Facts vs. The Boston Globe: Globe editor Brian McGrory (l) and staffer Matt Rocheleau (r)
The Boston Globe will do anything to keep an old story alive, even if it means repeatedly misleading its readers.
Once again, this year's newly released annual audit report by United States bishops about abuse in the Catholic Church amplifies the rampancy of false accusations, unprovable allegations against dead priests, dubious decades-old claims, and the determination of Church-suing tort lawyers and their allies to drain the Church's coffers.
Yet in an article by staffer Matt Rocheleau, the Boston Globe continues to try to convince the public that abuse is somehow still a current problem in the Catholic Church.
Just the facts
Taken straight from the data in this year's audit report, we again provide you the simple facts about the Catholic Church abuse story that you will never, ever see in the Boston Globe and which once again only underscore that the abuse story is a Globe obsession borne of animus for an institution which it so abhors:
- a whopping 95% of all abuse accusations last year allege incidents from 1989 or earlier (28 or more years ago);
- 47% of all identified priests who were accused in 2016 were already long deceased (and conveniently no longer around to defend themselves);
- over 82% of all identified priests who were accused in 2016 were either already deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or simply missing; and
- only a mere 15% of all allegations last year were even deemed "substantiated," while nearly two thirds of the accusations were deemed either "unsubstantiated," "unable to be proven," or still under review.
So we will say it again: The story of abuse in the Catholic Church is less "news" and more of an attempt to extend a story line that croaked many years ago.
And the only real reason why lawsuits and accusations are still flying against the Catholic Church is that a number of states have enacted "window legislation" which enables anonymous accusers to make decades-old allegations against now-deceased priests. In the case of this past year, window legislation in Minnesota – home of the notorious Church-suing lawyer Jeff Anderson – enabled various accusers and flimflammers to step forward claiming abuse from many decades ago.
False accusations, the untold story
There is an important and notable fact in this year's report. 25 current minors came forward in 2016 alleging that a current priest abused them. Many of the cases are still under investigation, but of the 13 allegations in which a determination was made, only 2 were found to be "substantiated," and 11 were found to be completely bogus.
Chew on that for a moment … 85% of these contemporaneous accusations in which a determination was made were found to be outright fraudulent.
If the contemporaneous accusations are such frauds, can you imagine what the fraud percentage is of those claiming a priest touched them 30, 40, 50 years ago? Also keep in mind that 73% of the cases brought to the attention of dioceses last year were brought by a Church-suing lawyer.
This is the story that the Globe and the left-wing media need to report. False accusations against Catholic priests are rampant. But the Globe does not report this part of the story because it does not fit the bogus Spotlight movie story line.
Once again, we repeat that the Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the "protection of children" or the tragic abuse of kids. It has everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for and earning kudos from others – such as those in Hollywood – who also detest the Church.
————————————-
[Addendum (6/6/17): We would like to respond to some readers who are unclear on what the report defines as an "unsubstantiated" allegation. Here it is, straight fron the report itself (emphasis added): "'Unsubstantiated' describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur" (p. 21 of the pdf / p. 10 of the report).
In other words, "unsubstantiated" claims are indeed bogus.]
————————————-
See also:
1. Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com)
2. 'Spotlight' Exposed: The definitive 'Spotlight' review.
3. 'Nothing to See Here!': Investigation Finds 15 Mass. Educators Each Year Suspended For Sex Abuse, Boston Globe In Hiding (Nov. 2015)
4. FIVE FAST FACTS About the Catholic Church Abuse Narrative
Are these facts something that the true and self-righteous catholic church can be proud of? The fact that there are any pedophiles in an organization claiming to be the One and Only True catholic church, or that somehow the numbers of perverts aren't anywhere near what the media has reported is absolutely disingenuous at best. Claiming that 47% are "long deceased" and "no longer around to defend themselves", also means they're not able to spend a lifelong prison term, which is what they would truly deserve for harming children. To say that "abuse in the catholic church" is a "story line that croaked many years ago" is an outright lie. It's a fact that many rape and sexually abused victims don't come forward for twenty or thirty years or more. This story is far from dead and you can't accuse me of being some leftist or looking for kudos from Hollywood. I've been falsely accused by hundreds of members of your cult and don't see any of your brainwashed sheep coming to my defense. No. You're like a bunch of vultures circling a kill and willing to add to the lies in order point a deceiving finger at the innocent, so others won't be so apt to notice the abundance of creeps in your cult. True fact that many are now just dead perverted creeps. As far as those who have been falsely accused, which the guilty would surely outnumber, all I can say is, "Your church is reaping what it sows." You're quick to falsely accuse, lie and slander, so you shall reap the same against your hierarchy and yourselves. Although you slyly inflate the numbers of fraud and deny, make excuses and deceive when it comes to the true accusations against your cult of pedophiles and creeps. The True God is patiently waiting to mete out His just punishments. Looking forward to Judgment Day, when the truly guilty shall be forever condemned and the righteous shall be forever freed from all the deception and lies. servant
P.S. I'll be waiting for all the vultures, cowards and snakes to attack.
Dave, I had trusted you to be honest and forthcoming when producing information, especially when accusing others of "Hid[ing] the truth" and "misleading it's readers" and "Public". I have a serious problem when you're claiming of the "25 current minors [that] came forward…of the 13 allegations in which a determination was made, only 2 were found to be 'substantiated', and 11 were found to be completely bogus." You typed "11 were found to be completely bogus" in bold print. The USCCB report read, "eleven allegations were unsubstantiated". Seeing that "unsubstantiated" means there is insufficient evidence to determine whether an accusation is true or false, then using the terms "completely bogus" or "outright fraudulent" would be terribly misleading to your readers and public, and borderline lies.
Secondly – Are we to trust the reporting of incidents from bishops who previously enabled pedophiles and perverts to reoffend by sending perpetrators off to other churches? Bishops who themselves have at times been accused of pedophilia or perversions. Trust an institution which I have personally found to be full of liars, excusers and slanderers?
The report also stated that there was a "lack of cooperation at the parish and school level in gathering information". Of the 194 dioceses only 23 dioceses included parish audits, down from 31 dioceses last year. Something tells me that this information shows a decline in accountability and transparency, not an improvement.
Lastly, and certainly not least, the report stated, "It is important for the bishops not to conclude that sexual abuse of minors by the clergy is a thing of the past and a distant memory." I believe you may want to rethink the fact that Catholic Abuse Matters are far from any "story line that croaked many years ago". This problem is definitely systemic and apparently not going away anytime soon. Brainwashed catholic sheep may want to open your eyes and ears to what really is the truth. Yours and your childrens souls are certainly at stake. servant of the One and Only True God
Dan, if you’re going to come on here and acccuse people of lying, you better have your facts right. “Unsubstantiated” does not mean “there is insufficient evidence to determine whether an accusation is true or false.” You made that up.
Here is what “unsubstantiated” actually means, straight from the report itself:
“‘Unsubstantiated’ describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur“ (p. 21 of the pdf / p. 10 of the report).
In other words, “unsubstantiated” claims are indeed bogus.
Dave, I did NOT make the meaning of "unsubstantiated" up. That was a direct quote from Wiki.
Another quote from Child Protective Services (CPS) – "Note that the finding of 'unsubstantiated' or unfounded does not always mean that maltreatment did not occur. Instead, it may mean that there is not enough evidence to support a finding of substantiated."
Quoted from womensnews.org/2001/10/false-claim-abuse-not-necessarily-lie/ - "A 'False' Claim of Abuse is not Necessarily a Lie" (title of article)…."In fact, they might be unsupported by sufficient evidence, but they could be true."
Dave, We all know that claims of child abuse or rape are hard to prove, especially when dealing with children, dead suspects or perpetrators who are more than willing to lie and deny. I think it would have been better if you quoted the report directly, saying those "eleven allegations were 'unsubstantiated' " and not "completely bogus". I didn't accuse you of lying, but using the wording you chose, ('completely bogus' or 'outright fraudulent'), was a bit of a stretch of the truth. My facts are just fine and I'm not one of the compulsive liars or minipulators we've witnessed on this forum.
Dan – We are not talking about definitions from Wiki, “womensnews.org,” or anywhere else.
We are talking about the definition according to the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection for the National Review Board and the USCCB.
Here is some free advice: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Saw that I misspelled manipulators. I also question your repeated claim "that the Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the 'protection of children' or the tragic abuse of kids". You know that for sure? How do you know that to be true? Do you guys also think the same of myself? Then you would be truly mistaken.
Dan, on the 4th,…. asks us…. who we should trust?. Some of his thoughts are superficially plausible. Meaning they are reasonable at first glance… provided you don't think them through. …But when you do you find that he has excluded relevant facts. He has left out parents, the natural protectors of their children. And he has left out the police…the first port of call when the law has been broken. When we include these realities we grasp that it would be virtually impossible for the Bishops to understate the numbers of alleged abuses (of current minors). If they did then some enterprising journalist when do his own research, simply by surveying various police departments. Given the hysteria, whipped up by the media, the public mood would prompt any parent to report any suspected abuse. And don't forget the mandatory reporting?
No…Dan is conducting his own personal witch hunt…. against all things Catholic.
Malcolm, I'm going to explain myself and what you describe as my "own personal witch hunt…. against all things catholic" at the end of publiar's comments on June 6th.
For someone who claims to be a born again Christian, Dan comes across as being pretty mean spirited.
Sorry Mark, my reply to you is under publyin's 6/6/17 @ 10:35am. Easy to confuse you catholics, being your all such biased, brainwashed clones.
unsubstantiated…………………….not supported or proven by evidence.
this definition is taken from several "dictionary" sites on the Internet.
an unsubstantiated claim does not mean that a claim is bogus.
bogus………………not genuine or true (definition)
We are not talking about “dictionary” definitions or definitions from web sites.
We are talking about the definition from the audit report itself:
"'Unsubstantiated' describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur" (p. 21 of the pdf / p. 10 of the report).
In other words, "unsubstantiated" claims are indeed bogus.
-
And on we go.
In our last episode – i.e. his final comment on the immediately previous thread, dated May 9th at 251AM – ‘Dan’ gave us a nice summary demonstration of a whole bunch of his whackeries rather nicely wrapped up: a) he simply cawn’t think why anyone reading his stuff would imagine that he doth have “problems and issues” that he is “blaming … on somebody or everybody else; b) (and had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt?) it’s all just “repetitive and compulsive lies” by … (fill in the blank); c) and “ignorance”; and d) not only does ‘Dan’ not find it “humorous” but also (had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt?) “God” doesn’t find it “terribly funny” either (and – but of course – God’ll getcha all). Oh, and e) ‘Dan’ doth add “Satan” into the mix (because only Satan – doncha see? – would question ‘Dan’s stuff).
Are you catholics such biased hypocrites that you think you can make any sarcastic comments towards me, yet think I have no right to reply to the lies, slander and sarcasm hurled at me. And you're sure quick to cast your judgments on others. Take a good look at the creeps in your own backyard. If you have no problem with the disgusting crimes against innocent children and other victims of your cult, then there's nothing we can do for your blindness.
My mistake. This comment was directed towards Mark Taylor, but can just as easily apply to your lyin', sarcastic, hypocritical ass. servant
publyin' oinks, "(because only Satan – doncha see? – would question 'Dan's stuff)"
This isn't true at all. Satan's demons and mini-Satans question my stuff all the time, but you don't even realize your doing it? That figures. All your londwinded ignorance and nonsense and yet you don't even know you're spewing it. Classic, brainwashed hypocrite. LOL
Continuing with my comment:
But wait – there’s more!
Now that he thinks about it, ‘Dan’ doth realize that all along it has been he who has been calling me “a ‘deceptive and manipulative whackjob’”. But this isn’t a fine example of ‘Dan’s self-serving treatment of reality as if it were Silly Putty with his I’m Not/You Are bit; nooooooo, this is just gawd’s honest truth that ‘Dan’ knows even though nobody else seems to.
And we are treated to a definition from the Dictionary of ‘Dan’: in the ‘Dan’-verse, when he styles himself “prophet” he just means “teacher”. Sooooo … we are not really to consider him in a line with Isaiah and Jeremiah and such; he’s more of a Gabe Kotter kinda guy as in “Welcome back, Kotter”.
But he’s a “teacher” with a difference, since he receives his course materials and syllabus directly from the Divine Fax, in the form of – we would have to say – the “25” ‘teachings’ he claims to have gotten off the Heavenly Printer.
But there is another faculty member (and roomie) in the oh-so-speshull University of ‘Dan’ who has received “1000 in the last 7 years”. One wonders if ‘Dan’ doesn’t live in a house, but rather a home.
Just another example of ignorant mocking of God, His Holy Spirit and His Chosen (i.e. gawd, Divine Fax, Heavenly Printer). None of you catholics have a problem with those who mock and scoff at God and His Spirit, and yet have such a problem with me? Have no problems with the pedophilia and perversions against innocent minors, and yet have such a problem with me? How can anyone be so blind?
Continuing with my comment:
But – doncha see? – to ‘Dan’, once he has said something and once he has spewed his assorted claims and assertions, then that equals his having “explained” his stuff. The difference between ‘saying’ or ‘asserting’ or ‘claiming’ and actually ‘explaining’ … is a difference by which ‘Dan’ does not allow his performances to be obstructed.
Thus who can be surprised when he then declaims that “there is nothing [that he is] trying to ‘evade or avoid’” … ? He’s just sorely bethumped by “lying assessments”, doncha see? He is – in case it has to be spelled it out for you – a victim here, as everywhere else. But – of course – a heroic and oh-so-divinely-truthy victim.
And he brings it all home by once again repeating the rock-bottom fundamental whackery that grounds his entire Fixed Delusional System: if you question ‘Dan’s stuff, then you are questioning God. Because ‘Dan’ and God are … what else can we say? – one.
Well, so much for the old stuff. With a fresh bowl of popcorn, it’s on to the present material.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will retreat to the usual Playbook fallback position, that I will call the Even If Only One gambit: if all the claims and assertions of widespread perversion and organized debauchery start to dissolve, then the enterprising plop-tosser can Keep The Ball Rolling by puffing up the old pinfeathers and huffily declaiming that i) Even If There Is Only One, then that’s too much for a Church that claims to be God’s divinely-instituted human institution on earth and ii) even that Only One instantly and totally dissolves the Church’s legitimacy (which, by amazing coincidence, is one of ‘Dan’s primary objectives).
Of course, pedophilia – and I refer to genuine clinically-defined pedophilia here – appears to be a human failing appearing generally throughout the species over time. There is no human organization that can coherently and credibly be said to be free of all instances of it. (Which, of course, is why ‘Dan’ avoids organizational membership in religion – that saves him the trouble of belonging to anything that might be tainted with pedophilia at all … which might seem a tad obsessive on his part, but perhaps he has his reasons).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:
Then – and with a remarkably shallow but tactically shrewd comprehension – he simply insists that the eyebrow-raising percentage of recently-accused priests who are no longer around to defend themselves merely and only means that they have escaped prison, which is nothing but the classic manipulative and deceptive ploy of presuming what has yet to be demonstrated.
A perfectly plausible alternative explanation is that there are still those enterprising types (individuals and torties) who consider it possible to run the old Stampede game-plan, now with an almost-perfect certainty that the accused will not be able to interfere with obtaining a check to settle the claim.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:
And he then tries to bolster that bit by larding on another trusty Playbook gambit: that it takes decades for victims to “come forward”. There is no psychological basis establishing that as a generalyl applicable rule and there never has been; and if some – as is quite possible – might find it more difficult than others, it is also true that the check-issuing Stampede mania of the past few decades has certainly made it not only ridiculously easy to “come forward” but also to be lauded as somehow heroic for doing so.
And in regard to “the story” being “dead”, we also have to distinguish between a) the actual historical reality of whether such widespread abuse still exists and b) whether the media consider it any longer a “story” that they care to attend to for their own purposes.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:
And – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’ then takes this opportunity to insert a commercial for himself, as being “falsely accused” and so on and so forth. That nobody came “to [his] defense” because he was, in the judgment of so many, accurately described … is something that ‘Dan’s FDS cannot allow him to effectively consider.
Nor – were one to peruse ‘Dan’s many performances here on this site – would it likely occur that the Church or anyone else is trying to emphasize ‘Dan’s whackery in order to distract from the allegations of the Church’s or Catholicism’s own infirmities; ‘Dan’s material establishes his whackery all on its own, and no help from extraneous sources is necessary.
On top if which it also has to be noted that ‘Dan’s rants against Catholicism are themselves actually necessary elements to maintain his own FDS; they help distract him from his own abyssal issues.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:
And then that oh-so-charming observation about “many are now just dead perverted creeps” (and as I have often said, ‘Dan’ has this thing about “perverted creeps”, which is why when he looks in the bathroom mirror he doesn’t see ‘Dan’ but only the assorted divine figurines that pass on ‘teachings’ in those séances).
And the whole bit concludes with a riff along the lines of – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – God’ll getcha.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
Here we are treated to ‘Dan’ doing his impressions of an exasperated student of the truth, taking DP and TMR to task for not being truthy. The pinfeathers are in full-puff mode. (And – my, my – so grammatically and structurally uncharacteristic of ‘Dan’s usual performances, and rather epithet-free.)
The article discusses the USCCB report. That report – as DP notes – defines “unsubstantiated” a) not as if there were insufficient evidence (as to whether the abuse did or did not occur), but rather b) that there exists enough evidence “to prove that the abuse did not occur”.
If there is any semantic difficulty here, I would say that it is in the USCCB erring on the side of Victimist politeness: one doesn’t in this day and age want to come right out and say something like “false”, let alone “lies”, so the Report errs in its punch-pulling deployment of the term “unsubstantiated”, while simultaneously carefully defining that term (for the purposes of the Report) as meaning “false” without having to actually provide a terribly un-P.C. soundbite by saying “false” directly and overtly.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
One thinks of the Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia where D/G’s claim of being victimized was outright contradicted by his mother’s own carefully-kept records of altar-boy assignments and the fact that he was never of the age to be a “bell-ringer” (which claim played a part in D/G’s accusation).
This would earn the classification of “unsubstantiated” according to the Report’s usage, but clearly it is actually a case of there being clear evidence that the accusation could not be accurate or veracious.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
After two decades during which the Church has shared any allegations or claims with police and prosecutorial authorities, it strains credibility to imagine that at this point the USCCB would issue a formal public Report that could be instantly reviewed by those authorities for inaccuracies. Indeed, while I am not privy to whether such independent authorities actually played a role in vetting the stats in the Report, I would say it is hardly beyond possibility that such authorities were involved in the Report even in its composition phase.
As to what ‘Dan’ has “personally found” … readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
The Report’s opening Letter to Cardinal DiNardo (from the National Review Board) clearly indicates that the “on-site audit” process was conducted on 65 of the dioceses and eparchies. With minor failures in three instances, all of the audited entities were compliant and all of the 129 dioceses participated in reporting on the general conformity to abuse measures and data-collection stats, and all were found to be compliant.
And this represents an increase in reporting entities, since last year six dioceses and two eparchies did not participate and this year all dioceses participated and the two eparchies assure that they will participate for the coming year.
And while the Letter goes on to note that there remain some problems in getting dioceses and parishes to fully implement the (apparently substantial) formal training, tracking and data-collection tasks required by the Charter for Protection, yet – as I said – any actual abuse allegations would be reported to public and Church authorities in any case. So while the Charter’s formal book-keeping requirements still haven’t been fully implemented, the actual reporting of abuse allegations remains quite acute.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
Further, the Letter then notes that there were 25 fresh current (as opposed to ‘historical’) allegations in this audit-year, which is an increase in current allegations. Of these 25, 11 were deemed “unsubstantiated”, 2 substantiated, and 10 still being investigated by diocesan or religious-order authorities.
The Letter then takes the position that if only the two already deemed “substantiated” are veracious, then the Church must not let down its guard in this matter.
That’s fair enough and any human organization would do well to continue its vigilance. However, I would say that the era of Stampede is indeed over, with its over-the-top, media-fueled phantasmagoria and legions of torties eagerly hoovering up allegants from their ‘victim-assistance’ front-organizations.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
I doubt that the Church or any other human organization will ever reach Zero-Point with abuse, any more than the Church or any other human organization can reach Zero-Point (i.e. total and absolute perfection) by utterly eradicating obesity or alcohol-abuse or a city can utterly eradicate traffic-fatalities.
The concept of Zero-point seems to me a particularly American conceit: it makes for good copy, endows its agenda with some sort of aura of Total-ness or Complete-ness (always alluring to humans), and keeps up public approbation.
But human nature is a wonky thing and there’s no avoiding that (look at ‘Dan’, who theoretically has speshull direct connections to God).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
‘Dan’s performance then tries to bring it all home by deploying a familiar, scientific-sounding mantra: the Church’s abuse problem is – cue the drum roll – “systemic”.
I would say, first and again, that the Church’s problem is fundamentally a human-nature problem.
And second, that if it’s a “systemic” problem then it needs to be systemically addressed and that’s precisely what has happened in the past decades: the Charter – reinforced with papal mojo – erects major systemic elements specifically designed to systemically enhance the system.
And when we compare any abuse-allegation numbers today to what they were two decades or so ago, then clearly ‘Dan’s vatic twaddle about the problem “apparently not going away anytime soon” is – not to put too fine a point on it – “unsubstantiated” in all senses of the word.
But you can take it to the bank that ‘Dan’s FDS is “apparently not going away any time soon”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:
And in the letter from the auditing agency (Stone Bridge Business Partners) we see that all of the 194 dioceses and eparchies over the past 3 years of the audit cycle; the 65 number mentioned in a prior Letter preceding the Report only covered the single calendar year 2016.
And the Letter from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate reported that for its data-collection the diocesan response rate was 100 percent and from religious orders 78 percent.
This agency collects data specifically on allegations and monies expended as a result.
I won’t review the entire Report here, although DP has provided a link to the full text of the Report. I do note however that the Report itself opens (Report page 3) with a positive reference to the ‘Spotlight’ movie.
That film was considered at length on this site (with hyperlinks to other reviews) and I don’t share the Report’s initial burbly reference to it and all the assorted shenanigans that are connected to it.
But, again, I think what we are seeing here is an overabundance of caution on the part of the USCCB, trying not to come across as ‘anti-victim’ in any way, shape or form.
I would also note, as DP has pointed out, that the ‘Definitions’ section can be found on Report page 10. Here one may see clearly the definitions that the Report will employ, which goes to the question of defining “substantiated” and “unsubstantiated”.
Establishing definitions of terms at the outset is standard best-practice for any formal Reports and I would say that it’s a good practice whenever one is discussing an issue and its various elements and aspects.
It is precisely n-o-t what the manipulative agenda of the Stampede deploys, since the Playbook greatly depends on insinuation and innuendo and conflation or outright misapplication of terms. A classic and relevant example would be the use of “pedophilia”, which has its own formal clinical definition (it is, after all, a formal psychological diagnostic term) and then also has acquired a less precise ‘meaning’ popularized by the media as they played their part in the Stampede for their own purposes.
If the Report is to be discussed, then its carefully explained terms have to be taken into account.
As I have said in comments above, I would have preferred a more forthright term for “unsubstantiated”, such as ‘demonstrated to be false’ or ‘contradicted by evidentiary facts’. The Report here errs on the side of Victimist politeness, in my opinion.
But the Report has chosen the terms it will use and for the purpose of discussing the Report then those are the terms of usage.
References to other definitions of a term (“unsubstantiated”, in this instance) that exist in wider colloquial usage are irrelevant here. The ground-rules are set by the Definitions, the meaning of the term as used in the Report is clear to all, and within the circumscribed arena of discussing the Report’s substance then everyone knows beforehand what the term means.
I would, lastly, point out that there were about 1100 allegations in the reporting period, with all but 25 being ‘historical’. This number of 1100 is itself only a tenth of the allegations initially compiled over a decade ago in the first Jay Report, and we also – as DP points out – have to consider that in the interim some states have opened special windows of opportunity for filing allegations and claims (although the states, as we know, have largely been careful not to expose public institutions to the many dangers of opening such windows). The Report also notes that the increases in allegations were seen mostly in dioceses located in states where such windows of opportunity have been opened.
I refuse to comment individually to all your ignorance and stupidity today. Are you so impressed with yourself that you think if you write all this longwinded nonsense and load on a slew of excuses for the wickedness and pedophilia of your cult, well then we must all believe that it's all a thing of the past. Everything is still done in house, overseen by the bishop excusers, enablers and in some cases even perverts themselves. We're supposed to accept the findings from them, while Da's, cops and even parents looked the other way, and refused to prosecute the holier than thou perverted creeps of their cult?
Malcolm claims I'm "against all things catholic". Let me explain in a nutshell the catholic beliefs and Bible sins that I am against – catholic liars and lies, catholic idol-worshippers, catholic pedophiles and perverts, catholic statues and obelisks, catholic greed, catholic prayers to false gods or goddesses, catholic prayer babble, rosaries to Mary, prayers to saints, catholic worship of their popes, bishops and priests (I've witnessed), catholics refusing sound Biblical principles thinking they can twist and change the meaning of God's Word, catholic pomp and circumstance, priests wearing dresses and taking on the name of Mary, nuns taking on male names (last 2 pretty creepy if you ask me) – and then you wonder why they become pedophiles and perverts? These are just some of the reasons why I'm against the teachings and hierarchy of your church and not against lost catholic people.
Now you can deny, make excuses and attempt to diminish the despicable crimes and sins the catholic church commits against God, but that doesn't change a single fact. The catholic church is not God's church, because it refuses to obey and listen to even some of the most simple things God asks of those who truly follow Him. In the end, He is your judge, not me. Quit blaming me for exposing the sins of your apostate church. His hope is that you might wake up and escape Babylon Rome. Hate me all you like, it's your soul that's at stake.
Yo, Dan…..what happened with my last comment……….
Honestly, I know of no one in the field of investigations, review, evaluation, quality assurance, etc. that equates "unsubstantiated" with "bogus". Their definitions do not align, they are not the same.
Please, find someone, anyone or any professional organization involved in such investigative work that asserts that unsubstantiated is the same as bogus.
Or, conversely, find a professional that agrees with the definition cited in the study:
"Unsubstantiated defines an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur"
In investigative circles, such a definition describes the term "unfounded"
Hey Michael, Don't you understand that catholic hierarchy can make their own definitions, follow their own catechism, ignore sound Biblical teaching and just about do whatever they please. They've gotten away with it for so long that they don't even notice it's leading to their destruction. They're bigger than God, adore, venerate and worship their Divine Mary and think that she'll have mercy and forgive all their disgusting sins. Say 10 Hail Mary's and Go Directly to Hell, Do not pass purgatory and do not collect $200 dollars. Too bad it's a game you wouldn't want to play.
Hey Dan, I am sorry about what you have had to endure but you really aren't behaving any better by insulting us Catholics. I know the Catholic Church is corrupt but calling it a cult is extreme at most. It is the Church that Jesus founded before going back to Heaven. Oh sure, it might have gotten corrput ( maybe around the time of Constantine) but it's still God's Church. Also your condesending attitude to Pubion is uncallled for. He may go on a bit but he talks more sense than you do, that's for sure.
Hey Mark, I am not in agreement with the teachings of the catholic church. I do not hate or despise catholic people, nor am I about insulting decent or loving catholics. All of my immediate family, that's 9 minus myself, still consider themselves catholic, as do two of my closest friends of 48 years. We have some interesting discussions and some agree with my beliefs, but I love all of them.
I have to question, if the catholic church was founded by Jesus, then why would they take on names and teachings that are not in the New Testament? There is no pope, no catholic church, no rosary, no bowing to anyone other than God or Christ, no immaculate conception or assumption of Mary, no Mary mediatrix or co-redeemer, no repetitive prayers (babble), no Mary or saint adoring or venerating, no sinless Mary, infant baptism, no monumental temples or churches, no statue making or worship, etc. – For these reasons, pagan holidays and traditions, and blatant misinterpretations of Biblical principles, I can't agree with your churches teachings. You yourself say the church is corrupt and for all these reasons and more, they most certainly fit the definition of an apostate cult.
As far as publyin' goes, no catholic has ever lied about myself in the way he has and add to that his sarcasm towards my mental state (FDS, whacked, live in a home.etc.) and his mocking of my God, Christ, His Holy Spirit and His chosen, and I feel I have every right to treat him as I have. When someone is in agreement with his lies and ignorance, they may be treated likewise. Have I learned like Christ to turn the other cheek? No, but I never claimed to be Christ, my Savior or God on earth. I leave that ignorance to your Holy Father and members of your clergy. As far as a deceiver, excuser of pedophiles and perverts, idolator and apologist of everything catholics practice wrong goes, I would guess you might believe he makes more sense than me. I would suggest you read the Bible with an open mind, to find all the ways the church refuses to follow the Almighty God and publiar makes excuses for. I wouldn't be terribly proud of thinking he makes more sense than me, because he is as corrupt as your church.
Catholic church in the Bible – (1) Romans 1:18-28 Is it just a coincidence that Paul wrote this letter to Rome, the home and birthplace of an idol-worshipping, false church. (2) Rev. 17:3-9 (3) Jeremiah 44 If you don't see how these verses describe your cult, than I'll never convince you. I bear no animosity towards you, Mark.
James Marasco: (Founding Member, Stonebridge Partners) jmarasco@stonebridgebp.com
Dear Sir:
In the USCCB audit report, your company provided the following definition: "Unsubstantiated” describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur.That definition describes that category of allegations that are "unfounded".
To your knowledge, what other professional, investigative, audit, evaluation company or association uses the definition of "unsubstantiated" that you provide in the USCCB audit report? I know of no source, organization that uses the definition described above.
Michael Skiendzielewski
Captain (Retired)
Philadelphia Police Dept.
In a pearl-clutchy performance (the 6th at 1108PM) ‘Dan’ demonstrates nicely how Victimist tropes merge seamlessly with the tactics of preserving a Fixed Delusional Syndrome: a) while he evades rationality like a vampire evades holy water, he is quick to detect “sarcasm”; b) he will (heroically and truthily, of course) defend his “right to reply” to – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrr ittttt? – “lies, slander and sarcasm”; c) which is “hurled” at him (at this point, one hand clutches the pearls and the other is raised back-of-hand-to-forehead).
And then the old familiar comeback: let’s not look at ‘Dan’s whackeries but instead at all the stuff he throws up about the Church. It clearly has escaped him that his core whackery produces his rants against the Church, Catholicism, Mary and so on.
He’s got his little swamp-box, he makes and throws his mud-pies, he’s happy – why oh why should people want to ruin his good time? He cawn’t think why.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1124PM:
Here he will demonstrate his theological chops by – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – running the old I’m Not/You Are comeback bit: it’s not that only “Satan” would question his stuff, doncha see? Actually, he goes on to inform us, “Satan’s demons and mini-Satan’s” are also at work. There’s a distinction without a difference.
But there’s a method in the madness: he slyly shifts the focus from a) the whackness of his (necessary) presumption that to question his stuff is to do Satan’s work to b) an epithetical stab at anyone who questions his stuff as being a “mini-Satan” and one of “Satan’s demons”.
‘Dan’ is being victimized by Satan – doncha see? – “all the time”.
This is where a nice tight FDS will get you. The alternative – i.e. that a rather large number of people who come into some form of contact with him realize his whackery – is not something he has to consider because it’s all the work of Satan anyway.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1134PM:
Once again, references to ‘Dan’s self-identification with the Divine are presumed to be an “ignorant mocking of God” – rather than a spot-on assessment of ‘Dan’s whackeries that leaves God out of it.
“How can anyone be so blind?” honks the Wig of Exasperated Truthiness. How can anyone be so whacky, would be a more useful question to ask. But that nice tight FDS precludes the need to do so
But then there was a sequence of my comments on the Report, pointing out elements in the text of the Letters and Report.
And how does ‘Dan’ evade those problem-points posed for his assorted claims and assertions?
Easy-peasy: on the 7th at 1237AM he doth “refuse to comment individually” to what he blithely waves away as “all your ignorance and stupidity” and – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – “longwinded nonsense”. One sees here the sly manipulativeness and deception that ‘Dan’ can deploy when he has to.
Having thus absolved himself of the need to deal with actual textual points that are seriously inconvenient for his mud-pie tossing, ‘Dan’ then buckles down to simply tossing up more versions of his same old mud-pies.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:
Thus – to repeat – things are not done “in-house”: an outside professional firm was engaged, and police and prosecutors i) are informed whenever allegations are lodged; ii) are fully capable of making their own assessments of the public Report; and iii) may even be included in the preparation phase of the Report.
But ‘Dan’ has an easy-peasy solution for that seriously inconvenient actuality: the police and DA’s and even “parents” “looked the other way” (one notes the slyness of using the past tense of that verb) and “refused” (past tense again) “to prosecute”.
If we take ‘Dan’s own grammar as accurately representing his position here, then he is merely tossing up his old stuff from the way-back – though he claims that nothing is “over” and it’s all fresh and new.
Bottom-line: ‘Dan’s ‘explanation’ for the dearth of actual trials for allegations in the past and for any possible (probable?) lack of actual trials in the present and future is merely to blame police and prosecutors and even parents for not taking action. But – he would like us to believe – all his scare-visions and plop-tosses are gawd’s own truthy truth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:
‘Dan’ then addresses Malcolm Harris’s claim that ‘Dan’ is “against all things catholic”. He’s not, actually; he’s just against that collection of epithets (“catholic liars and lies, catholic idol-worshippers, catholic pedophiles and perverts”) and Catholic prayer, reverence and liturgy (“catholic statues and obelisks” … obelisks?), and on and on.
Thus ‘Dan’ isn’t – as Malcolm Harris would put it – “against all things catholic”; noooooo, ‘Dan’ explains; ‘Dan’ is just – not to put too fine a point on it – against all things Catholic, whether actual or imagined.
That’s where you wind up when ‘Dan’ starts ‘explaining’ himself.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:
And on some level even ‘Dan’ seems to realize the whackery of this whole bit. Thus he tries to save the day for himself by finishing the paragraph by insisting that he is merely “against the teaching and hierarchy of your church” but he is not “against lost catholic people”.
But Malcolm Harris had said “all things” Catholic and “things” are not “people”.
But, now that we’re on the subject, ‘Dan’ takes a whack at Catholic “people” too: they are “lost” (and “brainwashed” and “sheep” and all the other epithetical bits ‘Dan’ deploys when describing Catholic “people”).
But ‘Dan’s a real people-person, doncha see? That’s why he hurls so much plop … he’s trying to save them that are “lost”. He’s not only heroic and truthy and speshully-Chosen by God – doncha see? He’s also engaged in a rescue mission, just like the fire department or EMTs or the Coast Guard (but not the police – doncha see? – because they tend to arrest him).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:
And in his final paragraph (having, we recall, evaded all the actual – though inconvenient – points from the text) ‘Dan’ will try to bring it all home by tossing more of his epithetical mud-pies, which is his preferred mode of operation.
And in doing so he dons the Wig of Heroic and Truthy Exposer: don’t victimize ‘Dan’ by “blaming” him for “exposing the sins of your apostate church”, doncha see?
And then ‘Dan’ literally lifts himself off the mundane earth itself: he is not only a people-person, doncha see? He is also a soul-person and he’s just trying to rescue the “soul”.
It also helps to characterize himself as being ‘hated’; that’s like hot-sauce for this little stew of an identity he’s cooked up for himself … since the actual whacky ‘Dan’ isn’t apparently something he likes to see in his bathroom mirror. One can clearly see why.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1256AM:
We see – yet again – one of those catty little just-entre-nous exchanges, this time around between sometime-commenter Michael and ‘Dan’.
We have encountered this type of gambit before on this site; it usually happens when Abuseniks haven’t got anything else so they amuse themselves with such childish bits (essentially a written form of Myah-myah, we’re not talking to you clods – we’re talking to each other and you clods are not included).
Readers can get some fresh popcorn and enjoy the entertainment as they may.
Again, I refuse to answer to all your ignorance, nonsense, stupidity, mocking and excuses for the past history and current malfeasance of your disgusting cult and hierarchy. servant
Didn't read this ignorance the first time around, but sure glad you realize you're one of the clods of your cult. Don't know if you're going by the "Definition" of (a) stupid person or (b) lump of earth and clay – better known as it applies to you, a clod of _ _ _ _. servant of the Truth
P.S. And peewee oinks, "There he goes slinging "mud-pies" again, if only there was enough for me to wallow in, oink, oink, oink."
For lack, it would seem, of anything better, commenter Michael continues to milk the Definition Issue.
Thus on the 8th at 842AM we are presented – without explication – a comment in the form of a letter or email to the cognizant authority at StoneBridge Partners, the auditing firm that worked up the Report.
Is this something that the commenter has sent? Would like to send? Thinks should be sent? And how would we know what response was made, provided a response was made?
Let the project roll on, I say. But whether described as “unfounded” or “unsubstantiated” is, as I said, irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Report set forth its definitions clearly and for all to see; I have taken as much issue with the choice of term as commenter Michael has, but as long as the definitions are clearly set forth and operate consistently throughout the text, then the choice of terms is really neither here nor there.
The key point is that the Report includes in its tally those claims/allegations that were found to be contradicted by the evidence. Whether the Report terms those apples as red or round, they remain what they are.
Through the wonders of modern medications or merely a sudden shift in the Wig selected for the present performance, ‘Dan’ (the 9th at 1207AM) treads the boards in full ‘purr’ mode. Nice kitty.
What’s the fuss, y’all? ‘Dan’ is just sorta “not in agreement with the teachings of the catholic church” is all. “Not in agreement” … ? Readers may consult ‘Dan’s voluminous record here and see if that pale phrase can with a straight face be taken as an accurate and sufficient descriptor of his attitude toward the Church and Catholicism.
What’s the fuss, y’all? ‘Dan’ doth “not hate or despise catholic people”. Nor – prepare yourselves – is he “about insulting decent or loving catholics”. Readers may consult … and so on.
Also, we must recall we are in the ‘Dan’-verse here, and “decent and loving” actually has a very speshull meaning, i.e. if you disagree with ‘Dan’ then by definition you are not “decent and loving” … like ‘Dan’ is.
I've had many conversations with "decent and loving catholics" who disagreed with my beliefs, but were never led to lie, slander or falsely accuse me in order to get me in trouble. Nor did any of them question my mental state or consistently mock my God, Christ the Savior, the Holy Spirit, or His chosen. Only the lying, deceitful and despicably evil catholics like yourself have gone that route. In your cowardice you would most definitely have been one of the accusers to call the police and falsely accuse me, like those who sent me to jail or hospitals. The absolute scum of this earth, parading themselves as wonderful, Bible-believing Christians, when truly only wolves or pigs in sheep's clothing.
Like quoted to you before, "You shall reap what you sow." Get used to it. servant of Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:
Then a bit about his “immediate family” and so on and who knows?
Btu despite any differences, ‘Dan’ doth “love all of them”. We have his word for it. Who ya gonna believe – ‘Dan’ or your own lying eyes?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:
In the second paragraph ‘Dan’ will toss up – yet again – his essentially fundie bits about and against the Church.
One recalls Harold Bloom in his 1991 book American Religion, where he opines a) that fundies really only recognize just the forty post-Resurrection/pre-Ascension days as the basis for genuine Christianity … everything after that is not to their taste at all.
And also, b) that fundies – to further preserve their preferences – really only consider their own personal ‘walk with Jesus in the Garden’ as the source and form of any authentic experience of Christ. Anything beyond that apparently detracts from the ‘purity’ of their experience in the religious realm.
Surely such a set of basic theological starting-points would exercise a seductive attraction to anyone who would quickly discover his sanity suspected in any human group and whose behavior would create a strong sense of social unease.
This comment has to be one of your most ridiculously stupid and insanely false descriptions of myself, that I have ever heard. Apparently then, I don't fit yours or Harold Bloom's definition of a "fundie", because neither of those opinions describe me whatsoever.
a) "fundies really only recognize just the forty post-Resurrection/pre-Ascension days as the basis for genuine Christianity… everything after that is not to their taste at all" Are you serious? I've quoted and spoken on Paul's teachings, 1 John and Revelations, besides various Old and New Testament prophets. What type of genuine christianity do you prefer I recognize, your pagan and apostate catholic cult's beliefs? Sorry!!
b) "fundies – to further preserve their preferences – really only consider their own personal 'walk with Jesus in the Garden' as the source and form of any authentic experience of Christ." I understand that you would "consider [your] own personal 'walk with Jesus in the Garden', so you might extend to Him another kiss, Judas. What do you prefer, that I see or believe in false visions of your Queen of Heaven, that I may "experience in the religious realm" the phony ecstasy of the other whacked creeps of your cult? Or would you like me to bow down in false worship to Mary or your unholy fathers, or maybe wear a dress like the pedophiles and perverts of your klan, so I could also defile the 'purity' of my beliefs. Sickos.
Did you only quote or give these opinions, so you could claim an excuse for questioning my "sanity" and the fact that my exposing the nastiness and wickedness of your cult brings a "strong sense of social unease" among anti-Christian catholics. Are you in fear that the jig is up, Christ's light is shining in and exposing the works of darkness, the false apostate cult is losing it's respect and ought to lose it's tax-exempt statis.
"You will see 'The Awful Horror' of which the prophet Daniel spoke. It will be standing in the holy place." (Note to the reader: understand what this means!) Matt 24:15 These false teachers and religious charlatans have invaded holy places for centuries and will soon come to their doom. "Jesus answered: Don't let them fool you. Many will come and claim to be me. They will say that they are the Messiah, and will fool many people." Matt. 24;4,5 What can be worse than the catholic pope claiming to be the Vicar of Christ (666), his substitute or representative of Christ on earth. Claiming to be the Messiah, and fooling many people. Catholics run from this deceiving cult of lying hypocrites. servant of the One and Only God
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:
Oh, and ‘Dan’s merely being “not in agreement” with Catholicism here rises to the level of such epithets as “pagan” and “apostate cult”. There aren’t many nice Wigs a fundie can keep straight for very long; more often sooner than later the head starts violently bucking up and down and the niceness Wig is quickly tossed askew.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:
On to the third paragraph, then, where ‘Dan’ takes the opportunity to toss more of his stuff at me.
I have apparently “lied” about ‘Dan’ more than any other Catholic (even those that got him arrested and sent for court-ordered psychiatric observation?). And he rather shallowly adverts only to my “sarcasm” and not to the possible (I’d say probable or highly probable) accuracy of my estimation of his mental issues. He’s no doubt wise to evade that.
If ‘Dan’ can put up any quotation where I “mocked my God, Christ, His Holy Spirit” (one notes that fundie “my”) then he can put it up. Nor have we in any way at all established that ‘Dan’ is “chosen” any more than the average believer. Again, to buy this bit of his, you have to pretty much imagine that ‘Dan’ and God are somehow one.
But there’s a method to the madness: if ‘Dan’ and the genuinely Divine are one, then ‘Dan’ can “feel” that he doth “have every right” and so on and so forth. Neato, and sly too.
If you are a true believer then you are among the "chosen". Problem is you think any one calling themselves a believer is one, when there exists many who claim to be believers, who belong to false religions and worship their false gods and goddesses. Unbelievers duped by a pagan hierarchy of child molesters and creeps, praying Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. Seek out Mary for mercy, for your life, sweetness and hope, and you will receive no mercy from Almighty God who sent Christ as the one and only way to the Father. Read the Bible and don't let them lie and fool you. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:
And the riff goes on with a bunch of the usual stuff.
And beyond the riff, the only bit that’s interest is that pericope from Romans that gives a nice example of fundie word-play, which one gets so often.
Current biblical scholarship holds that the Letter was written around 57-58AD at Corinth or Cenchreae, in advance of Paul’s leaving the Eastern Mediterranean to visit the Christians at Rome for the first time; they were a Christian community he had never visited before. This was not Paul’s usual territory; Rome was Peter’s territory and it was Peter who had played the great framing role in the Roman Christian community.
Does ‘Dan’ want to have a go at Peter?
2 Peter 3:15-16 Bear in mind that the Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:
And then the usual fundie stuff about Jeremiah (he wrote in the mid-500s BC against both i) the kingdom of Judah’s worldly political alliance with the Assyrians and ii) the ascendant Babylonian empire that defeated both the Assyrians and their allies) and Revelation (written sometime between the imperial reigns of Nero and Domitian, perhaps recalling the persecutions by the former and anticipating the further persecutions by the latter).
To imagine that Revelation was written about the (at that time non-existent) Church and not written against the pre-Constantinian, Christian-persecuting Roman Empire … is each reader’s right to consider.
But I would say that the same fundie theological starting-points I mentioned above also create the result that the Bible becomes merely one’s go-to source for fun and consoling bits that will feed the individual fundie’s personal religious phantasmagoria.
And if I may offer a thought to ‘Mark Taylor’: I agree that I do tend to “go on”, but as I have several times explained here, these Abusenik bits are worth little unless they are used to elucidate realities, and with a fundie Abusenik, so much the more.
Glad to see you realize that when Revelation was written the Church was "(at that time non-existent)". Pretty much proves that Peter was not your first pope or the rock on which your cult was built. Would more appropriately be the Rock that will make you stumble, the Rock that will make you fall. "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." 1 Peter 2:8 The Rock that will crush you and your false cult.
In reviewing your poor material and fundie interpretations, the only "elucidate[d] realities" that become apparent is that you really don't know what your talking about. Or to put it mildly, you don't know squat.
P.S.
Both Paul and Jeremiah were writing God inspired prophecy. Words that not only applied to that time in history, but at the same time prophetically predicting an idol-worshipping false cult that would come upon the scene that would prove to be worse than Israel or Judah (Jer 44). Paul in Romans is likewise prophetically speaking of an idolatrous cult, worshipping statues of humans, etc. who committed homosexual sins and received the punishment they deserved. How much worse the punishment for the ungodly catholic pedophiles and perverts who would harm innocent children. "They claim to be wise, but they are fools." Kinda fits you and your fellow creeps perfectly, wouldn't you say?
Revelations chapter 17-18 This is the perfect prophecy concerning the destruction of your church. Taken from USCCB website – Rev. 17:1-6 "Babylon, the symbolic name of Rome, is graphically described as 'the great harlot." Revelations 17:1 " … judgment on the great harlot who lives on many waters." [Whore because they worshipped Mary worldwide instead of God Almighty and Jesus the Savior - Adulterers] Rev 17:2 Kings [politicians, leaders] of earth in bed with her, inhabitants drunk on the wine of her harlotry. Rev 17:4 Wearing purple [bishops colors] and scarlet red [Cardinals / Archbishops red or purple] [also red and purple - favorite colors of the popes quarters, Advent and lent] and adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls [filthy greed and wealth of the cult]. She held in her hand a gold cup [chalice] filled with the abominable and sordid deeds of her harlotry [perversions and pedophilia].Rev 17:5 On her forehead … a mystery, "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots [not Mother of God] and abominations of the earth. Rev 17:6 I saw that the women was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. [The reason why they drink the blood of Jesus at mass and build churches on bones of apostles]. Rev 17:9 The seven heads represent the seven hills upon which the women sits. USCCB footnote – Rev 17:9 Here is a clue: literally, "Here a mind that has wisdom." Seven hills: of Rome.
Catholics – Don't let your false hierarchy and false teachers fool you. These prophecies describe in every detail the horrible idol worship of Mary, "Queen of Heaven" over God. It describes catholic Rome in full color, with idolatry, greed and sexual perversions of all types. Don't allow publiar, a lying mocker of God and His prophecies, deceive you claiming he doesn't mock God. He is a terrible liar and deceiver and gets great pleasure in keeping you from knowing the truth. He is evil personified and a child of the devil, a manipulating trickster. Read your Bible describing him and his father, Satan, in minute detail. God will not lie to you. Deceiving others and being himself deceived. A perfect example of a wolf in sheep's clothing. servant of the Almighty
P.S. Don't let his stupid vocabulary fool you. He's not as smart as he thinks. Dumb Mocker.
On the 10th at 1032PM we merely see yet again the mendacious thought trick that ‘Dan’ uses to keep his shtick going: you can only qualify as “decent and loving” if you don’t “lie, slander or falsely accuse” him, and if you question his preferred take on his stories and claims, then you are already lying, slandering and falsely accusing him.
Neato.
And we are also treated to this bit: persons who question ‘Dan’s stuff are somehow responsible for “cowardice”, yet the adult who accosted children in a schoolyard is somehow … not cowardly.
Also, those who call the police on him display “cowardice”.
And thus merit another keeper of an epithet: “the absolute scum of the earth”. ‘Dan’s good at epithets; he likes them; there really all he’s got.
This is a perfect example of why I consider you ignorant and stupid. You are far from "decent" let alone "loving", because you are a compulsive liar and slanderer. You do not "question" a rival, you falsely accuse them and then repeat that lie ad nauseum as if it is now the truth because you said it. I have never accosted children anywhere, let alone in any schoolyard, and that along with your dumb mocking, is why you are the ultimate "coward" and creep and well deserving of that description. And those catholics who called the police are the same cowardly liars as yourself. This is why you're all "the absolute scum of the earth." servant of God and Truth