previously had told you that I refused there mind altering drugs and had no counseling, because my stays were very short. Apparently if you claim that's the place you gain knowledge of "forensic psychiatry", then apparently you've spent much more time there than myself. From your material, I've somewhat assessed that you've been detained in some looney bin all along. What puzzles me is that they let you play on a computer. Aren't they afraid you might hang yourself with the cords. Oh! Maybe that's not as bad as you've hung yourself on this forum. See I know how to assess things. Back under the sun porch you go, peewee. "PeeWee" queasy for you? And you think "gosh and golly gee" demonstrates your maturity level, Gomer (peewee) Pile of (fill in blank).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1032PM:
Then ‘Dan’ once again starts up one of those catty little just-entre-nous bits with “Jim” and readers can consider it as they will.
And again with that queasy (especially coming from a 62 year-old man) “PeeWee” bit. Which serves to lubricate further epithetical stuff, which concludes the performance, such as it has been.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1120PM:
As we have seen more than once from Abuseniks who cannot come up with any actual supportive references for their assertions, ‘Dan’ here will now claim a variant of JR’s old dodge: it’s not his job to do the ‘research’ or to provide references to the ‘research’ that would demonstrate his assertions.
And he further tries to turn that dodge into an epithet by claiming that I clearly haven’t got ‘research’ chops.
There are untold millions of websites, and since we can only presume that ‘Dan’ is familiar with the particular one from which he got his material (about the instances of Ratzinger child-abuse, you will recall), then it would be his task to provide the link since he was the one who made the accusation/assertion about those alleged instances.
But perhaps he doesn’t know where the material he so assertively proffers comes from. Or perhaps he does, but it is indeed of questionable provenance and he’d rather not have to admit that’s where he gets a lot of his stuff.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1120PM:
Readers may recall that he had used the Ratzinger abuse allegations (on the 4th at 557PM) as an example of “horrific stories still coming to light”, yet that story has apparently – by ‘Dan’s own statement – been around for more than half a decade (and hasn’t been given much cognizance by major media outlets that theoretically would be most interested in such a claimed story).
He then tries to further cover his dodge here by trying to turn it against me: that he has “never heard of anyone” (spare us the thought of how many things ‘Dan’ has never heard-of) “so dependent” and so on. Neato, but it’s been done by other Abuseniks here and we’ve seen it all before.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1120PM:
As for the Brady material, “pick a website, any website” is grossly inaccurate on its face. Perhaps ‘Dan’ is merely given to exaggeration; it does seem to be a problem with him.
At any rate, the story seemed mostly of interest to the Irish and UK media (and NC Reporter and Crux in the US), and dealt with a single priest from four decades ago. Readers may consider this article from the Belfast Telegraph from June of 2015, which deals with events in 1975.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/cardinal-brady-apologises-to-fr-brendan-smyths-victims-after-revelations-two-teenage-boys-were-asked-if-they-enjoyed-abuse-they-suffered-31331361.html
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1120PM:
But ‘Dan’ has another bit on his agenda here: he would very much like to somehow make it seem that I don’t assess material and explain my conclusions; if he can do that – doncha see? – then maybe he can undermine my assessments of his own material and the myriad problems it reveals.
He has to do it in a roundabout sort of way, since actually trying to counter my assessments hasn’t really been working for him, and indeed his efforts consistently raise more questions (and queasy if unintentional self-revelations) than he can or cares-to deal with.
Thus, in regard to the material contained in such unintentional self-revelations, ‘Dan’ would like to spin as merely my effort to “twist all truth into lies” and so forth. That “truth” would include the ‘truth’ that what he did at the schoolyard fence was truly “beautiful” and if it weren’t for the staff (and the police and the courts) that “beautiful” event at the schoolyard fence (and whatever constituted those other six events) would have so beauteously furthered the Kingdom of (‘Dan’s version of) God.
Finally, Your last paragraph was a beauteously done assessment of me. Subtracting the fact that your "research chops" stink, because I've told you previously, plain as day- 6+6+6=666. The genius forgot? And you be awful dumb, still mocking God and joining all the creeps who have slandered and lied in order to cause me trouble. Persecute on, you peewee hypocrite. Grow up and you can be considered just a hypocrite. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1120PM:
And in regard to media stories pertaining to the Catholic Abuse Matter, my position has always been to assess the story – which any intelligent reader should do in any case – especially since there are so very many Stampede elements that indicate the probability of inaccuracy or skewing and thus a form of readers’ ‘heightened scrutiny’ is required.
‘Dan’s pious bleat about my questioning “the accuracy of those news media” thus nicely pretexts his concerns about my questioning of his own material – which has caused him so much irritation here, as he confided to JR in one of those catty little just-entre-nous bits a day or two ago. (Of course, the ‘Dan’-verse cover for that is that ‘Dan’ is not so much concerned for himself but rather for the ‘mocking’ of ‘God’.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1120PM:
I recall a college class quite some time ago where we students were given the assignment of sussing out the manipulative dynamics of commercials. I chose some of those automobile ads that some readers may well recall: a richly photographed color photo of a luxury car, with a beautiful woman standing next to the car in an evening gown of the era, against a background reminiscent of an MGM musical.
The inherent manipulation: buy the car and you get the beautiful woman and the rich and carefree life too – it’s so easy!
Later, assessing then-current items from Pravda and Izvestia sharpened that skill. And then reading current national news articles as well.
One must always assess what is being proffered.
Awwww!! What happened, you weren't able to get the girl and are still driving around in your clown car? I don't think watching TV commercials during your Looney Toons Cartoon Time on Saturday morning constitutes calling it a "college class", but if that's what your nurse told you to call it, we'll all go along with it. I have heard that it is quite the "carefree life" though, living as a permanent resident of the looney bin. Ask the nurse, and maybe she'll let you watch Romper Room. I think you'll have an easier time assessing a more juvenile type of commercial in one of these more advanced "college class[es]"- wink, wink.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1120PM:
And ‘Dan’ then works in “dust” (as in tossing dust to cloud vision) in order to platform his predictable twist to Scripture – or, more specifically – to the death that is coming to all who try to assess ‘Dan’ instead of simply buying his stuff.
In what way any of that constitutes “more proof” of why – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – ‘Dan’ doth “truthfully consider” himself quite righteous in his assessment (insert epitheticals here) of my assessment of him and his stuff … is anybody’s guess. But what else has he got, really?
And – as if he realizes the weakness of his performance here – he then snarkily bleats that “that’s no lie”. And readers may consider it all as they will.
And he concludes by claiming that the New York Times “covered the story” (which story – the Ratzinger one or the Brady one?). But in light of what the current TMR article and my own comments are considering here, then that’s hardly any sort of “proof” of anything at all. (And he even now doesn’t provide the link to the article in the NYT to which he refers.)
Do you want me to take you by the hand and show you how to Google a story. I think you'll have to ask your nurse for help. Have you considered shock treatment or a lobotomy? I've heard they can do wonders to loosen up the cobwebs.
Thanks anyway, but no one asked you to assess me or my stuff.. And like I've said, your assessment of someone or something, including the Lord's word, is to twist the truth into your deceptive, vicious lies, with claims that this is your honest, reasonable assessment. Crawl back into the dark hole you slithered from, Snake of Satan. Too bad you have a problem with "truthfully consider[ing]" anything. Try it, and you may earn some respect. Until then, "you reap what you sow". servant of God
Malcolm, I was molested by Marianist Brothers. Religious not lay.
I don't know Dan or Dennis but for this website.
You know P your mealy mouthedness is why the Catholic church loses lots of people as Catholic kids grow up. People just don't need the nasty.
Malcolm, I did tell the grown-ups in charge of my school. I was 16 and left it in their hands. They were responsible. They should have told my parents, not me. That was their job and they failed to do it. I thought, once the abuse stopped, I'd be o.k.. The furthest thing from the truth.
Anybody else sick and tired of P's bitchery?
Ask yourseves, those who work full time and who've posted here, How long did it take you to write your posts? Then see how many posts P writes in a day. That's a full time job.
The arrogance of the man to think that his one little opinion is worth wasting our time reading over and over again; and it never ends.
He's not a victim. He "says" he's not an abuser, sexually, of children. He plays the defender of the faith when he's really,only, your everyday anti-Christ, defending the bosses of the church against the people they've injured.
I judge a man by her/his actions. P's actions are uncharitable; rude; mean-spirited; self-aggrandizing and elitist. Is that your brand of Catholicism? if it is P's your man. Jesus? Not so much. You don't have to like your opposition but you were commanded to love us. Where's the love? I'd settle for a little human decency.
Do you actually think people will be attracted to P's behavior? Does anyone believe him about any of the drivel he spews?
On the 7th at 419AM we get a chance to see further demonstration of the contortions ‘Dan’ will contrive to keep his stuff afloat.
First, he tries to dismiss it by his mere assertion that it is “nonsense”.
Then he reveals his own mind’s priorities by insinuating that my material is intended to “demonstrate [my] brilliance”. It is not. I am confident that my material is rational and appropriately presented as useful points for readers’ consideration. Attempting to achieve the appearance of “brilliance” may be something ‘Dan’ seeks, but it is not a purpose of mine. And going up against the likes of ‘Dan’ and JR is hardly going to “demonstrate … brilliance” in any case; given the quality of the material they proffer, one needn’t be “brilliant” at all in order to deal with it.
Then he tries the old I’m Not/You Are dodge by trying to spin me as the sanity-challenged person, as well as being ‘stupid’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 419AM:
Then he tries to spin his own material about “people all the time” as merely being “sarcasm” – and “total sarcasm” at that. If he is being honest here, then he has admitted that what he claims “people all the time” do and all the rest are exactly the opposite of what he embraces. Which would then put him in opposition to his own position as he has gone on with it for all this time here.
And if that bit hasn’t taken him well over his head in the swamp, then the sentence following it surely does: he insinuates (as best I can follow the bouncing ball here) that whatever I might know of forensic psychiatry I had learned in “the looney-bin”, apparently forgetting that it is he himself who actually has compiled that record of experiences. So this is just another effort at I’m Not/You Are again.
This bit is a slyly deceptive and manipulative effort: while the best way to learn about it is through education, one – if one were forensically examined – might pick up a few bits, especially in regard to oneself. Clearly ‘Dan’ hasn’t, in all his stays. No doubt, when proffered some suggestions by the psychiatric staff, he merely dismissed at as “nonsense” and “lies, lies, lies” (perhaps putting his hands over his ears and shaking his head while intoning those mantras loudly).
I was accused falsely by liars like yourself, so there was absolutely no reason for my being sent to these hospitals for any evaluation. I didn't need any help from a medical staff that had patients so drugged with anti-depressants that everyone except myself and staff was walking around like a bunch of zombies. As to your ridiculously repetitive statement that I was "judged to have a chronic but low-grade derangement", of which "the prognosis for successful therapy was very poor, since he was sufficiently sunk into his derangement", all I can say is that you are evil, mean-spirited, ignorant and most definitely stupid. As I've quoted, "You reap what you sow.", and deserve all the insults you get from anyone on this forum. You've added lies to my stories, that I threatened and harangued school children, so why not just add more to bolster your agenda and say there was physical violence (which bears truth but only from your cults, 4 thugs), and say I was shooting at the children, like you would wish. I believe if anyone is in need of a psychiatric assessment, it would be you. I witnessed all kinds of low to high "derangement", as you so kindly put it, and those patients weren't leaving the hospital for weeks, months or years, accordingly. Don't know where you learned your forensic psychiatry stuff, but your poor assessment again falls far short of any truthfulness. Not surprising or unexpected. Keep mocking, imbecile.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 419AM:
He then tries to provide some further credibility for himself in regard to his own stays there by claiming that both a) he refused “mind-altering drugs” and b) his stays in the bin were always “short”.
Competent professionals would not offer “mind-altering drugs” without diagnostic examination and assessment. So ‘Dan’ cannot have it both ways here, i.e. that he was i) offered “mind altering drugs” and refused them and yet also that ii) he was there so short a time that nobody really examined him.
And as for the ‘shortness’ of his stays: I had written before on a prior thread that the psychiatric staff might well have judged him to have a chronic but low-grade derangement, and given the depth and rigidity of his fixations the prognosis for successful therapy was very poor, since he was sufficiently sunk into his derangement that he considered himself (or Himself) to be most certainly more sane than anyone attempting to treat him.
The frequency (six or seven that we know of here) of his aggressive forays would not have been considered a priority, since no overt physical violence was apparently involved. But since then one god-addled person took a gun and did some shooting (as was discussed on that prior thread), which might prompt any future psychiatric assessors to adjudge differently.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 419AM:
And his effort, again, to try to connect a) any knowledge of forensic psychiatry with b) confinement in a “bin” is sly but utterly deceptive, since I made no such claim. As I have said here, the best way to learn any subject is through education. But ‘Dan’, as he (or He) has insisted, needs no education but the Bible and his (or His) god-grams.
He then riffs happily on his preferred vision of my being an inmate of such an institution, and why disturb such consolations?
And again with the queasy “PeeWee” bit.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 442AM:
Here, he opens by accepting my sarcasm as if it were my approval of his actions and words.
And then – marvelously – he tries to simultaneously impugn my “research chops” while demonstrating his own sanity and “brilliance” with his “plain as day 6+6+6 =666” bit. Readers may consider as they will.
And then – sustaining the marvelousness – he then reminds readers that in his view of his record, there are simply “all the creeps who have slandered and lied to cause me trouble”. No doubt – he would have us imagine – the school staffers responding to the incident at the schoolyard fence (and readers may consider what possibilities were actualized in the other six incidents) had nothing on their minds except to “cause [‘Dan’] trouble”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 442AM:
One can see why the psychiatric evaluators decided that there was little prospect of successful therapeutic intervention. ‘Dan’s sly effort to insinuate that since his stays were so short then he must not be somewhat deranged betrays only his ignorance of the concept of ‘triage’: the ones who are quickly moved from the examining facility are beyond hope and thus their short stay on the examining table.
And – marvelously again – he even goes as far as to outright raise the bleat that in all of this he is – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – ‘persecuted’ (just like the martyrs and Apostles).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 503AM:
His extended riff here is what it is and readers may consider it as they will. It need detain no one any further than that.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 512AM:
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates his unfamiliarity-with or avoidance-of proper form when one is proffering a point for consideration: one states one’s thesis, provides the evidentiary material, then explains the reasoning by which one has reached one’s conclusions and thesis.
That leaves the readers free and informed so as to make their own assessments.
That’s how it’s done.
Simply tossing up epithet-larded assertions and claims is not how it’s most constructively done. That is the way of deception and manipulation.
You claim, "one states one's thesis [adding false statements], provides the evidentiary material [submits lies as true evidence], then explains the reasoning by which one has reached one's conclusions and thesis ['one' thinks 'con'clusions means to con with lies]. After brain-washing readers with what you'd want them to believe (your lies), you claim you leave them free and informed so as to make their own assessments. Well done, Hitler.
"Simply tossing up epithet-larded assertions and claims is not how it's most constructively done. That is the way of deception and manipulation." Nice, you describe yourself and follow it up with your favorite I'm not/You are gambit, using the words (deception and manipulation) that describe your stuff perfectly.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1052AM:
Yet again echoing one of JR’s old bits, ‘Dan’ huffs that “no one asked [me] to assess” his stuff.
Again: ‘Dan’ has chosen to put his material up on an open thread and no one needs to be “asked”; anyone can comment and assess as they see fit.
But neither Abuseniks nor self-declared ‘prophets’ actually want to be assessed: they want to be able to toss their stuff up and be agreed-with and nothing else.
That’s not my problem and that’s not going to happen here.
Look, publyin', I'd have no problem with someone assessing my material, providing someone did that honestly. What you call assessing, is truly blatant lies, because you weren't there to witness any of the incidents, but think you can add your own play-by-play. That's ridiculous, stupid and ignorant and has nothing to do with an assessment, but only the work of a liar from the darkness. You fail to get that? Mr. Mocker
And then JR proffers a few comments. Most of them need not detain us, but the comment of the 7th at 1049AM at least contains a few revelatory and informative bits.
Still trying to find a way around his own recent credibility and integrity problems arising from his claims, JR will seek to address the readership, while simultaneously manipulating their response.
First, he tries insinuation: the amount of time it takes to write my posts must indeed indicate (or ‘prove’, if you will) that it is “a full time job”. No, it doesn’t and it’s not. All of my posts are one-offs and it doesn’t take that much time to compose them. (It might take JR quite a while to compose posts of similar content and expression, but that’s his problem.)
But I do consider this site and the Catholic Abuse Matter important and worth such time and energy as it does take.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1049AM:
He then proclaims my “arrogance” that I would dare to “think” that my “one little opinion is worth wasting our time reading”.
Here he merely reveals the workings of his own mind: that material is put up here merely to be ‘read’ (and, of course, agreed-with).
But I put up my material to offer readers input that enables them to consider the subject with some degree of information and an explicated point of view which they can judge as they see fit.
“It never ends” (although JR would very much like it to) because the Abuseniks and ‘prophets’ keep at it and their stuff has to be assessed and answered – although, as I said, that’s precisely what they don’t want to have happen. They are here to manipulate or intimidate others into accepting their various bits and that’s all.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1049AM:
JR then goes for some form of insinuation: I am “not a victim” (I never claimed to be); he then tries to insinuate that I ‘say’ I am “not an abuser, sexually, of children” (the topic has never come up; JR has created stuff here to suit his own convenience and nothing more).
And then – marvelously – he doth declaim and declare that I am “really, only, your everyday anti-Christ”. Coming from JR this is rich indeed. He had once proclaimed me to be a “nun”.
I question and I follow out possibilities and probabilities inherent in the material presented; I don’t “defend”. But I am certainly interfering with the Stampede and the Abusenik agenda, and that’s not how Abuseniks want things to go. If that looks like ‘defense’ it’s only because the Stampede is so clearly an attack.
And we don’t really know who or how many were indeed “injured”; and from what we have seen on this site, it is clear that even the most sustained claims of outrageous child-rape turn out to be no such thing.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1049AM:
And then – donning the Wig of Outraged Decency – JR doth huff and puff that my “actions” (I presume he means ‘words’ and ‘ideas’) are “uncharitable; rude; mean-spirited; self-aggrandizing and elitist”.
With the exception of “elitist” JR (the formerly ‘child-raped’) might consider how nicely he has described his own material.
And indeed, if one considers the incessant flaunting of one’s (self-declared) ‘victim’ status as “elitist”, then one might even consider JR to be an “elitist” (although no doubt what he actually hoped to convey was that if one can rationally and carefully express ideas, then one is ipso facto “elitist”).
“Where’s the love?”, he slyly bleats in the accents of Goody-Two-Shoes. It’s called ‘tough love’. I don’t think he likes it. Not my problem.
Readers may consider his concluding questions as they will.
Publyin', I have the answer for your ridiculous claim that your cult does not worship Mary, yet adores her as "Queen of Heaven". You claim in, "488 of the catechism of the catholic church" calls her "creature", so this is your proof that she is not worshiped as "Mother of God" or above the Creator. Now this is not 'Dan's word , but the absolute pure Word of God, destroying your claims in regard to "creature".
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity [perversions and pedophilia], to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie [p] and worshiped and served the "creature" [Mary] rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" Romans 1: 24-25 Now don't forget to twist or lie or claim that I don't know how to interpret scripture, or return to mocking me or God. servant
http://www.nytimes.com/…/pope-benedicts-brother-says-he-was-unaware-of-abuse.html
http://www.nytimes.com/…/church-confronts-abuse-scandal-at-a-famed-german-chior.html
also – pope RATS connection to the chior boy pervert, when in 1980, they moved the malefactor to Munich where benedict was archbishop RATzinger from 1977 to 1982- Oh! How evilness and lies pile up until there is no truth left in their wicked, secret schemes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010.03/13world/europe/13pope.html?pagewanted… And good old Nazi georg RATzinger knows nothing in 2016 – Nazis sure are faithful liars, as you realize, publiar
Now don't forget to accuse the bad media or claim "But in light of what the current TMR article and my own comments are cosidering here, then that's hardly any sort of "proof" of anything at all." Disingenuous creep! Let's all play 'musical chairs' or 'ring around the mulberry bush', so we can all follow your little imaginary "Cartoon" fantasy game. No one really considers your lying comments here.
http://www.nytimes.com/…/pope-benedicts-brother-says-he-was-unaware-of-abuse.html
http://www.nytimes.com/…/church-confronts-abuse-scandal-at-a-famed-german-chior.html
also – pope RATS connection to the chior boy pervert, when in 1980, they moved the malefactor to Munich where benedict was archbishop RATzinger from 1977 to 1982- Oh! How evilness and lies pile up until there is no truth left in their wicked, secret schemes. *Correction – this case may have been different from the chior boy scandal, and it confused me because they referred to the priest only as H. Pope RATS was a professor at University of Regensburg from 1969-1977 during the 40 some years of the chior boy scandal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010.03/13world/europe/13pope.html?pagewanted… And good old Nazi georg RATzinger knows nothing in 2016 – Nazis sure are faithful liars, as you realize, publiar
Now don't forget to accuse the bad media or claim "But in light of what the current TMR article and my own comments are cosidering here, then that's hardly any sort of "proof" of anything at all." Disingenuous creep! Let's all play 'musical chairs' or 'ring around the mulberry bush', so we can all follow your little imaginary "Cartoon" fantasy game. No one really considers your lying comments here.
Got one those God-grams for your cult and any other wicked in the world today, and you should respect it, but I know you won't.
"Lord give me the strength to live in this world. With all it's corruption and fraud, we have to deal with. With all it's lies and gossiping, we hear each day. With all it's hatred and unkind people, we live with each and every day. With all it's wars, and innocent young people who get caught up in these wars, that die before their 21st birthday and never get to have a full life. With all it's molesting of the Lord's little children, who become afraid to tell anybody, fearing that nobody will believe them. They keep it hidden for the rest of their lives, because they are so ashamed of facing the truth, and have to live with the shame for a lifetime. Don't be stupid, the Lord sees everything and knows who committed the sin. These things will not go unpunished or forgiven. So if you think you're going to go free, for-sure, the Lord will punish you on Judgment Day." This is the Word of the Lord.
P.S. You can claim I made this up, publyin', but I'd like to inform you that many of these weren't even written by me. They were written by a friend who is quadriplegic and has the education of an 6 yr. old. So when you've mocked God's Spiritual works, you're also criticizing a disabled person. I bet you're really proud of that, also. Have at it, mocker.
Please Dave change the TMR name To the "P Posts"; because that's all TMR is: a platform for P's posts.( P's Pee perhaps?) He needs to say even more (if that's possible).
P we don't get enough of your degradation insults lies and obfuscations. Please blow more smoke. After all you are soooooooo interesting.
More posts from P! More posts from P!
ziDo go on P. Say as much as you can about people you know nothing about. You are the example all people should be (if you want to be a condescending Nazi that is.)
It's so funny! if Dan and I say nothing P shuts up until the next victim or our supporters raise their heads. Then it's full tilt endless nasty from God's representative here. What a fucking religion!
How easily the living asshole of TMR forgets that he answered here at TMR that he was not a child molester.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt then. I take that back.
You are a child molester. If you posted your real name we could look up your criminal records and that's why you won't say who you really are.
You are a child molester. You are who you defend.
Say who you are so we can check you out criminally. No? Why not? What's to hide?
Come on sniper! Balls up and share your name.
We have a right to know if the defender of child rapists and their enablers is a child rapist.
I accuse you of being one.
Who else would make an issue claiming the importance of penetration in child rape? Only a child rapist themselves; or a child rapist groupie or wanna be.
How many victims have made claims against your church's sex abuse; and how many have been compensated? Don't you think knowing those numbers, might be considered important
How many victims have made claims against your church's sex abuse; and how many have been compensated? Don't you think knowing those numbers, might be considered important?
How many claims were made against you P? One? Twenty? How many? The only way you can prove no claims have been made against you is for us to see your record.So tell us who you really are. You won't cuz you are a child molester. Defending your real faith: Screwing kids.
A new tack (or Wig) from ‘Dan’ on the 8th at 855PM: he now claims – with the Wig of Committed Competence – that he would have “no problem with someone assessing [his] material” … except – doncha see? – that I am not doing it “honestly” (‘Dan’-verse meaning: I am not saying what he wants to hear).
How does he demonstrate or explicate that I don’t assess “honestly”? The way he always does: by a) epithet (“truly blatant lies”) and b) irrelevant distraction (I “wasn’t there to witness any of the incidents”).
The (a) point is by now self-explanatory.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 855PM:
As for the (b) point (and we have been over this before): ‘Dan’ was there and thus we have his own report. I have taken the report as factual. All I have done is drawn a different set of conclusios from the set that ‘Dan’ insists is the only acceptable truth of it all.
We also have voluminous indications about ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself) from – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself) in the material he has put up here and the mentation and characteristics demonstrated so voluminously in that material.
‘Dan’ clearly “fails to get that” – but he has to fail in that way, otherwise the actualities that his (or His) own reports reveal will undermine his vitally-necessary personal Cartoon about himself (or Himself).
Back, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 236PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will further attempt to extricate himself from his claim that the Church worships Mary as the queen-goddess.
I don’t “claim” anything about paragraph 488 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it’s right there in the text for anyone to consider. And I had pointed out that it is logically impossible for Mary thus to be simultaneously i) a “creature” (Catholic doctrine) and ii) a goddess-mother of the Creator (‘Dan’s assertion).
And how will ‘Dan’ deal with that profound problem with his Cartoon?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 236PM:
‘Dan’ simply tosses up a ‘prophecy’ which – we are instructed to accept – is not ‘Dan’s “word, but the absolute pure word of God”, which not only a) does ‘Dan’ just happen to have lying around but also b) will ‘destroy’ my “claims in regard to the ‘creature’” (which is to say, destroy the point clearly made in the doctrinal text).
Thus, when confronted with this profound problem with his Cartoon, ‘Dan’ will create some ‘word of God’ bit that is supposed to override the profound problem with his Cartoon.
This is nothing but a whackjob version of the old theatrical/literary deus ex machina gambit: the author has created an insoluble difficulty and the only way to solve it is to magically suspend the rules (of logic, here) and – poof and presto! – the problem goes away.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 236PM:
And as usual he drags in a pericope from Scripture (to which he appends his own preferred explication, according to his own agenda and “lusts”) as if the presence of the pericope would magically endow his giddy Cartoon-ifying here with the mantle of Biblical authority.
I do not “twist or lie or claim” that ‘Dan’ doesn’t know how to “interpret Scripture”. His own material demonstrates that. And has, voluminously on this site. And will no doubt continue to do so. But it is what it is and nothing more.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 931PM:
Here ‘Dan’ simply tosses in another god-gram that – by amazing coincidence – he happened to get.
But since his own reception of these blast-faxes from the beyond is now somewhat credibility-challenged, he adds a further manipulative twist: he actually got it from “a friend” who is both (cue the violin) “quadriplegic and has the education of a 6 yr-old”.
The quadriplegic element is supposed to neutralize the questioning (who would question a quadriplegic?) and the “education” element is supposed to demonstrate that you don’t need an education to have the inside-track on reality.
Thus, ‘Dan’ would instruct us, “you should respect” the whole bit. I would say that we shouldn’t, not at all.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 931PM:
And what is the content of this sustained (and ever so convenient and congenial) bleat?
The world is filled with “corruption and fraud”. How true. Insanity as well, I would add.
And it’s also filled with “lies and gossiping” (a convenient swipe at both the testimony of those who have been present at his numerous misadventures and disturbing performances and also of all the assessments of him (or Him) whether by public authorities or myself here).
And it’s also filled with “hatred and unkind people” (a convenient swipe at anyone who doesn’t buy his whackeries and accept them ‘respectfully’).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 931PM:
Then a quick ‘alas’ about “wars”, which quickly morphs into the usual talking-points about “molesting” (that ever-usefully elastic bit) and so on.
And while it is surely possible that someone may not want to report what they fear won’t be believed, it is also just as surely possible that anyone so inclined could play upon the gullibility of others to fabricate stories (such, for example, as ‘child rape’ – as we have seen) that might not be believed for the simple reason that they are both a) not persuasively believable and b) fabrications in any case.
And then a continuation of the riff on what is merely standard Victimist mantra as to how one shouldn’t not-believe stories just because they don’t at all appear credible.
And the whole thing concludes with a warning that God sees everything and will get everybody for their sins in the end. True enough. Although that such sins will “not go … unforgiven” is no doubt more ‘Dan’s bit than God’s … “seventy times seven” comes to mind.
Disingenuous creep! You think you're going to bow down and worship the 'creature', mother mary, 'Queen of Heaven', and when it's time for judgment of all the creepy pedophiles, perverts, enablers and excusers, then you're going to lean on Christ's words of forgiveness, "seventy times seven". Can't wait until God's prophecies against your cult's "molesting" crimes come to fruition, and my friend gets to witness what the Almighty has in store for your sorry (fill in the blank)es. Good luck with that you nasty, deceiving, evil creep. servant
P.S. Time to refresh yourself with Matthew 18:6 "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Also, Christ's words, and don't think you can manipulate and change the meaning to suit your sick agenda. We're not listening to your lying comments or sad and weak Bible interpretations. Thanks anyway.
And we don't want to hear your false claims of how you consider the "Catholic Abuse Matter important", when all you care about is your lying assessments, attempts to manipulate the truth, and minimize the damage done by the perverts of your cult. Time to compensate those lives you've destroyed and imprison for life all pedophiles, that they may not harm another child. Then you can claim how much your cult really cares. Until then, stop your ignorance.
Back then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 327PM:
All three of the links ‘Dan’ proffers received a rejection screen when I tried to follow them: either the article has been withdrawn for correction or some other reason, or the link was reported to be “broken”.
But it would appear that ‘Dan’ was trying to use the Vienna Boy’s Choir bit from 35 years ago as an example of current stories.
And again, and given the dynamics of the Stampede as we now know them, all you need to claim such a “scandal” is an allegation and the Ball Will Start Rolling from there.
And ‘Dan’ tries to bring this matinee home with the manipulative assertion that “no one really considers [my] lying comments here”. Apparently, when ‘Dan’ took delivery of a divine fax machine, the carton also included a pot and a pile of tea-leaves.
The crucifixion (fiction being the operative part of that word) took place (supposedly) 2000 years ago and you act like it was today.
35 years compared to 2000 doesn't seem so long to remember the actions of the brother of a pope. Defend the child rapers. You child rapist. Let's look up your police record, Sunshine.
however the catholic church lobbies aganst laws that would expose pedos and those who cover it up.. oops, so doesn't a small jewish school which is know for significant child abuses.
Seems the more guilty an organization is, the more it will fight aainst laws that would expose their crimes.
And NO, the protestant chiurch does NOT have 70 abuses per week. In fact the protestant church doesn't fight aganst laws that would expose pedos and those who cover it up.
In NY state, senator defransisco sides with the catholic bishops to stop laws that expose the truth. Then again, he gets his support from the catholic bishops while denying those children abused and suffering as adults today.
abused, you are so right. Thank you.
In California, our catholic Gov. Brown, former jesuit seminarian with goals to become a priest, vetos bill SB 131, Oct. 2013, claiming the bill unfair because opening the Statute of Limitations for only private institutions and not public ones was unfair. Lobbyists against the bill included the catholic church. Gov. Brown, why aren't you interested in proposing a new bill to open the S. of L. for all the pedos and perverts, public and private. Why do we have no S. of L. for murder and yet have no problem enforcing a S. of L. for the destruction and murder of innocent children's souls. I thought the church was the one who cared about our souls, of course, that is unless it's going to affect it's pocket book. Shows what they think is more important, their money or the souls of the innocent. HYPOCRITES!!
We now have a series of comments by JR (from the 9th at 1118AM to 1141AM).
Since the formerly-child-raped is now faced with so serious problem as to his credibility, then it was only to be expected that he would resort to some gambit even more queasy and repellent than his usual gambits.
He begins – weakly enough – at 1118AM with his old bit that there’s too much of my material and not enough of anyone else’s. But, of course, anyone can put up as much material as they want.
And he even borrows a bit from ‘Dan’s “PeeWee”, managing to bring in his preferred scatological stuff.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1118AM:
He then tries his old “people you know nothing about” bit: i.e., I can’t really be knowledgably commenting if I don’t personally know the commenter.
But – yet again – this echoes the familiar “you don’t know me” claim of many who are assessed and don’t like what they hear. It’s as if they cawn’t imagine that their material reveals much about their mentation and even their personality as well as whatever factual bits about themselves they reveal.
And – yet again – we thus have more than enough material from JR and others here to reveal them to us.
They intend their material only to achieve their own purposes, which – nicely put by JR – is to “obfuscate” and “blow smoke” and to manipulate and deceive.
But their material actually reveals their mentation and even personality and character, despite the various Wiggy masks they so often don to give the appearance, as their purposes may require, of maturity and honesty and decency.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1118AM:
And he would like DP to shut me up, it would seem.
Classic. JR and the Abuseniks can’t respond sufficiently to my points, so – when epithets fail – they want me shut up and shut off.
And the comment ends, as usual, with scatology and an epithetical bit against Catholicism.
In the string of comments beginning at 1127AM, however, JR goes even further – and who can be surprised, given that the formerly-child-raped has so demonstrably lost the credibility of his primary ‘claim’?
In this string, he accuses me of being a “child molester”. On the basis of what?
On the basis of two points (a third is coming in later in the string):
First, that “you are who you defend”. Thus this manipulative bit of whackery requires that one make the presumption that I “defend” child-molestation (for which he provides no quotations of mine, and rightly so, since none exist for him to quote).
Second, that if you don’t accept the Stampede and all its pomps and all its works then you must yourself be a “child molester” since to question the dynamics of the Stampede you can only be ‘defending’ child-molestation. Because – doncha see? – the Abuseniks are all about, and only about, stamping out child-molestation. They are performing a vital public service, and nothing tawdry about whatever they have to do or have done to achieve that laudable goal.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1127AM:
And this bit of his will then serve as a sly pretext for his old bit about not-using screen-names. Which flows from the old agitprop tactic of keeping attention off the facts and issues, by distracting everyone with personal attacks. A gambit so often deployed by the likes of every scam from Mussolini and Stalin to Mao and his Red Guards.
Thus JR – now the formerly-child-raped – has very little left to work with; with his own credibility rather shot, he can only try to focus attention on the credibility of whoever has gotten in his way and exposed him.
No doubt we’ll be seeing a lot more of this gambit as time goes on.
On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1134AM, since he appears to be on a roll with his accusation here.
He opens with an epithet: I am a “sniper”. In what conceivable way am I a “sniper”? As usual, he doesn’t bother to explain, and quite probably there is no rational explanation for this epithet.
He will try to justify his gambit here by claiming that since I am a “defender of child rapists” and one of the “enablers” of child-rapists, then “we have a right to know” (slyly positioning himself as just one of the readership and nothing more; as if he weren’t desperate to come up with an angle here for his own purposes).
But since he hasn’t actually established that I am indeed a “defender of child rapists” (suddenly and slyly it’s “child rapist” and not “child molester”), then his “right” – as he has characterized it – dissolves into the mere puff of smoke it is. Where it can join that other puff of smoke, his own long-trumpeted claim of “child rape”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1134AM:
Thus JR’s accusation can join all of his other ones, including the one about my being a nun. His accusation are a dime a dozen and do nothing so much as to reveal the genuine JR.
And then, to try to puff up and bolster his prior two pretextual points, he proffers as his third point this whopper: I am a “child rapist” (promoted from the prior “child molester”) because who else would quibble over whether there is “penetration in child rape”?
As I made very clear in my prior comments several threads back on this point: the law does.
But Abuseniks are no more concerned for the integrity of the law than they are for veracity. In a rather sociopathic way, they i) use the law in order to ii) manipulate events and opportunities to their own advantage. But when the law gets in their way, then they are the first to demean it and abuse it.
And thus his third point fails as well.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1134AM:
But wait! There’s more!
In his concluding sentence he suddenly pulls his powerhouse punch: “Only a child rapist” would quibble over whether there is “penetration in child rape” … “or a child rapist groupie or wanna be”. So, as we see, I may just be a “child rapist groupie or wanna be”.
Or perhaps – in the immortal words of Roseanne Roseannadanna: Nevvvvvvvvvverrrrrrr minnnnnnnd.
And on the 9th at 1141, off his child-rapist roll but still thumbing his 3×5 pile, JR will toss up again his bit about “victims”. How can they be “compensated” if we don’t even know if they are genuine victims in the way that they claim? (Look, for example, at how JR’s own claim of ‘child rape’ has gone with the wind.)
Doesn’t he think that establishing the veracity of those claims “might be considered important”?
Apparently not, and for what we now know is a good reason.
If TMR is going to provide endless space for a child molester like Publion, it should at least show who he is, name him; or not let him post at all. or TMR should re-name this site, more accurately:" In Defense of Catholic Child Molesters."
P's entire tact is defending rapists by saying they aren't; and blaming the victims. Tell us P, what's your name? Then we can judge by checking YOUR record to see who you really iare.( He's a child molester.)
Prove that you're not a child rapist (or at least one who's not been caught yet.) Show us your record. Of course, a molester would come up with the arguments that you, P, make here. Let's see the facts about YOU.(Your police record). Quit defending rapists! (At least until you can prove you aren't one.)
JR, on the 10th at 1.49 pm, is asking a commentor for his police record?. I guess this is another attempt at diversion. But co-incidentally Laurie Goodstein has kindred spirits in the Australian media. The national TV broadcaster, the ABC. During the last 12 months they have given great publicity to a guy called David Risdale, a prominent spokesperson for "survivors". He was abused by his uncle, a priest, when he was a boy. Years later the uncle went to prison. This David Risdale even went to Rome recently to accuse and harass Cardinal Pell. The ABC gave him every opportunity to apply maximum vilification against the Church. Yet all the time they knew that the guy was himself a child molester. Convicted after pleading guilty. Only yesterday the TV channel finally admitted what they had known for at least a year. Stange they didn't tell the public that when they were using Risdale to tarnish Cardinal Pell. Incidentally would like to see JR produce his own police record. Cos it is not uncommon for the worst accusers to be hiding something themselves.
Look up my police records, please! You have my name.
Publyin i
Look up my police records, please! You have my name.
Publyin is a child abuser and we don't have his name. What's to hide?
Risdale was a "prominent spokesman for survivors, eh? Just like SNAP is a prominent spokesman for survivors?
In reality SNAP is a false flagged opperation, Catholic church owned and created. Led by active Catholics.
Is Risdale an active Catholic just like the SNAP leaders are?
Is Risdale's survivor group connected to SNAP? I'll bet it is.
How do you know "the ABC" knew about Risdale for a year and said nothing? Who owns ABC?
You are aware Malcolm, that it is known fact that some children abused in childhood become themselves child abusers. Still doesn't make his uncle, the priest innocent and might also add to his crime, the sins of the nephew, which doesn't mean Cardinal pell is innocent either. Seems to me that pedophile priests under Cardinal pell was plural and not just one single priest, just like all the other catholic child molesting cases everywhere your pedophile, nasty clan went. Quoting cardinal pell, the church has made "enormous mistakes" in dealing with sex abuse. The church has made enormous mistakes and is working to remedy those but the church in many places, certainly in Australia, has mucked things up, has let people down." You open one case in a city and seem to find a can of worms or RATS. When pertaining to Catholic Abuse, it's apparent that just about all the hierarchy is guilty. Might be easier for the gov't to just turn their monasteries and rectories into prisons, they wouldn't even have to move.