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 18th at 1117PM:
But having just said that he doth not deign to “answer”, ‘Dan’ then falls back on what he does like to do: recite – with much epithetical larding and the usual threats – from his well-thumbed pile of 3x5s.
However, we also note that his recitation is limited to the anti-epic of his own legal misadventures and how that ties into his cartoons about Catholics (they are largely just brainwashed sheep and compulsive liars) and Catholicism (it is nothing but paganism and perversion all wrapped up into one).
Concerning the profound theological issues arising from “the Bible” (knowledge of which ‘Dan’ claims to possess in divinely-lavished abundance and depth) … not a peep, not a bleat, not a bray.
Corrections to your poor assessment and misstatements in regards to Catholics and Catholicism -
"Catholics (they are largely just brainwashed sheep [or] compulsive liars [, usually hierarchy] ) and Catholicism (it is nothing but paganism [, pedophilia] and perversion[s] all wrapped up into one)." The three P's and you being the fourth.
Of course there are cases similar to yourself, possessing both brainwashing and compulsive lying. You're so gifted in both that you don't even realize how often it applies to your material and poor assessments. servant of the One True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 914AM:
Having had a few hours to think things over (such as that term may apply) ‘Dan’ gives himself a second chance here.
And what do we get now?
Epithetically-larded whining that I “refuse to accept [his] honesty”. He’s not quite right: I refuse to accept his claims, accusations, assertions and stories because not only do they raise significant, substantive and serious questions and problems, but also because ‘Dan’ ever-creative efforts to go back and re-explain them (or evade them) also create far more questions than they answer.
But I would not use “honesty” in regard to him; he is a “compulsive liar” indentured not to God but to his own Fixed Delusional System, in the service of which he will turn truth into as much silly-putty as he needs whenever he needs to.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 914AM:
And again we see that now there is “a lying corrupt catholic cop” who apparently was the key “liar” (what happened to the “hundreds” of others?). And was this single “cop” involved in all of the court cases? A court sent him off for six psychiatric exams. Was it the same “cop” all six times? Was it the same court? The same judge?
And we get more of the juvenile myah-myah bits.
But what we don’t get – again – is any indication whatsoever of that marvelous knowledge of the Scriptural and the spiritual, the religious and the theological, that ‘Dan’ claims to possess in Divine abundance.
This is my combined response to all your comments on July 19. I am quite impressed with how impressive you are with impressing others about how impressive is your knowledge. If I had the time to waste, I would like to do a case study on your Nacissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), coupled with a Compulsive Lying Disorder, backed with a Fixed Delusional System, larded with a heavy dose of psychological projection.
After your head becomes so filled with yourself to overflowing, then you revert back to this childish personality of Cartoon Time, popcorn, alphabet blocks, kazoos and now "silly putty".
When this doesn't suffice, then it's time to mock the things of God, His Word, His Holy Spirit, His Prophecies and His servant (or as you prefer, Servant). Then thinking you possess this great Theological wisdom when it comes to Scripture, you twist, manipulate and misinterpret the Word to suit your deceiving church's agenda, acting like God has gifted you with His knowledge. As I've told you before, God wouldn't grant His knowledge or wisdom to an egotistical fool, let alone one who mocks Him, His Son or any of His Creation.
When all else fails, then it's back to attacking the problems I've run across dealing with the evil liars of your cult, yourself included. You are a cowardly, wicked liar, under the impression that others are just as dishonest. You just don't get that God hates dishonest people, for the very reason that nothing they say can ever be trusted. Do you think God can't see through your ignorance, stupidity or nonsense? Boy, are you in for a rude awakening!!
"Servant", with the "Mind and Will of God and God's Truth" – thanks publiar, I appreciate that.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:
He puts up a “combined response” – this should be quite the thing, given the many different subjects on the table presently. Will he deal with all the material on the table in one comprehensive “combined response”?
No, he won’t. Not a bit.
Instead, he’s going to go for trying a new variant of his plop-tossing distractions: glomming onto the term “impressive”, he then works his way toward Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I try to ‘impress’ – doncha see? – so I must have NPD (on top, of course, of the “Compulsive Lying Disorder” – which, by the by, is not an actual clinical Disorder).
Thus this bit reveals itself to be just another variant of ‘Dan’s juvenile I’m Not/You Are bit.
And ‘Dan’ – busy Possessor of the Divine Tea Leaves that he claims to be – simply doesn’t have “the time” – doncha see? – to “waste” on dealing with all the material on the table.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:
And thus he continues to riff on the psychological lines into the second paragraph, simply taking phrases from my comments and tossing them back.
And in the third paragraph he falls back onto his old ‘mocking God’ bit: I “mock the things of God”, including – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – “His servant”, i.e. ‘Dan’. As I said, ‘Dan’ is not in any way God’s servant; ‘Dan’ is indentured to his own delusions; he uses God and Scripture the same way a bank robber uses hostages as shields when he’s trying to get away.
Does he have any explication or demonstration of where I “twist, manipulate, misinterpret the Word of God”? He does not. What he doesn’t want to admit is that I am simply pulling apart ‘Dan’s shaky, manipulative, deceptive and deceitful cartoon take on Scripture and God.
My compliments! You finally came up with a good analogy; "he [as in 'Dan'] uses God and Scripture the same way a bank robber uses hostages as shields when trying to get away".
"Finally draw strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. Put on the whole armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in 'TRUTH', clothed with righteouisness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a 'SHIELD', to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Eph. 6:10-17 (NAB)
I would suggest to anyone, including catholics, to try to live by this policy, for we live in an evil time, people not leaning on "God and Scripture", thinking they don't need Him to "shield" them from the wickedness, deceptions and hypocrisy that intends to destroy our lives. Satan comes in many forms to deceive us and fool us, and make us believe we're following the One True God. Read the Word and Live by it. He will not disappoint!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:
And – being the Possessor of the Divine Tea Leaves – ‘Dan’ then puts on his God-wig to declaim that “God wouldn’t grant His knowledge or wisdom to an egotistical fool”. But God would – apparently – grant it to a cheesy delusional whacko, and – to top that off – the whacko wouldn’t need to demonstrate the knowledge in public because … well, because it’s just a speshull gift-y thing between the cheesy delusional whacko and God. Neato.
Thus ‘Dan’ insulates himself and his delusional system of cartoons from any need to have to demonstrate the chops that are supposed to ground all of his cartoon assertions, claims, stories, denunciations and threats.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:
And “when all else fails” ‘Dan’ then has the delusion-fed nerve to declaim with a pious honk that “God hates dishonest people”. And while ‘Dan’ can’t deal with the material on the table here that his own comments have raised, yet he mutters that “God” can “see through” it all.
And tries to wrap it up with a threat about “rude awakening”.
Bottom-line: ‘Dan’s got nothing. Nothing except his whackery and claims and stories and assertions and his pile of pericopes. So he tries to distract from that glaring reality by attacking me instead of responding to the material on the table.
" 'Dan's got nothing", the publiar oinks. "Nothing except…. claims and stories" that happen to be the honest truth and "assertions", confident and forceful statements of facts and beliefs, that by coincidence just happen to be backed by Biblical principles and verses taken directly from God's Word. You think you can attack me with your claims of "whackery, pile of pericopes, 3X5's" and your latest "proof texts" and believe that's supposed to insult me? No, not at all surprising. Why should I expect a non-Christian, brainwashed with a false gospel, to understand the deep wisdom of Our Creator, and how Biblical knowledge applies to our everyday experiences in life. One who seems to get some sick kind of pleasure from mocking God's Creations, rather than trying to understand how He has all the answers and is willing to share them with those who desire to live and follow His truths. I actually pity your stubborn ignorance and blind stupidity, rather than deriving any pleasure in attacking you. My hope is that all will come to know the awesome gifts of Our Creator, His faith, hope, truth, forgiveness, and most of all His love for us. Every person I come in contact with, I seem to handle differently, depending on how badly they've been deceived and how deep is their darkness. I feel I have every right to defend your sarcasm and repeated lies directed towards me. I've made every effort to be honest in everything I've said. The fact that you think I could ever cause any harm to a child and refuse to accept my honesty, is more your problem than mine. You really don't know me at all, although you're under the impression that you do.
This article is a disgrace. I am very sensitive to the possibilities of false accusations and am withholding judgement on Pell until this plays out in court. However, this article is just as bad as the media it attacks. Presuming innocence is as bad as presuming guilt.
1. It’s irrelevant how old the allegation is. We know that victims often don’t come forward for many years.
2. Abuse is not limited to traditional sexual acts. I was sexually abused by a priest, and we committed no overtly sexual acts. The extent of the physical contact is irrelevant.
3. A large number of sexual abuse victims struggle with drug and alcohol addiction and end up involved in crimes. The facts presented in this article do more to substantiate the claims than refute them.
4. Children targeted by one sexual predator are often targeted by others. Predators know how to find vulnerable children whose life situations make them good targets. I know a social worker who was sexually abused by three different priests.
5. Old allegations and the conclusions of their investigations have nothing to do with current allegations.
Thanks Michael for your input. Somehow these facts seem to escape the minds of the excusers and enablers of the church. Wish you well in your healing and know that the Lord is there to help us through our struggles and grant us peace and hope. Take care.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 515PM:
Here ‘Dan’ is happy because he has contrived a way out of the abyssal rabbit-hole he has dug for himself: word games.
Specifically, he took my bank-robber analogy and checked it against his 3×5 pericope pile and realized that he had something for God-as-shield.
Thus the extended pericope from Ephesians.
He’s right that my analogy is a “good” one, but for the wrong reason. A bank-robber uses hostages as shields because he doesn’t give a hoot about them and instead cares about nothing but himself and how he’s going to escape.
As I have said, ‘Dan’ is no servant of God; ‘Dan’ is indentured to his delusions and thus uses God and Scripture for his own purposes; he no more cares about God and Scripture than the bank-robber cares about the hostages he is using for shields.
And if people need ‘shielding’ from anything, it’s from the type of deceptive masquerade that is ‘Dan’s stock in trade.
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and celebrate, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you…" Matthew 5:11-12
"God blesses you when people MOCK you and persecute you and LIE about you and say all sorts of EVIL things against you because you are my followers." Matthew 5:11
Think I'll kick back and have a cold one, knowing that your mocking is just another source of my receiving the Lord's blessings. Cheers creep.
All your analogies are "for the wrong reason[s]". And we're under the impression that since you claim that " 'Dan' is no servant of God", than that just must be God's honest truth, coming from a compulsive liar. But wait, there's more – " 'Dan'… uses God and Scripture for his own purposes; he no more cares about God and Scripture than the bank-robber cares about the hostages he is using for shields." What tipped you off to claim such ignorance and nonsense? Is it the fact that I talk about Him constantly, am willing to defend those who trash His name or is it because I enjoy quoting His word when appropriate? He is my strength and my "shield" and arms me for battle against all ignorance, stupidity, evilness, liars and hypocrites. Just so happens you perfectly fit the bill. How dare you think you're strong enough to mock Him or His Chosen. You think way too much of yourself, and again I repeat, you're in for an extremely rude awakening. Servant of the God I love, and could care less what just another two-faced, lying hypocrite of your cult has to say about that. That's period! servant
P.S. You might want to go back and read Eph. 6:10-17 again to realize that you represent everything of the devil, evilness and darkness, coupled with untruthfulness. Proud of that?
Correction – am willing to defend 'against' those who trash His name
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:
Here – and yet yet again – ‘Dan’ simply repeats that his “claims and stories” are not “nothing” but instead – had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – “just happen to be the honest truth”; and his “assertions” are “confident and forceful statements of facts and beliefs, that by coincidence just happen to be backed by Biblical principles and verses taken directly from God’s Word”.
That’s his cartoon. But that’s precisely not what we’ve seen here.
His ever-mutable misadventure-epic about his legal and psychiatric history gives precious little – if any at all – evidence that it is “the honest truth”; nor do his further efforts to resolve its incoherences do anything more than raise even more questionable points. Especially when, confronted with questions, he simply puffs up his pinfeathers and declares that he hasn’t the time or inclination to explain the problems with his stuff (but has more than enough time and inclination to simply repeat his stuff).
Absolutely ALL LIES FROM LIARS OF YOUR CULT. This is the very reason why, when you want to have questions answered, you really don't deserve answers, because anything I say, you see as just an excuse to disbelieve it and think instead you can add your own false assessments and lies. You may want to do some research on your own psychiatric problems and hangups, and quit projecting your issues onto others.
Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:
That his various bits are “confident and forceful” is merely indicative of the force of his delusional indenture and nothing more.
That they are “statements of … beliefs” is what it is; anyone so inclined is welcome to try to suss out the distinction in ‘Dan’ between his delusions and his “beliefs”.
That they are “statements of facts” is – as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions and at length – highly implausible at best, when not actually demonstrably untrue.
That his stuff is “backed by Biblical principles and verses taken directly from God’s Word” is ditto: we have seen in so very many of his selected pericopes that a) his cartoons require and permit only one very idiosyncratic interpretation (i.e. his own) in order to ‘work’ and that b) his ‘interpretation’ of the pericope so very often fails. And in none of the instances where the theological problems with his interpretation are pointed out has he continued by addressing those problems; instead he declares himself without the time and/or inclination to address those problems.
And you happen to think only your misinterpretation is correct.
Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:
He then attempts to claim that I intend to “insult” him (but – myah, myah – that’s not going to work on him , doncha see?). His material insults him without any additional effort on my part; and my purpose here is merely to examine material that is put up.
He declares me to be a “non-Christian”, apparently on his self-proclaimed authority as the Possessor and Reader of the Divine Tea Leaves.
Then the ‘mocking God’ bit again.
And if what we have seen of ‘Dan’s material here is actually a result of his having “made every effort to be honest in everything [he has] said” then one can only be further convinced of the abyssal depth of his delusional indenture.
He then (and did you notice how slyly?) slips in a bit about how he doth “seem to handle differently” various persons with whom he has “come into contact” (i.e. has accosted on this or that occasion).
You have "accosted" and derided me as much or more than I have you. You should take a good at yourself in your toilets reflection. Before you bring up the " 'mocking God' bit" again, you feel compelled to lead in with more mocking (i.e. "Possessor and Reader of the Divine Tea Leaves"). What basically is your problem, for they are multifold, but apparently you refuse to see them. servant
Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:
And then a cutesy Mr.T. impersonation: he doth “actually pity” and so forth. He doth ‘pity da fools’.
And he tries to wrap it all up by heading for the soap-operatic high-ground, with a pearl-clutching declamation to the effect that he is shocked, shocked to think anyone could imagine that he “could ever cause any harm to a child” or that anyone could “refuse to accept [his] honesty”.
As for his “honesty”, that’s been dealt with above.
As for whether any reader would like to have this man teaching – or alone with – their children or grandchildren … is for any and every reader to consider, judge, and decide.
How dare the Perverter of Truth, who makes excuses for perverts and pedophiles make such an insinuating accusation about me. You're one sick excuse of a human being, publiar. I around dozens of grandchildren in my family, and for you to suggest such a thing is plain wicked. I'm not on Megan's List like the majority of your hierarchy should be. You're an absolute, lying, evil, nasty creep.
I'm around, not I.
Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:
And then – marvelously – ‘Dan’ doth sing for his final aria that claim so well-known to clinicians and law enforcement when dealing with the variously whacked and afflicted: “You don’t really know me at all”.
This bit is often deployed as a last resort, when all the scams and stories have been exposed in their problematic untruth. The method in the madness is this: since ‘you don’t know me’ (meaning ultimately that ‘you don’t agree with me’) then I don’t have to listen to your demolition of my scams and stories.
But under this bit is also the claimant’s utter inability to conceive of the possibility that his scams and stories have actually revealed more than he wanted them to reveal. So secure is he in his belief in the power of his capacity to deceive others, he cannot imagine that in trying to spin his skeins of scam and story in the service of his own deceptive and manipulative purposes he has actually demonstrated his manipulation and whackery.
‘Dan’ is indeed ‘really known’ here; his own material has done that, time and time again, building to a convincing crescendo that cannot be evaded or avoided or waved-away.
More ignorance, lies, stupidity and nonsense, not worthy of a response. The scammer and longwinded storyteller pointing the finger at someone else. Your hilari-ass, with an emphasis on ass.
On then to the comment by ‘Michael’ on the 20th at 808PM:
It opens with an epithetical conclusion – which is rhetorically something of a warning flag that what follows cannot support its own weight and needs to be propped up by some epithetical preparation of the readership.
But OK, then. Let’s to it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
He asserts that “presuming innocence is as bad as presuming guilt”. He is apparently either not familiar-with or not in-agreement-with that fundamental principle of Western law, i.e. the presumption of innocence.
This is as clear a demonstration as one might hope to see of one of the most fundamental Victimist switcheroos: that the classical Western ‘presumption of innocence’ is actually a bad thing, and that steps should be taken (through various Victimist law ‘reforms’) to weaken if not neutralize it or even replace it, for all practical purposes, with a presumption of guilt.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
In the U.S. today this is most vividly seen in assorted university attempts to create kangaroo-courts for alleged student sex offenses, in the defense of which assorted ‘advocates’ claim that any other process (i.e. a process based on the presumption of innocence) “denies a voice to the victims”.
But this most recent efflorescence is based on the now decades-old re-jiggering of the principles of Western law and jurispraxis in the service of replacing actual evidence with stories, claims, accusations and presumptions of guilt.
This should have been clear as day as far back as the now-infamous McMartin Pre-School Day Care Satanic Ritual Child Abuse cases in California in the early 1980s, but for far too many it wasn’t, even after the cases failed spectacularly.
The 1980s saw the rise of “survivor politics” and the “incest narrative” (amplified by various Oprah-type TV shows), with many of the elements pulled together by two enterprising non-professionals in the 1988 book The Courage to Heal.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
Further, this asserted equivalence of the two presumptions (i.e. of innocence or of guilt) neglects to take into account that a presumption of guilt can lead to the vitally lethal consequence of government power being deployed against an individual on slim if any evidence, which should be a bright red warning flag to anyone who is concerned for the arbitrary deployment of the government coercive power (think of Vyshinsky and Stalin’s show trials).
Another aspect of the great Victimist switcheroo was the insistence that the integrity of the rule of law was not only a) insufficiently focused on ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’ but was actually b) detrimental to their demands – and therefore had to go.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
It is not at all “irrelevant how old he allegation is”. All that we know is that allegants often come forward many or many, many years after the alleged offense. We have no basis whatsoever to presume that any, let alone all, such allegants are ‘victims’. This is another aspect of the great Victimist switcheroo.
There is a fundamental legal reason for Statutes of Limitations: evidence – physical or mental (i.e. witness memories of an event) – degrades over time, and surely over decades of time.
And in such instances, then all one is left with is a ‘story’. And when it comes down to that, then the only prosecutory option left is to influence public opinion and juries (and judges), and the only way to do that is to make sure that the ‘story’ is so vivid that such personages and officials are stampeded into accepting the ‘story’ if for no other reason than that if it were true it would be awful. Which could have as easily been said about the 1930s ‘War of the Worlds’ scenario where aliens attacked – if I correctly recall – New York and its environs.
This seems to a gambit operative in the current Aussie case.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
Buttressed by the fact that for much of its existence the recently-concluded years-long Royal Commission had a special option on its website for persons who might wish to make an allegation. I think it highly probable that the Aussie police are hoping that their (highly-selective) press releases might do the same.
But not much came of it for the Royal Commission and it will be interesting to see if much comes of it for the Aussie police. If they come to court on the 26th (the first court date for Cardinal Pell, if I recall correctly) with more stories than the ones already released, then we’ll know they have had some success with their gambit here.
And that gambit is basically the government or police asking publicly: ‘Is there somebody out there with a story we could use? Anybody? Something? Anything? We’ll make it easy for you.’
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
And while the old “victims don’t come forward for many years” bit might have possibly held some water decades ago, yet today – after more than three decades of Victimist valorization of the ‘victim’ and the ‘survivor’ (and in the U.S., very hefty paydays for allegations) – this bit loses more than a bit of its bite.
On then to point 2: It is indeed the case that “abuse” is an ever-fungible and elastic term; truly one of the class of words that Lewis Carroll called “portmanteau words”, i.e. they are like suitcases into which you can stuff whatever you like.
However in the subsequent assertion that “the extent of the physical contact is irrelevant” we are into much murkier waters.
Victimist switcheroo dogma would have one presume that even the merest brush of an event might (or must) have life-changing and negative significance (which bit then also serves to ‘justify’ i) the claim that those with “messed up” lives are “messed up” because of even the merest (alleged) incident of “abuse” and ii) the now de rigeur narrative presumption of a large-futured innocent suddenly and totally reduced to a life-wrecked unripe adult husk by the merest incidence of “abuse”).
And for legal purposes (civil or criminal) this is all very relevant indeed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
On to point 3: there is very little actual reproducible scientific research to support the claim here. Most ‘research’ was done by ‘survey’ – which means that you ask somebody with a demonstrable addiction or criminal-history problem if they were abused, and if they say yes (perhaps knowing that you can’t verify their statement and happy to unload responsibility for their condition or actions on something or somebody else) then you conveniently presume the veracity of their ‘report’ and then conveniently conclude (by presumption) that the addiction was caused by the (alleged) abuse. This is not science.
The article here only ‘substantiates’ the claims if you make these presumptions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
On then to point 4: this assertion – familiar as another bit of Victimist ‘science’ and dogma – is certainly called into question by the fact that in the first John Jay Report very few of the allegations involved multiple-sequential predation.
It has always seemed to me that the “predator” trope was a version of the Vampire trope: they can change shape and appearance, they can read your mind, they can exert powerful influences on you, they can effect the most exquisite manipulations, yet they can perfectly hide themselves from you – even in plain sight; if you detect them then that proves they are vampires; if you don’t detect them then that proves they are vampires; if they are nice then that proves they are vampires; if they are violent then that proves they are vampires; if they are handsome then that proves they are vampires because they assume that pleasing form; if they are not handsome, then that proves they are vampires because they can entice you even if they are repulsive. They are everywhere and anywhere; they can be anyone. And on and on.
Thus on to the Stampede where we get the Priest As Eternal Vampire variation on this theme.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
And as for the “social worker” claim, what does ‘Michael’ really and actually “know”? He is acquainted with an individual and that individual has claimed to have been “abused” by “three different priests”. Was ‘Michael’ actually there and present at those alleged occasions? If not, then what have we got here? We have a story within a story; a story about a story. So easily and quickly does it all become a carnival midway Hall of Mirrors.
Like I had said to Michael, "Somehow these facts seem to escape the minds of the excusers and enablers of the church." But now steps forward the master manipulator and deceiver of all the excusers and enablers of the cult. Isn't it strange that publiar steps forward with a plethora of longwinded ignorance to dispute every point that Michael put forward. Funny how you think you have all the answers and since you put forward all this worthless knowledge and reason, than it must suffice, case closed. Now is this your Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), coupled with a Compulsive Lying Disorder (CLD), backed with a Fixed Delusional System, larded with a heavy dose of psychological projection or all of the above. Yeah, I know, the All Knowing One says there is no Compulsive Lying Disorder, not realizing it's been invented just for you.
Isn't this ironic, and you are such a Schmuck. You question, "Was 'Michael' actually there and present at those alleged occasions? If not, then what do we have here? We have a story within a story…blah blah blah….and quickly does it all become a carnival midway Hall of Mirrors." Yet you were never at any occasions when I was falsely accused, viciously lied about by catholic hierarchy, threatened, jumped by 4 catholic thugs, and threatened and slandered by a corrupt catholic cop, but you're compelled to outright lie and think you know how it all went down. I "accosted, harassed and bethumped" everyone, including children. You are such a sick, lying bastard. You aren't a "carnival midway Hall of Mirrors", but instead a Cartoon Time Circus and Fun House of ignorance, all in one! Why not shut up and stop all your lies, manipulations and deceit, or are you afraid your two-faced circus head will explode? servant of The Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
On then to point 5: It is not quite clear what he is getting at here.
Does he mean something like a) ‘old allegations against Cardinal Pell have nothing to do with current allegations against Cardinal Pell’ … ?
Or does he mean something like b) ‘any old cases or prior cases (anywhere against anyone) of abuse where an allegation was demonstrated or adjudged to be false have nothing to do with any current allegations against this particular accused person … ?
If (a), then from a legal standpoint that is true enough: the fact that Cardinal Pell has been accused before should not have a bearing on the trial of the current allegations.
If (b), I would say that if we have seen a number of these types of allegations fail, then we would want to consider the possibilities raised by that fact. What are the probabilities of veracity, given the nature and context of the claims being made against him?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:
And then, of course, in regard to the claims currently being made against him, we have to look at the allegations themselves and their circumstances, such as Julia Yost has done in the article I linked-to and discussed from the magazine site First Things earlier this month.
On the basis of such an examination of the current allegations (as we know them) then the whole Aussie/Pell matter looks rather iffy indeed.
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and celebrate, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you…" Matthew 5:11-12
"God blesses you when people MOCK you and persecute you and LIE about you and say all sorts of EVIL things against you because you are my followers." Matthew 5:11
Think I'll kick back and have a cold one, knowing that your mocking is just another source of my receiving the Lord's blessings. Cheers creep.
And on and on. Once again, not all ‘Dan’s comments need comment since some of them do their revelatory work nicely enough on their own. And I’ll take his comments in the order they appear on the site, rather than chronologically.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1132PM:
Once again, more of the I’m Not/You Are gambit; ‘Dan’ merely takes the points I make and puts them up.
Thus the opening assertion (“All your analogies are ‘for the wrong reason[s]”. Which assertion, of course, he quickly abandons without any demonstration of example in order to then merely assert that I am a “compulsive liar” and he is a “servant of God”. Nothing but assertions.
Topped off by a frosting of epithet (my points are merely “ignorance and nonsense”) as he tries to wave away what he cannot handle.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1132PM:
And then we are treated to the pearl-clutching claims that ‘Dan’ doth “defend God” and doth “enjoy quoting His words”. Anybody can quote scripture, even – famously – one of God’s greatest opponents.
Which leads into one of ‘Dan’s favorite arias, where he paints himself as the truthy and heroic Possessor of the Divine Tea Leaves and those who don’t buy his shtick are full of “all ignorance, stupidity, evilness” and are “liars and hypocrites”.
Then the charge that I “think too much of” myself. It is not I who have assigned myself such a greasy rasher of titles and speshull gifts. It is not I who claims to channel the Mind and Will of God.
And then the wrap-up with the usual threat topped off with more epithet.
And the P.S. deploying yet another pericope in which ‘Dan’ again seems to imagine that the pericope ‘prophetically’ refers to – for his present purposes – me.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 748PM:
I submit that nobody could provide a more convincing example of the pearl-clutching histrionics to which ‘Dan’ can so naturally revert than ‘Dan’ himself no doubt unintentionally provides in his first sentence. I would envision some buxom, pointy-helmeted, armor-clad, spear-wielding chanteuse from a Wagnerian scene, if it weren’t for the clutching of the pearls.
But yet there is a method in the madness here, and it is the long-practiced method of the chronic deceiver: he slyly and immediately segues into an excuse for all his evasions: I “don’t really deserve answers” to the questions I ask – doncha see? – because I would only “disbelieve it”.
The alternative possibility – that I disbelieve ‘Dan’s ‘answers’ because they are not believable – is one that ‘Dan’ would prefer nobody thought about; surely he won’t be thinking about that alternative, because then his head would explode.
And he tries to bring the performance home with another I’m Not/You Are bit.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 750PM:
Here he slyly and deceptively tries to create an equivalence between his scriptural method and mine by insinuating that I think that only my position is correct. He proffers no example, of course, because there isn’t one. I only point out various relevant points that challenge ‘Dan’s interpretations or misinterpretations.
It is only ‘Dan’ who claims that his take on a pericope is God’ take and that there can therefore be no other without – of course – “mocking God”.
The publiar oinks, "Here he slyly and deceptively tries …. insinuating that I think that only my position is correct. He proffers no example, of course, because there isn't one." Finally we can agree on something, that 'Dan' can find no examples where your "position is correct" when it comes to "scriptural method[s]". How could we expect more from one who lies, twists and misinterprets scripture. You might try using your own brain, rather than the brainwashed answers you've memorized from apologists and false fathers of your cult. servant sanctioned by the Almighty God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 810PM:
Another pearl-clutching squawk.
And no doubt unintentionally, he reveals more of his abyssal ignorance of his own delusionality by presuming that I was insinuating that ‘Dan’ would sexually molest readers’ children. That is his presumption, not mine.
My point referred to ‘Dan’s gross delusionality and the accompanying character traits that he has revealed (no doubt unintentionally) here. Who would want their child or grandchild exposed to that at close range? (A thought which may very well have occurred to the school-staffers out in the schoolyard that day.)
And he concludes with epithets based on his inaccurate (but still quite helpfully revealing) presumption.
We'll just add this little sequence to the rest of your lies.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 816PM:
Once again we get evasions, and the pretended justification for them: since my points (in my comment of the 21st at 337PM) are merely “more ignorance, lies, stupidity and nonsense” then – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – they are “not worthy of a response”. Thus yet another evasion.
And – as so often – he reveals his juvenility with another stab at epithet.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 104AM:
‘Dan’s first mistake is to characterize ‘Michael’s points as “facts”; they are not “facts”, as I explicated in my comments on the ‘Michael’ material.
Thus having – he presumes – prepared the ground, ‘Dan’ merely collapses into epithetical riffing.
We note that while ‘Dan’ characterizes my material as “ignorance”, he gives – as so very very often – no example. He seems to think that the epithet itself does all the hard work. He is a plop-tosser, basically, while masquerading with the various officious titles he has awarded himself.
No, "Michael's points…. are not 'facts' ", because only a compulsive liar is able to present true facts. And once again we witness proof that publiar thinks only his statements are fact. You're a joke, publiar. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 104AM:
And while I don’t claim to have “all the answers”, I note that ‘Dan’ proffers none while pretending to already know the “answers”.
Nor have I said “case closed”; that is ‘Dan’ invention, necessary to keep his cartoon shtick going here.
And he tries to bring it home with another variation of the I’m Not/You Are gambit, this time along psychological lines (about which he is clearly and truly ignorant).
But then we do get another nifty – and as always unintentionally – revelatory bits about ‘Dan’: his “Compulsive Lying Disorder” claim – doncha see? – was “invented just for [me]”.
And by whom was it “invented”? Why … by ‘Dan’, who clearly believes himself authorized to add to the list of clinical Disorders. ‘Dan’s an inventor – doncha see? – and a compulsive inventor too. Theology, Scripture, psychology, claims about the Church and Catholicism, stories about himself … if you need an inventor, ‘Dan’s your man. He does it all the time, always has, and most likely always will.
Ignorance and stupidity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 104AM:
He then slyly tries to make more excuses for himself out of what’s on the table here: I asked if ‘Michael’ was present for any of the alleged three rapes by three different priests. ‘Dan’ tries to use that to (finally) extricate himself from the abyssal troughs of incredibility not only inherent in his original school-yard story and the rest of his legal and psychiatric misadventures, but also profusely amplified by his further inventive efforts to extricate himself.
‘Michael’ gave us the one sentence reference. ‘Dan’ has given us volumes and at each and every step of the way I have pointed out the problems created by his story and the further problems created by his further efforts.
We were ‘there’; ‘Dan’s voluminous and inventive efforts put us there. And the efforts themselves create even more problems for his credibility and his veracity than the original version of the stories. He did it to himself.
He concludes with another I’m Not/You Are bit, this time about the exploding head.
They were all lies and more lies from liars just like yourself. It just may be that lying from your cult is just as dangerous and systemic as your pedophilia problems. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 830PM, which is a repetition of the 21st at 1053PM further up the scroll.
Here he proffers what must surely be two of his most well-thumbed 3x5s, two pericopes which would – if you hold your head at just the right angle – place ‘Dan’ among the prophets and apostles and saints and martyrs.
If you are questioning ‘Dan’ – or haling him into court or examining him psychiatrically on court order – then you are simply ‘proving’ that ‘Dan’ is the servant/Servant and so on.
But alas. That would only be true – as the pericopes are careful to point out – if you have gotten into trouble “because of Me” or “because you are my followers”, as Jesus said.
But ‘Dan’ isn’t in the Jesus business. ‘Dan’ is in the ‘Dan’ business, and God and Jesus and the Spirit and the Bible and all the other capital entities are merely hostages he has taken to effect his scam.
And my being a servant, prophet or follower of God, Christ, His Holy Spirit and the Bible, will be determined by a compulsive liar belonging to a cult of cowardly, greedy, evil, idolatrous, mocking, pedophile liars. Laughable
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 830PM, which is a repetition of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1053PM:
And then – perhaps aware of the rather shriek-y performances he has given in this sequence – ‘Dan’ decides to try a different head-piece, the clearly unfamiliar Wig of Much-Man, declaring that he will now “kick back and have a cold one”, topping that bit of masquerade off with another juvenile epithet.
Wow. Such much man.
And since I've got nothing else of any value to say, I guess I'll criticise his manhood. What is it with your obsession with Wigs? Do you prefer wearing them with your black dress or maybe the satany dresses of bishop or cardinal? Come out of the closet, deceiving creep, and show your true colors. I've been honest in telling you alot about myself, and all you've done is twist it to suit your false agenda. You possess all the traits of the devil, deceiver, liar and slanderer of God's followers. All that is disgusting in the eyes of the One True God.
In your attempts to justify the continual, disgusting sins of your church, not accepting 1 John 3:5-10 as God's take on sin, claiming 'Dan' is just deploying another 'proof text' from his pile of 3X5's, can you explain your way out of this 'pericope'. And you can't claim Peter's 1st encounter with Christ saying "Get away from me, I'm a sinner" as proof that he remained a horrible sinner. Nor Paul's explanation of the power of sin on our lives, once the forgiveness of Jesus Christ comes in. Paul once knocked off his horse didn't continue persecuting Christians, in fact the opposite was true. Like I've said, priests took the vow of celibacy, prostrated themselves on the floor to show their humility, apparently accepted the forgiveness of God, and then continued in their perversions or pedophilia. Despicable and disgusting. When the prostitute was forgiven by Christ, He said, "Go and sin no more". Nothing indicates that she could continue in her sin and still be considered saved and a Christian. Here's the verses – Matthew 18:6-9. I'm repeating Matthew 18:6 because I still see this as Jesus stating that if you were to harm any of His "little ones", meaning babies, minors or disciples, you will be severely punished and cast in Hell's Fire. You can't claim he was talking only about adult disciples, so pedophilia and pederasty don't apply to that quote. Ridiculous!
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna."
Did God want us to destroy our bodies? No! He was saying how important it was to make a sincere effort at stopping your sinning. And may I say, you criticize the use of "proof texts", but did you ever think they just may be "proof" of your's and your church's failures.?
There isn’t much to ‘Dan’s most recent sequence of comments; most are just ‘comebacks’ of the myah-myah variety, repeating his usual evasive mantras and gambits.
However, on the 23rd at 523PM it is of modest interest that he is reduced to word-play as he tries to salvage something of use to himself by a) evading the fact that he has no examples of my claiming that my position is the only correct one while also b) trying the old I’m Not/You Are gambit: he misreads my comment in order to claim – had you been waitttinggggg forrr ittttttttt? – that we both “agree” that ‘Dan’ can come up with no examples whatsoever of any of my material ever being correct.
Which – but of course – thus platforms more epithetical riffing on that theme.
Readers are presumed to be experienced and hardy enough not to choke on their popcorn.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 548PM:
Here – again not entirely unfamiliarly – ‘Dan’ will a) try his often-seen tactic of evading by heading for the victim-y high ground by b) running another variation of I’m Not/You Are: it is I who have “nothing”, so instead it is I who have chosen instead to “criticise [his] manhood” (sic).
It was ‘Dan’ who – utterly gratuitously and of his own unprompted volition – announced that he would “kick back and have a cold one”, thus introducing his posturing as ‘masculine’ (which is itself just another posture in the service of evading the lack of content in his stuff).
Trying to build on that meme, he then questions my “obsession with Wigs”. The imagery of the Wig captures rather nicely and vividly the variety of manipulative masquerading and posturing that we have so often seen (and continue to see) deployed by the more content-challenged commenters.
Thus a further example of the deceitful histrionics we have so often seen (and continue to see) from such commenters.
You may want to claim there's a lack of content in my stuff, but apparently God has no problem nailing your stuff to a tee.
"God blesses you when people MOCK you and PERSECUTE you and LIE about you and say all sorts of EVIL things against you because you are my followers." Matthew 5:11
So the compulsive LIAR, MOCKER and EVIL one, who thinks 'Dan' is unable to pull the appropriate Scripture, just happens to find a 'pericope' that describes you perfectly. If your comprehension skills were sharper, you would have noticed that the first part of the quote was "God blesses you when people MOCK you". Kind of destroys your claims that it's fine to MOCK God's followers, as long as you think you're not mocking God. And your questioning my being a follower is just another example of your ignorant stupidity. servant of the Almighty
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 548PM:
As for the bleat about ‘Dan’ having been “honest” in “telling [us] a lot about” himself: ‘Dan’ has indeed told us a lot about himself, but such ‘honesty’ has been mostly unintentional; what he has intentionally told us about himself and his misadventures has merely been the skein of cartoons he has constructed in the service of his delusional agenda.
It is an almost inevitable consequence of delusionality that in seeking to thoroughly evade uncongenial realities about oneself one notably diminishes even the general ability to accurately distinguish between ‘reality’ and … something else entirely. After all, the evasion of the reality of oneself is the primary objective of the delusionality in the first place.
On to something more useful: another aspect of significant potential relevance in the Cardinal Pell matter is that the appointment of a new Archbishop for Melbourne remains to be made by the Pope.
What role this fact might play in the Cardinal Pell matter remains to be seen. But as the origin of yet another source of interest-group pressure (weakening ‘conservative’ Catholic opposition to a ‘liberal’ candidate while providing much grist for the mill of ‘liberal’ Catholic agitation for an anti-Pell candidate, perhaps) the bringing of charges against Cardinal Pell would be able to tap another source of support for the charges (whatever they might be).
Also, I have read that the Milligan book Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell – which seems to have played no small part in the Aussie police charges and showcases at length the stories later assessed by Judith Yost on the First Things site and discussed in comments on this thread – has been withdrawn from sale in Victoria, purportedly in the service of protecting the rights of the accused.
Given the highly diffuse and yet intense capacity of contemporary news and social media to disseminate material, I am not sure how effective such a move can be at this point. You can’t – as they say – unring the bell.
Thank heaven Cardinal Pell is not a priest of the Boston Archdiocese.
Why is that, Sonny's Mom? Afraid it would be more likely that he'd be exposed and possibly get the punishment he deserves? Excuse the pun.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:
We note that he opens with a necessary cartoon formulation (‘invention’, we might say, since ‘Dan’ is so much of an inventor), i.e. that I ‘attempt’ “to justify the continual …” and so on. He offers no example of where I demonstrably seek to “justify” anything; and he doesn’t because he can’t because I have never done so.
Apparently, my pointing out the problems and cartoon elements in ‘Dan’s material must be characterized as trying to “defend” or “excuse”; otherwise ‘Dan’ would have to make some relevant response to what I point out, and that he surely cannot do.
He asks if I can “explain [my] way out of this pericope”, which apparently refers to the Matthean pericope further on in the comment and I will deal with it (again) below.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:
Once again, we see a vital difference between my approach to issues and ‘Dan’s: I don’t “claim” or try to “prove” or “justify” anything; ‘Dan’, however, does, and presumes – although any reading of my material would quickly demonstrate otherwise – that I do it the ‘Dan’-way too.
Then again, he has to presume that if he is to continuing living in that simplistic (but not actually clear or enlightening) cartoon universe behind his eyeballs.
Thus I didn’t and don’t “claim” to the effect that Peter’s “sinful man” statement is “proof” that Peter “remained a horrible sinner”. I proposed the question and that’s all. It is – of course – ‘Dan’ who is in the only-one-answer, my-way-or-the-hell-way business.
Didn't you mean my-way-or-your-hell-way business?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:
But with ‘Dan’s extension of that point to Paul, then we run into the problem posed by the text: if Christ offers “forgiveness”, then what is that forgiveness for if not for the forgiveness of sins that one has committed?
Or are we to presume that the ‘theology’ behind this ‘Dan’-bit is that Christ only has to forgive somebody once – for past sins committed before the person embraced the Gospel – and that thereafter Christ’s grace would prevent all further sins (although – recalling ‘Dan’s silly weasel-wording from a prior comment of his on this thread – they might still “make some mistakes”).
And as I had previously pointed out in a recent comment, even when Paul was writing his Letter to the Romans he could still declare “miserable wretch that I am” and that he didn’t do the good he wanted to do yet did the evil he sought to avoid.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:
And – it apparently has to be pointed out to ‘Dan’ – there are many other possible sins available to humans besides “persecuting Christians”.
And then he slyly tosses in an utterly insupportable (and unsupported) assertion to the effect that “priests” (as in ‘all’ priests, unqualified by any modifier here) “continued their perversions” and so on. The same old cartoon formulated in the same old cartoon fashion.
‘Dan’s cartoon may indeed indicate a scenario “despicable and disgusting” but it is a cartoon scenario in the first place. And is not all sin “despicable and disgusting”?
Not all sin is as despicable and disgusting as the sins of your cult, especially the pedophiles and perverts who committed such travesties, then denied, lied and made excuses for what they did. Sometimes forgiven or transferred by bishops and popes and then gone out to repeat their disgusting and despicable sins. Your insistent lying, excusing and misinterpretation of Scripture to cover for their malfeasance would take a close second.