Really, guys? Criminals Damian Dignan (l) and Lyndon Monument (r) accuse George Cardinal Pell (c)
of touching them in a swimming pool four decades ago.
The media is having a field day reporting that Australia's Cardinal George Pell has been accused of child abuse. From the way the media is telling it, one would think that this abuse was something that happened somewhat recently, and the acts of abuse have been well established.
But here are the facts the media is burying and as we know them so far:
1. The accusations date back four decades ago, to the late 1970s.
2. The alleged "abuse" so far does not maintain any explicit sexual acts. After an investigation that went on for nearly two years, two men so far accuse Cardinal Pell of touching them "inappropriately" while splashing and playing games in a swimming pool 40 years ago.
3. One of the accusers, Lyndon Monument, is an admitted drug addict and has served almost a year in prison for violently assaulting a man and a woman over a drug debt. Monument has also accused a boyhood teacher of forcing him to perform sex acts. What an unlucky guy.
4. The other accuser, Damian Dignan, also has a criminal history for assault and drunk driving. He has also accused a female teacher of beating him during class when he was a youth. He says he lives alone, suffers from leukemia, and has "lost everything" due to alcohol abuse. In other words, this dude has nothing to lose at all.
5. Back in 2002, Cardinal Pell faced an abuse accusation dating back to 1962. The accuser was "a career criminal. He had been convicted of drug dealing and involved in illegal gambling, tax evasion and organized crime in a labor union." He also had an impressive 39 court convictions under his belt at the time. A real winner, indeed. A judge cleared Pell after an inquiry.
It is very likely – in fact, it is almost certain – that other shifty blokes will climb out of the gutter to "substantiate" the ridiculous accusations against Pell and accuse him of other salacious acts.
We're not buying any of this. We pray that justice will be served, but we doubt it. TheMediaReport.com has been observing the climate against the Catholic Church in Australia for some time now, and we have never seen anything like it. Imagine the hatred against the Church of the Boston Globe and the New York Times combined and spread out over an entire country. The climate is truly insane.
Australian law enforcement is claiming that Pell's case is being treated like any other historical offense. No, it isn't. Police do not give a rip about someone coming forward to claim someone touched them over their bathing suit 40 years ago. But this is a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking one at that. This is a big fish in the eyes of law enforcement.
Will another innocent cleric be dragged off to prison for crimes he never committed? We believe so, but we hope we're wrong.
The only thing for certain is that the haters of the Church will enjoy every moment of this.
[HT: Catholic League.]
————————————————————————–
TheMediaReport.com STORY UPDATE: We are thrilled to report that St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson has fully reinstated falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang to active ministry. We have received a report that Rev. Jiang is celebrating Mass publicly and is presiding himself. We salute Archbishop Carlson for doing the right thing by restoring an innocent man to the full priesthood and not kowtowing to bullies. We hope other Church leaders take notice.
The Catholic League? You mean the Fox News of American Catholicism.
Gee…and there I was thinking that JR had packed his saddlebags and set off on his trusty steed for greener pastures? But perhaps he heard the distant tom-toms, beating out the news that a paleface had been captured. And that this would mean the captured guy would have to run a gauntlet. So JR moseyed towards the nearest town for a few celebratory drinks. Well enjoy those drinks JR… cos it will all be short-lived.
In a few weeks a preliminary hearing will throw the case out. On the gounds that the media frency has prejudiced any possible chance of a fair trial. Everybody must have the basic human right to a fair trial. So…. case dismissed.
.
The rcc has brought this ALL upon themselves.
…the cHURCH could have avoided ALL of this had they listened and followed what they preach and drained their cesspool-swamp decades ago.
I liken the church to a drug addict who’s totally out of control, delussional and living a lie.
Until there’s “OUTSIDE” Intervention, their downward spiral will continue to get WORSE for ALL of us !
Countries & States NEED to intervene as Australia has, simply because of the Collateral Damage the church has wrought and continues to wrought upon the Most Vulnerable children past, present & future.
…and what has the church done with it’s OWN Carnage/Victims? The rcc throws them under the bus and we absorb the costs on all levels.
The COSTS to families, communities, states & countries are Mind Boggling.
…and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
***WOULD SOMEONE SHOW US AN ARTICLE, “Where zERO-tOLERANCE fRANCIS HAS UTTERED/MUTTERED ANYTHING COMPASSIONATE TO cARD Pells VICTIMS.”***
And now we have along with many other catholic sympathizers, Mr. Pierre attacking & throwing Pells victims under the bus.
What a SAD state of affairs the rcc has created !
.
The rcc has brought this ALL upon themselves.
…the cHURCH could have avoided ALL of this had they listened and followed what they preach and drained their cesspool-swamp decades ago.
I liken the church to a drug addict who’s totally out of control, delussional and living a lie.
Until there’s “OUTSIDE” Intervention, their downward spiral will continue to get WORSE for ALL of us !
Countries & States NEED to intervene as Australia has, simply because of the Collateral Damage the church has wrought and continues to wrought upon the Most Vulnerable children past, present & future.
…and what has the church done with it’s OWN Carnage/Victims? The rcc throws them under the bus and we absorb the costs on all levels.
The COSTS to families, communities, states & countries are Mind Boggling.
…and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
***WOULD SOMEONE SHOW US AN ARTICLE, “Where zERO-tOLERANCE fRANCIS HAS UTTERED/MUTTERED ANYTHING COMPASSIONATE TO cARD Pells VICTIMS.”***
And now we have along with many other catholic sympathizers, Mr. Pierre attacking & throwing Pells victims under the bus.
What a SAD state of affairs the rcc has created !
.
Oh Malcolm! Not only am I a cowboy with a trusty steed but I understand Indian drum language and have saddlebags and I mosey and I celebrate with alcohol when a paleface is captured by some tribe of indians . Though how Pell, an Austrailian cardinal who's hiding in Rome, gets captured by Red Indians in America? where I guess, according to Malcolm I get my mosey down.) I sound like the Lone Fuckin' Ranger.
Now to David, You don't know the half of the horror the RCC has caused it's victims. It has created our victms' organizations and chosen our lead lawyers for us. A sweet heart union called SNAP who says some of the right things about our abuse but only as an excuse to pass themselves as virtueous and straightforward when SNAP and Doyle SNAP's founder are the exact opposite of how they are presented in the media. They are present not to suport victims but to control us by being in charge of what we victims say we want. Only 15% of victims have recieved any compensation what so ever. And that can be as little as a year in therapy or settlements as low as $12,000. This is about money and the church keeping it, per usual.
Having seen the remarkable non-events of the Dutch Abuse Report, the Magdalene Laundries baby-burial ‘scandal’ and Report, the German choir-boy abuse thing, and the Australian Royal Commission Report dissolve like smoke columns in the wind, we are now introduced to the Aussie police filing charges against Australian Cardinal Pell for “multiple counts of sexual abuse alleged to have occurred decades ago, though they gave few details” (Wall Street Journal article, “Charges Deal Blow to Vatican Finance Overhaul”, print edition of Friday, June 30, page A-7).
As so often with these sex-abuse charges matters, things just get “curiouser and curiouser”.
He had been criticized by some for his official handling of sex-abuse cases, but this time around he is actually being charged with molestation (or whatever the formal term is that the police are using for that ever-fungible phenomenon) of a “historical” nature (meaning that these accusations are going into the way-back, as is so often the case).
As best I can make out from the news articles I have seen, this might involve boys being inappropriately touched in a swimming pool; the dates of 1961 or 1962 (the accusation not made until 2002), and assorted dates within the decades 1978-2001 have been mentioned, and Aussie police in 2016 went to Rome to interview him in regard to a swimming-pool scenario supposed to have taken place at some point in the 1970s.
Apparently, a writer named Louise Milligan has recently published a book wherein she claimed that she had interviewed some accusers for a year or so – which seems odd on its face, since the way things are now one need merely make an accusation and it’s off to the races; why an investigative reporter needed a year to ‘interview’ the accusers remains curious and unclear.
Of course, one can and must view this from the perspective of the Stampede; the scripting and scenario for ‘historical’ accusations is rather well-established: accusation is made / there is little evidence / but various advocacies and – for their own purposes – police agencies work to compensate for that lack of evidence as best they can / assisted by the media for their own purposes.
One might imagine that the current example of the Billy Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia might give police and prosecutors sober pause (especially given the fact that the top prosecutor in that case, the D.A. himself, has within the last day or two been led away in handcuffs from the courtroom in his own trial), but there are many pressures and agendas that may be at work in all of this.
Cardinal Pell is certainly in a position to be on the hit-list of a number of interests, far beyond the usual Abusenik-Stampede types.
He is the head of the Vatican office investigating finances; he thinks that the resignation of Benedict XVI “destabilized the Church” and he is no great fan of the current Pontiff; he is characterizable as a conservative in social and cultural ethical matters; he has put himself on record as having some deep concerns about “capitalism”.
In short, there are a lot of interests across the ideological spectrum, clerical and lay, who might be willing to join the Abuseniks for this barbecue, and that may well include the current Pontiff himself. (Interestingly, one of Pell’s major assistants in the Vatican financial area was fired just last week.)
This would not be such a leap for the current Pontiff, who earlier this year – since the leader of the Knights of Malta demurred handing out condoms in relief packages sponsored by that Order – forced the leader to resign and then effectively sidelined Cardinal Burke by appointing a papal delegate to perform the duties of Cardinal –Patron of the Order. Cardinal Burke had been an outspoken critic of the Pontiff, for which he had been suddenly ousted from his high-ranking position in the Vatican and had been sent (as if to Siberia) to the Knights in 2014.
The current Pontiff is not a man who is patient with disagreement.
One recalls that the Irish government investigation into the Magdalene Laundries ‘scandal’ (‘the nuns were burying children in shoe-boxes’, said one ‘witness’) stopped short when it became clear that the Irish government of the era had not well-funded the facility, which relied on government funds for its operations.
So there is no small possibility that Aussie government and political interests – domestic and foreign – are also engaged here (the Aussie police say they have a special unit for investigating “both religious and nongovernmental” organizations, recalling the California legislation that exempts public schools from Stampede-type lawsuits).
Does the new Aussie administration think to curry favor with the country’s much-Westernized liberal and secular ‘progressive’ elites? (This was the game-plan of then-Irish PM Enda Kenny’s effort to reduce the Church’s stature and credibility and role in Irish culture and society, which fueled the Magdalene Laundries brouhaha.)
Does the new Aussie administration think to curry favor with their vital Western big-brother ally, the USA? Pell, after all, is no total fan of “capitalism”.
So there’s a lot that may be going on here.
Fronted, of course, by the handy operational dynamics of the Stampede.
And even if the Aussie ‘case’ fizzles away and dissolves, it will have neutralized Cardinal Pell (or worse, since he is 76 and has notable cardiac issues).
But this has been a blessing – one might say – for certain elements. A local paper in Boston – home to the Stampede since January of 2002 – went and dug up the remains of Bishop-Accountability for a comment. Left unspoken in the paper’s article was that SNAP was not asked, given its own current situation. (See the Boston Herald article “O’Malley urged to speak up on abuse”, print edition of June 30, page 6.)
It seems that Boston’s local media (and no doubt much of the rest of the media) will try to treat all this as merely a rerun of the Stampede’s salad days (and, but of course, further proof of the Church’s problems and lack of credibility – and the media’s own sterling credibility in all things Stampede).
Wow! What a slew of worthless information, needless speculation, poor assessments and lets not forget the fabrications tossed here and there. If it wasn't for all your brilliant ignorance, none of us dumb folk would know nothing. I may not be speaking for brainwashed catholics, but the rest of us are not terribly impressed with all your longwinded nonsense and worthless commentary, which you seem to be so impressed by. servant
Why do you insinuate that old crimes equate to innocence? Why do you catholics accuse anyone who exposes the filth and corruption of your church as hatred, bigotry or witch hunts? Next you work on character assassinations of the victims, not realizing that their messed up life could have been caused at the hands of pedophile or perverted creeps from your cult. And I've seen Disrict Attorneys and law enforcement look the other way when it came to prosecuting hierarchy of your cult. The bigger the fish, the more respect and benefit of the doubt they received, and the more disgusting the stench. Don't worry, you can claim the Statute of Limitations or maybe Cardinal Pell can conveniently get sick or die. At least then there will be true justice, and he won't be able to weasel out or deny his sins. God's Justice, True Justice.
Yes, we are the Cult of Christ and those of us who worship Him are angry at the numer of sodomites who have been allowed to enter seminaries and then recieve Holy Orders and then to be sent out into the fiields where innocent lambs can be attacked by these sadistic and spiritually sick sodomites but reputations are what they are and it does not appear that Cardinal Pell has anything other than an orthoodx reputation and given what the establishment has tried to do to him in the past, a healthy suspicion of establishment and his accusers is only a natural response.
Dan:
"Why do you insinuate that old crimes equate to innocence?" Good question.
Why do you equate old assertions to certain guilt?
Cardinal Pell is innocent in law until proven otherwise in court. Even then, courts do convict wrongly. As for Pell's final judgement before Christ, he will indeed have his case placed before a just judge who knows all the facts, never makes mistakes and who will not look at the matter with appears to be a deep, underlying, anti-Catholic animous.
ABS, I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed to enter seminaries", because I believe the problem of pedophile sodomites is systemic in the church. Children are raped in their catholic schools, churches, camps and orphanages and become groomed to be the future pedophile sodomites of the church, all the way up the chain of command. That's why child rapists as bishops, cardinals and popes deny, defend and cover-up for pedophile priests, because they are perverts themselves. This disgust permeates through all stages of the hierarchy. and the church is imploding upon itself. Take a good look at Romans 1:18-28, and understand what becomes of a church of idolatry and how it leads to sexual immorality. They can deny their idolatry all they want, but seeing how they've become some of the worst deceiving, idol-worshippers, it would only make sense that this would lead to gross perversions and pedophilia. This is not just some accident.
John the Mad, I take it that you're insinuating that I'm anti-catholic. I've stated this previously, I am anti-pedophilia, anti-perverts, anti-idolators, anti-liars, anti-mary worship, anti-rosary, anti-cowards and you ought to believe that Christ and our righteous God will judge against these horrible sins. That does not mean that I hate catholics, as I've been accused. I do tend to hate false teachings, because they are leading many down a crooked path with their deceptions and misinterpretations. There is forgiveness for those who turn away from some of these sins. I don't see that for repetitive pedophiles and child rapists, especially those who consistently lie and deny, when it comes to their most disgusting crimes against innocence. I have no confidence in the corrupt justice systems of today. God is the only judge I can really trust to be fair. I wait patiently for His Judgment Day. servant
P.S. Before you declare Pell innocent, you may want to take a look at Greg's July 1st comment at 9:36am. I really can't stand the habitual liars of your cult. Deny, deny, lie and deny some more. Until others come forward with obvious proof of their perversions. SICK!!!
Look up the testimony of Les Tyack. A man who walked into a life saving club changing room in 1987 and saw Pell perving and exposing himself to three boys aged 8-10.
Tyack told Pell he knew what he was up to and to piss off and not return. That is much harder to dismiss, since Tyack has nothing to gain from perjury. Nobody is going to give him a cent, because Tyack is not a victim.
That may be so however he can be bought. Are you aware of the presence of Soros in the Vatican? He has paid many to move his agneda. This women here met and saw it with her own eyes. We have Burke Ipso Facto, Mueller removed and Pell defending his life. All Conservatives being removed. Watch this! Youtube, Faima Center Unholy Alliance.
Greg, on the 1st July, refers to the 'evidence' of Les Tyack. Again we have the situation of a biased media withholding relevant information… with the inevitable result…so that Greg and others rush to a unfair judgement. Tyack was described as a long time resident of Torquay, who knew everything and everybody in the town. In other words a 'credible witness' . Yet this same 'witness' said that he knew George Pell because he was the Catholic priest in Torquay. Really??? Pell was never the Catholic priest in that town, he was a young priest in Ballarat… in fact there has never been a Catholic priest in Torquay.
In adddition this 'witness' never mentioned an obvious fact about Pell that would be hard to miss, whether dressed or otherwise. Pell actually stands 6' 6" andi 40 years ago that was a relative giant compared to the average man.
In truth this guy Tyack is not credible…. and would be a dubious witness for the prosecution.
Malcolm, So the resort town of Torquay is less than an hour and a half drive from Ballarat. Seems very plausible that a young priest might visit the resort often, especially knowing where there may be young boys to prey upon. I've heard of cases where pedophiles and perverts will travel much greater distances than that. Why don't you let the courts and the prosecution decide who may be a credible witness or not. All you pedophile protectors and excusers for your cult's malfeasance and your speculation does absolutely nothing to promote a just outcome. It's either unreliable victims, unbelievable witnesses or the biased, catholic haters of the media, and when all else fails, a witch-hunt against the so pure and innocent catholic cult. Funny how compulsive liars and excusers like Trump love that witch-hunt expression. In order to hunt witches, they'd have to exist and apparently your cult is full of them. You've yet to understand that pedophilia and child molestation is systemic among your worldwide church?
I am an Australian and i have never been so disgusted with what my country has become. We use to give everyone a fair go, now we are hell bent on destroying everything this country was built on and that is chrsitianity, We seek not for what is true justice for the victoms of evil men, we seek to destroy the Catholic Church. How dumb are we, a country thats only a couple of hundred years old thinking for a moment that we have the power to destroy a 2000 year old religion, how embarrassing .. May we reap what we sow, may this once great country fall on her knees and learn to crawl again because she has become a socialistic, comunistic barbaric country, not worth popping on!
The catholic church should and will be destroyed. It is not a Christian Church. It is a greedy, idol-worshipping, sexually immoral cult plagued with liars and cowards. These are not the attributes of a Christian Church. Maybe this will help some catholics understand? I do not expect publyin' to understand, but you should disregard the lies of a deceiver. Eph. 5:3-7
"3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person – such a person is an idolator – has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
What you are saying is that there was no abuse from Cardinal Pell because " playing " in a swimming pool you can " accidentally touch " your friends? If Cardinal Pell is innocent why don't he fly to Australia right now and face his accusers? If he is innocent he has nothing to fear don't he? Just to remind you: Marcial Maciel accusers came forward 35 years ago and EVERYTHING they said was true. Tell Cardinal Pell to face his accusers…..I do not think he has the courage to do so.
Rafael:
"If Cardinal Pell is innocent why don't he fly to Australia right now and face his accusers? If he is innocent he has nothing to fear don't he?"
Actually, Cardinal Pell immediately went to Australia to face his accusers. As for having nothing to fear, you have more faith in civil legal systems than I. How does one defend oneself against forty year old assertions?
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 222AM – which has already received the question in reply: why does ‘Dan’ insinuate that old crimes equate to guilt? – I would simply add that at this point we don’t know that a) any actual “filth and corruption” has been ‘exposed’; it may well be something closer to b) some sort of play being made from any number of directions to impugn Cardinal Pell.
‘Dan’ then tries to run the standard Abusenik script: large-futured and marvelous waif suddenly turned into (fill in the blank) by (in this case, it seems) … being touched in swimming pool. Readers may consider the probability of that possibility as they may.
However the alternative is hardly beyond imagination: character-deficient and drug-addicted unripe adult suddenly rises to an opportunity provided whereby for the price of making this or that “historical” claim and telling this or that story he might garner anything from relief from his own legal problems to money or even status (since being a ‘victim’ – even if only through self-declaration- brings a certain cachet these days).
‘Dan’ then – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – works in an advertisement for his own many problems with the law and psychiatry, which should come as no surprise to regular readers of this site.
And then – apparently – the Spirit has prompted ‘Dan’ to gloat over the prospect of Cardinal Pell’s death.
And more speculation and character assassinations. And you really believe that "being a 'victim' – brings a certain cachet these days?" And my statement had nothing to do with the problems I had based on the lies and false accusations of your cult. Still grasping for straws, publiar? The liars I came across were small fries like yourself, not big fish. Furthermore, I wasn't gloating over Pell's death. You excusers are the ones claiming innocence because cases come up against dead priests that can't defend themselves. Any excuse will do, for you perverted and pedophile protectors. servant looking forward to God's just Judgment Day
FYI – George Pell's oft-expressed claim that Justice Alec Southwell's 2002 investigation into alleged abused in 1961 "completely exonerated" him is BS. In fact the verdict was closer to the Scottish "not proven".
ABS, I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed to enter seminaries", because I believe the problem of pedophile sodomites is systemic in the church.
It's simple, Dan. During the time when queers were being allowed to enter seminaries, there was a rule forbidding their entry (it was stil in effect in 1960). Your use of pedophile is wrong becuase the vast percentage (80+) of adolescent males suffering the crimes of queer clergy were by, by defintion, adolescents and not children.
A major problem for the Church in America was that the over-educated "experts' had internalised the philosophy and beliefs of the secual psychiatrists vis a vis sodomites and the Church trusted the advice of the shrinks that the queer cleragy could be treated for that execrable perversion and safely be sent back out into the sheepgate to minister to flocks of lambs.
Dan. The secular school system (see Shackleford study) employs sodomite teachers who committ sexual crimes agains adolescents at a far higher rate than Catholic Clergy.
Protestant ministers committ sexua crimes against adolescents at a far higher rate than Catholic clergy do.
It is quite clear you hate the One True Holy Roman Cathoic and Apostolic Church Jesus establsihed and, like Saul (Acts) ,you are attacking Jesus when you attack it.
Good luck with that fella
Abs – I wrote detailed explanations to your comments and get the ERROR 43 – so I'll make this short.
It doesn't matter if it's pedophilia or adolescent child abuse, it's still sick and disgusting. Sodomize consenting adults and leave children alone. Pedophiles are also heterosexual, married, priests, pastors, bishops and cardinals. Can't stand when religious holy people compare themselves to schools, boy scouts or other churches. Pedophilia and child rape is disgusting anywhere, but among so-called holy religious leaders it is most unacceptable and should not even need to be discussed. That's period!! See my comment July 2 @ 1:25am.
In regard to my hate of the one false unholy catholic cult and the idolators of mary goes, I hate false churches and false pastors of all types, especially those plaqued with liars, deceivers, pedophiles, perverts, cowards and their excusers and brainwashed defenders. Hope that is clear. servant
Yesterday I posted a comment on an article by Francis X. Rocca about the charges against Cardinal Pell in the Friday issue of The Wall Street Journal. Here is my comment:
It is for good reason that Pope Leo XIII, in composing his original prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel after a terrifying vision in 1888, included the line, “When the Pastor is struck, the sheep may be scattered.”The Catholic hierarchy have been slow to understand that decades-old sex abuse claims like those against Cardinal Pell have become a tool of modern terrorism.They need not be true, and in this case they are likely untrue.But the terrorists here are not from the Middle East.They are from the tort bar, and the outspoken reformer Cardinal Pell has long been a target. See my post, "Peter Saunders, Cardinal Pell, and a Trial By Media" here: http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/peter-saunders-and-cardinal-pell-a-trial-by-media/
"Terrorism"? I'm tired of hearing catholic hierarchy deny, deny, lie and deny some more. Then when more witnesses come forward and they're cornered, finally admit their guilt and then they're coddled and protected for years by the hierarchy, in order not to besmirch the churches spotless reputation. Come clean and into the light and stop playing games with the public. You creeps have not fooled the Almighty and you will pay the price for all your lies and coverups. If you truly are innocent, the God you claim to believe in will give you justice and be fair on Judgment Day. I've suffered from lying creeps of your cult, and maybe innocent members have to pay the price for the terrible sins of your church. Doesn't seem fair, but such is life. Also, I've read some of your stories and it's somewhat comical how you admit to serving with pedophile priests. Apparently pedophiles just pop up everywhere and in just about every catholic church. Six of eight of the priests in the church of my youth were pedophiles, including the school gym teacher. Some also were thieves absconding with the Sunday collections. These surely aren't Christians that I would ever want to make excuses for. Maybe you should wait for the courts before you declare Pell innocent. Rest assured that the One True Almighty God will be just and fair. servant of the Lord
The Philly courts, based on the lies of their "star witness", found Fr. Englhardt and Bernard Shero guilty. I have no problem whatsoever boldly proclaiming the innocence of Englehardt and Shero in spite of what the court declared. That is one of many cases where the court got it wrong. The same dynamic that existed in Philly exists in Victoria, so with no apologies whatsoever I REJECT the media's sensationalized hyperbole on the Pell case and I condemn the media's deliberate attempt to inflame public emotion in order to manipulate the outcome of this case.
You excusers and enablers think you can keep repeating the "Billy Doe" case and claim that equates to "many cases where the court got it wrong". You can keep blaming the media for inflaming public emotion, when the truth is that the public is sick of your outright denials, blatant lies and obvious manipulation of facts, in order to sway your brainwashed followers that you truly are the One and only True Church. That's the biggest lie I've ever heard, you disingenous hypocrites! servant
What? You think Seth Williams and his "star witness" Danny Gallagher got it right?
KenW, I claimed no such thing. Read a little more carefully, eh?
I'm saying you keep falling back on the "Billy Doe" case as if that's evidence that the court has gotten it wrong in many other cases. Judgments in many other cases more often fell in favor of the church, judges or juries in disbelief that the so-called holy true catholic church could be so filled with vile priests and hierarchy. Other times DA's refused to prosecute or police officers looked the other way. And then there was several times you could fall back on the Statute of Limitations or the priest or bishop died, as if that equates to innocence. What would it take for all the creeps to come out of their deceitful closet and be truthful, instead of lawyering up and believing you're fooling anyone, let alone the All-Seeing and All-Knowing God.? Yeah! That would include you, publiar.
Dan, on the 2nd, points out that the resort town of Torquay is only a short distance… one and half hours drive from Ballarat. (a three hour round trip for a busy provincial priest) But he then overlooks what Tyack has clearly alleged. Namely that he knew everybody and that he identified George Pell because he was the local priest. That sounds plausible… if it was true?…But it wasn't true. In fact George Pell had never been the Torquay priest… and therefore the witness has revealed himself to be either mistaken……. or a fabricator?. Books have been written on the subject of flawed and false memories. Throw in the time elapsed, 40 years, and also the possible sub-conscious influence of a witch-hunt, and this guy is indeed a questionable witness.
Card pell was a card carrying member of the Torquay Surf Club and spent his summers there. Les Tyack was also a member and knew "george" on a first name basis. He may have seen him there so often that he assumed he was a local priest. And where did you get the info that he knew everybody in town, because I haven't found that in any of his accounts? Do we just make up facts to clear our perverted clergy? It's one thing to defend your own and it's quite another to make up facts in order to character assassinate witnesses or victims and clear obvious perverts of your cult. And your little story about your relative proves nothing besides the fact that people don't report things necessarily in a timely fashion, but that doesn't mean they're not credible. What's wrong with you brainwashed catholics that you feel the need to defend sickos? Is the reputation of your church that important to you? The catholic cult's reputation was shattered years ago and has shown no signs of change or improvement. Just a bunch of empty promises.
Oh! And lets not forget that it's got to be a witch-hunt!!
It's arrogant articles like these that cause so much damage to the church. What if these accusers are speaking the truth? What if their lives were so disastrous due to the abuse they have suffered? What if Pell were indeed a pedophile? They way you are treating his accusers is EXACTLY the way Pell treated the accusers who came bravely forward so many years ago. Do you honestly think that demonizing possible victims is going to save the reputation of the Catholic Church? My God! What is wrong with you? He is accused. That means he is innocent until his guilt is proven (as are the victims).
Craig, I have no use for your speculations and presumptions.
The veracity of the accusations are just as much on trial as the accused is. If Dave, myself, or anyone else see holes in the accusations, we not only have the right to speak to those holes, we have a moral obligation to speak to those holes. That will not change even if Pell is proven guilty.
KenW, Who says you have a moral obligation to defend the immoral? That's plain sick!!
Dan, I claimed no such thing. Read a little more carefully, eh?
I.DEFEND.ANYONE'S.RIGHT.TO.DUE.PROCESS.AND.A.FAIR.TRIAL….. which includes their right to NOT be tried by mob mentality before they even get a chance at a fair trial. After all, it WAS mob mentality that got Bernard Shero and Fr. Englhardt falsely imprisoned and ultimately cost Fr. Englhardt his life….all based on the blatant lying of one Daniel Gallagher aka "Billy Doe".
Graig, on the 3rd, asks "What is wrong with you?". So I guess he is saying that we should not defend our own. But those, who are in a position to influence public opinion, have been active against Cardinal Pell for over a decade. But that's okay…is it?. Well let me look at one accuser, the guy in Torquay, Remember his allegation is that he actually witnessed Fr. George Pell exposing himself, in front of small boys, in the changing rooms at the Life Savng Club. Would I offend Graig if I questioned that allegation? About 30 years ago a relative told me how she encountered a 'flasher' on a beach. She and her kids were on holidays, in the city, when this guy approached and just stood there .. staring. He then exposed himself, leered at her, and ran away. I asked her if she went to the cops?. She said she thought about it, but didn't think it was her responsibliity. She didn''t live there, was not part of that community, besides the guy was a complete stranger, and she couldn't identify him. Now contrast her story with the allegations of Les Tyack. Because Les says he did recognize the man and he was the local priest?. So he is claiming he could have identified him. In addition he, unlike my relative, did live in that community. Yet strangely he did not report the guy to the police? Why not? Journalists don't seem to ask the right questions?. But you can draw your own conclusions about that.
In addition to the conservative Cardinals I have already mentioned in comments above, it is now reported that Cardinal Gerhard Mueller has also been edged out as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; his term is up this weekend and although the Pontiff could have renewed his tenure for another 5 year term, Muller was instead replaced by his number two, who – like the Pontiff – is a Jesuit (appointed to the Number Two slot by Benedict).
This indicates an awful lot of activity along what appears to be a clear axis: the most powerful or influential conservative Vatican Cardinals are – one way or another – being removed from their offices and sidelined.
It recalls for me what I felt when Benedict XVI announced his resignation. That he was the first Pope to do so voluntarily in over 700 years was stupendous enough. That he announced that he was retiring due to declining health and advancing age in two weeks (the announcement on February 11, 2013; the resignation taking effect on February 28, 2013) seemed stupefying. Clearly his health and age were not creating so urgent a problem as to require so rapid a resignation.
That being said, on to the comment of ‘Dan’ on the 1st at 1142PM.
I would first note that readers new to this site might wish to go back a thread or two and review ‘Dan’s many submissions, just to get a sense of his general position.
In the instant comment, ‘Dan’ merely does what he most likes to do: tosses up a pile of epithetical characterizations with no examples or demonstration or explication in support.
Whatever “us” he is talking about – slyly appointing himself somehow spokesman of this “us” – readers may consider as they will.
But there’s a method to his madness here: positing this “us” gives him the appearance of speaking not only as himself but as spokesman of his self-created “us”, the better to mask his own epithetical objective.
And he further relies on his personal tea-leaves to claim that I appear to be “so impressed” with my material. I just put up what seems relevant and useful; readers may consider and judge as they will.
On the 2nd at 1230AM ‘Dan’ demonstrates how – being focused purely on epithetically attacking the Church and Catholicism in general – he spouts his stock phrases with no awareness that he is making no sense. Thus: he has a little 3×5 about the “systemic” nature of the problem, but can’t seem to grasp how – if it’s true – “pedophile sodomites” being “allowed to enter seminaries” would itself be a rather systemic issue.
Then a dollop of his familiar phantasmagoria: “Children are raped … “ and so on. Readers may consider how many children have been shown to have been “raped” (and how many have not); in addition to which is then added the bit that they are – in the phantasm’s script – being raped in order to initiate them into future priesthood and prelacy for the furtherance and maintenance of the whole scheme by prelates – all the way up to the Pope – who are “perverts themselves”.
That’s pretty much ‘Dan’s favorite vision of the Church and Catholicism.
Oh, and “idolatry” too (which for newer readers includes Mary being worshipped as a neo-pagan goddess and statues being idols and churches being neo-pagan temples) and – ‘Dan’ will assure you – it’s all prophesied in the Bible. You just gotta read it and it will all be clear as a bell. ‘Dan’ reads the Bible a whole lot and it’s clear as a bell to him … and so on.
BT
But if you have by unhappy accident consumed all the popcorn you had prepared, then you will be sadly unfortified for the task of considering ‘Dan’s comment of the 2nd at 1256AM:
‘Dan’ – he doth here declare, proclaim and pronounce (urbi et orbi, as it were) – is not “anti-catholic” (and he cawn’t think why anyone might “insinuate” that).
Rather – doncha see? – he is merely “anti-pedophilia, anti-perverts, anti-idolators, anti-liars, anti-mary worship [sic], anti-rosary, anti-cowards” … just that, really, and nothing much else.
And if you don’t go along with him, why then God’ll getcha, you betcha.
‘Dan’ doesn’t “hate Catholics”, either. He just doth “tend to hate false teachings” (of which the Church and Catholicism constitute – in his mind – the sum total of all Biblical and religious horror).
That’s all, really. He wouldn’t want you to think he’s gone around the bend or anything. To even consider that possibility would be “character assassination” and – if you haven’t yet learned to waitttt forrrr itttttt – “mocking God” … because ‘Dan’ is so very closely united to God – doncha see? – that to disagree with ‘Dan’ is to “mock God”. It’s all really very clear and simple. And right there in the Bible, clear as day. ‘Dan’ knows this – doncha know? – because God has speshully illuminated ‘Dan’.
You can choose not to believe ‘Dan’, but then God’ll getcha. ‘Dan’s not “SICK!!!” – doncha see? – Catholicism is.
On the 2nd at 920AM – quite uncharacteristically – ‘Dan’ appears to have actually checked out a fact: it’s less than 70 miles from Ballarat to Torquay.
He bleats piously about letting “the courts and the prosecution decide” (are there not also juries in the Australian legal system?).
But we have seen – demonstrated carefully and at length on the BigTrial site – just how a legal system can be skewed, in the Philadelphia Doe/Gallagher case, by the combined agendas of trial judges, prosecutors and media. And even in the Ohio State Sandusky case (also on the BigTrial site) which – curiously – the accusations about the changing room so closely resemble.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 920AM:
As might well be inferred from ‘Dan’s further statement, Cardinal Pell’s “malfeasance” is presumed as is ‘Dan’s presumption as to exactly what a “just outcome” is supposed to be.
“Unreliable victims, unbelievable witnesses” … we’ve seen examples of both over the years on this site, up to and including that Philadelphia case. The possibility of their existence in this case remains quite legitimately possible, if not also probable.
The phenomenon of “witch-hunt” is also quite familiar and hardly irrelevant.
And I would also add – on the basis of my thoughts expressed in prior comments on this thread – that if the Australian government and/or prosecutors feel that there will be no push-back from the Vatican (which strongly appears will be the case) then there will be even more confidence that running the old Stampede script in this case might be that much more attractive.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 920AM:
In that regard I would also note the dynamics in the Julian Assange case: having fallen afoul of the US government by publishing material on his Wikileaks site, Assange was suddenly accused by two women in Sweden of some form of sexual molestation / the Swedish authorities seemed primarily concerned not so much for interviewing Assange as for getting him back on Swedish soil (where he might be extradited to the US for its own legal purposes) / on and on it went, until – in the last month or so, if I recall correctly – Sweden suddenly dropped the case without further ado and no concern for the ‘victims’ whatsoever.
Thus, even in the international arena, sex-charges can be put to some iffy uses indeed.
The whole Pell matter bears close watching and careful consideration.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 125AM:
The self-proclaimed not-anti-Catholic ‘Dan’ here declares, declaims, and pronounces that … “the catholic church should and will be destroyed” because – we have ‘Dan’s word for it – the Catholic Church is “not a Christian Church”.
Yet since any religious polity deploying things not “in the Bible” fall under the Ban of ‘Dan’, then what religious polity or church can possibly be “a Christian Church”? ‘Dan’ himself has already declared that he is no fan of any religious polity.
Typewriters and indoor toilets are not “in the Bible”. How can any religious polity pass Bible muster with ‘Dan’?
When did the religious gathering around Peter (who was given by Christ the Great Commission in Matthew’s 16th chapter and “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew’s 18th chapter) cease to be “a Christian Church” and become something else? Which successor to Peter was suddenly a “Pope”? When did that happen?
‘Dan’ has no response to those questions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 125AM:
No “foolish talk or coarse joking”? What religious polity, what human gathering of any kind, can pass that test? Is Paul saying here that there can be no religious polity among humans, comprised of humans?
As Paul enumerates the vices of the pagan “idolaters”, the Greek has it as aischrotes, morologia, and eutrapelia: shamefulness, foolishness, and buffoonery.
But does Paul really expect that each individual Christian will always and perfectly avoid those vices? It can hardly be so, since he has spent chapters 1 and 2 of Ephesians giving thanks for the Church as the working out of God’s plan. Would he then in the third chapter impose such impossible ideals – to be enforced with such rigor – that the Christian community would have to be utterly shorn of human weakness or else be utterly delegitimized? Does Paul think or does Paul think God expects that the Christian community be composed not of actual human beings but rather of some unearthly form of enfleshed angels?
And the New American Bible has verse 3 as “Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you” (italics mine). Whatever translation ‘Dan’ is using slyly ignores that phrasing. Because the NAB more accurately conveys Paul’s purpose in the passage: to exhort the Galatians and all Christians to live up to the ideals he advocates for Christ’s community.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 943AM:
Once more, merely ‘Dan’s epithetical pronouncements and nothing more.
“Being a victim” brings a great deal of cachet these days; there is both interior psychological payoff and exterior ‘moral high ground’ (i.e. the more you allegedly suffered, the higher your moral ground). And there is also an insurance against blowback if you are discovered to have been less than truthful in your story or claim or accusation: society must not ‘blame the victim’.
And for readers new to the site and unfamiliar with ‘Dan’s delusions: anything that in any way implies that his extensive misadventures with people, police, courts and psychiatry are merely the expectable outcomes of his own behavior … must be “lies and false accusations” lodged against him by “compulsive liar” Catholics (he had in one instance – among a number of others – been harassing (or delivering “beautiful prophecy” to) school children from outside the fence of a schoolyard until the Catholic staffers shooed him away).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 943AM:
And we further see just what a Fixed Delusional Syndrome will get you: without batting an eye he can now claim that he was not “gloating” over Cardinal Pell’s death.
And if accusations are made against priests who are dead and cannot defend themselves, then pointing that out is merely an “excuse”. ‘Dan’ has no need of proof or evidence against any priest – doncha see? – because he already ‘knows’.
And he brings the performance home as so often with a God’ll-getcha bit … because he’s really “looking forward to God’s just Judgment Day”. As I have said, ‘Dan’s hope must be pinned to the hope that God accepts insanity pleas on that Day.
We proceed then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:
For those who don’t know what a “compulsive liar” who doesn’t take responsibility for his actions looks like, ‘Dan’ here gives us a fine example:
Often taken to task (certainly by me) for not explicating or explaining his many many accusations, denunciations, epithetical tosses and so on, ‘Dan’ here doth bleat that he had indeed written “detailed explanations” to ‘Amateur Brain Surgeon’ but – had you been waitttttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’s stuff got chewed up in an “Error 43” message. This is the internet variant of ‘the dog ate my homework’.
Thus ‘Dan’ has an excuse for being “brief” in his actual published response, which is code for ‘there won’t be any “detailed explanations”’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:
To ‘Dan’ “it doesn’t matter” whether it’s “pedophilia or adolescent child abuse”. So little doth “matter” to ‘Dan’ if it gets in the way of his preferred narrative and his cartoon scare-visions.
But clinically, it most surely does matter whether one is a genuine pedophile (for which the prognosis is not good) or what is often called an ephebophiliac – for which the prognosis is much better.
Legally, the problems are a) that “sexual abuse” is so broad a term that it can cover a multitude of actions, some of which would not appear ‘abusive’ to an observer unless one made presumptions about the motivations of the accused (more on this in a further comment in this sequence).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:
And b) that due to the influence of what I call ‘Victimism’ in legal praxis nowadays, there is simply a Stampede-like presumption (abetted and amplified by much of the media) as to the motivation or – even more likely – due to the occupation of the accused (i.e. he’s a priest / ‘everyone knows’ they’re child-abusers / so he must have meant to be abusive).
I would also add that if you get enough of this type of media hype, then you have effectively ‘tainted the jury pool’, but legally so, since the potential-juror pool, consuming the media stories, isn’t yet formally designated for juror duty. And as this dynamic becomes rooted and widespread, you wind up with what I call a Stampede.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:
‘Dan’ really has this thing for sexual aberrations, and while a general concern about sexual aberrations is not at all outré yet ‘Dan’ has combined it – with no justification except his own obsessions – with his animosity against the Church (it was Catholics, he has often asserted, who have so often called the police on him and then lied about ‘Dan’ to (also Catholic) police and judges).
And further, he assigns such aberrations to not just this or that individual Catholic cleric but rather to the entire Church, extending in all space and time. Which nicely echoes the old Abusenik saw (bruited from the outset of the Catholic Abuse Stampede) that the entire Church is nothing but, and has been nothing but, a self-perpetuating rape-culture and rape-machine.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:
It is on that basis that ‘Dan’ then continues his riffy epitheticals – wherein he further demonstrates his obsessive and manipulative approach: the matter of “pedophilia and child rape” … “should not even need to be discussed”.
I would say it most surely needs to be “discussed”, especially if we are dealing with formal accusations of such actions.
But what ‘Dan’ is really going for here is that his cartoons and any accusations should be simply accepted and not”discussed”’ … because that will interfere with his and the Stampede’s preferred narrative cartoon and perhaps even – the horror! – establish the innocence of the accused individual.
Thus – bottom line – ‘Dan’s stuff is right and people should just accept that, agree with him, and acknowledge him as being right and very clever (and also, but of course, specially “Chosen” by God).
And thus if you question or doubt ‘Dan’ then you question or doubt or “mock” God and – but of course – God’ll-getcha for that. ‘Dan’ looks forward to that. Very very much.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1018PM:
He’s rather upset at having the Church “deny” accusations. That such denial might well be warranted is not something that “should be discussed” of course, because ‘everybody knows’ and ‘Dan’ has assured everybody through his special ‘knowledge’ of God and Scriptural interpretation.
He’s rather jealous of the Church’s “spotless reputation”, and given his own situation, that is not hard to grasp.
Then a truly whackulent bit of ‘theology’: if you are innocent then God will give you justice on Judgment Day … this was the Puritan fallback in witch-burning cases: if we’re wrong in burning you, then rest assured that God will correct our well-intentioned mistakes on the Last Day. (And yes, the heyday of witch-trials was during the post-Reformation era, and lasted – as we saw in Salem in 1692 – well into the early modern era.)
Then more of an advertisement for his own preferred narrative about his many misadventures with the police and psychiatry: he too is a ‘victim’ – doncha see? – of all the Catholics who, being “compulsive liars” and “lying creeps”, got him in trouble with the authorities so often (when all he was doing – doncha know? – was delivering ‘God’s Word’ to them). He cawn’t think why all that isn’t clear as day.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1018PM:
Then – again without demonstration – ‘Dan’ claims he has “read some of your stories” (who is this “your”?) and – it’s as clear as day to ‘Dan’ – “apparently pedophiles just pop up everywhere and in just about every Catholic church”.
But then – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrr ittttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ does offer some ‘evidence’: his own assertion, claim, story and denunciation that “six of eight of the priests in the church of [his] youth were pedophiles” … readers may consider that as they may, and not least for the thought that at any time in recent memory there has been a parish church with eight priests assigned. What remarkably richly staffed parish was this?
If there any things in this world about which we might “rest assured”, ‘Dan’s assurances need not be counted among them.
I refuse to answer or waste any of my time giving explanations to a compulsive liar, excuser and enabler of the pedophilia and perversions of your despicable cult. I never harassed children at any time, you lying creep. No one shooed me away, I left on my own accord with no one forcing me to leave. I only returned back towards the church when four thugs were threatening and cursing at me. That is when the cowards hit me from behind in the back and neck. You are the perfect example of one disgusting, lying catholic and much of the reason for many to leave your nasty cult and all its false teachings. Your cult of greedy idolators, liars, cowards and pedophile, perverted creeps, will stand before the Almighty and spend eternity in Hell's Fire and deserve every bit of God's wrath. All of you sickos will have no need to plead insanity, because the Lord God already knows that you're a bunch of unrepentant liars that think you've even fooled Him. He knows every disgusting thought that goes through your mind and is well aware of your repetitive excuses for some of the most despicable crimes against innocence and young children. You and the pervs of your cult will pay a mighty high price. servant of the Most High
On the 3rd at 149AM ‘Craig’ asks “what if these accusers are speaking the truth?”.
Well, that’s why each of these cases most surely need to be “discussed”. What if they are not telling the truth?
And what are the plausible elements and what are the implausible elements in the accusations and their stories? And what are the probabilities – with all of the foregoing considered – that the accusations and stories are veracious?
And then he slides in a presumption: that the accusers of Cardinal Pell were indeed ‘victims’ (that hasn’t at all been established). This, once again, is a clear instance and example of the Stampede presumption: if you claim to be a ‘victim’ then you are a ‘victim’ and anybody who questions your story and your ‘bravery’ is not being nice and so on.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Craig’s of the 3rd at 149AM:
As best I can make out, the ‘swimming pool’ scenario at issue in the Pell matter is actually not quite accurately put. It was a ‘changing room’ where – as should surprise no one – persons take off one set of clothes and put on another (swimming gear to street clothes or vice-versa).
This scenario does not even rise to the ‘shower room’ scenario presented in the Sandusky case.
Is it possible that this ‘witness’ simply saw the priest changing in a room where others were doing the same?
Although the point in the ‘witness’s claim that ‘Malcolm Harris’ raises about the identity of the Ballarat-Torquay parish priest remains also to be plausibly explained. Mistaken identity? Misinterpretation of what was actually seen? Untruthfulness on the part of the ‘witness’?
Perhaps the local police – if they were actually informed at the time of the event – also considered these questions and came to the conclusions that dictated no further action.
And the perfect example of more excuses, posed as questions, to raise doubt and protect one of far too many to count, pedophiles of your cult. servant of The Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Craig’s of the 3rd at 149AM:
I would also note that – surely in this case, as best we know its actual events – a youth seeing an adult changing, whether the sight of his phallus was or was not intended by the adult for ‘abusive’ purposes – can hardly be considered the mechanism for a later life that included significant drug use and/or crime and/or general lack of maturity and/or of character.
Such deleterious outcomes might well be plausible in actual cases of rape or violent sexual encounters, especially if sustained over some period of time. That point was an early element in sex-abuse matters, and rightly so.
But that point was then extended – more by public opinion manipulation than by demonstrated research – to include just about any type of ‘sexual abuse’ (as that elastic term might be defined). Thus we see it here introduced as a possible explanation for whatever the youths allegedly saw.
Is this your diagnosis, Dr. Whackjob? Apparently Mr. So-Well-Informed hasn't a clue that an adult priest (card pell) was playing grab ass and balls with several young boys and putting his nasty, filthy hands down their swim trunks. And then there was the dressing room incident, with him standing naked in front of three boys for somewhere around ten minutes. Like you did to Jim, claiming that doesn't amount to sexual abuse, you creepy liar. And you have the nerve to insinuate that something horrid took place with myself and innocent kids. I'm not one of the fellow sickos of your disgusting cult, which you seem obligated to make excuses for. I wonder what kind of pervert you really are. Lying hypocrite creep.
If Pell is so innocent, why did he skip town, in the midnight hour, and pop up in the Vatican, two years ago ? Funny, your article mentions nothing about the documented liar, Pell is, nor the many credible witnesses, who attest to his odd behavior, at the pools, and in the showers. With naked little boys. Smear the victims, all you want. The truth will shine.
What questions are prompted by ‘Dan’s assertions of the 4th at 1037AM?
Then-Fr. Pell was a member of the Torquay Surf Club: that sounds plausible.
And he “spent his summers there” (i.e., in Torquay, at the Surf Club perhaps): a parish priest who gets “summers” off … ?
If the ‘witness” was a Torquay resident (as it appears he was at the time) and knew “’George’ on a first name basis”, then how did he not know that “George” was not local? How did he not know that there was no “local priest”? Did he report it to local police at the time and if so, what action did they take and why?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1037AM:
Being familiar with the sum total of his submissions here, to see ‘Dan’ huffing about ‘making up facts’ is an entertainment that should not be indulged without sufficient popcorn.
And then another howler: for one who exhibits a knee-jerk reversion to claiming that others are the ones making “excuses” and so on, ‘Dan’ deals with the 40-or-so year delay in ‘reporting’ by merely and blandly tossing off the bit about “the fact that people don’t report things necessarily in a timely fashion”.
But … “that doesn’t mean they’re not credible”. Who is the “they” here – a) the long-ago events that wasn’t reported or b) the suddenly-appearing present-day ‘reporter’? If (a) then the possibility of retrieving whatever veracity or actuality the events might once have had is profoundly reduced; if (b) then the probability of the ‘reporter’s non-veracity rises significantly.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1037AM:
‘Dan’ also seems on a ‘sick’ romp these past few days, with variations of that term appearing. The term, of course, must – by the laws of construal as they stand in the ‘Dan’-verse – only be applied in the projectile and must not be considered in the recoil; ‘Dan’ sees a lot of “sickos” all around him (Catholics, largely) but none in any mirror he has ever examined.
‘Dan’ then – again, marvelously – demonstrates the elasticity of clinical projection: we get an epithet about “reputation” from somebody with a long public police and psychiatric record / who has revealed himself through the many assorted bits he has tossed up here / and who has sought to evade that admittedly unhappy reputation by proclaiming himself the Chosen Servant of God, whose secret and special knowledge of Scripture transcends any actual knowledge of the subject and whose material is so close to God’s Mind and Word that to question it is to question God.
“Empty” is one way of looking at that. Being “full” of it is another. Both terms seem to capture the reality of ‘Dan’.
So the first paragraph we're falling back on the I'm Not/You Are bit, so the "sicko" term is recoiling and reflecting from the bottom of your toilet bowl, where maybe you're joined by many of the other catholic "sickos" from your cult. Maybe it would help if you flushed the bunch of you.
Next, you're back at rehashing the compulsive lies of yours and your cults. Followed again by more mockery of my spiritual position with the Almighty. Jealously will get you nowhere, little peewee.
And ending with more psychological projection, showing your true ignorance and stupidity, claims that I'm "Empty" and full of it. Wow! How clever you are to use a word I used and be able to put it in a full sentence, totally resisting to use any of your annoying vocabulary. Problem with you is your own "reality" is that you're a compulsive liar. Really!! Chosen Servant of God, whose material is so close to God's Mind and Word
P.S. Thank You for suggesting my new title. Shame there's no one in your cult who could truthfully qualify for such. Hypocrite Liars idolizing Mary "Queen of Heaven", may suffice.
On to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1204PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to tackle the “Billy Doe” case (i.e. the Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia, discussed on this site, and examined extensively on the BigTrial site by Ralph Cipriano).
The case presents a hefty amount of demonstrated material and facts uncongenial and even antithetical to ‘Dan’s preferred cartoon narrative: the script of the usual ‘large-futured innocent waif (literally) raped many times over as he was passed-around among a coterie of priests and a teacher and thereby turned now into a drug-addicted and veracity-challenged ambulant wreck of an adult / the collusion between local prosecutors and trial judges in the service of making this case ‘work’ / the amplification by the local mainstream media, skewed invariably toward pushing the script and ignoring the increasing amount of countervailing material.
Whatever is ‘Dan’ to do?
I never made any attempt to "tackle" the "Billy Doe" case. I took Daves and others in this forums word for it that it was fraud. I tend to take someone's word as being the truth, but from you, your church and this forum, I have surely changed my mind as far as thinking people to be truthful. All I was saying is you "excusers and enablers" sight the fraud that happened in the "Billy Doe" case, as proof that just about all cases are fraud. There is just way too many examples where priests and bishops have admitted to their perversions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1204PM:
Easy-peezy: ‘Dan’ doth simply declare any reference to the case to be merely the work of “excusers and enablers” (nicely, this is the exact dynamic by which ‘Dan’ uses his speshull status with God and the Bible to excuse and enable his own Fixed Delusional Syndrome’s delusions and rants and so on).
Thus then ‘Dan’ merely doth riff on that with the “you can keep” stuff.
Thus doth ‘Dan’ evade and avoid the most vivid example of precisely how the Stampede operates, in order to keep his preferred cartoon narrative going both in regard to the Church and to himself.
And he seeks to bring the performance home with the pearl-clutching declamation about “the biggest lie [he’s] ever heard … !”. I submit that regular readers of this site have heard a whole lot of even bigger ones.
And more scoffing from the mocker!
I'm glad to see you admit that you've told some awful big ones, but still disagree that there's any bigger lie than the catholic church being "the One and only True Church". Let's settle that you as a lying catholic from your church of false teachings, could easily qualify as one of the biggest liars in your cult, but still would only place a close second to the lies of your cult.
Well, my recent comments put a lot of material on the table. How does ‘Dan’ deal with it?
Why, clutching the pearls and puffing up the pinfeathers he doth (the 4th at 1127PM) merely “refuse to answer or waste any of [his] time giving explanations to a compulsive liar”.
In other words, ‘Dan’ will evade it all. But he can do that – doncha see? – because he is dealing with “a compulsive liar” (one of his usual epithets for which he has proffered not a scintilla of demonstration).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1127PM:
Just who here might be eligible for the Compulsive Liar Cup is for the reader to decide.
As I have said, for someone even more innocent of psychological knowledge than he is of scriptural knowledge ‘Dan’s selective deployment of the term “compulsive liar” (a necessary concomitant of Fixed Delusional Syndrome since – if questioned – the patient must neutralize any questions or insights or facts that threaten the stability of the core delusion) suggests rather that he picked up the term from one of his psychiatric interviews and now uses it – in a fine example of clinical projection – against others whose material threatens his core delusional matrix.
One might go further and consider two subtypes of the Syndrome: Grandiose (‘Dan’ insists he is specially “chosen” by God and so perfectly aligned to God that to question ‘Dan’ is to question God) and Persecutory (‘Dan’ insists that all of his misadventures with police and psychiatry are the result of others who – by the “hundreds”, we recall him asserting – do ‘compulsively lie’ about him; he’s persecuted by being so widely ‘lied-about’).
Never been called or considered to be a "compulsive liar". So once again we obviously are dealing with your psychological projection problem and attempting to blame others for your being a "sicko". Don't fret little peewee, nobody can take your Compulsive Liar Sippy Cup away from you. Maybe when you're not sipping the Kool Aid from your cult, your mommy can fill the cup with your favorite source of nourishment, popcorn. Maybe someone should inform you that popcorn really isn't brain food, but that surely does explain an awful lot about you! servant of The Truth ( As in God, idiota, and that's why it was capitalized)