The Boston Globe: One standard for dead Catholic priests, another standard for its own employees
It is truly unbelievable. In a recent article in its own paper, the Boston Globe openly admitted that employees at its paper have been fired or forced to resign due to sexual abuse accusations and sex harassment. However, the paper steadfastly refused to publicly divulge the names of the individuals involved.
Yet as we look back over the past 15+ years, we know for a fact that the Globe apparently never once hesitated to trumpet the names of dead or elderly Catholic priests who were accused of abuse, no matter how long ago or flimsy the accusations were.
Corruption beyond belief
The Globe's article – published and buried late on a Friday afternoon, a notorious time to hide bad news – sheepishly revealed that a prominent political reporter, a "mid-level manager within the Globe's sales department," and a "contract worker" no longer work at the paper because of allegations of inappropriate conduct that occurred within the past year. The article also chronicled alleged abuse by two editors, one of whom has "since died."
In an interview last week on Boston's WGBH radio, Globe editor Brian McGrory was actually asked about why he did not disclose the names of those accused of sex abuse and harassment, to which McGrory gave a long and rambling response. In not revealing the ex-employees' names, he claimed that there were a "variety of reasons" and cited vague "legal hurdles" and "journalistic values we are trying to maintain."
"Journalistic values" At the Globe? He must be kidding.
In the interview, McGrory also unbelievably claimed that when reporting on the Catholic Church years ago, his paper always had "irrevocable proof" that the priests it had publicized were guilty. Yet McGrory now asserts that with regards to his own ex-employees, there is a "complex situation" preventing him from publishing their names.
Think about that. McGrory claims that he had "irrevocable proof" that dead priests and elderly priests whom he didn't even know had committed wrongdoing, yet there are "complicated hurdles" to reporting the names of employees with whom he personally interacted in his own building within the past year and whom he forced to resign.
The hypocrisy is off the charts. Again.
[SEE ALSO:
1. Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church (Amazon.com)
2. 'Spotlight' EXPOSED (the review Hollywood and the Boston Globe do not want you to read)]
And do tell me? Were these alledged sex abusers pedophiles or pederasts, like the dead or elderly priest creeps who were accused of child abuse, all done under the guise of being Godly, pure and Holy men of God? And you can point your finger at others keeping their malfeasances secret, when your cult reacted with the same secrecy in order to protect the good name of "the Cult". You hypocrites and bigots apparently have no problem pointing out other hypocrites and bigots, seeing that you work under the same modus operandi. Man, the s__t is becoming terribly deep in this forum. May those living in glass houses, not be too quick to throw stones. servant of the One Holy, Pure and True God
In this country, we still have a legal standard of innocence until proven guilty and due process. So many get a whiff of scandal and make a rush to judgment. Furthermore, controversy and conflict drives the news. What better target is there than someone who cannot adequately defend himself or refute the charges i.e. the elderly and deceased?
What you call reacting with secrecy is really a indictment of the whole culture at the time these men allegedly committed their crimes decades ago. For example, sexual indiscretions of well known politicians and other public figures were not publicized. All that changed.
I don't think God is going to hold the Globe to a different standard to the Catholic Church. I think what Dave is trying to say is that the Globe are hypocrities in doing the same thing that they took the Church to task for.
You are unequivocally wrong Mark. God will be holding those who rape and molest innocent children, preferably young boys, under the guise of we're the saved, pure, holy and true church of the Almighty God, to a different standard than the unsaved, adult sexually immoral who harm other adults. If you think differently then you're really not following Biblical Truth and you're making your own standards and writing your own rules. And it's best you ignore the excuses of publiar and take a good look at Matthew 18:1-10. Jesus is simultaneously talking of punishment due to anyone who would harm a little child and at the same time one of His chosen saved. To believe publiars misconstrued interpretation that He was only speaking of adults who become like little children is deceptive and cunning. He'd like to make you believe that it was OK and forgivable for adult priests to molest and rape God's little most vunerable ones. DESPICABLE, and this crime is systemic among your priests and excusing bishops. Wake up to reality, Joanne, this innocent until proven guilty and due process garbage doesn't work among the liars and deceivers of your disgusting cult of hypocritical child molesting sex addicts. All they have to do is deny their malfeasance and indisputable proof is pretty hard to attain. They need to come clean and the bunch of you have to quit making all your lame excuses for the habitual perverts of your church. In the end, the Lord God will be just and the guilty will receive the punishment they so rightly deserve. Until then you excusers ought to wake up and smell the coffee. Death and SOLs do not equate to innocence. Your church is corrupt in so many ways. Get away from her before you are brought down with "Whore of Babylon". servant of the Lord
Dan. Maybe the men hidden by The Globe were pedophiles like Woody Allen or other Hollywood celebrities.
Or, maybe they were rapists like the Hollywood Direcrtor, Roman Polanski, whom Hollywood sought to have his crimes erased.
Or, maybe they were like the uncountable public school teachers who have gotten away with their sex crimes.
But, these possibilities are not of interest to people like you.
Any news of abuse is just an opportunity for you to exercise your hatred of the Catholic Church
Glad you admit you're only an amateur brain surgeon, because I surely wouldn't let you near my brain. And you're absolutely right. Maybe they're all of the above and maybe they're catholic parishioners, too. Just maybe you haven't seen any of my previous posts. I hate all pedophiles and pederasts, especially among those claiming Godliness, from any religion. They're the ultiimate in hypocrisy. That doesn't mean I think it's alright for non-religious creeps who do the same things. Problem is that your cult is full of these perverts and we've only touched the tip of the iceburg. I would appreciate if the bunch of you excusers and accusers would stop trying to lay blame on me, like your hierarchy is only a bunch of pedophiles and pederasts because of my hatred of the cult. They bear the blame because they're a bunch sex starved creeps, that prove their pride and arrogance through raping and molesting innocent little boys and minors. Not my problem!! Braindead!
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact is that the vast majority of the cases against priests were not pedophilia but homosexuality, as the victims almost all post-pubescent youths. Whilst I am in no way attempting to reduce the culpability of the priests who perpetrated these crimes,, this fact is generally overlooked as it does not go with the normalization of homosexuality in the present society.
Another fact is that Cardinal Law only followed the advice of psychiatrists and counselors by allowing priests supposedly rehabilitated to be sent back to parishes. This was standard advice among such professionals at the time. Did any of them take any heat for their mistaken advice? Of course not. Society considers them experts in human behavior and they got off scot-free for their false advice, whilst the one who took their advice was pilloried.
Catholics, please read Matthew 23, A Warning Against Hypocrites, in the words of the Master Teacher himself, Jesus Christ.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are." Matthew 23:15 What other religion has gone into every city, state, country and continent over the centuries, promoting idolatry, greed, sexual immorality and lies, more or for a longer period of time than your deceiving cult of liars? Your belief system is false, anti-God, antiChrist and unbiblical in every sense. I'm sorry it's so hard for the gullible and brainwashed to accept that truth, but your very souls are at stake. Don't allow them to deceive and lie to you any longer!! Servant of the One True God, nothing about Him is false.
P.S. And don't stop with one verse of Matthew chapter 23. Every verse, aside from the one saying call no one Rabbi, depicts and describes in detail the sins of "the church". Open your eyes! Then read Matt. 24 and the final destruction of false religions, false teachers and their temples.
You would do well to take the advice of St. Paul and "work out your salvation in fear and trembling" as it is clear from the Bible that nobody is free from sin. You obviously have a skewed.concept of the Catholic Church and judge it by a small proportion of those who have betrayed what it teaches. Your judgments are highly charged by emotion and this one.sided and useless. Don't forget what Jesus also said: "Let him who has no sin throw the first stone". Take care of your own salvation as you are only who can do it, and that way you will also contribute to the good of others. The high priest tore his garments and condemned Jesus. Was he free from sin? NO.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 837PM:
‘Dan’ gives his game away in his second sentence, twice.
“Alleged” and “accused” – anybody can make allegations and accusations.
In order to continue both his riff and his usual shtick, ‘Dan’ has to slyly presume that all of the allegations and accusations were veracious. That’s a very big presumption, far too big certainly for ‘Dan’s mere assertions, no matter how epithetical and vivid.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 918AM:
Here ‘Dan’ doth assert, pronounce and declaim that – by amazing coincidence – God will indeed be holding “those who rape and molest children … to a different standard” (a standard, of course, that nicely excludes ‘Dan’ from the category of ‘sinful’ and perhaps merely locates him among the ‘made occasional mistakes’ crowd).
And that anyone who doesn’t interpret this passage the way ‘Dan’ wants it interpreted must be and is “unequivocally wrong”. Let’s see about that below.
Having already defined (or at least proclaimed) himself as being beyond sin – or at least serious sin – ‘Dan’ can then happily sit in his sandbox and toss his stuff by the plastic shovelful.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 918AM:
And that conveniently leads ‘Dan’ to a pericope that regular readers may recognize as one discussed quite a while ago here and at some length, Matthew 18:1-10.
The pericope (itself bearing some similarities to Mark 9:33 to 10:15) opens with the disciples asking Jesus “who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”, in response to which Jesus calls over a child who is nearby and says “unless you turn and become like children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (verses 1-4).
A literalist approach to the text would present an impossibility: adults cannot physically revert to childhood.
A more symbolic approach still presents a problem: children are known for being – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘childish’ … and is that what Jesus is recommending?
Clearly we are into the realm of interpretation, since the text itself seems to confront the reader with problem of ambiguity.
I have rarely met a child as "childish" as you, publiar, with all your cartoons, sandbox stupidity, Alice in Wonderland and popcorn you've consumed, you probably can qualify for the baby pass at Disneyworld. Grow up you immature little twit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 918AM:
The traditional interpretation has been that the term ‘children’ here is meant by Jesus to indicate persons who have no standing in society. Thus Jesus is saying that one doesn’t become great in the kingdom of heaven by seeking greatness in this world; nor – one might further say – does greatness in this world guarantee greatness in the kingdom of heaven.
Although, it must be noted, Matthew did think that there would be some sort of classification even in the kingdom of heaven, since he mentions that “some shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, and others shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (5:19).
Be that as it may, the “children” or “child” is a symbol for a lack of the desire for status and greatness in this world. Children don’t have greatness in this world nor are they interested in pursuing it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 918AM:
Thus to ‘Dan’s favorite bit, in verses 5 and 6: here Jesus says that “anyone who causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea”.
The “little ones” are those “children” already discussed in verses 1-4. Whoever causes one with no status in the world to sin … and so on.
The punishment for anyone causing the “little ones” to sin is described in a very this-worldly analogy: better to be drowned in the sea; that is a terrible but merely physical death. It will be quite a presumptive leap beyond the text, however, to get from that statement by Jesus to the assertion that such a sin cannot be or never will be forgiven by God even in the next world.
Also, in trying to apply this to a sexual-abuse scenario in order to reach a ‘Dan’-verse interpretation, nobody thus abused would commit the sin; the sin would be entirely on the part of the abuser.
So the text here presents a genuine problem if one is merely trying the old fundie word-play game, i.e. Jesus was talking about ‘children’ / priests abuse children / therefore this a great pericope to bash priests (and Catholics) with.
Those of any religion who consistently deny and lie in regards to their pedophilia and pederasty against innocent children will never ever be forgiven, not in this world and most definitely not in the next world. Those who make excuses for the nasty filthy creeps will have to take their chances come Judgment Day. To claim the Bible describes things differently is a terrible lie from habitual liars. God hates liars, publiar, plain and simple. He describes them in the simple Words of Christ:
"You belong to your father, the devil, and want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
Not sure about murderer, but the rest of this "pericope" sure does describe you in fine detail. Maybe you can find a job as an interpreter for "the Cult", interpreting and explaining all the lies of your church, seeing that lying is your native language. Correct that, I forgot you only add to and defend the lies of "the Church", and are you ever good at it. Your father, the devil, must be awful proud of you. servant of God, my Father
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 918AM:
So then when ‘Dan’ further asserts that “if you think differently” (i.e. from ‘Dan’s preferred take on the text) then “you’re not really following Biblical Truth” … what ‘Dan’ really means is that you wouldn’t be following ‘Dan’s preferred – and greatly problematic – interpretation.
That’s the text. As for ‘Dan’s assertions about what I am or am not trying to get readers to believe is just more of ‘Dan’s invented hooey, necessary for him to maintain himself in the cartoon business.
Which business he gets down to straightaway, riffing on with his familiar bits.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 918AM:
I would also point out the rather stunning giveaway that ‘Dan’ then provides, referring to “this innocent until proven guilty and due process garbage”.
We see here in crystal-clear fashion the tremendous assault on Western law and jurisprudence and jurispraxis: what we see here is that so-called Victimist ‘law’ is really just another variant of what Lenin called ‘revolutionary justice’, i.e. if what you did helps the cause then you’re innocent and that’s that; if what you did interferes with the cause then you are ipso facto guilty and we needn’t bother ourselves further with facts, evidence, proof, or any other counter-revolutionary twaddle (or we might use a favorite term of JR’s here: “smoke screen”).
But I will go further and note the similarity between religious ‘fundamentalism’ and the ‘revolutionary’ stance, which is a form of ideological fundamentalism: both start with a pre-determined ideological agenda and script (or cartoon, if you wish) and then everything and everyone is judged by that agenda and script and no facts or lack of facts is going to be allowed to get in the way.
As Lenin nicely and robustly put it: “Our revolutionary courts must shoot!”. And as one of those early heads of the Bolshevik secret police (the Cheka) put it: “The Cheka does not investigate; it strikes!”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 918AM:
As to what God will be doing with guilty priests (and I certainly do not and never have denied that there are some) in the next life … ‘Dan’s cartoon predictions are as reliable as any random fortune-teller’s dictum, or even less so since if God can’t be demonstrated to follow ‘Dan’s desired script then ‘Dan’ is out of a shtick and is left clothed not with the Bible but only with his deceitful delusions and manipulative cartoons.
And once again we're treated to another longwinded dissertation of Matthew 18:1-10, adding absolutely nothing to the argument other than useless "nonsense". I've noticed in reading several apologists and excusers of the cult, that they believe if they can give the longest answers to some of the simplest questions, that most of the dumb sheep in their cult will believe they must know what they're talking about. Alot of ignorance, but lacking any substance. They're even taught to try to turn the tables by asking the opponent ignorant questions in an attempt to stump them and take them off base. We've seen the ignorance of publiar attempt to use these tactics. I just refuse to answer to his ignorant questions. That is why I ask others to read and try to understand what the Word is teaching, especially when it's free wisdom from the Lord. Don't let the liars and deceivers convince you that you can't understand it without their twisted interpretations and deception. Much of the Word is simple to understand, but only made to be difficult by ignorant fools who refuse to listen to the Lord.
"Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:47
The devil is known as "the Accuser" and deceiver, and in these last days he has sent his followers out to trick you and make you believe in the many lies and deceptions of your church. The true church of the Almighty would never have members guilty of the disgusting crimes against innocence that we have witnessed from your cult. Hate me all you like, but search for the truth yourselves and you will find that I'm not the hater of catholic followers, as you've been told. Blatant lies from deceiving catholic liars. servant of the One True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1207PM:
Once again, and evading having to actually get into the text, ‘Dan’ doth exhort “Catholics” to just read all of the 23rd chapter of Matthew’s Gospel.
Here Matthew writes of the imprecations of Jesus against the Scribes and Pharisees.
Applying his usual self-interested cartoon procedure, ‘Dan’ simply cawn’t think why anyone wouldn’t clearly and instantly see that Jesus was actually referring to Catholicism.
But wait. There’s more.
In what can nicely pass for self-parody ‘Dan’ doth exhort again that the entire chapter be read. Well … except for some verse in it about “call no one Rabbi”. That’s not about the Church. And how does ‘Dan’ know that? Why because his bathroom mirror tells him so.
And then don’t stop there – go on to the 24th chapter. There you will find even more of ‘Dan’s favorite bits. But he cawn’t explain it all just now. He simply cawn’t.
But he doesn’t have to – doncha see? – because you just have to “Open your eyes!” My advice: if you ever start seeing what ‘Dan’ apparently ‘sees’, then professional help is most surely indicated and may it work better for you than it has ever worked for him.
So the Globe's editor, Brian McGrory, says he has "irrevocable proof" that the priests he named were all guilty. Well I sure hope somebody challenges him to provide that proof?. Although my guess would be that his "proof" would go something like this. One 'brave victim' comes forward and describes 'horrific sexual abuse' by a 'wicked predator'. As a result of this other 'victims' find the courage to come forward to tell their shocking stories. Strangely it actually happened 30 years ago?. If anybody should question why they all suddenly remembered within weeks of each other?…Then this is explained as … " just coincidence". Am reminded of something a former policeman said to me years ago…."we never really liked coincidences….we were always a little wary about coincidences".
Read the Bible catholics, and find the truth for yourselves and be set free from the lies of your cult. Once again, you lying idiot, I've never had professional help, and I refused medications and counseling when I was hospitalized on account of terrible lies from the other lying hypocrites of your cult. You are a lowlife, scum of the earth, publiar. Crawl back in your hole, you slimy snake.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 420PM:
Passing silently over the entire subject of ‘Dan’s brain and the many issues thereto related, one comes to this core bit about what ‘Dan’ doth “hate”: “pedophiles and pederasts, especially among those claiming Godliness, from any religion” because they are – according to the ‘Dan’-verse calculations – “the ultimate hypocrisy”. Oh, and that Catholicism (“your cult”) “is full of these perverts and we’ve only touched the top of the iceburg”. (Hamburger? Iceberg? Iceburger?)
There are few among the rational who approve of pedophilic or pederastic actions, and certainly such failures and sins stand out even more among those committed to “Godliness”.
But then, ‘Dan’ seems to have chosen to build an entire shtick around that (well, that and the fact that Catholicism is a form of idol-worshipping paganism and that ‘Dan’ numbers himself not so much among the sinful and sinners of this world, but merely among those who ‘make the occasional mistake’).
You're sarcastically criticizing my spelling of "iceberg", when you can't even spell the 3 letter word "tip", and spelled it "top". Way to go, Mr. Know-It-All. What a joke!
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 420PM:
Which may suggest to the scientifically or clinically inclined mind that there might (perhaps must) be some rather extreme energizing force that propels this somewhat outré shtick of ‘Dan’s. Some initial impeller of a Big-Bang sort of dynamic that initially set the whole thing up and off.
Of course, ‘Dan’s preferred narrative is that he is simply a very speshully-informed and authorized “servant” of God and all that (and he has worked assiduously to twist the Bible to support his preferred narrative). But this option hardly exhausts the possibilities.
And we're back to the mocking and the "I'm/Not, You/Are bit" with accusing me of "twist[ing] the Bible", your favorite tactic when your number one tactic, outright lying doesn't suffice. Special and Spiritually Authorized Servant of God. Sent by the Lord to weed out all compulsive liars.
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 420PM:
There could actually be some neurological causation, physically involving ‘Dan’s “brain”.
There could by some ‘psychodynamic’ causation. Thus – basing this thought in the concept of ‘clinical projection’ – one might reverse-chain such a process, working backwards to the cause from the clear and consistent demonstrations of ‘Dan’s ‘concerns’ (to put it far too mildly).
There could be a more mundane explanation: ‘Dan’ is a fundie plant sent along here to make sure the fundie position gets some play.But I doubt this; given ‘Dan’s unerring capacity to vividly demonstrate the abyssal problems with the most classic fundie bits, I doubt even the most fringe-dwelling and cringe-inducing fundie interests would be well served by his performance(s) here.
And I assume that you're under the impression that your repetitive "performance(s)" of ignorance and stupidity is of some benefit to your church. Maybe so, if their objective is to show through your denials, deception and habitual lying, that their idolatry, their pedophile and pederast priests and bishop excusers, and their cult plagued with liars, isn't really all that bad. After all, don't forget, we're also greedy, cowards, gluttons, hypocrites and unbelievers, unless you can consider our belief and worship of our precious ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven" statues and temples. Sick, lying, disgusting works and workers of the devil. Special, Truthful and Authorized Servant of the LORD
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 420PM:
But in any case, ‘Dan’s bleat that he would “appreciate” it if commenters were not to “blame” him for his positions and performances, and thus that he would very much like his preferred narrative scripting to be accepted instead, is certainly a bridge far too far.
His “hate” and “hatred” go far beyond any rational motivation, even among those who are – and rightly so – very opposed to sexual abuse and especially such genuine Catholic clerical abuse as there has been.
And this point is only reinforced by ‘Dan’ then trying to wave-away the queasy and deranging intensity of his shtick by blaming the failures of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy and Catholics generally for getting him started in the first place. This gambit resembles far too closely a robber who blames his robbing on people who go and count their money at the ATM where he can see it.
Something is very much ‘Dan’s “problem” in all of this and he’d have to be “Braindead!” (I’d go with ‘delusionally in denial’) not to see that.
Yes, and let's not forget my disdain for the habitual liars who attempt to minimize, defend and deny the amount of sexually immoral "performances" against children done by several of your hierarchy, while claiming to be "very opposed to sexual abuse and especially such 'genuine' catholic clerical abuse as there has been." And you still think you're not the deceiving, lying, delusional, deceptive hypocrite, that you think you can accuse me of. You are such a disingenuous creep, publiar.
And you're absolutely right, "the failures of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy and Catholics generally" only have themselves to blame. That's period. And your analogy that followed can go straight to Hell with all the rest of your ignorance. Falling back on your "I'm Not/You Are bit" quite a bit lately, Mr. "Braindead!" Know Nothing of any value, other than lies and false accusations. Special Authorized Servant, sent by the Almighty to weed out Lying Hypocrites.
It goes even further. Secular society accepts and celebrates abusers as long as the tow the party line. Feminists famously covered for Bill Clinton when he was accused of rape. White House correspondent Nina Burleigh actually said "I would let him perform a sex act on me as long as he supported abortion". According to “The Atlantic” “Feminists were either silent or dismissive this time. “If anything, it sounds like she put the moves on him (Clinton),” said Susan Faludi, author of Backlash.”
They did exactly what the Church is accused of doing. Sweeping abuse under the rug for the sake of a higher goal.
Yet there will be no call to change secular feminism. There will not be an academy award winning movie about Bill Clinton's sex abuse. And while the Church reflects and changes secular society will continue to celebrate meaningless transactual sex from lofty moral high ground.
The UN, in it's report on the abuse scandal severely criticized the Church's theology on everything from sex to abortion. The Australian lead proctor of abuse cases call the Catholic moral teaching "warped". The media cried "let priests marry", "Change the church". "time for the Church to reflect on it's teachings. (Understand that the teaching of the Church absolutely forbid sexual abuse. Always have and always will.)
Were is the call for reflection now? Where is the questioning of liberal, secular sexual values? Abusers are called monsters secularists all pat themselves on the back for their moral integrity while society continues to objective, cash in on and trivialize sex.
It goes even further. Secular society accepts and celebrates abusers as long as the tow the party line. Feminists famously covered for Bill Clinton when he was accused of rape. White House correspondent Nina Burleigh actually said "I would let him perform a sex act on me as long as he supported abortion". According to “The Atlantic” “Feminists were either silent or dismissive this time. “If anything, it sounds like she put the moves on him (Clinton),” said Susan Faludi, author of Backlash.”
They did exactly what the Church is accused of doing. Sweeping abuse under the rug for the sake of a higher goal.
Yet there will be no call to change secular feminism. There will not be an academy award winning movie about Bill Clinton's sex abuse. And while the Church reflects and changes secular society will continue to celebrate meaningless transactual sex from lofty moral high ground.
I’ll go down the list as they appear on the site.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 132AM:
The first thing to note is that this time around ‘Dan’ doesn’t choose to get involved with the text of his own pericope at all. Instead, he will simply lard on more of his own eructations.
Among which is the utterly unsupported claim and assertion that his favorite sins “will never ever be forgiven, not in this world and most definitely not in the next world”. As I said, ‘Dan’ has utterly no way of knowing this for a certainty, except by means of his bathroom mirror and the needs of his own delusional system.
Nor was I making “excuses” for anything. I simply pointed out how the text of the pericope ‘Dan’ himself chose doesn’t support his assertion.
Then – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – ‘Dan’tries to burnish his own eructations with another pericope, this one rather epithetical, merely going for the idea that “the devil” and I are related. And – doncha know and doncha see? – ‘Dan’ professes himself able to easily and clearly see how (with the exception of the “murderer” bit) it so totally applies to me. Readers may judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1215AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to dispose of my explication (he prefers “longwinded dissertation” although ‘exegesis’ would be the proper term for the Scripturally-competent) of his chosen pericope, Matthew 18: 1-10.
Readers are welcome to judge for themselves if my material is “adding absolutely nothing … other than useless ‘nonsense’”. What we see here is ‘Dan’ yet again and as always trying to cover up his cartoonish lack of Biblical competence by merely trying to wave it all away with epithetical assertions.
Thus he quickly moves away from the Biblical text and again merely lards on more of his own familiar eructations.
And he also tries a familiar JR gambit: with “the simplest questions” you don’t need to be making “the longest answers”. Perhaps, but Scriptural interpretation hardly qualifies as one of the “simplest questions”. ‘Dan’s cartoon thinking may appear to be “simplest”, but any actual Scriptural understanding very often requires some level of competent examination of the text.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1215AM:
And then – had you been waitttinggggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – the key giveaway bit in ‘Dan’s performance here is that he doth “just refuse to answer” such “ignorant questions”. But ovvvvv courssssssssse.
And he riffs on familiarly along those wobbly lines for the rest of his comment.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 732PM:
In response to the McGrory claim of “irrevocable proof”: I will be putting up later today some indicators of just what sort of attitude toward “proof” was essential to the Stampede.
But I do note for the moment that McGrory’s use of “irrevocable” to describe his claimed “proof” is rather odd, especially for someone who is supposed to be rather professionally familiar with the English language. One might properly say “indisputable” or “undeniable” proof, but “irrevocable” is odd because it implies that the “proof” cannot be withdrawn or retracted – which is not quite the same thing at all and in this context makes little if any sense.
However he was already having trouble answering the interview questions coherently and perhaps his mind was going in some other direction while his voice wound up uttering “irrevocable”. Be that as it may, “irrevocable” is surely inapt here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 732PM:
‘Dan’s solution – and hardly surprisingly – is merely to rehearse the now-classic Stampede and Victimist scripting narrative about “brave victim” and coming-forward and so on.
‘Dan’ himself nicely provides the bottom line and giveaway: “to tell their shocking stories”.
Precisely. And it was the essential and necessary element of the Stampede that those “shocking stories” were not further examined but rather simply ‘reported’ as if they were established fact.
And perhaps McGrory tripped himself up because something in his mind told him that “undeniable” and “indisputable” were not accurate characterizations of his “proof”, and “irrevocable” wound up as the chosen descriptor because McGrory hoped that those stories would never actually be examined; they were ‘in the record’ now and taken as ‘facts’ that ‘everyone knows’ and he hopes that things will be left at that.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 732PM:
But I would certainly not say anything about the matter was “coincidence”. Once it was clear that the media would accept any story (and the juicier and more “shocking” the better) and that there was money and kudos to be gained from telling such a story … well, what would one expect under those circumstances? And then add in the torties and their stratagems once they realized how much money was to be made.
And this time – marvelously – ‘Dan’ chooses to burnish his bits not with Scripture but with – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – a quote from “a former policeman”. Police are not ‘Dan’s favorite people; he’s on the record here as to how police (they were Catholic) and judges (ditto) were baaaaad people because they made ‘Dan’ sit on a cold bench in a cell when they arrested him.
Anyhoo, I recall hearing that same statement just this week from police detectives on a TV documentary explaining their work on the Son of Sam case. What a coincidence that ‘Dan’ mentions the same quote … as if he had gotten it from “a former policeman”.
You wrote 3 pages of posts believing you were criticizing and tearing into me, when it was Malcolm who wrote the post on the 19th @ 7:32pm. And this was not the first time you've done that, because you've done the same thing confusing me with Jim a couple times. And you claim I'm the one who suffers from psychiatric problems. Hope you never fought in a war, because there would be several soldiers dead from friendly fire. You don't know the difference between friend or foe. Malcolm, isn't it nice to know that the deceiving imbecile you always defend just tore your stuff apart? You're a flaming stupid idiot, publiar.
And in regards to my being unable to sit on a cement bench because of ankylosing spondylitis (arthritis) that I've suffered with since childhood, you feel it's fine to criticize someone with a disease that was none of my doing. Do you also kick the crutches out from someone with a broken leg, or trip blind people or laugh at the disabled in wheelchairs, you immature creep.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1226AM:
Moving right along beyond ‘Dan’s usual exhortation to “read the Bible catholics” (sic), we find that I am referred to as a “lying idiot” for saying (the 19th at 527PM) “professional help is most surely indicated and may it work better for you than it has ever worked for him” (i.e. ‘Dan’).
‘Dan’ brays that he has “never had professional help”. He perhaps forgets that he was sent to psychiatrists by a court six times, by his own claim. That none of those six episodes did him much good is indicated not only by what we have seen here on this site but now by ‘Dan’s own – and, stunningly, proud – declaration that he “refused medication and counseling”.
As I said, professional help never “worked for him”; and he himself now reports the same point.
Is ‘Dan’ thus and by his own demonstration shown here to be a “lying idiot”? One could make a case for it; although so deeply a delusional as ‘Dan’ might get off with a version of the ‘insanity plea’, i.e. he’s so far gone in his delusions that he can’t tell truth from lies anymore anyway. Or perhaps his trademark “compulsive liar” epithet was precisely an observation made to him and about him by one of those clinicians in one or several of those six jaunts in the mental ward.
Hey Jackass, you know damn well that since I was sent to psyche wards based on the lies and slander from hypocrites like yourself, then I would be in no need of meds or counseling. As soon as I was able to speak to a doctor, I was released in every case. You are such an evil bastard to continue to rehash this, and I bet your proud of your ignorance and stupidity. You still retain the title of "lying idiot" and "compulsive liar", snake of Satan. Your day will come!
"(Understand that the teaching of the Church absolutely forbid sexual abuse. Always have and always will.)"
Hey Rob, you just may want to inform your hierarchy that their own "teaching[s] of the Church absolutely forbid sexual abuse." Apparently they're not aware of their own teachings. While you're at it you may want to inform the minimizers, deniers and excusers of the pedophiles and perverts (publiar), too. You may also inform those, like yourself, who think if they can point out everyone elses sins in the world, then the disgusting crimes of their religious leaders against innocent children won't look so bad.
What will it take for the deniers and excusers of your cult to understand that the crimes you're referring to are among adult sinners of the world, at times consenting adults. Much different and more disgusting are the crimes of pedophile priests, pederasts and sexually perverted priests, those claiming morality and holiness, against innocent powerless little boys. This is why I consider them to be sick creeps, especially those with multiple victims. How dare your church call itself the moral authority of anything or the One True Church of God. The only thing they are true to is their continuous sins and sexual immorality.
You parade yourselves as the "lofty moral high ground", while harboring and protecting some of the most disgusting sexual deviants that ever walked the earth. When trumpeting against abortion, I wonder if it's only so you can maintain a future generation of catholics that can feed your greed, or worse yet, more little boys you may groom, control and sexually abuse? There will never be "Change" until "the Church" comes truthfully clean, truely repents and quits hiding and making excuses for it's horrible sins. Don't see that happening. servant of the Truth
There you go publiar, you can correct "truly" and put (sic), just like you are.
It is a common failing in all of us that we often overlook what should be obvious and predictable. Rob, on the 20th, is quite right about the secularists and their feminist allies . But we don't give enough attention to an obvious motivator. No…. I'm not alluding to bigotry… or media sensationalism…. or activist judges, although these are significantly involved. I'm saying we don't give enough attention to the money aspect of all this. Dollars are the real driver…if the Church had no money or property this witch-hunt would never have gained momentum. To begin with a lawyer would not be interested, unless there is the prospect of a substantial payout. He, in turn, would not have been able to interest the journalists, without a driven enthusiasm. The best idea I have heard is that the Church should offer compensation in the form of councelling, rehab., ect., and not pay any lump sums at all. Observe the reaction of the lawyers when this is suggested…..you would think they had been cheated out of their prize?
Sure Malcolm, your cult's money is what everyone's after. Screw your cult's filthy money. I've had plenty of chances to sue the blatant liars of your cult, but they can take their money to Hell with them. If your hierarchy didn't rape, molest and sodomize little innocent boys, then there would be no cause for a "witch-hunt", now would there be? Stop your ignorance and nonsense, it's as disingenuous and deceptive as the publiars.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 127PM:
‘Dan’s gambit here is to harp on the failures of the Church (such as they may have been) to fully live up to its own regulations and the Commandments. I have no doubt some such violations occurred; whether the gluttonous pig-pile I term the Stampede is reliably veracious is another question altogether.
But it’s given ‘Dan’ his entrée and something to play with and that’s as may be.
The entire concept of ‘sin’ is precisely that one loses functional awareness of God’s requirements. And nothing in this world is free from sin. Except perhaps ‘Dan’, who seems to claim to be a sinner … but not really, when you get right down to it. Perhaps the committee of whatevers appearing to him in his bathroom mirror humor him so that they won’t get tossed out; or perhaps they can’t be tossed out because they are just wholly-owned figments of his tightly-focused self-justifying delusions. At this point, who knows?
And he riffs on along the usual lines for the rest of his comment.
I had no desire to respond individually to the deceitful lies and ignorance you spewed and oinked yesterday, but decided that this should be addressed. On Dec.20th @ 10:44 I mentioned "gluttons" along with the many other sins of your cult. You "oink", another term I've used to referring to your native lying tongue, "Dan's gambit here is to harp on the [true] failures of the Church … to fully live up to its own regulations and the Commandments." Your cult doesn't even live up to half of God's Commandments. And I suppose you think it's fair that your "gambit here is to harp on the" imagined "failures" you've invented against me, liar?
As if that isn't enough, you now must use the terms applied to you and your cult to question "whether the 'gluttonous pig-pile' [you] term the Stampede is reliably veracious …". I can't speak for anyone else, but the things I have said against the false church have been nothing but the truth, so help me God. There has been idolatry that has gone on for 17 centuries, many not few, pedophiles and perverts among it's hierarchy, uncontrolled greediness, deceiving liars and speaking of "gluttonous pig[s]", take a look at the gathering of your bishops. You have absolutely no right to spew your lying ignorance and garbage at others.
You claim that this gives "Dan … something to play with …". Really? I'm not sure the reason why you're here, unless it is to lie, deceive and slander others, but these horrific sins of your cult is no game to me, and nothing that I would consider as "something to play with". Why must you be such a wicked accusing bastard, Son of Satan? Will you ever stop? servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 312AM:
I put up 3 posts (not “3 pages of posts”) having mistakenly identified the post of the 19th at 732PM as ‘Dan’s. The first and third of those three discussed other things; the second post (that of the 21st at 108PM) demonstrates my oversight. Readers may consider if the material doesn’t yet fit his general approach rather accurately.
As to his medical complaint, perhaps if he didn’t go and do something that got him arrested and placed in a cell, then he wouldn’t have had to sit there so uncomfortably. The disease – presuming it exists – may not have been his doing, but he didn’t wind up in a cell because the local police simply took it upon himself to pluck him from his daily round and lock him up for no good reason.
Memo to ‘Dan’: if you’ve got such a disease then it would be prudent not go and do things that might well get you arrested and placed in an uncomfortable jail cell. On the other hand, if he had recalled any of his Catholic training, he could have just decided to ‘offer it up’, but perhaps that would be a bridge too far for ‘Dan’.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 329AM:
He once again tries to dispose of the inconvenient reality of his multiple trips to the mental unit by claiming that I “know damn well” that he was only there “based on the lies and slander from hypocrites like yourself”. He has tried to make this point before on this site and I say again: no reader here knows any such thing.
As best can be gleaned from his stories, he was locked up for being, at the least, a ranting, raving public nuisance who might very conceivably be somewhat unbalanced (and might yet prove potentially dangerous to the public) and readers may judge for themselves if from what they have seen of him here that might indeed have been the case. Six times.
And as I have said before when this point came up: it is quite possible that the psych-ward staff concluded that his case was so deeply ingrained as to be untreatable in-house and that since his actions amounted to nothing more than something on the level of ‘public nuisance’ then their efforts would more fruitfully be spent on other patients. Readers who traverse the public roads and ways will no doubt have encountered many such types whom the therapeutic facilities cannot long detain but who are by no means altogether ‘well’, as the saying goes.
If any catholics believe the evil slander, vicious lies, and cruel accusations that publiar has posted against myself on Dec. 23 @ 10:51, 10:52 and 10:53pm, then I really must say that you have been more brainwashed, deceived and hoodwinked by your hierarchy and lying cult members, than anyone could ever have imagined. This man, if he could even be considered such, has imagined a persona of myself that is totally lacking in truth. He is without any doubt, evil personified, the most wicked lying catholic demon possessed creep I've ever run across, and yet the denying pedophiles and pederasts of your church have to be worse. You'd have to be inhuman to not have compassion for the innocent children and young boys lives they've destroyed, but he doesn't care who he demeans. I was the one who volunteered the information of being victimized by lying priests, falsely accusing nuns, threatened by corrupt catholic cops and lay members of your cult. I would not even have given that information if it wasn't the truth. Publiar has spun the whole truth into a lying fantasy to fit his agenda, and that is to discredit anyone who brings to light the malfeasance of the hierarchy of "the Church". If he is what represents a good catholic person, then I'm so fortunate that I was able to remove myself from the false teachings of the cult in my youth. I suggest to any catholics or any readers, to read the Bible, and when your church makes excuses as to why they practice their own beliefs and misinterpret the Word to suit their sinful lives, run from them while the Lord God is giving you the chance. Find the Lord in your heart, and not in these manmade religions, doing the works of their father, the devil. Accusing, deceiving, and lying in order to protect their greedy, idolatrous, unbelieving, sexually immoral cult of liars. Be not deceived.
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelations 21:8
Hey Jim, I know you prefer to believe there is no Heaven or Hell, but isn't the existence of publiar on this earth proof enough for you that there may be a Hell. After all, where do you think he came from, if there is no place of evil that we call Hell? Do you think there is not an eternal home for unrepentant compulsive liars and the rest of the wicked that have walked this earth? I surely don't intend to go where they're going to end up. There's a price to be paid, other than just becoming food for flies and maggots. Food for thought?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1156PM:
As usual when confronted with material that is rather close to irrefutable, ‘Dan’ simply huffs and puffs that he hath “no desire to respond individually” (whatever that might mean). No doubt he’d like to avoid it.
But wait. There’s more.
Now he doth have such a desire … but only to discuss his post from back on the 20th at 1044PM (one which I had ignored since it was mere repetition of his usual stuff and pretty much spoke for itself).
And – I suppose it’s worth pointing out – he concluded his comment of the 20th at 1044PM by styling himself as – popcorn and drumroll, please – the “Special, Truthful and Authorized Servant of the LORD”.
Readers may consider that self-aggrandizing flourish as they may.
Well, let’s to it then and see what further bits ‘Dan’ has to say about it now.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1156PM:
Here he simply lards on more undemonstrated epitheticals, this time to claim that “your cult doesn’t even live up to half of God’s commandments”, while simultaneously trying to slide the assorted problematic elements of his own misadventures as mere “imagined failures” that I have “invented against” him.
I haven’t “invented” anything. I simply considered what he had claimed but I sidestepped his grossly self-exculpatory excuses and spin.
He then proceeds (in his second paragraph) to huff and puff about the veracity of the welter of Stampede accusations: he cawn’t “speak for anyone else” – doncha know? – but he doth assert and reassert here that every bit he has tossed up against the (“false”) Church hath been “nothing but the truth, so help me God”. Readers may make their own judgment as to the reliability of that claim.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1156PM:
And he finishes out that second paragraph of his comment here with a bunch more epitheticals against the Church, building up to the stentorian bleat that I have “absolutely no right to spew [my] lying ignorance and garbage at others” – which is surely advice the spirit of which he might well repeat into his bathroom mirror frequently.
But really, he does have the right to toss up his stuff (“garbage” might well apply to it) – just as any commenter has the right to put up any critiques or analyses that might be occasioned by his stuff.
And then he tries to bring the performance home with a self-serving self-advertisement to the effect that this is all “no game to” him. I never said it was. I have on many occasions strongly proposed that we see here a very necessary gambit playing out in ‘Dan’s stuff, whereby he can evade the unpleasant realities of his own self by a) going after other things and persons while b) claiming the oh-so-very-speshull and irrefutable authority of God to do so.
Will he ever stop? I doubt it very much, because then he’d have to face himself – which is precisely what he has sought to avoid by creating himself as the only “true” religion or mouthpiece of God and so on.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 513PM:
And what about the more recent comments I had made (the 23rd at 1051, 1052, and 1053PM) and which he avoided by going back to the 20th at 1044PM … ?
Well, it turns out that ‘Dan’ isn’t actually going to make any response … but he is going to lard on as much epithetical trash-talk as he can muster. Thus that he “really must say” … and on and on with his usual harrumphy and trash-talky epithetical dismissals.
Readers may judge for themselves if I have – to hear ‘Dan’ tell it – “imagined a persona of myself [i.e. ‘Dan’] that is totally lacking in truth”.
Thus I am “evil personified” and “a demon possessed creep” (sic) – doncha see? – and all the rest. In short and to sum up the rest of his comment, he lards on all the bogey-persons on his list who have had the unmitigated gall to notice his whackeries and take such legal action as was available to them.
As to just who has “spun” “a lying fantasy to fit his agenda” here … readers may consider as they will.