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 …
I see Ms. Hammond may be transgendered, Kenny.
But why wouldn't Billie Donahue use a Trans person to end SNAP? You thing Blowhard Bill wouldn't "stoop" that far? You obviously know nothing about Catholic church history. It could be just one puppet fighting another puppet both on the two hands of the same manipulator.
The more important issue is is Ms. Hammond a catholic?
Why does your crowd stop investigating people or things when the "investigation" reaches the conclusions that reinforces your own? your prejudices?
I.E. if SNAP hired a trans-person. She can't possibly be an active Catholic or anything but a liberal? She couldn't possibly be a plant. Why? cuz she's trans of course. Au contrere! Lmao!
Bill Donahue would back the devil if it benefited the right wing of the church.
I had noted in a comment on the top-most article here what I will also note on this article’s thread: ‘Dan’ is increasingly reduced to epithetical vitriol. Or maybe he is spewing it at the direction of the bathroom-mirror committee.
That being said, on to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 201PM:
Prescinding from the above-noted epitheticals, there isn’t too much.
But his effort to minimize his many problems as being mere “indiscretions” is clear. As is his non-sequitur that follows immediately upon that bit: apparently he’s trying to simultaneously a) pooh-pooh his misadventures as being mere “indiscretions” and b) wave-away the consequences of those “indiscretions” as being untrue “accusations”.
The "indiscretions" I had alluded to were the false accusations and outright lies, laid upon myself by you and your wicked deceiving cronies. You claim that " 'Dan' is increasingly reduced to epithetical vitriol", when you're just getting back exactly what you deserve for the garbage that spews from your forked tongue. You're one big baby and don't like it when you get back precisely what's due you. This is why you have an obsession with childish cartoons and sitting all day long "pooh-pooh"ing on your potty, staring in your bathroom mirror, little peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 214PM:
At no time and in no way have I ever insisted that the Church is “totally innocent of all allegations”. But if ‘Dan’ didn’t have stuff that he’s made up, what would he have?
My position is that a) we haven’t seen any claims proffered on this site that stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and that b) given the many factors in play, there exists no small possibility and even an ever-increasing probability that the extent of clerical abuse has been very greatly exaggerated.
And I’ve gone over those factors-in-play at length many times here.
Just what “innocent people” have I been “accusing”?
The quote was, "You'd like everyone [to] believe that your cult is 'totally innocent of all accusations', while insisting on accusing innocent people." So don't think you can take the quote out of context to suit your own deceiving agenda. You even go so far in the next paragraph to inform us of your position with more excuses and lies and claiming that there is "even an ever-incresing probability that the extent of clerical abuse has been greatly exaggerated." You are such an evil, lying creep, when you know darn well that much of your cult's crimes have been kept secret and the Vatican does all it can to fight releasing the files. The pedophilia and perversions of you and your creeps is so much worse than the public will ever know. Every time I research one incident, it leads me to more information of priests and bishop perverts and cover-ups, in just about every city across the globe. You think you can fool your dumb sheep or man, but God has seen it all and is waiting in anticipation for your Judgment Day. There will be no year of mercy for any of you lying, sick creeps. servant
Oh! And act dumb like I'm not one of the "innocent people" you've been falsely accusing. You are one disgusting habitual liar and whackjob, and I think you actually know it and are proud of it. Good luck, come Judgment Day.
On then to JR’s of the 26th at 120PM:
He now claims that he doth “have a great deal of reliable evidence that SNAP’s the church”.
Does he now? And yet he hasn’t presented any such “reliable evidence” over the course of his years on this site.
Or perhaps – yet again – he presumes that his suspicions, insinuations, fever-visions, and such ‘logical’ deductions as he has made somehow constitutes “reliable evidence” and “facts”.
At any rate, he then quickly tries to change the subject (without, of course, presenting his “reliable evidence”) by claiming that I have no evidence for any of my premises. I have explained my theories about the Stampede and its dynamics at great length; JR has presented his assorted cartoon elements (i.e. everybody involved is a tool of the Church unless they agree with him). Readers may judge as they will.
I could provide truth of the transubstantiation and because I'm a victim, P4brains wouldn't believe it. He's a set piece. Victims no. priests yes. He still hasn't offered answers to 2 simple questions. TWO. Ream after ream of words but can't answer 2 questions. You're a flaming fake. HOW CAN SNAP BE SPONSERED BY DOMINICAN NUNS IF SNAP'S NOT THE CHURCH? HOW DID SNAP USE CHURCH PROPERTY AS IT"S HEADQUARTERS WITHOUT CHURCH BACKING? You damned eejit!
On then to JR’s of the 26th at 128PM:
I had used the term “pretty much” simply to recognize the fact that blanket and totalizing conclusions are not justified in the absence of clear and decisive evidence. But beyond that reservation, I will say that we have utterly nothing on the table that demonstrates SNAP’s being a tool of the Church, let alone that everyone else involved is also a tool of the Church. And if the documentary material referenced in the Complaint is veracious, then we have a lot to demonstrate conclusively that SNAP was a well-remunerated front for the torties.
JR can go on about what he doth “say” til the cows come home; he just likes to listen to himself spew. There’s nothing but his cartoon to back it up.
His second paragraph becomes incoherent, starting with the “national front for the victims” (a “front” as it is being used to describe SNAP would mean that such a national organization as JR imagines would be a fake).
The rest of the paragraph makes no sense, which with JR is a sure sign that he hasn’t got anything and is starting to just toss up bits from his 3×5 collection.
Needless to say then, his ‘conclusion’ as to the “hole” in which my “fake assumptions” do fall is left hanging on nothing but the incoherent rant that precedes it.
On then to JR’s of the 26th at 134PM:
Here he simply repeats more bits from his 3×5 collection, all of which have been dealt with before a number of times over the years.
Thus to repeat: SNAP in its earliest form may indeed have been started under the auspices of some group of nuns and perhaps with the best of intentions on their part. But then came the 1988 meeting between Anderson and Blaine – before which SNAP was not doing well at all – and everything changed.
And for that matter, the nuns may not have had the approval of the local Ordinary to do so. But in any case, it is a cartoonish stretch to claim that ‘the Church’ started SNAP and even more of a stretch to claim that ‘the Church’ controlled Blaine and – good grief – Anderson.
And further, if the local Ordinary allowed SNAP to be formed under his auspices in order to do something for ‘victims’, then after Blaine threw in her lot with Anderson the entire purpose of SNAP changed.
I have never ‘ignored’ those questions; I have pointed out how JR’s ‘answer’ to those questions is, at the very best , cartoonish.
And on the 26th at 141PM JR will try another tack: he casts doubt on the D’Amato book. It is the only history of SNAP that has been written, and was clearly aimed at trying to make Anderson and SNAP look good. It is certainly not pro-Church.
In his second paragraph he tries to run another of his favorite gambits: that the allegants “paid” were paid “because of the truth of our abuse”. (Surely, after all we’ve discovered about his own story, he doesn’t mean to include himself in that bit.)
As I have often pointed out here, once the media and torties and ‘victim-friendly jurists had done their job and a Stampede mentality was engendered in the public mind and clear evidence was no longer required, then – as any tortie would have hoped – defense and insurer counsel would have advised settlement rather than the expense of trying each of the allegations in court. Given that classic tortie strategy, then there exists no small probability that any allegation pushed its way would have been “paid” by the defendant organization.
Make it so that the defendant will find it more expensive to defend than to settle, and settlement will surely come. That’s how the tortie game is played. And the allegations, of course, are thus freed from the risk of having to be adversarially examined in open court. Neato.
The final sentence of his comment makes no sense as it stands.
Back, then, to ‘Dan’ on the 26th at 605PM:
Prescinding again from the increasingly agitated epitheticals, we get nothing but a series of “what do you think” bits. Is this supposed to be evidence?
“Skeleton rooms”? “Skeleton churches”? And, as always, he presumes precisely what hasn’t been proven: that there were legions of “pedophile creeps who raped little boys”. The unreliability of which bit he then himself reinforces by describing “crimes that “no one saw”.
And on the basis of all that phantasmagoria, he riffs on about what God’s gonna do – ooooh yeah.
This is the level of mentation that the Stampede happily lured up to the surface.
Most sex abuse cases are crimes no one but the perp and victim personally saw. You damned moron!
Nothing proven? Several hundreds laicized. Thousands of admitted, sexually perverted priests and bishop enablers and excusers. When cornered, playing dumb and claiming they don't recall admissions and statements that were in evidence. A system of popes who insisted on secrecy when it came to settling cases. A cardinal Rat-zinger who ignored bishop pleas to help dealing with disgusting, repeat pedophiles. A worldwide modus operandi of shuffling perverted priests and pedophiles to other churches or giving bishops protection in Vatican City. A constant insisting of improvement in the Catholic Abuse Matters, when doing little or nothing until trapped or discovered. Refusing to open files so the truth could be known. Shuffling moneys and claiming bankruptcy, in order to avoid paying proven and deserving victims. NOTHING PROVEN? Stop your nonsense and deception.
"Rather, we have renounced SECRET and SHAMEFUL ways; we do not use DECEPTION, nor do we DISTORT THE WORD OF GOD. On the contrary, by setting forth the TRUTH PLAINLY we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is VEILED to those who are PERISHING." 2 Cor 2-3
You think if you use these big words like "phantasmagoria", everyone will think you demonstrate some brilliant "mentation", so others will believe in your ignorance and lies. I said, "You all THINK you got away with the majority of your crimes, because 'no one saw'." Try not taking what I say out of context, so you can push your untruths. Believe I said God SAW your perverts nasty crimes against children and sees your manipulating garbage, with the words, "the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun." And unlike "phantasmagoria", imaginary images like those seen in a dream, God will be your worst nightmare. servant of the Lord God Almighty
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 322PM:
As so often in the Stampede hall of mirrors, ‘Dan’ will now try to use the fever-vision stories nurtured by the Stampede’s various elements as themselves ‘evidence’ that the fever-vision stories were real to begin with.
He then tries to strike the pose of the truthy researcher by urging readers to “research these news stories and the internet”. No doubt what passes for “research” in the Dan-verse is simply looking up the stories and reading them. Why would he question or assess them, if that assessment is going to interfere with ‘Dan’s already scheduled cartoons?
I question and assess everything I read, and when thousands of stories and articles line up with the modus operandi of a religious cult that has been corrupt, greedy, perverted and evil for centuries, well it doesn't take a genious to figure out that the shoe fits. Catholics read Revelations chapter 17 verses 1-9 and see the description of your church, all the way down to it's seven hills of Rome(verse 9). As the verse says, "This calls for a mind with wisdom", so expect publyin' to misinterpret it and get it wrong. Don't allow liars and deceivers to blind you from the truth. "You shall know the truth and it shall set you free." Free from all the corrupt false cults of this world, every last one of them. Check out also Matthew 24:2, where Jesus describes what he's got in store for the manmade temples of the world. "Not one stone shall be left upon another; every one will be thrown down." servant of the Lord
When publyin' tries to convince all of you catholics that Revelations 17:1-9 doesn't apply to the condemnation of your church, go over to Revelations 18 and check out how "Every merchant on earth will mourn, because there is no one to BUY their goods. Thieir won't be anyone to buy their gold, silver, jewels, pearls, fine linen, purple cloth, silk, scarlet cloth, sweet-smelling wood, fancy carvings of ivory and wood, as well as thingsmade of bronze, iron, or marble. No one will buy their cinnamon, spices, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, chariots,slaves, and souls of men." Rev 18:11-13
Rest assured that this describes the wealth of your greedy church and it's ultimate destruction. Read all of Rev 17-18 and know I'm not taking anything out of context. I hate to see 1.1 billion followers of an apostate church, go to their destruction believing liars and deceivers, some in this forum. I have no hate for the majority of followers that have been fooled by the evil deeds of your hierarchy. I was born into the church and was one of the first few public school kids to become an altar boy. I have many friends and family that consider themselves catholics. Read the Bible and find the truth.
Was tired and didn't proof read, so misspelled There and things made should be spaced.
On then to JR’s of the 26th at 353PM:
He slyly skips over the fact that his assertion about how many states haven’t changed their SOLs failed.
Instead, he start blathering about “zero compensation”.
And he tries now to claim that there would have been lots more cases if the SOLs hadn’t prevented them. Who knows? Not JR, certainly.
But in any case, we have the cases that were filed, and how they were handled (i.e. mostly by the tortie settlement strategy).
And yet again he dons the Wig of Hurt Integrity and doth intone “What is my agenda?”. To repeat: he’s not altogether well and he’s looking to brighten his days with some sort of (imagined) status as (self-appointed) Tribune of a Victimry that is becoming increasingly dubious.
He has to do this, he neatly and slyly now proclaims, because the evil SOLs have prevented others from following his path to the swag through the torties’ time-tested settlement strategy.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 353PM:
He then doth declaim that the Chicago lawsuit is merely an effort to “end SNAP in a blaze of sxxt for victims”. Thus, that the Church has directed the Plaintiff to file the lawsuit to end SNAP. And the cartoon goes on.
Oh, and that “only 6 or 7 people … have managed to limit the extent of those compensated”. Just how those few managed to do it, JR doesn’t say, of course. But the cartoon assures us that they did so as tools of the Church.
1. Fr. Thomas Doyle O.P. The brains behind the SNAP scam for the church.
2. Jason Berry reporter and author
3. Barbra Blaine, Mistress of SNAP
4. David Clohessy, minion. He probably made enough money and fearful that his cover could be blown bailed.
5. Barbra Dorris, minion
6. Jeff Anderson, lead lawyer throughout the U.S. "for" "survivors".
By cross authenticating each other as being virtuous, as being who they claim to be, they have woven a net that has trapped both victims and the mass media. ( including Phil Donahue and Oprah Winfrey. 2 major, major authenticators of SNAP, as being pro victims, and both broadcast from Chicago. the center of SNAP's fraud.)
These few have saved the church billions of dollars by not pushing for victims compensation. Which if they were FOR victims they would have done. Even if they were only after money for themselves they would have done. Not doing much to extend compensation says exactly who these people work for, the church.
I put D'Amato and Cipriano as enablers. Why they are so and how much they know. I've no idea but their authentication has only supported the fraud called SNAP.
On then to JR’s of the 26th at 406PM:
Here we get merely a mélange of insinuations and further cartoonish bits:
JR doth “suspect” that the attorney representing the Plaintiff is “in on the deal” (meaning the one run for decades by the Church). Or maybe he’s just so “needy” that he “won’t look deeper” (meaning: looking to find evidence of JR’s cartoon). And in what way would this attorney be “needy”? What could this bit possibly mean?
And then the truly ridiculous assertion that the whole thing must be a put-up job because “lawyers don’t go after other lawyers”. Lawyers are constantly going after other lawyers; that’s how they system works: plaintiff attorneys and defense attorneys. And they do it “for one fired employee”, whether in labor-law cases or outright civil lawsuits.
You know zip about lawyers.
Not knowing things you pretend to know is your forte.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 406PM:
And then JR tries to bolster his cartoon with the idea that the Church planted “this dynamite” a quarter-century or more ago in case “things got rough for SNAP”. But things weren’t going rough for SNAP, so why set off the dynamite?
And even if things were going rough for SNAP, the “dynamite” is SNAP’s own arrangement with the torties. And what set it off was an employee finally deciding to whistle-blow the whole scam.
The cartoon vision continues to the effect that “no one will ever know what really went down”. But the trial of this lawsuit is going to let everyone know what went down and what has been going on for decades.
And JR then concludes by trying to rewrite history such that I have somehow been trying to convince readers that the “veneer” of SNAP was legitimate and the actual SNAP. It’s been a front for the torties for 30 years, a whole lot of torties and allegants made quite a bundle, and JR’s only real status in this whole Thing is that he is a poster-child for just what the scam could accomplish.
Not the bundle that they could have; would have, and should have made, had SNAP not existed and had Jeff Anderson not been the lawyer in charge. In this case follow not the money gained but the money left on the church's table.
On the 27th at 1020AM we once again see – with a nice clarity – the rather serious problems with JR’s whole approach: he seems to confuse “facts” with questions and insinuations and thus considers himself entitled to the status of being a member of the fact-based community.
When actually he simply declares to be his “facts” what are really just his own favorite personal presumptions and insinuations.
Even grammatically this point is borne out: “Fact”, he declares (and demands an answer in scream-caps) and then follows that “fact” with nothing but several questions. Questions – it apparently has to be explained to him – are not “facts”.
But, like ‘Dan’ – that other pea in the pod – if he had to rely on actual facts, then he’d have nothing.
No one declares facts besides you and your cronies? Your consistent twisting of facts to back your weak, deceiving agenda, is no proof of any facts or truth. An obvious fact, you're totally wrong about is Jim and myself as peas in the same pod. We are total opposites, which lends proof of your ignorance and lack of recognizing even simple facts. servant
On the 27th at 1026AM JR will now claim that SNAP was run by just a cabal of “less than 10 people”.
Perhaps it was; it would make more sense for a front-organization to be tightly controlled at the top in order to make it a more reliable instrument for its purpose.
What “enabled” SNAP “to become universally the voice of the [allegedly] abused” was that the torties and the mainstream media both found the organization useful to their own agendas and purposes: the torties because they needed the cover of a front and a feeder organization for what looked to be a lucrative new lawsuit field and the media for both the soap-opera stories and the general liberal effort to show the Church that there was ‘a new marshal in town’ (as Mr. Baron, the then-new editor of the Boston Globe, nicely put it).
Clearly the cabal running SNAP was not of the caliber to do any of that, and surely not Clohessy. Nor did they need to; the torties and media would do the heavy-thinking and heavy-lifting; the SNAP squad would simply feed in allegants and potential plaintiffs and the media would amplify the stories without performing or permitting any serious analysis. And SNAP would be fed in great part by ‘donations’ from the lucrative bundles made through the time-honored tortie strategy inducing settlements of the lawsuits.
Lol! Yes a Marxist atheist and a Born again Christian are so well known for being peas in the same pod. You gormless ninny. You do seem to have a need to lump Dan and I together. I wonder why? Dan never says what I do about who is SNAP's real master.
No answers still? The FACTS are: SNAP was sponsored by the church to gain nonprofit status and SNAP's headquarters was originally on church-owned property. HOW DID THOSE 2 THINGS COME TO BE?
Well, we have quite a bit of stuff to get through. I’ll go through them in the order they appear on the site.
On the 27th at 956PM we have another chance to see how ‘Dan’ will twist anything around to make it look like he hasn’t put up another whopper.
Here, he tries to define his “indiscretions” not as actions committed by him – which is what the word would require – but rather somehow he tries to make them into the “false accusations and outright lies laid upon” himself … by those hundreds of citizens, police, and judges who are my “cronies”.
As to whether those accusations were indeed “outright lies” and “false” … we have only ‘Dan’s word and given what ‘Dan’ has revealed of himself on this site, readers are welcome to judge as they may.
And – yet again – he attempts to run the gambit that his “epithetical vitriol” is what I “deserve”, slyly evading the fact of his being reduced to that “epithetical vitriol” in the first place, as I had said. He isn’t by nature a ranting vitriolic – doncha see? – it’s just that people who don’t buy his stuff deserve it.
And then he wraps up the comment with more epitheticals.
Consolation might be taken from the realization that if he is being kept so busy on this site, then he is no longer prowling around the vicinity of schoolyards.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1030PM:
‘Dan’ here tries to claim that I took his quote “out of context”, though in what way he – but of course – doesn’t say.
Does he proffer any demonstration as to how my statement as to that “ever-increasing probability” as to the “extent of clerical abuse” can be characterized as “excuses and lies”? He does not.
Instead he proffers the hoary Abusenik excuse: since (the Abuseniks presume) the Church has kept it all secret, then of course “the files” that would prove their fever-visions aren’t available (but – we are meant to infer – if those “files” were available, then they would prove everything). In other words, there’ s no proof, but that must not be taken as somehow being grounds for doubting the fever-visions.
This is a hall of mirrors that can go on and on and on.
The bit about “in every city around the globe” simply demonstrates just how fact-free ‘Dan’s mind is.
And he concludes – no surprise – with a threat about what God’s gonna do. Or at least, what his bathroom mirror says about that.
And on the 27th at 1035PM he once again tries to include himself as being “innocent” and “falsely” accused, and readers may consult the record of his own material on this site and judge as they may.
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 442AM:
Slyly, JR seeks to evade his “fact” problems by heading for the Victim-y high ground with the Wig of Victimhood perched shakily on his head: I’d never believe any of his “facts” – doncha see? – because he’s a “victim”.
But a) we really have never established his ‘victimhood’ and neither has he, except through his own assertions.
And b) one doesn’t “believe” “facts”; facts, rather, present themselves as indisputable demonstrations of something. One “believes” claims that don’t actually have sufficient facts to demonstrate their veracity. Which is precisely what JR wants us to do, and which is not something I think it prudent to do at all.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 442AM:
And then – yet and yet again – JR tries to push his “questions” as if they have never been raised and I had never answered them before over the years (and even on this thread).
So again:
The SNAP of its earliest years may have been sponsored by some nuns; but the Anderson-Blaine alliance 29 years ago changed SNAP fundamentally (and saved it from obscurity). And in the process that early or first incarnation of SNAP may have had the use of some building controlled by either those nuns or owned by a diocese.
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 609AM:
And again, as if this point hasn’t already been dealt with a number of times before on this site: if nobody “personally saw” the alleged crime, and there is no corroborating evidence, then it cannot be sufficiently established that the alleged crime happened. It may then become merely a matter of “belief”, but it can in no way be said to have been proven.
That’s been the abyssal problem with so many sex-crime allegations not only in the Catholic Abuse Matter but in sex-crime allegations generally for the past several decades.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1003AM:
A number of priests have been laicized – yes. For just what transgressions we don’t know, and given that Church parameters have been so widely drawn in this time of Stampede (to use an old example used here before: if a priest lived in the same geographical area as an allegant in the era when the alleged transgression is claimed to have taken place, then that is to be considered sufficient to establish the potential credibility of the allegation) then the laicizations may well have been made for any number of reasons short of fever-envisioned ‘rape’.
Or a priest once accused may simply feel that in a time of Stampede there would be no future in remaining in the clergy, since the allegation alone made him ‘damaged goods, so to speak. On that basis, the priest could accept or even request laicization.
I certainly do not doubt the conceptual possibility that some priests were guilty of grave transgressions, and I believe that the wave of laicizations removed some persons who were not suitable for the priesthood. But neither do I rule out that priests who hadn’t transgressed to the level where laicization is required have been lost to the Church.
And once again, we see demonstrated by the great manipulator and excuser extraodinaire, the one and only, marvelous catholic apologist of modern times, The Great Publyin's of All Lyin' Liars. Here on center stage, as the smoke dissipates, to make every excuse possible to cover for all the perverts and pedophiles that have ever been laicized from his cult. Maybe if he ever had the guts to step up into reality, he'd realize, all of his garbage is nothing but ignorance and nonsense. You are one, big, excusing creep of the church. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1003AM:
And it is surely obvious that it is the Church itself that is conducting this process. Which is not the type of behavior we would expect from utterly damnable or damned organizations.
And – once again – I don’t think there remain many hidden “files”, and from the ones we saw here a few years ago when a major Los Angeles paper put its cache online, there wasn’t much there to back up that paper’s typical Stampede fever-visions.
And once again, ‘Dan’s ‘research’ to establish ‘facts’ extends no further than trawling and reading media stories and claims and pronouncing them ‘facts’, and then claiming that those ‘facts’ have been ignored.
Oh, and there’s a Scriptural pericope.
And – once again – he doth don't think there remain many hidden "files". Problem is, if he ever started thinking, just think of all the trouble and twisted 'facts' he'd start deploying then. Thanks be to my God, He didn't give a brain to everyone.
And answer me this one – How does one go about finding "facts" about a cult full of liars and deceivers that have a history of keeping their perversions and perverts secret? When that fails, they give them asylum in Vatican City. Time to come clean, catholic church, or will we have to wait for your Judgment Day. May be beneficial to clean house before that great day.
You've got to be pretty dumb if you think I've gained all my wisdom from "reading media stories and claims" or in believing everything on the internet. But I do believe you could be that ignorant. And where do you find all your twisted "facts", deceiver? servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 431PM:
Here he simply vents his umbrage at my use of “big words”, from which point he then does some tea-leaf reading as to what I think everyone will think and so on. Does his bathroom mirror provide tea-leaves as well as faxes from the Beyond?
And for lack of anything better, he reverts again to channeling threats from the Beyond (or at least from his bathroom mirror).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1108PM:
Here we have two nicely demonstrative bits:
First, ‘Dan’ seeks to wave-away his credibility problem by insisting and declaring that he doth most surely indeed “question and assess everything” that he reads. The record of his capacities or incapacities in that regard are available here.
Which is more plausible, given what we have seen of ‘Dan’ in his material: a) that he was an open-minded individual who was suddenly shocked by the results of his careful examination and assessment of the stories put forward in the media during the Stampede or b) a ranting and not-altogether-well anti-Catholic with a compensatory personal ‘God’ complex who took the opportunity provided by the Stampede to piggy-back his own whackeries upon it, insisting that his was God’s Word and Will and he God’s speshull deputy-dawg … ?
The “thousands of stories and articles” do not by their quantity indicate anything decisively, but rather demonstrate the role of the mainstream media in fomenting the Stampede. There were hundreds if not thousands of articles on the Dutch Abuse crisis and its Report more than half a decade ago, but no text of the Report and 109 claimed cases of some form of abuse over the prior 50 years, which works out to about two alleged instances of abuse each year among the entire Dutch Catholic clergy. And then there was nothing. Ditto the Magdalene laundries, and so far ditto the fading Australian investigation and ditto the German choir investigation.
I was shocked by the number of admitted pedophile creeps in the priesthood of my own church. In talking to others who had similar problems in their church, and upon hearing the news of culpable crimes happening within your church worldwide, I began to realize that this was an infestation and not some figment of the imagination, as you would prefer us to believe. I know nothing of some Stampede, but came to this forum and saw the BS you were giving to others, and it was nothing short of sickening. I joined in to have you turn around and add your disgusting lies to what I divulged voluntarily. You are one truly nasty, lying creep who deserves all the 'epithets' that come your way. And that's how I became involved in all this nonsense. Why? I've asked myself this so many times. My hope is that some catholics reading my Bible quotes and material, will wake up to reality and take a fresh look at a catholic cult that is far from what they claim to be. Other than that, I find commenting anything to you to be a royal waste of my time. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27tha t 1108PM:
Then more Scripture bits, The only relevant upshot of which is that ‘Dan’ considers himself to be possessed of the Scriptural “mind with wisdom”.
Readers may consider and judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 109AM:
Here he lards on more bits from the Book of Revelation, the relevance of which we must take on merely ‘Dan’s ‘assurance’. Readers may do what they will with that.
And as if on some level he knows what he’s doing, he preemptively doth ‘assure’ one and all, instructing us to “know” that he is not at all “taking anything out of context”. Really?
The early Church’s primary opponent and oppressor – its “Babylon”, if you will – was Rome, as city and empire, with its riches and its evils. This was the “context” of the Book.
To insist that the Book’s “Babylon” and so on refers to the Church would require explaining how the Church – which determined which documents would become the canonical Books of the New Testament – would select a Book that – if ‘Dan’s stuff be accepted – indicted and undermined the Church before it had even managed to securely establish itself.
If you represent one of the members of your cult, then I would think it would be very possible for them to be ignorant enough to produce a book that "indicted and undermined the Church." After all, I've presented several quotes from your own Bible, that your cult refuses to follow, and you and your cult members dispute these "facts", as if your above God. Second commandment – Jerimiah 44 – Matthew 23 - Revelations 17-18 Just to name a few. Don't act so blind and stupid, unles that's your only excuse. servant
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 512AM:
Here he gives us his hit-list of those whom he thinks ran SNAP, for whatever it’s worth. (And he includes the author Jason Berry, whose 1992 book “Lead Us Not Into Temptation” was, among other things, definitely not friendly to the Church; and Jeff Anderson who led the way in applying the old tortie-settlement strategy against the Church and got SNAP to front for the torties and their strategy.)
JR’s theory – apparently – is that by attesting (“cross-authenticating”, says JR rather uncharacteristically) to each other’s virtuousness” the named persons hath “woven a net” and that net “has trapped both victims and [prepare yourself] the mass media”. The mass media – doncha see? – was taken in as to the virtuousness of these persons just because they all said each other were indeed virtuous. The media – doncha see? – was thereby hoodwinked into thinking that it was dealing with virtuous people.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 512AM:
But wait – there’s more.
The success of SNAP (and no doubt ‘proof’ that it is and always has been a tool of the Church) is that “these few” individuals have “saved the church billions of dollars”. Given that the Stampede has cost the Church billions, how – one might ask – can this be?
Well – doncha see? – by not demanding “victims compensation” then SNAP has saved the Church billions because … well, then it all gets kinda very fuzzy.
Apparently the three-plus billion the Church paid out wasn’t “compensation”. Because – doncha see? – there are so many many very many more ‘victims’ … they just haven’t come forward … after 30 years of Stampede, and the last 15 or so the most intense and ‘victim-friendly’ of the whole era.
How do we know there are so many more? We have JR’s assurance.
It’s a hall of mirrors.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 512AM:
And then – marvelously – JR demonstrates the lengths to which his mind will go to preserve the cartoon: he classifies Michael D’Amato – author of the book “Mortal Sins” that was not at all friendly to the Church and quite a puff-piece for SNAP and Jeff Anderson – with Ralph Cipriano whose reporting on the Stampede through the lens of the Philadelphia trials shines a penetrating and deeply revealing light on the various aspects of the Doe case(s) and the role of the prosecutors, the DA, the trial courts, and the media.
But in JR’s cartoon they are both “enablers” … somehow.
Yet they have “both exposed the fraud called SNAP”. Yes, although the former most likely did so unintentionally; that’s the trouble with puffy how-they-did-it books: they tend to reveal stuff that actually undermines the puffery.
And neither at any time has in any way demonstrated or even opined that the Church was the puppet-master behind SNAP and the Stampede.
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 515AM:
Here he simply declares that I don’t know anything “about lawyers”. Readers may take that declamation as they may.
And then – in yet another sublime demonstration of the wonders of clinical projection – JR doth epithetically denounce me for “not knowing things [I] pretend to know”. No examples in support of his claim and accusation are provided, but that’s been his M.O. all along.
On then to JR’s of the 29th at 537AM:
Here he simply tries to push once again his cartoon bit about the Church actually having saved money through the efforts of Anderson and SNAP (its alleged tools).
To accept his cartoon, one would have to know how much (if any) money was “left on the table”, But to do that, one would have to know – at the very least – how many more ‘victims’ there are.
Thus the money “left on the table” is unknowable until we know how many more ‘victims’ there are and at this point that group is for all practical purposes invisible, if indeed it exists at all.
So JR”s ‘fact’ and ‘proof’ here is based on a phantasm or sequence of phantasms. And we are to take those phantasms as factual and evidentiary on his word and assurance.
The hall of mirrors once again.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1010AM:
I never asserted or implied that I am the only one who “declares facts”. I have not ‘declared’ many things, if any, to be facts at all. I have simply pointed out – with explication – that ‘Dan’ and JR haven’t put forward many actual facts, but instead rely on our accepting their phantasms and presumptions and insinuations and fever-visions as facts.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1010AM:
But wait. There’s one “fact” that ‘Dan’ doth proffer, and an “obvious” one at that: contrary to what I have said, ‘Dan’ and “Jim” are “total opposites” and my thinking otherwise is merely “proof” of my “ignorance”.
As I said in an earlier comment on this thread, story-tellers 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).
In this case – to repeat what I have said on more than one prior occasion here – they are both two peas in a pod in that they have both created imaginary heroic roles for themselves (JR the Victimized Tribune of the Victimry and ‘Dan’ the oh-so-speshull depute-dawg of the Divine) and will a) twist any inconvenient or incongenial reality in order to preserve that phantasm and will then b) insist on the basis of that phantasm that their stuff must be accepted as true and factual no matter what.
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 524AM:
Here, JR simply runs the same gambit that ‘Dan’ tries to run on the 28th at 1010AM and that bit has been dealt with immediately above.
JR, of course, adds some epithet to make up for the fact that his bit doesn’t hold much water.
And on the 28th at 529AM JR will try – phantasmagorically – to keep the status of he-whose-questions-are-unanswered: I haven’t answered his questions. I have, in comments immediately above.
And I point out yet again that his “facts” (scream-caps omitted) have not been demonstrated by anything he has put up. All he has put up are questions and insinuations.
But – when you come right down to it – that’s all he’s got.
"FACTS" – a) Marcial Maciel – repeated sex offender – Legion and Vatican admitted – pedophile too old to prosecute – what a beautiful justice system they have – Bible justice – GUILTY
b) Fr. Oliver O'Grady – admitted pedophile creep many times over – Bible justice – GUILTY
c) I wish I had the energy to go back over all the previously mentioned creeps of your cult or the desire to go out and investigate all the cases of pedophile, perverts, and the other sick disgusting crimes of your cult. Proven "fact." There are far too many cases for your cult to make any claims of being God's True Church. The Word is proof. All over the Bible, it describes the hypocrisy of an apostate church, for which your cult fits the mold, absolutely.
d) publyin' - FACT – You are a blatant liar. A deceiver. An insistant mocker of God, His Holy Spirit and all that is good. You can deny that all you want. Your repetitive garbage and mocking is proof, so why not come out of the closet and admit it.
Yes, And let us not forget Fr. Lawrence C. Murphy, molester of over 200 deaf boys and the documents the church fought hard to keep secret. Cardinal RAT-zinger protected him from prosecution, though Bishops asked something be done. After all, Fr. Murphy wrote Cardinal RAT that he had already repented and was in poor health and "I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood." Maybe he should have tried repenting after his 1st or 10th or maybe 50th RAPE, you think. NO, but he was sent afterwards to parishes, schools and a juvenile detention center. Died, still a priest. You must be so proud, defending and making excuses for all these creeps. The cult should give you sainthood, or at the least a KKK hood. CREEP. You never tire of the need to come up with more excuses?
P.S. Convicted and known U.S. pedophiles were even sent to schools or orphanages in Mexico and South America. Is that how pope francis earned his wings? Satan's Raven in dove's feathers.
You know asshole, If all my arguments,( I won't speak for Dan) have been so "dealt with" by you. Why won't I go away? I'm just a moron trying to end SNAP by telling the truth to jerks like you who'd rather believe in fairy tales than believe in the simple, if not easily apparent, truth.
In today’s episode:
On the 30th at 807PM ‘Dan’s performance begins with a characteristic sleight-of-thought: in his cartoon mentality I can only be a “great manipulator and excuser” and not only a “catholic apologist” but also “the one and only, marvelous” one “of modern times”. He has a mind that is only capable of working in extremes, whether epithetically characterizing others or self-servingly describing himself (or Himself).
I simply assess material that is proffered and point out the difficulties with the claims or assertions or allegations or accusations or fore-tellings. Given that in the matter of the Stampede this is not often done, then that’s what I do here.
And – but of course – ‘Dan’ also has an epithetical predisposition, that sort of myah-myah type that one offers encounters in grade-school and even high-school but which nowadays passes for serious adult discourse.
You "assess material," not by "point[ing] out the difficulties", but instead adding your own lying "allegations or accusations," in the hopes that if you repeat your lies often enough, then that will make them God's honest truth. Problem being that 95% of your trash is stuff directly up from the depths of hell, and all you know of the God of Truth is all the ridiculous ways you mock Him and His servant. You think you're cute, while God just laughs at your ignorance, waiting for your Judgment Day.
"The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes at him with his teeth. The Lord laughs at him, for He sees his day is coming." Psalm 37:12-13
"You belong to your father, the devil, and want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him." John 8:44
And you'll bleat, "Now he's claiming I'm a murderer." And that you absolutely are. You're a murderer of all things honest, truthful and right. Better known as I previously said, "One balatant, habitual liar." Own it, for the shoe fits you perfectly. I'll be looking forward to a good laugh at your destruction, Mocker of all that is good. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 807PM:
But he’s sly and manipulative. As is demonstrated by the effort to slide-in a quickie presumption about “all the perverts and pedophiles that have ever been laicized”.
That presumption is precisely what one has to question in light of the Stampede: just how many actual “perverts and pedophiles” were there? Once again we see the result of ‘Dan’s preferred method of simply trawling around for stories congenial to his own preoccupations and cartoons and agitated eructations.
As I said in a prior comment above, there are – especially in a time such as the Stampede – any number of reasons why a priest might be laicized or even ask for laicization. Just as there were any number of reasons why Church or Insurer defense-counsel would advise strongly that cases be settled rather than fought out one by one at trial – precisely as the tortie strategy envisioned.
And his comment concludes with more epitheticals, just to spackle up the otherwise iffy material and – I would say – to satisfy ‘Dan’s basic tendencies and temperament.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 829PM:
Here ‘Dan’ has almost nothing of substance so – but of course – he goes for the epithetical, dragging God into it (as – he (or He) would claim is his (or His) right as God’s speshull deputy-dawg).
In just what way I might start to “think” about the (alleged) “many hidden ‘files’” and just what amount or type of ‘thinking’ might somehow reveal the existence of such files … ‘Dan’ – but of course – doesn’t bother to say. What, really, could he say?
What ‘thinking’ or thoughts did ‘Dan’ have in mind here? He of course doesn’t say.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 829PM:
But he then proffers a question for which he would like an answer: just how would one go about “finding ‘facts’ about a cult full of liars and deceivers”?
First, one would not make the presumption that Catholicism is “a cult full of liars and deceivers” for the mere satisfaction of one’s own personal agenda and agitations. At least not if one wished to be taken seriously as either a competent thinker or a reliable source of information or insight.
Second – which may well be news to him – if one doesn’t have evidence sufficient to draw desired conclusions, then one refrains from drawing the desired conclusions and claiming that they are factual. Perhaps he was out delivering “beautiful prophecy” the day they covered Scientific Method in class.
But then, in the whacky-cartoon business the Scientific Method is only going to get in the way. You’d want insinuation and presumption and lots of epitheticals and scream-caps to make the cartoon work.
I've made NO "quickie presumption about 'all the perverts and pedophiles that have been laicized'." There are facts, backed by the creeps own admissions, those backed by several bishops and admitted to by pope RAT himself. Now you can play dumb and keep your head in the sand, but don't think the public and those catholics who left the church, because of all of their crimes, are stupid enough to buy into all your excuses and lies regarding these issues.
Second, I make NO "presumption that [c]atholicism is 'a cult full of liars and deceivers' for the mere satisfaction of [my] own personal agenda and agitations." I base my accusations on putting up with all your lies, added to the blatant, numerous lies that caused my legal troubles. You can criticize me as much as you feel necessary, but it will not subtract from the "facts" that both you and your cult is full of liars. Proven also by all the lies, excuses and cover-ups regarding Catholic Abuse Matters. No presumptions necessary. True facts!!
And I guess it's apparent that you consider yourself "a competent thinker or a reliable souce of information or insight." Habitual liars would not qualify for any of these attributes. And once again we witness the perfect example of the false pride of one ignorant fool. No proof needed. You've proven it yourself, time and again. served courtesy of God's chosen
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 829PM:
I don’t know of any “they” who have been given “asylum in Vatican City” except for Cardinal Law 15 or so years ago. Whether that prelate realized the impossibilities of defending in a time of Stampede or just chickened-out I don’t know, but he is an individual and there is no “they”, certainly not in any large numbers, of such persons.
And as always ‘Dan’ consoles himself (or Himself) with yet another threat about “Judgment Day”.
But then adds that bit about ‘cleaning house’, although he has just recently trumpeted the number of laicizations that – one would rationally and logically think – was precisely what the Church had done through those laicizations. But rationality and logic won’t keep ‘Dan’s personal cartoon going, will they?
‘Dan’ concludes with the queasily charming assumption that he (or He) doth indeed possess “wisdom”. And doth assure one and all that all that such “wisdom” wasn’t amassed simply by “reading media stories and claims”. Sorta true: we have had numerous demonstrations of his theological and Scriptural capacities and those too speak for themselves (and whatever faxes came in from the Bathroom-Mirror-Beyond).
And again we witness more mocking from the mocker.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 856PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will once again try to use as fact what precisely remains to be demonstrated: Just how many “admitted pedophile creeps” were “in the priesthood”? (The “priesthood” bit neatly excludes any possible consideration of Catholics generally, among whom at this point in the story he numbers himself.)
If he didn’t get this bit from all that voracious reading of media stories, then on what grounds does he make the characterization in the first place?
That “worldwide” bit now wobbles as we consider the many fizzled alarums and excitations of the past years and decades, discussed in a prior comment of mine on this thread.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 856PM:
The actual and demonstrated instances of clerical abuse are one thing; the effort to conclude as factual that it was of epidemic proportions is something else altogether and surely a conveniently-embraced figment of ‘Dan’s imagination.
And the rest of the comment trails off in a familiar self-serving riff on how shocked and sickened he was and so on.
Oh, and that he considers himself victimized by how I went and looked at the material he himself put up and pointed out the problems (which, as usual, he dismisses as “disgusting lies” – when perhaps he might more fruitfully consider his own record as being “disgusting actions”, which then prompted his many claimed oppressions and misadventures with the police, the courts, and psychiatry).
And again we are treated to another of his legion of excuses, excuse the pun. There is no way that there could be "epidemic proportions" of "clerical abuse," just because there was obviously "epidemic proportions" of "clerical abuse." There's all kinds of news about it, several books written about it, more than a few movies and documentaries, admissions by priests, popes and bishops in regards to their countless crimes (not including all those hidden), but these must be the figments of our imagination. How long are you catholics going to buy into these blatant lies and excuses from the biggest liars to walk earth?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 856PM:
And in a concluding bit of pearl-clutching, ‘Dan’ allows as how he cawnt’ think why he got involved on this site at all in the first place.
I think the answer to that is rather clear: he has – for reasons best known to himself – tried to build a self on the fantasized image of victimized but heroic and truthy truth-exposer specially designated and continuously updated and informed by God, and has constructed a neat two-fer by a) thus evasively plumping up himself while b) using Catholicism as his convenient demonized target (especially on the subject of “pedophile creeps”, notably), for which purpose he has zealously piggy-backed his stuff on the Stampede.
And in that crucial and fundamental regard he is indeed the pea-pod mate of JR, who has merely chosen a more this-worldly version of the costume and Wigs to be worn for the show’s performances.
Can't decide what's worse – "pedophile creeps" or liars trying to dilute and excuse the actions of "pedophile creeps." Are you possibly a bishop or the popes mini RAT.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 908PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to deal with the seriously inconvenient issue of why the Church would include in the canon of the New Testament a Book such as Revelation.
His answer: Easy-peasy, the early Church was “ignorant” and thus too stupid to realize that it was indicting and undermining itself. Yup – that’s it: the early Church was just too “ignorant” and stupid to realize what it was doing. Thus ‘Dan’s “wisdom”.
My position: the context of the Book was the persecution of the early Church by Imperial Rome and all its pomps and works, by a Christian community that also imagined that the End Time and Parousia would arrive shortly, which would demonstrate the validity and necessity of eschewing all the things of this world and embrace the white-hot way of Christ’s focus on God and His Kingdom rather than any Empire and its ‘kingdom’.
The wisdom of the Church in including the Book of Revelation, I would say, was that the Book so vividly insists upon the tension between ‘the world’ and God’s Kingdom. But it would take a great deal of “wisdom” in succeeding generations and millennia to work out a balance of that tension, as the End Time continued not to arrive.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 908PM:
As to whether the Church – if we consider ‘Dan’s efforts to equate the Church with the “Babylon” of Imperial Rome – has more failed than succeeded in maintaining the balance in that fundamental tension is a matter many wiser and more educated and informed heads than ‘Dan’s have argued over the following centuries and millennia.
But there’s nothing open-and-shut about it all, except to a cartoon mentality with its own agenda.
" 'Dan's efforts to equate the church with the "Babylon" of Imperial Rome – has more failed than succeeded….blah, blah, blah.
Your own words – "My position: the context of the book was the persecution of the early Church by Imperial Rome and all its pomps and works" – Now what could better describe an equal to Imperial Rome than a perverted and unbiblical church, chock full of "pomp" and circumstance. One who through blatant lies persecutes true Christians to this day, including me, and just so happens to have it's head in Rome. One who fits perfectly to every line in Revelations 17:1-9 ; 17:1) great prostitute – your cults deceptive worship and prayers to goddess Mary "Queen of Heaven" 2) the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth became drunk 3) Woman sitting on a scarlet, [favorite color of drapes and rugs], beast that was full of blasphemous names [mockery]. 4a) woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet red – just so happens to be the colors of cardinals and bishops 4b) adorned with gold and jewels and pearls – riches of a greedy cult 4c) in her hand a golden cup [chalice], full of abominations and the impurities of her immorality [pedophiles and perverts]. 5) "Babylon the great, mother [Mary] of prostitutes and of earth's abominations." 6) And I saw a woman, [goddess worshippers], drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus- Why do you think their churches are built on the bones of Peter and Paul? They've killed more Bible believing Christians than any other cult. 9) This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mtns. on which the woman is seated – seven hills of Rome (Babylon)
Now catholics – feel free to listen to a habitual liar dispute these facts or listen to a Christian who has no alterior motive than to see you come to the Lord God, follow His Word and possibly save your soul. If that's what this creep P calls a "cartoon mentality with it's own agenda", then so be it. I wouldn't be too quick to listen to any of his ignorance and lies.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1023PM:
Here he will give examples of abusive clerics.
He gives two examples. And as far as I can tell, those two examples are accurate.
But there are only those two. Are there not more in his files to justify his rather expansive accusations and condemnations of the clergy, the Church and Catholicism generally and totally?
‘Dan’ takes the easy way out of that problem, and who can be surprised? He doth surely “wish he had the energy” to give more but … well, but nothing.
And yet he considers his two to be “proven ‘fact’” for everything, even claiming further that there are “far too many cases” to justify the Church being “God’s Church” (as opposed to, say, the Church of ‘Dan’ in the Bathroom Mirror).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1023PM:
As I have often said, there were no doubt unsuitable members of the priesthood. Whether the priesthood was riddled with unsuitable members to the extent ‘Dan’ would imagine is certainly another matter, especially in light of the derangements and deformations introduced and amplified by the Stampede.
And whether the mere existence of some unsuitable priests excludes the Church as being “God’s Church” is another matter altogether, and certainly one that calls for more discerning assessment than ‘Dan’ brings to the table with his assorted rants and oh-so-speshull excitations and agitations.
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1023PM:
But ‘Dan’ then tries to bring it home with a razzle-dazzle finish by piggy-backing another of his claims onto what little he has already proffered: It is a “fact” (giveaway scream-caps omitted)that I am “a blatant liar” and so on and so forth.
Especially since – yet again – in exposing ‘Dan’s various whackeries I am an “insistent mocker of God”. Readers may consider as they will.
Publyin' thinks "exposing 'Dan's various whackeries" means to toss lie after lie and call that assessing, so you can demean and label one as whacked. Read the Bible to find God's opinion of someone truly whacked and evil to be a liar, listed along with the cowardly, the faithless, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers and idolators. Actually you fit well to more than half of these descriptions. You are one evil creep. servant