Together against the Church: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editor-in-chief Gilbert Bailon (l)
and David Clohessy, National Director of SNAP (r)
After years of haranguing the Catholic Church over its alleged "lack of transparency" in its handling of abuse cases, David Clohessy, the national director of the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP, is again not only defying a federal judge's orders to hand over important documents in the case of a falsely accused priest, but he is also now orchestrating a fraudulent media campaign about it.
As we have reported before, Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang has filed a federal lawsuit against his accusers, SNAP, and members of the St. Louis police department for publicly and wrongfully accusing him of being a child molester.
After SNAP openly defied two court orders directing them to turn over important documents in its possession, Fr. Jiang's lawyers are now asking the court to sanction SNAP for its contumacious refusal to obey the court's discovery orders.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch promoting SNAP's lies
Bravely fighting back:
Rev. Joseph Jiang
In truth, there is no "painful, intimate details" or "suffering" in this case, and SNAP knows this.
Clohessy is desperately trying to dupe the public into believing that the court's order seeks to publicly divulge the names of abuse victims and violate their privacy. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Jiang already knows the names of his accusers, and he has already proposed to redact any unrelated third-party names in the documents.
And the obvious reason that Clohessy does not want to reveal SNAP's communications is that they would likely uncover the fact that the abuse claims against Fr. Jiang are completely bogus and that SNAP knowingly defamed Fr. Jiang. They would also likely uncover the sordid relationship between SNAP and plaintiffs' contingency lawyers.
So in its effort to avoid complying with the court orders against them and sway public opinion, SNAP turned to the always-willing media to advance its phony story line. Naturally, the bleary-eyed gang at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch were more than eager to oblige.
[***Click to read Fr. Jiang's motion to sanction SNAP (court docs)***]
Kowtowing to SNAP, the Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier and Valerie Shremp Hahn published apologia articles (1, 2) for SNAP's refusal to obey the law, and then the paper's editorial board chimed in with a painfully biased editorial that dutifully echoed SNAP's media talking points.
It was obvious that either SNAP itself or SNAP lawyer/contributor Ken Chackes – or both – provided information to the paper's editors for its attack on the Church and Fr. Jiang, as the editorial, with its one-sided presentation of past cases and events, read more like a press release from SNAP than any kind of even-keeled analysis. And upon the editorial's publication, SNAP then seemingly petitioned a bunch of its wild-eyed "members" from around the country to flood the paper's comments section to cheer on the group's cause.
Yet what was most notably absent from all of the Post-Dispatch's biased reporting was even a scintilla of information from the mountains of evidence that Jiang has obviously been falsely accused. For example:
- "The alleged victim had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse";
- "[The accuser's] parents had a history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain";
- "[The accuser's] fourth-grade teacher indicated that [the accuser] was a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional'";
- The same teacher has stated that it was "virtually impossible" that the abuse took place as claimed;
- "[The accuser] has never had any personal acquaintance with Fr. Joseph, and he could not even identify Fr. Joseph's name when he made the allegation";
- "[A parent of the accuser once] physically assaulted the principal of [a Catholic school] by choking him or her";
- The accusers already have 2 liens and 16 judgments entered against them in other cases, they have avoided service of process, and still other process servers are trying to serve them with even more legal papers.
In other words, the mob at the Post-Dispatch has zero interest in justice and truth in the Jiang case, and it certainly does not care that SNAP's Clohessy – a lawyer-funded zealot who has a long history of bigotry against the Church – is flouting court orders to shine a light on SNAP's activities while perpetually berating the Catholic Church for not being open enough.
SNAP's hypocrisy is off the charts once again.
Same as it ever was.
Continuing with my comment on the Chevron case:
The editorial concludes: “Faced with an activist trial lawyer [and] media blitz, most companies capitulate and settle to avoid the huge potential costs of litigation and the risk of unpredictable verdicts”. Which is precisely what the Church did in the Stampede, when faced with all that plus a far more media-seducing stream of ‘victims’ ‘reporting’ their ‘victimization’.
And it observes that the Second Circuit is “hardly a conservative venue”.
Ohhh! Geez, we sure do appreciate your indepth, longwinded analogy comparing pomegranates to zucchini squash. You're a cult of pedophile whores and deserve to pay everything you have and so much more. Tell the creeps to keep their zippers up and their dresses on. Hey, speaking of gas, it sure would be nice to put a cap on the stuff seeping from your mouth.
And let us not forget that the church settled many cases out of court in order to continue their facade of a pure and loving cult and further perpetuate the secret, so they could continue on course of screwing every little boy that they could get their slimy hands on. The jig is up.
On the 14th at 1215AM ‘Dan’ will try a further sly trick:
“Why do you act so threatened by bible quotes …?” he bleats.
First, I am not threatened; I am a questioner and I find much of his material questionable.
Second – and we’ve been over all of this before – I don’t take exception to the use of quotations from the Bible. I find ‘Dan’s own material – the assertions he makes and conclusions he draws from the Bible material – very questionable. As I also find his contortions in trying to wave away his own behaviors and actions as he himself relates them and also the even more contortionist efforts to wave away the problems caused by his efforts to explain how his own material doesn’t indicate some rather notable derangement.
Whether anyone wants to get into his sandbox or swampbox with him and go back and forth as to whether his own stuff is “God’s Word” and whether his assorted invectives against various aspects of Catholicism constitute “prophecy” or mere personal invective and rant … we’ve been all over that ground before too and readers may consider as they will.
Funny how you can't resist jumping into that swampbox, you lying troll.
"I don't take exception to the use of quotations from the Bible." he oinks. Surely you don't, as long as you can twist the meaning to make it fit the lies you're in agreement with. You should summon the church to crown you as a speshullist in the theology of the catechism of the catholic church, where you can twist and make excuses to pervert God's Word to mean whatever fits your lying, idol worshipping, immoral lives. Then you can pray repeatedly, God forgive me for my sin, my sin, my most egregious sin. No secret to those sins. Unforgivable.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1215AM:
He then indulges in yet more of the same type of stuff, insisting that his points of view are merely perfect applications of Bible passages that he insists are “plain as day”.
I would have to correct him: his own points of view may be “plain as day” – to him, anyway – but the Bible passages – yet again – are not at all so easily reduced to the invective simplicities of his own derangement.
Once again – and quite like JR – ‘Dan’ has come up with an extensive tissue of his own mentation, in which everything he tries to shoehorn into his own particular agenda has to be simplistically or fantastically squashed into the shape he needs it to take. If the world doesn’t respond approvingly – as does his bathroom mirror – then that merely proves that … the world is deranged. And he then will be its redeeming illuminator.
Then the obligatory blanket reference to the first chapter of Romans and the instruction to just “read” it. Such a reading will – he is sure – simply demonstrate the rightness of his own point of view and agenda. Which it very well may … if one puts on the same type of glasses or goggles through which ‘Dan’ views Scripture and so much else.
First off, I have 20/20 vision and no need of glasses. In regards to your insistence on labeling me deranged, to cover for your own ignorance and stupidity in understanding scripture, SORRY, not my problem.
I invite any catholic to read Romans 1: 18 – 32 and explain to me how that doesn't perfectly describe a cult of idolators, "making images (i.e. statues) resembling mortal man, birds, animals and creeping things." If you don't see a connection to your cult, then you've never seen the abominable sculptures of Vatican City, St. Peters Church or the creepy, skeleton bone churches and Catacombs. "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity….God gave them up to dishonorable passions." Romans 1: 24-26 "….men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1: 27 If God calls homosexuality, dishonorable and shameless, then what do you think He thinks of old disgusting perverted and pedophile clergy creeps and the despicable things they did to little boys. You can believe a publyin', pedophile excusing, enabling creep, tell you that I'm deranged or you can read the Bible for yourself and see if I'm the one who's misinterpreting God's Word. After that study, take a look at Jeremiah 44's description of how God felt towards the worship of the Queen of Heaven and follow that up with Rev. 17: 1-9, a perfect description of the colors of your cult, it's riches and it's golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. Believe in someone asking you to read the Bible for yourself, or listen to your churches perverts explain away how that surely can't be talking about them. After all, they're the true and pure, greedy hypocrites and "BABYLON THE GREAT, MOTHER OF ALL WHORES", they'll always tell you the truth, even though their father is Satan, the father of all liars. Servant of the Almighty
Continued from August 14, 2016 @ 4:31pm post -
of God the Creator and His Son, Jesus Christ. I don't believe you understand how denying the Almighty God and His Son works to benefit Satan's agenda. You think it's cute to poke fun and criticize the very one you need to assist you with your problems. I'm saddened to watch you in your pride, think your more powerful than the one who made you and believe you will suffer no consequences. I think you've come to a crossroad and a choice of deciding which side you'd rather be on. I wish you the best in that decision. Dan
P.S. I will be letting God decide who belongs on this forum and who doesn't. In my own pride, I once thought that I knew better, but He had this wonderful way of knocking me off my high horse. My hope is that you don't find that out the hard way.
You keep using the word "bleats". Why? You say I bleat you say Dan bleats You seem to dislike sheep and or have a problem with discerning between human beings and sheep. Isn't Jesus called in your silly faith: "The Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world"? Isn't he the blood sacrifice that he offered to himself to save us from the sin of stealing one apple?
Dan, I don't believe in a supreme being, no God without proof, thank you. No Satan without proof either. You keep trying to swing the conversation to religious nonsense, Dan. I think you're a plant here. the Frick to P's Frack. You must make the religious right in the Catholic church feel attacked by Protestant theory. Dueling fantasists.
Meanwhile real victims, girls as well as boys, Dan get nothing. No help. No support. No compensation and no truth fro this particular molesting institution.
But Dan, The Catholics aren't the only ones to fuck their children. Protestants; Jews and Atheists have done it too.
The Catholics like to pretend they are being victimized here, as an excuse for allowing the people in power, who caused the abuse, to remain in power, one. And as an excuse for doing nothing for their victims by pretending that the only victims are the church and "innocent" priests.two.
The church has been playing this fake bullshit since Cardinal Bernadin's "false" accusor appeared16 years ago. They are playing the same scenario in Philly and now in St. Louis where SNAP may finally have given the church what it has so desperately needed , an innocent priest falsely accused by SNAP. 2 birds to be killed . First Bird SNAPcan be cut off the church's payroll and ended. Second bird, One falsely accused priest can be held up as the "real" victim. Again completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands truly fucked with Catholic children.
What makes you think your Protestant theology is news to Catholics, Dan? How does your disclaiming the nonsense these people believe in, make your nonsense any better? And what's it got to do with anything relevant,here. (Granted there is little that is relevant here, in all of TMR's and P's nonsense. )
I only post here hoping against hope that one day a real reporter might look at this site out of curiosity and discover the truth I attempt to share. If TMR's the only place where this subject is talked about. TMR is the place I have to be.
Jim, I can't quite get my head around where you're coming from. To claim I'm some plant is absolutely ridiculous, when I've sided with victims in almost every one of my posts. I get that you think belief in God is nonsense, and that to me is nonsense, so I guess that would make us even? I know there are child molesters in every religion, and that's one of many reasons why I don't belong to any of them. Where you've gotten the idea that I'm Protestant, I can only guess. Because publiar calls me a fundie, doesn't make me fundamentalist, any more than you calling God nonsense, makes God nonsense. All Christian religions spun off the catholic churches nonsense and I have definitively nothing to do with any of them. Please refrain from labeling me something I am not, let alone "the Frick to P's Frack". If you wish to make an enemy of me, that's fine, you've seem to have created many other imaginary enemies in your travels. I would be very careful of making an enemy out of the One you think is nonsense. I believe He must be really impressed with your insults and boldness. Hope you don't suffer the consequences for those actions.
Yea Dan, I'm just a maker of "imaginary enemies in my travels". What "imaginary enemies" ? What "travels"?
So why are you here Dan? To tell Catholics about God?
To tell me to watch by step around this Prince of Peace, this God of Love? Presumably because he might smite me for my non belief? He kills us all anyway, the bastard, so I'll take my chances.
What do you have to add to this dialog that doesn't obfuscate?
Everyone knows P's a prick. You do insult him well. And I admire you for that; but why are you here? What are you doing for victims by being here?
If you don't like that I don't believe in God? Swell but how does that make me a maker of "imaginary enemies"? Why would you even imagine I do that? I distrust anyone who isn't focusing on the fight this site engenders. And it isn't between Protestant and Catholic or Athiest and Catholic. It's about whether the media is attacking the Catholic church by simply mentioning their crimes.
I am distrusting why you are here because I can't see why you are here; other than to debate about God and Catholic beliefs vs. Protestant beliefs. It seems kinda weird to me.
So between you and Chatty Cathy you both take up a lot of space and blow a lot of smoke in the comment section. Granted P is the worst at yammering nonsense at extraordinary lengths but why are you here? I don't see your motivation. If it's religious views, why here? These people are pretending they haven't molested any children. I say not only that they have ; but that they continue to defend the fact that they do; by denying what they have done. Not in some broad sense about the religion overall but specifically about their victims. What do you bring here but digression?
I will go on admiring your most accurate insults of P. The rest is smoke to me.
On the 14th at 509PM we get more from ‘Dan’.
First, a conceptual trumpet blast: God and Christ are announced, as if it is on Their very special authority that ‘Dan’ now doth declaim. While I don’t doubt at all that ‘Dan’ is kinda speshull, I am not at all convinced that he is ‘special’ in the sense he would prefer to be taken.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:
And then ‘Dan’ hunkers down to his favored fallback position, i.e. threatening those who don’t buy his stuff. Because – doncha see? – anyone who is “denying the Almighty God and His Son works to benefit Satan’s agenda”.
Quite so. But – alas – we are not talking about anyone “denying the Almighty God and His Son”; we are simply talking about anyone denying ‘Dan’s stuff as representing “the Almighty God and His Son” so very purely and perfectly and directly that to question the former is to deny the latter.
But – of course – that pure and perfect and direct welding and melding of ‘Dan’ to “the Almighty God and His Son” is precisely the axial point in his derangement. As if from an old-timey cereal box, ‘Dan’ has acquired for himself (or Himself) a speshull badge and magic secret decoder ring that nobody else on his block has. And they all had better respect him (or Him) for it. Or else.
"speshull" (def.) – childishly stupid vocabulary of an imbicile – defined by Dan-verse
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:
He then seeks to manipulate: he presumes to imagine that I “think it’s cute” to question his stuff. I don’t think that at all. It’s a chore to have to wade into that mess in the first place.
No doubt ‘Dan’ doesn’t like being the object of “poke fun” and – on a much deeper plane – being ‘criticized’. That’s not the stuff he gets from his bathroom mirror. And he doesn’t like it one bit. But the solution to this problem is to stop putting up so much stuff that invites such responses as poking-fun and criticism.
And then – the toothy alley cat claws through the pious kitten costume: I need God to “assist” me with my “problems”. Therefore I shouldn’t poke fun at and criticize the Almighty God/His Son/Dan – which is the actual working Trinity presiding in the Dan-verse.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:
Then – suddenly but hardly surprisingly – the alley cat purrs slyly: in the accents of a rueful divinity, he, speaking for the other members of his Trinity, is “saddened” – doncha know? – to see my “pride”. It’s “pride” – doncha see? – because if you don’t humble yourself to ooh and ahhh at ‘Dan’s stuff then you are prideful against “the Almighty God and His Son”. Surely that much must be “plain as day” to any normal person, no?
And then it’s back to the Wigs: ‘Dan’ bemusedly and piously doth wish me “the best in that decision” to be for the Almighty God and His Son and His ‘Dan’ or against that illustrious little Trinity.
But since what is actually “plain as day” is not anything about the Almighty God and His Son, but rather about the whackness of the ‘Dan-verse’, then I’ll be for questioning the ‘Dan’ stuff, since the former has little if any substantive conceptual connection to the latter.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:
But wait! There’s more!
‘Dan’ being ‘Dan’, he cannot really hide the claws that actually constitute his core operating stance toward the world: he doth declare and declaim that he “will be letting God decide who belongs on this forum and who doesn’t”.
Is this supposed to imply that ‘Dan’ is expecting ‘God’ to shut me up and stop the criticism that so irritates ‘Dan’? Where does this point about who does and does not ‘belong’ on this site come from in the first place? Nicely, only the Abuseniks and ‘Dan’ have ever raised the point about getting people off the site on the basis of their idea of who does and doesn’t ‘belong’ on it.
They will only accept from anybody else the same adulation and agreement that get from their bathroom mirror. Otherwise, they will seek to squelch what they don’t want to hear, what they can’t deal with, what they can’t answer sufficiently.
Is little publyin', so obsessed with his bathroom mirror still playing with himself in front of it. Maybe you can rent a room in Fr. Shanley's motel. Creep
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:
And then ‘Dan’ casts himself (or Himself) as St. Paul, while – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – uttering that smarmy God’ll-getcha threat for not buying ‘Dan’s stuff.
Two peas in a pod: both JR and ‘Dan’ threaten, when they can’t have their way.
Although since JR has dealt himself out of using ‘God’ as the authority, he must rely merely on the usual Victimist substitute: outrage and the various posturings that flow from it.
‘Dan’ – long ago – glommed onto ‘God’ as being a bigger and better hammer to back up his threats.
Again you have demonstrated your stupidity and might want to look into some glasses for yourself. My post on August 14, 2016 @ 5:09pm clearly states "Continued from August 14, 2016 @ 4:31pm post -". So you spent several pages with your ignorant questioning and assessing to a post that I directed to Jim. Well done, "Mr. Know It All". I'll say one thing, Your "deranged mentation" gives me plenty to laugh at. Pretty dumb of me to think you could ever understand scripture! And by the way, you've surpassed Jim in poking fun at God with your new low of mockery, adding myself in place of the Holy Spirit in the "Trinity". You must be awful proud of yourself. I would have to say, you're one poor excuse of a Christian, though I never thought of you as one from the very beginning. You might want to return to your swampbox, but apparently you've never left it. Later, you despicable, lying, blasphemous troll.
"Peas in a pod"? Broad brush work there P icasso. As if you do nothing when your nonsense isn't adhered to P. You snipe, snark and insult . That's you modus operandi. I'm sure God just loves how you are.
On the 14th at 1047PM ‘Dan’ will scrape together more bits to defend his personal cartoon.
First, a juvenile stab at literalistic reading, bruiting his physical eyesight (and thus slyly sidestepping the actual gravamen of my goggles imagery, i.e. his deranged interior vision).
Second, he tries to sidestep my “labeling” him as “deranged” by burbling that my considering him deranged is not his problem, but merely a result of my “own ignorance and stupidity in understanding scripture”. Readers may judge as they will.
Third, ‘Dan’ – in his official capacity as a member of the sovereign Trinity of the Dan-verse – doth exhort and “invite any Catholic” to just “read” a passage from Romans and then “explain” to him how his goggle-visions do not “perfect describe” … and so on as the riff riffles on.
In other words: ‘Dan’, fully encased in his goggles, just cawn’t think why anybody else wouldn’t see how precise and perfect is the vision that his goggles present to him (and his bathroom mirror affirms for him). Readers clinically inclined may consider it all as they will.
His brief tour of the art of Vatican City is certainly a keeper, for a certain type of file.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1047PM:
Then he seeks to wave-away my questions and the difficulties with his bits that I have pointed out: he simply reverts to epithetical invective against me. Though clearly more versed in particular verses of Scripture than JR, ‘Dan’ brings no more competence – and much the same type of distractions – to the table than the former Tribune of the Victimry.
I ask nobody to “believe” me because I have made few assertions. Readers are welcome to consider the questions and points I have raised, but unlike the Tribune and the Trinity Member, I am not looking to manipulate anybody’s beliefs.
And the whole bit riffs on to its conclusion in much the usual fashion.
You wouldn't be "looking to manipulate anybody's beliefs" because you lack anything close to any Godly beliefs yourself. You're not having any problem promoting and manipulating belief in Satan's agenda though. I would have to say you're ready to join the catholic hierarchy, if you're not already a pervert and pedophile creep. You definitely qualify as a mocking troll.
Bringing "competence" to scripture is impossible. You can't fix stupid.
Really Jim? "Bringing 'competence' to scripture is impossible. You can't fix stupid." Now that's got to be the stupidest statement I've heard from you. What's with all your anger against anything to do with God and His Word. I understand that you don't believe, but I'm positive that God isn't to blame for the things you think He's guilty of. You know, I've talked to many people who hate anything to do with The Creator, based on their past experience with the catholic church. Seems like they guided many towards atheism or just plain confusion when it comes to matters of faith, hope or love, in this wicked world. My catholic upbringing brought little to the table when it comes to my beliefs. Nor did any other religious organizations. I make no apologies for who I now am in Christ. When I lived in darkness, well that was really stupid.
In response to my discussion of the Chevron case, ‘Dan’ (the 14th, 1112PM) will attempt to wish the whole thing away by going for the idea that I am trying to compare “pomegranates to zucchini squash” (my, he is the foodie, though) with my “longwinded analogy”.
The point of my analogy was to reveal a long-standing legal tactic that is a staple of tortie operations and which certainly bears definite and precise similarities to the Stampede. That apparently escaped ‘Dan’s notice, or else he is trying to make sure it escapes any other reader’s notice (perhaps by seducing them into thinking about what to have for lunch).
And the whole bit riffs on to its conclusion in much the usual fashion.
Two hours later (at 125AM), having no doubt conferred in the bathroom mirror with the rest of his Trinity, ‘Dan’ then tries to shore up his prior bit by asserting – with no proffer of demonstrable evidence – that “the church settled many cases out of court” merely to “continue their façade” (whatever that may grammatically describe) and so on.
And ‘Dan’ can forthrightly assert this … how? Apparently on the mere basis of his consultations and séances held in and with his bathroom mirror, that inner sanctum and Holy of Holies at the core of the Dan-verse.
Readers may consider and judge as they will.
Dan’s reely reely against screwing around with children, and takes many opportunities to accost stranger children to inform them of that. Thus the busy days of one appointed by his bathroom mirror to deliver “beautiful prophecy” to children.
But on the 15th at 131AM, a few minutes later, the Bearer Of Beautiful Prophecy To Children reverts to his basic form, and the result of this sudden but not surprising transmogrification is the revelatory epithet about being a “lying troll”. No doubt the staffers at the schoolyard – among others – had had much the same thought as they sought to remove him from the children.
You are such a creepy lying troll to continue pushing your disgusting lies of my accosting children. You are a forked-tongued snake from hell and should be ashamed of the false accusations you put on innocent people. You are an insistent mocking jackass that really makes jackasses look pretty smart. Your day will come and I'll be praying for it to be soon.
I would also like to introduce an interesting bit regarding media coverage and the Stampede.
This link is to the article to which I am referring
http://www.unz.com/article/oscar-hangover-special-why-spotlight-is-a-terrible-film/
Ron Unz, administrator of the Unz site, had recently put up an article in which he opened by making a greatly complimentary reference to the Spotlight team of the Boston Globe (he was hoping, in the article, to see some similar keen investigation and exposure of a major policy issue that was the actual subject of his article).
But then he was apparently made aware of the many problems with Spotlight (Team and movie).
As a result, we have the article I have linked to here in this comment. He backs off his complimentary approach to Spotlight (Team and movie), acknowledges that didn’t have any “personal expertise on this issue” (of the Catholic Abuse Matter), and – very impressively – reprints a February 2016 article by Joann Wypijewski, an author and investigative reporter who has published on the subject.
Her article looks closely and carefully at the role of the media and the operating dynamics of the Stampede itself, involving media, prosecutors and law and the types of ‘victims’ lured to the surface by the roiling of such troubled waters.
The St. Louis newspaper,The Post-Dispatch, appears to be muddying the water, in an attempt to assist David Clohessy, the boss of SNAP. They want to obscure the real purpose of the lawsuit. The real purpose is to uphold the rights of all citizens, and that must include the clergy. The International Declaration of Human Rights says we all have a right to a good reputation. If this right is crushed then other rights are also lost. Such as the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence. Any person being accused of sexual abuse will always lose, if public opinion has been manipulated… into thinking he is already guilty, before the court proceedings start.
This is the witch-hunt scenario that the clergy are facing. This lawsuit is putting the onus on the public accuser, Clohessy, to prove he had justifiable reason to attack Fr. Joseph Jiang.
He didn't.. and that is why he is not obeying the court orders. His stated reasons are laughable. The real reason is he was using his usual tactics to smear.. such as innuendo, inference, ambiguity, and outright lies.
His objective was to destroy this man's right to a good reputation. There are curious parallels to the Chevron case, that Publion has recently commented on, but more about that in a later post.
If David fucked up he was told to do it. Where did he get his misinformation? The police? Jeff Anderson? Fr. T. Doyle?
If he didn't screw up and the charges are valid against this priest. Why are you betting they aren't? And why are you, TMR and co, backing this one so hard? Acting as if false accusations by disreputable people are a common occurrence in this situation. All a part of your propaganda ploys.
Again all handed you by SNAP. SNAP makes the errors and real victims are made accountable for their, SNAP's, choices. With nary a victims vote to back their self proclaimed "legitimacy" as our representatives.
Again as a life long activist on the Left, I have NEVER seen anything like this shit.
Never has anyone stepped in to speak for me without my permission the way SNAP has.
That in itself should have made me suspect the truth earlier. But I didn't know that the church had picked our lawyers for us. Thanks to SNAP.
The looneys here will now mock, but I swear on everything that matters to me, that what I've told you here is the truth. The whole truth and nothing but.
Oh yeah! Just what the doctor (of the church) ordered. Nothing but propaganda and a bunch of BS. You'd like to believe that since you're such a habitual liar, that all victims accusing priests are the same. The real "VICTIM" was the "ATM that is the catholic church, password VICTIM". Once again the church having more concern with it's money than it's raped children.
Read the paragraph on Fr. Shanley. They'd have you believing he was a sinner, yet really should be crowned a saint. Like many of the catholic excusers posting on this forum, he was an admitted liar (though most of you won't admit to it). Admitted having sex with teenagers, ran a counseling service and a motel with a fellow priest for a mostly gay clientele. Sounds like a pretty good resume for a grooming service and lodging for men with little boys. No mention of his speech at NAMBLA as a practicing priest that would make the hair on the back of your neck raise, if you have any moral conscience at all. He was a pervert and of course he preached "mercy". Why do you think the pope declared this a year of mercy? So dumb sheep can forgive all the pedophile creeps and perverts of their cult.
Be careful of all the propaganda and articles that might be introduced by the excusing, lying creeps that troll this forum. Take a good look at yourself in your bathroom mirror, but don't be surprized when it tells you that all the most disgusting superlatives fit you perfectly. Lying mocking troll.
How did P find out about the vehement Protestant Dan and the school kids? (The creation of the part of Dan could be rather good. The insulting zealot who yells at Catholic kids about God. And comes here to do the same) I'm sorry but I joyfully don't read P's junk. So I don't know how this info about Dan slipped out. I wish some one would briefly fill me in. Interesting though that the zealot who attacks the church about child abuse just happens to attack Catholic children in their school yard about their faith. Some strange goings on and at such length to. I find reading P boring and though Dan is excellent at insulting P. I don't read Bible verse. Because I've read the novel cover to cover and seen the movie and the comic books and the coloring books. thank you. Enough.
The battle here is not over faith but over cover ups, false flags, and misdirection.
When the battle is bent to disagreements over faith. This blog's comment section then becomes a haven for boredom, confusion, and personal insult.
Why would people want to read that? They can get those things at home.
Jim, There was absolutely no "attack [on c]atholic children in their schoolyard about their faith." This is the work of a fairytale, initiated by some cowardly fairy, in order to destroy my reputation, in hopes that all his slander will make readers believe in his nonsense, rather than those who tell the truth. This is the MO of most of the hypocrites I've come across, who excuse, enable and lie for the pedophile creeps and perverts of their cult. Think that's just a coincidence?
I just noticed that I missed a few comments.
On the 13th at 1208PM JR tries to explain-away the failure of a Stampede to start up in any other country – especially those with Western law – by proposing that “other nations may be owned by the Church, just like this one is”.
Where to begin?
If the US is “owned by the Church” then how did the Stampede get going here?
And readers may consider just to what extent the Church ‘owns’ any country (except the Vatican State itself), especially in those Western European-derived countries that were the core of Latin Christianity from the Dark Ages to the Enlightenment, where those countries are working to embrace modernity by replacing Christianity with some form of the French secularism that stemmed from the 1789 Revolution or some form of the related Communist materialist secularism that branched off from French Revolutionary secularism.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1208PM:
JR then tries to lard on a second explanation that actually works against his first explanation: governments might be “co-defendant” with the Church since those governments – at some point in their history – allowed the Church to provide various social services.
But this implies that the governments are not ‘owned’ by the Church but rather that those governments are simply operating out of self-interest and aren’t really concerned one way or the other with the Church itself.
For more than a millennium the Church was the only organized institution committed to providing services for society’s weak: unwed mothers, the ill – physically and mentally, and orphans. Even as governments began to form they often relied on the Church to perform such services in the absence of government capacity to take on the task.
Well, of course your cult would be "the only organized institution committed to providing services to society's weak: unwed mothers, the ill – physically and mentally, and orphans". What better way for pedophile priests and hierarchy, to gain control of your targets you realized most easy to groom and exploit, than to make them believe you were there to assist them. Unwed mothers, who didn't have a husband around to beat your ass for raping their wives. Far more desirable to you sickos were the vunerable, fatherless, male children or orphans, some with mental deficiencies, deaf, dumb or blind, left defenceless and with no one willing to believe them or step forward to protect them. This is the very reason why I consider your priests and bishops to be despicable creeps. And you publyin', thinking you can deceive others, while being yourself deceived. The only ones you may be capable of fooling, may be a couple dumb sheep. How about you crawl back into the swampbox you slithered from. servant
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1208PM:
At any rate, what have we seen?
The once-bruited Dutch Abuse Report of half a decade ago found 109 cases of some sort of abuse (however defined) over a half-century period, which works out to about 2 cases per year in the entire country. And yet since early 2011 we have had nothing more from that quarter.
The Magdalene Laundries case in Ireland suddenly disappeared, with the authoress whose claims originally started the brouhaha backing away from her prior claims.
The Australians – very much a Western country though geographically far removed from the core lands of Western Europe – have been conducting hearings for three years with little to show for all of it.
And the Austrian choir matter involving Benedict XVI’s relative is revealed to have been mostly dealing with corporal punishment with only a small proportion of sexual abuse (however defined, as always) and its ‘moment’ also seems to have passed with little to show for all the brouhaha.
All of which has been pointed out before here.
Pretty hard to have much "to show for all of it", when most of your deceiving, hypocrite priests and bishops do nothing but deny and lie, deny and lie, sound familiar, liar publyin'.
As far as your figures on pope RAT-zinger's brother goes, 41 of the 230 plus cases were sexual in nature. And your insinuation that there weren't that many, so no harm, no foul, is also most utterly despicable. You're not yet aware that your cult is more than willing to remain silent in hopes that there disgusting crimes will be forgotten. Oh! And by the way, what happened to papa frank's Tribunal, set up to try enabling bishops, June 10, 2015. Thirteen months later and we hear that's been disbanded because the bishops put pressure on the old wolf in sheep's clothing. The world is watching and boy are we pissed. I can't imagine how angry God is with all your lies and deception. HYPOCRITES.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1208PM:
JR then continues to push his “few victims were compensated” bit, although at this point it must be clear that his entire assertion is groundless – leaving us merely to accept or reject the fulminations from JR’s bathroom mirror séances.
And in the absence of any demonstrated evidence and proof in any case, then on what basis would Bishops and Cardinals be jailed? The only instance of prosecuting a Church administrator that I know of is the Lynn case in Philadelphia and that has not turned out well for the prosecution at all.
And as for JR’s attempt to fall back on “the big picture” (scream-caps omitted): his “picture” requires the prior presumption that all the claims were valid and veracious to begin with, leaving us once again to either accept or reject not the Big Picture of actuality, but rather the Big Picture that keeps appearing to JR in his bathroom mirror.
And the pictorial productions of his bathroom mirror do not in any acceptable sense constitute “the truth”.
On the 13th at 1216PM JR asserts that “anyone who misses [his] genius is a fool”. Readers may consider that assertion for what it is worth.
He then further asserts that his warrant for all his stuff comes from “the fact of [his] abuse”. Which, he goes on, I have “always denied”.
I have questioned the plausibility of his claimed “abuse”, which is not the same thing as ‘denying’ it. And readers may consider the many elements now in the record here that militate toward the implausibility of his allegation and claim.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:
JR then tries to extricate himself from the lethal problem of his knowledge of the legal definition of statutory rape of a child or minor by whining that he had merely taken “my” definition of that crime (thus, perhaps, going for the idea that this whole problem is my fault). But the crime of statutory rape of a child or minor has variable elements that differ over time and in various places.
Readers may consult this 1999 article to get a sense of how the legal definition has changed
http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60840.pdf
Be that as it all may, the key point – again – is that when JR came to this site he was already well beyond his own case’s being completed in 2006 or so. And during the work-up for that case, it is inconceivable that his attorney did not enlighten him as to the fact that under applicable California law for the period in which his allegation is claimed to have occurred, his claimed experience did not rise to the level of statutory rape of a child or minor.
Thus his entire performance here – based for so long on the claim that he was ‘raped’ – had to have been conducted after he had to have been advised to the contrary by competent legal counsel.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:
Then he whines that I still “cut [him] no slack”. What is this? A game? But that is precisely what it appears to be to JR. And that ‘game’ approach is both a) an indication of the essential sociopathy involved in his performance and also indicative, I would say, of b) an element nurtured by the Stampede: it’s all a game and you have little chance of being called-out by a referee and it’s all in a good cause anyway and there’s lots of money in it for you.
This same element is evident in the allegants described in the Unz article to which I linked here yesterday.
And – again – “mistake in phrasing” doesn’t begin to address the depth of JR’s performance in this matter. This self-serving characterization is as neat and clear an example of ‘minimization’ in the clinical sense as one is likely to encounter.
When you attack me with the very word I've used to accurately describe you, sociopath I say: Is there no low no depth of chicanery to which you will not stoop?
Get your own fucking writer and quit stealing my stuff.
We were investigated by your and your insurances' lawyers and detectives. And I still was apologised to, before in the '90's by the Western head of the Marianists and after my settlement in 2007 by Cardinal Mahony.
I see you're pretending ,again to practice medicine without a license by diagnosing people, A Felony, mind you. Are you a clinician? Are u licensed to practice? No? Then not only are you a liar but you are a criminal. You are the perfect representative of the real Catholic church.
If that's not good enough for a guy who hides behind a post name, so he can't be investigated. Tough shit.
"Is this a game"? Trying to talk to you is definitely that. Why? Because we never agree. You won't let agreement and connection happen. Your job, in this game, is to deny I was ever harmed. You never deviate from that lie. So somebody's making the worst part of my life a game, a lie that you've made up about me, that you play with to harm me again. I don't like that. Who would?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:
Nor does his further effort at scamming work: he has “never claimed to be a lawyer”. He is the beneficiary of quite a large sum that was achieved only after the completion of a court case for which he received benefit of competent counsel who would have gone over very carefully just what charge he could formally lodge and what charge he could not lodge. He had had the services of a competent lawyer and the fact that he himself is not a lawyer is hardly relevant.
And the fact that he has now “changed the way [he talks] about his abuse” here now – although only after years of claiming otherwise and then finally being exposed – is also evasive: what we are faced with is the fact that for years here he sustained a claim which he already had to know was false, demanding to be ‘believed’, threatening and subjecting to all manner of epithet any questioning of his claim.
What sort of person does that?
Our settlement came out of a civil suit , genius, not a criminal one. No crimes were mentioned because no one could be prosecuted thanks to statutes of limitations.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:
And the answer to that question is partly revealed in his concluding effort, which is to make himself out to be – had you been waitinggggggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – a ‘victim’. And specifically, of me, the questioner.
But I didn’t – using his manipulatively rhetorical bit here – “blacken [his] name”; he himself engaged in the activity which was finally exposed.
You don't question.You define. Who authorized your point of view as being either accurate or honest? Why you did. Wonderful! It seems you are in charge of everything. I must have missed that memo.
On the 13th at 1222PM JR then tries to bolster his prior bits by describing what he claims to be his experience: at the age of 16, he “had [his] hand forced down [his] teacher’s pants”. Could any person – even one totally lacking in knowledge of the law – have honestly mistaken that for any form of rape at all?
As usual, he seeks to reinforce it all with a scatological epithet.
And then – in a fine demonstration of the Victimist Playbook – he seeks to insinuate that that experience – such as it may or may not have been – has been so utterly life-deforming that more than half a century later it determines his excessive use of “sexual references”. Readers may consider that possibility as they will.
STATUTORY RAPE was what I thought any sex act with a juvenile was called. My lawyer never defined by abuse as rape or anything else in my documents . She only described what happened to me. I erred in my use of the term for me. There's the big evil conspiracy in a sentence. Fuck you! You lying asshole if you can't accept the truth and an admission of a honest mistake on my part..
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1222PM:
And – in a marvelous display of the sociopathic possibilities unleashed by Victimist ideology – he then tries to imply that I (??!!) and “[my] fellow perpetrators” “broke” him. And, of course, note that even in his bleat he manages an epithetical attack on me as being a “perpetrator”.
But there’s a method to the madness and it is pure Victimist method: since I wasn’t “broke” (and he, allegedly, is) then I “don’t get to complain that he is “broken” (especially since I too am one of the “perpetrators”).
Thus: if you are not a victim then you can’t question victim claims. But how do we know if he is or isn’t a victim at all in the first place? And that’s the Victimist shell-game: you just have to accept the claim with no questions asked. And thus the game begins on first, not with an at-bat.
But you ARE a perpetrator. You defend them. You deny our abuse happened. You don't care about the truth at all. You enable more rapes and abuse by protecting perpetrators and their enablers. You are a perpetrator. Why else the need for you to hide? You don't want to be investigated, Why?
Jim, it's pretty obvious, that this unnecessarily longwinded speech of ignorance, is an attempt to destroy your reputation, that this is a system that has taught their hierarchy, priests, nuns and blind followers to attack their victims, slander and accuse them, in hopes that their dumb sheep and others will not notice their absolute evilness and crimes against innocence. They did the same to me, with a myriad of false allegations, of which publiar has added more lies and slander. This is why, what best can be said in regards to them, is their religious organization is filled to overflowing with despicable, disingenuous, lying creeps. I've had simular discussions with other religions, and yet none of them has slandered or attacked me with such evil intent, as this wicked organization. They truly are a cancer to our society.
Dan, I know they didn't teach all Catholics to do anything but obey and give money. Only a very few are liars consciously. The vast majority of all people follow their conscience and try to do the right thing for their own moral well-being. They have to live with themselves. So I'd never say or agree to what you've generalized about all Catholics. They have to be lied to pretty hard to make them not want to do the right thing.
This place is a different kettle of fish. It has ambitions and delusions of grandeur. It's a propaganda vehicle that doesn't seem to be going anywhere..
I see it as another committee created to set public opinion and policy but nobody's jumping on board. They are shouting to no one.
I believe the majority of all people are good or very close to it. I think only a very few Catholics have done me and victims wrong. I think if they, the majority, knew the truth they would do right but where are they told the truth inside the closed Catholic system? The Catholic Left thinks SNA P is virtuous;and have banned its critics. The Right don't think at all. they obey. And imagine themselves being victimized. They are ,but it isn't by the press and victims. It's by the people they support. And per usual the Right always supports the wrong.
I'm no one's enemy Catholic or Christian. TMR has to create enemies where none need be.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 135PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to wish-away all the material uncongenial to his cartoon and the revelations from his bathroom mirror by insisting that it “must always come down to everyone elses fault rather than your own” (sic).
He mistakes me for the Church or whatever, but let that pass.
I have provided demonstrations for the role of “mainstream media” and of the validity of the “Stampede” characterization and the strategies of tort lawyers. I have never said “bigots” or “witch hunters”, although in my conception of the Stampede synergy, anti-Catholicism – either from fundamentalists or secularists – is surely a contributing and enabling element.
I have pointed out publicized cases; ‘Dan’ will try to wish them away – again – as being ‘cherry-picked’. The cases are there for everyone’s examination. And those cases indicate and demonstrate precisely the elements that I have claimed are constitutive elements of the Stampede. As are the assorted public-affairs developments that I have introduced as relevant to further understanding and illuminating the elements of the Stampede.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 135PM:
And – not surprisingly – ‘Dan’ claims I “twist the facts” but proffers no examples. What really irritates him is that his own self-consoling phantasms – approved by his bathroom mirror – are revealed with all their incoherences and implausibilities as set forth in the record here.
And he then tries to justify himself and all the Abuseniks by claiming that “if your cult wasn’t so rampant with flesh-starving perverts and pedophiles, then there would be absolutely [absolutely, mind you] no reason for the opposition you’ve received”.
Not necessarily so. If my Stampede theory is accurate, then there may very well be the presumption of all that “flesh-starving pedophiles and perverts” (flesh-starved, I think he means), especially if there are elements in society that would very much like to imagine it so and there are media who will do whatever they need to do to feed the flames. And there are plenty of torties willing to dangle the prospect of lots of cash for no risk in front of whomever might be inclined to get in on the game.
publyin' oinks, "If my Stampede theory is accurate"? Do you mean as accurate as your slander and lies you use to malign myself and others who challenge your nonsense? Or as empty and useless as your questioning and false assessments? Yeah! I'd have to say your theories are just about that accurate. Keep perpetuating your filthy lies, Beelzebub.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 135PM:
He then tries to wish-away my point about Statutes of Limitations (I had wondered why, if the SOLs are as obstructive of ‘justice’ as Abuseniks and Victimists claim, legislators don’t simply abolish SOLs across the board and eliminate them completely from the legal system).
Marvelously – for a bunch that always sniggers at the idea of “conspiracy” – ‘Dan’ will simply claim (similarly to JR) that it’s because it’s the Church’s “corrupt lawyers and lobbyists who do all they can to keep these rules in place”.
The concept of Statutes of Limitations has been an element in Western law since the time of the early Romans (thus pre-dating the Church). Readers so inclined may enter a phrase such as ‘statutes of limitations history’ into a search engine and get a sense of their history and the justification for them.
Thus ‘Dan’ reveals his legal comprehension to be limited – by ignorance or design – to the current Catholic Abuse Matter.
But on the basis of that ludicrous phantasm, ‘Dan’ thus has cleared his way – in the bathroom mirror anyway – to puffing up his pinfeathers and ominously intoning that Catholics had better “Wake up” so that they “don’t go down with the ship”. He likes to do that ominous intoning stuff.
Out of fear of the Catholic vote that could , they fear, be turned against them. Legislators do what they do and are bought by who wants to buy them. The church didn't spend $20,000,000 to fight against gay marriage in Ca. for nothing.
I wonder who P speaks well of, Dan? Probably fellow perpetrators are jake in his book. He's always defending them.
P the Church is early Rome. It's still an Empire a direct linear heir to ancient Roman religions It's still the Roman Empire and it's still acting like one in its enforcement of its will.
You never talk about what you and your church are ignorant of. Why is that? Is it because as a fellow perp you and your friends have known what's been going on with the church hurting children and you both saw it as a perk? Come on Fr. P, confession's supposed to be so cleansing.
My series of comments here is going to jump around a bit, since there are so many bits to deal with; as always, I will indicate at the outset of each of my comments precisely to which comment I am responding.
Some of comments from JR and ‘Dan’ don’t really require response since readers can simply contemplate them for what they reveal rather clearly.
And with those pre-notes taken care of, let us proceed.
We begin with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1032PM:
He opens with an epithet, revealing his similarity to JR.
He tries to wave-away my comment with the huffy bleat that he had been addressing his comment to JR. As always, I point out that this is an open site and person-to-person ditties are best confined to email between the two parties, since anything on the comments board is open to comment by any and all.
The rest is a rant and not a surprising one.
And it concludes with more epithet.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1043PM:
‘Dan’ delivers yet another pronunciamento, no doubt received in one of those séances in and with the bathroom mirror: I, he doth confidently assert and declare, “lack anything close to Godly beliefs” myself.
Readers may take that assertion as they may; whether it reveals more about me or about ‘Dan’ is one point to consider.
He bolsters that by claiming that I ‘promote and manipulate belief in Satan’s agenda’. Neato: if you question ‘Dan’s speshull-ness, then you are an agent of “Satan’s agenda”.
And the comment trails off in a further epithetical riff.
Back to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 958PM:
More epithet, larding the bit about ‘Dan’ assuring us that he doesn’t go around “accosting children”.
Readers may consider the record and the story of the schoolyard here and judge for themselves. And they may consider what might have prompted the other five or six times – according to ‘Dan’s own report – that landed him in front of a judge and thence to a facility for mental observation.
But most of the comment is epithet, except for the last bit where – marvelously – he deploys ‘prayer’ as a threat. Wheeeeeeeeee.
Slander, mock, whimper, make excuses for creeps, or lie. Quite the resume you've made for yourself. I'm telling you, I have to say, I think you're ready for infant baptism.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1225AM:
He tries to make the point that I am a “habitual liar” because – he says – I am making “all victims accusing priests” to be “the same”.
I didn’t say any such thing. I simply point out clear and extant examples of just how things can go in the Stampede. Readers must then consider for themselves the plausibility and probability of similar dynamics operative in other allegations made in the Stampede.
It is not I who characterized the Church as an “ATM” and perhaps ‘Dan’ intended this paragraph for JR.
Or perhaps he is trying to glom onto JR’s it’s-all-about-the-money trope. Who knows?
For that matter, who knows how many genuinely “raped children” there actually were? Certainly, whatever number there was, is minus one who was exposed here. And “rape” was one of the smaller sets of formally-lodged allegations in the first John Jay Report. But at this point – and due in no small part to the Stampede and Victimist ideology and praxis itself – we really don’t know at all.
No idiota, this was directed to you and the stupid propaganda article you introduced. And in regards to Fr.Shanley, you reap what you sow. If you're a creep and a pedophile, then sooner or later it will catch up to you. Guilty or not, his small punishment here will be minor compared to what God has waiting for the hypocrite creep. Don't think yourself as their excuser and enabler, will be overlooked by The Supreme Judge. I spent jail and hospital time based on the lies and slander from your cult, and you'll pay for the ones you've repetively added to theirs. I'd bet my salvation on that. I'll be waiting for your oinking, HeeHawing and whimpering of how I'm using God to pick on little peewee. Cry elsewhere, you immature creep.
Duh! I'm publyin'. You know AKA – "Mr. Know It All". And according to my account and in-depth assessment, and through my exhaustive questioning and slandering of anyone who claimed to be a victim, yes, I have come to the only correct conclusion that any apologist, excuser or enabler of my cult, would have to agree with me that beyond a shadow of a doubt, we do not believe there was ever any legitimate cases of "rape victims" or pedophilia. In conducting a "seance" just the other night, I ran it past all of the ghosts of previous, corrupt popes of my cult and they were unanimous in agreement that there were nun, I mean none. Little Fraudian slip there, we did rape our nuns, but don't worry, we swore them to secrecy. Told the gullible broads that they did it for the good of the church. Sorry, we got a little side-tracked there. Yeah. In regards to child rape; zero provable cases. And you know us popes are infallable when it comes to defining doctrine on faith and morals. We define doctrine, we never claimed we (hierarchy) have to follow it. That's why we have confession in the dark. Nobody knows, not even the big man upstairs. Better than that Las Vegas slogan or even the Army, "Don't ask, Don't tell." Speaking of the military – "Don't you just love when the little boys dress in there little uniforms. Sexy!!" – Bunch of creeps.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1225AM:
As for Shanley himself, I am certainly not on record as supporting him. Personally, I think he was not a fit candidate for the priesthood in the first place, despite his talent at outreach. But the key point is whether he was guilty of the charges lodged against him, and the Wypijewski article strongly indicates that he was not.
To the Abusenik and fundy mentality, such a point is mere hair-splitting. And to the Victimist mentality as well. Which is why Victimist ideology and praxis constitute such a danger to the rule of law.
The rest of the comment trails off in a further riff against this and that aspect of Catholicism.
On the 16th at 552PM ‘Dan’ tries to wave-away the history of the Church’s corporal works of mercy ministries as they were exercised starting from the beginning and extending into the desolate centuries after the fall of the Roman empire and beyond.
It was all – his bathroom mirror has perhaps revealed – just ‘grooming’ for sex. Readers may consider the quality and reliability of that assertion as they may.
And as he riffs on with his molten virulence, readers may consider whether they’d care to have him educating their children – or even being around them, even to deliver “beautiful prophecy” … or whatever his bathroom mirror has directed him to peddle.
You continue to be a jackass and HeeHaw your slander and lies in regards to the children, CREEP. Why don't you oink and Wheeeeeeeee – wee all the way home to the swampbox, peewee.
On the 16th at 629PM ‘Dan’ will attempt to wave-away the lack of any results from all those various national investigations or inquiry-commissions by simply claiming that those efforts have so little to show for all of it because – had you been waittttingggggg forrrr itttttt? – the priests and bishops are all denying and lying.
And thus – we are to believe – entire governments are utterly stymied even though – according to Stampede calculations and ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror – there must be untold myriads of victims just waiting for a chance to ‘come forward’ and tell the stories they have.
And as for the Austrian choir matter – which has been discussed at length previously here – they are not “cases”, they are allegations. And we have all see how easy it is to make an allegation; yet how few of them seem to have any demonstrable evidence to back them up. In fact, few if any actual legal “cases” have resulted from all those allegations.
Now to some of JR’s stuff.
On the 16th at 323PM he makes the ludicrous assertion that “bringing ‘competence’ to scripture is impossible” because “you can’t fix stupid”. Yuk yuk. Is this JR’s considered opinion or just an attempt at his particular – if not completely peculiar – brand of ‘humor’?
And just whose stupidity is it that can’t be fixed? It is grammatically unclear.
On then to JR’s of the 16that at 340PM:
Here the former Tribune of the Victimry, having – he says – been a laborer in the fields of SNAP himself, tries to wave-away Clohessy’s problems by claiming that if Clohessy did go wrong here, then “he was told to do it”. Utterly no supportive evidence or reasoning for that whopper is provided.
But the assertion does thus provide the platform for JR to launch some innuendo: was it “the police” or “Jeff Anderson” or the still-Father Doyle who “told” Clohessy to go wrong?
Or – I would submit – did Clohessy, secure in the belief that the Stampede was still strong enough to protect him from responsibility for his actions, simply try to cross a bridge too far and run some of the old scams and skullduggery that have worked for him and SNAP in the past?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 340PM:
JR then loses control of his grammar – often a sign with him that his vitriol is getting the better of such conceptual capacities as he has – and tries to change the subject from the thorny one of what Clohessy did to – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrr itttttt? – why TMR would focus on the case at all.
This is right from the Victimist Playbook and we have seen JR deploy it previously, even on this thread (trying to change the subject a) from his exposure as a non-raped person b) to why anyone would want to expose the false claim and assertions he made here).
But marvelously, he does give some of his game away: he accuses TMR of “acting as if false accusations by disreputable people are a common occurrence in this situation” (meaning, apparently, the Stampede). Well – ummmmmmm – yes, there does seem to be some possibility, perhaps probability, of that happening … as has been suggested by various elements and facts and cases discussed here on this site.
“False accusations by disreputable people” … readers may consider as they may just whether they have encountered any instances on this site that might fit that bill rather snugly.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 340PM:
This is all, as I have said, right out of the Victimist (and fundie) Playbook: if you bring up anything that makes us look good, then you are doing God’s work and are ‘for victims’ and if you bring up anything that makes us look bad, then you are doing Satan’s work and are ‘against victims’. And so on and so forth.
And – as regular readers may recall – the seemingly arcane democracy-vote and “legitimacy” bit echoes another of JR’s bêtes-noires: at some point during his SNAP tenure he tried to get some ‘victims’ to elect him as something (in the Tribune line, I would imagine) and SNAP showed him the door for trying to engineer a little palace coup and now he’s got SNAP on his plop-list and we all know what that means.
And he riffs self-approvingly on that for a while, seeing himself as the outraged victim … of SNAP.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 340PM:
And how – you may ask – does he explain away the fact that way back then he didn’t take action? Easy: he didn’t know at that time that – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrr ittttt? – “the church had picked our lawyers for us”. Yah.
As D’Amato pointed out in his book, Anderson had made SNAP an offer it couldn’t refuse and things went on from there. (To which, of course, JR’s bathroom mirror would respond that Anderson too is and always has been a tool of the Church.)
He concludes by assuring us that he’s told us here nothing but “the truth … the whole truth and nothing but”. Readers may judge as they will.
On then to JR’s of the 16th at 1233AM:
JR asks how I found out “about … Dan and the school kids?”. Answer: ‘Dan’ reported it himself in comments on this site.
Then – weirdly but not surprisingly – JR (he who tells “the whole truth and nothing but”) doth declaim and assure one and all that he doesn’t “read [my] junk”. So … all of his comments responding to my material are made without his having read my material first … ?
This incoherent little charade then continues with a supplicating bleat that someone “would briefly fill [him] in” on ‘Dan’s reported backstory.
The relevance of this whole bit seems rather obscure. Readers may judge as they will.
However, JR reveals himself further (no doubt unintentionally): he does indeed like ‘Dan’s excellence “at insulting”. Yes, that would appeal to the actual JR, bereft of whatever Wigs he dons when he’s up to one thing or another.
You're such a habitual liar. I have never reported that I "accosted" children, "yelled" at them, "harangued", or any of the other slander with which you attempted to destroy my reputation. "If you throw enough shit against the wall, some of it has got to stick." oinks peewee. Problem with that is, before you know it, you're surrounded in your own shit. How's it feel, liar.
"A pig goes back to wallow in his own shit." by Dan – verse