The other shoe drops: SNAP president Barbara Blaine makes a hasty exit
***BREAKING: Saturday, February 4, 2017, 2:35pm EDT***
Barbara Blaine, the founder and national president of the troubled and contentious group SNAP, has just resigned.
An email announcing the resignation was sent to members of SNAP earlier today (Sat., 2/4/17) (screenshot (jpg)) followed by a separate email with a statement by Blaine (screenshot (pdf)). It was then reported in the Chicago Tribune and other outlets.
Blaine's announcement continues a tumultuous past few months for SNAP:
- Just a couple weeks ago, SNAP's former director of development, Gretchen Hammond, dropped a bombshell lawsuit on SNAP, asserting that SNAP "exploits" victims and "routinely accepts financial kickbacks" from Church-suing contingency lawyers in the form of "donations";
- Last week, after Hammond's lawsuit alleging serious malpractice at SNAP received substantial national media attention, SNAP national director David Clohessy announced his embarrassing resignation.
- And in August, after Rev. Joseph Jiang sued SNAP after the group falsely accused him of being a pedophile, a federal judge ruled that SNAP maliciously defamed him "negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth" and ordered that SNAP must "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees";
Now SNAP's own founder has deserted the organization with an announcement hidden on a Saturday morning.
This is a developing story …
ALSO: TheMediaReport.com is investigating a tip that SNAP was sued again last Monday (1/30/17). An accused priest in Michigan lodged the suit. Developing …
————-
Here are a couple of Blaine's "greatest hits":
LMAO!
Like magic, one minute they are there; next gone. Snap disappears in a puff of smoke. Smearing victims as it goes. LMFAO.
Blaine always said she'd kill SNAP if SNAP was "endangered" and she has.
The question is What has SNAP or Blaine ever done good for victims? Name one thing. Meetings that went nowhere because that's where they were supposed to go? Press conferences to control what victims said to the press or pretended to be "magically" (without asking) the"Voice of Survivors"? How do you pretend to miss what was never there?
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Two down! Next up (or own): Dorris! Let's have a threepeat!
It's been a long time coming, and in the meantime, many lives were harmed. They should have studied the book of Proverbs before they acted with intent to deceive; eventually leading to their demise… In Prov 19:3 "Some people ruin themselves by their own stupid actions and then blame God." [GNB] There's much more wisdom where that came from.
Kirk, Don't know exactly what version your Proverbs 19:3 is from. NIV has – "A person's own folly leads to their ruin, yet their heart rages against the LORD. Could this proverb not as easily apply to the catholic church. There's one member that will be commenting soon, who thinks it's cute to bleat all kinds of mockery against God and His Holy Spirit. Talk about stupid, to think you can rage against the Creator, the one who can extinguish your life in a heartbeat.
The lives that were harmed were the victims that SNAP betrayed.
Use your brains here. Snap is in existence for 27 years yet only now it accuses innocent priests who sue them? And you believe they are really led by lawyers? Lawyers who would know enough to keep SNAP from libelous acts for 25 years but fuck up now? Tell me the odds for that naturally occurring .Use your brains.
Barbara Blaine and David Clohessy will be sorely missed by all of us they said by us when we were down they took care of us they ran conferences to help us heal. We are a support group for each other or everyone thinks that they should hold her hands and not do any of the work themselves. We have been able to get counseling through the church which would not of happened without them be at were able to have the strength to go up against the predators that we would not have the strength without them. For everyone that wants to bash them, You don't know what you're talking about . Remember it's a self help. Self help organization. I feel the only reason I healed was because of SNAP. Thank you SNAP
Charles, have you been compensated by the church for your abuse? If so how much? Or are you being placated by therapy?. If so wait til the day the church feels you should be "cured"? But then again you claim to be "healed". Are you still an active Catholic, Charles?
I know exactly what I'm "talking about". I stood next to those two assholes for 7 years hin Los Angeles.I was at their first convention where Gay victims were constantly insulted with Blaine never opening her smug little trap in Gay victims defense. And she did exactly the same thing at the next year's convention. I know exactly who they are and who they represent and it aint you or any other victim."Hold her hands"? We wanted political action on a national scale not high priced conventions and press conferences that went no where. A "self help" organization? If you were so "self helped" why are you in therapy?
I'm sorry Charles I know I'm being hard. But don't think I attack SNAP needlessly. There are thousands of victims suffering simply because of SNAP in actions and what it didn't do for them.
And if I can survive being sexually abused. Trust me I've plenty of strength. I just don't have the strength to be vulnerable anymore or to trust. People don't realize that vulnerability requires strength. That strength, that ease is gone from my life.
I've been doubly abused. First the sex abuse and then SNAP's abuse.(Triply, in fact, if you count this site)
Charles, SNAP's the church. They created it .they paid for it. They ran it to control us. It's all been done for the church's financial benefit.
And Charles, who is "all of us"? Not me or plenty of victims I know. So now we're not victims? So now we are "against" other victims because we say SNAP's the fraud that it is? We are the bad victims and you the SNAP loyalists, are the good victims? SNAP's always been the bottle neck in this whole scandal. Placed as such by a bitter greedy church. Bet you're still a Catholic Charles. I've no problem with that. It just shows where your loyalty lies. Not with the injured as a whole but with the perpetrators. Some healing! More like Stockholm syndrome. If you feel better swell. God knows you, as an individual, are much more important than the mass of vicims unhealed.
Stephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale University. This is how he defines "integrity": Discerning what is right and what is wrong; Acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and Saying Openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong. So vitally essential is integrity in both private and public life, that, opines, Carter, "The American dream may crumble – and the greatness of our democracy along with it."
This perceptive, accurate and incontestable definition did challenge me to undertake a research study on procedural justice for priests – diocesan and religious. None can deny the grievous, widespsread and irreparable harm done to the credibility of priests and their ministry over the past two and a half decades. For this, each and every priest is profoundly sorry. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
By the same token, however, it must be admitted that there has been – and continues to be – a proliferation of false allegations against priests and for motives that range from the dubious and spurious to the specious and malicious. Once again, the harm done is grievous, widespread and irreparable. It is, therefore, imperative that we all judiciously discern, decisively act and openly speak in the interests of truth, justice and charity. The journey of a thousand miles does indeed begin with the first step.
Well, James, that skirts the issue. You have 2 lawsuits about false claims against priests by SNAP. Two after 27 years of SNAP. Two doesn't quite equate to "widespread". Where are these "false allegations"? You name none yet claim them to be profligate in number. Painting with a broad brush there padre. Aren't you?
"It is, therefore, imperative that we all judiciously discern, decisively act and openly speak in the interests of truth, justice and charity." We will all be waiting for your church to imperatively and judiciously discern and decisively act to seek truth, justice and love. Needless to say, we won't be holding our breath. It would truly take a miracle. servant
I wish Gretchen Hammond success in her lawsuit against SNAP. Am guessing she has a strong case…..given the rush to the exits…by Clohessy and Blaine. Perhaps Gretchen should take time out, should she win, and write a book. The world has a right to know about the shameful treatment she received at the hands of SNAP. I could even suggest a title for the book….."STAB" . This is an acronym for "Survivors Trauma after Axing by Blaine". Yes…."STAB" would be a good name for a book about those back-stabbing bigots.
"The world has the right to know about the shameful treatment" your cult put on young, innocent children. You "back-stabbing bigots" are a bunch of drama queens, and ought to work on cleaning up your own backyard.
Fr. Excuser Valla – dares to say, "None can deny the grievous, widespread and irreparable harm done to the credibility of priests and their ministry over the past two and a half decades. For this each and every priest is profoundly sorry." Nice to hear you're all sorry that your credibility has suffered irreparable harm. The perverts, pedophile priests and bishops, along with your enabling hierarchy are totally responsible for any irreparable harm. Where's any remorse or shame, for the lives of innocent children, that your fellow creeps have destroyed.
Then you follow that with the overblown statement, "By the same token, however, it must be admitted that there has been – and continues to be – a proliferation of false allegations against priests and for the motives that range from the dubious and spurious to the specious and malicious." And to that, you repeat the ridiculous statement that "the harm done is grievous, widespread and irreparable." And again, with no mention of the harm you creeps caused to children and minors, you make the outrageous claim, full of superlatives, that there has been "a proliferation of false allegations against priests." Are you kidding, where's your proof? Who's your mentor? Father, blame the victims, Groeschel.
How about we discuss the "proliferation" of pedophile and perverted clergy over the past six- plus decades? How about you and your cult come clean and give up the lists from the majority of U.S. dioceses that refuse, unless forced by the courts? How about your corrupt churches quit claiming bankruptsy, to avoid paying victims? How about your cult stops fighting to keep Statutes of Limitations and do the right moral thing? How about you start by selling all your greedy possessions and idolatrous statues, do the right thing and pay victims for your terrible crimes? No! That would be way too much to ask of a greedy, immoral and idolatrous cult of pedophiles, disingenuous excusers and enablers. James, the deceiving publyin' would be proud of your multiple deceptions and ignorance, "sorry", but you won't pull the wool over our eyes, Fr. wolf in sheep's clothing. servant of Christ the Lord
Having never been sexually abused by anyway – let alone a priest – I have no reason to have an opinion on SNAP. Certainly credit must be given where it is due. I know of one victim who got no support from any priests or nuns (guess they never met Thomas Doyle or Maureen Turlish – surely they would have helped this poor victim) but got plenty from SNAP. Then there’s the above testimony of Charles Bailey.
However, as you so rightly put it Dave, they don’t help falsely accused priests. I remember you saying how you have argued online with Dr. Rosemary Mchue before and now I know why. It seems she is one of those people who feels SNAP can’t do no wrong, just as many people believed the Catholic Church could do no wrong. For instance, she linked to the Facebook post Barbara Blaine made about Rev Joseph Jiang. Barbara was still saying that he was guilty and everyone believed what she said. I was so troubled that I asked, “But what if he’s innocent?” and a month later an abuse victim accused me of being “clueless”. Well I don’t want to sound insensitive but I think she might be the clueless one.
It's so sad that Jim Robertson is still being used as nothing more than a pawn for the Catholic Church and its cover-ups. He still advocates for being handcuffed to Cardinal Mahony and church officials. I think SNAP should subpoena him in the recent lawsuit it faces. He wants to talk…tell us all about it Jim.
Now I'm a pawn for the Catholic church by accusing the Catholic church of being SNAP? I do advocate that some church officials should be handcuffed. I would be a witness for SNAP? Dude I'm sincere about what I know to be true. I judge people by their actions. I know that SNAP's the church. That's it. How else would you explain it's behavior. There's no other explanation for SNAP's behavior. Absolutely none.
On the 5th at 101AM we get another example of ‘Dan’s chops (or lack of them): he doesn’t “know exactly what version” of the Bible ‘Kirk’s reference (the 4th at 1005PM) is from. Yet ‘Kirk’ went to the trouble, quite properly, of including the version of the Bible from which he was quoting: “GNB” stands for the Good News Bible version.
And more of the usual effort to slyly and manipulatively shoehorn in ‘Dan’s fundamental presumption: that ‘Dan’-stuff is God’s Word to the extent that one cannot question the former without ‘mocking’ the latter.
Well thank you again, Mr. Know- It- All. I overlooked the [GNB] and my version of the GNB ends with "the Lord." And Kirk, I had no problem with your quote, just questioned what version it came from.
As far as your ignorance goes, publyin', let's not overlook the first line of the verse, for it applies to both you and the church. "Some people ruin themselves by their own stupid actions." Could that not easily describe liars, perverts and pedophiles, idolators, hypocrites and the greedy? Let's take the second half of the proverb, from both the GBN and NIV, and couldn't blame the Lord or rage against the Lord, easily apply to one who insists on mocking the Lord? And any cult that worships Mary and enjoys more prayers to her than to God or Christ, is greedy and sexually immoral, etc., may not be raging against the Lord, but they surely aren't worshipping Him. And this is why your cult is an apostate church.
We don't obey the 2nd commandment of Moses from God, so we'll just remove it from our teaching. That's how the One True Church handles things. They don't have to obey any God, but don't ever accuse us of rage. We're just stupid hypocrites.
Hey Publion, good response to Dan's rubbish, and Dan if you're so cleaver, answer me this. Are you going to accuse the Lutheren Church of taking out the 2nd Commandment? Because the Lutheren Church (named as you might know after Martin Luther, one of the first to take the same dim view of the Catholic Church as you do) has the same version of the Ten Commandments as the Catholic Church.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 101AM:
Then we are further treated to a demo of ‘Dan’s chops in the Scriptural-interpretation line: “Could this proverb not” – ‘Dan’ smarmily proposes – “apply as easily to the catholic church?”. Well, you’d have to stretch a whole lot to come up with some evidence that the Church “rages against the Lord”. But ‘Dan’ is – and for his own purposes must be – a plop-tosser, and this pericope had to be shoehorned into that agenda somehow, one way or another.
Yes, “hundreds” of people – and maybe a lot of them Catholics – have voiced their concerns about ‘Dan’s problems, apparently in court. But a) their statements do not qualify as official teachings of the Church and b) we would here have to presume – yet again – that to question ‘Dan’s (eminently questionable) behavior is to ‘rage’ “against the Lord”. And to make that presumption is indeed to take a walk (or fall) down the rabbit hole.
Simply liars and false accusers, just like you, pee-brain.
The series of comments by ‘Charles Bailey’ affords JR a no-doubt-welcome opportunity to don his favorite Wig yet again, as if de novo here. Regular readers of this site will be quite familiar with the elements of his once-again-proffered story.
And we get a nice demonstration of what happens when JR – as he instructs one and all – doth “use [his] brains here”.
Thus on the 5th at 356AM JR puts forward the bit to the effect that SNAP has been in existence for 27 years. Actually, it was in 1988 that the Anderson-Blaine phase of SNAP began; before that SNAP existed – and precariously – in some form where it was not in direct cahoots with the torties.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 356AM:
And yet – intones JR – “only now it accuses innocent priests who sue them”. What is the sense of this bit? It is a former SNAP employee who is suing SNAP in Chicago, a consequence of which, it appears, is the resignation of Clohessy and now Blaine. If there is a typical JR insinuation underlying this bit, what is it?
Has it taken quite a while for any priest to sue SNAP? Under Stampede conditions, few attorneys might have either a) advised a priest to bring a lawsuit and b) even fewer attorneys would have taken such a case on contingency (i.e. the attorney foregoes fully billing the Plaintiff until the lawsuit is successfully concluded and then takes a percentage of the award).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 356AM:
Under the conditions of the Stampede (with the media buying whole-heartedly into the Victimist dogma that to question the ‘victim’ is to ‘re-victimize the victim’) the torties could rest secure in the gamble that no target was going to call out SNAP through a lawsuit for fear of being pilloried in the media as (take your pick) being ‘insensitive’, being a ‘re-victimizer’, and/or proving one is guilty by trying to defend oneself. (One recalls the battle-cry of the aggressive ants in T.H.White’s novel The Once and Future King: “they are attacking us by defending themselves”.)
Just the opposite Mr T H White. it's by SNAP's "defending" victims they are really attacking them. Question victims when you find one. We are kept undercover by your ignoring our issues and not asking us politely and kindly to come forward and be questioned by you. Your believing us or not is your choice. We don't care anymore what you think because you've never done the right thing by us. You want to question us? Ask us. Me personally I've been compensated (pure damned luck.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 356AM:
But the Stampede wave that the torties not only surfed but helped to create and sustain is receding now. So the former conditions of the Stampede no longer apply with the energy and influence that they once exerted. The organization or organizations that the torties helped to fund in order to further their own emolument are now in danger of being exposed. More revelations will probably follow.
The receding of a wave – even one so artfully and powerfully sustained a wave as the Stampede – is a “naturally occurring”, indeed almost inevitable, phenomenon. The torties – shrewd gamblers or investors in their way – no doubt knew that from the get-go and have now backed away (swimming or rowing away from a sinking ship so as not to get sucked down with it, one might imagine).
On the 5th at 1222PM JR then heads off the rails: has “Charles” ever been “compensated” for any “abuse” that he might have suffered? Of what relevance is the question? (JR, we recall, got himself a million – although he was then ‘re-victimized’ by his tortie who took a third plus expenses or some such percentage, leaving him – if memory serves – with a measly 600K or so.)
And – in another demonstration as to how coherence means nothing to a professional story-teller – JR now denigrates “therapy” as merely a placation. Yet for quite a while JR had been plop-tossing here to the effect that the Church was – in an heartless example of ‘re-victimization’ – not offering therapy to ‘victims’.
And – as I said many times back then – a) few ‘victims’ could reasonably be expected to accept therapy from Church-affiliated or Church-selected sources and b) few if any allegants seem to have demanded therapy in the first place.
And as we saw and continue to see with the Billy Doe case, there is always the danger and risk that under the treatment of a competent therapist, a story-teller might inadvertently reveal uncongenial elements that would impeach the ‘abuse’ story. Nor would any tortie – having gone to all the trouble of engineering a situation where settlement would be reached precisely without the risk of adversarial examination in a court trial – advise accepting such a risk.
How would the Torties be sucked down by this? Where's the proof there was tit for tat? And who cares anyway? How does what SNAP and lawyers do have anything to do with victims and our needs? Why are those issues never mentioned. SNAP doesn't represent anyone but SNAP. We never asked them to speak for us. We never voted them to speak for us. Therefore they do not represent us. They say they do but they don't.
Some victims stand with SNAP and swallow SNAP's self proclaimed: "wonderfulness". SNAP's the first to tell victims how wonderful and necessary SNAP is.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1222PM:
There follows a now-familiar paragraph reciting all of JR’s accomplishments and experiences connected to SNAP: he “stood next” to (Blaine and Clohessy, apparently) “for 7 years”. As a result of which he did not suss out the role of SNAP – now, it would appear, revealed in the Chicago Complaint – as a front for the torties.
Instead – guided or driven by his own excitations and agenda – he sidetracked himself with the cartoon explanation that SNAP and the torties were all merely tools of the Church, a mind-boggling assertion for which he has not ever introduced a shred of evidence nor is any such evidence introduced even in the Chicago Complaint. He has relied instead on his usual and preferred method of insinuation and un-supported assertion (masquerading as ‘logic’ and ‘using his brains’).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1222PM:
And the “Gay” bit is introduced here as nothing but a red herring to distract. But nothing new about that.
And there has been “political action on a national scale”, as is evidenced by the 30 or so years of Stampede and the widespread weakening of Statutes of Limitation (against private institutions, anyway).
There just hasn’t been “political action on a national scale” that allowed JR his desired (and, he presumes, rightful) starring-role. And that has made all the difference in his many eructations.
LMAO! More lies from Pliar. He's nuts.
In any other real movement, I would be a star.I did jail time. I made a big move. Jealous?
Being a star is what one is or isn't. You aren't. I am. So the fuck what?
No national political action is just that no national political action. Ireland's had studies. Australia's having hearings and confrontation of Cardinals and Bishops as I write. But not the U.S.
You have no overview of this scandal at all. You don't know who's been paid nor do you care.
Pliar you only wish you were Gay. You probably are and are too dumb to know it or too scared to try it. or are too guilty to enjoy it. Pliar, Come out come out whoever you are.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1222PM:
And – had you been waitttttingggg forrrrr itttttttt? – JR concludes the comment with a pearl-clutching performance under the Wig of Further Victimization: he has ‘survived’ “being sexually abused” (regular readers can judge that bit as they will); he is much-man and plenty strong – doncha know? – but … alas … he “just [doesn’t] have the strength to be vulnerable anymore or to trust”.
Vae et ehue, as the ancient Romans might have said; Alas and Woe. Woe and Alas. Woe, woe and alas; alas and woe woe woe. Woo-woo.
But I acknowledge that this was a tricky Wig to fashion: one that reinforced one’s strength while also demonstrating one’s weakness: perhaps a ball-cap or helmet enhanced with the afore-noted pearls and maybe a boa feather or two.
Readers who have the strength to “trust” JR’s stories and stuff and remain “vulnerable” to all that are strong indeed.
And then – in a pitch-perfect performance – he riffs further on that theme: he hath been “doubly abused”, first by the abuse and then by “SNAP’s abuse” … and – come to think of it and if he does say so himself – “triply” abused because of how his performances have been received in comments on this site.
And so on.
Vae et woo-woo-woo.
Now I'm a drag queen? Never tried that.
I'm a drag queen and your revealing suing heroine's transgender. I'm bad but she's good just because she is acting out your scenario of what SNAP is. Honey, you are all jacked up!
Thus to JR’s of the 5th at 1245:
JR can go on about SNAP’s being “a fraud”; he has rarely if ever encountered objections to that assertion on this site.
He no doubt will – because he has to – go on about the Church being behind it all, but as I have said above, that remains an utterly unsupported and grossly implausible assertion that reveals more about his own issues and agenda than any actuality in the real world.
Exactly like ‘Dan’, JR has glommed onto the Church as his preferred and necessary and scheduled ‘demon’ (although, as ‘Dan’ revealed recently on a prior thread, ‘Dan’ has actually glommed onto all churches as his Ur-demon; apparently he doesn’t work well with others anywhere).
I would venture that since neither JR’s nor ‘Dan’s issues and problems were caused by any abuse or church, then no amount of “healing” based on the presumption of church-causation is going to work and never was going to work.
'Dan' "doesn't work well with" lying, demon possessed, church hypocrites from any religion, but has no problems with good people that have been brainwashed by these same false religions. Get that straight, ignoramus. servant
Your time may be better spent working on your own issues and problems.
If your church acts like a demon. I'll treat it like a demon. A pose of virtue by a demon is still demonic. It is not reality.
I've known Barbara Blaine for three decades as someone of the utmost integrity–a true disciple of Servant of God Dorothy Day.
Phil Runkel, on February 6, says he has known Barbara Blaine for three decades. And concluded she is a person of the "utmost integrity". Maybe that is an honest endorsement…, or maybe it is 'the power of suggestion'. Because in an earlier lifetime I worked as an auditor, and will say this. Generally speaking a person of the "utmost integrity" will stand their ground when accused, either accused directly or accused by inference, Because they know they have done nothing wrong, they don't resign, but fight to clear their good name. So if Phil knows Barbara so well… perhaps he can ask her why she departed with such haste.
Well said, Malcolm.
Barbra's departed because she was always supposed to. Not in some ethereal way but because it was scripted to end this way.
I must have integrity because I've been standing here telling you the truth for 3 years.
On the 5th at 1056PM ‘Dan’ will take on “Fr. Excuser Valla” (i.e. ‘Father James Valladares’, the 5th at 817PM).
For 30 years or more the Stampede has gone on; there is now a generation or perhaps two that have been raised with the presumption that the Church is primarily a locus of pedophilia and so on and so forth.
This is not specific to the Church, actually.
The confluence of a) political necessity (the Democratic Party’s need to create client identities that could be indentured to its demographics and to further (if not even impose) a national secularizing cultural agenda if ‘religion’ didn’t go along; the Republican need to get tough on crime); b) a media increasingly eager to ‘make’ news rather than actually just report it accurately and to enhance readership or listener-ship with sensationalistic and simplistic good-vs-evil stories; c) a dogmatic Victimism that sees ‘oppression’ everywhere (depending on who can be first get to get to the good-guy high-ground by declaring ‘victim’ status); d) certain dogmatic strains of feminism that see ‘men’ as primarily ‘rapists’ … all these synergized, and were then capitalized-upon by the abiding tortie strategy of creating conditions so inimical to fair trial that any targeted defendant would have to settle the case for lots of cash.
LMFAO! You're a joke.
Your priests molested children and your Bishops and Cardinals hid them, protected them and transferred them. They've admitted that. And they ignored their victims while creating new victims who they also ignored. That's what happened. You can lie and pretend that didn't happen but it did.
So it's Progressive religious people, Blacks, Women, Aliens, Gays, the Liberal media and Democrats that need "fixing"? Well, that's what in America we call the democratic majority. So democracy is out with you and yours? Maybe a theocracy is what you want? You dislike a "dogmatic Victimism". What kind of victim would you prefer? One who has 8 X 10 glossies of the crimes committed against us/them? Can not crimes be committed in private just perp and victim? Didn't your church rush to be "top of a Victimist pile" here at Media Report? Seems your church is the only one on that pile. Why not join up with the other accused churches and fight back? You are all so victimized by your analysis that cash is handed out to end it? How do insurance companies fit into that theory because they pay half of all settlements?( A fact you always leave out of your $3 billion tally.) Why aren't they on top of your victimist pile fighting next to you?
Yours is an nteresting take. Idiotic but interesting.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1056PM:
And the whole thing was amplified by the development – in the 1990s – of the internet and the Web and more recently social media, and all the various precincts and sub-worlds that exist in that universe.
And from those sub-worlds various types have been lured up to the surface to proffer their assorted excitations and eructations, as we have seen here and continue to see here so vividly (if epithetically and scatologically) demonstrated.
As for the measured statements put forward by commenter Valladares, ‘Dan’ – in his second paragraph – merely dismisses them variously, on the authority – of course – of the divinities he is sure reside in his bathroom mirror.
That would make you and your rise here a Monster from the Black Lagoon of the proletarian internet as well? Wouldn't it P? Or are you some gift from the whitest of clouds come down Deux ex Machina to save the church.
Only sub-worlds call shit "shit"? (Or shits "shits"?) That sub-world is and always has been the majority of people on this planet.( People remember them, Rapunzel?) Your residence, P, may be in another part of Dan's bathroom. Not to put too fine a point on it. You probably can't see your reflection in a mirror.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1056PM:
Nicely – and familiarly – ‘Dan’ demonstrates once again that for a plop-tosser, it’s OK to demand proof, but only if one is on the ‘good’ side of the plop-tossing: “Where is the proof?” he asks (i.e. the proof of the harm done to falsely-accused priests).
There is an indisputable probability that if a priest were falsely-accused, in this time of Stampede especially, then his credibility and good-name would be profoundly, if not also irreparably, damaged. Would he ever be able to face any congregation or parishioners again, even if – as not often happens – he is either canonically or legally exonerated? Especially since a colleague organization to SNAP – Bishop Accountability – maintains an online listing of accused priests? (B-A’s listing mostly only compiles news ‘reports’ of the accusation and so on, with few if any further additions if the priest is exonerated; some years back it was finally required – if memory serves – to put an advisory on the site to the effect that the material contained in the listings is not guaranteed for accuracy or completeness.)
So while we have no more ‘proof’ of many priests being falsely-accused than we have demonstrable proof of myriads of genuine victims, yet there remains a robust plausibility to the inference of grave damage to the falsely-accused priest – which was Fr. Valladares’s point to begin with.
You're a laugh riot! You take gallows humor to a new low.
And another of your stupid, juvenile statements, "plop-tosser". I don't know about a "good" side of "plop-tossing", but you, the expert in the subject seem to be on both sides of it. You toss a heck of alot and you deservedly get alot tossed back in your face. May as well get used to it, and please stop the whining, "deputy-dawg plop-tosser".
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1056PM:
And I can find no instance of “superlatives” let alone “full of superlatives” in the text of the Valladares comment. But for the purposes of ‘Dan’s plop-tossy cartoons, that fact makes no difference anyway.
And in his third paragraph ‘Dan’ will ask “How about we discuss ‘the proliferation’ of pedophile and perverted clergy over the past six-plus decades?”.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, we have been doing that, at great length for quite some time here.
But of course, ‘Dan’s idea of “discuss” merely means accepting his eructations as true (and as being God’s Word and Will, to boot). But what else can he do with his vitriolic cartoon assertions, claims and accusations? If they were actually ‘discussed’, if they were actually subjected to analysis, they would not stand. Readers may judge the validity of this assertion I have made by reviewing the record of comments on this site.
The “proliferation” of accusations was engendered by the Stampede. Few of such accusations have been successfully tested in open court, let alone being adjudged valid and veracious.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1056PM:
No organization would allow itself to be rummaged by the Stampede (and extensions of the Statutes of Limitations often slyly and precisely exclude public agencies from such rummaging). The entire gambit of weakening – let alone selectively weakening – the SOLs is profoundly subversive of the rule of law and the Church is hardly alone in pointing this out.
And I would also point out that when ‘Dan’ signs himself (or Himself) as “servant of Christ the Lord” he (or He) means the God or Christ resident in his (or His) bathroom mirror, sending ‘Dan’ those Faxes from the Beyond and appointing ‘Dan’ to be God’s Speshull Deputy Dawg as was proven by ‘Dan’s finding a plastic sheriff’s badge in the bottom of a cereal box – what more proof can anybody want?
And here we have demonstrated once again, a plethora of unnecessary ignorance and nonsense, followed by the usual, immature mocking of God and His Holy Spirit. You may need to go back and reread what I wrote. Fr. Excuser displayed no mention or compassion for the victims of your cult's creeps, but is so "sorry" for the damage caused to the reputation of falsely accused priests. The percentage of those falsely accused is miniscule in comparison to the guilty pedophiles and perverts of your cult. Had you creeps never performed the innumerable, disgusting crimes against innocence, then there would have been a much less chance of any of the fewer, fraudulent cases against your priests. Your priorities ought to be, as Fr. Excuser said, "It is, therefore, imperative that we all judiciously discern, decisively act and openly speak in the interests of truth, justice and charity [love]." Let us know when you disingenuous hypocrites are ready to take that first step. servant of the True God
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 1210AM:
Here JR reminds commenter Valladares of the existence of a mere “2 lawsuits about false claims against priests by SNAP”, and that’s after all those years of SNAP’s activities.
First, I recall only the recent St. Louis lawsuit as being such a lawsuit; the Chicago lawsuit – if JR included it in his “2” here – is actually about something else, i.e. SNAP being an indentured and remunerated tool of the torties.
Second, and as I have said above, in a time of Stampede when it was strong, there would have been substantial obstructions dissuading a falsely-accused priest or any counsel he might consult from bringing such a lawsuit.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1210AM:
Nor – from anything I can discern – would the organizational Church have supported a priest in such an undertaking; indeed, many times either the Church refused to help the priest defend himself or the torties slyly brought the lawsuit against the Church as Party Defendant, thus doing a legal end-run against any individual accused priest who might wish to fight the allegations, and thus the Church and its Insurers merely settled the lawsuits ‘over the accused priest’s head’ as it were (and precisely as the torties had strategized).
The plausibility of false-accusations – indeed the probability of such – has always been there, conceptually speaking. And now it appears that that probability is demonstrably increasing, given the lawsuits and the behavior of the SNAP leadership.
As for JR clucking remonstratively about “painting with a broad brush” … readers in need of a chuckle are welcome to consider it as they may.
Your problem, not mine /ours, if you have false allegations. You have proof of none.
In regard to the comment by ‘Mark Taylor’ (the 6th at 142AM), I would invite him to review my comments of the 2nd at 1057AM two threads back, comments on the article entitled “Lawsuit by ex-SNAP Insider” in regard to the just-published book The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, by Johnson and Taylor. I can earnestly recommend the book itself as well.
While it may have long seemed counter-intuitive that in the matter of sex-crime allegations and accusations there was insufficient due-process accorded to the accused or greatly skewed media coverage of the cases, yet the authors demonstrate (and with extensive references and documentation) the breadth and depth of such profound legal and media derangement as is currently flourishing and expanding in the college/university realm.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Mark Taylor’ comment of the 6th at 142AM:
I had made the point that to anyone familiar with the Stampede (now 30 or more years old) almost none of the derangements they so carefully describe would be unfamiliar.
That “clueless” epithet to which MT says he was subjected is par for the course: if you don’t buy into the entire shadow world of presumptions that are required to fuel this derangement, then you are quickly dismissed with that epithet by those ‘true-believers’ (who actually are interested not in any actual truth, but only in the ‘truth’ of their presumptions).
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Mark Taylor’ comment of the 6th at 142AM:
Actually, one might as fruitfully try to reason with such ‘true-believers’ as one might stop Mao’s cadres of Red Guards on the street while they were on a roll and try to reason with them as to the validity of their presumptions.
Love Mao. Loved the Red Guards and loathe you because they were truthful about what they wanted and why they wanted it. You are never truthful about victims. Absolutely never.
In his response (the 6th at 554PM) to ‘Kick It Down The Road’s comment of the 6th at 1200PM, JR goes on again with the mere repetition of his bit about SNAP being not only a tool of the Church but now “SNAP’s the church”.
We can take that merely on JR’s authority because a) he is “sincere” about what he doth “know to be true” and because b) he doth “judge people by their actions” and c) because – had you been waittttinggg forrrr ittttt? – “how else would you explain it” (i.e. SNAP’s existence and actions).
SNAP in its post-Anderson/Blaine phase since 1988 can easily be explained as being a front for the torties, doing the work that the torties couldn’t do (i.e. funneling prospective allegants for lawsuits and making the occasional PR statements to keep the narrative on track and The Ball Rolling). Which is pretty much the case that the Chicago Complaint makes, with supportive documentation.
JR’s Church-tool cartoon requires – not to put too fine a point on it – presuming a) that all the major players were tools of the Church and further that b) the Church created SNAP and the torties (and whomever else JR has to shoehorn into his cartoon) in order to save itself money, in which case JR then has explain-away the 3 billion dollars in settlements and so on … which he attempts to do by claiming c) that actually there are myriads more ‘victims’ out there who have yet to exercise his much-man strength and courage by joining in a lawsuit; so the Church was/is actually liable for billions or tens of billions more; so that – he would have it – doth indeed ‘prove’ that the Church ran SNAP and everyone else just to save itself those extra dozens of billions. Such logic.
Readers can judge as they will.
On the 6th at 717PM ‘Dan’ will now evade another of his failures by claiming that he (or He) – God’s speshull deputy dawg and reliably authoritative font of much wisdom in things scriptural – merely “overlooked” the relevance of commenter ‘Kirk’s (the 4th, 1005PM) clear reference to “GNB”. It apparently isn’t in ‘Dan’s wisdom database that there is a version of the Bible known as the Good New Bible.
Then – with a pitch-perfectly insouciant and oblivious marvelousness – ‘Dan’ suggests that the pericope “Some people ruin themselves by their own stupid actions” might be applicable to – had you been waitttinggg forr ittttt? – the various demons that populate ‘Dan’s cartoon of Catholicism. For somebody who has been before a judge and psychiatrists six times – by his own report – on the basis of what “hundreds” of people have complained about … you’d think somebody with that unhappy record might consider the applicability of self-ruin through his own “stupid actions” to himself. But not ‘Dan’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 717PM:
‘Dan’, of course, doesn’t “rage against the Lord” but rather – neatly – rages against all the churches and religions, with – for the convenience of the present circumstances of his commenting on this site – Catholicism being the current on-duty target for his scheduled rants.
He doesn’t “rage against the Lord” because his entire game is to claim the authority of the Lord (and thus also the Lord’s immunity to doubt, question, or criticism). Thus while atheists deny God and many who don’t want to face their problems and self-ruin “rage against” God, ‘Dan’ will slyly impersonate God and masquerade as God (‘Dan’ and God being for all practical purposes equivalent, if not one and the same, since to question ‘Dan’ is to “mock God” and so on).
And ‘Dan’ perhaps might want to specify to just which version of the Ten Commandments he is referring: Exodus 20, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5 … ?
He doesn’t quote the Catholic doctrine that he claims doth “remove the 2nd Commandment of Moses from God” and that’s no surprise; he doesn’t quote it because he can’t because it doesn’t exist in actuality; it only exists in ‘Dan’s preferred cartoon.
Time to take on "two dodo birds with one pebble". Mark Taylor, If questioning one's intellegence or how "cleaver" he is, it might be wise to know how to spell it. Do all you catholic cronies get paid to brown nose publyin'.
In regards to the 10 commandments of the catholic church; Spattered all over the internet, I was able to find lists of the catholic 10 commandments. 1) I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve. 2) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. I learned the same list in catechism at 7 yrs. old. My 89 year old, catholic, rosary praying mother, corrected me last year when I told her of the 2nd commandment in regards to bowing down to graven images, she said, "No, the 2nd commandment is not to take the name of the Lord your God in vain."
So Mr. Know-It-All and mini-Mark, You may want to look at and live the Bible, instead of being brainwashed by your churches false teachings and catechism. And it wouldn't matter to me if you go by the Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 version of the 10. Don't try to play games with me; You know no. 2 says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. "You shall NOT BOW DOWN to them or serve them ….." [ESV] Ex 20:4-5
So if you dodo birds insist on bowing down and serving your Queen of Heaven (Mary), your popes and all your statues and icons, well so be it, but make sure you know the consequences from the Lord's Word regarding your idolatry. Try reading the complete 2nd commandment. And p-brain, I fail to see the 1st commandment being, "You shall MOCK the Lord your God." So best to you with your insolent and hardened heartlessness, LYIN" MOCKER. servant of Christ
And on the 6th at 732PM ‘Dan’ tries to evade his problem with churches, church-goers and church religion generally by lumping all of them together as – had you been waitttingggggg forrr ittttt? – “lying, demon possessed church hypocrites from any religion”. (That would be, among others, anyone who thinks he is not God’s speshull deputy dawg but rather consider him to be not at all well.)
But apparently even he realizes that this bit makes him look more than a bit outré, so he quickly tries to salvage it with a sly bit of what – alas – remains conceptual incoherence: he has “no problems with good people that have been brainwashed by these same false religions” (that bit would, apparently, mean all religions).
So … if they are “good people” (meaning: if they will accept ‘Dan’s speshull-ness as divinely directed) then they can remain in their “false religions” with his tolerant approval. Otherwise, they will wind up on his rather extensive theological hit list (just as JR will – if one does not make room for his downright awesomeness – put one on his ever-expanding Church-tool hit list).
Two peas from the same poisonous pod.
LOL! Well your little anti-Church conspiracy is very different than mine. You won't ever admit the church was the problem. The entire media is part of a conspiracy against the church according to you. Did the media transfer Gaghan or did Cardinal Law?
Who am I poisoning Pliar? SNAP? Thought you wanted it dead? The church as a sex abuse cover-up racket?That's what everyone but you, sadly, know they are. Any moral person would want, I hope, to end sexual abuse. Everyone but you, it seems.Your stampede? You want that ended right?
Look let's put both our conspiracies in front of the public and let them both be investigated thoroughly and see what happens. Surely there must be some neutral media who would look at what we have to say. Do you have any connections to such media? Let's demo together somewhere and have a joint press conference.
Here's the creator of SNAP for the church. Still covering up his actions Still playing as the last and only authority for the church and how wrong it is and was to molest children.
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.smh.com.au/national/father-thomas-doyle-tells-royal-commission-vatican-failed-sex-abuse-victims-20170206-gu6zs7.html
Sorry I'll get the right link. http://www.smh.com.au/national/father-thomas-doyle-tells-royal-commission-vatican-failed-sex-abuse-victims-20170206-gu6zs7.html
Thanks for the link, Jim. All I hear from the whole corrupt bunch of hypocrites, from the pope on down through all of the hierarchy, is lip service, excuses or denials (card. pell), whenever they're cornered. They are the most deceiving, lying group of hypocrites I've ever run into. They try to tell you whatever you need to hear, hoping you'll just go away, and in time it will all be forgotten, and the cult's wonderful name still remains intact. This is such a repetitive agenda and mode of operation, widespread throughout the world, that it must be taught in the darkness of their seminaries, monasteries, private offices, skeleton rooms and churches. I think there's a few in this forum, that have extensive teaching in this fraud, with peewee as their most obvious leader. They think they're clever enough to fool others, while hiding in the darkness, but the only ones deceived are themselves. One bunch of lying pedophile creeps.
I would appreciate your not putting words in my mouth, even though you seem to have no problem in lying to slander another. I do not give any "tolerant approval" to anyone remaining in their "false religion", and especially yours, one of the most evil, deceiving and immoral cults. My hope is that they'll wake up, come to the light and escape with their soul. servant
All SNAP says is that it's wrong to molest children. DUH! Really?
It never says It's majorly important to help the people already molested, the people the say they represent.