Working tirelessly together against the Catholic Church: SNAP director David Clohessy (l),
Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory (c), and BishopAccountability's Terry McKiernan (r)
The Boston Globe simply will not give up.
The newly released annual audit report by United States bishops about abuse in the Catholic Church amplifies the rampancy of false accusations, unprovable allegations against dead priests, dubious decades-old claims, and the determination of Church-suing tort lawyers and their allies to drain the Church's coffers.
Yet in an article by staffer Matt Rocheleau, the Boston Globe continues to try to convince the public that abuse is somehow still a current problem in the Catholic Church.
The facts the Globe is hiding
Taken straight from the data in this year's audit report, here are the simple facts about the Catholic Church abuse story you will never, ever see in the Boston Globe and which once again only underscore that the abuse story is a Globe obsession borne of animus for an institution which it so abhors:
- 93% of all abuse accusations last year allege incidents from at least 21 years ago;
- 41% of all identified priests who were accused in 2015 were already long deceased;
- 80% of all identified priests who were accused in 2015 were either already deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or simply missing; and
- less than 14% of all allegations last year were even deemed "substantiated," while nearly three quarters of the accusations were deemed either "unsubstantiated," "unable to be proven," or still under review.
In other words, the story of abuse in the Catholic Church is less "news" and more of an attempt to extend a story line that croaked many years ago.
And the only real reason why lawsuits and accusations are still flying against the Catholic Church is that a number of states have enacted "window legislation" which enables anonymous accusers to make decades-old allegations against now-deceased priests. Naturally, this important aspect of the story was completely left out of the Globe's reporting.
Turning to lawyer-funded haters
In yet another example of the Globe throwing all perspective and objectivity out the window, Rocheleau turns to lawyer-funded "advocates" David Clohessy, from SNAP, and Terry McKiernan, from BishopAccountability, two reliably anti-Catholic sources for the Globe's fodder. (Apparently, Rocheleau was unable to reach the Ku Klux Klan for comment.)
Even though Clohessy and McKiernan did not provide a single shred of documentation to support their wild claims, Rocheleau uncritically relayed the pair's assertions that the Church's annual independent audit reports are somehow "flawed," "deceptive," and that "holes still remain."
But if there are any "holes" in anything, it is in the Boston Globe's reporting. As we reported earlier this year, when Boston station WCVB determined that "in recent years, on average, the licenses of 15 Massachusetts educators are suspended or revoked each year for sexual misconduct," the Globe did not find this the least bit interesting enough to report or even explore further.
Of course not. Because the Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the "protection of children" or the tragic abuse of kids. It has everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for and earning kudos from others – such as those in Hollywood – who also detest the Church.
————————————-
See also:
1. Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com)
2. 'Spotlight' Exposed: The definitive 'Spotlight' review.
1) "unprovable allegations against dead priests" does not mean innocent priests, it just means dead guilty priests, who think they're off the hook until they stand before God. 2) "dubious decades-old claims" does not mean they're false claims 3) "Church-suing tort lawyers and their allies to drain the Church' coffers" does not mean victims don't deserve compensation for your church's malfeasance, and the church fights every case with denials and lies in order to pay out as little as possible. No one is draining their greedy filled "coffers".
If 80% of priests were dead, removed, laicized, or simply missing, then those cases would be harder or impossible to prove. So if 14% "were even deemed 'substantiated', that would be pretty high numbers considering so many (80%), get out of it because they died or somehow turn up missing. You'll probably find them in vatican city hiding behind the pope. If your church wasn't plaqued with pedophiles, perverts and deceivers, then there would be absolutely nothing for the media to report. That's period. The church's "story line" has not "croaked many years ago", and it's disingenuous for any excusers to claim so. servant of God
That would be plagued, not "plaqued", but they have left quite a stain of plaque on your church
Why, exactly, are we to believe the bishops' report?
How do you "bludgeon" a church?
Who has that much power?
Certainly not a newspaper that refuses to look into the false flagged "survivors''' group: SNAP or who would look at who founded and funded the entire public face of your victims with absolutely no input from victims required.( Other than the constant ratification of SNAP; VOTF TMR; Tom Doyle; and Jeffrey Anderson as caring about victims and being what they pretend to be: pro victim.. When they ,simply, are the church itself. Out for the church and truely against the victims. Just like you are.
"Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the 'protection of children' or the tragic abuse of kids." And how can you make such a claim? The catholic church is without doubt the worst offender and abuser of children, especially with all the secrecy, we still don't know and may never know the full extent of it's atrocities, unless someone becomes willing to open all the books. Until then, it will have to be left to God to know all your secrets and justfully punish accordingly. I think your sinful perverts think they are getting away with something, as long as they're not caught in the eyes of man. Judgment Day, on it's way.
So many people claimed to be Christians but are anything but. This is obviously true of so many Catholic priests and their protecters. Could it also be true of Dan? He is so condesending it is unbelivable.
Mark, How about you take a walk in my shoes and suffer the false accusations that I have from your wicked cult. Just about every word that describes the perverts of your cult have been railed against myself. Only difference is what I'm speaking of them is the truth, and everything they've lied about me is just what it is, "LIES". Wake up and figure out that anyone claiming to be an active catholic is not Christian at all. They don't have to be perverts and pedophiles for me to make that claim. They are idolators, worshippers of mother mary, "Queen of Heaven", following a false gospel that has it's basis in the depths of hell. Read the Bible for yourself, without the brainwashing excuses and you'll find that what I say is true. If you want me to sugar coat it for you, then you'll have to keep listening to your false teachers. I'm sure they'll offer you a sucker to sweeten up their lies. servant
We need to begin to demand recognition always and everywhere that nearly every one of these claims — valid and otherwise — is homosexual in nature as well as contrary to Catholic teaching. The abuse crisis is an expression of homosexuality and is only a Catholic problem to the extent that bishops — including the bishops of Rome — have invited unchaste homosexuality into the priesthood. If you focus on that pure fact, the anti-Catholics at The Globe, Hollywood, etc. will be forced to shut their decadent gobs. Meanwhile, keep homosexuals out of the seminaries, if for no other reason than we can't afford to pay the damages.
Well said, from another catholic apologist, who thinks it's everyone elses fault except their own. And what also seems to stand out about the excusers in this forum, is you're all worried about losing the church's wealth. I'm glad you think that's what is so important to your cause. What a great example of God's faith, hope and love.
Here is a case that never made the numbers. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/01_02/2010_01_11_Gonzalez_PriestCharged.htm It happened in my county. Just recently. He was arrested. But after 4 years, of motions, and continuences. And hundreds of thousands of dollars later, the Catholic Church managed to get it settled, secretly, out of court. When the Catholic Church investigates itself, this case, and hundreds of others, just like it, never even make the radar.
To borrow from the Bard, "Me thinks the Media Report doth protest too much". Let us not forget that we are speaking about children being victimized, children who have already been denied justice for decades, and those who you are adamant to defend are the ones responsible for the negligence and in many cases outright cover-ups that allowed it to happen in the first place and all too often continue unaddressed. There is no justifiable moral reason to protect an institution that has failed in its own mandate to protect the innocent and vulnerable, especially not at the expense of those who have already been severely traumatized as a direct result of this very same failure. This is another restatement of the ludicrous "too big to fail" argument. Surely you can see that your loyalties are misplaced and that arogantly defending the abusers with technicalities, distortions, obfuscations and "gotcha" journalism is perpetuating and deepening the abuse!
Well said.
this is maybe the second time i have read this website and i did it today because i hit somehting by mistake. The best that can be said about it is that it is irrelevant and extremely irritating to people who know what is really happening. Fortunately probably the only one who beleves this tripe is the author and he probably doesn't because he probably knows its all nonsense
Tom Doyle. You have done great job. This site, as full of bull, as it is. Is visited, by me. And the five other people who bother to read it. Because it shows the insanity, of a group, standing up for a group of people. Who still play dumb, and lie, about their own, RAPING CHILDREN. For crying out loud. Who still lie, and attack brave whistle-blowers, like you.
This site, and The Catholic League (Which is just a fat, bald-headed, old, drunk. Getting paid millions, to run a cheap web-page.) Shows the Catholic Church' Brotherhood of Silence', is in full swing.
We begin with ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 637PM:
It is indeed true that “’unprovable allegations against dead priests’ does not mean innocent priests”. It is also true that “unprovable allegations against dead priests does not mean” guilty priests. And given what we have seen of the Stampede’s dynamics, there are many elements that seek to impart the appearance of guilt even when the claims are “unprovable” (as so many of them are) and/or when the accused is already dead and unable to respond.
And among those many elements of the Stampede are the elements of tort-strategy that would precisely seek – especially if with the help of a compliant media – to create just such an appearance (or illusion) of guilt.
The several billions in settlement monies is surely characterizable as a ‘draining of coffers’, especially when we consider that a) the vast majority of claims were never adjudicated in open court and b) we have seen – both here and in the Doe cases – how dubious these claims can be when examined.
Many "accused [priests and bishops] already dead and unable to respond." Better dead, than behind bars, where they belong for the rest of their lives. God will see that justice is done, the guilty will go on to eternal punishment and the innocent spared. I've heard way more cases where living priests admitted to their sexual abuse of children, including many who slipped the charges and spent no jail time. Secretly settled out of court,.
Sell all your garbage you fondly call art, and you'll find the richest organization on earth. Who do you people think you're fooling besides yourselves. Pay for your crimes, hypocrites. You'll still have your land, churches and monasteries so you can continue your corruption.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 637PM:
Nor is it accurate to presume that if a priest were “removed” or “laicized” that it “would be harder or impossible to prove … those cases”. (“Simply missing” is a hard one to imagine in this internet age.) The individual remains liable to court action if within the jurisdiction of the United States or in countries with extradition treaties.
And the “deemed ‘substantiated’” is a decision made by not by courts but by the Church – which, as I have said before, is now so determined to fulfill its own protocols that one may well wonder what parameters define such ‘substantiation’ (for a while, and possibly still, it was only necessary that a priest have lived in the same parish or even same geographical area as an allegant during the era of the allegation for ‘substantiation’).
And we can take as mere rhetorical fluff the vision of priests “in vatican city hiding behind the pope”.
Then send them to the proper authorities, like you phonies claim, the truth will be exposed and then be truly "substantiated". But no! Your cult is still taking care of cases in house. Deceivers! Claiming your policy is to inform the authorities. Would you rather I said that the accused find protection under the popes dress? Cult of creeps. servant
By the way, what ever came of the kangaroo court, Tribunal. the pope set up. Is he again waiting until he's backed into a corner, to claim it will take shape any year now. Laughable.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 637PM:
As for the media having something to “report”, we surely have seen that just as a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, a media so inclined can ‘report’ a ham sandwich as a proven crime. And readers can consider the Doe cases as an example of what such a media can do if so inclined.
But the whole Stampede surely serves ‘Dan’s personal purposes so he will try to Keep The Ball Rolling for those purposes of his.
You demonstrate just about as much intellegence as a "ham sandwich" extra cheese.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1057PM:
There is no basis at all for ‘Dan’s assertion that “The catholic church is without doubt the worst offender and abuser of children”. Numerous other organizations – as I have previously listed here – are also involved and as yet have received no such sustained (several decades, now) attention.
And as we have seen on numerous occasions, the only way Abuseniks and types such as ‘Dan’ can puff up their pinfeathers and deliver that “without doubt” is by simply ignoring the many elements that induce the high probability of “doubt” or by merely proclaiming their own (highly dubious) talking-points repetitively.
And here ‘Dan’ reveals his sly self-positioning: not being connected to any large organization (he (or He) being, as it were, a Church of One) then he considers himself (or Himself) beyond and above suspicion. But his own personal material here has already undermined that self-positioning, as I have explicated at length on prior recent threads.
Secret settlements, Statute of Limitations, dead priests, missing priests, excuses, denials, lies and loss of memory. All reasons why I repeat, the catholic church is without doubt the worst organization when it comes to protecting innocent children. Your latest excuses and claims do nothing to change the facts.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1057PM:
And as for his “we still don’t know” bit: we also still don’t know how many of those accusations were false (although we have seen the Doe cases and the recent child-rape claim on this site).
But ‘Dan’ will then try to bolster that bit by once again falling back on “Judgment Day”. That’s as may be; one may rightfully wonder how many human beings are in a position to look forward eagerly to the arrival of that Day.
But God’s judgment differs from human legal judgment in one vital and utterly transformative way: God already knows all, whereas humanity – “with its flickering lamp”, as Churchill once said – must rely on the integrity of its legal process to make its judgments. And we have seen how deranged legal process can become, especially in a time of Stampede.
And your lying hierarchy and lawyers have made a mockery of our legal system. Hypocrites!
On then to JR’s of the 23rd at 831PM:
Here JR will simply try the old high-school cafeteria gambit: why “believe the bishops’ report?”. (He will, however, “believe” a long-outdated and admittedly partial Wiki article about “compensation”.)
The bishops’ report – especially at this point – would be researchable by anyone looking to examine it. The allegations that are officially lodged are identified in records and their existence can thus be demonstrated and determined. (Although, neatly, there remains the handy Victimist-demanded reality that ‘victims’ (more accurately: allegants) cannot be identified if they don’t wish to be.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 831PM:
How does one “bludgeon” a church? Bismarck did a good job of it in his Kulturkampf. But even he was unable to get it to last for decades. If all the elements in the contemporary West with an interest in weakening the Church – and I have explicated those elements at length over the course of my comments – create the synergy that I have noted, then quite a bit of ‘bludgeoning’ indeed can be effected and sustained.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 831PM:
But then JR will try to bolster that ‘bludgeon’ bit by insinuating that the Globe really isn’t pro-Stampede at all since – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – it is very cozy with SNAP and has treated that and similar organizations with kid-gloves and open-arms.
And the rest of the comment riffs on JR’s old 3×5 talking-points about everything and everyone not paying attention to him (the formerly child-raped) being merely a tool and puppet of the Church.
Readers may consider as they will.
There is no doubt terrible things have been done by some priests, but there is no doubt there are many people who are also taking advantage of this with false accusations. I know of at least 18 cases of false accusations. The problem is that both sides of this issue demonize the other. If we could get off that kick and really look out for kids, we could do a much better job of justice one way or the other, in each case. And is there any other group that does as much studty or has as many outside people looking at this as the Catholic Church? Scouts? Teachers? Other denominations? Really, no one else.
Pete, Do you mean the catholic church is doing more than any other group to figure out how they can weasel out of the many accusations, for the good of their church's name? And this only shows that they have more troubles with child abuse than other organizations. When will they stop handling cases in house and actually do as they claim. DISINGENUOUS!!!!
We have all heard the phrase " power of the press". But when I look at the Boston Globe I actually read the "poison of the press". It is quite toxic….. because they have abandoned their own professional ethics. Now they have become advocates. Advocates for a particular cause…. in this matter the cause can best be identified as a thinly disguised extortion racket. Why?…well because it comes down to an underlying threat. Which is…pay up.. or we create a witch-hunt, which will send your priests to prison…whether guilty or not guilty. So pay up… and don't argue. The Boston Globe is the answer to the greedy contingency lawyers' prayers.
If the sick priests and bishops never did the nasty, disgusting things they did, then the Globe would have no story at all, and no poorly labeled "witch-hunt". These repeated crimes are of your cult's own making. As the saying goes, "You make your bed, you sleep in it." Apparently your hierarchy and priests have 'slept' in way too many innocent children's beds.
It's far more true to talk bout "Power of the Priests" (they must own the press. How else can you explain how lightly, criminally, they've been given a get out of jail free card? The press and the U.S. government have done nothing to investigate all churches involved; and all that thanks to the wealth of the Catholic church in particular
The comment by ‘True Catholic’ (the 24th at 931AM) demonstrates the problems with both the Bishop-Accountability site and how it is used by some such as “True Catholic’.
The site itself is not a media site that retains its own investigative reporters; it is, rather, merely a collating or collecting site that simply selectively collects various media reports. It was for this reason that after a few years it was required to put up a legal disclaimer to the effect that its assorted bits and pieces cannot be presumed to be accurate and dispositive.
Continuing with my comment on ‘True Catholic’s comment of the 24th at 931AM:
As for the case linked-to in the comment, and ‘True Catholic’s assessment and conclusions:
Clearly, there were criminal charges lodged, but those appear – from this ‘report’ – not to have had any result, at least not any result that B-A cares to acknowledge (I’m inclined to think that the criminal charges failed or were dismissed).
There must have also then been a civil case (i.e. lawsuit) since it is only by that route that a “settlement” is reached.
Continuing with my comment on ‘True Catholic’s comment of the 24th at 931AM:
But we do not know if or by whom any ‘secrecy’ was demanded. If the criminal case did not succeed then it is hardly implausible that the civil settlement’s ‘secrecy’ was demanded by the allegant and not by the Church. Certainly, from the article linked-to here, there is no basis for ‘True Catholic’s breezy presumption that it was the Church that demanded ‘secrecy’ or operated “secretly”.
And clearly, if the whole thing took four or so years, then neither the criminal nor the civil case were strong to begin with.
And from this ‘report’, it would appear clearly that the defense counsel was one hired by the accused priest himself, and not by the Church.
And thus, I would submit, this is why so many of these ‘cases’ “never even make it to the radar”: they are far too flimsy and fragile to get off the ground in the first place and don’t serve the purposes and agenda of an outfit like B-A when they fail.
In regard to the comment by ‘Brian R. Toale’ (the 24th at 1027AM) I would simply point out that his position already presumes what is precisely in question: exactly how many “children” have been actually and genuinely victimized and thus “denied justice for decades”?
And does BRT consider those who raise such questions as being “adamant to defend”?
But then, it appears BRT’s answer to that question has been given in his final sentence: to raise “technicalities, distortions, obfuscations and ‘gotcha’ journalism” equals “arrogantly defending the abusers” and is only “perpetuating and deepening the abuse!”.
No examples are given of such “technicalities, distortions, obfuscations and ‘gotcha’ journalism” as BRT believes he has seen. If he has any, we might proceed from there.
There now comes again the commenter ‘thomas doyle’ (the 24th at 1036AM). Given that the name he uses happens to be the same as a major player in the Catholic Abuse Matter at its inception, one might be moved to presume it is that same Fr. Thomas Doyle, but – as I have said before – I don’t think so.
Anyhoo, we get the same old soft-shoe routine as before: he doesn’t read this site but just happens to be commenting here for the second time merely because he accidentally “hit something by mistake”. Readers may consider that bit as they may.
And having literally backed onto the stage, what does he do? Merely deliver a bunch of epitheticals to the effect that this site is “irrelevant” and it is “extremely irritating to people who know what is really happening”. Would that – perhaps we are to infer – be … him?
He proffers no explanation of how this site is “irrelevant” and we are left to wonder if he is somebody who doth “know what is really happening”. (I’m going to say: not.)
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 443PM: he need only consider the case linked-to above in ‘True Catholic’s comment to see an example of the Church not dealing with a case “in house”. The authorities were informed, they investigated, brought charges, then the charges were dismissed by the court.
On the 24th at 434PM ‘Dan’ will simply presume that the dead-accused were guilty anyway. No surprises there.
As to what “cases” ‘Dan’ has heard-of … readers may consider this self-declared paragon of veracity and accuracy as they may.
On the 24th at 501PM ‘Dan’ will – as so often – attempt to provide a simulacrum of a response without actually explaining himself (or Himself).
Thus, he winds up somehow claiming that “Statute[s] of Limitations” are somehow the fault of the Church. And along with “dead priests” and “missing priests” (which was his own term to begin-with here) are all “reasons” that explain prima facie why – as he had previously asserted – “the catholic church is without doubt the worst organization when it comes to protecting innocent children”.
And yet when that same Church’s staffers protected their school-children from ‘Dan’ and his “beautiful prophecy” whackness, ‘Dan’ bleats and shrieks “lies, lies, lies!” like a vaudeville chanteuse.
I’ll leave him to it.
Again we witness publyin's poor reading comprehension skills, accusing me of using a term I made up, "missing priests", when plain as day, it's written in DP's article, under the 80% fact taken from the bishop's audit report.
And once again he insists on childishly repeating, "lies, lies, lies", like if he says that enough, his false accusations will morph into truth, truth, truth. If the "catholic thugs" who as you claim were actually "protecting their school-children" from someone for viable reasons, then I would have no problem with that. Too bad they can't put equal effort into protecting the children from the deluge of "pedophiles and perverts", who truly caused harm to innocence. So continue to twist facts to your liking, for you truly are one big lying "fool, fool, fool".
Now descending into some sort of verbal buck-and-wing, ‘Dan’ has in this sequence simply been riffing with whatever comes to his mind when he reads this or that term in one of my comments.
Thus on the 24th at 504PM – referring, as best can be determined, to my observations about the difference between God’s knowledge and the incomplete knowledge of humans that requires a legal system – ‘Dan’ tosses up an epithet to the effect that it is the “lying hierarchy and lawyers” who “have made a mockery of our legal system”.
This is the legal system that he has frequently derided here for causing all of his legal and psychiatric misadventures by believing the “lies, lies, lies!” of those who had been sufficiently alarmed by his behavior.
And we have only to look at Philadelphia to see how the legal system can make a mockery of itself.
No, this is you and your cult of lying hypocrites, and a legal system that listens to the "lies, lies, lies" of a bunch of lying "fools, fools, fools".
And as we again witness, it's always someone elses fault. It was the media's fault. No, it was the fraudulant victim's fault, who really wanted it in the first place and then lied to get the big payout. No, it's God's fault, because he made us a bunch of perverts so He could forgive us for our continual, filthy sins. And now we have it, it's the legal system making a mockery of itself. How about it's a bunch disgusting, nasty priests that can't keep their zipper up, or should I say their satan-y dresses on. And lets not forget their "protecting" excusers and enablers. Absolutely despicable. servant
The world according to a child rapist: P. (Nasty piece of shit that he is.) Everybody's wrong but P. The hidden kiddie screwer and priest.
On the 24th at 851PM more fun from ‘Dan’: when you defend yourself against an accusation, you are apparently trying to “weasel out” of it.
Which bit can only work if one presumes that the accusation is veracious and accurate. Which in the Catholic Abuse Matter is precisely the problem: how many of the accusations are indeed veracious and accurate? Or what – at least – is the possibility or probability, one way or the other?
But that type of question is simply a stick in the bicycle spokes of a Stampede. You can’t keep a good Stampede going if people are going to stop and think and question.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 851PM:
It’s much the same thing too with ‘Dan’ and his personal cartoon: people aren’t supposed to question his stuff (indeed – and slyly – to do so would be to “mock God”, as ‘Dan’ so often tries to insist).
At any rate, his bit in the first paragraph doesn’t in any way establish the ground for his preferred and scheduled conclusion (i.e. that “this only shows that [the Church has] more troubles with child abuse than other organizations”).
But for ‘Dan’ – as for so many plop-tossers with an agenda – the quality of the logic or evidence that’s supposed to ‘prove’ their plop isn’t anywhere near as important as the tossing of the plop itself. The fun, the high, the kick for the plop-tosser is simply in tossing the stuff; the rest is quibbling and technicalities and obfuscation and so on and so forth.
You slander and lie against the innocent and then have the nerve to call it questioning.
You make evil assumptions and accusations and then call it assessing.
You question the veracity or accuracy when it comes to the guilt of your cult, and yet claim you're not making excuses or an enabler.
You've rarely place blame where blame is due, but have no problems in blaming those who are innocent with all kinds of imaginative accusations of your own making.
You not only mock me, but truly do mock God and the power of His Holy Spirit, with what you think are cute, yet derogatory statements and think you'll get away with it.
For all these reasons, you are a biased, lying hypocrite and should come to face reality that you surely are an apologetic creep, of a pagan, idol worshipping cult. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 851PM:
And as for the “in house” bit: in the Sepulveda case, the Bishop notified the law enforcement authorities the same day in 2009 that he was informed (and ultimately the criminal charges were dismissed in 2012).
So the “in house” bit of plop fails here.
If you're right that the bishop notified law enforcement, of which you offer no proof of that claim, why was it settled again in secrecy. And how many more cases come to light before you're willing to recognize that your cult is rampant with perverts and pedophiles. Because one case is brought to authorities, especially when possibly they had no choice, that doesn't spell transparency across the board. The light you claim is shining bright on me, is certainly exposing a ton of creeps from your cult. Keep making your poor excuses. Laughable.
An interesting new tack from ‘Dan’ – sort of. He will now (the 25th at 1114AM) try to run the I’m Not/You Are gambit is a more sustained manner.
It is I – he now wants to claim – who “insists on childishly repeating “’lies, lies, lies’”. But it is one of his signature tropes, as a review of his comments will demonstrate.
And nicely captures the flavor of his whackery. Which – no doubt – is why he doesn’t like to see it placed in a light that doesn’t bring out his preferred features (truthy, sturdy, utterly innocent, bethump’t by “catholic thugs” who do so “falsely accuse” him).
It would be interesting to know: of what, precisely, did they accuse him – all those people who made citizens arrests?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1114AM:
More of the I’m Not/You Are gambit: that if a mantra is repeated often enough it will “morph into truth”. No doubt the “lies, lies, lies” bit – like other of his oh-so-necessary mantras – has done exactly that … in his own mind, anyway.
Nor are the school-staffers excused for their efforts since – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – ‘Dan’ here doth pronounce and declaim that they had no “viable reasons” for getting in the way of his “beautiful prophecy”. Apparently the staffers, joined by all those who made citizens-arrests and by the judge(s) who sent him for psychiatric observation, had no “viable reasons” and it was all “lies, lies, lies”.
I think not.
And he tries to wrap up this episode with a claim as to the “deluge of pedophiles and perverts”, which he presents as “facts”.
"I think not." sums you up completely. Child raping scum that you are.
The I’m Not/You Are gambit is continued in the comment of the 25th at 1135AM:
This time he will try it this way: By questioning and pointing out the numerous substantive elements of the Stampede then – for the convenience of ‘Dan’s performance anyway – I am claiming that the Stampede is “always someone else’s fault”.
He proffers no quotation of mine in support of this attempt and claim. And he doesn’t because he can’t because it doesn’t exist. He does riff on, however, with a bunch of bits that are not mine (“they wanted it in the first place”, “it’s God’s fault”).
And if ‘Dan’ doesn’t think that the Philadelphia cases and the performance of the DA there give ample demonstration of “the legal system making a mockery of itself”, then readers may consider ‘Dan’s reliability as a credible observer as they may.
I was not "pointing out the numerous substantive elements of the Stampede". These are the "numerous" excuses of your cult of enablers and excusers. You're going to have to sharpen your reading comprehension skills. It takes a professional mocker to notice a "legal system making a mockery of itself". And I guess you would know, being a member of a phony religious cult that makes a complete mockery of everything Godly and pure. Hypocrites!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1135AM:
I have simply pointed out all of the factors which would militate toward a “heightened scrutiny” of any claims and ‘reporting’ of same in the media.
That approach has certainly shed some interesting light here and there, as we have seen all along and also in the very recent past here. And ‘Dan’ reveals himself (or Himself) as being rather deeply averse to that light when it approaches his own material. As well he should be.
Further to my comment on May 24th about the Boston Globe. A very clear red flag was waved in a submission made by veteran attorney Donald H. Steier, to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, in December, 2010. In his statement, made under penalty of perjury, he said there was vast fraud, in the claims being made. Many stories were completely false. And he had been involved in investigating about 100 sexual assault claims. Most of the accused clerics had willingly taken a polygraph test. When their respective accusers had been invited to take a polygraph test… they had refused… all of them?. Now that's surely a red flag… unless you are blinded by prejudice.
Was it the church or victims that demanded secrecy? Before now it's always been the church's demand.
I know Donald Steier. a limp noodle who claims with zero proof, fraud. I'll take a lie detector test on my charges any fucking day of the week. Will P about his child rape "experiences"?
Given the number of points I raised in my most recent sequence of comments, it’s probably no surprise that ‘Dan’ has chosen to evade those points by simply issuing a single blanket epithetical denunciation and dismissal of them all.
Thus on the 26th at 8PM:
In the first paragraph: he claims I merely “slander and lie against the innocent” yet proffers not a single accurately-quoted example.
In the second paragraph he claims I “make evil assumptions and accusations” yet proffers not a single accurately-quoted example.
In the third paragraph he apparently goes for the ‘logic’ that if I raise questions as to stories, claims and assertions then I am merely “making excuses or [am] an enabler” – but doesn’t explain how he gets from his premise to his (epithetical) conclusion.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 8PM:
In the fourth paragraph he claims that I “rarely place blame where blame is due” – with no explanation or accurate quotations. And then rather slyly tries to manipulate readers into presuming that those whom I question are “innocent”, which is precisely the point at issue and in doubt.
In the fifth paragraph – as so very often – he merely asserts that I not only do “mock” him “but truly do mock God and the power of His Holy Spirit” – and we’ve seen that sly bit so many times already.
And then he tries to bring the whole show home with a “For all these reasons” … although he has actually put up nothing but accusations and epithets and no demonstrated reasons at all.
I would also note that there is a certain rhetorical competence to this comment of his which is definitely beyond his usual level of commenting. I don’t actually imagine he got such rhetorically notable material from an overnight god-gram, but he got it from somewhere.
Of relevance here is an article in the Thursday, May 26 New York Post; it appears on page 5 of the print edition, and was written by Selim Algar.
The article has a typically punchy Post heading: “Psycho Is Stalking Preschool”.
This individual – one Alex Kovner, age 43 – has been “frightening kids and staff” to the extent that they have actually set up a hot-button connection to the local NYPD precinct house.
As the article describes him: “Kovner – who believes he is a prophet of God”.
Parents have been keeping their children home from the preschool out of fear.
His most recent arrest at the preschool was for “acting in a manner injurious to a child”, which may be a local law not necessarily available to police in other jurisdictions or states.
I would say that there are two notable elements that raise questions:
First: why anyone who considered himself a “prophet of God” would behave in such a frightening manner.
Second, and I would say of far more clinical and forensic relevance: why a person who considers himself thus ‘called’ would choose to focus on schools (preschool, in this case) and children – rather than, say, go to the United Nations or some adult venue to deliver his … material.
For your entertainment, may I direct you to center stage of publyin's "Cartoon" Time, as he slyly and deceivingly attempts to connect me to some deranged guy, shrieking in the hallways, screaming obscenities and locking himself in their bathrooms. First off, I'm surprized you're not defending the creep. Oh! That's right, you only defend catholic creeps and pedophile priests.
Comparing me to this guy would be like me comparing your religious cult to Jim Jones, since your both religious cults. Actually, you do bare many similarities in the fact that your brainwashed sheep have drunk your Koolade (false teaching-lies) and you have killed many more people in your history, and certainly did destroy the souls of many innocent children. And my question to you is, "Why does your hierarchy, of supposedly "Godly" queer men, some you consider great, think they can molest little boys, yet you don't consider that these creeps 'behave in a frightening manner' ?" Instead you'll defend and make excuses for them. CREEPY!
Aside from this, I never trespassed, screamed obscenities or accosted anyone, let alone children, contrary to your lies and false accusations. Grow up, you lying little dweeb troll.
How cute. P, a child rapist himself, has a "debate" with Dan over "the harming children" by telling them their religion's false. TMR and it's tool P (and Dan??) have turned the issues on their head, ignoring compensation for real victims; and the church, again, using children, this time, they're being "attacked by a church-hating protestant "profit" for the lord.
You Catholics really tie some Gordian knots when you lie. We need an Alexander to cut through your lying bullshit.
On the 26th at 1013PM ‘Dan’ notes I don’t proffer proof of my claim that the Diocese notified law enforcement immediately upon receipt of an allegation against Fr. Edgar Sepulveda.
I entered that priest’s name in a search engine and came up with several articles, and specifically the one for which I provide the link here:
http://www.dioceseofraleigh.org/content/diocese-responds-appeals-court-decision-regarding-father-edgar-sepulveda
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1013PM:
Attempting to keep at least some plop in the air, ‘Dan’ will then move on quickly to a second and entirely distinct point: why, then, was the Sepulveda civil case “settled in secrecy”?
As I said in my comment of the 25th at 412AM: “we do not know if or by whom any ‘secrecy’ was demanded”. And given the failure of the criminal charges against Fr. Sepulveda then it may well be that the allegant/plaintiff did not want the weakness of the allegations to be open to public review.
A point which would be supported by the failure of legal efforts to formally involve that Diocese, as is noted in the link which I have provided in the comment immediately above.
And in any event, I can’t make out from the reports I have been able to find that there was a settlement to the lawsuit in the first place. Which goes to show just how incomplete – at the very least – the general Web can be when one is trying to get accurate information, especially about this type of case.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1013PM:
Thus, then, ‘Dan’s attempt at insinuation fails as well, since we aren’t even sure that the Sepulveda case has “come to light” at all, in terms of the alleged ‘secret settlement’ of the lawsuit. And if it was settled, then was the lawsuit against Sepulveda alone or against Sepulveda and the Diocese?
These are vital questions that need to be answered before one can go off making the types of presumptions and conclusions we have seen from ‘Dan’ and ‘True Catholic’.
Thus too his effort here to piggy-back his own exoneration from “the light” fails: first, his own uncongenial experience with “the light” remains, regardless of the Sepulveda matter; and second, it can hardly be legitimately asserted that the Sepulveda case “is certainly exposing a ton of creeps from your cult”.
The only “creep”, it would seem, that we have seen exposed here is … not Fr. Sepulveda.
And while ‘Dan’s own contortions and ever-plastic stories and addenda to stories certainly demonstrate the phenomenon of “making poor excuses” (and evasions), yet that’s something that I would say has been clear for quite a while.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1207AM:
He is quite right that he was not “pointing out the numerous substantive elements of the Stampede”. I had said that (my comment of the 26th at 1131AM) in reference to my own material over the years here.
So much for his “reading comprehension skills”.
Then merely a riff on ‘mocking’, for lack of any other way to deal with the Philadelphia cases and the “legal system making a mockery of itself”.
Readers, however, may consider as they will the slyly attempted inference that ‘Dan’ is somehow to be considered part of “everything Godly and pure”. And to point out the recoil aspect of that “Hypocrites!” would, at this point, be rather superfluous indeed.
On the 27th at 1041AM JR asserts that “before now it’s always been the church’s demand”. Which is grossly inaccurate.
There is no “up until now” about it, since this point has been discussed on this site a number of times in the past years.
And there is no evidence that any Abusenik has ever proffered here in regard to this claim that “secrecy” has “always been the church’s demand”. In fact, it was Federal judge Schiltz, quite a while back here, who was quoted as saying that “secrecy” was often demanded by the allegant/plaintiffs’ counsel.
Back then, I had said that it can easily be seen why allegant/plaintiffs’ counsel might demand it: in order to Keep The Ball Rolling by preventing the public from seeing the quality (or rather the lack of it) in the allegations.
And also why the defendant Church entity involved would agree to it: so as not to demonstrate just how easy – perhaps ludicrously easy – it was for an allegation of even the most modest credibility to get itself a piece of the settlement action. If my surmise here is accurate, then one can imagine both Church and Insurer – and the counsel for each –deciding or realizing that there was little chance of prevailing at civil trial in a time of Victimist Stampede.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 1041AM:
As to whether and to what extent JR doth “know Donald Steier” and accurately characterizes that person here or whether JR is simply trying to use somebody as a convenient mule to carry JR’s own agenda … readers may judge as they will.
And his puffed-up pin-feathers boast that he will “take a lie detector test” as to his ‘child rape’ charges (I omit, of course, the scatology he characteristically deploys when his point is weak or worse) is pure rhetorical bombast, long past its sell-by date. The moment for such a test would have been a decade ago, in the run-up to that 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit, but he is now long and safely past it.
And on thus to JR’s of the 27th at 1050AM:
As I predicted, JR has little room to maneuver himself into the limelight now that his ‘child rape’ claims have been brought to the light. And as a result, we have seen him simply trying to run his last-ditch strategy of impugning me as (fill in the blank).
And he then tries to buttress that sad – if not also repellent – bit by tossing in his old 3×5 about “compensation for real victims”. The problem – as always – being that of determining who is and who isn’t a “real” victim. And readers may judge as they will where JR might stand in regard to that category.
Whether his use of “profit” is a howler (should it not be ‘prophet’?) or some attempt at informed wit … is anybody’s guess.
The Gordian knot bit is impressive at first glance, but its lack of relevance to the points here undermines it. Nor is it in any way helped by his cloudy statement of what he sees as the problem.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 1050AM:
And what issues, actually, have been “turned on their head” here?
I would say that the Stampede strategy has been turned on its head, and the Abuseniks are none too happy about it. Rather than their various (and oft-changing) claims and stories and assertions and accusations being simply accepted with sympathetic clucks, all of those bits have been looked at with “heightened scrutiny”, with results that are now in the record here.
As to who actually doth “lie” here … readers may judge as they will.
At the top of this article you write, DP. "Keep hope alive? Who's the Globe keeping hope alive for? the victims? Why do the victims need to keep "hope alive"? Because the Church has done nothing for them?
Is it the press who's supposed to be keeping hope alive? for who themselves? They 've made so much money from this issue they need a sequel like Starwars? The press has only reported accused criminal acts and criminal trials and victims settlements. Never a follow up on victims experiences with this crisis as it unfolded for them socially/politically/emotionally. Only questions about "how did we feel?" about the abuse at the time it occurred. No stampede no nothing. Why does TMR play this game that the church is under attack when they aren't even held libel for their criminal actions at all.
And most importantly, with all the statistics you publish in this article, why don't you say: how many victims you've made and how many victims you've compensated?
Publiar dismisses my offer to take a lie detector test now. as if the truth of what happened to me in 1963 is different than it would have shown in a 2002 lie detector test as compared to one taken today. The truth remains the same. The acts occurred. The past is unchangeable. The present and future can be steered. Even stampeded by the church if it just keeps lying and hiding the truth waiting for it's present crop of child victims to die or give up trying to seek justice.That's what all this smoke is being blown for by you. To hide what you really are up to: not helping in a just way any of the people you've harmed unless legally pressed to do so. This is corruption at it's most despicable.
Further to my comments re the double standards displayed by media, including the Boston Globe. Only yesterday the media revealed allegations, against actor Johny Depp, by his wife Amber Heard. Such accusations of domestic violence have serious consequences for the reputation of the accused husband. However I wonder if it would ever have been publicized, without some evidence?. Here there was the evidence of a photo.. showing bruises to her face. Also the fact of her applying for a court order… to restrain him. Contrast that with the media's treatment of Catholic priests… accused by anonymous 'victims'? No evidence whatsoever, most have never gone to the police, let alone a court. It has all come via contingency lawyers, and perhaps their silent partner, SNAP. In other words you need evidence to accuse an actor, but none to accuse our priests. Our Church is under attack from the Boston Globe, and most of the media.
Pretty disingenuous to compare the two crimes, when rape, sodomy, oral sex or the groping of children by perverted creeps and pedophiles, can be performed leaving little evidence, which you weirdos are well aware of. Let alone the fact that few of the thousands of cases are reported in a timely fashion, based on the unfair guilt and shame of the victim, or creeps threatening their prey, laying un'god'ly guilt on the minds of their targets. Shameful and despicable. Stop with the lame excuses, Austin Publyin' and Mini-Me, Malcolm.
Also, Malcolm, The biggest enemy of your cult, most definitely comes from within. Reporting the disgusting things your cult of perverts has done, is not attacking, it's reporting. Period.