Faces of bigotry (l to r): The Boston Globe's Kevin Cullen, editor Brian McGrory, and Michael Rezendes
It was enough to prompt sheer revulsion in any decent human being. The Boston Globe treated the death of Cardinal Bernard Law less as a news story and more as a gleeful celebration and an opportunity to again bludgeon the Catholic Church.
At one point, the Globe actually trumpeted the headline, "'I hope the gates of Hell are swinging wide open'." Then the Globe's boastful Michael Rezendes seized on the occasion to pen a self-congratulatory piece about his work on Spotlight. It was all truly disgusting.
Indeed, a couple years ago, when the word first broke that Cardinal Law was in ill health, the Globe actually touted the sobering news over a photo of Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley laughing. (One subscriber happily commented, "O'Malley appears to have the same reaction I did to hearing Out-Law was in ill health!") Classy stuff. See for yourself:
Any questions? In 2015, the Boston Globe posted this photo of Cardinal Seán O'Malley laughing
under the headline that Cardinal Bernard Law was 'in ill health' (September 30, 2015)
Therefore, it was no surprise that the central focus of the Globe's reporting on Law's death was not on the man's life but on his handling of abuse cases decades ago. And, most notably, there was not a single syllable at all about how Cardinal Law relied on the advice of so-called "expert" therapists when dealing with abusive priests and determining their fitness to return them to active ministry.
This is important, because it was the Boston Globe itself who back in 1992 – a full decade before the paper's Spotlight tsunami – enthusiastically trumpeted the psychological treatment of sex offenders as "highly effective" and "dramatic." Hence it was the Globe itself who played a critical role in fostering the conditions for the scandal.
Front page of the Boston Globe: June 18, 1992
In a front-page article on June 18, 1992, the Globe blared:
"A new generation of treatment programs for sex offenders is proving highly effective, dramatically reducing the percentage of cases in which offenders repeat sex crimes, research shows.
"Recidivism rates declined from 9 percent for untreated offenders to 5 percent for those who underwent the new treatment in one study, and from 38 percent to 6 percent in another.
"While there is no complete 'cure' for sex offenders, the new findings indicate that many of them can learn to manage their aberrant sexual impulses without committing new crimes. The promising new treatments focus on helping these offenders control the complex cauldron of social inadequacies, distorted thinking, and deviant sex fantasies that prompt them to rape women, molest children or exhibit themselves in public."
By this very article the Globe confirms that the Church's then-practice of sending abusive priests off to treatment was not just some diabolical attempt to deflect responsibility and cover-up wrongdoing, but a genuine attempt to treat aberrant priests that was being widely promoted by secular experts in the field.
The Boston Globe : June 19, 1992
And the very next day in 1992, the Globe also published another article seemingly endorsing the manner in which the Catholic Church handled abusive priests:
"[Those who treat sex offenders] and other specialists said many offenders can be returned to active ministry so long as the clergy and their supervisors accept lifelong restrictions and follow-up care."
The Globe went on to say that "society will suffer" if offenders are not afforded therapeutic treatment, as such measures are "cost-effective" and successful.
Boston Globe editorial: June 26, 1992
Indeed, with regards to Cardinal Law's handling of abuse cases, an eye-opening 1989 letter to the Archdiocese of Boston (< < < must-read!) from an expert psychiatrist insisted that it was "both reasonable and therapeutic" and "clinically quite safe" for John Geoghan – one of the Church's most notorious molesters – "to be reassigned back to his parish" after undergoing extensive therapy, even though he had a voluminous record of criminal abuse.
It is unbelievable. The Globe promoted psychological treatment for sex offenders in 1992 – including the Church's own treatment programs for offending priests – and by 2002 the Globe acted in mock horror and scolded the Church for doing in 1992 exactly what the Globe itself said it should be doing. And the dishonesty continues today.
Indeed, the hypocrisy and corruption of the Boston Globe's reporting on the Catholic Church never cease to astound.
SEE ALSO:
• Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com);
• 'Spotlight' EXPOSED: The review that Hollywood and the Boston Globe do not want you to see.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 231PM:
Here he slyly and deceptively tries to start the play not with an at-bat but on second base: he presumes that his recent “prophecy” is “true prophecy from the Almighty” and is nothing less than “the Lord’s Word” (and he calls others “pompous” – go figure).
Then – lubricated by some epithet – ‘Dan’ doth declare that God [“he”, small ‘h’ to ‘Dan’] “has judged …” and so on. And ‘Dan’ just doth ‘know’ this … how? Again, ‘Dan’ proves his assertions by pointing to his own “prophecy”, in a fine little demonstration of a circular shell-game that goes nowhere.
“You can bet on it” he brays, bringing this silly performance to a conclusion with a thick larding of self-awarded (not to say “pompous”) titles.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 148PM:
Here – apparently having been rooting around like a hog after truffles in some fetid lowland of the Web – ‘Dan’ tosses up something about “how many … catholic children became homosexuals” because they were … and so on and so forth.
Notice that ‘Dan’ doesn’t actually explicate the theory inherent in his bit; rather, he merely insinuates and – much like JR – hopes the reader will do his dirty work and heavy conceptual lifting for him.
This is mere plop-tossing and the question as to the origin of homosexuality (psychodynamic, genetic, neuro-chemical, pure choice, external influences, or some combination of several or all of the above) remains as it was before ‘Dan’ went rooting for his truffles.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1051PM:
Here – donning the Wig of Chatty Cathy – ‘Dan’ cheeribly gossips that “you know … [he , ‘Dan’, doth] have no personal problems”. Nooooooooooooooo, not a one. It’s all “lies”, doncha know? It’s all “lies” invented by your false church of lying hypocrites” and all those “stupid accusations” … is all it is, really.
‘Dan’ himself, of course, has looked in his bathroom mirror and pronounces himself (or Himself) as sound as a dollar, or a Biblical shekel, doncha see? Ovvvvvvvv courssssssssssssse, as the practiced practitioner might say, making notations on the diagnostic pad.
But wait. There’s more.
Not only is ‘Dan’ as sound as the proverbial shekel but he is also the Truthy, Heroic, Learned and Oh-so-speshull “servant of Truth” who’s gonna keep up his … shtick with bray, bleat, harrumph, insinuation, denunciation, and presumption.
And again from the marvelous Miss Marple: that must console him.
But – the Wig suddenly falling askew in all that vigorous head-bobbing and with the stage lights still up – the real ‘Dan’ is suddenly revealed in that nicely revelatory “P.S.”.
There's not much of any content to respond to today, but I believe it's time for a case study of your mentality, p-brain. You go off on these odd tangents of fantasy, immature childish comments, then to cartoons or Alice in Wonderland Mad Hatter stupidity, while accusing others of having serious mental issues. As if that's not enough, you add this strange gay lisp (i.e. cawn't, Oh-so-speshull, nooooooo, ovvvvcoursssssse, etc.), thinking you're somehow being cute or that this is some display of intelligence. You would think you'd be satisfied with the ignorance and nonsense you've displayed, but then feel you need to show your effeminate side, quoting the fictional "Miss Marple" or accusing others of donning Wigs and now the "Wig of Chatty Cathy". "Methinks" you are much queer, if not actually a lying deceiving pedophile or pederast. This would most definitely explain your defense, denials and excuses for all the perverts of your false cult of lying hypocrites. And as if all this isn't enough, you mock God and His Holy Spirit, twist and misinterpret His precious word, and mock and slander His faithful, and you have the audacity to question anyone's mentality? Take a good look at yourself to find you have some obviously serious mental issues, of not the least being an unrepentant compulsive liar and Accuser. Satan must be so proud of the garbage you spew, you fork-tongued snake. servant of the Almighty
And lest we forget, your stuffing your gluttoness face with popcorn stupidity, though somehow your ignorant humor impresses some of the catholic cronies of your fan club.
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
So you admit that you blame all of your personal problems on Roman Catholics?
As I said: time to grow up I think.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Don't be such a jackass, Dick. Have you ever been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times, all based on lies and liars. Walk in my shoes and then come and tell me how you would think about those accusers. Think it's way past time for you to grow up and stop acting like the publiar. One lyin' accuser in this forum is enough. All of you put together put an awful bad light on your supposedly one true church. One true church of lying accusing hypocrites. Like I said, you idiots keep making me defend myself. I'm so sick of your cult of liars, it's the perfect combination for your cult of idolatrous pedophiles and perverts. servant
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
So you blame having: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" on Roman Catholics?
Again, as I said. time to grow up I think.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
You're going to continue blaming me, but have nothing to say in regards to the lying false accusers of your cult. You lying and accusing catholic creeps are an ultimate joke. Do you understand that it verifies that members of your cult fit every disgusting form of sinners that the Lord God says He will send into Hell's Fire? This is of no concern to you, Dick?
"But the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8
"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood [liars]." Rev. 22:15
If I was lying and falsely claiming that I was wrongly accused, then I would be the guilty one facing God's wrath. That would concern me deeply and I would want to do anything to change where I stood with the Lord. Catholics seem to think differently, even to the point of molesting and sodomizing little boys, followed with lying and denying these crimes, and as long as there isn't substantial proof, then they can continue in their sin. You haven't heard, "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Luke 12:7 I would spend some of your time correcting and waking up your church, rather than attacking those who have already been slandered by the cult. Goddess bless, Dick.
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men." 1 Cor 6:9
News to all catholics, especially you Dick. With God there's no past history unless there's change, no Statute of Limitations and no death that gets you off the hook. If God says "men who have sex with men" "will not inherit the kingdom of God", how do you think he feels about men who molest, rape and sodomize little boys? They will not have a chance in Hell. Stop your stupidity and thinking that this is nothing new and the church has really made serious changes in protecting children. They still protect and hide perverts, and try to keep them from the authorities. Nothing has changed and the perversions continue. Be ye not deceived.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241PM:
Here, in an effort to sidestep the circularity of trying to ‘prove’ the divine source of his stuff by inventing his own prophecy also from the same (alleged) divine source, ‘Dan’ is reduced to merely bleating – yet again – that “just because” his (self-serving and self-aggrandizing) claims of divine authority aren’t believed … doesn’t mean that his claims do not actually possess such alleged divine authority.
To which he immediately lards-on yet another of his assertion: that God “has judged .. [to be] guilty as charged”. And thus we have – as so very often – ‘Dan’ using God as a ventriloquist’s dummy to mouth ‘Dan’s preferred fever-vision claims and assertions and accusations.
In support of which he merely and repetitively appends that pericope that has already been demonstrated to be inapplicable to ‘Dan’s plop-tossy agenda here.
Perhaps one might propose that ‘Dan’ is several sandwiches short of an honest picnic “whether [his] doubting deceiving mind accepts it or not!”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:
Here we get a fine demonstration of ‘Dan’s sly deceptiveness and manipulation:
Quickly evading all the material on the table, he first sighs that “there’s not much of any content to respond to today”. Thus the Wig of Honest But Baffled Competence.
Having – to his own satisfaction anyway – thus absolved himself of any need to deal with the myriad problems with his stuff, he immediately buckles down to his second movement: trying to change the subject to “a case study of [my] mentality”.
For this purpose ‘Dan’ professes himself unable to see anything in my material except “these odd tangents, immature childish comments, then to cartoons …” and so on. This is merely epithetical rant costumed in the rhetorical style of sober and competent psychological analysis. But if ‘Dan’ is so reliant on costuming himself in the raiment of divine inspiration, it’s surely no big leap to pretend to psychological chops.
Anyway, by now he’s been on the wrong side of the clinical desk enough times to pick up sufficient strands of psychological style to fashion himself a Wig and put his mimicry into a performance here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:
He also reports himself as having found “this strange gay lisp” … although his examples don’t support that: “cawn’t” is from old upper-class Colonel-Blimp diction; “oh-so-speshull” recalls the ‘isn’t that speshull?’ bit from – if memory serves – shows like the old ‘Laugh-In’; “ovvvv coursssse” (with as many ‘v’s and ‘s’s as you might care to add) is a polite throw-away line generally used to let some whopper of a statement go by without starting a kerfuffle over it.
But ‘Dan’ is – he says – a denizen of San Francisco so perhaps lots of things seem “gay” to him. Readers may consider it all as they will.
Then he quickly moves on to epitheticals, which is much more his native mode of discourse.
And while Dame Margaret Rutherford might perhaps be imagined to be twice the man ‘Dan’ is, it’s not her gender but the rapier-like au-point quality of her insight and the deftness of its subtlety that is relevant here.
So that would make Dame Margaret Rutherford four times the man you are, weirdo.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:
But then ‘Dan’ gets down to his actual game-plan for this comment of his: he thinks I am “much queer”.
But wait. There’s more.
He not only thinks that I be “much queer” but also that I might also be “a lying deceiving pedophile or pederast”.
Because – doncha see? – “that would most definitely explain” what amounts to my taking the air out of his many dubiously-inflated balloons here.
The unstated presumption by ‘Dan’ here: if you don’t go along with his stuff, then you too must be … and so on. Readers may recall this gambit from old witch-trial tactics: if you don’t think X is a witch … why then you must be a witch yourself. That sort of thing.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:
And with all that ‘rationality’ now shakily built up on the table, ‘Dan’ can let himself flow along his more preferred course, i.e. bleating about how I “mock God” and “twist and misinterpret His precious word [small ‘w’] and “mock and slander His faithful” (that would be ‘Dan’, in case you didn’t notice).
And and and (spotlight, please, and orchestra blatting a conclusive crescendo here): how – on that (alleged) basis – do I “have the audacity to question anyone’s mentality”?
Readers may judge this performance of ‘Dan’s as they will.
Then he tries to bring it all home with a variant of his old I’m Not/You Are evasion: it’s not he but I that has “some obviously serious mental issues”. Ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv coursssssssssssssssssssssssssssse. And trying this gambit must console him.
So publiar begins his ignorance and nonsense stating, " 'Dan' using God as a ventriloquist's dummy to mouth 'Dan's preferred fever-vision claims and assertions and accusations. So God has now in publiars eyes become a "ventriloquist's dummy", demonstrating who the real dummy is mocking God, His Word and His Truth. Why not ask the catholic indoctrinated and brainwashed fan club of publiar, if they think this is mocking of "God". Scratch that, lets not!
And my examples of his childish immaturity and ignorance wasn't enough to demonstrate his "obvious serious mental issues", so he adds to his stupidity by further lenghthening one of his favorite responses, "Ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvcoursssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssse". Showing absolute proof that publiar is mentally sound?!? "Ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvcourssssssssssssssssssssssssssssse" he is, and readers may judge as they will. And this ignorance "must console him".
Quotation marks after "accusations", before the publiar perverted police grammar squad comes after me.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1058PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to run his now-familiar (alleged) sob-story by commenter ‘Richard W Comerford’ (although – marvelously – he just cawn’t help himself and while trying to spin a story to engage RWC sympathies poor ‘Dan’ just has to toss up an epithet against RWC too).
But – of course – for the story to induce the desired ‘sob’ one first must presume that ‘Dan’s rather extensive legal and psychiatric misadventures are “all based on lies and liars”. Absent that prior presumption, ‘Dan’s assorted misadventures might simply lead readers to think that a number of persons who have encountered ‘Dan’ personally have drawn conclusions that readers here must base upon his assorted postings.
To which he appends a further bleat that it is only because of “you idiots” (i.e. commenters on this site) that he has somehow gone and revealed his many gambits and interior dynamics; we “keep making him defend” himself – doncha see? – and it’s only because of that that he has wound up making claims and statements that induce more-than-the-occasional cringe. He’s – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – a ‘victim’, doncha see?
Nothing much to see in ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1042PM, except that he does – unwittingly, no doubt – provide a nifty example of how his rationality must take a back seat to his agenda:
Having quoted me accurately enough in his first sentence to the effect that I noted how ‘Dan’ is using God as a ventriloquist’s dummy, ‘Dan’ then in his second sentence – seeking to somehow twist that thought to fit his own agenda – declares that it’s clear that ‘in my eyes’ God “has … become a ‘ventriloquist’s dummy’” (italics mine).
Not quite at all. God has not – as ‘Dan’ so slyly and manipulatively put it – merely “become” a ventriloquist’s dummy. Rather, in my eyes ‘Dan’ has made God into his own personal ventriloquist’s dummy. Thus my point is not a) that God is a ventriloquist’s dummy but rather b) that ‘Dan’ has reduced God to being ‘Dan’s very own ventriloquist’s dummy. That’s how ‘Dan’ works.
So I am not at all “mocking God”; I am pointing out how ‘Dan’ reduces God to suit ‘Dan’s own purposes and agenda. Thus, even God has to be manipulated so that ‘Dan’ can shoehorn Him into ‘Dan’s overriding shtick.
And he tries to bring the performance home with an extended I’m Not/You Are bit, as so very often.
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Well, it does appear that you are blaming having: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" on Roman Catholics.
Definitely time to grow up.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I place blame where blame belongs. Lying catholic accusers were responsible for the lies, slander and false accusations in 9 of those incidences. Assemblies of god were responsible for the other 3. So much for you imbeciles thinking I'm some protestant. Maybe you should grow up Dick and stop parroting your same response. Goddess bless, idolater!
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
So now you are blaming having: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" both on Roman Catholics and Protestants?
Again, definitely time to grow up.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Dick, it would "definitely" be nice if you could tell the liars of your cult that it's "time to grow up". These were catholic priests, nuns, cops and several thugs we're talking about here. I learned in my youth that it wasn't right to habitually lie, threaten or bully others. These deceiving creeps and punks have yet to learn lessons in their old age, that most children conquer in childhood. It's absolutely disgusting that catholic hierarchy can claim to be the moral authority and the one true church, when plagued with such liars, slanderers and thugs. For you to defend liars and point your finger at me, shows the kind of man you are.
This is for all you catholic idolizers of your Mother Mary, "Queen of Heaven", who have been indoctrinated by the habitual liars of your cult. I had the opportunity of checking out the comedy act of pomp and circumstance of the Holy Father (more idolatry) down in Peru and Chile. I'm quoting pope Francis at his dog and pony show:
"This is the land under the protection of the Madre de Dios, Mother of God." Not under the protection of God or even Jesus, but under the protection of Mary, the dead human waiting for her Judgment Day. He then incenses the altar and then proceeds to incense the idol of Mary, bowing to her and afterwards crowning her with a gold crown, idolatry described in Baruch 6:9, Isaiah 44 and Jeremiah chapter 7 and 44. He ends the ceremony praying only the Hail Mary, no prayer to the Father as Jesus taught, and then is given a large bunch of white roses that he places at the foot of his idol statue of Mary and bowing to her on his way out.
How can you indoctrinated and brainwashed catholics listen to the liars of your idol-worshipping cult claim that they don't worship Mary. How can you stand the utter ignorance and stupidity that they cram down your throats. servant of the Almighty God and Only Father
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
You annonymously purport that you have: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" based on the testmony of Roman Catholics and Protestants. You also annonymously attack Catholics for their religious beliefs. These are the actions of a coward and a bigot – not a follower of Jesus Christ.
Kindly reflect.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1044PM:
Here he is rather laboriously working to get some mileage out of a recent comment of the Pope’s to the effect that the South American country which he was visiting is “under the protection of the Madre de Dios, Mother of God”.
In the days of the Raj, India was locally governed by a British Viceroy; but that in no way could-be or ever was taken to mean or to imply that India was not ultimately governed by the Crown and Parliament in London (as exemplified so vividly in the Delhi Durbars of 1877, 1903, and 1911).
Many British regiments had this or that member of the Royal Family as its Colonel-in-Chief or Honorary Colonel. But nobody ever tried to conclude from this that either a) such a regiment was not ultimately under the command of the Crown and Parliament or b) that such a regiment would be in open denial of the Crown or Parliament.
I see where you're going with these analogies, and maybe for once I agree with you. The catholic church is governed and lives under the "Crown", problem is it's the "Crown" they placed on the head of their false goddess, Mary "Queen of Heaven". The same one they burn incense to, shower with roses and carry on their shoulders in their pomp and circumstance, worthless processions. Idolatry in full display, and no worries, we'll just lie as we always do and claim that we don't worship her. We just honor, adore, venerate and revere her. Time for you catholics to get yourselves a dictionary. This is WORSHIP! servant of the Lord and Savior
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 603PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ tries – yet again – the old I’m Not/You Are bit: ya see, it’s “the liars of your cult” that really need to be told “that it’s ‘time to grow up’”. ‘Dan’ doesn’t need that advice – doncha see? – because he participates in the maturity of God, and rather infallibly perhaps.
Meanwhile, ‘Dan’ again tries to paint himself as a ‘victim’ in all of this, since in his “youth” he saw (or was the victim of) those (Catholics, but of course) who “habitually lie, threaten or bully others”. If ‘Dan’ saw this in his youth, and not simply in mid-life when something snapped in his vision, then one must wonder just what it was that he now claims qualified as ‘habitual lying, threatening and bullying others’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 603PM:
But wait. There’s more.
Referring to some others with an epithet (“deceiving creeps and punks”) that might well be as applicable or even more applicable in the recoil as in the projectile, ‘Dan’ honks about them having “yet to learn lessons in their old age, that most children conquer in adulthood”.
The method in the madness here is that ‘Dan’ poses himself as being one of those who have indeed learned such “lessons”. Readers may consider as they will.
The whole bit here – and it can come as no surprise – is aimed at ‘Dan’s evading the fingers pointed at him (on the basis, I would say, of his material); his preferred script would have everyone pointing fingers at – oh, say. for example – the Church.
Because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ isn’t a liar or a slanderer or a thug whereas Catholics (and anyone who doth “point your finger at” ‘Dan’) really – ‘Dan’ bleats – “shows the kind of man you are”. And ‘Dan’s material doesn’t show the kind of man he is … ? No, ‘Dan’ simply cawn’t see how that might be.
The quote of mine that publiar wishes to twist and manipulate to suit his agenda, just by substituting "adulthood" for childhood was originally – "These deceiving creeps and punks have yet to learn lessons in their old age, that most children conquer in childhood." I'm saying these disgusting liars and bullies should have grown out of their sins of immaturity in their youth. No, but these "catholic priests, nuns, cops and several thugs", ranging in ages of thirty to seventy years old, haven't overcome sins that you hear from grammar school kids. After taking me to court, still not satisfied, they would try to pile on more lies against me. Good try, consistent liar, but these incidents happening in the last ten years, were not experiences of my youth. It's sheds light on the fact that the church denied, lied, hid and protected pedophiles and perverts, because apparently they believe their lies will always prevail. Bunch of lying hypocrites, who still have other catholics in this forum to add to the lies, slander and deceit. Obviously, there is no need to mention any names, publiar.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1132PM (which appears on the site before his of the 24th at 1106PM):
Here ‘Dan’ slyly tries a different tack: he doth “see where [I am] going with these analogies”. How nice.
But wait. There’s more.
When you get right down to it, ‘Dan’ is simply trying to salvage his Mary-as-divine bit. Thus he considers “the Crown” in my analogy to refer to Mary. But it won’t work; if God chose to crown Mary as a “Queen”, she remains not only human but subordinate to the Kingship of God (or Jesus, depending on how one might want to structure God and Christ into this imagery).
The actual and historical Queen Victoria was Queen-Empress and Sovereign in her own right; Mary would be Queen only by being raised to that status by God, by virtue of her maternal relationship to Christ; and one might further say she is more aptly termed (in British regal-ology) Mother of the Sovereign (i.e. Christ) or Queen-Mother (much the same way as the present Queen Elizabeth’s late mother held such a title).
And he riffs along on the basis of his misuse of the historical analogy and the actuality underlying it. Time for ‘Dan’ to learn something about history before he goes on and on trying to shoehorn actuality into his agenda.
And there should be no reason not to accept the explanation and excuses of publiar, a compulsive liar, mocker and accuser of the brethren, an idolater, who is able to explain why the idolatrous catholic church is never guilty of idol-worship, of their treasure trove of Mary statues, bowing and babbling their rosary prayers to their "Queen of Heaven". Unbelievable!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1106PM:
Here – and yet again – we see ‘Dan’ trying to somehow salvage part of his cartoon. This time, he has to presume that his bugbears “should have grown out of their sins of immaturity in their youth” (like ‘Dan’ has ‘matured’ … ?).
But ‘sin’ is not something one ‘grows out of’ as one gets older by some normal operation of ‘growing up’. Rather, sin is endemic to humans, and surely adulthood (physically and even psychologically and – if you wish – ‘maturationally’) does not preclude sin. In that sense, all humans remain – theologically speaking – ‘immature’ (‘Dan’ – surely – included).
What we see here is a variant of the age-old fundie problem: how to claim for oneself a moral high-ground on the basis of which one’s own personal immaturity (or whackery) is merely an incidental trifle, whereas the failings one has selected in one’s targeted group constitute nothing less than (horrible and unforgivable) sin … ? How to pull that off?
It is on this abyssal, molten and queasy basis that fundie (and ‘Dan’-verse) rants of righteous denunciation of others is built.
Your ignorance and anti-Biblical knowledge of sin and forgiveness, keeps getting worse by the minute. You have no clue of Christ's forgiveness and wish to ignore obvious Biblical Truth. Making it simple for the simple minded, Christ died for our sins. We turn to Him, sorry for the horrible mistakes we've made in life and we are cleansed by His precious sacrifice. We make an honest effort to turn from our sins and work on changing our lives and our lifestyle.
Apparently both you and your church, being obvious worshippers of the wrong god (or in your case goddess), have absolutely no clue how we become saved. You are content and happy in your greed, idolatry, sins, pedophilia and pederasty, denials, deceptions and outright lying, so you refuse the gift from God and there can be no forgiveness, because apparently you think you've outsmarted the Creator. You believe you can dupe the world into believing that your cult is the moral authority on earth, while it harbors some of the most destructive evil people, men who have destroyed the lives of countless innocent young children, followed by liars and deceivers who think they can cover up their guilt and sin through denials. Oh Yes! When God says, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.", the unrepentant sinners and liars of your cult will come to know the full gist of that statement. I'm not condemning you, but you better believe he will. Judgment will be just, swift and final. Praise be to God, the only God!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1106PM:
Having thus headed off the road and into the underbrush, ‘Dan’ guns the engine and continues riffing – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr itttttt? – by once again waving ‘the bloody shirt’ in his self-serving bleats about those who called the police, leading to ‘Dan’s numerous legal and psychiatric misadventures.
And he tries to bring this performance home by slyly wrapping-together a) the “lies” told about him by those who thought it necessary to call the police so many times (and the courts that thought it necessary to send him for psychiatric observation so many times) and b) the way the Church handled “pedophiles and perverts” (which is ‘Dan’s dog-whistle phrase to summon up his assorted fever-visions).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1106PM:
But if the actions of all those various people (citizens, police, judges) “sheds light” on ‘Dan’s case (which, I would say, was handled rightly although the psychiatric staffs didn’t see it worthwhile to try to keep him and rehabilitate him out of his delusions), then the Church’s approach to such genuinely damaged priests as there were might also retain a basis of legitimacy (especially since in the vast majority of allegations we don’t actually know anything but the ‘stories’ and allegations that found their home in the Stampede settlement-cases).
‘Dan’s bit here requires that we presume – as he very much wants us to – that his preferred narrative of his own misadventures is true and veracious and accurate (i.e. innocent ‘Dan’ was sorely and unjustly bethumped by the forces of society and law).
But do not so very many criminals and mentally-compromised persons prefer to see themselves as unjustly bethumped by society and law? It’s an understandable human defensive reaction, but that doesn’t make it true and veracious and accurate.
Your stupidity reaches new heights. Had not the liars of your cult slandered and falsely accused me, there would have never been cops, judges, the court system or psychiatric doctors or staff ever involved. What does it take to get that through your thick skull? Do all compulsive liars think that everyone else is a compulsive liar. I hate the lie. My God and Father hates lies and liars. John 8:44