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":
Which of my 2 last statements serves the church more financially? Someone yelling that you are molesters or someone who demands you compensate your victims? I'll wait.
4500 victims in Australia. Hardly a stampede. Just a lot of abuse. Again almost 80% of the victims were male.
No James, there are claims of 4500 allegations that are mysteriously missing actual humans. You are a victim of a idealistic hyperbolic press preying on your emotions. IOW, their not so subtle attempt at propaganda is working with people like yourself. It does not work with me. Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and their deference to OT law on the subject of due process for the accused is what mandates my thinking on this, and it is also what mandates basic human decency and civil law on the subject: the accused has the right to face his accuser and defend himself. I.WILL.NOT.ACCEPT.ANY.ALLEGATION.AS.FACT. unless this very basic and essential precept is met. Only if you put an actual face with each and every one of those 4500 and show that their accusations have been proven to be true in the presence of their accused will I regard them as "victims"
We have a number of one-liners and a few longer comments in the current Abusenik crop. I will skip those one-liners that are clearly and merely myah-myah bits and focus on those that offer some (somehow) useful material.
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 809PM:
While he claims to be doing “just the opposite” of the White quotation’s dynamic, JR is actually trying to change the subject (the better to fit into his SNAP cartoon): SNAP is “’defending’ victims when they are really attacking them”.
That may well be, since SNAP after its 1988 indenture to the torties was operating as a front for the torties under the guise of helping or speaking-for ‘victims’. So far so OK.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 809PM:
But then the cartoon requires more iffy assertions.
If SNAP – as seems very highly probable – was merely fronting for the torties, then in what way, really, were ‘victims’ “kept undercover”? Were they ‘ignored’? They – whoever that ‘they’ might have been – could have started up some alternative organization; the age of the website arrived in the mid-1990s, now 20 years ago.
Nor is his next excuse any better: he implies that had ‘victims’ been ‘asked’ “politely and come forward to be questioned by you” (who is this “you” here?) then all would have been well. These ‘victims’ were making legal accusations in a public forum and in many cases had gone to torties to participate in formal lawsuit proceedings. They were not in the ‘therapeutic’ or ‘conversational/interpersonal’ forum at that point; they had taken themselves into the adversarial legal and public forum.
But the classic Stampede gambit was this: tell your stories (and claims and allegations) as if you were in the ‘therapeutic’ or ‘conversational/interpersonal’ forum so as to prey on the listeners’ or readers’ or viewers’ interpersonal sympathies. In that forum, of course, close and precise and skeptical adversarial questioning or even fact-findy questioning is not going to happen. And thus the stories multiplied and grew in the tellings. Meanwhile, the lawsuits would proceed, surfing the surge wave of sympathy to derail any proper questioning and examination. Sly and neat. Much money flowed from this gambit.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 809PM:
The media went along with this sleight of hand, this trick. ‘Victims’ were given a platform for their bits, while nobody was allowed to question them (it would be ‘insensitive’, doncha see?).
JR then tries another run: it’s merely any listerner’s or hearer’s or viewer’s “choice” as to whether to believe the stories (and claims and allegations) or not. To repeat from when this point was last discussed on this site: No it isn’t merely a “choice”. For anybody looking for truth, one has to go where the truth – or in the lack of direct evidence, the plausibility and probability – indicate. One has little if any “choice” in the matter, and certainly not in the same way as one might make a “choice” between vanilla and mint chocolate chip or between tomato and tomahto.
But this bit neatly enables JR to solve the profound credibility problems and illogic with his bit here: he (or, if you want to follow his script, “we” ‘victims’) really “don’t care anymore” (a reach for the victim-y or re-victimized high ground that we’ve seen before on this thread) and since they “don’t care anymore” then – tah dahhhhhhhh! – they don’t have to deal with it or resolve the problems with their proffered material.
We don't have to deal with you at all. P. You have no power to do anything at all in this scandal except what you are doing right here at TMR. You bitch, and that's all you can do. You are not the church. You were not sexually abused by a priest. You are not an insurance company. What you are is a person who just denies everything in this scandal as true. Everything but your little conspiracy theory. It's only here, that you can team up with a very few other outraged Catholics who also can do nothing but bitch and pretend with literally no evidence at all that you are the "true" victims and that we who were harmed by your church are the "real" oppressors in all of this. P, We who could sue and have been compensated have resolved any problems with our "proffered material". We won. And you and your team of liars weren't even invited to sit at the table. Awwww! Poor uninvited widdle you.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 809PM:
And he concludes by trying to evade and wish-away his own swag, which – regular readers will recall – was the result of a highly-strategized 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit in California a decade ago that no defense or Insurer counsel would have advised could ever be fought out in open court under the Stampede conditions then obtaining, especially in that venue.
It was merely “pure damned luck” he tries to claim as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. Not in the least; it was a highly-strategized and long-standing tortie gambit specifically designed to achieve the outcome it achieved without having to risk its plaintiffs’ being examined under oath and under adversarial conditions in open court.
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 821PM:
“How would the torties be sucked down by” SNAP’s sinking? If in the process of pursuing the Chicago lawsuit the torties can directly be connected to the exchange of money for plaintiffs – as the lawsuit purports – then some torties, especially the big ‘donors’ to SNAP, can be in significant professional and legal trouble.
“Where’s the proof there was tit for tat?” If the documents referenced in the Chicago lawsuit are determined to be accurate, and if emails or other communications are discovered that discuss such an exchange or implementation of such a strategy, then the proof would extant. That’s why this lawsuit’s progression can only promise more interesting developments.
JR then goes off the point by again bleating the question about SNAP and the torties having “anything to do with victims” and their “needs”. Nobody ever said SNAP and the torties were in it for the allegants, except to the extent that large sums could be extracted from the Church under color of law.
Nor have I claimed that SNAP – certainly not since 1988 – ever did “represent” allegants except in the most manipulative and strategized way, to Keep The Ball Rolling and the allegants turned into plaintiffs for the torties to bring the lawsuits and collect the cash.
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 832PM:
Here JR will get himself off the hook by a riff on the demon theme, insinuating that the Church did ‘act’ “like a demon” and thus he can and will “treat it like a demon” because the Church is simply assuming a “pose of virtue”.
He can assert that, but surely its ‘logic’ recoils right back on him since assuming a “pose of virtue” – Victim-y virtue – is one of his key gambits. And thus – in light of a long-considered and greatly-explicated examination of his material – he is himself treated like a poseur. And he doesn’t like it any more than ‘Dan’ likes it – that’s not how we are supposed to respond to their stuff, according to their scripting of their cartoons.
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 832PM:
He opens with epithet, echoing ‘Dan’s favorite “liar” bit (with no examples, of course) and the “nuts” bit.
That he “did jail time” is a new revelation. But such convenient new bits are nothing new from him.
And then he doth declaim and acknowledge that he is indeed a “star” … oh, and I’m not. Woo woo woo.
Readers may judge for themselves the extent to which JR is a “star” and just what that self-awarded title might indicate about him. His scatological bit is included, of course, just to bolster the iffy material and reinforce his preferred presentation as much-man Tribune of the Victimry.
And he continues to repeat his assertion that there has been “no national political action” in this country. The Stampede, with its voluminous media coverage and the billions in highly-publicized lawsuits … is … what, then?
But what he’s looking for, apparently, is some sort of government-sponsored show such as the Dutch put on (and quickly forgot) and the Irish (ditto) and such as the Australians are presently getting ready to wrap up. Then, I imagine, he could be sitting in front of a congressional committee with his name on a little card in front of him and spew his stuff from that status-soaked platform. What a show that would be.
Oh, and he then doth assert that I “have no overview of this scandal”. Readers may judge the star’s performance and assertion as they will.
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 842PM:
JR doth compliment “Malcolm” and all I would advise ‘Malcolm Harris’ is not to trust JR’s who come bearing gifts.
And here JR will further expand his cartoon about SNAP: Blaine is departing – doncha see? – “because she was always supposed to”; it was “scripted to end this way”. In other words, the Church planned for this lawsuit to happen and SNAP to come apart … all along. This is a 30-plus year plan – doncha see? – now coming to fruition.
One might ask: interesting, but why now? And how would the Church have known 30-plus years ago to end it all just now? Stay tuned for further hasty addenda to the cartoon.
But JR then tries to bring the performance home with what is a eye-popper even for his material: he “must have integrity” – doncha know? – “because [he] has been standing here telling you the truth for 3 years”. What “truth” was that? And how does anyone know it as truth if all we have to go on are JR’s claims and assertions and stories and cartoon-explanations?
Does he imagine that the mere fact of SNAP’s leadership dissolving indicates that the Church has been behind it all for 3-plus decades?
On then to JR’s of the 5th at 847PM:
Here he slyly evades the basic points about my Stampede position: my points are and always have been a) that we don’t know the genuine extent of such malfeasance as there might have been and that b) nothing we have been able to examine on this site establishes the factuality of the assertion that the allegations were largely veracious and thus that the Church was as widely and profoundly guilty of such malfeasance as the Stampede scare-vision script claimed.
I don’t at all deny – to repeat myself – that some amount of malfeasance happened; I just haven’t seen any actual convincing demonstration of the unsupported conclusion that such malfeasance was rampant. (Nor, of course, does the mere reference to the plethora of media ‘reports’ constitute reliable and convincing evidence since the whole point of any stampede agitprop is to make its claims appear valid and its extent seem epidemic.)
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 851PM:
Here he will try to once again dodge the problems with his stuff by claiming that “false allegations” are not the allegants’ problems – or JR’s – but somebody else’s.
If somebody makes a public and false allegation against you, apparently, then it’s not that somebody’s fault, it’s your own. And you will – no doubt – be guilty of attacking that somebody if you try to defend yourself, as T.H. White sagely observed.
More of the Mad Hatter’s tea, anyone?
On then to JR’s of the 6th at 854PM:
Here – and one can only imagine that JR is indulging himself in a bit of adolescent contrariness – JR doth assert – in my face, as one might say – that he himself doth “Love Mao” and “Loved the Red Guards”.
But actually it wouldn’t be nonsensical to imagine him being truthful (and self-revelatory) here.
See – in this pitch-perfect demonstration of JR using his brains, as he likes to say – Mao and the Red Guards were “truthful about what they wanted and why they wanted it”. And that, apparently, makes it all OK, in JR’s playbook.
Perhaps JR holds Mao and the Red Guards as some sort of ideal; if so, he perhaps joins the Church in not living up to his ideals since his own performance in regard to his own abuse story (or stories) and his own dependence on cartoons really doesn’t say much for his truthiness. And the effort to sell his netting of 600K as being mere “luck”, as if he didn’t go into the lawsuit looking for a fat payday, really is too much of a muchness.
I would at this point recall another book, Susan Jacoby’s 2008 book The Age of American Unreason.
Jacoby – rightly, I would say – bemoans the fact that the America of 2008 is not as “judicious” or as concerned for facts as it was four or more decades before. But she blames much of this on “fundamentalism”, a religious phenomenon largely attributed to the political and cultural Right.
But there is, I would say, a ‘fundamentalism’ of the Left. It is the revolutionary dogmatic fundamentalism, as opposed to a religious dogmatic fundamentalism. Mao and the Red Guards were very vivid examples of it.
The revolutionary fundamentalist has no need for ‘facts if they are going to interfere with the narrative of the ever-glowing parousia that will follow upon the necessary but oh-so-exhilarating apocalypse of revolutionary action. Not only do ‘facts’ “not matter” but they are actually dangerous to the narrative script of the revolution.
Continuing with my prior comment:
If there is (from the revolution’s point of view and according to its presumptions) no sufficiently good history or literature, then there is no need to teach it; better to prepare the young with revolutionary indoctrination into the movement’s dogmas; they won’t need to think for themselves since the revolution has already done that for them.
Indeed, we saw even in the 1980s the claim by some strains of feminist such as Catharine MacKinnon the claim that feminist ‘intuition’ was far more valuable than male ‘reason’ and should be made the underpinning of the government and the culture (in her vision of a “feminist theory of the state”).
Thus we have seen in the past decades a country trying to sustain a coherent culture while simultaneously wracking itself – with much political and even government assistance – with a seemingly endless sequence of ‘revolutions’, such as the Feminist (several variants), the Ecological,/Climate, the Secular, the Victimist.
Continuing with my prior comment:
All of them share the dynamics of the revolutionary mindset: facts don’t matter, action matters; and if anyone disagrees with that then they must be neutralized.
Thus our culture, our politics, and – more specifically here – the Abusenik bleating for ‘facts’ when what they really mean is simply and merely their own version of the facts, their preferred narrative.
I never thought even he could do it, but JR here has managed to make Mao and the Red Guards look better than himself; they have more “integrity” (if, of course, you then also ignore the content of their preferred revolutionary ‘truth’).
Don't believe your cult "shares the dynamics of the revolutionary mindset", because it hasn't changed from the disgusting pedophile, immoral, greedy, corrupt, evil Caesars, of the Holy Roman Empire; they just tweeked the name (holy roman catholic cult) and changed leaders names to popes. But the second part of your opening sentence couldn't better describe all you creeps – "facts don't matter [liars], action matters [attack with all kinds of lies] ; and if anyone disagrees with that then they must be neutralized [demean, destroy and attack their credibility]. I know publyin', myah-myah, I'm not/You are, cartoon, Abusenik, Stampede and any other immature, childish ignorance, nonsense and garbage you can spew, fitting tactic previously describing the agenda of you perverts and your cult. servant of the One True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 717AM:
He opens with more of the usual I’m Not/You Are types of epithet.
His beef here is that commenter Valladares did not mention any “compassion” for “the victims”.
First, that was not the point of the Valladares comment, which is a comment on a specific point and not a comprehensive essay on the entire broad topic. Nor was he following tightly the preferred Victimist script, which conveniently conflates nicely with ‘Dan’s personal agenda and script, of course.
Second – and to repeat yet again – we really don’t know how many genuine victims there were, a point beyond which –of course – the Abusenik scripting would like us to move us as quickly as possible.
Naturally of course, you can only have one set of ‘victims’ in a classic revolutionary Good vs. Evil script, and ditto in a cartoon. Thus ‘Dan’ clutches his pearls at the thought that priests might have been victimized by the Stampede. (As the Bolshevik wisdom had it, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, and eggs by their very nature are there to be broken – in the service of whomping up the revolutionary omelet.)
Well of course, the point is to avoid mentioning the victims, coming clean or compensating them for the pain they had to endure. Let's just cry about our few priests that were falsely accused and make sure we keep that at the forefront, so maybe the masses will feel "sorry" for us, keep donating their hard earned cash, and completely forget about our sexual perversions and lust for little, young boys.
And by the way, isn't Fr. Excuser able to answer for himself, or are you the lying mouthpiece to take over, when they realize their denials, excuses and lies aren't working. The church ought to pull your plug, because all you've done is give me all the more reason to dispute your horrible deceptions, and now I may never stop divulging your cults hypocrisies and lies.
Yours Truly, servant of the Almighty
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 717AM:
But this bit also requires even further cartoon scripting in order to support it: thus ‘Dan’s utterly unsupported assertion that “the percentage of those falsely accused is miniscule”. This same type of airy dismissal of false allegations is treated at length in the book I earlier recommended, The Campus Rape Frenzy, where the probability of such allegations is reinforced with significant examples.
And the rest of the comment trails off into a riff that (but of course) presumes all the presumptions of the cartoon that themselves are not ever demonstrated to have any credible probability at all.
While simultaneously trying to go for the point that if there hadn’t been so many (presumed) abuses, then there wouldn’t be so many false allegations of abuse. Such logic.
Oh! And yes, just as one would presume would come from the mouth of a lying, excuser and denier of any truth, more of the same garbage. Maybe you should try composting some of that manure, although it's mostly hazardous waste. And you're under the impression that all of your ignorance and nonsense is logic. Maybe to the "LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND". servant
The Royal Commission in Australia came about due to a deal between the two left-wing political parties. One of these parties was in government (Labor) and they needed the support of the other party (the Greens) to stay in power. The then Prime Minister went on T.V. and justified the Royal Commission on the basis of alarming claims by a Detective Fox. A judicial enquiry was immediately launched by the state government. It found that the outspoken accuser (Fox) had given false evidence under oath, and he had no new evidence. But the Royal Commission still rolled on, because of the deal with the Greens. The rest is explained by a culture war, between the aggressive sucularists and the Church. And throw in media sensationalism, and greed… plus a deranged legal system. Meaning no evidence was needed when accusing a Catholic priest.
Well Malcolm, if it brings justice to the victims, then the RC will have done a lot of good.
Hey mini-p, You're doing a pretty good job following in the footsteps of your mentor, publyin'. You'll have to do better job if you wish Knighthood of Perverts, and have to throw in a few more denials, excuses and let's not forget a plethora of blatant lies. I did though enjoy the typical, blame the media, the deranged legal system and especially the "sucularists". Is that another word for the pedophiles and perverts of your cult. Please stop the nonsense! servant
Moving along then.
On the 7th at 1028AM JR claims that I “won’t ever admit the church was the problem”. He can read my comment of the 7th at 253PM, which actually repeats points I have put up previously on this site.
Nor have I ever used the word “conspiracy”. I have always used the word “synergy” and this is hardly the first time this bit has come up on this site. If JR hasn’t yet educated himself into the difference between those two terms, then he reveals how little facts matter to him; if he has educated himself into the difference and yet has put this bit up anyway, then he reveals how little facts matter to him.
On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1107AM:
Here he comments on my comment of the 6th at 341PM. In that comment I limned some of the major elements that synergized to form the matrix of the Stampede.
JR now tries to somehow shoehorn that into the service of his cartoons by claiming that I said that this and that group “need “fixing”” – using double quotation-marks on “fixing”, which – if he knows what he’s doing grammatically and stylistically – would indicate that I had actually used the term “fixing” in my text. Which I did not.
My point was to limn the elements that were synergizing, not to assert anything about what those elements did or did not “need”.
And he adds groups and elements I didn’t mention at all. Which bit is no doubt designed to bolster his fantasized status as Tribune of All the Victimry and All the Oppressed … or some such.
His civics lesson riff on democracy and so on can be perused by any reader so inclined.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1107AM:
And then – yet again – he displays his actual level of mental operation: he implies that I “dislike” what I have called “dogmatic Victimism”. I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that dogmatic Victimism played a role and had consequences that have yet to be examined. Like or dislike doesn’t enter into it. Consequences are the key to it, and should have been considered more carefully long before dogmatic Victimism was embraced.
But this is simply JR’s version of the old Victimist Playbook gambit: if you insist on thinking about some X and its consequences, instead of simply accepting it as it is bruited and claimed, then you must “dislike” X and you must be part of the problem and need to shut up.
As for the Church’s alleged “rush to be ‘top of a victimist pile”: a) the Stampede had been going on for quite a while before this website was started up and b) the site is not an official Church website. It’s just DP’s articles and a bunch of commenters.
And then he raises yet again the irrelevant point about Insurer’s paying some of the settlement amounts: what difference does it make? If the insurance pays, then the premiums that the Church has to pay will go up accordingly. Or is JR not familiar with the concept and operational dynamics of insurance?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 106PM:
Here ‘Dan’ puffs up his pinfeathers and huffs that I have been “putting words in [his] mouth”. No, had I done so I would have used quotation marks. I characterized his stance as “tolerant approval” and I can’t see any inaccuracy in that characterization, even after ‘Dan’ merely explains his stance with a bit more specificity.
We can leave him to his “hope” and good luck with that.
Are you still having those problems with your reading comprehension skills? I don't possess some "tolerant approval" for anyone brainwashed by false religions or cults. My call is to expose the hypocrisies of such, in hopes that their followers will awaken and leave the deceiving works of Satan, obviously present in all manmade religions. What is it that I gain? I have no church and am not asking that you join my church. I'm in no need of anyone's money, so I'm not asking for tithes, donations, gifts or offerings. Don't have books, DVD's, cd's, statues, rosaries or any icons for sale. All I ask is that others might read the Bible, come to know the truth of the real God and Savior, and inheret everlasting life. Apparently that's some crime according to the lost hypocrites of the world. Shame on you, for I know I dwell in that secret place of God's love, faith and "hope". You have a problem with that, "sorry", not my problem.
On then to JR’s of the 7th at 239PM:
Apparently the Australian Commission had issued its Report. Reading the evening papers I have before me the article entitled “Australia Panel Cites Church Failings on Abuse Claims”, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal print edition of Tuesday the 7th on page A-7, under the by-line of Rob Taylor. (‘Malcolm Harris also comments on it on this thread on the 7th at 739PM.)
Having read what was extant as the Dutch Abuse Report of half a decade ago came out (although not its actual text, which was never to my knowledge translated into English nor did it come out fully in Dutch either), I read the WSJ article to see what might be gleaned or revealed.
Continuing with my comment on the WSJ article about the Australian Report:
And what do we get?
Careful readers will quickly note the following:
The article begins by saying that the “judicial inquiry investigation … has been told that … ”. This is red-flaggy odd. This inquiry has been going on for five years and yet the most that we get from it is not what it has actually discovered but merely what it “has been told”. And who “told” it to the Commission?
And what has it been told? That “up to 7% of priests might have been pedophiles”. Immediately one notes the weasel phrase “up to”. Who came up with this figure? How was it reached? And one notes that term “pedophiles”: is it meant to be taken in the specific clinical sense or in the popular (we might say ‘Abusenik’) sense? And one notes also that weasel subjunctive: “might have been”. Or maybe might not have been … who knows? Apparently not the Commission. Not even after five years of “investigation”.
And the final session was attended not by a Church prelate but rather by some layman. Why not a prelate? Did the Commission not discover enough to force some ranking prelate to attend?
To attend and make what appears to be simply a Maoist Cultural Revolution general admission of failures and errors, although unlike the Red Guards, the confessing individual was not made to wear a dunce cap. Good on ye, Commissioners!
Continuing with my comment on the WSJ article about the Australian Report:
The Commission “heard” that “4,444 people had made abuse allegations” in the 35 years between 1980 and 2015. Well, that’s not quite the 12,000 allegants that the first Jay Report tallied up for the U.S. a dozen or more years ago. And readers, especially regular readers of this site, may quickly recognize that “allegations” are easy to make.
And as the article goes on it turns out that this Catholic layman is actually himself a member of the Commission.
Nor is there anything further as to the analysis and assessment of the veracity of the “allegations”. After five years of investigation.
America has a wee bit larger population than Australia. 325 million vs. 23 million.
Continuing with my comment on the WSJ article about the Australian Report:
And the article goes on then to note that this layman – one Francis Sullivan – in his “testimony” went and “revealed for the first time” … after five years, he reveals this “for the first time”? And he was a member of the Commission for all that time?
And what did his “testimony” then “reveal”? Nothing but “the extent of the abuse accusations made against the Church”. That “extent” should have been known by the Commission early on. By this time one would expect the Commission to have done some ‘investigating’. But apparently not. Or perhaps it investigated and didn’t find anything useful that it could report.
Continuing with my comment on the WSJ article about the Australian Report:
There were “figures given to the judicial panel”. By whom? How were the figures arrived-at?
Then this queasily thin Report is bolstered by a bit that mentions Pope Francis, who “has previously estimated that around 2% of priests world-wide may have committed abuses”. I have italicized the bits that are red-flags and weasel usages. By the time you get through making subtractions for the ‘estimates’ and that “around” and the subjunctive and the ever-fungible term “abuses”, what’s left, really?
And the article says that “on Monday the inquiry heard that … “ What is this? Did the Commission spend five years just sitting around waiting for people to ‘tell’ it stuff … which it then accepted without further assessment or – not to put too fine a point on it – “inquiry”?
Continuing with my comment on the WSJ article about the Australian Report:
And as it works up to a finale, the article relates the statement by “the senior counsel to the inquiry” (an attorney, one is led to imagine) to the effect that she heard “harrowing” “accounts” by “victims”. If she hadn’t investigated them, how legitimately call them “victims”? And it’s not hard to work up “harrowing accounts” when you put your mind to it, especially if assisted by eager ‘advocates’ – we’ve seen that here.
This counsel then apparently tried the now-familiar gambit: “Secrecy prevailed, as did cover-ups”, she said. Well, with the investigative authority of a Royal Commission and five tax-funded years, could nothing be accomplished in terms of breaking through the secrecy, investigating the allegations, and/or cracking the cover-ups and prosecuting those covering-up? Are we to imagine that all that authority and all that time proved utterly incapable of discovering anything? Except to toss out some vague and general accusations as the curtain is rung down?
Or maybe there was so little to discover in the first place, once you looked closely.
So ironic that you throw out volumes of wasted words, in some weak attempt to claim most allegations against priests are false and must be lies, and yet have no problem with your own false allegations and piss-poor assessments of others. Disingenuous, mocking, lying creep, and I believe you're aware of that. servant
And on the 7th at 540PM ‘Dan’ weighs in and assures “Jim” that the chief cook and bottle-washer of the Church of Dan in the Bathroom Mirror is surely not fooled.
And he certainly is stuck on “lying pedophile creeps” … but I don’t think that’s any surprise.
"he certainly is stuck on 'lying pedophile creeps'." Only because your cult is full of "lying pedophile creeps", of which you at least qualify for 2/3 of that description. Appreciate your new mocking statement against the Lord God. I'd imagine He's well impressed with your garbage, too. servant
Well Well Well, Democracy and the people mean nothing to you two. Theocracy reigns supreme? The people can not and evidently will not be moral without "God" and I'm just guessing here but more specifically, your "God"?
You two are the tail end of medieval thought. Superstition and magic and myth = fact to you and personal testimony of crimes committed privately equate to lies.(Is that in all circumstances? i.e. if your child were sexually raped or abused would you believe them? Or just everybody else is a liar but your own family member.) Your wall is built. You retreat behind it and shout out that the people will what? Rue the day they abandoned your version of "God". That's the core of your "thinking", isn't it?
Seems like Dan is now wearing pearls according to P. P has this tremendous need to see his enemies in imaginary jewels and outfits. Could that be a way of de-masculinizing your enemies?
P your clergy wear jewels and "outfits" all the time. That's no problem for you? Or are you so Be-dazzled by it you see sparkly men everywhere?
Articles of faith do not demand proof. If they did, it can no longer be called faith.
Accusations do require proof. Otherwise, they are merely accusations that can and do morph into hyberbolic rumor.
Again, women, victims, the disobedient, anybody, and everybody but men and the church are the real problem with society. Seems like only obedient men and the church are the only people who matter and have a direct link to the all male and perfect Trinity. This is exactly the thinking that has left you alone and your churches empty. But that's everbody else's fault and their bad thoughts. Your's is perfecto.
are. not "is" in my last sentence.
Just saw Dan's condersending remark of February 8, 2017 at 4:33 am. How dare that scumbag be so insulting? Okay, I misspelt "Clever". That much I'll admit.But stop trying to make me think The Catholic Church is not the Church that God created because it is. The Catholic Church behaves badly because they are sinners. Just like everyone who goes crook at them. Including you.
‘Dan’ reveals an interesting gambit in his comment of the 8th at 1151AM: he tries to cash in on the stratagem of not having a church.
For whatever reasons (and they must be whoppers) ‘Dan’ realized quite a while back that he wasn’t going to be able to sustain any organized religious participation or church membership.
His solution was to declare himself (or Himself) to be God’s Speshull Deputy Dawg, which – by amazing coincidence – was a strategy that would therefore do an end run around the church-religion membership problem since if God is sending you your very own Official Faxes From The Beyond, then you wouldn’t need any such membership in the first place.
"Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked [hypocrites and pedophiles] or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers [peewee]." Ps. 1:1 (NIV)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1151AM:
Which – of course – meant that ‘Dan’ not only needed i) to have a ‘truth’ that could keep his own head from exploding but also needed ii) to get back at ‘normal’ folks by demanding that they too accept his ‘truth’ and his own status as divinely-instructed truth-teller. Under pain – of course – of doubting or questioning or denying or mocking the ‘God’ who had officially deputized ‘Dan’ to do all that exposing.
All in all it’s a neat if hardly unique psychic economy and – what the hey? – it’s a gig.
And not having a ‘church’ organization, except whatever is in his own head and in his bathroom mirror, then ‘Dan’ is well-placed for going after just about any organized church or religion for just about any of the frailties and complications that bethump humanity whenever it gets itself together to do something.
Thus he has “no need of anyone’s money” nor does he offer religious stuff for sale. Nor does he have any associates or subordinates whose behavior might fail the ideal. (Although I doubt there are many clergy who have amassed as many run-ins with police, courts and psychiatry as has ‘Dan’.)
And followed up with, you guessed it, more mocking, yet too ignorant to realize he's doing it.
p whimpers; "going after just about any organized church or religion for just about any of the frailties and complications that bethump humanity" Not true – I particularly go after those with heinous sins and crimes, like insistent pedophiles, perverts, idolators, creeps, excusers, greedy, enablers and hypocrites claiming their church is the One True Church (cults).
Funny that the very crimes, threats, lies and behavior that they falsely accused me of, the clergy, a catholic corrupt cop and their cronies were actually guilty of. I'm just not the crybaby, tattle tale, lying creep that you and they turn out to be. I wait on a just God for my revenge and vindication. servant of the One True God, and you might want to get used to it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1151AM:
But he has an angle in all of this and it’s a doozy: “all” he doth “ask” is that people accept his version of the ‘truth’. And his interpretations of the Bible. And his ‘exposings’.
And if not, well then ‘Dan’ has a very large pile of epithetical 3x5s which he will proceed to unload, with gusto upon such (fill in the blank) doubters, questioners, unbelievers, mockers and so on and so forth.
And beyond ‘Dan’s own epithetical efforts there is also the Big Threat: God’ll getcha for not according ‘Dan’ the respect and immunity from question and doubt that is due so lofty a personage as God’s Very Own Speshull Deputy Dawg – who also, we are now informed, doth “dwell in that secret place of God’s love and faith and hope”.
The basis of ‘Dan’s status and authority – doncha see? – is “secret” so he can’t show us the files of the Faxes. How positively church-y of him.
Nothiing worse than a God mocking fool, unless it's one of your pedophiles.
On then to JR’s (the 8th at 108PM) where he tries to evade the primary point with his statistical observation that the population of the US is larger than that of Australia.
So it is. But the point was that allegations can easily be made; the Stampede problem is that so very few of them seem to stand up when examined, and so very few of them have actually been examined adversarially and in the sustained process of open court or serious media reporting.
But that perhaps shouldn’t be surprising. After all, look at the response we get when we try to assess and analyze and question in as informal a forum as this site.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1201PM:
Mostly epithetical, in an attempt to slide in my “claim” that “most allegations against priests are false and must be lies”. He proffers no quotation of mine because no such claim of mine exists. I have pointed out only that a) we have not seen any claims that hold up and that b) very few claims have been given careful and sustained examination and that c) there are a significant number of substantial elements that establish the possibility and even probability of numerous false allegations.
Beyond that I have made no such claim as ‘Dan’ needs to claim that I have made, which he needs to do for the purposes of own keeping his own cartoon in play – at least in his own mind.
And now we have the mocking imbicile stating that I proffer no quotation of his because none exist to his claiming that "most allegations against priests are false and must be lies." In the very next sentence by the idiot he states that, "we have not seen any claims that hold up" and there's some "probability of numerous false allegations." I have many times stated claims that do hold up and there have been few false allegations, in comparison to valid ones. Does he think were all stupid, or only catholic, brainwashed sheep, that they have been bamboozling for centuries. Don't allow these wicked wolves in sheep's clothing to fool you. They'll deceive and lie to your face, while laughing behind your back. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1201PM:
But Wait. There’s more.
‘Dan’ will also take this opportunity that he has created for himself in the comment in order to take a dig at my own “false allegation and piss-poor assessments of others”. In ‘Dan’-speak, that “others”, of course, means himself (or Himself).
The assessments I have made about ‘Dan’s material and strategies come from his own material and have been explained often and at length. And to repeat: the fact that the revelatory actualities inherent in his material were invisible to him simply indicates the depth of his own self-delusion. Not my problem. Should be his, though – but if he admitted that his head would explode.
Couple quotes of your ignorance today – 1) " 'Dan' realized quite a while back that he wasn't going to be able to sustain any organized religious participation or church membership." 2) Pointing out your "own 'false allegation[s] and piss-poor assessments of others'. In 'Dan'- speak, that 'others', of course, means himself (or Himself)." 3) "neither the Stampede nor 'Dan' have ever established" that your cult is full of "lying pedophile creeps"
You think you must insist that I'm some lone ranger, so that's some kind of proof that I'm wrong. You think because you belong to a major religion that that somehow means you're right. If this were true, I'd rather be 'An Army of One', than connected to a cult with leaders that are pedophiles, perverts, liars, idolators and their deniers or excusers. There's no need for us to establish these facts, they are already proven by the known perverted actions of your cult.
May I again refer you to Romans 1: 18-27 Describing your cult to a tee. Idol worshippers, having filthy thoughts making them do shameful things with their bodies, giving up the truth for a lie, women having sex with women, men with men, doing all sorts of indecent things. How much worse the punishment for you creeps raping little innocent boys? Oh! Yeah! And then denying and lying about it. Looking forward to your Judgment Day. servant
‘Dan’ (the 8th at 235PM) tries to evade his consistent and insistent focus on “lying pedophile creeps” by claiming that that’s only because the Church is full of such types, although that is precisely the point which neither the Stampede nor ‘Dan’ have ever established; all they proffer are assertions, scare-visions, and the rest of the Abusenik panoply of stampede-inducing manipulations.
An alternative explanation – for which significant material exists in his own telling – is that the reasons for ‘Dan’s insistent and consistent focus lie far closer to home. But that’s his problem and not mine and enough said about that.
On then to JR’s of the 8th at 340PM:
Faced with substantive material, JR again reverts to form and tries to evade it by creating some other, more congenial position with which he can more conveniently take issue.
Thus he will attempt here to mutate my observation that readers may take his riff on politics and democracy as they will into a claim by me that “democracy and the people mean nothing to” me.
Which wasn’t my statement at all. JR’s riffs mean little to me, but that is based on the fact that I do take “democracy” and “the people” quite seriously, far too seriously indeed to waste too much time in an extended (and distracting) exchange with the likes of JR on such important subjects.
It’s enough to stick close to the focus of this site, about which JR’s material does offer some useful opportunity to better comprehend the dynamics of the Stampede.
"The likes of JR" Ha Ha Ha Ha! "The likes of" Love it!
Hey ever read any Jesus? Something about Loving your neighbor as you love yourself?
Wow! Wowee Wow!
Just wanted to share this. https://www.facebook.com/theskepdick/photos/a.1456029314648168.1073741827.1456027077981725/1801146936803069/?type=3&theater
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 340PM:
And in that regard, JR then in his second paragraph tries to go for the Victim-y high-ground by claiming that I “equate” (all?) allegations with “lies”. I have never used the term “lies” (in contrast to the local Abuseniks for whom the term is a standard epithetical and distracting usage). I have pointed out general and specific problems with allegations and accusations made under the aegis of the Stampede and beyond that I have left it to readers to consider as they will.
But that’s not enough to keep JR’s cartoon(s) in business, so he has to conflate and inflate and create in order to have something at all to go on about.
And my comment here will also then cover JR’s further efforts along those lines in his comment of the 8th at 349PM.
Sorry about that, Mark. I get no joy out of correcting commenter's spelling, grammatical errors or typos and you might be the 1st, unlike publyin' has done to many who oppose him, but not his catholic cohorts. Wasn't wild about your praising p for his "good response to Dan's rubbish". Sorry, but my telling the truth about an apostate church is far from anything close to "rubbish". If you think I'm a "scumbag", then what is it you consider repeat offenders of pedophilia and their lying excusers, just "sinners". You might want to take a look at First Corinthians, chapter 5, and understand how God and true Christians should treat sexual immorality. It says to remove them and don't even eat with them. So members of your hierarchy, commit some of the most heinous sexual acts with young, innocent children, and your church leaders simply shuffle them to other churches, schools and orphanages, and you respond with they're just "sinners[?] Just like everyone who [tries to help and correct] them. Including you." Now I don't know what kind of "sinner" you are, but my sins are nothing close to the sins of perversion, pedophilia, lying, excusing and enabling, like that which has gone on in your cult.
Jer. 5:21 (NIV) "Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear. Should you not fear me? declares the Lord. Should you not tremble in my presence? ……23) But these people have stubborn and rebellious hearts; they have turned aside and gone away." You've listened so long to grown men in feminine, lacey dresses, calling themselves Mary, polluting and perverting the Bible, that you haven't a clue of the evilness in your cult. Mark, again, I'm sorry if that is tough, but the truth does at times hurt. But if there's a chance that some catholic will wake up, read the Bible and seek the truth, then my work has not been in vain. If this makes me a "scumbag", then so be it. I'm not here to please man, but to please my Father in Heaven. servant of The One True God
P.S. Your Church is no where near being a Church that God created, and I would bet my salvation on that fact. The True God is no pansy. Fulfill all your disgusting lusts and I'll have mercy on you, and forgive you. That lie comes from the depths of Hell itself.
Wanted to make sure you realized, this is also in the New Testament – Christ's words – "These people will listen and listen, but never understand. They will look and look, but never see. All of them have stubborn minds! Their ears are stopped up, and their eyes are covered. If they could they would turn to me, and I would heal them. Matthew 13:14-15 (GNB) My sincere hope is that some may come from darkness and into His light.
And on to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1213AM:
Here we get another myah-myah gambit: a sarcastic apology by ‘Dan’ to ‘Mark Taylor’ that turns out to be no apology at all, but instead is simply another pretext for spouting the usual ‘Dan’-verse bits.
And – but of course – all of his bits here are predicated upon the presumption he has conveniently (and for his cartoons, necessarily) made about “apostate church” and “repeat offenders of pedophilia”. Should ‘Dan’ really be calling-out alleged “repeat offenders” of anything, given his own rather extensive record of offenses?
And with those specious grounds put on the table, ‘Dan’ then moves us on quickly to some of his favorite Scriptural pericopes.
Mark, That was a sincere apology, and I explained why I did it and how I don't like correcting others, unlike the lying mocker. You should mind your own business, publyin', and spend more time working on your own issues, lying for one. Unbeknownst to you, most people don't need a lyin' jerk to talk for them. You're not the Mr. Know-It-All, that you think you are.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1213AM:
And about the only noteworthy point in all of it is this: ‘Dan’ has declared “sexual immorality” to be something beyond the pale of being – as he puts it, referring to the Taylor comment’s text – “just ‘sinners’”.
The readers so inclined might first consult his/her Bible and read 1Cor5 (I am using the NAB version), with special attention to vss. 1-13, where the Letter addresses the “immorality” of “a man living with his father’s wife” (v.1) and how Paul says that that type of immorality should be handled by the Christian community (vv.2-13).
But vss 9-10 are also noteworthy for us here: Paul refers to some earlier letter he had written, wherein he had said that Christians were “not to associate with immoral people”, a general description and a rather mild reaction to such immorality.
But in vs. 10 he clarifies what he had said in that earlier letter: he was “not at all referring to the immoral of this world … for you would then have to leave the world”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1213AM:
The first thing to note is that Paul is addressing a specific type of immorality here, and one that has nothing to do with ‘Dan’s obsessively preferred “lying pedophile creeps”.
The second thing to note is that Paul has realized that if the individual Christian or Christian community were to too severely judge and thus try to impose the punishment of ‘avoidance’ on “the immoral of this world”, then the Christian or the Christian community would pretty much have to “leave the world” (such as the early desert monks did, to avoid contamination, to preserve purity, and to commune more closely and un-distractedly with God).
I'll kill two dodo bird posts with one peewee pebble, Feb. 9th @ 1:53 & 1:54pm. Who is it that taught you theology, Satan, the same one to teach you reading comprehension? 1 Cor 5 (NAB), v.1) Paul heard of SEXUAL IMMORALITY so heinous that you can't even find that among Gentiles – "one of you is living with his stepmother." v.3) Paul has "already condemned the man" v.5) says, "hand such a man over to Satan, to be destroyed" v.9 Paul says, "have nothing to do with people living IMMORAL lives." v.10 He clarifies that he wasn't including everybody in this present world. v.11) He says, "you were not to have anything to do with anyone going by the name of brother, [that would mean one claiming to be a member of your cult], who is SEXUALLY IMMORAL, or is GREEDY, or WORSHIPS FALSE GODS, or is a SLANDERER or a DRUNKARD or DISHONEST; never even have a meal with any of that kind."
So if Paul, speaking for the Lord, thought a grown man sleeping with his stepmother was a terrible sin of sexual immorality, then what do you think he would feel about a grown man, claiming to be godly, sexually abusing young innocent little boys. v.12) Paul states, "It is for you to judge those who are inside, is it not?" v.13) But outsiders are for God to judge. You must banish this evil-doer from among you. This would mean anyone who calls themselves a brother who is sexually immoral, or is greedy, or idolators, slanderers, drunkards or dishonest. Problem is the majority of your hierarchy and probably a high percentage of your lay people would be booted from your cult, and you no longer would have many dumb sheep to fill your coffers. So instead of dealing with the terrible, unrepentant "sinners" of your cult, you protected them, lied for them, and made excuses for them, all for the good of your heathen church. And that is why you belong to an apostate church, and it's about time you woke up to that reality. Hypocrites. servant
P.S. Are you really that stupid, or do you just have eyes refusing to see, ears refusing to hear, so you'll just keep on mocking, and God won't have to worry about healing you?
No it was your perverted priests, and lying, deceiving bishops who "obsessively preferred" being "lying pedophile creeps."
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1213AM:
And the third thing to note is that ‘Dan’s ‘truth’, based on this Scripture text, does not at all conform to the actual text itself (and who could be surprised?).
Thus we have here a fine little example of how ‘Dan’s ‘truth’ about Scripture actually consists of a quotation and then a whole lot of ‘Dan’-stuff, which cannot be lightly presumed to be the text’s import because ‘Dan’ takes the text and then imposes on it his own personal agenda and obsessions on it (as I have said before in comments).
Whereas Catholic praxis and doctrine has been built on this Pauline awareness that perfection-in-purity is always an ideal and a goal but that if the Church judged human beings (priests and layfolk) too severely then it would be ‘back to the desert’ and the Christian community would be restricted to desert-dwelling monks as of old.
‘Dan’, of course and as I have said in prior comments on this thread, doesn’t have to worry about any such profound problems and issues because he has created himself (or Himself) as a church-of-one with Speshull and “secret” authorization from God. That’s his gig; and it fails to rise to the level of a “cult” simply because it exists only in his head and he’s the only adherent.
It would be great if you could all go "back to the desert", but you'd probably find some little boys to rape or molest there, if you haven't already hit that spot. And I've told you before, you or your monkeys aren't Christians, and the desert would be a good place to climatize to the extreme heat, coming in your future. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1213AM:
Thus fortified, readers can consider the pericope from Jeremiah: ‘Dan’s ‘truth’ extends itself from Jeremiah’s broad and general emphasis (applicable to human beings generally) and seeks to drag readers to “grown men in feminine, lacey dresses” and more such queasy specifics, tailored to his own obsessive excitations. As if Jeremiah’s text and ‘Dan’s ‘truth’ were all one and the same.
At the end of which, addressing ‘Mark Taylor’ again in the accents of ‘apology’, ‘Dan’ regrets that “the truth does at times hurt”. And so it does, and ‘Dan’s purported Scriptural ‘truth’ not the least of the noxious stuff.
Actually, ‘Dan’s own example is a better demonstration of how “the truth does at times hurt”: it was just such actual truth about himself that sparked the Big Bang that created the Speshull ‘Dan’-verse to begin with.
Nor is it really that impressive a credential or proof that ‘Dan’ “would bet [his] salvation on that fact” (i.e. that the Church is “nowhere near being a Church that God created”, while the Church of Dan in the Bathroom Mirror – we are to accept – is precisely such a church, and maybe even the only one).
And wouldn't you know it – More mocking of God. I'm trying to figure out. Do you mock more or lie more? Let's say it's a close tie. I have more questions – Do you prefer the purple or scarlet red dress (Rev. 17:4), with the feminine white lace over or better under, like a negligee, "drag" queen, fruitcake creep? Do the little boys prefer you in your beanie, the fish head or the triple crown of your pope dictators. I guess it's apparent that I'm more than sick of your crap, and I'd bet God is too.