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.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1101PM:
Here and once again, ‘Dan’ evades and avoids, this time by apparently channeling his version of ‘God’ and delivering an ever-so-convenient ‘prophecy’ which is actually just ‘Dan’ trying to get himself out of a jam by masquerading in a God-wig.
And the apparent upshot of the whole bit here is that if you don’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff then you are “without love”. Yah.
And without bothering himself too much about it, he instructs readers to consult Romans 1: 18-32.
This is an extended Pauline discourse on idolaters. For it to have relevance to anything at issue on this site, one would have to presume that the readership here are idolaters (by virtue, apparently, of being Catholics and of belonging to the same Church that originally accepted Paul’s Letter into the canon in the first place).
catholic = idolatry If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then, by george rat-zinger, it's gotta be a duck. And you can make your false claims that your cult has "accepted Paul's Letter in the first place", but if your not living by the "Letter", then all you become is an deceiving, idolatrous hypocrite. Christians aren't those who have or wrote the Word, or tell you they know the Word. Christians are those who live the Word. Get that yet, Mocker?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1101PM:
Thus, you would have to step into the bubble of the ‘Dan’-verse in order to find the purported relevance of the pericope to any material here. But – neatly – if you choose to remain in the realm of human actuality and thus not step into the ‘Dan’-verse, then you are not a “true believer” (like ‘Dan’ is, having been so declared by the Pope of the ‘Dan’-verse, namely ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself)).
I am reminded of one observer’s pithy description of FDR: ‘Mr. Roosevelt’s conception of the office of the President is … himself in it”.
And as previously mentioned, the mocker still doesn't get it.
And from JR on the 9th at 1233PM we get merely another variation on his theme, although this time with variations.
I am apparently demoted from “nun” and “Nazi” (or perhaps neo-Nazi) and am now also demoted from certified “child molester” to perhaps “a child molester enabler at best”.
Or whatever. JR just needed some plop to toss.
And yet, having just made the point that I could be this or that, he tries to solidify the wet cement into which he has just stepped by quickly asserting that “we know what he is”.
Actually, all “we know” is that JR is the formerly-child-raped. And he’d reely reely like everyone to forget that and – as they say – ‘move on’ … back to before the “formerly” became part of his title.
No worries! I still think you're a "nun" and "Nazi", and possibly a "certified 'child molester' ".
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1233PM:
And – neatly borrowing one of ‘Dan’s tactics – JR doth declaim and pronounce that any readers who don’t agree with him are – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrrrr ittttttt? – “evil”.
Thus, JR is just a poor innocent thing caught in the web of long-sustained untruth that somehow got mixed up with his primary stuff, and he is even more the poor innocent victim of some “evil” assessment that discovered that uncongenial but – he would have us accept – trivial actuality.
The bulk of ‘Dan’s most recent bunch of comments is more accurately classifiable as myah-myah comebacks comprised of the usual bits, rather than as anything approaching a response, so I’ll just focus on two of them.
On the 10th at 1248PM ‘Dan’ now says that the schoolyard incident was seven years ago and he hasn’t “been back to that church since”. It was a schoolyard, was it not?
And what is the significance of his point here in the first place?
But his excuse in any case as that God ‘sent’ him. Or perhaps God made him do it. Neato.
As opposed to your, the Devil made me say it, or Satan forces me to "lie". Neato. Mocker.
If one denys my sex abuse; they are evil; because it happened. You,P, deny it because you need to. It's your job to deny all victims claims. That why you are placed here. You fool no one.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 116PM:
Since he pretty much gives his game (and problems) away with his opening (i.e. “catholic = idolatry”) then readers may consider the rest of it as they may.
But then he goes on – yet again – to the effect that the Church having formally included or accepted Paul’s Letter to the Romans into the canon is nothing but “false claims”.
Since he has consulted Wiki for the “Pied Piper of Hamelin”, then he can consult Wiki for “development of the Christian biblical canon”.
In fact, I’ll save him a step:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
And for that matter, he can also consult Wiki for “Epistle to the Romans”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans
And there are even books on the subject, although he has been told in his god-grams it is not necessary to read any of them.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 116PM:
He then slyly tries to evade the Church’s role in the formation of the Biblical canon by shifting the subject to whether the Church fully lives out the Letter to the Romans.
As may come as no surprise, ‘Dan’ doth declaim that the Church doesn’t do it. And are we to presume that ‘Dan’ does?
But let us leave ‘Dan’s usual stuff and move on to something more substantial:
Nationally-syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg has an article from two days ago that has appeared under several titles in various publications; I include here the link to the article as it appeared in The New York Post:
http://nypost.com/2016/06/10/the-left-only-wants-conversations-that-it-controls/
He notes that a new excuse has arisen for persons (major media personality Katie Couric is his opening example) who have been caught making false accusations and claims: they were – doncha see? – simply trying to provide “a conversation starter”.
Continuing with my comment of the 12th at 402AM:
He then notes a university professor who last year claimed that she had been “punched in the face … for being a lesbian”, but who later admitted that she had punched herself in the face “because she wanted to start a dialogue”.
Goldberg observes that this type of thing is becoming rather frequent in academia and on college campuses: “Students and professors initiate or exacerbate a hate-crime hoax or a false rape accusation”. He continues: “The orchestrators are perfectly happy to pretend the fraud is real and demonize anyone who casts doubt on the claims”.
None of this should come as news to those familiar with the Stampede.
As Goldberg paraphrases the gist of these excuses: “Raising awareness of the larger issue is more important than mere facts”. But as I have consistently pointed out, if the original “facts” turn out to be untrue, then how is anyone to accurately comprehend what is claimed to be “the larger issue” in the first place?
Continuing with my comment of the 12th at 402 AM:
Ditto, on the tenth anniversary of the Duke Lacrosse “rape hoax”, a number of faculty members who had supported the ‘victim’s story of racism and gang-rape a decade ago now claim that they had “just wanted to get a good discussion going”.
And again I would say that if the only way to “get a good discussion going” is to knowingly embrace untruths, then such a “discussion” is deceptive and its integrity is deranged from the get-go. Because if the subject itself is based on untruths, then any “discussion” of it is already adrift, unmoored to any actual truth.
Nicely, Goldberg calls this gambit “lying for justice”. And he further observes how “pernicious and widespread” this gambit is, describing it as “crowd-sourced totalitarianism” and “routine lies in the service of a … narrative” in the service of which apparently anything goes and truth is the first thing to go.
Continuing with my comment of the 12th at 402AM:
He makes the further point that even when the propagators and orchestrators “call for an honest conversation” or “frank talk” or “honest dialogue” yet “what they really mean is they want everyone who disagrees … to fall in line”.
And what they really want is not to actually have “honest conversations” but rather “to have their conversations … and only their conversations”.
This has been a key dynamic in the Catholic Abuse Matter and in the agitprop Victimism that spawned the Stampede.
And you would have everyone believe that the "Stampede" is responsible and the "key dynamic in the "Catholic Abuse Matter". And this is why it is more than fair to label you a deceiving, disingenuous, lying creep. You would have us all believe that the perverts and pedophiles of your cult are just myth, dreamed up by leftist, bigot, haters of your church.
Explain to us all then- 1) victims of 87 perverted priests secretly paid off in Boston alone 2) Fr. Paul Shanley of North American Man/Boy Love Assc. and John Geoghan who alledgedly molested over 130 children 3) Marcial Maciel, molesting more than 10 boys but publicly acknowledged in Rome as a wonderful leader by JP II, the great (pretender), because he was a terrific fundraiser for the cult 4) Deliver Us From Evil, movie and media pedophile, porn star, Fr. Oliver O'Grady 5) FR. Lawrence Murphy, molesting hundreds of deaf boys, died without punishment, although Cardinal RAT-zinger was well aware of the pervert and did nothing. 6) Pope RATS brother, george RAT-zinger, plays dumb and knows "Nuthing" while 231 chior boys are molested and abused while under his watch – and you play even dumber to claim you can't find it, when you can easily find it by googling – "george ratzinger 231 chior boys" – Do you need to hear more, you lying, disingenuous creep, who thinks you can manipulate fact and turn truth into fiction – Cowardly, phony, hypocrite, and don't forget Mocker.
And where is your "honest conversation" or "honest dialogue", liar. Absolutely and totally non- existent. Too bad you exist, Creepy excuser.
As is becoming the usual style for him, most of ‘Dan’s comments are now more or less one-liners of the juvenile myah-myah variety and they can stay right up where they were tossed.
However there is some ore to be mined from ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
In the first place, I would not “have everyone believe” anything. I have made my assessments and conclusions, demonstrating my reasoning and thoughts every step of the way. Readers are thus free to consider and judge my material as they will and take it from there, wherever they see fit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
In the second place, I have always said that the Stampede is a key element because it is precisely governed by the dynamics of presumptive ‘knowledge’, i.e. that public opinion is manipulated to the point where some point of view is presumed to be an actuality that ‘everybody knows’ and thus since ‘everybody knows it’ then it must be true.
And once that point has been reached, and there is no limiting-principle of demonstrable truth or actuality, then any story or claim or accusation whatsoever can be pushed the public’s way, and is almost certain to enjoy that presumptive acceptance as being veracious and accurate.
This is a convenient theory your attempting to propose, knowing the difficulty of proving with hard evidence cases of sexual assault. Why have there been thousands of cases and allegations worldwide against your hierarchy, wherever the church has gained a foothold? This tells me that there had to be communication among the perverts and pedophiles that this was acceptable practice and possibly something they thought they could easily get away with, with little or no consequence. Creeps.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
Thus the basis for ‘Dan’s further effort in the second sentence of the first paragraph is undermined since it is a conclusion based on a position that I have never taken or espoused. Rather, he has – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrr ittttttttt? – simply constructed a straw-man position, assigned it to me, and then built his little cartoon blocks on that hash of a ‘foundation’.
Ditto then the claim in his third sentence of the first paragraph. About “perverts and pedophiles of your cult”.
And ditto then the claim in his third sentence of the first paragraph about “leftist, bigot, haters of your church” (although an astute reader may easily note how ‘Dan’ has – no doubt unintentionally – described himself rather nicely).
In your own words, you say, " this has been the key dynamic in the 'Catholic Abuse Matter' ", that we're not looking for "honest conversation" or "honest dialogue", when you've been the most dishonest one posting here. For this reason, and not this reason alone, considering your other material and lies, I rightfully call you a "deceiving, disingenuous, lying creep". Nothing has been "undermined", aside from your honesty and intellegence.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
On then to his second paragraph:
Here his general strategy is to simply deploy the now familiar Abusenik gambit: if a lawsuit claim was civilly settled, then the claim has been proven accurate and veracious.
We have been all over this before quite a while ago on this site: there is no basis for such a presumption, especially in a time of Stampede when sober and cautious defense counsel (including that separate category of Insurer counsel) may well decide that since public opinion has been so manipulated, then the chances of prevailing at trial are far too slim and settlement is the only route.
This would be precisely the object of a tortie strategy, although the Stampede in the U.S. created what might be called a ‘dream time’ for such a tortie strategy (or what U-boat commanders once referred to as “the happy times”, i.e. that early phase of the Atlantic U-boat war when merchant ships and tankers were essentially defenseless targets).
And this advantage would have only been intensified by the added tortie stratagem of bringing multiple-plaintiff lawsuits, which by their nature are meant to intimidate deep-pockets corporate defendants and their Insurers into settling as an alternative to the astronomical costs of defending against each plaintiff or each allegation.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
‘Dan’ then buckles down to his old pile of 3x5s and raises a few individual clerics and/or cases:
The Shanley case involved only that individual former priest; while known in the ‘60s as “the hippie priest” and for his participation in NAMBLA, the actual abuse allegations against him in 2005 were of the usual Stampede variety: a questionable story from the long-ago by an adult with life problems who had read about large settlements and had – he said – suddenly ‘recovered his memories’ of Shanley’s abusing him.
The conviction of Shanley resulted in appeals going all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where in 2010 that Court upheld his conviction, stating that the trial judge had not erred in allowing ‘repressed memory’ theory to play the pivotal role it did in the conviction (despite the fact that psychological experts remain notably divided as to its validity as a theory and as to the difficulty of distinguishing a ‘recovered memory’ from a false assertion in the absence of corroborating evidence).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
In the matter of the Geoghan case, even ‘Dan’ hedges his bets with that “alledgedly”. I recall that the sentencing judge in his single abuse-instance case gave him the maximum sentence because – she said – she ‘just knew he had abused many more’. Geoghan’s offense – as best I can recall – involved being too tactile when lifting a child out of a swimming pool.
As I have said before in regard to him, he appeared to spend a great deal of time with children in pools (although in public settings) and there certainly seems to me to be enough evidence that he shouldn’t have been permitted ordination (but he was the relative of a then-influential cleric in that Archdiocese).
He was soon subsequently murdered under highly suspicious circumstances in prison when another maximum security prisoner not only egressed through the open door of his own cell but then gained entry into Geoghan’s maximum security cell via its somehow open door in the middle of the night.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
Regarding another individual cleric, Maciel – as also has been discussed previously on this site – that cleric seems to have been also similarly sexually unripe, although I am not sufficiently familiar with the nature of his “molesting”.
As for Maciel’s long-sustained approval by John Paul II, I would call it regrettable; although that Pope’s long experience of Nazi and Communist efforts to undermine the Church by imputing individual or organizational sexual abuse (though the term itself was not in general use in the Nazi and Communist eras) served to blunt his otherwise acute judgment of persons and historical events and forces.
As for movies on the subject, I don’t think they are of much reliable use in serious assessments.
JP2 didn't have any help from his "God" regarding Maciel? Tsk Tsk! I guess "He" doesn't make "Saints" the way he used to. JP2 get's a pass on Maciel by old Goddy-boy and Serra gets to bullwhip native Americans to "save their souls"? All religion is shit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
In regard to the Murphy case (he was attached to a school for the deaf from 1950 to 1974), the police and DA were informed at least as early as 1974 and did not take action. Murphy was prohibited from ministry in 1974. Based on his admissions of ‘molesting’ in a Diocese-ordered psychiatric evaluation in late 1993 (he admitted to some sort of sexual actions during the Sacrament of Penance, specifically triggering the ‘crimen sollicitationis’ we have seen in discussions of the 1962 Vatican directive), a canonical trial was authorized by Rome and formally begun in 1996 but Murphy died before it was concluded.
‘Dan’s gratuitous assertion that then-Cardinal Ratzinger (juvenile word-play omitted) “was well aware of the pervert and did nothing” is not at all accurate. Once Rome was informed of Murphy’s admission to so grave a canonical crime, a major trial was authorized and indeed ordered by Rome, despite the local Metropolitan’s concerns that Murphy at that point was too elderly and frail to survive a trial.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
And once again ‘Dan’ pulls up his 3×5 about Benedict XVI and his brother and the Regensburg choir boys.
Readers may consult this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/world/europe/church-confronts-abuse-scandal-at-a-famed-german-choir.html?_r=0
The claims are primarily of physical abuse (i.e. what would be known today as “corporal punishment”) not sexual abuse, although a dozen of the 230 or so claims are of a sexual nature; they reach back to 1945; with the convening of a non-governmental or informal commission this year, another 60 or so claims of physical abuse have been made.
Thus the “abuse” of which it is indeed reasonable to expect that Church officials would have known are mostly of “corporal punishment” (teachers slapping children, twisting their ears, and such) – which is a practice that has fallen from acceptability in other countries far more slowly than it has been proscribed here, and in any case dates back in some cases 70 years or more, to an era when such practice was considered culturally acceptable if not also necessary.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1055PM:
And from these cases ‘Dan’ would insist that we accept the utter and total factuality and ‘truth’ of his assorted epithetical scare visions of the Church.
And – with a sublimely marvelous lack of self-awareness – impugns somebody else as a “lying, disingenuous creep” / “who thinks you can manipulate fact and turn it into fiction” / and who is thus – in ‘Dan’s Cartoon-verse – a “cowardly, phony, hypocrite and don’t forget Mocker”.
Yah.
Dealing with the peewee's garbage, June 13 @ 4:26 – 4:32pm, as a whole - And we are now treated to more of the "lying, disingenuous creep" / "who thinks you can manipulate fact and turn [truth] into fiction", by cherry picking from my list of disgusting cases of multiple offending catholic pedophile priests and perverts. These sickos admitted guilt to molesting young children, in case files, in numbers of nine to hundreds of victims. Mr. Disingenuous (p), picks out one case where he thinks he can dispute and twist fact to make you believe the creeps are innocent. Disgusting. In the case of pope RATS brother, george rat-zinger, the articles I read, including the New York Times, stated that 40 of the 231 cases of abuse were sexual in nature, from "fondling to child rape". He (publyin'), wants to convince you that it was only "teachers slapping children, twisting their ears, and such", when in reality there is cases of much harsher torture, mixed with sexual pleasure. Sick creeps. To sum up, all I hear is more of the lies and excuses of a "disingenuous, deceiving, cowardly, phony, hypocrite Mocker". In regards to childish, juvenile or immaturity, you display more of that than anyone, with your baby terms and "Cartoon-Time". servant
On June 9th, I compared 'Dan' to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, which I now realize was unfair. Because I was trying to convey a spiritual bad outcome …. i.e., doom for their souls. But now re-considering my words, they could be interpreted as meaning an actual doom, as in the original folk story. So I take back any suggestion that 'Dan' would physically harm any children. His ideas might lead them astray….but nothing more than that.
Thanks for the partial apology. You're right. I would never "physically harm any children", nor would I accost, harangue or bethumpe children, as I've been wrongly accused. If speaking to children the truth, in a loving message from the Lord, would possibly lead a child astray, then I would answer that it just might lead them astray from the false catechism and teachings of your church. And you're not aware of the thousands of children led astray from the horrible sexual crimes done to them by priests and bishops that were supposed to be representatives of the Almighty God. I question the agenda of those who accuse the innocent while making excuses for the guilty.
In regard to JR’s of the 13th at 109PM:
We see – as so often – the slyly deceptive effort to change the subject: I had nor ‘denied’ his
“sex abuse”; I had merely pointed out from JR’s own material that his claim of “child rape” could not be sustained.
But I have said that – even with the child-rape untruth out of the way – there still remains no corroboration for his original claim in the first place.
That’s just stating a fact as to the extant evidence (and lack of it).
But as always, JR works tirelessly to put himself in the victim-position and hopes to surf that board over the rocks.
But there was corroboration of my charges. My witness who I told at the time. the Teachers who I told and the perp himself, who admitted it to his superior.The head of the Marinist order in California, personally, admitted my abuse 15 YEARS before my settlement with the church. And before that, the church's own hired shrink admitted that he believed every word I said, in front of the church's lawyers (to their chagrin). I called my abuse rape because I believed it to be statutory rape. I believed your definition of statutory rape when you posted it. Admitted that I was wrong in my definition of stat rape. What more can I do? You give me no credit as an honest person ever. So what can I do but point out your character defects in not behaving like a fair minded human being? My assumption from your behaviors including hiding who you are is the protection and support of child molesters. Why? Because you probably are one yourself.
It iis generally accepted by thinking people that all science must be evidence- based. Otherwise much effort would be wasted, and hopes dashed, by the following of false leads. In a similar way our system of western justice must be evidence- based. Otherwise bitterness and division will result, from a higher incidence of wrongful convictions. The witch-hunt against Catholic priests is not evidence- based…. more like bigotry- based.
Nice try, Malcolm. You're aware that many young victims, because of fear, embarassment or outright threats from their molesters, are unwilling to come forward for several years, if not decades. Thus, how can there be much in the way of evidence. Many admitted child abusers were able to have their freedom based on the Statute of Limitations, the fact that they died before prosecution or mysteriously disappeared, some escaping to vatican city. What freedom was given to their victims? Lifetimes of undeserved guilt and shame. The light is now shining into the darkness and the secrets of the church are being exposed. Some of those secrets are just fact, and the church has not been in sync with the Bible for centuries. Any true Christian who isn't against idolatry, sexual immorality or deception, wouldn't be able to call themselves Christian at all. Very easy to label those against horrific sins as bigots, anti-catholic or haters on a witch-hunt, but these accusations are far from truth.
YOUR VICTIMS WERE CATHOLICS. YOU IDIOT! WHAT! WERE WE BIGOTED AGAINST OURSELVES?
On June 15th 'Dan' talks of his own vision… of numerous 'victims',… who did not come forward… for fear of various things?. These various reasons, for not speaking out, are not credible. Because I was an altar boy. Had any priest done anything sexual, or even said anything sexual, I would have told my parents… in a flash. Why? Because it would have given me a perfect excuse. At that time religion was just something imposed on me… and I wanted out. My siblings and friends would have had similar thoughts. Not once, in thirty years in that parish, did I hear any hint of priests hurting children. And anyway let's get real…. how could anybody say in one breath, "it destroyed my life". But in the next breath admit they didn't discuss it with any doctor… until a lawyer said they should… twenty or more years later. Seriously….it simply does not ring true. You guys are surfing on a wave of bigotry.
On now to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1059PM:
Here he merely tries to evade the uncongenial point that I don’t make assertions in the way that he does by claiming to “recall” that I do make assertions (i.e. “the same type of language when your [sic] making excuses for your pedophile pervert friends”).
He then loses grammatical – if not also conceptual – control of his material in the sentence beginning “Something to the effect of …”. As best can be determined, he is trying to claim here that i) raising a question or using qualifiers to impose parameters is the same as ii) making an assertion. That’s how deep in the swamp one winds up when trying to deal with his material and his mentation.
And then he actually tries to make a virtue (of the in-your-face variety) out of necessity by braying that if I want a “quote” to support his bit here, then “you find it”. We really are dealing with the J.V. here, but a sly and devious J.V. nonetheless.
He then riffs on about “6 plus 6” (slyly trying to evade the far queasier fact that in his earliest story-telling about the incident he riffed on ‘666’ and then drew the usual satanic conclusion).
And then wraps all of the foregoing dead-fishy bits in a page or two of Scripture.
Are you aware that you make "grammatical" mistakes, but none of us are so petty as to continuously point them out? You living and winding up "deep in the swamp" has nothing to do with me. Not my problem!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1059PM:
It should not be difficult to compare ‘Dan’s ‘prophecies’ to Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah or Jeremiah or any of the actual Biblical prophets and thus realize that ‘Dan’s stuff is drawing from a far different and more-tainted well than the actual Biblical authors and prophets.
But of course his is merely a mimicry designed to serve his own purpose (i.e. sustaining the Cartoon that keeps his head from exploding).
Referring to my comment of the 13th at 424PM, ‘Dan’ (the 14th at 634PM) tries to evade it by merely dismissing it as “a convenient theory” of mine. Because – doncha see? – there is “the difficulty of proving with hard evidence cases of sexual assault”.
There certainly is. And that’s precisely where Victimism has come up with its “convenient theory” that an accusation/allegation is a report and may (or must) be presumed veracious and accurate.
What ‘Dan’ tries to characterize as my “convenient theory” is actually a basic principle of Western law: accusations require evidence and proof and the burden is on the accuser to provide that proof.
Otherwise, of course, nobody has any way of being able to rationally determine if the accusation/allegation is accurate or not.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 634PM:
But in that gaping abyss where proof and evidence should be, Victimism (and ‘Dan’s essentially fundie cartoons) then eagerly lard on manipulative emotionalism as if it could function as a credible and effective substitute for rational persuasion based on evidence. And the fundie variant on the theme also lards on this or that Biblical quotation as well.
And ‘Dan’ here gives the game away: there have been “allegations” and “cases” built on those allegations, but few demonstrated and ‘proven’ instances.
At which point the rational person would have to consider the reliability of any presumption to the effect that all or most of those allegations were veracious and accurate.
But such a rational conclusion would do nothing to further the purposes of Victimists or fundies (or whatever term one might choose for classifying ‘Dan’). Which is why they go instead for simply larding on more of their preferred emotional manipulations and presumptions.
On the 14th at 651PM ‘Dan’ will try to evade by simply claiming that I am “the most dishonest one posting here”.
On what basis does he make this claim? On no basis except his own assertions.
Thus his attempted mimicry of rationality (“for this reason, and not this reason alone”): his own assertions do not constitute ‘reasons’ or “reason”. They are merely his preferred assertions. As if his wishing and bleating and braying could make them anything more than preferred assertions.
But I had then put up some factual material in regard to several of his ‘examples’.
What does he do?
We have his comment of the 14th at 811PM:
First, he opens with his queasy “peewee” bit, which reminds any reader familiar with his material of his own proclivities and tendencies.
And then … he merely tosses up more of his usual epitheticals trying to evade and deny.
Nor was it I who “picks out one case”: I simply commented on the case examples that ‘Dan’ himself had ‘picked’ (or – if you wish – which ‘Dan’ had “cherry-picked”).
When I say you "cherry-picked" or he "picks out one case", I'm referring to the fact that you bring up one simple fact you think you can dispute, while these perverts and pedophiles admitted to several "victims" of there abuse, mostly young boys. Again. Disingenuous.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 811PM:
The New York Times article to which I linked a) refers to 231 allegations over the period 1945-2015, of which a dozen were allegations of sexual abuse and the rest of physical abuse, with a further 60 allegations of physical abuse once that informal commission was convened.
And b) there was in that NYT article no mention of “from ‘fondling to child rape’”. So if ‘Dan’ is introducing a different reference, he needs to identify it. Or perhaps he is simply trying to slide in some of his convenient and preferred material as if it had appeared in the NYT article.
He then tries to evade the heavy preponderance of allegations of physical abuse by claiming – with no reference – that even the physical abuse actually rose to the level of “torture”.
Having laid down that “disingenuous” and clearly deceptive and deceitful and manipulative smoke screen, he can then launch into his preferred mode of the epithetical with which bits he brings his performance to a conclusion.
https:/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/world/europe/over-200-members-of-…
"The lawyer, Ulrich Weber, who was 'commissioned by the chior' to look into accusations of beatings, 'torture' or sexual abuse said he thought that the actual abuse was even more widespread."
"He said at least 40 of the 231 abuse cases also involved sexual violence, 'from fondling to rapes'." Most cases are too old for legal action now, he said." All "rapes" were done to little chior boys. Off the hook again, creeps.
Turns out that I'm not the " 'disingenuous' and clearly deceptive and deceitful and manipulative" one laying "smoke screen". Are you leaning on your "I'm Not/You Are" bit again, which as usual backfires and still describes your BS perfectly.
On the 15th at 1030AM ‘Dan’ will again simply try to run by us the not scientifically-proven but certainly “convenient” Victimist doctrine that it is not because they created allegations once it became clear that there was money and kudos to be had that allegants had no evidence; rather – the mantra has it – it is because they don’t remember (the old repressed-memory gambit) or they were embarrassed or ashamed or threatened. And all of that lasted not only for decades, but also right up until – by the most amazing coincidence – there was cash and kudos to be had pretty much for the asking (or accusing).
And as I have said before here: if – as even ‘Dan’ claims now – there is a very serious Evidence Problem with sex-accusations from the get-go, then that Problem can only be intensified by weakening or erasing the Statutes of Limitations, since the reliability of evidence degrades over time.
Why, then, go down that road? The Evidence Problem is daunting enough as it is now.
And – as always – there remains the problematic deployment of that term “victims”: how can anyone legitimately determine who was and wasn’t a genuine victim? (Short Victimist and Cartoon answer: just presume that they are all genuine and all the problems disappear like magic.)
On then to JR’s of the 15th at 1112AM:
Regular readers may quickly recognize an old JR gambit that has been dealt with here before several times: he didn’t have a “witness” to his alleged assault. He had some pal or classmate who was willing to say that JR told him about it afterwards; but that is no “witness” at all, but rather hearsay.
The bits about the head of the Marist Order and so forth is new to the story, though JR has told it many times here. And didn’t arise in the cache of documents released a few years ago by the LA Times and considered in depth here at that time. Ditto the bit about the Church-hired psychiatrist.
And are we seriously to believe that JR’s grossly mistaken conception of his alleged experience being “statutory rape” was not corrected by competent adults or counsel at some point in all those fifty or so years of telling the story? Or that JR himself did not at some point look up the relevant legal definitions in CA law? And – to repeat yet again – surely his counsel a decade ago would have corrected him; and surely that counsel did not perpetrate a fraud upon the court by filing a sworn Complaint of ‘child rape’ or ‘statutory rape’ as part of the 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit.
Continuing my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1112AM:
And then and then and then: JR – doncha see? – was a victim … of everybody who (allegedly) didn’t correct his (convenient) misconception. Even after his consultation with various professionals and even after his stint at SNAP and all the rest and even after he had worked with counsel on the lawsuit of a decade ago and even after he had aged well into late middle-age (and come onto this site).
And – doncha see even more? – he is further victimized by my not giving him “credit as an honest person”. No, I don’t. Not from all the material I’ve seen here. Not at all. Readers may judge as they will whether my position in this is irrational.
But – doncha see even more? – it is only because I have thus victimized him that he – the poor victimized thing – has been forced into “pointing out [my] character defects” … which – readers are apparently to presume – is a stance so very distasteful and alien to him (but which, when he felt he had to do it, he has performed with such sustained gusto).
He must be quite surprised at discovering so late in life so vivid and intense a skill.
And – doncha see even more? – what was the poor thing to do when confronted with someone so “not behaving like a fair minded human being” … ? Readers may consult the archival record here.
Continuing my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1112AM:
But – in the end – JR cannot help but reveal himself as he really is, with the deployment of that “child molester” bit.
So this comment of his is actually a quite nicely revealing performance: a tearful romp through the usual victimization tropes, but then – ineluctably – the sociopath’s sharp edge rips through all the gauzy chintz at the end.
There is an article in the New York Daily News (edition of Monday, June 13, page 10 in the print edition, entitled “Allies for status quo” by Kenneth Lovett) regarding the weakening of Statutes of Limitation (SOLs) in that State.
The State Assembly (the name for its House of Representatives) had crafted a Bill that looked like it would have a chance of passing in the closing days of the legislative session (it ended on Thursday the 16th), but at the last minute the Democratic elements who had introduced the Bill withdrew support at the behest of the advocates themselves.
The advocates were not pleased with the mere extension of the age at which allegations and claims might be legally introduced from 23 to 28; the Bill would also have created a six-month “window” during which even older allegations might be formally and legally lodged and it would have applied equally to both “public and private institutions” (which makes it different from the Pennsylvania approach, about which more below).
Continuing my comment:
The advocates want the SOLs for allegations of child sexual abuse to be eliminated entirely or at least extended to the allegant’s age of 59.5 years.
The NYDN had supported the advocates; it surmises that perhaps the advocates hoped for a better chance to get what they want after the elections in the Fall, when perhaps a “more comprehensive” plan might be passed. (“Comprehensive” here meaning that they get what they demand.)
One allegant – claiming abuse that occurred in 1966 – has started a PAC and demands that legislators “help victims” (making, of course, the implicit presumption that allegants are automatically to be credited as being ‘victims’).
Continuing my comment:
And the same allegant blames the Catholic Church for “protecting predators” by opposing the Bill.
But a) the Church can hardly be seen as the prime mover in the resistance to tinkering with SOLs: defense attorneys and even courts and judges might very well realize the serious problems with such a gambit in terms of the integrity of the legal system and even the legitimacy of its decisions; politicians – even when torn by an urge to pander and get some kudos for doing something ‘for children and victims’ – seem to realize the deep dangers since – despite all the hoopla – these SOL-tinkering gambits do not easily pass legislative muster.
And b) the public service union and government bureaucrats are also leery of such gambits, although they have tried to solve the conundrum of i) evading liability and becoming targets of a stampede themselves while ii) not looking like they are ‘against children and victims’ by simply getting themselves completely or greatly immunized in such laws as are passed.
Continuing my comment:
But the PAC’s demand to extend the allegant age to 59.5 years (somewhat conveniently encompassing a 1966 allegation) would also limit damage-settlements to one million dollars (whether in total or for each allegation is not clear). This bit might put off the torties who would seek the massive settlement amounts of the Stampede’s “happy times”, but times have changed and a tortie’s one-third cut of a one-million dollar settlement should be enough of a fly to lure those trout to rise.
And – interestingly – the advocates seem aware that they will only get one chance at their agenda (the reduction or elimination of SOLs being a very dubious and iffy proposition in and of itself, as even legislators realize) so they want to get the biggest bang they can for their buck, and thus their decision to reject the present Bill and hope for better luck after the elections in the Fall.
Continuing my comment:
Another (self-declared) “survivor” and “advocate” reports herself displeased that some legislators are blaming the “seasoned group of advocates” for the rejection (and a very strategic and strategized rejection it appears to be): she deploys the old bit that all of this simply re-victimizes the (presumed) victims, saying “The victims get victimized; it seems to be the commonality” (meaning: the bottom line is re-victimization).
And all she want, really, is a Bill that “will help victims and children”. Although for a 50 year-old case from 1966, the chances of the accused being still active or even still alive seems minimal at best.
But The Ball Must Be Kept Rolling.
Continuing my comment:
I had mentioned the Pennsylvania Bill.
Readers may review the following article:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-warns-of-drastically-unjust-pennsylvania-bill/
The Pennsylvania Bill would remove the criminal SOLs completely and would allow retroactive lawsuits by allegants up to age 50. So far, so problematic.
But then an amendment to the Bill exempts public institutions such as schools and juvenile facilities from the formidable dangers of such retroactive suits. Thus: the state government will remove criminal SOLs for sex abuse and will permit retroactive lawsuits … but not against itself or any of its own institutions.
There is apparently already a cap on the amount of money that can be awarded for already-lodged lawsuits against state institutions.
Publyin', your reference article from archbishop chaput is the most disingenuous piece of horse manure I have ever heard, although your garbage takes a close second.
"The bill fails to support all survivors of abuse equally, and it's clear attack on the Church, her parishes and her people," the archbishop said
Are your brainwashed, dumb sheep that stupid to think that all of a sudden, you greedy, evil, lustful, lying creeps, finally care about treating "all survivors of abuse equally". That's so absolutely ridiculous that your cult cares about anything except their bottom line, MONEY. Oh! And they really care now about families after you've spent decades raping their little children and destroying the faith of many family members. Demanding they keep things secret, so you could continue with your filthy, disgusting ways. Read the letter of Margaret Gallant to cardinal medeiros. Don't give your usual excuses that you can't find it, Mr. Research.
Continuing with arch. lyin' chaput saying, " In other states where simular legislation passed, local parishes have been sued, resulting in parish and school closures and charity work being crippled." Again, your only concern is your loss of MONEY, while acting like you care so much about people and school children and the poor. All you hypocrites do is brag about all the good you do for people, which is definitely unbiblical (Matthew 6: 2-3)
"The Philadelphia Archdiocese has voiced support for the bill provision eliminating criminal statutes of limitations." Catholics. Are you willing to listen to this BS and believe it. The catholic church has done everything to fight the SOL's in every state, and hope governments will buy their excuses that they want everyone, including themselves prosecuted. It's worked in other states so the bills wouldn't be passed (i.e. Ca). Nothing but deceiving hypocrites and professional liars.
All this article is about, is blindfolding dumb sheep, so you will "write or telephone [your] state senators" and oppose HB 1947. The archbishop concluded, "Please act now to contact your senator", so we can keep as much of the loot (MONEY) that we have previously absconded from you gullible dumb sheep. Your cult should be ashamed, but I don't think they have any conscience at all. servant of the Lord
P.S. Absconded (def.) – to depart in a sudden and secret manner, especially to avoid capture and legal prosecution. Catholic sentence – The cult absconded with the MONEY. This definition totally fits your cult and it's greedy perverts and pedophile creeps perfectly.
US NEWS – "US Catholic Church has spent millions fighting clergy sex abuse accountability"
I will deal with ‘Dan’s most recent crop in chronological order, which is not the order in which they appear on the thread.
On the 16th at 1235PM:
In an effort to extricate himself from his accusation that it was I (rather than himself) who “cherry-picked” the cases, ‘Dan’ now claims that – doncha see? – he was “referring to the fact that [I] bring up one simple fact that [I] think [I] can dispute … “.
He gives – had you been waittttingggg forrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – no examples of just what this somewhat convoluted accusation claims that I do.
I point out facts in the cases that he himself selected; if those facts tend to undermine his assertions and claims, then that’s what happens when one tries to proffer an insufficiently explicated example in order to have it fit into one’s predetermined cartoon conclusions: the balloon is burst rather easily when excluded facts are pointed out or introduced in later assessment.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 109PM:
I had said that if he were introducing material from an article different from the one to which I had linked, then it was incumbent upon him to provide the link. He provides here … an incomplete link that leads to nothing.
This, I think, is the complete link
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/world/europe/over-200-members-of-german-choir-were-abused-investigator-says.html
And I will assess this article.
"And I will assess this article." What the publyin' really means is he will dispute and make excuses for all the truths the lawyer observes. "The lawyer, Ulrich Weber, who was commissioned by the chior", in other words the church paid for him to research the allegations. Again we see that the case wasn't brought to the attention of the proper authorities, but shall be handled in house. The deceiving cult thinks they'll get special treatment by commissioning a lawyer of their own choosing. Sounds really transparent and honest to me!?! After the lawyer gives his opinions and observations of what took place, then creepy excusers, like publyin', think they can step in and dispute everything he says so the crimes don't sound so bad. For example – "sexual violence", defined as anything "from fondling to rapes" isn't talking about the "tousling [of] hair or patting a kid on the head for hitting a high note". To suggest such is totally disingenuous, deceiving and creepy, all synonyms for your name. I don't care to respond to the rest of your BS and new form of mocking God. Lying, mocking, creep. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 109PM:
The “investigator” – we recall – is an attorney and the commission for which he is working is an informal one. He is speaking at a press conference he called.
In the article’s first paragraph he slyly uses the general term “abused”, not distinguishing between physical abuse and sexual abuse.
In the second paragraph we discover that the “even more widespread” abuse (now including “beatings, torture or sexual abuse”) is merely what the attorney ‘thinks’. Which is thin gruel indeed.
In the third paragraph the attorney expands that ‘thought’ to estimate (or guesstimate) that a third of the choir members in the period 1953 to 1992 “suffered some kind of physical abuse”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 109PM:
In the fourth paragraph the attorney “attributes” most of the “beatings and other mistreatment” to one man, a layman named Johann Meier, who died in 1992.
In the fifth paragraph, the attorney can only “assume” that the brother of Benedict XVI knew of the physical abuse (which, again, lies along a spectrum that ranges from corporal punishment to “beatings” and – somehow – “torture”).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 109PM:
In the eighth paragraph the attorney claims – on the basis of stories told to him – that at least 40 of the 231 claims “also involved sexual violence”, defined as anything “from fondling to rapes”.
What to make of this? Does tousling hair or patting a kid on the head for hitting a good high note constitute “fondling”? Does the attorney actually mean sexual-penetration when he uses the term “rapes” (as we have seen in Victimist type stories, the term – while vivid – can be used rather elastically).
For that matter, does pulling a kid’s hair or ear for missing a high note constitute “torture”?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 109PM:
I would also point out that “since the cases are too old for legal action now”, the attorney may well not have to produce evidence at trial or have his claims subject to adversarial or judicial examination. And the ‘accused’ is, of course, safely dead long since, greatly reducing the possibility of some type of libel or slander charge.
So, I would say, that it “turns out” that ‘Dan’ isn’t really a very acute or reliable assessor of claims, especially those made by lawyers looking to make a splash at press-conferences they have called and under circumstances where such a lawyer faces little threat of further examination of his assertions and claims.
And thus ‘Dan’ remains – as always – preeminently mockable. And creepy.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 118PM:
He informs me that I make grammatical mistakes. While that may be, he proffers no examples, especially of ones that I have allegedly made that he has not been “so petty as to continuously point them out”.
As to whether ‘Dan’ is chronically mired “deep in the swamp” or permanently resident “around the bend”, readers may judge for themselves. If he is, then it most certainly is his problem. And will remain a problem for those upon whom he appears chronically driven to inflict his God-wiggy “beautiful prophecies”.
On the 16th at 11PM ‘Dan’ opens – as so often – with epithet (and he appears rather taken with “disingenuous”).
Then we get his assessment – as it were – of Archbishop Chaput’s point that “the bill fails to support all survivors of abuse equally”:
And that ‘assessment’ turns out to be merely a string of epithets and assertions riffing around the axis of how the Church is concerned for any “survivors of abuse” at all in the first place.
The point the Archbishop makes is that if a person were abused in a public institution then that person would not be covered by the proposed SOL changes and thus that person would not be able to bring legal action, which deprives that person of equal treatment under the laws (a core Constitutional point, which has escaped ‘Dan’s notice here, clearly).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 11PM:
As for his bit about the Gallant letter to Cardinal Medeiros: a) he refuses to provide a reference or link for it (a juvenile myah-myah bit designed to somehow imply that while he can provide competent research links, he doesn’t wanna and nobody’s going to make him do it).
And b) he doesn’t discuss whatever it is that strikes him as being significant in that document. Rather – as we have so often seen in Abusenik proffers – he just makes a reference and doesn’t bother to explain his thinking or explication. Readers – apparently – are expected to share his excitements and illuminations and thus he feels no need to take the time and effort to explain his own.
This reflects the stampede-like dynamic whereby one off-key tuning fork simply sets itself to vibrating, hoping to set off other like-minded or susceptible tuning forks into vibrating to that same off-key note.
‘Dan’ will continue this bit on the 16th at 1142PM:
A perfectly logical and far more coherent reason for the Archbishop’s point about parishes in other states under similar SOL changes is that such SOL changes work primarily and specifically to the detriment of Catholic institutions (but not to public institutions, which the SOL changes continue to shield).
Thus ‘Dan’s effort to somehow characterize the Archbishop’s point as being merely about “loss of money” (manipulative scream-caps omitted) is inaccurate and insufficient: the institutional damage and “charity work being crippled” are matters concerning far more than merely “money”.
But ‘Dan’ is all about plop-tossing and plop must be tossed.
And as so often, he attempts to wrap these dead-fishy bits in a page from the Bible.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1142PM:
Thus too he attempts the same plop-tossy reductionism on the fact that the Archdiocese “has voiced support for the bill provision eliminating criminal statutes of limitations” (a position taken by the Archdiocese with which I do not agree, by the way, for reasons I have often explained in SOL-related comments here).
Unable or unwilling to grasp the distinctions between SOL changes affecting civil litigation and SOL changes affecting criminal process, ‘Dan’ then merely goes into denunciatory and hortatory mode, exhorting “Catholics” about “this BS”. When you are a plop-tosser and when you aren’t really capable-of or interested-in accurately comprehending realities, then a whole lot of things might appear to your conceptual blinders as “BS”.