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 24th at 1126AM:
‘Dan’ then tosses in a pericope reference, to Jesus telling the woman at the well to “Go and sin no more”. Are we to imagine that the woman went forth from that moment on and never committed another sin in her life? Are we to imagine that such was the meaning of Jesus’ exhortation here?
As I said in prior comments, this ‘Dan’ (and fundie) cartoon ‘theology’ quickly reduces to a blame-game wherein those who claim to have embraced the Gospel are forthwith rendered sinfulness-free (and thus can merrily spend their time declaring others to be sinners).
Apparently you don't know the Bible or understand it as well as you want to make others believe you do. Jesus never said to the woman at the well, "Go and sin no more." That would be the prostitute that the pharisees wanted to stone. You might want to read the Bible before you attempt to claim that you have the right interpretation. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:
‘Dan’ then immediately echoes more of that cartoon position by declaiming – in the accents of sober theological thought – that “nothing indicates that she could continue her sin and still be considered saved and a Christian”.
First, we note the odd subjunctive “could”: is this a possibility that ‘Dan’ is proposing here, or an assertion of fact weasel-worded to appear as something less than a fact?
Second, we have to consider the consequences of ‘Dan’s primary assertion here in the context of Jesus’s general position: is Jesus exhorting the woman to sin no more, or is He telling her that she cannot sin anymore? And if she cannot sin anymore is that because of His grace? Is that what the grace of God does – instill sinlessness in the human being … ?
Third, is He referring to the specific type of sin (“prostitution”) she had committed or is He referring to any and all types of sin, from thence onward?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:
Fourth, we see that giveaway fundie term “saved” (such that one is either “saved” and sinless or else one is not a “Christian”). But what, then, does it mean to be “saved”?
Does it mean – as in the ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon – that once one accepts the Gospel and Christ then one is effectively rendered sinless for the rest of one’s life?
Does it mean – as in the ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon – that committing any sin at all effectively renders one not-Christian? (And does that “sin” include or exclude making “other mistakes”?)
And is there or is there not a path back to being a Christian once one has committed a sin of any sort?
How does ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ deal with these problematic questions that are inherent in his assertions?
I think you should try reading the Bible and maybe you would learn a few things and be able to answer all your stupid questions. We are all sinners and will never be perfect. We're just not committing and repeating the horrible sins against innocent children, like your cult's hierarchy and so-called teachers do. How can you ever trust what they've been teaching you, if they haven't learned how sexually immoral it is to abuse children? Add to that the idolatry, greed, cowards and all the lies and liars, and anyone would understand why they consider themselves to be the One True Church of God. Hypocrite liars!! servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:
And then, either having run of ‘fresh’ distracting material or hoping that readers have forgotten, ‘Dan’ now apparently is reduced to pulling up some of the 3×5 pile from the way-back here and trying to run with it all over again.
Thus ‘Dan’ once again pulls from his pericope pile Matthew 18: 6-9, which we had gone over here several times, and as far back as late January of 2016, at least.
It is interesting to note that this time around ‘Dan’ hedges his bets with that “I still see this as …”, rather than the usual declamatory insistence on only one (i.e. his) interpretation).
That, however, is about as good as his bit gets here.
Thus we continue the sense of his comment by considering his immediately subsequent comment of the 24th at 1201PM, which gives the full text (from whatever version he is using).
First, I note that he claimed at the very end of his prior comment (the 24th at 1126AM) ‘Dan’ said that he doth “see this as Jesus stating” … and that ‘Dan’ sees His “little ones” as “meaning babies, minors or disciples”.
If one were to commit in any way the act of sexually abusing a ‘baby’, how in the wide world of ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ is one leading that infant to commit “sin”? How indeed can a ‘baby’ be said to “believe in” Christ, for that matter?
Thus ‘Dan’s gratuitous (and so very convenient to his agenda) presumption that in that “little ones” Jesus was referring to “babies” leads to a ludicrous and impossible conclusion.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:
And if one were to abuse or rape a “minor” or a “disciple”, how in the wide world of ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ is one presumptively leading that person to commit “sin”? Is ‘Dan’ saying here that the victim in this scenario is committing sin?
And if the victim in this scenario is neither baby nor minor nor disciple, then what?
This will cover the last couple and next two comments from the publiar. Again, it might be beneficial to consult the Bible for a 'proof text' to answer your questioning.
"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked. "Yes, Jesus answered, "have you ever read: 'From the mouths of children and infants You have ordained praise'?"
But then you would have to know the Word and be in the Word in order to know these things, not always disputing and misinterpreting it to suit your cult's evil agenda, oinking that that's a 'proof text' and doesn't count, because it shows proof.
Now in regards to leading little ones into sin. Have you ever heard that children learn from example? If you have adult priests, bishops and cardinals, young people are taught to respect, running rampant raping or sexually abusing any little boys they can get their filthy hands on, and you're under the impression that by example they're not at all leading those vulnerable minds into sin or future sinful, screwed up lives. How naive and ignorant can one get? Wake up to reality, step out from your Cartoon Time, peewee, and stop eating all that popcorn. Try eating something to improve your brain cells. servant of God's Word
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:
Nor is it therefore at all possible to insist – as ‘Dan’ does for the purposes of his agenda – that Jesus was primarily speaking about any particular sin (i.e. “pederasty” or “pedophilia” for ‘Dan’s purposes), and this actuality is especially clear when we realize – again – that the victim in any such scenario would not be committing sin in the first place.
The key to the pericope is the descriptive qualifying phrase “who believe in me to sin”. One must first a) “believe in Christ” and b) one must have been caused to “sin”.
Can it possibly be imagined that Jesus is implying that if a victim in such a scenario doesn’t believe in Christ and/or didn’t willingly engage in the abusive action then the abuse isn’t a sin? But that’s where ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ must lead. If ‘Dan’s presumption that Jesus was talking about “sin” and actual “little children” is to be taken as accurate.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:
But, then, was Jesus actually talking about “little children” at all?
If you deploy the ‘proof text’ method, then you focus with bovine intensity merely on the specific pericope – in whatever version/translation you have chosen – and that’s that.
But if we look at the pericope within its placement in the text of Matthew’s chapter here we find ourselves looking at verses 1 through 5: the disciples were asking – apparently in reference to themselves – as to “who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”.
Perhaps sensing that their discipleship was starting to go their head, Jesus “called a child over” and told the disciples that unless they became “like children” then “you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”.
(Let’s pass over in silence the fact that the act of an adult taking “a child” and putting him on your knee would qualify as ‘abusive’ nowadays.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:
Jesus is using “child” here as an image of what (adult) believers – and especially the disciples – had to seek to become: docile and willing to be taught. Or does ‘Dan’ imagine – as his ‘thought’ here would seem to imply – that Jesus actually meant that physical adults had to physically regress to the age and form of their childhood selves? This is what ‘Dan’s type of approach brings you to, and in short order.
And if any disciple passes along any ‘teaching’ that induces or “causes” any believer in Him “to sin”, then the stakes are – Jesus points out – very high indeed: God’s punishment will make having a millstone tied around your (i.e. the disciple’s) neck and drowned in the sea.
This pericope thus shows Jesus demonstrating to the disciples the seriousness of their commission and its responsibilities.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:
But even then, as Matthew will soon demonstrate with the Great Commission in Chapter 16:13-20 (Peter is declared the rock and is given “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” for the forgiveness or binding of sins) and in Chapter 28: 16-20 where the resurrected Christ gives His commission to the Eleven, Matthew requires us to consider the forgiveness of sin, and in the Great Commission pericope there is no mention of forgiveness only being possible for certain sins and not for others.
And the “children” here are the adult believers Jesus is addressing in verse 3 (“unless you become like little children …” and verse 4 (“whoever humbles himself like this little child …”).
‘Dan’s plop-tossy interpretative gambit here, designed purely to support his own agenda, fails utterly once one actually considers the text of Matthew’s Gospel here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:
With all that having to be taken into account, ‘Dan’s concluding paragraph pales – and indeed it would seem that ‘Dan’ himself starts to weaken his own interpretation by now claiming “how important it is to make a sincere effort at stopping your sinning”.
But what happens when the “sincere effort at stopping your sinning” fails at some point and you – to use ‘Dan’s weasel-phrasing – “make other mistakes”? Then what?
This is where both the proof-text gambit and the utter inadequacy of the ‘Dan’/fundie ‘theology’ are clearly revealed: while the proof-text gambit weaponizes Scripture for its own denunciatory purposes, that ‘theology’ is also utterly inadequate to deal with the human realities of original sinfulness and the abiding reality of humans a) failing to do the good they wish to do and b) doing the evil they wish to avoid, just as Paul said of himself.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:
Forgiveness as an indispensable element in any Christian theology is utterly essential in order to continue the work of God’s salvific work in the world of humans. And that’s why Peter was given “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Were Jesus to have assumed that once He was embraced by anyone, then that person would not ever be sinning again, then there would have been no need to give Peter those “keys”. After all, as even ‘Dan’ says, it’s possible to “make other mistakes” as time goes on.
Forgiveness involves being truly sorry for the sins you've committed, and through the help of Christ and God's Holy Spirit, changing your life. Not continuing in your disgusting sins, denying, making excuses and lying in hopes you can fool the courts. Your cult has expertise in this field, many times concealing their crimes by taking care of matters in house and keeping authorities and the public from knowing how vast, sickening and widespread are their perversions. So unfair to victims, never giving them the justice they deserve. You think the Lord God doesn't have your number? He's licking His chops in anticipation of His Judgement Day. servant of the Almighty
And ‘Dan’ apparently wants to award himself a victory- lap by then adding his bit on the 24th at 726PM.
But – and yet again – the pericope that he has chosen (Matthew 5:11) itself is careful to point out that one is going to be ‘blessed’ by God only if your misadventures are created “because you are my followers”.
So – yet once again – it all depends on being one of the followers of Christ. And ‘Dan’ – yet once again – is not a follower of anyone or Anyone; he is indentured to his delusionality and manipulatively and deceitfully has chosen to masquerade as being not only ‘a’ but a very speshully i(f secretly) authorized tea-leaf channeler of God’s very Mind and Word and Will.
The compulsion generated and required by his indenture undermines all of his masquerade and posturing, however, no matter how much he honks and brays to the contrary.
I don’t mock God; I don’t mock God’s followers. I assess ‘Dan’s material because it is a content-less masquerade involving deceit and manipulation and cannot withstand even the simplest questioning.
That it is also mock-able – and it surely is – results merely from the fact that ‘Dan’ isn’t at all up to the job to which he has indentured himself.
Are you at all aware that Satan is known to be the Accuser. And you following well in his footsteps have taken on the part of The False Accuser. You the master manipulator and deceiver trying to project your deceptive sicknesses on another, thinking if you repeat the accusations enough, than that becomes truth. Claiming that you don't 'mock God' or His 'followers', right after stating that Dan "deceitfully has chosen to masquerade as being not only 'a' but a very speshully i(f secretly) authorized tea-leaf channeler of God's very Mind and Word and Will."
Let me tell you how sick and tired I am, "Casting pearls before swine". I have never come across such a deceiving, slandering, lying pig in all my life, although other liars from your cult come in a close second. You're more evil than all of them combined, and I'm glad I only have to deal with you on the internet. One could only guess the cowardice and lies you would display in person. Creep! servant of God, not self-appointed or self-serving, you blatant liar.
P.S. A catholic lying creep will never be the one to decide whether I'm truly a servant, chosen or special in the Lord's eyes. Your word means nothing and you mean nothing to me, you Lying Accuser.
Let me correct that. If I had spent more than a minute or two with the lying catholic creeps of your cult, than I would have probably found them to be as wicked, deceiving and ignorant as you. There, now you shouldn't feel so bad, being partners with a slew of liars. servant sanctioned by the Almighty
I'll be waiting to have an indepth discussion on the updated version of Pope Rat's brother and the choir boys they abused. The number of abuses being 500 of physical violence and 67 of sexual violence, committed by a total of 49 perpetrators. The pope's brother being one of the perpetrators and the worst offender is dead. Pop the champagne, the church has no guilt in the matter because the cases are too old. "I knew that the rector there was violent and would beat the boys hard, and that he would do it for no reason," ratzinger said. He also said he was aware of allegations of physical abuse at the elementary school and did nothing about it. He did nothing to protect the children, but we're supposed to believe he had no knowledge of sexual abuse. Despicable liars. The current bishop of Regensburg has already announced plans to offer compensation of between $5,000 and $22,000 each by the end of this year. So much for only allegations, publiar. Oh yes! And the cult's generosity with their dumb sheep's money is almost God-like. Despicable creeps.
And then we have Fr. Joseph Maskell, "a suspected paedophile and serial abuser of teenage girls." No problem for the church, he's dead too. He's also the prime suspect of the murder of a nun, who happened to be privy to the accusations of the young girls and possibly confronted him.
Last, and definitely not the last creep from your cult, Fr. Don Mercedes. "Pope Francis has decided to defrock Mauro Inzoli, also known as Don Mercedes for his love of fancy cars, who has been found guilty of eight counts of sexual abuse of children aged 12 to 16. Benedict XVI moved to defrock him in 2012 but Francis chose leniency before recently changing his mind. "He reportedly paid $28,000 in compensation to five victims he molested between 2004 and 2008." Crux June 30, 2017 The generosity with their brainwashed sheep's money was almost God-like. I'll be waiting for our discussion. servant of the God of Judgment
And with all the material now on the table, what do we get from ‘Dan?
On the 26th at 748PM we get the ‘Dan’-verse justification for his oh-so-necessary-for-his-agenda focus on the Catholic “pedophiles and perverts” and so on: there is a hierarchy of sins. Yes there is, but then there haven’t been very many demonstrated and proven cases where his scare-scenario as he outlines it here has actually taken place.
Once again, we are back to the core question: how many instances of such a scenario would it take to de-legitimize the Church? I suspect that – if he had to actually come up with an answer – ‘Dan’ would go the old even-if-only-one route.
But no human institution is perfect because no human being is perfect (except for ‘Dan’, whose misadventures are merely the result of being lied-about a whole lot).
‘Dan’s position – if applied, say, to the recent collision of the Navy destroyer and the container ship – is that the Navy should be disbanded since they obviously don’t know how to sail their ships properly. Readers may consider as they will the weaknesses of that approach.
publiar oinks, In regards to "Catholic 'pedophiles and perverts'…. there haven't been very many demonstrated and proven cases" – This is absolutely false and an outright lie! There are thousands of cases of proven and admitted guilt and many secretly paid-of victims and many priests and hierarchy who think they escaped punishment because of Statutes of Limitations or death. Stop with all your ignorant excuses and lies. This problem of sexual abuse against children is systemic, and any catholic who thinks otherwise is living in denial. It's citywide, statewide, countrywide and worldwide. Anywhere the cult has stepped foot, they molested, violently abused and raped innocent children. Somehow it had to be taught or mentored in order for it to be this widespread. Bunch of sick, pioused hypocrite deceivers.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 805PM:
Here – as we have so often seen before – ‘Dan’ is confronted with a number of theological questions that arise from his assertions and – had you been waitttingggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – he merely waves them away evasively as being “all [my] stupid questions”.
Questions about his cartoon positions are – doncha see? – “stupid” prima facie and ipso facto: if you raise questions about ‘Dan’s stuff then that’s just “stupid” in the first place (and therefore – but of course – he doesn’t need to try and come up with an answer to them).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 805PM:
But then we see the slyness: “We are all sinners”, he piously bleats, “and will never be perfect”.
Well, you might think, that’s a big admission and it raises some problems for his whole focus on the Church.
But then he quickly slaps some silly-putty over the hole he has just punched through his own cartoons: “horrible sins against children” – doncha see? – are … somehow beyond all that. “We” are OK, because “we” are just ‘normal sinners’, apparently. (And you notice right here the blame-game dynamic that I had mentioned in prior comments: ‘we’ are pretty much OK, but ‘they’ are reely reely reely sinners.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 805PM:
And of course, most of the “innocent children” scenarios are creatures of ‘Dan’s cartoon imagination and haven’t actually been demonstrated to have taken place in anywhere near the astronomical numbers and lurid forms that ‘Dan’ would claim.
And – in a neat two-fer – ‘Dan’ even works in a) a whack at Catholic teachers (like the staffers who shooed him away from the schoolyard fence) because b) if you can’t trust them in regard to abuse, then you can’t trust that they aren’t actually teaching you paganism and goddess-worship too. Neato.
First paragraph – more lies and excuses – there are thousands if not millions of "innocent children" harmed by the crimes of creeps in your cult.
Another repeated lie – I was never shooed away from the schooyard fence – sick of your ignorance, nonsense and stupidity.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:
As readers may perhaps now have figured out, this is another of ‘Dan’s evasive tricks: faced with clear questions in several comments, he will refrain from answering each comment’s questions, and instead issue a blanket comment (which, as we will see, winds up not answering any questions at all).
First, he suggests merely that one might “consult the Bible … to answer your questioning”. Any answer more specific than that, ‘Dan’ isn’t up to at all.
And don’t forget to put your speshull ‘Dan’ glasses on before you “consult the Bible” or else you won’t see what he sees.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:
Then we get what appears to be merely a selection from ‘Dan’s 3×5 pericope pile that deals with “children” generally somehow. Apparently – in this case – something along the lines of the old ‘out of the mouths of children’. What that has to do with “babies” (who aren’t known for their verbal declamations in the first place) is anybody’s guess.
But from that little pile of sand ‘Dan’ quickly and evasively launches into a distracting riff on “the Word” and how nobody knows the Word like ‘Dan’ knows the Word (though he doesn’t have to demonstrate that knowledge by answering the questions – doncha see? – because it’s a secret speshull knowledge that God gave ‘Dan’ and if God knows ‘Dan’ knows, then what does it matter if anyone else realizes it because they don’t know anyway … ? – that’s basically ‘Dan’s core scam on this point).
None of ‘Dan’s ‘proof-texts’ “shows proof” (that’s just more silly word-play on his part); ‘Dan’s delusionality “shows proof”, but only in his mind and to his mind. That’s how delusionality works.
Those were the answers to your dumb questions, but you're too ignorant to figure that out. You only thing my Biblical quotes are something you can dispute, instead of learning from. You're Scripturely inept. servant
Correction – thing should be think – As in you think you have all the answers, but only think God, His Holy Spirit and His Word is for you to criticize and mock. Despicable!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:
The presentation in the second paragraph requires the acceptance of ‘Dan’s fever-vision cartoon, i.e. that “you have adult priests, bishops and cardinals … running rampant raping or sexually abusing any little boys they can get their filthy hands on” … and that cartoon remains ‘Dan’s personal cartoon (which, it has to be said, certainly seems to consistently engage him).
Certainly any actual instance of “rampant raping” would – among other things – set a bad “example”. As would – if we’re careful in applying the term – genuine ‘sexual abuse’. But there have been very few demonstrated cases of that. Nor would I accept the comeback that ‘where’s there’s smoke there’s fire”. Sometimes there’s a lot of smoke because somebody has deliberately thrown a smoke-bomb.
For you to claim your cult's sins against children is all just a "fever-vision cartoon", is both disrespectful and evil personified, against every victim your wicked cult has ever harmed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:
If some priests can be demonstrated to have done such things, then let justice take its course.
But the cartoon of a Church “rampant” with all this is ‘Dan’s own smoke-bomb, from which he then claims that the whole institution is aflame and good-riddance.
Nor can ‘Dan’s presumption be accepted, i.e. that if ‘bad example’ is given to anyone, then that ‘bad example’ will ineluctably be accepted as the proper way to conduct oneself. Kids’ minds may be impressionable but kids aren’t stupid. (Look at the number of kids in the schoolyard who – even as ‘Dan’ tells the story – walked away from his ranting performance.)
More ignorant lies – The kids ran back because they were yelled at by panicking teachers. If there was any ranting it came from the teachers. You're one stupid liar!!!
That's it for me today. Tired of answering to your repetitive, ignorant, stupid lies. Why wait? Why not pack it up and go to Hell. I think you'd be happier among your type. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 849PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will discourse on “forgiveness”.
It seems on first reading to be pretty mainstream Catholic thought on the subject. But given what we have seen of ‘Dan’s ‘theology’, we have to ask: what does “changing your life” mean here as ‘Dan’ is using it?
If this means that ‘Dan’ envisions that once you embrace Christ then His grace prevents any further sin – which is pretty much what he has claimed in prior comments here – then that “changing” means a one-off, one-time-only ‘change’. And after that … what then if one falls into sin again?
If this means something along the lines of ‘you embrace Christ and the Gospel and with the help of His grace you work hard on “changing your life” as best you can, failing and turning to God and picking yourself up and going on to improve your “changing”’ … then that’s pretty much the Catholic and mainstream Protestant approach.
Which is it?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 849PM:
‘Dan’s solution to the problem he has created for himself here is to presume the authority of the Divine Tea-Leaves and declare that priests are “continuing in [their] disgusting sins” and so on. And this is merely a cartoon that relies upon ‘Dan’s oh-so-necessary presumption that (fill in the blank: a few, some, a lot, most, all) priests are merrily “continuing” in their “rampant” rapine.
So – doncha see? – if priests are “continuing” with no desire or thought of contrition and of “changing” (as ‘Dan’s cartoon would have it) then they don’t qualify for “forgiveness”. Neato.
But that conclusion requires the presumption that ‘Dan’s cartoon caricature and its fever-vision scenario here are accurate.
And as always, it is a very open question as to just where ‘Dan’s ‘belief’ and ‘Dan’s messages from ‘God’ end and ‘Dan’s delusions and their agenda begin.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 849PM:
Upon all of which he then lards on the now-familiar deceptive manipulation that presumes allegants are “victims” and that thus they aren’t getting “the justice they deserve”.
And ‘Dan’ – perhaps realizing on some level that his stuff here can’t quite stand up on its own – quickly lards on a God’ll-getcha threat, just to top it all off.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 951PM:
Here we get more silly (and distracting) word-play, this time with something about Satan being “the Accuser” – apropos of nothing clear – which then (slyly) platforms a riff on my being “The False Accuser”.
What can this mean?
‘Dan’ quickly deploys the old I’m Not/You Are bit: I am “trying to project [my] deceptive sickness on another” … and that sounds very familiar, since I have explicated ‘Dan’s scam here at length and often.
And isn’t it ‘Dan’s scam – as we see so very often – to “repeat the accusations” (against priests and the Church) “enough, then that becomes truth” … ? How often has he repeated both a) his accusations against Catholicism and the Church and priests and b) his claims as to being some speshully-appointed Deputy Dawg of God? And then claimed that if you can’t see the “truth” of his stuff then that’s just “ignorant” and “stupid” and so on?
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 951PM:
Then some queasy combination of the pearl-clutching and the macho: he’s gonna tell us “just how sick and tired” he is.
“Sick and tired” of what? Why, of “casting pearls before swine”. The prophetic Deputy Dawg is “sick and tired” of not getting the respect his bottom-of-the-cereal-box plastic badge deserves. Can’t I see it pinned to his heaving prophetic bosom there?
Yes, I can see it. And it’s plastic and it still has cornflakes stuck to it.
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 951PM:
And he’s “sick and tired” of being surrounded by “liars”.
But I can agree with him about this: I’m happy I only have to deal with him on the internet. Because clearly – and by his own telling – an awful lot of people have encountered him in person and he gave them such cause for concern that he wound up in jail and before a judge and in court-ordered psychiatric stays a number of times. Are there “hundreds” of liars involved in all of that, or is there just the one who’s telling the story?
Oh, and since I’m such a “liar” – and we can take ‘Dan’s word for it – then I can’t “decide whether [‘Dan’ is] truly” God’s Deputy Dawg or not. This is the key switcheroo in ‘Dan’s delusional economy: nobody can; ‘Dan’ has arranged his personal cartoon precisely to prevent his having to accept the responses of anyone who questions him and his stuff. That’s what a nice, tight Fixed Delusional System will get you.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 957PM:
Here he – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – tries a further comeback that actually serves only to dig himself deeper into the hole he has dug for himself.
He would now have it that he has only spent “a minute or two” in his encounters with all those “hundreds” who contributed to his epic legal and psychiatric misadventures. Strange that somebody who has only “spent … a minute or two” with so many people yet has made so deeply disturbing an impression on them that they have called the police and so on.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1235AM:
Here he has rummaged though his news-story pile to reinforce his cartoons with stuff he has read.
How long does he expect to be waiting for any of the ever-lengthening list of ‘abuse scandals’ to prove he has been right and very clever all along?
Dutch Abuse Report of 2011? Magdalene Laundries of a year and more ago? The Australian Royal Commission? And the Regensburg brouhaha involved mostly physical abuse claims and not sexual abuse claims. All of them have been discussed here over time.
No doubt the Cardinal Pell matter will create the opportunity for this or that ‘scandal’ to be reignited somehow. The former priest Paul Shanley is being released from prison at age 86 (with 10 years of supervised parole yet to come), which prompted noted area torties to dust-off and deploy all the old Stampede bits and proclaim that even at the age of 86 Shanley is a danger and parents should be careful of their kids wherever he is going to live.
Surfers will toss in their board wherever and whenever any wave looks like it might give them another ride.
The pig oinks "Regensburg brouhaha". 500 choir boys physically abused and at times violently, along with 67 sexually abused combined with sexual violence, and this you label a "brouhaha". You consider these multiple crimes against innocent young boys, basically a fuss over nothing? The church never disputed these claims, but pope ratzinger's brother has this to say, "I KNEW that the rector there was VIOLENT and would beat the boys HARD, and that he would do it for NO reason." The report faulted Ratzinger "in particular for 'looking away' or for failing to intervene." "Looking away", or falsely accusing innocent victims, the modus operandi of your cult when it comes to their heinous crimes against innocence. In your case excusing, defending, enabling and minimizing their malfeasances. Add to this you're defending of a convicted serial sexual predator, Paul Shanley. Why not make him a saint of your cult of perverts, pedophiles and predators?
The Dutch Abuse Report of 2011, the Magdalene Laundries and The Australian Royal Commission, just help cement the fact that these disgusting crimes are systemic and worldwide.
The rest of your ignorant, stupid nonsense and mocking I refuse to comment on. Since you feel so compelled to repeatedly call me the "Deputy Dawg of God", then perhaps we can from here on out consider you the Deputy Dung of the Devil. You are one sick, lying, mocking bastard who needs to be stopped. Any catholic defending or agreeing with your insidious garbage would have to have their head examined, or attend a cult desensitization. servant of God
We’ve seen how easy it is to make allegations. We’ve seen the allegation-stories from Milligan’s book that may well constitute the gravamen of the charges against Cardinal Pell. (Although the Aussie police still haven’t gotten around to actually saying what the charges are, even though they were quick enough to announce they were bringing charges.)
We have already seen cases, examined here, where “allegations” garnered rather substantial payouts without any demonstration of veracity. That was the key gambit of the Stampede for decades: make allegations, get settlements, and cash the checks. Now we see that the tort attorneys and SNAP may very well have been in cahoots in a kickback scam.
We have nothing but allegations. The Philadelphia Archdiocese gave Billy Doe/Gallagher 5 million even though his stories and his claim were utterly improbable and even impossible.
The Maskell matter is the subject of the most recent article on this site.
We’ve seen all this before.
On the 28th at 523PM ‘Dan’ doth declare my point that “there haven’t been very many demonstrated and proven cases” to be “absolutely false and an outright lie” (with exclamation point for emphasis). He goes on to assert, claim and pronounce that “there are thousands of cases of proven and admitted guilt”, plus “many secretly paid-off victims” plus “many priests and hierarchy who think …” and so on.
He provides no factual basis for his numbers here, and that cannot be surprising since there is no reliable basis that would support the factuality of his claims here.
Instead these phantasmagoric numbers are just a (very necessary) element in ‘Dan’s cartoon-structure.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 532PM:
Then we get – yet again – his stab at mimicking competent analytic language with his deployment of “systemic”. He does not explain what he thinks “systemic” means in relation to the Church here, and for all we know it’s simply another bit of masquerade slathered over his basic cartoons.
From which phantasmagoria he then proceeds to make the assertion that the Church must have classes for this sort of thing (i.e. the stuff claimed in his cartoons) or some sort of ‘mentoring’ arrangement.
But we are to accept that it is somebody else – and surely not ‘Dan’ – who qualifies as “sick” and “hypocrite” and as being a “deceiver”. Readers may judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 537PM:
Here ‘Dan’ bleats that his comments to which I referred in mine of the 27th at 213PM and 217PM were indeed “answers” (to my “dumb” questions) but … I am just “too ignorant to figure that out”.
With any of ‘Dan’s “answers” – doncha see? – you have to ‘figure out’ how they are actually “answers”.
Which is rarely easy since most of his “answers” – as I pointed out then – aren’t really answers at all; instead, they are merely ‘comebacks’ or ‘repetitions’ of his already-questionable stuff.
And – clutching his pearls and his plastic Biblical Deputy Dawg badge – he doth bleat that I “only think [his] Biblical quotes are something [I] can dispute, instead of learning from” (sic).
I don’t dispute the actual Biblical quotes; I dispute ‘Dan’s interpretation of them. Much can be learned about God and life from the Biblical quotes; nothing such can be learned from ‘Dan’s stuff except about ‘Dan’s own cartoon problems.
And as a useful side-project, readers can review my sequence of posts on the 27th and tote up how many questions and points ‘Dan’ avoided ‘answering’.
I couldn't help but notice how you conveniently avoided any comment on my post July 26 @ 7:54am. Let me repeat it for you, because I believe it gives credence to your poor understanding and misinterpretations of Bible verse and Scripture.
"Apparently you don't know the Bible or understand it as well as you want to make others believe you do. Jesus never said to the women at the well, "Go and sin no more." That would be the prostitute that the pharisees wanted to stone. You might want to read the Bible before you attempt to claim that you have the right interpretations."
Didn't want you to miss an opportunity to make more excuses for your ignorance.