Exposed in the courts: SNAP president Barbara Blaine (l) and SNAP director David Clohessy (r)
A callous disregard for victims. Financial kickbacks from Church-suing tort lawyers. Retaliation.
A stunning new civil lawsuit filed in Illinois by a former insider at SNAP confirms what many of us have known all along: SNAP is not an organization designed to help victims of clergy sex abuse but a gang hellbent on shaking down the Catholic Church through a seedy web of lawyer kickback schemes, lawsuits, and bigotry.
Dennis Coday at the National Catholic Reporter was the first to report the news of this stunning lawsuit.
[**Click to read the actual must-see lawsuit filed against SNAP (pdf)**]
Gretchen Hammond was hired by SNAP in 2011 as director of development to oversee the group's fundraising operations and to boost cash inflow to the group. Ms. Hammond did so with great success, but the more she learned about the inner workings of SNAP, the more she came to learn that SNAP was not simply an innocent "victim advocacy group." Hammond began "collecting documents in preparation of exposing SNAP's acceptance of kickbacks from attorneys."
And as the lawsuit asserts, when Ms. Hammond confronted SNAP president Barbara Blaine about her concerns about SNAP's dealings with attorneys, "the atmosphere changed at SNAP for [Hammond]," "SNAP began taking retaliatory actions against [Hammond]," and the group soon fired her. Indeed, the lawsuit is a must-read. Among the eye-openers in the suit:
- "SNAP does not focus on protecting or helping victims – it exploits them."
- "SNAP routinely accepts financial kickbacks in the form of donations. In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church."
- "SNAP is a commercial operation motivated by its directors' and officers' personal animus against the Catholic Church."
- "SNAP's commercial operation is premised upon farming out abuse survivors as clients for attorneys."
- "SNAP callously disregards the real interests of victims, using them instead as props and tools as furtherance of their commercial fundraising goals."
- "SNAP would even ignore survivors that reached out to SNAP in search of assistance and counseling."
- "81.5% of SNAP's 2007 donations were donations by attorneys."
Indeed, regarding SNAP's slippery dealings with attorneys, the lawsuit highlights a November 2012 email in which, according to the lawsuit, SNAP National Director David Clohessy "provided information regarding a survivor to the attorney for the purposes of filing a lawsuit on behalf of the survivor … [and then] asked the attorney when SNAP could expect a donation." Of course.
The email that says it all
For many years, we at TheMediaReport.com have asserted that SNAP's activities have had almost nothing to do with the protection of children and everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for.
Well, Hammond's lawsuit showcases an actual email message composed by Clohessy that clearly proves our claim once again. In a 2011 email exchange, Clohessy wrote:
"i sure hope you DO pursue the WI [Wisconsin] bankruptcy … Every nickle (sic) they don't have is a nickle (sic) that they can't spend on defense lawyers, PR staff, gay-bashing, women-hating, contraceptive-battling, etc."
This lawsuit is the single largest revelation in the Catholic Church sex abuse story in years. We highly urge readers to read the actual lawsuit for themselves and spread the word.
We also wish Ms. Hammond all the best with her courageous lawsuit.
Developing …
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1121PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ – perhaps having found the energy to further consult his clippings – adds the Murphy case.
He neglects a few points: when the allegations of his molesting were made in 1974 (Murphy had served at a school for the deaf for almost 25 years) he was taken out of the ministry and allowed to go live with his mother in another Diocese; the public authorities investigated and declined to prosecute; he served in other capacities later but no allegations arose from that period to which I can find reference; in the 1990s he was ordered to undergo psychological assessment by Cardinal Weakland; in the assessment Murphy admitted to molestation connected to the administration of the Sacrament of Penance – which is a grave canonical offense; on that basis Rome ordered a canonical trial; there was a question of his declining health at that point; on that basis Murphy or Cardinal Weakland requested Rome to forego the trial; but as it turned out Murphy died just a few months later.
There have been a few civil lawsuits filed but there was never a criminal trial to establish the validity of the allegations; certainly ‘Dan’s use of “rape” (scream-caps omitted), especially after he had already used the term ‘molester” (whatever that ever-elastic term might mean in the first place) is mere manipulative ranting.
Jeff Anderson was one of the two attorneys who brought civil lawsuits in the case.
So that’s ‘Dan’s third example.
Oh! Yeah! It's all "mere manipulative ranting," coming from the biggest, manipulating, lying excuser I've ever run across. "Murphy admitted to molestation", and yet this is just a witch hunt by anti-catholics and all their imagination. And another raping, molesting pedophile pervert is able to die before your corrupt church can do anything to prosecute his heinous crimes against deaf boys. Oh! The horror of it all and such a shame, the cult is able to conceal the truth about another of it's creeps. Hypocrites and deceivers.
On then to JR’s of the 31st at 924AM:
He opens with a pre-emptive epithet – so often a sign that he won’t be having much of substance to say.
Self-servingly he rather generously characterizes his material as “arguments”, but then gets to his primary bit: Why won’t he “go away”?
As if he hadn’t tried this gambit before on the site.
My answer to his question: Because – just like ‘Dan’ – JR has developed a role for himself and if he hasn’t got that, he’s got nothing.
Is this anything like your role as liar, hypocrite mocker?
Publyin's 1/30 @ 6:34pm – "story-tellers, [more like liars and deceivers], often become so focused on the bits that they want to put forward that they fail to take into accounts the bits they would prefer to hide (even from themselves)."
Directly from the donkey's mouth, a perfect description of the deception of his cult, him, and all cases in the Catholic Abuse Matters, that they would prefer to keep secret and silent, in order to try to blindfold the masses. The blind making excuses for the terribly blind.
‘Dan’ has a bunch of new comments up; some of them are nothing but myah-myah and needn’t detain us. I’ll deal with the one that provide something. I’ll take them in the order they appear on the site.
On the 31st at 1036PM ‘Dan’ deploys what is one of his trademark bits: what he doesn’t want to hear must be “lies” on my part (although – no surprise – he never does give any specific example).
I “repeat” my points merely because ‘Dan’ keeps trying to do exactly what he claims I am doing: repeating the same stuff (and its underlying presumptions and assumptions) a) as if it were fact and b) in the hope that if it is repeated often enough readers might just assume it must be factual.
His refutation of my material never rises above the merely epithetical (e.g. my material “is stuff directly up from the depths of hell”). And once again he repeats the bit that requires readers to presume that ‘Dan’s stuff is God’s stuff.
And he backs it up with more pericopes.
As to who might be a “murderer of all things honest, truthful and right” (we are to presume ‘Dan’ refers to his own stuff as such “things” here) … readers are welcome to judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1124PM:
The point I had raised – and which ‘Dan’ by remarkable coincidence evades – is that there remains no reliable demonstration as to the extent of the abusive dysfunction among the Catholic clergy. That there have been some I – certainly – have never denied; but that it is of epidemic proportions, sufficient to cast profound doubt on the Church’s utter unsuitability to shepherd God’s people on earth, is a conclusion unsupported by anything ‘Dan’ has put up, in spite of all his extensive and wide-ranging claims, accusations, and denunciations.
As to ‘Dan’s second point – i.e. that he doth make “no presumptions” about the Church “for the satisfaction of [his] own personal agenda and agitations” – readers may consider ‘Dan’s material and the points I have raised in regard to ‘Dan’s material and judge as they will.
But as we see, his basis for ‘refuting’ my points is merely that he considers all of them “lies”, and then – pitch-perfectly – adds that it was “blatant,, numerous lies that caused [his] legal troubles”. Thus neatly – of course – he need not give them any thought since – conveniently – he has waved them all away as mere “lies” that do not neutralize the “facts” that anyone making such points (myself and the Church) is “full of liars”. So he claims, self-servingly and self-preservingly.
And he concludes that none of his stuff contains “presumptions” but rather is all “true facts” (screamy double exclamation points omitted).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:
Here he tries to paraphrase my position for his own convenience: to buy his bit here one must presume that it is demonstrated that there were indeed (and “obviously”) “epidemic proportions of clerical abuse”.
That of course is precisely the presumption and point that has not at all been demonstrated.
Are there many many news ‘reports’ and even books and “more than a few movies”? Yes, there are. And we have on this site looked at some of the books and also the most well-known of the movies, “Spotlight”. We have considered some of the articles, including material from Sabrina Erdeley. We have looked at specific clerical abuse cases and we have looked at other similar instances of ‘stampede’, such as the McMartin Pre-School Satanic Day-Care Ritual Abuse case and cases similar to it, and the Philadelphia case(s) so well analyzed by Ralph Cipriano, and the assorted university ‘rape’ cases that have come to light in the past decade. And that is not a complete listing of what we have looked at.
And we have considered the odd dynamics and outcomes of sensationally-reported investigations that suddenly went nowhere, such as the Dutch Abuse Report, the Magdalene Laundries, the German choir case, and the Australian Commission.
All of which certainly raise more than a little doubt as to the validity of the Stampede and raise more than a small probability as to the plausibility of the Stampede’s ‘constructed’ nature.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:
And at this juncture I would also invite interested readers’ attention to a just-released book entitled The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, by Johnson and Taylor (the former a professor specializing in U.S. political, diplomatic and legal matters; the latter a contributing editor at the National Journal). They had previously teamed up to write the 2007 book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.
The book considers in great and factual detail (with comprehensive documentary references) the type of ‘stampede’ (to use my term) that has been engendered at American universities in the matter of allegations of rape’ of one student by another.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:
Many ploys and elements they discuss will be thoroughly familiar to regular readers of this site: the presumption of guilt (because – doncha see – ‘all males are rapists’ and ‘all sex is rape’); the sensationalist and equally presumptive “news” reporting before any guilt or even facts have been established; the insistence that since i) the crime is so heinous and wide-spread and ii) the natural rapacity of all males, then due-process and a concern for fundamental Western legal principles is simply ‘enabling rapists’ and further victimizing ‘victims’; the insistence that persons making allegations must be called ‘victims’ or ‘survivors’ and never merely called ‘accusers’ even though their claims have not been demonstrated to be veracious; the insistence that accusers must not be questioned because that would only re-victimize them (even though their accusation has not been demonstrated to be credible and veracious);the insistence that although (as has happened in some cases) municipal authorities refuse to bring charges or even though an actual court trial has exonerated the accused, yet the accused must still be found guilty in a university ‘tribunal’ regardless of those realities; and even the insistence by university sex-crime prosecution advocates and bureaucrats that it is essential to find more accused guilty in order to encourage more ‘raped’ victims to come forward (because – of course – everybody knows, or at least must accept the presumption, that there must be many many more such ‘victims’ out there).
I’d only say that the authors don’t go back far enough in considering the causes for this “frenzy”: what I have called the “Stampede” is comprised of precisely such elements.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:
The only major element in the Stampede that is not operative in the campus rape crisis is the torties. But that’s not so surprising, since the torties – a powerful interest group, especially for Democrats – would have to be suing universities, which are themselves a powerful interest-group and element of Democratic demographics and a major source of ‘elite’ secularizing influence. And to have one powerful interest group going after another powerful interest group in such a fashion simply wouldn’t do at all.
The Church was not such a powerful element in the calculations that led to the Stampede 30 and more years ago. And was taken for billions.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 120AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will use a quotation of mine for his own purposes … by slyly inserting one of his own cherished presumptions: that the Church is “an equal” to Imperial Rome. That’s a mighty big presumption. And ‘Dan’ has proffered here nothing but his own presumption as to its validity in support of it.
And in a further riff, even doth characterize himself as being one of those “true Christians” persecuted by the Church (as equated to Imperial Rome). That “persecution”, regular readers will recall, consists of the staffers who tried to get ‘Dan’ away from the school-children and the “hundreds” (by his own report) who supported his being taken by police before a judge six times (and the police and judges too).
And with absolutely no credible demonstration of the fundamental accuracy of his equation, ‘Dan’ then indulges himself by tossing up a bunch of his well-thumbed pericopes and nothing new there.
I am reminded of Churchill’s remark after the fall of Singapore about a battleship being launched “without a bottom”. Presumptions are to explication what the “bottom” is to a ship, unseen deep below the waterline but utterly indispensable to the usefulness and reliability of the ship. If your presumption is unsupported, then you can toss all the stuff you want onto the hull above the waterline but as soon as the ship is set afloat in the water, it will … not work well at all. A lesson ‘Dan’ hasn’t learned, and – let’s face it – dare not learn, if his cartoon shows are to continue.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 159AM:
Again, ‘Dan’ – by amazing coincidence – fails to note my point: Murphy never admitted to “rape” (with or without scream-caps) and “molestation” can mean anything; the term has never been carefully defined. But then, the careful definition of terms is one of those things that don’t help cartoons or Stampedes.
And we see clearly that the only way ‘Dan’ can keep his show going here in this comment is to presume that Murphy was “another raping, molesting pedophile pervert”, which has never been demonstrated to be accurate. But for ‘Dan’s game, what’s a lack of factuality when your presumptions can make for such good copy?
In the 1930s the Nazis tried to convict an entire community of Catholic Brothers in Bavaria who ran a hospital for children. The idea was: if you touched a child in any way – since you are a pervert by definition – then every time you washed a patient then it was a sexual crime. The Reich was not successful in this gambit and the prosecution was cancelled. (The Reich later found more direct ways to get rid of priests and nuns.)
And on the 1st at 150AM ‘Dan’ will simply try to run – as so often – just another try at the I’m Not/You Are gambit, trying to evade the implications for himself of focusing only on his preferred cartoon bits and instead trying to apply that problem to the Church.
But, of course, if he applied the critique to himself, then he runs the danger of realizing that so many of the revealing bits in his material are not “lies and more lies, on top of lies, from liars” but rather actually indicate the true state of his condition.
We all wouldn't be in this mess if the Catholic Church did what they were supposed to do. And that was to call the police once pedophilia concerns were raised. SNAP receives contributions from the lawyers working on the cases so they can keep being the group that forces the church hierarchy to change their position and root out the evil that's in OUR church so children do not get hurt.
Bottom line~ we are all sinners. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Agreed, we are all sinners. We are not all pedophiles, harming children repeatedly, without remorse or utter shame. And that includes those who enabled, excused and hid the creeps and shipped them around without warning other churches, schools or orphanages of their crimes. Christ had no problem exposing hypocrisy, nor should we. Ephesians 5:8-14
How about we start forgiving others on this thread. We may have differing opinions but why not let it go. Nobody like their church being attacked but realize, the people doing so are trying to bring positive change that sadly, many in the church so not want to deal with. The survivors are the prodigal sons. We should all rally behind the ones being abused and try to help them, not hurt them. After reading these comments I wonder what Jesus would say to you all? It's time for forgiveness you tough keyboard warriors.Love the lord your God with your heart and soul and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Let's get back to the reason we attend church. Just my humble opinion here.
I liked some of what you said, especially, "Love the Lord your God with your heart and soul and love your neighbor as you love yourself." You "wonder what would Jesus say to you all?" Do you ever question what Jesus would think of a church of many liars, deceivers and perverts, especially among it's clergy? Church religion is totally false and the work of evil. I've experienced first hand the wickedness of both the catholic church and many so-called cristian ones. I surely wouldn't attend either, if I was to search for the true God. Read the Bible and use your own brain to find the Lord's truth. Try Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 23, Ephesians 2:19-22
"However the Most High does not live in temples made by human hands." Acts 7:48 Let alone live in temples full of idolatry and greed, let alone sexual immorality.
"And you are living stones that God is building into His spiritual temple." 1 Peter 2:5
Forgiveness is one thing, but those who refuse to come out into the light, is something else altogether. Jesus asks, "Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing." If you come to know His truth, and refuse to share that with others, then you will be held responsible for their souls. Jesus was here to open the eyes of the blind. So shall be the mission of His servants.
PeeWee, I would assume everyone on this forum to be adults. Why must you insist on these repetitive accusations against opponents with such childish and immature terms like myah-myah, cartoons, cartoon bits, etc. I don't care to comment on alot of your garbage today, but would like to straighten out a few of your misconceptions. First, it's ridiculous to try to claim that I have any mental incapacities, especially since you claim it's based on the fact that I quote the Bible or have any spiritual gifts. This is utter ignorance.
You claim that, "what I don't want to hear must be 'lies' on [your] part." No! I don't care to hear the 'lies' you insist on repeating. Your material is not the "stuff directly up from the depths of hell." It's the 'lies' in your material that is. Also the twisting of truths, excusing and the enabling, along with your church, that has allowed the Catholic Abuse Matters to spiral out of control. Meanwhile, you think you can demonstrate analogies to try to make a deceptive claim, that likewise, not many cases of priest abuse was "credible and veracious." Most disingenuous, and you know it. And my statement that you and your cult is "full of liars" is just plain "fact", based on my experiences that led to my legal problems. Truth that is neither self-serving or self-preserving. Just the plain truth. Again, you were not there to witness these lies, and for you to add yours to the mix, shows both your ignorance and stupidity.
And this is why you deserve all that comes back at you. You state, "My refutation of your material never rises above merely epithetical", because you are dishonest and think you can treat others with disdain and get away with it. No. You shall reap what you sow. servant
I would like to share this with any True Christians checking out this forum – The Lord is the light in the world. The Lord is our friend in the world. a friendship that will last until eternity. The Lord is the sun in the world, it's there to make our day brighter and happier. The Lord is the faith in the world, it will never leave our side and we can always move forward. The Lord is the hope in the world, He shares his courage with us, so we'll be able to encounter anything in the world. The Lord is the love in the world, it always stays in our heart and lasts until eternity, and makes us strong enough to take on anything. Praise be to His name.
Victims are not prodigal sons or daughters. we did not willfully spend our patrimony. We are more like the man waylaid on the road but with no Good Samaritan to come to our aid.
Absolutely agree, Jim. Prodigal sons are terrible sinners, who humble themselves and are sorry for their own mistakes. But that would never include pedophile, repeat offenders, who have committed terrible destruction to the minds of young, innocent children or minors.
The comments by ‘Catholic1’ on the 2nd at 1213AM and 1219AM offer a chance to clarify what – to my mind – this site is doing.
First, I would point out that C1’s opening assertion isn’t quite up to the task: in the Murphy case just above, the authorities were notified.
But it seems to me that this opening assertion is part of a valid strategy familiar from eiher family or group therapy: try to establish some common-ground among the feuding parties by trying to place the ‘blame’ elsewhere and thus neutralize what appears to be the immediate source of contention (and familial or group dysfunction).
Which is all well and good in the family or group realms and for those therapeutic purposes.
Yes, authorities were notified and gave the wonderful priest of the catholic church a free pass.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.
But I would say that what we have here on this site is more akin – at least in purpose – to an academic pr scientific discussion or ‘argumentation’ (strictly defined not as primarily an emotional encounter but rather as a conceptual consideration of material proffered for and against).
Of course, when there is a strategy (such as the Stampede strategy) that precisely seeks to avoid and evade conceptual consideration (analysis, critique and so forth) and to anchor itself primarily in the emotional, then it is not difficult to slide into the position of seeing the exchanges here as primarily an emotion-based, ‘familial’ or group exchange and even as a religious-community-based contretemps that would also benefit from the family or group therapy model.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.
In the family/group therapy model, the objective is to restore or achieve harmony by getting around or getting over the contentious point or points; whereas in the conceptual or scientific exchange model one precisely seeks to delve deeper into the subject of contention in order to further explore and – one hopes – clarify and expand comprehension of the subject of contention.
There was such a confusion of approaches in Church venues as far back as the end of Vatican 2 (which coincided – as things turned out – with major efforts to change American and Western culture in the political realm): some readers may recall ‘we agree’ parish workshops (I sat through more than a few) and ‘can’t we all get to Yes’ and ‘can’t we all just agree to disagree’ type of approaches.
Man, are you ever full of it. You have absolutely no right to question anyone's mentation, when you have the nerve to again try to push your own deceptive agenda, in some twisted attempt to make others think you know what your talking about. Would be wise for you to admit yourself to a mental facility, before you hurt yourself or someone else. For you to answer catholic1 with all this nonsense is crazy. You are clinically insane and quite a joke.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.
As I said, such approaches are relevant for trying to re-establish a certain level of comity; but they are notably counterproductive if the objective is to enhance conceptual grasp of an issue or proposal or policy or dynamic or any such subject of consideration.
It all depends, really, on what one’s objective or “bottom line” is in conducting exchanges, whether a) to restore some level of harmonious comity or b) to achieve clearer comprehension.
Further, the adoption of the family/group therapy model pretty much requires that one reduce (perhaps to insignificance or “opinions”) the actual contentious topic. Thus: let’s just stop thinking and talking about it and be nice because the topic or problem isn’t that important anyway.
This model, therefore, is profoundly inadequate in the face of a concerted and strategized effort to play on emotions and shield its core objectives behind the guise of merely emotional dynamics. The model lends itself almost helplessly to being manipulated by any who seek to get their way not by rational analysis but rather by emotional manipulation.
Did you mean a "certain level of comedy", cause your stuff is definitely laughable.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.
And, lastly, I would point out that we are already off the rails by presumptively awarding allegants the status of “survivors” or ‘victims’ before having established the validity and veracity of such a status in any specific instance.
I noted in a recent comment on this thread that campus-rape advocacy dogma requires that i) nobody bringing an accusation can be called an ‘accuser’ but rather must immediately be labeled a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’; and that ii) bureaucrats ‘trained’ to preside over university sex-charge hearings are ‘trained’ to presume that any male is by essence and nature a ‘rapist’ and – nicely – that iii) any such person will often rely on ‘rationality’ while the ‘victim’ will be emotional and perhaps incoherent in the story proffered … but that incoherence should merely be taken as further evidence and proof of the allegation.
It is my position in regard to the Stampede – and it has been my position all along – that if one refuses to grant such prior presumptions about Stampede cases, and instead looks at each case without the bias of such presumptions, then many of these Stampede cases don’t hold up anywhere near as well as they appear to hold up when the Stampede presumptions are gratuitously left intact at the outset.
Publyin', I'm going to help you out and explain why you have to field epithetical's from others. First, you come on like you're one of great intellegence, using your million dollar words and what you think is a plethera of knowledge, and yet you haven't learned some of the simplest facts of life. Most people don't care for liars, and yet with all your imagined wisdom, you're still not smart enough to have figured that out. Secondly, the Spiritual gifts of God are something one should be proud to have possessed. Apparently your false religion has taught you to think that these gifts are something to be ashamed of. I kind of feel sorry for both you and your religion, because you have a problem accepting the precious gifts that God has promised to those who love and follow Him. Why does your cult refuse the things of God. Utter ignorance. Hope that was of some help. It would be wise of you to stop your mocking and lying. It's just not smart. servant
You may want to read 1 Corinthians chapter 13 and 14, in order to learn about the Lord's gifts and how we should be seeking such. servant, glad to be of help
You were "off the rails" a long time ago, but finally realizing your mental state, could be the first step to seeking the help needed to get your life back on track. Maybe they can help you with your mocking things that fall beyond your understanding. servant, glad to be of help.
Speaking stricly from a legal point of view, I have always wondered why the Church did not make a greater effort to separate the valid cases from those who were simply cashing in on an easy payday. By giving in on most cases, the abuse was made to look much worse in terms of numbers than it actually was causing considerable needless turmoil and scadal. Challanging SNAP on a few of the obviously phoney cases would have done everyone a favor including those who were genuinely abused.
Donald, I'm not sure you can easily state, "by giving in on most cases, the abuse was made to look much worse in terms of numbers than it actually was…" The abuse was much worse than we'll ever know. The crimes committed by priests and bishops were ridiculous in number and the many that still remain hidden has to be exorbidant. The percentage of fraudulant cases, from what I've seen out there, would be pretty low in comparison. And publyin', we don't care about your ridiculous claims questioning how many were truly "accurate or veracious." There were far too many to be considered an acceptable amount from any cult.