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.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1127PM:
And in what is now the most recent variation on his ‘schoolyard’ misadventure, he now claims that he wasn’t shooed-away, but rather he “left of [his] own accord” … except then “four thugs” (he means the school staffers) “were threatening and cursing at [him]”.
So … as the school staffers approach ‘Dan’ suddenly decides to leave … but then when he is threatened (with the police, quite possibly) he … doesn’t leave. And then – this scene is growing like kudzu – he is suddenly “hit … from behind in the back and neck”.
Readers may consider this script proposal from the point of view of a film director: how exactly is this scene playing-out in terms of the actors’ positions and motivations? Who is standing where, facing in what direction, saying and doing what … that sort of thing.
I said the prophecy, which took only a couple of minutes, walked down the block, turned right and walked another block and a half and was then 1/2 block off of the church property. This was the first time I heard from the four thugs, yelling threats and cursing from the corner of the church. I walked back to ask them why the threats and foul language, when I had caused no one any harm. That was when they hit me from behind in the back and neck.
There, now you can make your movie and don't forget your popcorn. If you would stop with your ignorance and lying assessments, maybe someone might treat you with respect. Until then your still just a compulsive lying worthless catholic creep. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1127PM:
And readers may then compare and contrast their assessment to ‘Dan’s story here.
This is also precisely the type of assessment made by the investigation that ultimately uncovered the abyssal problems with the stories ‘Billy Doe’ told in the Philadelphia case.
And the comment riffs on in the usual way to its predictable epithetical ending that drags in the usual God’ll-getcha bit (“God’s wrath”) and the grandiose self-styling as “servant of the Most High”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1143PM:
Here, in response to my pointing out the changing room scenario and its elements in my comment of the 4th at 1137AM, ‘Dan’ merely waves it all away with more evasive epitheticals. My “excuses” are merely “posed as questions” – doncha see? – so ‘Dan’ doesn’t have to deal with them. Neato.
And on it goes with more epitheticals and the further grandiose self-styling as “servant of The Truth” (capitalized, no less).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1158PM:
Commenting (‘responding’ wouldn’t quite be accurate) to my comment of the 4th at 1138AM, ‘Dan’ simply and evasively waves-away the plausibility problems with the standard Stampede/Abusenik scripting whereby even a mere ‘seeing’ would or could result in the ruin of a previously large-futured life and maturity.
On what basis does ‘Dan’ justify his evasively waving it all away? Why in the sure and certain knowledge (that ‘Dan’ alone doth possess) that Cardinal Pell was “playing” and so on. He cawn’ think why that isn’t all as clear as day.
My apologies, I wasn't aware that perverts think that a grown adult playing grab ass and balls with several young boys and putting his nasty, filthy hands down their swim trunks, is only "playing". Where did you learn that, at NAMBLA.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1158PM:
He then considers it necessary (perhaps he noticed the zest with which he described the alleged acts) to insist overtly that he is “not one of the fellow sickos of your disgusting cult”. Well, I could perhaps accept that he isn’t a Catholic, but that’s about all here.
And then he also considers it necessary (perhaps he realized that his immediately foregoing gambit wasn’t going to do the trick) he opines as to whether I too might be a “pervert”. He’s really really really on about “disgusting creeps” and “perverts” … in fact he sees them all around him (especially among Catholics and their clergy) … but not in any mirror he has ever examined.
“Lying hypocrite creep” would indeed seem to apply here, though no doubt not in the sense ‘Dan’ intends.
I've rarely if ever used the terms "disgusting creeps" and "perverts" and let's not forget "pedophiles" or "compulsive liars", until dealing with you, other lying catholics and their despicable priests, and the research into your cult, it's disgusting hierarchy and their excusers in this forum. That should sum it up for you. They wouldn't be allowed in God's church, which once again is the gathering of believers, not a building or temple. Does that not compute in your little popcorn clogged brain?
On then to the ‘True Catholic’ comment of the 5th at midnight:
In February 2014 Cardinal Pell was appointed to head the new Vatican Secretariat for the Economy. As such he would have had to go to Rome to take up that new office. I leave it to the Australian readership here as to whether trans-oceanic flights from Australia might depart at night.
As to the fact that Cardinal Pell is a “documented liar”, the commenter offers no demonstration whatsoever. Ditto in regard to “the many credible witnesses” who – further – “attest to his odd behavior, at the pools and in the showers”.
This is merely a familiar instance of the ‘drive-by’ type of internet comment, one for which ‘True Catholic’ is known on this site.
These charges against Cardinal Pell are likely to be thrown out. What overseas people don't understand is that this poor man has been a target for opportunists. Also a punching-bag for the activist scribes, with a secular agenda, who see him as their natural enemy. What is very significant is a case against him in 2002. A Melbourne man accused him of sexual abuse, going back to a youth camp held 40 years ealier, in 1962. The Supreme Court, with a non-Catholic Judge, could not find any evidence to substantiate this accusation. So the accuser failed, even though he had a lawyer (pro-bono) to represent him. This case had almost saturation coverage in the media. Which means that everybody in this country, including Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument, must have been aware that the case was going on. Yet they did not come forward with their own 'stories'? Why not? But I hope to make my point more clearly in a later post.
To clarify my earlier post… if something is true now, then it would have been equally true in 2002. As these stories supposedly refer to events 40 years ago. So Dignan and Monument had only to pick up a phone, and call a newspaper, to get their stories made public. And 2002 would certainly have been the opportune time to do it, as their stories would then have bolstered the accusation of the Melbourne guy. And his accusation would also have given more credibility to them. So why didn't that happen? Well I honestly think that their 'stories' did not even exist in 2002. I think that their 'stories' only came into existence later… about the time that Cardinal Pell first appeared before the Royal Commission in 2014. These guys could see that a witch-hunt was gathering momentum… so they decided to join in.
We proceed with the most recent crop from ‘Dan’.
On the 5th at 1118PM he again tries to evade his reliance on the old I’m Not/You Are bit by claiming – again – that when I mention his deployment of that bit then I am the one deploying it. I only point out when he is using it yet again. And the comment trails off downward from that bit to more epithet.
Which includes more evasive epitheticals by which he attempts to dismiss my characterization (drawn from his many submissions here) of his stuff: they are just “rehashing the compulsive lies of yours and your cults” (sic). As always, there is no demonstration of what those “compulsive lies” might be; ‘Dan’ just tosses out his epitheticals to console himself and evade the realities that his delusions were constructed and embraced to evade.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1118PM:
Grandiosely – and thus marvelously – ‘Dan’ then puffs up his pinfeathers and huffs about my “mockery of [his] spiritual position with the Almighty”. The Emperor of the French is out on the sun porch and insists on being referred to as Your Imperial Majesty … that sort of thing.
And then another deployment of the I’m Not/You Are bit: it is I – and not ‘Dan’ – who actually engages in “psychological projection”, which demonstrates my “ignorance and stupidity”. Readers may consider as they will.
And by the end of the comment, we can see that ‘Dan’ has done nothing ‘responsive’ but instead has merely consoled himself with a bunch of ‘comebacks’. Nothing new about that.
I remember it being well established that you took up residence under the sun porch, but I do like your new title, even though it should be more like Emperor of the Nazis.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1136PM:
‘Dan’ involved himself in the subject of the ‘Billy Doe’ case when he said he was tired of hearing about it (as well and slyly he should be, since it comprehensively contradicts his preferred cartoon narrative).
Then he tries to evade his evasion of it (he’s tired of hearing about it) by bleating – warning: get popcorn – that he doth “tend to take someone’s word as being the truth” … well, except “from [me], [my] church and this forum”.
Though he had just said that he “took Daves [sic] and others in thus forums [sic] word for it”.
As is clear here, when ‘Dan’ is in evasion mode, he tends to lose control of the sense of his stuff.
But with ‘Dan’ it’s never about “sense” (let alone “truth”); it’s all about coming up with a comeback that will evade the weaknesses in his presentation and evade responsibility for what he’s said and claimed.
Yeah! You're all about "sense", NONSENSE!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1136PM:
‘Dan’ is victimized – doncha see? – in that Persecutory way I had mentioned in a recent prior comment: by myself, the Church and this forum. If it weren’t for such victimization, why … he would be the very soul of sweetness, rationality, and light.
But since he is victimized, why … then he can operate with no regard for those elements and just buckle down to epitheticals and cartoons. It’s a neat mind-game he plays here. And gives us an insight into this type of derangement: since one is victimized (in one’s own mind, anyway), then one is justified in dispensing with rationality and truthfulness. Victimization (even if only imagined) makes it all OK … and indeed even makes it all truthy and heroic.
Which also recalls Vishinsky in that quotation from Stalin’s show trials: since the alleged actions are so awful, then nobody has a right to ask for evidence or proof.
And at the end of the comment, ‘Dan’ has not supported his here-repeated “excusers and enablers” bit with any demonstration or explication.
Oh! And you're such a prime example of one who is sweetness, rational, light, and let's not forget truthfulness. I do agree that you qualify as being truly a compulsive liar and heroic to all the sick pedophiles and perverts of your cult. How's that comeback, Hypocrite? servant of Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1136PM:
One might also ask: if he doth take the Doe trial to be a fraud, then were those who exposed the case as fraudulent not also “excusers and enablers”?
But the best he can work up here is to whine that too much emphasis is being placed on the fraudulent Doe allegations, as “proof that just about all cases are fraud”. I certainly never said anything about the Doe case ‘proving’ such a thing; my point has always been that we are dealing in probabilities here, and the exposure of the Doe case surely a) conforms to all the elements inherent in the Stampede gambit and thus b) increases the probability of those elements being operative in any Stampede allegations and that therefore c) we must examine each case and allegation carefully.
But examination isn’t good for cartoons and preferred-narratives and scripting; which is why ‘Dan’ doesn’t like examination.
And we do love how you "examine each case and allegation carefully". Is that catholic apologists language for making excuses, dreaming up other possibilities or probabilities, or when that doesn't suffice, then we'll just flat out lie for the pedophile creeps. Sounds right, publiar.
Commenting on mine of the 5th at 244PM, ‘Dan’ (the 5th at 1155PM) once more deploys his “scoffing from the mocker” bit.
His justification here is that regardless of what whoppers we’ve heard here (many from himself, he fails to add) yet that’s all insignificant when compared to the “catholic church” lie. Soooo … it’s OK if ‘Dan’ tells whoppers, since he is engaged in his campaign against (what he claims to be) the biggest lie of all.
As I said in a prior comment in this sequence, the Victimist and the delusionally-deranged approaches dovetail nicely here in that they both seek to excuse their lack of veracity on the grossly specious grounds that they are merely combating a bigger lie … so it’s OK.
Liars will never qualify as being veracious, no matter how much longwinded ignorance spews from their mouths.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1212AM:
Here – commenting on mine of the 5th at 343PM, explaining elements of the Fixed Delusional Syndrome (the newer term for it is ‘Disorder’ rather than ‘Syndrome’) – ‘Dan’ simply asserts and claims and pronounces that he has “never been called or considered to be a ‘compulsive liar’”.
Readers familiar with his submissions here may take that assertion for what they think it’s worth.
But on the basis of that (rather dubious) assertion ‘Dan’ can then run the old I’m Not/You Are bit again: it is I who am the “compulsive liar” and not ‘Dan’, so myah-myah. Such a comeback.
I never said “popcorn was brain food”; it is, instead, just the thing to accompany comical entertainment, which is why I recommend it when perusing much of ‘Dan’s material.
But whether his delusions are neuro-physiologically based or psycho-dynamically based, he’s not going to be finding any “brain food” that will solve his issues.
You've always been the "compulsive liar" and you've been trying to run that I'm Not/You Are bit back on me. Remembeer peewee that you were honored with the "Compulsive Liar Sippy Cup", filled with your cartoon flavored popcorn.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1227AM:
Here ‘Dan’ adds more bits to his old schoolyard story: his “prophecy” (courageously delivered to school-kids behind a fence) “took only a couple of minutes”, after which he walked almost two blocks (and still was only half a block from “the church property”) when suddenly … and then the “four thugs” bit.
And who were these “four thugs”? Long ago had said they were staffers from the church-school. If that bit is still ‘true’, then we are to imagine that they chased him for two blocks or so and … he then simply couldn’t think why they were chasing him so … he “walked back to ask them why”. And so on with the claim that he was set-upon and bethumped by school-staffers.
Readers may consider the plausibility and veracity of this scenario as they will.
‘Dan’ was a victim – doncha see? – and didn’t do anything really. He’s always a victim … and cawn’t think why.
You are such a dumb jackass. I told you I walked away and was not forced to leave. Add more of your ignorant lies to the story, seeing that you were there to witness the whole scenario. Lying Scumbag. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1236:
He treats as if it were proven what has yet to be proven at all, i.e. that Pell was “playing grab ass and balls” and so on. I had used “playing” as a stand-in simply to avoid the rest of his rather vivid accusation, which readers could easily read for themselves.
Which still leaves us with ‘Dan’ proffering as fact what has not been demonstrated.
But that gives him a sly opening to toss in his epithetical about “NAMBLA”.
Still defending another Scumbag from your cult?
Pretty much describes your modus operandi, "to avoid the rest of [anyone's] rather vivid accusation[s]", especially when it becomes fairly obvious that those multiple accusations against the pervert are pointing to his obvious guilt. You've done the same with my examples of your evil lies and slander, claiming I never gave them. Sometimes I wonder if you have some seeing or hearing problems. Maybe it's just your reading comprehension and lack of any moral sense. "Nonsense", you are fairly accomplished at.
Seeing that nothing has yet been proven, why don't you stop with your false proposals, lies, excuses and lame probabilities assessments, attempting to sway public opinion with your unproven ignorance. Please stop with all your excuses for the pedophiles of your cult. The majority have been proven to be creeps, even by their own admission. By now they've learned to just deny, deny, lie and deny some more. Sounds like the definition of you. I've even seen advice from Dave to keep their mouth shut, they've gotten their foot stuck in it so often. How about being honest and truthful about what you've done. That doesn't compute in the minds of lying deceiving catholics? Lie all you want to the world, but your lies won't hold any water with the Almighty. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1254AM:
Here – having donned his Wig of Goody-Two-Shoes – ‘Dan’ doth declare and declaim that he has “rarely if ever” made use of the terms “disgusting creeps” and “perverts” and “pedophiles” and “compulsive liars” … until dealing with me and “other lying catholics and their despicable priests” and on and on.
But since he’s been around Catholics and the Church all his life, then … what really has he said here?
‘Dan’s been gone around the bend quite a while. And who could read his myriad bits here and think that he’s rather unused to such vitriol and is instead actually by disposition and character the very soul of sweetness and rationality and light?
And by the end of his comment the only thing he has managed to “sum up” is the gravamen of his vitriolic cartoons and cartoonishness But I would say that readers already pretty much knew that anyway.
Wow! Grab your popcorn everybody, publiar's Cartoon Time will be returning tomorrow. What a lying joke you've turned out to be.
Since I had catholic family and friends, yes I went to their celebrations, but had no regular contact with the church since I was 14 and not again until sent to try to awaken the lost at the age of 54. I've been dealing with the liars and the truly dark side of the cult, only for the last 8 or so years. The most disturbing stuff has come about in the last 4 years, but nothing as bad as the garbage and lies I've had to confront in this forum. I guess as the primary slanderer and compulsive liar in this forum, that fact must give you something to be real proud of. I'll expect some of your sarcasm in return for what I've just told you. servant sent by the Most High
Moving on to more substantive material, I would recommend to readers Julia Yost’s article about the Pell matter, in the journal First Things and available here
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/07/the-case-against-cardinal-pell
This is Yost’s review of the book “Cardinal” by one Louise Milligan, the Australian publication of which predates the new charges by only a short time.
Milligan says she wrote it “from the complainant’s point of view” – and I would say that the deployment of such a legal term indicates that this book was – not to put too fine a point on it – tailor-made for the setting up of charges. (Readers also might recall that it was the claims of a “local historian” that fueled the since-fizzled Irish Magdalene Laundries brouhaha.)
I am only going to consider here the points she raises relevant to the allegation stories themselves. The Aussie police – as Yost notes – have not actually gotten around to publishing any actual charges. I would say that this is somewhat strategic: they will let the Stampede dynamics get rolling (by announcing that they will bring some charges) and then let public opinion be suitably prepared according to accepted Stampede praxis and the now-familiar dynamics of the Stampede Playbook.
I'm sorry audience, I thought "Cartoon Time" was over, but you'd better prepare a bigger bowl popcorn, the longwinded publiar is going to contradict all the hearsay he knows and solve all the allegations against cardinal pell, and there now is no reason for him to leave Babylon Rome to be tried. That way when he's pronounced guilty, the cult can still protect and hide him under their dresses. Bunch of fairy, pedophile queens, honoring, venerating, adoring, but never accuse us of worshipping our blessed sinless ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven". Perverted creeps, their excusers and enablers, catholic NAMBLA, worldwide.
In regard to the 1961 thrusting-hands-down-pants allegation story:
It is alleged to have taken place in the presence of other boys. Milligan resolves this problem by merely claiming that all those non-witnesses were “seemingly oblivious” to what then-seminarian Pell was doing in plain view. The claim was not reported by the allegant until 2002 – the year, regular readers will recall, when the Stampede got going in January in Boston, MA. It was dismissed by a judge that same year because – to use Yost’s phrasing – “There is no eyewitness evidence, no physical evidence, no circumstantial evidence, no cogency, and no contemporary report”. (Yet, again, there were allegedly a number of would-be witnesses present for the alleged act(s)).
On to the 2015 allegation of acts alleged to have happened in 1978 or 1979:
In a swimming pool – allege two childhood friends who were 8 or 9 at the time of the allegations – Pell would cup his hands, boys would step into the cupped-hand platform, and Pell would propel them out of the water and into the air. The two – Messrs. Monument and Dignan – claim that Pell “fondled” them and “may have digitally penetrated them”.
Yost notes that a) the boys would have to hold their legs tightly together when stepping into the cupped-hand platform and b) there were other pool-users, all potential witnesses of any such behavior and yet nobody noticed any of this and that c) while one might “fondle” outside the clothing, digital penetration would have required pulling down the swim trunks (again, in the presence of all those other people) and one’s ‘digit’ would have had to make its way to the anal orifice in the midst of them all.
In regard to the Torquay changing-room allegation story which Yost says she finds “the most credible” of the bunch:
The ‘witness’ Tyvack, she notes, says that he entered the changing-room, and that several boys (around 8 to 10 years old) were there and so was Pell. Tyvack says both that Pell was “facing them” and that he “had his back angled to them”. Tyvack then went behind the shower-screen and took a 5-10 minute shower.
Tyvack then says that when he came out the boys and Pell were still there, the boys now being dressed but Pell still naked and they were all “looking at each other”. Tyvack claims that he then became “very suspicious” that what he was observing was an act of indecent exposure. Tyvack then says he told the boys to leave and warned Pell that he – Tyvack – would call the police if he ever saw this type of thing again.
Club records show that both Pell and Tyvack continued to use the Club in the 1986-87 timeframe, with Tyvack even serving as a lifeguard and “bringing his sons around”. Tyvack apparently never mentioned this (alleged) incident to any other Club member or officials nor did he tell (or warn) his sons. Nor did he notify the police.
Continuing with the Torquay story:
Not until 2012 did Tyvack ‘report’ the incident to “civil authorities”.
Yost asks several questions:
First, did Tyvack actually take so long a shower in a swimming-pool changing room facility? Most people just want to wash off the pool water and get on with it. But – Yost notes – this abnormally long shower time would establish plausible grounds for alleging “indecent exposure” (suggesting again, I would say, a story tailor-made to support charges).
Second, would young boys stick around for 5-10 minutes once they had finished changing?
Third, why would Pell risk so utterly obvious a gambit while knowing that another adult was just on the other side of the shower-screen?
Fourth, why would Tyvack “wait a quarter of a century” to make his ‘report’?
And I would add: why did the boys not mention so extended a vision of an adult’s phallus to somebody?
Yost then takes up what Milligan claims is “an explosive new charge”, i.e. that in 1997 as Archbishop, having finished celebrating Sunday Mass, Pell found two choirboys – aged 13 or so – “in a back room” getting tipsy on altar wine and he forced them to have oral sex.
Milligan doesn’t meet the first allegant until he is in his thirties, but she assigns him the moniker “The Kid” (because, Yost notes, we are always supposed to believe ‘kids’, even when they are in their 30s).
But Yost notes a police report, taken just recently, after the release of the Milligan book, in which it was noted that the altar-wine was always locked up and the two boys would have had neither the key nor unaccompanied access to the wine-storage locker.
And also that as senior a celebrant as an Archbishop is never alone: he is always accompanied by a staffer (much as admirals and generals are always accompanied by staffers). And that the idea of an Archbishop prowling around alone in his (empty?) cathedral on a Sunday looking for lingering choirboys chugging wine “in a back room” or for any other reason is somewhat beyond belief.
The second ‘victim’ (Milligan assigns him he moniker “The Choirboy”) actually isn’t an allegant since he died of a heroin overdose in 2014. His mother is on record as insisting that “Pell and his people ‘need to be responsible for’” her son’s death. That quotation from the mother of the deceased indicates the dynamics involved here: the mother would like someone else to be responsible for her son’s drug-using.
Understandable, but that’s not the point here. This ‘victim’ is – somewhat conveniently – not in a position to agree or disagree with the claims and allegations made by “The Kid”.
Yost points to a 1979 study (now “debunked”) that purported to demonstrate that “children never lie about” their sex abuse experiences, except to shield the abusers and that “when it comes to child sex abuse, denial is confirmation; No means Yes” and all the panoply of excuses concocted to explain-away the lack of evidence in child sex-abuse claims.
(In another part of the review, Yost recalls that one day-care staffer in the 1980s was accused of having inserted a butcher-knife up the anus of a child, though the child displayed no such injuries and that in another case the entire grounds of a day-care center were excavated in search of an alleged subterranean maze of tunnels and secret rooms where Satanic and abuse rituals and acts were carried out by the staff on the children – the alleged maze was never found … the case, nonetheless, went on).
I would also add that Yost also notes Milligan’s “doctrinal liberalism”; she is against hierarchy and the Catholic Church (as she herself admits in her book).
I invite any and all catholics to give a good look at Romans 1:18-32. Read it well, maybe even a few times. Go ahead, read it in The New American Bible, publiar promotes as if the meaning is different from other versions. I did and have no problem with what it says. I'll paraphrase and try to make it a little more concise.
18 God's wrath is revealed against the wicked who suppress the truth by their wickedness [liars]. 19 God made himself evident to them. 20 Showed his eternal power and divinity – they have NO excuse; 21 they knew God, but did not give Him glory or thanks. Instead they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools [publyin'?] 23 and exchanged God's glory for the likeness of an image [statues] of mortal man [or woman goddess], birds, animals or snakes [publiar?]. 24 God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie [pub-liar]. 26 God handed them over to degrading passions [perversions or pedophilia]. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their PERVERSITY. 28 Since they did not acknowledge God [too busy bowing to mary statues], God handed them over to their undiscerning [sick] minds to do what is improper. 29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed and malice…envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. 30 + 31 more adjectives – senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless [cowardly thugs]. 32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [As in the excusers, enablers and those who cover-up for the disgusting pedophiles and perverts of your cult.]
To sum up – Idolatry and the worship of false gods or goddesses led to sexual perversions. God gave them over to do every vile thing. How much worse for a cult that protected and harbored grown men, who preffered anal and oral sex with young innocent boys? Stop claiming your cult to be the moral compass of the world, while performing the most disgusting immoral acts known to man. You enablers, liars and excusers will join in the punishment God has waiting for all the sickos of your despicable cult. There will be no excuses for any of you!! servant of the One and Only True God
Better correct my spelling of preferred, before the grammar cop shows up.
Same old shit new day. The smoke screen here seems to have morphed into a very tall hedge. Can't see through it ; or over it or under it.
Here's the hedge. Dan the Protestant reformer. who brings nothing but verbage vs. Publican who brings a little more than verbage. P brings the latest RCC propaganda and literally miles of verbage. Nothing sane takes place here. To engage either is to be hedged, screened. Both are here so nothing important regarding victims and their needs gets through the shrubbary.
As far as "pedophile sodomites in the priesthood" goes ? What did you think they were doing? Playing golf and drinking? All religion is fake. Get over it and get out. No sky fairy gives a rat's ass about you. If you don't know that you're just plain stupid.
There are a number of ‘Dan’ come-backs in his most recent crop; almost all reveal the level of mentation and character we are dealing with and need no further exposition on my part.
But a bit can be gleaned from consideration of ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
It is the last in his sequence, and follows the several comments I had made in regard to the questions raised in the Yost article.
There were a number of questions indicating the significantly problematic nature of each of the extant allegations.
What does ‘Dan’ do?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
Why … he changes the subject.
But merely to distract with more of his same old stuff.
Donning one of his several faux-papal Wigs, he doth – with uncharacteristic non-directiveness – “invite all catholics” (so this may be classified as another of ‘Dan’s urbi et orbi poses).
And they are invited to … look up another of the pericopes from ‘Dan’s now-familiar pile.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
The Letter to the Romans is held to have been written in anticipation of Paul wrapping up his ministry in the Eastern Mediterranean world and heading for Spain, with a planned visit to the Roman Christian community en route. It’s sort of letter-of-introduction, doing the work that pre-visit PR would do today, acquainting the Roman Christians with himself and his message and ideas.
As Paul often did in his missionary talks to Gentiles in the Eastern Mediterranean world, he goes after the pagans whose lives reflect the consequences of a core rejection of Christ’s Gospel.
One can easily see how the Roman Christians – given their locality – would be even more acutely aware of the paganism that was all around them in Imperial Rome.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
‘Dan’ – of course – urges readers to “read it well” but that – of course – is hardly the full freight of his exhortation: one must read Romans with the speshull ‘Dan’-glasses to see what he sees and what he wants everyone else to see.
Which reveals a basic (one might easily say ‘fundamental’) problem with ‘Dan’s approach: it doesn’t distinguish between a) the paganism to which Paul is actually referring in the Letter and b) the failures of those who are already Christians.
Thus: if one is not a pagan but a Christian, and one fails the Gospel through sin, is one then no longer a Christian?
This is precisely the conceptual conflation upon which the ‘Dan’-verse (and general fundie) ranting against the Church and Catholicism is built: i) pagans (who don’t accept the Gospel) and ii) Christian sinners (who accept the Gospel but occasionally fail the Gospel) are really for all practical purposes the same thing.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
Several consequences flow from this abyssal category-error:
First, it results in the creation of an equivalence type of Scriptural interpretation whereby any pericope comprised of descriptions of pagan belief, culture and lifestyle and the often-accompanying ‘Woes’ and denunciations can thus also be applied to Christians who fail through sin.
Thus the odd and sustained but (for ‘Dan’s delusional and plop-tossy agenda) necessary insistence on describing Catholicism and the Church as some form of paganism (goddess-worship, idols, church buildings as “temples” and so on). For the purposes of this agenda, Catholicism and the Church have to be seen as ‘pagan’, so as to open Catholicism and the Church to all the juicy Scripture-bits against pagans (in both the Hebraic era of the OT and the Christian era of the NT).
And ‘Dan’ – of course – doth love the juicy bits.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
Second, it is necessary to downplay the status of forgiveness within the Christian (and Biblical) vision: if pagans are condemned for their paganism (if not also for their pagan-hood) and if the Church and Catholicism are pagan, why … then there can be no forgiveness. And the plop-tossy ranting can thus proceed con gusto, and under the mask of Scriptural authority, as we see so often demonstrated in the ‘Dan’ stuff.
The disciples realized this problem – if somewhat inchoately – when they asked Jesus ‘who then can be saved?’ (Luke 13:23 and 18:26, Matthew 19:25): if only perfection in the following of the Gospel will ensure salvation, who then can be saved? Christ replies that it is only possible “for God” to effect this.
It is on the basis of this point, connected to Christ’s entrusting Peter with “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”, that the Church’s theology of forgiveness is founded.
The realities of ‘salvation’ and ‘sin’, of pagans who sin and Christians who sin, are connected, but they are not the synonymous.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
Third, however, is that if there can be no forgiveness then those who claim to be ‘Christians’ must – willy nilly – hold themselves to be without sin. Otherwise, the same conflation that they have weaponized against ‘pagans’ and/or ‘Catholics and Catholicism’ can be as easily applied to themselves.
A heavy dose of Victimism helps here: ‘Dan’ is – as we have so often heard from him – victimized by pagan-Catholics and so on when really he is (as his preferred narrative scripting would have it) just the heroic and truthy but sore-bethumped Servant and so on. He doesn’t sin; he’s just really really lied about a whole lot. That sort of thing.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
‘Dan’ then tries to evade the problems with Biblical translation (I doubt he is even aware of the abyssal conceptual theological problems) by a) implying that any old translation will do.
The translation is only part of the problem. The interpretation also vital. And any ‘Dan’-verse interpretation is deformed from the get-go by the assorted elements of his delusional system.
And then he – with a notable slyness – offers b) to make the gravamen of any Biblical interpretation “more concise” by – had you been waittinggggggggggg forrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – doing the job himself (i.e. he will “paraphrase” the pericope just so it’s easier for folks to ‘get it’ … with that “it” being, of course, merely the official ‘Dan’-verse take on the pericope).
But don’t be nervous – ‘Dan’ has “no problem” with this sort of thing (and he could add: he does it all the time). Readers may consider it all as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
Thus ‘Dan’ indulges in his interpretation throughout the second paragraph, though all the while one must consider that Paul is speaking here of the actual pagans (i.e. who do not embrace the Gospel and thus live in darkness) inhabiting Imperial Rome and for that matter much of the world.
Just to make things more “concise”, then, ‘Dan’ lards his interpretation with his own take, just so you don’t get tempted to give more thought to Paul than you do to ‘Dan’s stuff or start to see daylight appearing between what Paul says and what ‘Dan’ wants you to see.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:
But although ‘Dan’ said he was going to make things “concise”, he finishes that second paragraph and yet senses the need to now “sum up” his ‘concision’.
And this “sum up” is just a repeat of his usual stuff, built upon the ‘Dan’-verse dogma that the Church is in essence and fundament both pagan and sexually perverted. (I think that’s a more concise summing up of his stuff here.)
As I have often said, that there are individuals among the human species who are sexually abusive and even perverted is a truism. That individual Christians can and do fail the Gospel is also a historical and theological truism.
But to leap from those truisms to the “concise” core of the ‘Dan’-verse dogma is a long leap indeed, and over an abyss of delusion and manipulation as well.
Oh, and he wraps it up with another God’ll-getcha bit and that grandiose self-styling that he no doubt practices in front of his bathroom mirror several times a day.
And Dan doesn't like "idolatry" and says the Catholics here practice it. That does what exactly for those who were and are being injured sexually by priests. Why the fuck has an a non abused Protestant and a Non abused Catholic got so much to say about everything but what the church has done to the victims. Nothing obviously. P would like to pretend we all are liars and Dan wants to play back a few centuries as if the RCC hasn't get piles of excuses for all and any of their behaviors. The church is an mpire. It behaves as empires behave. It protects what it values most. No not it's children but it's gold. If the RCC was truly ignorant of the abuse. It would have behaved far differently than it has. Only 15% cheaply compensated; the creation of fake victims groups and the excuses given are the behaviors of an empire not a religion basecd on love. That's the facts. If the church complains it's paid out 3 billion all i can say is you shouldn't have allowed your priests to harm so many children, who you refuse to compensate.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1239PM (to be found under mine of the 6th at 455PM):
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates not his lack of theological and Scriptural chops, but rather his queasy legal chops: “it becomes fairly obvious”, he doth pronounce, “that those multiple accusations against the pervert are pointing to his obvious guilt”. Really? Soooo … the more accusations against you, the more obvious it is that you are guilty … ?
Where then does that leave ‘Dan’ who by his own count has had “hundreds” testify against him … ? And he has been involved with the law formally on six occasions (that he admits to). Of course, in ‘Dan’s own cases, they were all “liars” and it was all “lies, lies, lies”.
But in Cardinal Pell’s case, apparently, some other ‘principle’ applies (i.e. the ‘principle’ of ‘Dan’s agenda against the Church and Catholicism).
Big difference is that I'm not being accused of touching or grabbing any child, let alone stranger's little boys. Many of the accusations against me were different, pointing to the fact that they were false and absolute lies. How do I know that? Because I was the accused and none of your cults accusations were ever true. NONE, including yours! This deceiving cardinal pell is a creep and a pedophile and most of the accusations involve young boys. Definitely the modus operandi of many of your cult's leaders and clergy. You've seen one, you've seen them all, perverts, idolators, cowards and lying creeps. There are no saints in your church, only deceivers making outrageous false claims, beating themselves, faking stigmatas and dreaming up visions of mary. Pericope for the dope - Col 2:18.
"Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you with speculation about what he has seen [false visions]. Such a man is puffed up without basis by his unspiritual mind." Col 2:18
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1239PM:
Then he tries to weasel-in something to the effect that he has given examples of my “evil lies and slander”. No, really, all he’s done is to claim that the only acceptable take on his misadventures is his own take on them; for which we only have his word … and readers can do what they want with that.
And after a bit of epithetical recreation, ‘Dan’ moves on to his second paragraph.
Here he is going for the gambit that since “nothing has yet been proven” then we should “stop” with “false proposals” (how can he know they are “false”?) and declares that “probabilities assessments” are “lame” (now there’s a mature and competent objection for you).
My “ignorance”, he further doth declare is “unproven” – and that’s one of the few accuracies we’ve seen from him in quite some time.
And you can take my word for it, because I refuse to lie, unlike you and your cult.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1239PM:
And then he riffs on with his favorite cartoon characterizations of “the majority of “the pedophiles in your cult”.
And something about ‘Dan’ having “seen advice from Dave” telling (person or persons unknown) “to keep their mouth shut”. Is it even worth wondering what is going on in ‘Dan’s mind here?
And he wraps up this performance with more on his ever-handy “lie” and “lies” and “lying” meme.
And another variation on God’ll-getcha.
You may think that "the pedophiles in your cult" is some of my "favorite cartoon characterizations", but such is further proof of the sickness in your mind. This is an absolute horror story, with actors that need to be purged. Don't forget your popcorn. servant
It seems I had overlooked something to be gleaned in ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 522PM:
Here he demonstrates the connection he wishes existed between ‘pagan’ Catholicism and “bunch of fairy, pedophile queens”. He begins to lose grammatical structure here as he warms with some passion to his meme: “perverted creeps, their excusers and enablers, catholic NAMBLA worldwide”.
But at least he’s off “nematode”.
And now we find JR slinking back (the 7th at 815PM).
He was last seen taking his leave (yet again) when confronted with a list of questions about his own favorite scare-vision: that the Church itself master-minded the Stampede, and not only controlled the tort-attorneys (who gleaned several billion for their allegants) but also the victim organizations such as SNAP, the judges and media and even arranged the Doe/Gallagher case in Philly just to make victims ‘look bad’ and then even arranged for the prosecution of the DA there by the Feds.
What’s he saying now?
A bit of adolescent scatology – so often seen in Abuseniks when they are a) trying to bolster their creds even though b) their material can’t stand long enough to do that for them.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 815PM:
Then he shares with us the meaning of his smoke-screen hedge bit:
‘Dan’ is really just a front (full of “verbage”) and so am I / then I bring “the latest RCC propaganda” (no examples and explications given) / leading to JR’s official declaration that “nothing sane takes place here”.
This, from JR – whose material, especially his own ‘victim’ story and his Church-mastermind theory, stand as clear indications indeed that this site has seen its share of stuff that’s not quite “sane”.
We are not supposed to use our minds to think our way through the “shrubbary” that is being put up by whatever elements are operating in the Stampede. We are simply supposed to take JR’s take and consider that a good day’s work.
And he wraps his performance up with a passel of insinuations – neatly sidestepping the very rational questions posed by the material against Cardinal Pell as we presently know it.
That makes readers who think “just plain stupid”. We have JR’s word for it.
Might we have better luck with JR’s of the 7th at 831PM?
Not very much. JR – donning his primary Wig as Tribune of the Victimry (actually, Tribune of the Allegators) – strikes a heroic and truthy pose as being put-out that nobody is concerned for “the victims” (who – we might wonder – either are or are not so very much like himself and his own story).
Seeking to create some space for his own upcoming (and repeat) performances, JR then goes after ‘Dan’ for not having been “abused”, larding his question with another dollop of that giveaway adolescent scatology.
Against me he once again runs his “pretend” meme, as in: I do “pretend we are all liars” (that “we” being allegants, or victims – whether genuine or otherwise). I don’t “pretend” any such thing; I simply ask questions that arise from the material we see here and then do the same with such responses as are made. (That, indeed, is how we eventually got to the bottom of JR’s own story, quite some time ago.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 831PM:
Then on with the Church-as-empire bit, which ‘Dan’ ran with here a thread or two back.
Then JR tosses out yet again the still-undemonstrated whopper of a claim that “only 15%” of ‘victims’ have been “compensated”, and even then “cheaply”.
And hopes to establish his own cartoon stuff as reliable by then asserting (since the material can’t establish itself on its own) “that’s the facts”. Whenever JR makes that claim, look even more closely.
publiar's July 8th @ 8:31pm, A perfect connection. " 'pagan' Catholicism and 'bunch of fairy, pedophile queens' " - "A tree and it's fruits. A bad tree bearing evil fruits." Yes, you can take that literally. servant
Any one who listens to and believes what Puberty has to say is a fool. His nasty tone alone makes my cussing look like the nothing it is. Ad hominum attacks are all Pubecence has to offer. I'd rather be wrong and nice than like Pubic, who's both nasty and wrong. I'm not wrong in anything I've said here ever. If I made a mistake it's only one: Expecting there to be sane Catholics willing to tell the truth here.I have literally seen none. I'm not crushed by that fact but you should be. The best you can come up with is a lout who hides behind a nom de guar, hiding behind a pen name. And this over rought little "P"imp for the church is the best you all can offer? Doesn't look like Gods church is getting much help at TMR. This place is like Bill Donahue's ass hole. All his shit comes through here. Have a loved filled day.
As we have seen, ‘Dan’s bit is basically that the Church and Catholicism are pagan and perverted; JR’s is a) that the Church had master-minded the Stampede and run all the players and b) that only 15 percent of the ‘victims’ have been compensated. (Although at this point, JR is apparently just going with the 15-percent claim – for which he offers no explication.)
Since his entire performance here is based on the assertion of that 15-percent, then of course the logical thing to do would be to explicate that assertion right off the bat.
But that’s neither JR’s nor ‘Dan’s nor the Abuseniks’ nor the Stampede’s modus operandi. Rather, evading the demonstration of the assertions (and stories and claims and accusations) the next thing to do, right away, is to simply toss up as much of an epithetical smokescreen as possible; the objective being to distract from the lack of evidence or explication and trust that the manipulation of the public’s emotions (often too politely called its ‘opinion’) will float the assertions over the lethal sandbar of their evidentiary emptiness.
Thus JR’s of the 9th at 733PM.
First off, This is not at all " 'Dan's bit [as you so rudely put it] is basically that the church and catholicism are pagan and perverted". God's Word, in regards to your church's teachings and abominations prove that your cult is pagan and perverted. Have you forgotten these, Jer 44, Matthew 23 and 24, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1, Rev 21:8,27, Rev 22:11, or just refuse to listen or think you can manipulate the meaning? Let me add some more for you; 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:19-21, Romans 2:8. I can go through the Word and find several "pericopes" that define your holier than thou catholic cult, and you can come up with all kinds of denials and misinterpretations, it will not change the fact that it's a religion based on heresies.
As far as you lining me up with Jim, and Jim lining me up with you, that's ridiculous. One is a staunch atheist and the other preaches and makes excuses for a false gospel. As far as either one of you thinking I don't belong here, well your welcome to your opinions. Maybe I'm just not here for either one of you, did you ever think about that. I'll know when my work is done here and will be looking forward to that day. As far as blowing smoke goes, there's alot more garbage and ignorance coming towards me than I'm dishing out. I don't believe either one of you care to hear the truth.
This I find to be fairly sad Jim. I believe the sky fairy at least cares a rat's ass about you. It's a shame you're unable to realize that. I'm not sure how much He cares about making any victims rich or seeing them receive financial compensation, for He asks us to be happy in all circumstances, even with little. Even when faced with the injustices of this world. He's more interested in seeing the healing of the body, mind, heart and soul. My hope is that all victims of abuse may find healing and peace from the struggles they have suffered. Wishing you well. Dan
The animosity towards Cardinal Pell, in the media, has been very severe from publicly owned T.V. stations. Particularly the A.B.C. (Australian Broadcasting Commission). About 6 years ago I can recall watching a current affairs program, in which he was being questioned by a journalist. The topic was child abuse…and predictably the questioner talked about "victims" and "survivors" I was annoyed that the word 'alleged' was not used, because the deliberate ommission of that word implied that the cases were already proven. They were not proven at all…. it was all based upon a presumption of guilt. Therefore a denial of civil rights. Cardinal Pell said that if anybody had an accusation against a priest then they should take their complaint to the police. Can still see the sneering expression on the face of the journalist…almost as though something extraordinary had just been suggested. Because the journalist was reflecting the accusers' lawyers…and what they clearly wanted was an out-of-court settlement. Now I believe the media are seeking to demonstate their own authority….. to punish the Cardinal for refusing to pay up, without a fight.
What kind of civil rights were awarded to the victims? Seems to me like you're making several biased suppositions towards the journalist's expressions and the media. Don't believe that's terribly honest or very fair. Don't know why I expect honesty or fairness from you or publiar?
"The Australian Catholic Church was accused of giving 'God a bad name' as it emerged that seven percent of its priests had been accused of abuse between 1950 and 2010, but FEW CASES WERE EVER INVESTIGATED."
"Francis Sullivan, head of the Catholic Church's Truth, Justice and Healing Council, held back tears as said the number of abusers was "shocking" and "indefensible".
" 'As Catholics, we hang our heads in shame', Father Sullivan said, admitting the figures reflected 'a massive failure' by the Church to protect children."
"A senior Vatican official has admitted the Catholic Church 'has made enomous mistakes' in covering up the widespread sexual abuse of children by priests." Cardinal Pell said, "I'm not here to defend the indefensible."
My question to you Malcolm and publiar is, Why do you both feel compelled to defend the indefensible?
I’ll take ‘Dan’s most recent crop in the order they appear on the site, not in strict chronological order.
Thus to the 10th at 1115PM:
In regard to the fact that ‘Dan’ has been accused and/or lied-about by “hundreds” so why doesn’t that make him as ‘guilty’ as Cardinal Pell, who has been accused by several? … ‘Dan’ again demonstrates his lack of logic chops and the deforming consequences of same: it’s all about the act of which one is accused, doncha see? Cardinal Pell is accused of child-molestation while ‘Dan’ … isn’t.
I spent jail and hospital stays when I wasn't "guilty" of the accusations, so if you want to put me on the same level as a pervert from your cult, I will hope the courts of Australia will show simular injustice and jail the creep, whether guilty or not. Then maybe your cult will understand that it will reap what it sows. INNOCENT servant of the Almighty God of Just Judgments
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1115PM:
That’s supposed to be a game-changing difference.
But clearly it is not; the principle is the same, regardless of the content of the accusation.
But what we see here is the usual Stampede gambit: since the accusation is about something so awful, then it doesn’t require evidence the same way that a non-molestation accusation does. One merely recalls Vishinsky’s same gambit in the era of Stalin’s show trials, as I noted in an earlier comment on this thread.
But with ‘Dan’s silly bit here, he can then merrily continue with his plop-tossing.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1115PM:
And anyway, ‘Dan’ adds as an extra bit of insurance, the accusations against himself were – had you been waitttingggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “false and absolute lies”. We ‘know’ that about as solidly as one might claim to ‘know’ already that Cardinal Pell is guilty.
Ditto when ‘Dan’ claims that we can take his word for everything because ‘Dan’, if he does say so himself, doth “refuse to lie” (the 10th at 1121PM). We ‘know’ that about as solidly as one might claim to ‘know’ already that Cardinal Pell is guilty.
But on the basis of this house of cards he has built for his own purposes, ‘Dan’ can then riff on epithetically about Cardinal Pell … and then on and on some more.
And a pericope from his pile to top it all off.
On then to Dan’s of the 10th at 1023PM:
Here ‘Dan’ isn’t really so happy with a concise description of his position (i.e. that the Church and Catholicism are ‘pagan’ and ‘perverted’). Concision – it turns out – doesn’t make his stuff look quite so imposing.
So what then is he to do? Why … he merely repeats a bunch of his stuff about the paganism of the Church and Catholicism. Clearly on some level ‘Dan’ realizes that concision is not his friend and he starts re-larding all of his usual stuff; apparently on the presumption that if you put enough cheap frosting on a badly-baked cake, then it will look better.
And – but of course – all the pericopes from ‘Dan’s pile will clearly “define” the Church and Catholicism, he doth assure us.
Which leaves – I say again – yet unanswered the question often put to ‘Dan’: just when, actually, in ‘Dan’s cartoon schema, did the early Christian community suddenly morph into the Church?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1023PM:
And we see ‘Dan’ also relegating to himself (or Himself) the authority to classify the Church’s teaching as “heresies”. Either he is not clear on the concept of ‘heresy’ or else he has a rather grandiose conception of himself (or Himself). But I think that grandiosity has already been established; it goes with the Fixed Delusional Syndrome (or Disorder).
He also doesn’t being ‘lined up with’ JR. How could that be, he goes on, since ‘Dan’ is no atheist?
As I have said several times when this point has been raised: ‘Dan’ and JR are both in show-business; they have different shticks, but their stuff and their poses are all performance all the time. They are both vaudevillians and in that fundamental sense they are merely two peas in the same vaudeville pod.
I leave it to the readership to give some thought as to just where ‘Dan’ doth “belong”.
Your cult commits "heresies" against true Biblical Christianity. The opposite of the excuses your cult used to burn people at the stake for refusing to follow catholic dogma and traditions. Murderers, cowards, idolators, pedophiles and perverts, compulsive liars and deceivers, worthy of the Lake of Fire. Rev 21:8 servant