Vindicated AGAIN: A jury swiftly exonerates falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui 'Joseph' Jiang
A civil jury in Missouri took merely minutes to decide what many of us have already known for a long time: that Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis are completely innocent of wild charges related to sex abuse of a teenage girl.
To illustrate how clear it was to the jury that the charges against Rev. Jiang were ridiculous: The jury was given the case at 12:30pm. And even with the staggering anti-Catholic atmosphere in the St. Louis area, and even though the trial's arguments and testimony took a full two weeks, the jury returned its exonerating verdict by 3pm, and that included a lunch break.
More lunacy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Crappy journalism:
Joel Currier of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Yet if one were to get their information from the local St. Louis Post-Dispatch – who has a well-established track record of animus against the Catholic Church – a reader missing the headline would barely even understand that a jury had cleared Fr. Jiang.
The Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier – whose rottenness in reporting the Catholic Church abuse story needs to be noted – spent much of his article about the jury's exoneration actually regurgitating the crazy accusations against the innocent priest that a jury had already determined were phony.
In truth, Currier neglected a number of very important facts in the case of Fr. Jiang:
- the teenage accuser originally did not even support suing Fr. Jiang in the first place;
- law enforcement dropped charges against Fr. Jiang after determining the case was completely bogus, a fact which Currier relegated to the very last sentence of his warped article;
- a federal judge ruled last August that the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP defamed Fr. Jiang by falsely accusing him of being a pedophile and ordered that Jiang be compensated for his legal expenses;
- the accuser was represented by tort lawyer Ken Chackes, a close collaborator and financial supporter of SNAP;
- the accuser wildly claimed that the abuse somehow happened in a family room at the very same time that seven other family members were present;
- the accuser never suffered from "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" as claimed.
In truth, this entire case stunk from its very beginning. Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting back against his false accusers and the haters at SNAP.
It should also be noted that while media outlets all across Missouri went berserk years ago trumpeting the bogus accusations against Fr. Jiang far and wide, the same media has largely been mute in reporting the news of the jury's swift and clear decision exonerating the priest. Same as it ever was.
FINALLY, AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL PRIESTS: The lesson from the Fr. Jiang case is this: Never, ever, ever become too emotionally or personally involved with any family other than your own. It does not matter that you "baptized every member" and/or "officiated every wedding." We have seen this all too often. That family whom you thought were "like family" could become your worst nightmare. Don't say no one ever warned you. Remember:
"Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
"But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts …" (Matthew 10:16-17a).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 640PM:
“It’s [my] world here at TMR” – meaning what? That JR can’t find anyone on this site to buy his stuff? And if he can’t get the team to play according to his rules then he’s going to take his ‘theory’ and go home?
I “hog[s] everything here”. This is a familiar bit of his: as if this were a verbal conversation and only one person can speak at a time; but TMR – to repeat yet again – is a written forum and JR can put up as much as he likes. But, of course, he hasn’t got anything worthwhile to put up in refutation (except for more cartoonish claims) so he has to come up with a smokescreen to cover his evasion while simultaneously making himself out to be – had you been waitinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – a ‘victim’.
And pitch-perfectly he ends with an epithet. We’re not dealing with a mind or maturity-level ready for prime-time here.
Bottom line, if you don’t allow yourself to be distracted by the smokescreen: JR hasn’t made any effective response to any of the problems raised with his ‘theory’.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 126AM:
Here – and you can’t make this stuff up – ‘Dan’ now poses himself (or Himself) as delivering “God’s Word” … “in regard to our holidays”. Oh, and anyone who thinks that ‘Dan’ isn’t here channeling God is – had you been waitingggggggg for itttttttttttttt? – a “fool”.
And what is the word from ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror?
“Easter” is “manmade”. So apparently the formal communal celebration of the core Christian reality – the Resurrection of Christ as God’s definitive demonstration of the reality of the New Covenant – is merely “manmade”.
What can this possibly mean? That the Easter event itself is nothing or that it is merely a “manmade” invention?
Or that the Christian community, realizing the vital core import of the Easter event, is somehow failing the Gospel by formally recognizing and remembering the Easter event?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 126AM:
This entire bit reflects one of the more crucial and abyssal problem with the fundies’ whole approach: trying to anchor itself by making the Bible into a literalistic and all-encompassing totem, the fundie approach must freeze itself in time. As if there were no ongoing Christian community making its pilgrim way through Time and History.
Rather than Christianity being a ship making a voyage through the oceans of Time and History “under the good Providence of God” (as the Brits once so well put it) the fundies have taken the Bible ‘out of the water’ and dry-docked it like Nelson’s Victory in a permanent static display.
And they have further made visits to this preserved specimen a members-only event, with gonzo, nasty whackjobs like ‘Dan’ presuming to preside over the membership committee.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 126AM:
And his characterization of Easter is something out of a cartoon that has nothing to do with the Church’s liturgical celebrations: “people … show their fake personality, they get all gussied up and make their appearance”, forgetting about God and “have a wonderful Easter dinner and have a few cocktails … just to have a good time”.
This is nothing but the bitter rant of someone who – perhaps having heard “disgusting creep” aimed at him too often and for far more than just the last ten years – has dedicated himself to nothing more than seeing if he can jam a broom-stick between the bicycle-wheel spokes not only of religion but of human society generally, while simultaneously claiming to deliver – if not also to be – ‘the’ authentic and authoritative voice of God.
What a joke.
This prophecy was written by my disabled friend. I've never witnessed her to be a bitter person, let alone write 'bitter rant's. As far as calling her a "disgusting creep", I guess one would just have to consider the source. I am sure of one thing, "gussied up" is a term neither of us have ever used in our vocabulary. In one of my prophecies, God threw in at the end the word thicket, so I would know the words were not my own. This was the last line of that prophecy; "You have mocked my servant, you have mocked Me. You will no longer ride on this bus. You shall go out into the weeds and the 'thicket'."
In regards to your foolish insinuation towards myself, He "has dedicated himself to nothing more than seeing if he can jam a broom stick between the bicycle-wheel spokes not only of religion but of human society generally", I find pretty disturbing, especially after your sick lies in regards to my accosting and harassing small children. We'll just add that to the fact that you're one "disgusting creep", combined with being a "nasty whackjob", words more fitting to describe the pedophiles and perverts of your cult. servant
"You listen to people who think they know My Word, inside and out, and they don't know My Word at all. You pray to an idol that can't help you in life and worship a piece of wood, that can't even hear your prayers."
Mary died like any other human being. She is waiting, like any other human for her Judgment Day, before the Almighty. If catholics feel "more comfortable with a maternal human", rather than the son of God, "the foreboding and awe-full Christos Pantocrator", then salvation will be unattainable. Christ is the Supreme Being, the only mediator, sacrificed by the Father for the forgiveness of our sins. If you prefer a replacement, adding dogmas* and lies* to the virtues of a false goddess, creating an artificial savior, then there will be no forgiveness of sins. There will never exist a substitute for Christ's sacrifice and there is no need of helpers, let alone human helpers. To claim so is to diminish the power of the cross and resurrection, and deny God's awesome and wonderful plan of salvation.
Catholics, don't allow false teachers and their false teachings to deprive you of God's gifts, especially of His Precious Son. Evil people find pleasure in deceiving others, especially if it's to their gain. "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is NO truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
* Mary never sinned, ever-virgin, Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven, prayers to Mary, Rosary, bowing to her statue or any statue or anyone, especially hierarchy.
add. – Catholics have been taught that "Mary will crush the head of Satan." Gen. 3:15, states that her seed, her offspring or he will crush or bruise the head. Even the Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse to refer to Jesus Christ. Even Michael, the archangel, when disputing with the devil, only said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Jude 1:9 Mary, being only human, is not going around crushing Satan's head, and this statement is definitely Anti-Christ. Beware of the excuses of the church and those who claim to be apologetics. If they told the truth according to the Bible, then they would have no need to make excuses for their misinterpretations and failures. Instead, just about all the hierarchy has been taught programmed answers and excuses for why they refuse to follow Bible teachings, and much rather prefer the false teachings of their apostate cult. Publyin' included. Long-winded nonsense and ignorance, falling far short of any reasonable explanation of the Holy Bible.
On the 20th at 201PM ‘Dan’ will open by masquerading as God. He seems charmingly oblivious to the fact that he qualifies rather clearly as one of those “who don’t know My Word at all”. The “idols” bit is all he’s got, although no Catholic worships a statue as an idol – as if that point hasn’t been made here before.
On then to more of ‘Dan’s bits about Mary:
It is more than curious that in an era such as that of early Christianity, when the bodies and bones of holy ones were highly prized and there was great rivalry among cities and churches to claim the remains, yet no city or local church ever claimed to possess the body of Mary. This fact tends strongly toward the explanation that the early Christians knew that Mary’s body was not anywhere to be found.
And since Paul said that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3: 15) then on that theological basis the Church’s Spirit-guided proclamation of Mary’s Assumption stands as it does.
1 Tim 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
How can the biggest liar, among many liars spewing their lies, claim their cult is "the pillar and foundation of truth", when it's hierarchy is plagued with pedophiles and perverts, who have no clue on how they "ought to conduct themselves in God's household"? Hypocrites, perverters of Biblical truths, bowing down to statues of false goddesses, while claiming never to worship such. Lies from liars, caught up in falsehoods and having no truth within. Children of their father, the devil, parading around in their ignorance, while deceived into believing themselves to be members of the one true church. What a joke. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 201PM:
Further masquerading as God – or at least the ‘Dan’-verse version of a pope – he then doth pronounce that for those who feel more comfortable with a maternal human when approaching the Throne of God, “then salvation will be unattainable”. Readers may take this pronunciamento and judge it as they will.
And as I pointed out before, Catholics don’t approach Mary as the Way or as a “Supreme Being”, but only as a human and maternal helper to assist them. ‘Dan’ here continues to try to run his already-disproven idea that the Church holds Mary to be a co-Mediator with Christ of the New Covenant. ‘Dan’ has to try to run this bit again: it’s all he’s got and he’s got a pile of 3x5s about it.
Thus Mary is in no sense and in no way a “replacement” for Christ nor does the Church hold that she in any way forgives sins. Nor is she a “substitute” for Christ.
And from the human end of the process, there is indeed a “need [for] helpers” since humans are more comfortable with the maternal, for reasons which appear to escape ‘Dan’ and that’s as may be.
You call her Advocate, Helper and Mediatrix, and claim she possesses all the attributes of Jesus Christ, our only Savior, but she's never worshipped or considered by the Church to be a co-Mediator with Christ. You title her as Mother of God, crowning her "Queen of Heaven", yet "in no sense and in no way a 'replacement' or 'substitute' for Christ". I'm beginning to agree with this claim. She, Mary, your sinless, eternal virgin, is your christ, the false messiah of an effeminate, apostate, pagan cult. I think it's time you show your true colors and ordain a woman to be your next pope. Come out of the closet and worship a living goddess, rather than the dead Virgin Mary, who's beautiful quality of humility, you creepy liars have totally destroyed. Thankfully, you Satan worshippers, can't harm her soul. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 201PM:
Thus – and yet yet again – ‘Dan’ has created a false claim and then refutes it. This is a manipulative and deceitful form of shadow-boxing, or of wrestling with one’s own pillow. But it’s all he’s got.
But – yet yet again – on this ephemeral and phantasmagoric basis ‘Dan’ can then launch into his scheduled exhortation to “Catholics”.
And he again demonstrates with a charming obliviousness how very much his exhortation about “evil people” who “find pleasure in deceiving others, especially if it’s to their gain” can apply to himself.
Then a concluding epithetical bit about “the devil” and “lies” and – not to put too fine a point on it – ditto.
The asterisked final paragraph is apparently a bunch more bits that ‘Dan’ hasn’t got the chops to explain, so he just rattles them off, as if they were jottings from a 3×5 – which they probably are.
"Then the concluding epithetical bit about 'the devil' and 'lies' ", peewee rudely states, is a Biblical quote from John 8:44, perfectly describing himself and the lies and deceptions of his apostate cult. And he'll tell us he doesn't mock God's Word.
The "asterisked final paragraph" is a footnote denoting all the false "dogmas and lies" that the church has brainwashed it's followers to believe about the Virgin Mary. These are terrible lies and not worth explaining, unless you're dumb enough to think they are true. Catholics should run from this idol-worshipping, anti-Christian cult.
And explain to me, Mr. Know-It-All, if I'm deceiving others for my own gain, what that gain would actually be? I have no physical church, collect no money, no Pope or Archbishop Fund or second collections. No books, DVD's, Cd's, rosaries, statues, trinkets, holy cards, etc.etc. for sale. Ask for no tithes, offerings, donations or gifts. I collect no donations or turkeys during the holidays, and then claim my church does all this good for the poor. And deceived sheep think they can make the claim of all the good their cult does, as if it's an excuse for their hierarchy being pedophiles and perverts. I actually worked for a living and paid my taxes, unlike the greedy thieves of your cult. You're one disingenuous creep, and you should stop your false accusations. Telling the truth in regards to your cult, is without any personal gain, other than the possibility that some catholic may come to their senses and leave the Idolators, before losing their souls. servant of Christ, God's only Mediator
On the 21st at 351AM ‘Dan’ will try to deal with the bitterness characterization.
He tries this by first coming up with a (rather trendy) “disabled friend”, and a female at that; he has “never witnessed her to be a bitter person” (for whatever either ‘Dan’s powers of observation or his credibility are worth). Whether or not this person has any more reality than the Easter Bunny is for readers to consider.
But there’s more method to the madness here. Either through ignorance or design ‘Dan’ somehow misreads my comment to the effect – now – that I called “her” a “disgusting creep”. This misreading thus casts ‘Dan’ in the role of knight in shining armor rescuing a (trendily) disabled maiden, while casting me as someone who would call said disabled maiden a “disgusting creep”.
But as I wrote, it is ‘Dan’ about whom I observed that – given his long consistent repetition of that phrase for his epithetical purposes – he had far too often for his own good heard that phrase aimed at him. The (trendily) disabled female not only wasn’t the subject of my comment but also wasn’t even known to exist when the comment was written.
But this whole bit is a nicely clear example of ‘Dan’s manipulative and reliably unreliable methods when trying to extricate himself.
You, peewee, are one class act, and I bet you'd think that was a compliment. You, a compulsive liar and manipulating hypocrite, have the nerve to question my credibility. I've honestly told you too much about myself, of which you've twisted, blatantly lied, slandered and insinuated, in order to make it fit into your deceiving agenda.
You were previously told of my friends disabilities, and how she wrote at the level of an 8 year old. You play stupid, but maybe it's not just an act, claiming she wasn't "the subject of my comment but also wasn't even known to exist when the comment was written." I informed you of my friend and her prophetic gift months ago, and your ignorance to that fact is far from cute. The only "disgusting creep" we're dealing with is you, proven by your nonsensical lies, spewed at a fairly consistent rate. You are a prime example of a true Apologist catholic, full of lame excuses, false assessments and misinterpretations of God's Word, yet believe yourself to be some great theologian, well versed in longwinded stupidity.
What a joke.
Or if you prefer, a true catholic Apologist, or those making excuses or apologies for being catholic, or what I simply label as catholic liars.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 351AM:
He then tries to demonstrate the veracity of his “prophecy” by claiming that neither he nor the (trendily) disabled female friend would ever have used a term like “gussied up” so that – had you been waitingggg forrrr itttttttttttttt? – must clearly prove that they didn’t make this thing up but rather that the text of the “prophecy” was indeed a Fax From Beyond.
He’s “sure of” it.
And he even throws in more ‘evidence’: in some other one of his “prophecies” – doncha know? – “God threw in” also “threw in” a word that ‘Dan’ would never use, i.e. “thicket”. So – doncha see? – that just goes to show how much ‘evidence’ there is that these are indeed Faxes From The Beyond.
Readers may consider it all as they will.
And insistent in labeling God's gift of prophecy as Faxes From The Beyond. I look forward to the day, the Almighty takes His revenge on your mocking His Holy Spirit. servant of The Lord
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 351AM:
Then, changing gears and Wigs, ‘Dan’ will now pronounce that my observation about his essential motivation (i.e. jamming a broom-stick in the bicycle-wheel spokes of not only religion but of human society generally) is something that ‘Dan’ doth “find pretty disturbing”.
Slyly, he doesn’t bother to distinguish here: is it “very disturbing” a) that I would make such an observation or that b) ‘Dan’ would be thus motivated …? (Hint: ‘Dan’ slyly presumes (a) and doesn’t want to go near (b) at all.
But (b) is the point I was making.
Readers may also note that for ‘Dan’, each comment of his is meant to be taken as if de novo, i.e. as if it were the first and only comment he has ever made here. Which is also a sly method in the madness since we now have a voluminous record of ‘Dan’s self-revelations in the record here.
" 'Dan' would be thus motivated" to "jamming a broom-stick" in your lying, mocking mouth. Problem is we would have to hear you speak out of your ass, if that's not how you already speak.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 351AM:
Further, it is rather remarkable (not to say “very disturbing” as well) that ‘Dan’ can review the sum total of his comments here and not see any possible reason in the whole corpus of comments that might indicate the “very disturbing” nature of his basic stance toward “religion and human society generally”. He just cawn’t think why anyone would make such an observation about him and his stuff.
And he tries to wrap it all up and bring the performance home by thus intoning, proclaiming and declaring that he doth find me “pretty disturbing” and so on and so forth. In other words, the old I’m Not/You Are bit all over again.
The thing I find "pretty very disturbing" is lying religious hypocrites of any religion, especially you. You can try to lasso my spite for human society into the mix, but we'll just add that to your list of many lies.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 445AM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will demonstrate the quality of his Scriptural and interpretative chops (such as it is):
He gives no reference for his claim that “Mary will crush the head of Satan” is a teaching of the Church. Perhaps he can riffle through his 3×5 pile and provide it. Because I’ve sat through my share of Catholic religion classes and was never taught that “Mary will crush the head of Satan”; her “offspring” (i.e. Christ) did so, but not Mary herself.
Perhaps ‘Dan’ is drawing merely upon various paintings or sculptures that show Mary with her foot on Satan’s head (the serpent having already been subdued by Christ).
The pericope itself is part of an address God makes to the serpent after Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit in the Garden.
Who is the “he” of whom God says “he will strike at your head” … ? It is the “offspring” of Eve (and is denoted by the Hebrew masculine pronoun). It is this masculine offspring of Eve who – God says – will strike at the serpent’s head.
Last week I listened to religious authorities, if you can call them that, on EWTN catholic TV, speak on how "Mary will crush the head of Satan". I couldn't believe my ears, so I googled that same statement and found on the first page several catholic websites, including You Tube making that same statement. I believe I'm aware of what Gen 3:15 says, for I wrote, "states that her seed, her offspring or he will crush or bruise the head. Even the Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse to refer to Jesus Christ." I know you think you possess excellent "Scriptural and interpretive[sic] chops", but my statement covered it fine, without your longwinded explanation.
The artists who painted and sculpted your idols, did so on their own accord, or were they commissioned by your church or your popes? You think they weren't told to depict Mary crushing the head of Satan, based on catholic false beliefs? If they did it wrong they'd be burned at the stake or boiled in oil, for being heretics. Do you think they'd be willing to take that chance? I don't need to consult your idols or icons, to realize that your cult is a fraud and plagued with Biblical untruths. servant of God
And on we go then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 435PM:
We are given a nice example of ‘Dan’s ‘reasoning’ here: he simply makes his favorite assertions and somehow imagines that he’s demonstrated something. In this case, a) that I am “the biggest liar” and so on, and b) that the Catholic “hierarchy is plagued with pedophiles and perverts”.
This is ranting, not rationally explicating. But ‘Dan’ travels in circles (the séances in his bathroom mirror and whomever else he might hang out with) where the distinction between ranting and explicating is not really understood and – no doubt – would not be welcome if the topic of were raised. Cartoons do better with ranting than with explicating and demonstrating.
‘Dan’s own conduct, of course, is beyond reproach – and we shouldn’t consider his legal and psychiatric misadventures. That’s what a nice tight FDS will get you.
And the whole bit larded thickly with his favorite cartoon epitheticals.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 506PM:
Here we are yet again given another assertion about Catholic teaching that doesn’t exist, i.e. that Mary “possesses all the attributes of Jesus Christ”. He’s going to have to provide a reference to Catholic teaching here, because this assertion is a whopper. It’s a cartoon, and a deceitful and manipulative cartoon.
Surely the fact that she is called “Advocate, Helper and Mediatrix” doesn’t establish his point since she ‘advocates’ for humans at the Throne and Christ is neither a “Helper” nor – certainly – a Mediatrix (especially since the word is directly from the Latin and is the feminine form of the noun).
She is not worshipped and she is not considered to be “a co-Mediator with Christ”, both of which points have been refuted by quoted Catholic teaching here. But his cartoons are all ‘Dan’s got and he’s got nothing else so he simply keeps repeating his cartoon assertions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 506PM:
She is the Mother of Christ, and Christ is God, so it is certainly allowable (via the Transitive Property) to say – somewhat loosely – that she is the Mother of God (meaning: of the Son in His human incarnation, not of the Father or the Spirit).
And surely a “Queen” – in the presence of the King – is not an equal to the King. In fact, if one were to insist, she should more properly be called the Queen-Mother of Heaven. Although, as the highest-ranking female up there, “queen” isn’t so far off. But Mary surely is not “queen” in the same way as Elizabeth I was of England. This bit of ‘Dan’s is just another chunk of fundie ranting, scrounging for plop to toss and make it sound like a rational theological objection and argument.
And the rest of the comment is simply a further indulgence in rant. But it’s all ‘Dan’s got.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 603PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to gain the high-ground by claiming that I have been ‘rude’ to Scripture. I am not rude to Scripture; I point out ‘Dan’s epithetical and manipulative misuse of Scripture, which is not the same thing at all.
And as I said, the pericope can as well apply to ‘Dan’ as to anyone else.
Then – making yet again more excuses for himself and his content-less material – ‘Dan’ then claims that his “asterisked final paragraph” consists of “terrible lies” that – nonsensically – are yet “not worth explaining”. Go figure.
What’s really going on is that ‘Dan’s cartoons are not for explaining; they are for plop-tossing and once ‘Dan’ has to try to explain them, then he’s in way over his head.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 603PM:
And thus the comment wobbles on its plop-tossy ranting way, including the hierarchy of “pedophiles and perverts” bit again, for which asserted characterization he proffers no demonstration, as usual.
And ‘Dan’ tries to bring the performance home – yet again – with the pious bleat that he is merely “telling the truth” and “without any personal gain”. As I have said several times before, ‘Dan’ doth “gain” a great deal by these whacko performances: it gives him something congenial to do; it furthers his indenture to his FDS; and it keeps his head from exploding if he ever had to step out from under the FDS and look at himself in the bathroom mirror instead of populating the thing with the ‘divinities’ that he sees there in it.
He would be better advised to concern himself with his losing his mind rather than with the readership and all Catholics losing their souls.
You think you can speak of my "legal and psychiatric misadventures", knowing they were based on lies, by liars similar to yourself. I speak of "pedophiles and perverts" of your cult, which is the truth and the whole world knows there were and are way too many, and you think all I do is rant and plop toss. Your cult is such a "cartoon" of lying whackjobs, false teachings and greedy, sexual deviants, who have no right to criticize and falsely accuse others. Like I've told you several times before, "Work on cleaning up your own backyard, and no one will have anything to plop toss at your filthy apostate cult. servant
And all the rest of your trash, isn't worth wasting my time.
Going down the most recent crop as the comments appear on the screen:
On the 23rd at 1133PM ‘Dan’ tries to head for the victim-y high ground on behalf of his “friend”.
He opens with a pair of epitheticals that are simultaneously a) undemonstrated and thus merely epithetical assertions and b) nicely revelatory – through the workings of clinical projection – of that dark truth that even in the depths of an FDS remain somehow beyond the FDS’s power to drive away: ‘Dan’ is “a compulsive liar and a manipulating hypocrite”; on the basis of which we get the thus-ludicrous follow-on bleat of ‘outrage’ that I “have the nerve” to “question [‘Dan’s] credibility”.
He’s right, though, to say that he’s told us “too much about [himself]”. But this is where a nice, tight FDS will take you: you become so consumed by the delusions that you don’t and perhaps can’t imagine that your cartoons will actually work against you by revealing precisely what the delusions were created to hide.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1133PM:
And when that happens, you wind up with no means of evading the problem your own FDS has created for you except to start bawling the long-rehearsed bleat about “lies” and “more lies”. Because, after all, if you have embraced the delusions as truth, then anything that contradicts them must be “lies” and the revelations that your own delusions have betrayed you into making can only be the result of being “twisted” and so on and so forth.
‘Dan’s own embraced delusions have betrayed him; like the devil, they’ll do that: their “deceiving agenda” will ultimately betray those who serve the FDS’s “deceiving agenda”, because that very same “deceiving agenda” works first and foremost to deceive the indentured deceiver himself.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matt 5:10-12
It must bring you great happiness to know that you and your cult of liars are the source of my joy and gladness, leading to my heavenly reward. Thanks to all you hypocrites.
"But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." Matt 7:14-15
I was under the impression that our earthly battle was against the obviously wicked, greedy, mean, nasty or even Satan worshippers. I was shocked to learn the real fight is against deceivers, in their false humility, pretending to be the holy ones and of the one true church. Phonies and con artists, thinking they're fooling others, with their lies and deceptions, when truly only deceiving themselves. Becoming such compulsive liars, believing they've even fooled the Almighty, when all He does is laugh at their ignorance and hypocrisy. servant
Fax From Beyond for mockers, or prophecy for the Lord's chosen ones;
"Christ will have victory over the wicked in the world. Christ will put us in situations to let us see how a person is two faced, claiming to be righteous. Christ knows their righteousness comes from the world. Christ understands that they are faking. Christ sees how they turn their backs on you. Christ does not call it love. Christ call that being dishonest. People think when they enter churches, Christ's love is in them, when really it is wickedness within. Christ can win over the wicked. Christ will never quit. Christ is love."
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1133PM:
Apparently the “friend” who yet again so conveniently came up with a “prophecy” in support of ‘Dan’ is the same one from “months ago”. Who knew? Has he only the one “friend”?
And anyway, for all we know this “friend” also dwells in the bathroom mirror, with as much reality as the Easter Bunny or whoever else appears to ‘Dan’ in his séances.
It would be greatly and self-servingly convenient, though, for ‘Dan’ to have a “friend” whose mind operates at an eighth-grade level: a mind functioning at any higher level would quite possibly see through the cartoons, and then the “friend” wouldn’t be ‘Dan’s “friend” any more.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1133PM:
And he then tries a familiar Playbook gambit: I am epithetically characterized as “a true Apologist catholic”. Anybody who punctures Abusenik and fundie cartoons – doncha see? – can only be an “Apologist” for whatever it is they are ranting against.
And he concludes the performance by trying to neutralize the substantial theological problems inherent in this or that of his cartoons: those theological points and problems are merely “lame excuses, false assessments and misinterpretations of God’s Word” and “long-winded stupidity”.
And ‘Dan’ has never made any actual response to those problems, explicated at length here. But as I have said, he can’t. His cartoons are made for plop-tossing and ‘Dan’ is only a plop-tosser; having to explicate his cartoons isn’t something he’s capable of and further, to explicate them would be to further expose the workings of their delusiveness.
On the 24th at 1239AM ‘Dan’ merely takes a moment to reveal that – for the purposes of his cartoons – he has redefined “Apologist” to mean one who is “making excuses or apologies”. An apologist, classically, is one who speaks up for a particular position, explicating its points.
But ‘Dan’ has no classical knowledge at all. Thus he simply tries to deploy a derived and secondary definition that draws only upon contemporary usage in English. This is a hallmark problem with fundie plop-tossing wordplay.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1140PM where he huffs – under the Wig of Outraged Victimization – that I am “labeling God’s gift of prophecy as Faxes From The Beyond”.
I am not labeling “God’s gift of prophecy” as any such thing. Because we have not at all in any way established that ‘Dan’s plop-tossing is a) an example of “God’s gift of prophecy” rather than b) merely the deceitful and manipulative and delusional ranting of somebody with a serious case of FDS.
But, of course, this was the problem of Protestant sola scriptura thinking from the get-go: if anyone can pick up a Bible, see whatever they think they see in it, and then claim that their stuff has the accuracy and authority of “God’s gift of prophecy”, then Scriptural interpretation becomes nothing but a general free-for-all and scrum, with anybody’s derangements masquerading as the authoritative Word of God.
Into the space opened by that abyssal problem, the fundies galloped like Custer going into the valley of the Little Big Horn, leading anybody who tried to maintain the fiction that the Bible is a simple, clear, handy how-to book that anybody can just pick up and master on the first bounce.
We thus proceed to ‘Dan’s next bit, on the 23rd at 1147PM:
Here we get violence blended with pitch-perfect juvenile scatology.
Clearly my point struck far too close to the core operation of ‘Dan’s FDS.
And that bit is then reinforced (the 23rd at 1158PM) by ‘Dan’ once again trying the old I’m Not/You Are gambit: what he finds “pretty very disturbing” is – had you been waitinggggg forrrr ittttt? – all the “lying” from “religious hypocrites of any religion”.
We would have to exclude – of course – ‘Dan’s bathroom-mirror religion-of-one … otherwise his cartoons wouldn’t work right.
And then on the 24th at 1220AM we get ‘Dan’ trying to deal with his unsupported assertions about actual Catholic dogma and teaching.
Well, as it turns out ‘Dan’ just happened – just last week, in fact – to have “listened to” something on TV. We have his word for it, doncha see?
Thus we get (if indeed we are getting anything actual at all here) not a reference to a commonly-accessible formal source (such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church) but instead i) a TV show that ‘Dan’ claims to have watched or heard, and ii) whatever ‘Dan’ claims to have heard in this TV show.
A double whammy of inaccessible corroborating sources that are notable only for their not including ‘Dan’s claimed report of the table-talk at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1220AM:
Readers can consider ‘Dan’s claim here as they may.
Oh, and there’s a You-Tube video or two from “several catholic websites”.
There’s also the Catechism of the Catholic Church – which ‘Dan’ has used before – but apparently that wouldn’t serve the purposes of his plop-tossy evasions this time around.
And, indeed, there’s no “apparently” about it: in the Catechism’s section on Mary – paragraphs 963 through 975 – there is no mention whatsoever of Mary crushing the head of Satan. (Which would explain why the google search-engine – responding to the query term ‘mary crushing the head of satan’ – provides no link to the Catechism or any formal teaching of the Church.)
So ‘Dan’s various plop-tossy bits here have not “covered it fine” at all. And it appears he purposely avoided that fact, so profoundly uncongenial for his cartoon.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1220AM:
And we see again ‘Dan’s oh-so-necessary-for-the-cartoon bit about “idols”. To repeat yet again, for a statue to be an idol, it would have to be worshipped as itself being the god or divinity. No such statue exists in Catholicism.
Statues and paintings merely remind and recall; they do not embody (as idols must do).
But this uncongenial reality would wreck the fundie cartoon, which is why ‘Dan’ – like the fundies – must ignore it and pretend otherwise.
Thus ‘Dan’ huffs that he needn’t “consult your idols or icons”. And he needn’t – and dares not – “consult” the Catechism or any formal doctrinal teaching of the Church either. For obvious reasons.
Response to publyin's 25th @ 6:09pm – Quoting your NAB – Exodus 20:2-5
"I am the Lord your God…You shall not have others gods beside me. You shall not make for yourself an idol or LIKENESS OF ANYTHING IN THE HEAVENS ABOVE OR ON THE EARTH BELOW OR IN THE WATERS BENEATH THE EARTH: YOU SHALL NOT BOW DOWN BEFORE THEM OR SERVE THEM."
As previously stated, I have seen several photos of every pope going back to John XXIII, bowing down to statues of Mary and some kissing her feet. The Bible states that you're not even to make statues, let alone bow and pray to them, or kiss them. This is worship in the highest degree, and detracts from the works of Christ as our only Savior and God our only Creator and Father. Words you've given to Mary, adore, honor, venerate and devotion are all synonyms for worship. CCC 971 "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is intrinsic to Christian worship. The Church rightly honors the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs". Make all the excuses you can conjure up, this is worship and blasphemy against God's Holy Word.
Add to all this all the prayers to Mary, visions of her, temples named after her, carrying her crowned statues on rose adorned litters, Jesuits taking on her name, and the ridiculous claim that saying her Rosary will earn you special dispensation and indulgences in heaven, and you have the most blatant form of idolatry and goddess worship on the planet. Can one be anymore brainwashed and ignorant, while accusing others of being delusional? servant
Publyin's 25th @ 6:08 – Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB), a catholic translation of the Latin Vulgate w/ imprimatur – Genesis 3:15 Speaking to the serpent, Satan.
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; SHE SHALL CRUSH THY HEAD, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
It makes no difference what the Catechism or any formal teachings of the Church might say, many well respected catholics teach and think Mary crushes the head of Satan. The only cartoon bits are coming from the erroneous teachings of your church. Any religion claiming to be following the One True God, should be referring to the Bible as a reference and not to their false teachings. It seems that all cults like to think that their books can explain their beliefs better than God's Holy Inspired Word. Unbelievable! servant
Glad to hear of at least one cleric who was freed after being worngly accused of being a pedophile. There is, however, the hierarchy and Francis' promise to "clean house" of those criminals responsible for moving priests to unwitting parishes in order to cover up their crimes. As a matter of fact, the church continues to ignore the deeds of Cardinals Mahoney and Law.
On the 25th MorganB refers to "those criminals who transferred priests to unwitting parishes in order to cover up their crimes". This comment contains dubious presumptions, but I will only address one. He overlooks the fact that western justice contains protections for everybody. E.g.. the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. A Bishop cannot therefore presume that an accusation is, by itself, proof of guilt. Under western law there has to be evidence of guilt. In most accusations there is no proof… just a story. But why would anybody lie?. Well human nature being what it is…. What about revenge?, Or intense dislike of the school? Or disliking the priest?. But the most common motive for lying is money… some settlements are equal to a big lottery win. That is why the Bishops have been so cautious. Anyway.. if the alleged assault was so serious, then why didn't the parents go to the police?. That's a question they don't like.
Malcolm, I'm not sure what country you live in, but "innocent until proven guilty" in America isn't worth the paper it's written on. I was never considered innocent, even when there was substantial proof to my innocence. It didn't help that wicked, lying priests, nuns, principles and corrupt catholic cops, backed each others false stories and lies. You ought to try your hand at defending yourself against deceiving members of the cloth, when you're judged guilty from the moment you walk into the courtroom. I thought you people were supposed to be those who forgive. The lying creeps stuck to their evil schemes and granted no forgiveness or mercy. I hope when they stand before God that he will grant them the same justice. On top of that, I have to put up with the evil, ignorant assessments of the liars in this forum, who weren't even there to witness the injustices. Walk in my shoes and tell me you'd sit back and make no attempts at defending yourselves. Cowards, liars and hypocrites, pretending to be holy, merciful and forgiving. They only think they deserve justice and mercy. There will be no justice or peace for the wicked and deceiving. You can count on that. I'll be able to stand before God with a clear conscience. How about the lying creeps of your cult? Will be looking forward to receiving fair justice on Judgment Day. servant
Also Malcolm, as to "why didn't the parents go to the police?" There were several reasons, of which I'm sure you are aware. Parents sometimes didn't hear the accusations, because rape or molestation victims are known to feel embarassment or some form of guilt when these crimes happen. At times parents wouldn't believe their child, especially when the church makes claims of a priest's innocence or convince parents that children can sometimes have imaginations or exaggerate things. Parents* or children were threatened with excommunication from the church. For all these reasons, I don't believe that that's a fair question to ask or present as proof of innocence.
*John 9:20-23 Shows an example of parents in fear of being shunned by the false, self-righteous church and the power they wield in the community.
A couple of brief side notes for context: The Post Dispatch has for decades been in the pocket of the left-radicals. Their reliability is right up there with Obama's statement regarding the IRS scandal, "not a smidgen of corruption". Potential lawsuits draw the trial lawyers bar like flies to a corpse. Only in this instance, the corpse was not dead. Kudos to Father Jiang.
You catholics are aware that the so-called "completely innocent" Fr. Jiang had other accusations against him, from young male victims under age 14, twice forcing oral sex in a catholic school bathroom. You catholics are aware that in many cases, priests and bishops have learned or been taught to deny, deny, lie and deny. Only when cornered or when there is obvious proof, are they willing to admit to their filthy crimes against children. Wake up catholic people and take the rose colored glasses from your eyes. Your so-called pure, holy and true church is run by a bunch of pedophile creeps, who have secretly covered up their crimes against innocent children. Remove your blinders. They're a bunch of hypocrites. Men dressing and acting more like little girls than grown, responsible men. Wolves in sheep's clothing. Don't let them fool you! There will be no mercy for their disgusting crimes. servant
It's a bit much to refer to SNAP as a "hate group." Do they aggressively pursue justice against rampant instances of sexual abuse by priests that bishops/archbishops/cardinals/popes turned a blinid eye to? Yes. Are there some instances where they might be wrong? Probably. But they are a great resource of strength and justice for many of those who have been abused not just by individual priests but by an elaborate system of cover ups and shifting priests around and allowing them to abuse even more children.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1042PM:
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates more of either his method or his madness or both: I a) “think” that I can speak of his “legal and psychiatric misadventures” while I am b) “knowing they were based on lies”.
Which is precisely untrue.
Because I certainly don’t ‘know’ that his assorted legal and psychiatric misadventures were “based on lies”.
Indeed, over the long course here I have pointed out at great length and in detail how ‘Dan’s material indicates and supports precisely the opposite conclusion: his “legal and psychiatric misadventures” were the result of his own actions and his own issues.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1042PM:
He then tries to evade the evidentiary problems with his general assertion about “pedophiles and perverts” (he slyly here leaves out the “hierarchy” bit from his prior statement of the point) by merely asserting that what he says “is the truth and the whole world knows it”.
I continue to think that all he does is “rant and plop toss” and I will continue to demonstrate those aspects in his material.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1042PM:
He then starts riffing along the old I’m Not/You Are lines, claiming that it is not his own material but rather the Church and Catholicism that constitute a “’cartoon’ of lying whackjobs”. Readers may judge as they will.
And then – slyly – that since his cartoon calls for (fill in the blank: the Church, the hierarchy, all Catholics) being “lying whackjobs … and greedy, sexual deviants” then – had you been waittinggg forrr itttttttttt? – Catholics generally “have no right to criticize and falsely accuse others”.
And with that last bit there he slyly tries to dispose of two problems with one try: i) no Catholics here have a right to criticize his material here and ii) he was falsely accused by Catholics and that is the only reason for his (numerous) legal and psychiatric misadventures. Neato, but now all too obvious a deceptive ploy.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1044PM:
Here ‘Dan’ simply tries to evade a number of problematic points with his material that I raised (the 23rd at 1023PM through 1026PM) by huffing that the points are “trash” and “not worth wasting [his] time”.
Neato, but now all too obvious an evasive ploy.
@ Dan,
Please read the Bible my friend and study the Catechism. Your rants prove nothing more to others in this forum other than you are ignorant of Jesus and His church.
On the 26th at 126PM ‘Dan’ will merely try to spin himself as one who is “persecuted because of righteousness” – larded thickly with Scriptural pericope. But the entire point at issue is whether he is a) simply a ‘prophet’ bethumped by the unbelievers or b) a queasily aggressive whackjob who incurs legal and psychiatric interventions due to his actions (and quite possibly, his derangement).
Readers may judge as they will.
And he heads for the histrionic victim-y high ground by claiming he was “shocked to learn” that “the real fight” in life is against “deceivers, in their false humility, pretending to be holy ones” … but if Satan, “the old Deluder” as the Puritans put it, is in the business of deluding, then it is hard to see where anyone with a competent and accurate grasp of “our earthly battle” could be “shocked” in the first place.
And if ‘Dan’ is indentured to an FDS (i.e. Fixed Delusional Syndrome) and Satan is “the old Deluder”, then ‘Dan’ is rather clearly part of the problem. Which problem is only amplified by his efforts to aggressively pass himself off as the voice and word of God, with all the status and authority thereunto appertaining.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 142PM:
The problem is not whether “Christ” will triumph; the problem is whether ‘Dan’ accurately represents Christ or whether ‘Dan’ is simply an aggressive whacko who has manipulatively and deceitfully appropriated Christ and Scripture in the service of his own self-serving agenda.
Thus his Fax From Beyond here doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter at all.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:
Here – and yet again – ‘Dan’ will try to quote Scripture to establish one of his favorite fundie bits, in this case the claim that Catholics ‘worship’ Mary and the saints and thus violate the first Commandment.
My copy of the NAB version of Exodus 20 states “You shall not have other gods before me” (v.3); “You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth” (v.4); “You shall not bow down before them or worship them” (v.5).
And this NAB translation mirrors almost exactly the King James Version (KJV) of the same text, with merely some stylistic changes.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:
Catholics have “no other gods”; they have not “carved idols” of any non-divine creature; and since they have not created such “idols” then they cannot ‘bow down before them or worship them”. (That “them” used twice in verse 5 refers to the “idols” of verses 3 and 4.)
Statues and paintings used to assist in the reverence of those who are close to God and whose lives of faithfulness to God are worthy of emulation are not – to repeat yet again – “idols” since neither the statues/paintings nor the persons they depict are held to be themselves “gods” or divinities.
So all we have here is another repetition of one of ‘Dan’s favorite fundie 3x5s.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:
Nor is reverence for the reality of the person whom a statue or painting represents in any way accurately characterizable as “worship in the highest degree”. This is – yet again – merely a convenient fundie word-confusion designed to further the agenda of plop-tossing at the Church. The persons depicted are reverenced precisely because of their faithfulness to God and to Christ and such reverence clearly fosters “the works of Christ” and the ongoing work of Christ.
The statue of Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial – to use a secular example – does not in any way indicate that those who visit it are ‘worshipping’ Lincoln as a deity; they are demonstrating respect for a life and purpose greatly worthy of emulation.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:
And then ‘Dan’ once again runs yet another 3×5 that has been dealt with before here: the official statement that “the Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is intrinsic to Catholic worship” does not in any way thereby demonstrate that Mary herself is ‘worshipped’; the statement clearly describes the Church’s relation to Mary as one of “devotion”, which is not at all the same as “worship”. The Church’s “worship” is directed to the Trinity; the Church’s “devotion” – intrinsic to that worship – recalls and reverences all those who led lives faithful to the Trinity, among whom the Church holds Mary to be the greatest.
The CCC text ‘Dan’ quotes quite clearly deploys two different terms – “devotion” and “worship” – and the term “devotion” is consistently and repetitively applied to Mary.
‘Dan’ can play the deliberately or natively ignorant fundie word-play game all he wants; but that’s all it is.
And as a further vivid demonstration of the almost juvenile fundie manipulation, ‘Dan’ even again tries to label Catholic churches as “temples” – the better to manipulatively rouse the image of pagan temples and idol-worship. Sly but rather too obvious.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 202AM:
Here ‘Dan’ manipulatively and perhaps deceitfully ignores the NAB version (“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel”) upon which he has previously relied in this series of comments and instead dredges up the DRV, originally translated in the 1580s.
That translation did not take into account the masculine and plural of the Hebrew term for “offspring” and it remains of great historical value as the first major post-Reformation Catholic translation.
But while Jerome held that the verse pre-figured Mary, yet faithfulness to the Hebrew grammar requires a different interpretation, as is reflected in later Catholic translations such as the NAB and as was originally held by Irenaeus of Lyons and others to refer to Christ, connecting the verse to Galatians 3:19 and 4:4.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 202AM:
But of course none of this will further the ‘Dan’-fundie cartoon, so ‘Dan’ quickly moves to dismiss the fact that there is utterly no formal Catholic teaching supporting the claim he wants to make here: “it makes no difference” what the formal teaching of the Church says – doncha see? – because (‘Dan’ now claims) “many well respected catholics teach and think that Mary crushes the head of Satan”.
Do they? Can ‘Dan’ proffer some examples?
And are we to accept with a straight face that the matter revolves not around formal Catholic teaching on the point, but rather revolves around what some Catholics may (or may not) mistakenly believe based on the now-outmoded DRV? Which is a version of the Bible that has not been generally used in formal Catholic training or worship for quite a long time.
And – to repeat yet again – on this matter ‘Dan’ has precisely not demonstrated any “erroneous teachings of your church”. There once was an inaccurate translation, half a millennium ago, and that inaccuracy has been subsequently corrected – and that’s where the matter stands today and has for quite a long time.
This is where the problem lies. If the Catechism or catholic teaching favors one truth, but it's followers have picked up along the line some other truth, well that creates substantial problems. Add to that other false claims about Mary having attributes* similar to Christ and stating that she is your source of life, hope, grace and mercy and this becomes a very serious problem. You have created a different Mary from that of Bible truth and she has become your savior and goddess to worship, whether you think so or not.
*Absolutely nothing Biblical or historical backs claims of Mary as sinless, ever-virgin, Immaculately Conceived, Assumed into Heaven, source of life, hope, grace or mercy. These claims produce a false christ and savior and therefore a false god or goddess.
Spiderman, I read the Bible daily, which is the very reason why I have such a problem with your Catechism. I speak of Jesus regularly and am not sure if you're aware of what constitutes His church. It surely wouldn't be one of cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, idolators and all liars, as I have witnessed personally from members of your cult. Maybe your Spidey Senses need an overhaul?
Here's some Bible verses that may help you recognize what constitutes God's real, true church. Ephesians 2: 19-22, 1 Peter 2:5, Rev 21:8 If after reading these verses, you still feel you prefer a manmade church of nasty, cruel, and unforgiven sinners, rather than God's Spiritual building, well so be it. I'll forgive your ignorance and hopefully God also does.
On then to the comment by ‘John’ of the 25th at 1036PM:
I would also be cautious about the term “hate group”: the increasingly elastic term “hate” and all its variants (hating, hateful, etc.) can now be stretched to cover any sort of position with which one doesn’t agree or which one doesn’t like or doesn’t prefer.
But I’m not sure I can go along very far with “aggressively pursue justice”. SNAP did nothing along those lines; it simply fed prospective allegants to tort-attorneys and received hefty ‘donations’ from the same attorneys who collected very hefty fees for successfully garnering settlement monies for those allegants.
Continuing with my comment on ‘John’s of the 25th at 1036PM:
So while SNAP surely did “aggressively pursue” allegants and feed them to the attorneys, we can’t say that it sought to pursue “justice” without making some very deep and dubious presumptions about whether the allegations were veracious to begin-with.
Nor did SNAP complain when – as per the time-honored tortie stratagem of ‘forced settlements’ – cases were precisely not brought to any trial (where “justice” might have been assessed) but instead merely settled ‘out of court’, as they say (which left the veracity of the allegations hanging in the air, where it remains).
Continuing with my comment on ‘John’s of the 25th at 1036PM:
Thus then the working definition of “justice” here also has to be kept in mind: according to Victimist theory and praxis, “justice” means a) simply getting something from the legal system b) for an allegation whose veracity is merely presumed (although c) that presumption cannot be questioned because to do so would ‘re-victimize’ the allegant, who is invariably and improperly presumed to be a demonstrated or proven ‘victim’). The circularity of the whole thing is dizzying. But for quite a while it has worked nicely, in the sense of remuneratively.
And – as always – I would say that when you consider all of the dynamics and elements involved in implementing (a) through (c) above, then that “probably” would have to be intensified to “very likely” and its scope amplified to “very many” instead of a mere “some instances”.
The only thing "dizzying" is your poor excuses and false theories. Nothing done by your church is ever done for the protection or sake of it's victims. They've been selfish and greedy when it comes to any compensation, and knew it was cost effective to settle rather than be truly exposed to more public scrutiny. They were well aware that if "justice" was pursued, there would be thousands of priests and bishops imprisoned. Possibly even some popes and cardinals like RAT-zinger, for instance.
You may want to take a good look at the story of Ms. Marie Collins, molested by a priest when she was 13. Resigned in March, 2017 from the Vatican commission to investigate catholic priest child abuse. "I find it impossible to listen to public statements about the deep concern in the church for the care of those whose lives have been blighted by abuse, yet to watch privately as a congregation in the Vatican refuses to even acknowledge their letters!The reluctance of some in the Vatican Curia to implement recommendations or cooperate with the work of a commission when the purpose is to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults around the world is unacceptable", she added, referring to the Vatican's administrative arm.
The only other victim on the panel, Peter Saunders was suspended after he accused the panel of failing to deliver on it's promises of reform and accountability. So the only members left on the panel are members of the Curia and those willing to aid the Vatican in the ongoing cover-up. They've nixed the Tribunal they claimed they would set up to prosecute bishops guilty of transferring pedophile, perverted priests to other dioceses. Sounds like, once again, the Vatican's idea of cleaning house, to get rid of any opposition to their nasty, secret agenda. The typical Vatican Kangaroo Court that's been protecting pedophile priests and their corrupt, enabling bishops for tens, if not hundreds of years. Using statute of limitations or pressuring authorities not to prosecute their vile priests. Catholic attorneys fight tooth and nail, whenever statute of limitations changes are proposed. Corrupt hypocrites, fighting any suggestions to becoming accountable. servant of the God of Justice
Continuing with my comment on ‘John’s of the 25th at 1036PM:
And I would say that the concluding ‘justification’ (i.e. that such elements and dynamics “are a great resource of strength and justice”) is therefore merely a hopeful and presumptive spin and nothing more.
And that the supporting characterization of allegants (i.e. “for many of those who have been abused not just by individual priests but by an elaborate system” etc.) is also insufficient since it presumes precisely what has not actually been demonstrated. Again, we see the circularity of the whole thing here.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 746PM:
Here ‘Dan’ – had you been waitingggg forrrr ittttt? – tries to piggyback a self-advertisement onto the rather vital point about persons under the classical Western system of justice being “innocent until proven guilty”. That clearly cawn’t be true – doncha see? – because ‘Dan’s many legal and psychiatric misadventures were occasioned by the legal system.
And that presumes – but of course – that ‘Dan’ was ‘innocent’ and is merely a genuine prophet sorely bethumped by idolatrous Catholic un-believers. Readers may judge that presumption as they will.
By the way, your presumption was right on the money. Except you forgot 'lying' idolatrous catholic un-believers. That lying part is most important, especially pertaining to you. Most likely the reason you prefer to disregard the things you and your cult are most guilty of. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 746PM:
As to what “substantial proof” of ‘Dan’s innocence there ever was, such ‘evidence’ has never been put forward here. (Unless, of course, you were simply to take ‘Dan’s word for it all … readers may judge as they will.)
Are we to consider ‘Dan’s self-serving epitheticals as ‘evidence’ and “substantial proof” … i.e. “wicked, lying priests, nuns, principles [sic] and corrupt Catholic cops” who “backed each others [sic] stories and lies” and “evil schemes”?
And his usual riff goes on.
Though – incoherently – these same individuals are then accused of not showing “forgiveness or mercy” … but why – if ‘Dan’ were innocent – would “forgiveness or mercy” be necessary or required or expected or justified?
Among the many other things ‘Dan’ has not really thought-through in his material, his accusations here trip each other up.
Look you flaming idiot. Once you're falsely accused by priests, nuns and corrupt catholic cops, you're as good as guilty in the courts eyes. They could have had second thoughts, when taking me to court and shown remorse for their lies, and yet they wouldn't even show "forgiveness or mercy" for the things they falsely accused me of. That is why I label the whole bunch of you as disingenuous creeps, and that is not a rant, it only describes what you truly are. I had stopped calling you names, but you are one disgusting, idol-worshipping, manipulative, lying creep and a scourge on all humanity. Why don't you slither back down the hole you crawled out from, Mini-Satan. Screw all your little deceiving tricks and twists.
Didn't pay much attention when I skimmed over your garbage yesterday. Notice you still insist on pointing out little misspellings with your cute little [sic]. If you weren't such a hypocrite and douchebag, you'd be fair and point out everyones' mistakes, of which I've seen many made by your cronies and your Mini-Meewee's. You phony apologists sure do like to circle the wagons to protect your own kind. You're unwilling to be truthful in regards to any of their faults and nasty sins. Possibly the misspelling of principals was just a freudian slip, being that I was pointing out the lying principals who had no principles. The other liars of your church, of which you rate as one of the worst. Servant of truth and follower of the One True God, not the female false goddess you worship. Oh! That's right. You only adore, venerate, honor, bow down to her, pay her homage, kiss her feet, but never call it worship. What a deceived fool. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 746PM:
And then the usual God’ll-getcha bit: God’ll get’em all, ‘Dan’ piously hopes and bleats.
‘Dan’ might be able to “stand before God with a clear conscience”, but that will merely reflect the depth of his derangement, and his best hope is that God accepts insanity pleas up there.
No one more insane or deranged, than one deluded liar, who thinks he has the truth.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1005PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ proffers what are possible explanations (not actually “reasons”) for why in so very many of these allegations from the way-back, “parents” “didn’t go to the police”.
Those proffered bits are indeed possible. So is the possibility that the parents didn’t go to the police because the allegated offense never happened and that it was only much later – when the Stampede had prepared the ground – that so very many of these allegations suddenly appeared.
Which is why I have always held that each of these cases should have been examined at trial.
Your excuses are not explanations. You don't get that yet, dummy?