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.
Well eventually the Globe is going to have to move on and do something else…
The Globe seems to be setting new levels for blatant hypocrisy. But, in a wider general sense, am beginning to suspect that strange things happen to people…. when the subject is the Catholic Church. Observe how intelligent, and usually articulate people, suddently become seemingly irrational. A good example of this phenomenon came from the New York Times, about two years ago. A senior journalist said… "we have been at war with the Catholic Church" Well… somebody should have invited that lady to visit a veteran's hospital. Where she could have asked the wounded about the religion of their enemies. None would have said the bullets and bombs came from Catholics. Another religion would have been mentioned… not Catholics. And some of the wounded veterans in the hospitals are actually Catholics. So how could any intelligent person have said what she said.? My only explanation is this…. bigotry….it does strange things to people.
And you Malcolm, publiar and all the rest of the liars and excusers of your cult, should be able to spot "blatant hypocrisy", since your church has shown such a fine example of "hypocrisy" for centuries. When it comes to the Catholic Abuse Matters against innocent children, they have become the prime example of hypocrisy, lies, denials and deception. You would think you guys would be hesitant to point your fingers at anyone else, but we know that's what hypocrites are best at. servant
Are you kidding me, "the Boston Globe forgot to mention it's role in creating the Scandal"?
Let's get this straight! The Catholic Church totally created the scandal. "The Church" is entirely 100% responsible. The Boston Globe only exposed "the Church", "the Scandal" and it's secret wickedness.
Did the Globe rape, sodomize or molest little children and minors? Was the Globe plagued with pedophiles, pederasts, perverts and their excusers, and did they destroy the lives of little ones and their families? Your church's hierarchy committed these crimes against innocence. To attempt to place blame on anyone besides yourselves and those in your cult, who have turned a blind eye to the disgusting works of the devil infiltrating "the Church", is disingenuous at best.
Why does it always have to be someone elses fault (the media, witch-hunt, bigots, haters, psychiatrists, etc.)? As long as "the Church" is unwilling to take responsibility for its malfeasance, nothing will ever change. From what's displayed so far, there seems to be no chance for repentance, change or forgiveness. All there is is excuses, lies, coverups, SOLs, death and secrecy. RIP catholic church, your days are numbered and your destruction is on its way.
Indeed, there have been some terrible things written about Bernard Law since he passed but I don't think people would like it if those same things were said about Barbara Blaine, and yet after what she did to Fr. Jaing, they would apply just as much to her.
Mr. Dan:
The Boston Globe has indeed had its own sex scandals and is undergoing yet another one now. The Boston Globe published "puff peices" on some of the worst offenders before it decided to take Cardinal Law down. The Boston Globe also ignored and surpressed pleas from help from the victims and teh families of victimes.
The Boston Globe only went after Cardinal Law when Senator Edward Keenedy (RIP) was running (again) for re-election and Cardinal Law dared to publicly correct the Senatpr on thteChurch's teaching regarding womrn priests.
Nothing, of course, could stand in the way of the Senator's re-election. Prior to that the Boston Globe had sat on this story for decades as long as the Boston Catholic Church acted as an extention of teh Kennedy political machine.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Mr. Dick says, "Be careful who you worship." If only catholics would pay special attention to this statement. If you claim you adore, venerate, honor and revere any gods or goddesses, other than the Almighty God and His Son, you have committed the horrible sin of idolatry. Now there is a lamebrained commenter, who thinks that to call Christ's mother, "Queen of Heaven", to bow down and pray in repetition (unbiblical) Hail Mary's until you want to vomit, is not worship because Mary is not a goddess. When catholics perform these forms of worship and then deny their worship, all they have done is add lies to their slew of lies. She was not sinless, for only Christ and God are sinless. Was not the Immaculate Conception. Was not Assumed into Heaven. She is not Christ, and for "the Church" to make these horrific claims is deceiving and Satanic, just as he wanted to be equal to God, you're attempting to make Mary equal to Christ. WORSHIP! If this was the only problem with the cult, this would be enough, but it has added greediness, sexual immorality with children and little boys, unbelief, murder, and a slew of deniers and liars to it's so-called religion. You might want to "be careful who you worship."!!
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
WIth you this is not a matter of the abuse of innocents or predatory priests or corrupt bishops, is it?
You hate Roman Catholics. You are an anti-Catholic bigot. You are exploiting a tragedy in order to satisfy your narrow minded ways.
And in doing so you do not worship Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; but yourself.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Dick, My immediate family, nine of them, all catholics. My closest and best friends, all catholics. People in my neighborhood that I have no problem with, catholics. Even at the churches where priests and cops slandered and falsely accused me, I made some catholic friends. When I became a Christian, I didn't throw away my friends or family and start hanging with religious hypocrites. In fact, I actually drew closer to the catholics in my circle. So, apparently you're wrong about my "hate" of "Roman Catholics".
Dick claims, "You are an anti-Catholic bigot. You are exploiting a tragedy in order to satisfy your narrow minded ways." First off, Dick, I said nothing against Cardinal Law's death, but will leave judgment and justice unto my God. I'm "narrow minded"? If you think that means I have to agree and accept religions teaching a false gospel of idolatry, whose hierarchy molests and rapes little boys, and is plagued with liars, deniers and excusers, who think they can minimize and deceive the world into believing that they are the One True Church of God, then that is ridiculous. So that would make you a hater of God, His Holy Word and His Son and label you an anti-Christian bigot. Can kind of backfire on you, eh Dick? Be careful who you worship!
"I do not sit with the deceitful, nor do I associate with hypocrites. I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked." Psalm 26:4-5
Dick, are you going to tell me that David was a "hater" and "anti-Catholic bigot", when he had no idea of the hypocritical wicked religion called Catholicism that would manifest itself in the future. No Christian would associate themselves with nasty lying hypocrites and deceivers. That is in the Word.
The Globe took a rational approach in the 1990s: if an institution has some problematic members then it needs to take some action / there is action available that can be taken / let the action be taken. And in the article cited from June 26, 1992 the Globe clearly approaches the subject from the then-regnant ‘therapeutic paradigm’ (which in many cases is still the go-to paradigm for assorted social ills and derangements today … but not in regard to the Church).
I would say that what changed at the Globe had much to do with the arrival of a new editor in 2000 or 2001 – who, we recall, saw himself as something of ‘a new sheriff in town’ and needed to make a splash.
With the dominant local paper thus eagerly and willingly re-positioned, the local torties’ (strong Democratic political contributors) ever-sensitive antennae sensed glowing opportunities that had not previously existed.
Ditto, the assorted political and cultural interests that accrete around a large, urban, Democratic and university-dense enclave realized that the change at the Globe opened up heady possibilities, especially in the direction of an ever-intensifying secularity and Political Correctness and all the political and cultural sequelae involved.
The late Cardinal Law – it seems to me – was a politically-active prelate in his Boston years; that is to say: he did not merely allow himself to occasionally be in the news by virtue of his office (as was the case with his predecessors Cushing and Medeiros) but rather he involved himself with some relish and notable competence in the role of a political and cultural major-player. And under the rubric of ‘ecumenism’ he could reach out in a number of ways beyond the traditional Catholic prelate of an earlier era.
And with the second Bush having replaced Clinton and with post-9/11 concerns guaranteed to give foreign policy and international politics a distinctively activist and military (and thus Republican) tinge, then an issue that might focus ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ concerns and perhaps take down one of secular-liberalism’s biggest obstructers (i.e. the Catholic Church – and perhaps by extension all organized religion) … would seem to be a hugely valuable (and remunerative) undertaking for all concerned, especially for the ‘new sheriff in town’ who orchestrated the front office for the whole thing … which, as we know, was precisely the cultural and professional kudos that the new editor was seeking.
Thus we find the Stampede beginning in January of 2002.
The poster-child was the late Geohagen, nephew of an influential ranking priest in that Archdiocese and who had always demonstrated a lack of maturational suitability for the vocation noted even by his seminary teachers but who was allowed to be ordained in a regrettable but hardly rare example of institutional politics (i.e. his aforementioned uncle).
If memory serves, Geohagen, by then in his 50s or 60s, was raised into the glaring public light by the Globe for, among other things, the dodgy habit of swimming with parish children in public pools and occasionally lifting the children out of the water. There were some questions as to how a child with swim trunks on could be finger-raped during that process and within sight of so many witnesses, but such concerns were considered mere quibbles that didn’t justify obstructing the larger purposes of his hugely public prosecution.
The presiding judge sentenced Geohagen to the maximum possible prison term because – as I distinctly recall her being quoted in her sentencing remarks – she ‘just knew’ he had done more.
He was later killed in prison by another solitary-confinement prisoner who not only managed one night to leave his own (oddly) unlocked cell but also managed to enter Geohagen’s (weirdly) simultaneously unlocked cell. The prisoner – in a bleat that should not be unfamiliar to current readers of this site – then claimed that while he might have been a lot of things, at least he wasn’t a child-molester and so on.
A second priest, Shanley, who had been lionized in an earlier era for his street ministry to abandoned or homeless gay teens, was given similar press and judicial treatment, especially when he was granted a re-trial or higher-court reconsideration (if memory serves) and the prosecution was reduced to concluding its case by urging that to find in his favor would ‘send the wrong message’, regardless of such problems in the case as the re-trial demonstrated. (A similar final decision was decreed in the case of the last remaining incarcerated (and male) Fells Acres Day-School teacher – the Massachusetts version of the California Satanic Ritual Child Day-Care Abuse cases.)
And by that point the local torties had perfected their ‘machine’ strategy, i.e. bringing numerous lawsuits and presenting the Church and the insurers with the predictable dilemma of either a) spending large amounts to defend against each accusation (in an era of inflamed public opinion) or else b) settle cases without trial.
I have never agreed with Cardinal Law’s decision to depart Boston. For that matter, I always thought of him as personally being more of a political-cultural than a specifically religious figure.
But he was a shrewd judge of things political and perhaps he realized that in the face of a Globe-bruited Stampede he would not only a) fail to turn back the tide but rather b) would simply provide the biggest trophy imaginable, with his head to be mounted on the Globe’s trophy wall. (The Aussies tried to run the same play just last summer, as did the Irish a few years ago and the Dutch a few years before that.)
Perhaps the then-aging John Paul II – himself no stranger to orchestrated Stampede campaigns, having lived through and under both Nazi and Soviet regimes where this sort of thing was part of their standard Playbook – saw things in the USA and Boston through that lens rather than through the Globe-preferred narrative of Heroically Rescuing Pure Innocence from Total Evil (think Victim Tied to Train Tracks, Oncoming Train, Leering Mustachioed Bad Guy, and Heroic Rescuer on White Horse, as in the old silent movies and various cartoons).
I would also point out the following:
Several times on this site I have noted that torties have largely (and shrewdly) avoided ‘advertising’ in Stampede cases: it would make them look more like ‘ambulance chasers’ and less like the heroic fighters for genuine ‘victims’.
New York State opened up a window more than a year ago, in which the Statutes of Limitation (SOLs) would not apply and allegants could do their thing without that hindrance.
The window was due to close on November 1st of this year. And apparently desperation was the mother of invention.
On October 23rd of this year, on page 20 of the print edition of the New York Post there was a full-length half-page multi-color ad soliciting anyone who might like to make a call and tell their story. There is “a fast approaching deadline”, it warned pleadingly, so “Don’t delay – contact us immediately to protect your rights and submit your claim”. “Free initial consultation”, it burbled beguilingly. In the small print, was the admission that this was “Attorney Advertising”.
It is addressed to anyone living “in the Archdiocese of New York … which covers parishes in Manhattan, Staten Island and the Bronx as well as Rockland, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester counties”.
Fast forward to page 23 of the New York Post print edition of December 8th of this year:
From that heavily populated area over all those years and decades, a total of 189 people were all that could be brought forward, and they would split 40 million dollars (for an average payout – the paper helpfully did the math – of $211,600).
The paper was also careful to describe these persons as having “identified themselves as victims of clergy sex abuse” (italics mine). That’s certainly a change from the salad-days of the Stampede when anyone coming in with a story and a claim was immediately and gratuitously granted the title of ‘victim’ (and you’d better not question that title if you knew what was good for you).
This was as close, I would say, as the torties could come to trying to set up an equivalent of the Mesothelioma fund (about TV ads for which I wrote a while back): many corporations were made to contribute to a fund now comprising billions of dollars / and you “don’t even have to go to court” / you only have to call a participating tortie (800-number provided on the TV screen), submit a claim, and it will be considered by a hearing- officer / (the implication strongly being that you will then get a payout almost as easily as going to an ATM).
Mr. Dan:
Your hatred of Roman Catholics is evident by the very words in your posts. You are abusing the already abused victims by taking advanatge of their tragedies in order to launch public attacks on Roman Catholics. In so doing you present yourself as an all knowing minor diety without pity for either the aformentioned victims, sinners who failed in their duty to the victims and the actual evil doers.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Hey Dick, How dare you try to lay blame on others for the "abusing" of innocent children, when the perpetrators of your cult are totally the guilty culprits. Worthless deniers and excusers like yourself, constitute the very reason why these disgustingly deviant so-called holy creeps got away with the repeated sexual crimes against mostly young boys (80%) and little girls. You are such a jackass for claiming I "present [myself] as an all knowing minor diety without pity for … victims". You are right that I have no pity for the disgusting "sinners" of your cult who've destroyed victims lives, and then deny, deceive, lie and refuse to come clean. That includes those like yourself who think they can place blame on others (the media, bigots, anti-catholic haters, psychiatrists, etc.), in an attempt to clear your evil consciences and protect and hide the horrific sins of your cult. This is not repentance, it deserves no forgiveness, and all who continue in this ignorance will someday stand before the Almighty God and be judged severely for their stupidity and lame excuses. servant of the Lord, a minor diety, you are ridiculous, lying slanderer!
P.S. Keep your phony "God Bless" for yourself. You're gonna need it!
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
You are making pubic and annonymous (therefore cowardly) attacks on Roman Cathoilcs under thue guise of complaining about Cardinal Law. Cardinal Law is dead. He has been judged. As you and I will be. There is no escaping Almighty God's justice.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Dick, nothing could be much more "cowardly", aside from your cults systemic obsession with pedophilia and pederasty crimes against innocence, than the false accusations, lies and slander I've had to accept from catholic priests, nuns and cops. Added to the ridiculous lies, that cost me several jail and hospital stays, have been the lies and slander of publiar and now you've joined the fray. Get something straight, I abhor "Roman Catholicism" and all false teachings and have no hatred towards duped and brainwashed "Roman Catholics". You repulsive liars, deniers and slanderers, I will generously include as part of "Roman Catholicism", along with the greedy, sexually perverted, idolators, cowardly and all other lying and deceiving creeps of the cult.
"Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather EXPOSE THEM. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything EXPOSED by the light becomes visible…" Ephesians 5:11-13 The book has been opened, the light is shining in the darkness and the indiscretions of your cult remain secretly hidden no longer. Read Romans 1:18-28 further describing your cult in fine detail. That ain't good enough, go to Rev. chapter 17 and 18 and read of "Roman Catholicisms" final destruction. "Awake, O sleeper and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Be careful who you worship!
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
You have deserted the one true faith. Meanwhile you attack its faithful adherents. In public, but annonymously. An act of a coward. You think you are the only one who has suffered? Stop whining. Time to grow up.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Your programmed, "Thank you for your reply." and "God bless" at the end, demonstrates to your phony hypocrisy. Get a life and stop acting like you're some Christian. Catholics are not Christians, otherwise they wouldn't add ignorance and stupidity to God's Word. ANTI-CHRIST!
Dick, have you been falsely accused by compulsive liars and had to go to jail and hospitals 6 times each? Done 30 days in a Sherriffs Work Program, based on lies for things you never said or did? Since these accusations were made in public, while I was out there trying to wake up catholics to their false religion, then this didn't happen "annonymously", dumb Dick. Have you ever experienced the cold pig slop you get served in prison, and worse in mental wards. You're really becoming a bigger accusing catholic jackass than publiar. Catholics should be proud.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me." Matthew 5:10,11
I never would have thought that the accusations would come from jerks who belong to the evil cult that claims to be the One True Church. Someone took your sandwich in the schoolyard, so you think you can make up for it by bullying others. I have no fear in standing up to cowardly lying hypocrites like yourself, in person. You think you're a man to lie and accuse me as you have, anonymously in posts? You duped and brainwashed accusing catholics are an absolute joke.
"Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did." 1 John 2:6
Checked out pope Francis celebrating Mass honoring Mary as Mother of God, in St. Peters basilica New Years. Do you dare to think that the hierarchy of your cult "live as Jesus did"? All you see is the abhorrent greed of an anti-Christ cult, idolatry in all its splendor, gold everywhere and the finest marble floors. You think Bernini wasn't making a statement designing a bronze canopy supported by four obese black snake columns. Like Michelangelo painted Hell in the Sistine Chapel, right at altar level, the very location where popes are secretly chosen. Nothing but a bunch of pomp and circumstance, ridiculously phony manmade rituals and terribly unChristlike. So continue honoring and worshipping your false "Mother of God" and be deceived into thinking you "live as Jesus did". Nothing more foolish than a fool who thinks they can even fool the Almighty. servant of the One True God
Did Our Lord true God and true Man honour Mary his Mother? What did the Angel Gabriel say to Mary? What did Elizabeth say to Mary? But whom am i that the Mother of my Lord should come to visit me. Was the Angel and Elizabeth honouring Mary???
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Again you are publicly attacking Roman Catholics. Again annonymously. Again an act of cowardice. There is nothing in your posts that indicats that you are aconcerned with the victims. Only with yourself. Stop feeling sorry for yoruself. Be a man. Return to the Faith of your Fathers
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I've been exposing the disgusting crimes of the filthy hypocrites of your cult against innocent victims in this forum for two years. You're going to claim I have no concern for the victims of catholic child abuse? You're a lyin' accusing jerk. Where've you been? Return to the faith of your father, the devil and father of all liars and accusers.
"You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
No doubt he didn’t plan to do so, but on the 31st at 108PM ‘Dan’ gives a pretty nice demonstration of his usual bag of gambits:
First, the huffy bray of the Wig or Outrage (“how dare you …?”).
Second, the mere assertion of precisely the point that has yet to proven, i.e. that there are astronomical numbers of “perpetrators” … “of your cult” (as if there were and are not abusive types in just about any human agglomeration one might care to name). Which is then further riffed-upon by larding assorted epitheticals as if the point-in-question had been demonstrated.
Third, the name-calling (with the extra frisson of just a tad of scatology), “jackass”, tossed at his interlocutor.
Fourth – delivered with a sublime lack of self-awareness – we get the sassy bray that ‘Dan’ hath “no pity for disgusting ‘sinners’ of your cult”. ‘Dan’, of course, commits no sins although he doth acknowledge “occasional mistakes” … but that’s OK – doncha see? – because ‘Dan’ is so very speshull a mouthpiece of whatever it is or they are making regular (and totally supportive) appearances in his bathroom mirror.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 108PM:
Fifth, ‘Dan’ will then gratuitously include his interlocutor as being “those like yourself who think they can place the blame on others”. We haven’t actually established, of course, the true extent (or lack of it) regarding the point-in-question in the first place; but ‘Dan’ is nothing but a whacky plop-tosser and if he didn’t have plop to toss then he’d have nothing at all and would have to face himself in the mirror instead of that ‘divine’ cheering section he apparently sees in that mirror in his bathroom.
And one also notes the sly and convenient inclusion of “psychiatrists” in ‘Dan’s bestiary … he’s seen more than a few.
Sixth, the theological assertion from the ‘Dan’-verse’s ongoing theological Mad Hatter’s Tea Party as to what constitutes “repentance” and what does not and who gets forgiven and who does not and cannot be forgiven and so on.
Seventh – but of course – ‘Dan’ heads for his conclusion, as so often, with a threat involving God (or, actually, whatever entities ‘Dan’ sees in his bathroom mirror).
And lastly – but of course – the performance is wrapped up with more epithet. And then a P.S. with another threat involving divine retribution for disagreeing with ‘Dan’s self-serving agenda.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 638PM:
Here ‘Dan’ takes the opportunity to recite yet again his preferred narrative that is supposed to explain-away his numerous court and psychiatric misadventures: it was all “lies” – doncha see? – and really the poor bethumped thing was just “trying to wake up catholics to their false religion”.
I would at this point note that he was in “jail” and not in “prison”; is he aware of the difference? Or was he actually sentenced by a court to a genuine term in prison? But “prison”, of course, gives it all that Biblical ring, such that ‘Dan’ might see himself as participating in the tribulations of the Apostles. Rather than being a version of the local village-idiot put in the pokey for a day or so to get him off the street.
And of course none of this happened “anonymously” (correction supplied). He accosted people in public, the police were called, the police heard the complaints of the persons thus accosted, took their information, and carted ‘Dan’ off to the local hoosegow and thence court and thence to the local “mental ward”). Six times.
The last paragraph wanders off into something about sandwiches in a schoolyard and bullies. But – fear not! – ‘Dan’ hath “no fear”. But I would say that he has a very great fear: that if he hadn’t populated his bathroom mirror with what he fancies are divine (and utterly supportive) entities then he’d have to see himself as he really is.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 749PM:
Here he yet again riffs on about Catholicism, this time about the papal Mass “honoring Mary as Mother of God”.
His objection? Why the hoary old fundie chestnut about the Church that does not “live as Jesus did”. Ummmm – Jesus did not have the internet (and most likely not a bathroom mirror, either). ‘Dan’ clearly has both. So – if you follow his ‘logic’ here – ‘Dan’ doth not “live as Jesus did”.
And he riffs on in that mode for the rest of the comment, tossing up this and that bit from his 3×5 pile.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1156AM:
Here – in case readers might think otherwise – ‘Dan’ puts up his preferred narrative of himself: he has “been exposing” and so on.
He’s just concerned for “the victims”, doncha see? I don’t think so at all. ‘Dan’ is concerned for nothing but himself and his preferred self-narrative, i.e. a (or ‘the’) oh-so-speshull and divinely-authorized anti-Catholic and anti-organized-religion kinda guy.
And he then tosses a bunch of devil-related epithets at anyone who doesn’t buy his bit.
And he concludes by tossing up a pericope that – as so very very often – would better be delivered to himself in his bathroom mirror.
The publiar, who claims he never makes excuses or minimizes the crimes of catholic perverted priests and bishops, states in regards the "astronomical numbers of 'perpetrators' … 'of [the catholic] cult' (as if there were and are not abusive types in just about any human agglomeration one might care to name)". Yes, "human agglomeration[s]" of the world will have its share of horrific sinners, but when a church claiming to be the One True Church of God sports so-called holy leaders committing sins against innocents more disgusting than the world, one would have to question their holiness to realize they are not God's church. That's period!!
As to your other denials that you don't mock God and feel no fault in mocking His servants, and yet think you can bring God down into your infantile bathroom mirror fantasies and "oh-so-speshull" and "divine cheering section" accusations. Appalling! Get your head out of the toilet, for your repetitive lying and denying hypocrisies are becoming complementary to your insistent mockery.
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
You have exposed nothing. You are just another annonymous (and cowardl)y party on the internet. You are merely repeating old news. Some of it true. Some of it false. Mostly you are whining> WHen you are not whining you are attacking Roman Catholics who, unlike yourself, have not desrted the faith when it became fashionable to do so.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
You excusing catholic deniers are always trying to convince everyone that the crimes of your cult are "old news". And I didn't leave "the Church" because it was "fashionable". I left because it was teaching unbiblical falsehoods, because of it's terrible greed, idolatry, sexual deviance and more recently have come to realize what a bunch of liars the church harbors.
Well here we go again. Publiar claiming that I don't "live as Jesus did" because "Jesus did not have the internet". Once more he opens his fat lying mouth and gets his foot stuck in it, or should I say forked tongue gets in the way. I do not own a computer or cellphone. So I guess following your 'logic' I am living and do "live as jesus did". My friend that I'm taking care of, the one who receives prophecies from the Lord, is the owner of the computer. When she's well enough for me to move back to my own place, I will not be purchasing or in need of a computer. That will be a blessing not to deal with you lying hypocrites. Before you carry on that we have to take Dan's word for it, check with Dave and he'll confirm that the email I'm using belongs to a female, and I don't even have an email address. How does it feel to always end up looking so ignorant and stupid, publiar.
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
I think the problem is that you spend so much time feeling sorry for yourself. You then go on to attack Roman Catholics. This method destroys your credibility. Kindly reflect.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Well actually, Dick, I spend very little time feeling sorry for myself. Between you and publiar constantly pushing one to have to explain themselves, is the only reason why you've heard what you have. Actually what you and your lying cult members, including hierarchy, have done to falsely accuse and slander me, in reality brings me much joy. It fulfills scripture (Matt. 5:10-12) and that makes me extremely happy, though I do have a normal human reaction to persecution, when people who falsely think they're the holy and righteous people of the world, think they can lie, slander and verbally accuse the innocent, and believe there will be no price to pay. I have a very fine positive life that I live and I can put up with the lying deceiving creeps from your cult. I was one of the first public school altar boys for the church in S.F. and I'm so thankful the child molesting priests of my church didn't lay their disgusting hands on me. I have way too much to be thankful for to allow Satan's workers to cause me any harm, so keep trying. True Christians will always lack "credibility" among the liars and deceivers of Satan's cult, the catholic church. "Kindly reflect" for Dick - Try reading the Bible instead of believing in the lies of your cult's catechism. servant of the Lord
FACT CHECK for Dick: I'm not here to tell my story or defend myself. I'm here to expose all the crimes of your cult, in the hopes that some confused and fooled catholics might come to seek out the truth, escape the lies and deceptions of their cult, truly read the Word and find salvation through the only Savior Jesus Christ and eventually save their souls from eternal destruction. If you think you can find fault in that, than so be it. Glad you're not my Judge. servant
P.S. I receive no joy in trying to get through to stubborn and hard-headed people who prefer to close their eyes, ears and hearts to the truth of the Almighty God and His Word, believe me.
Dan/Jim- I guess when jack chick died, you came on here! You haven't used the whore of Babylon phrase yet, that I know of. – marty
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
You have exposed nothing. Other than that you deserted the faith of your fathers at a time when it was very fashionable to do so. And that you feel very, very sorry for yourself indeed. You blame all of your (imagined) problems on Roman Catholics. Yet you refuse to take responsibility for your own deeds. Spending your life making public, yet annonymous and therefore cowardly, attacks on Roman Catholics is counter productive. Kindly reflect.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Do you always take responsibility for your own deeds that are in reality just the repetitive lies of ignorant disgusting catholic cowardly lying creeps. Get a life and have a comment worth responding to, and not have to repeat the same garbage you've spewed in the last 4 comments. God bless.
Regardless of what the Boston Globe says now or back then, there is no excuse for what happened in the Catholic church in Boston or anywhere else in the US or the world. Trying to spin it like this is just trying to pass the blame on and it does not work. It is a shame that has led many to fall away from the church since then.
Rather than confess to their sins, they'd rather pass the blame for their sins, and that's why "the church" is not forgiven, and apparently unwilling to ever come clean. Sad part is I think they're under the impression that they've even fooled the Almighty.
To those of you our seperated brethren; Who wish to condemn the Catholic Church the one and only true Church (universal Church) Oh i'm not just any denomiation i'm Catholic! We're not a denomination, WE'RE THE COMMON DENOMIATOR …
.To all of you, those who belong to the 30,000 man made different denominations, who all claim to to be the true church. Could you answer me this one question, "Who are your founders?"
The pharisees wanted to stone the woman who was guilty of adultery, "so let you who is without sin cast the first stone". The Catholic Church (universal church) was instituted by Christ read Matt16:13-20. There is only one Church there is only one head (Peter) and his sucessor Pope Francis. Bishop Sheen once said, "there are 1.2 billion sinners in the Catholic Church plus the Holy Spirit. Those who have fallen away from the Church are ussually the once who have much to confess. If your family has a sex offender, does that make all your family sex offenders? What about the country that sex offenders live in, does that make all people that live in that country sex offenders?.. Me thinks you have an axe to grind, like the Pharisees of old, but Christ could look through them and He condemned their hypocrisy. Matt: 23:13-27 . As for me, when i came back to the Catholic Church i had much to confess. I'm glad i did, because i know that Christ died for us poor sinners and He walks amongst us poor sinners, and dines with us poor sinners. If you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself and make God out to be a lair. The Catholic Church has been persecuted for 2,000 years, the good news is, it will still be there at the end of time; "why? " Because the gates of hell will not prevail".Matt 16:17,18… Be careful whom you condemn !!! Theo.
Wow! Theo, what a moving speech. Let's see if someone can top that:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13
Gee! We're so sorry Theo, but Jesus had a better speech. Better luck next time. You want to know how you might be able to enter through that small gate? Get yourself clear of your phony deceiving cult of lies and liars. Only God can condemn and judge your heathen false church. Oh! That's right! He already has. Read Revelations chapter 17 and 18 if you don't believe me. Quit defending a lost cause. Read God's Word and educate yourself. Your church's claims won't get you to heaven. There's no way they'll stand the test of fire. servant
One last thing, "The gates of Hell will not prevail." They will not have to, because they will be wide open to gladly welcome "the Church".
And by the way, if your church has been persecuted for 1700 years, it's because it's been evil and wicked for that long. From what I've seen they do more persecuting than they are persecuted. When your cult is plagued with greedy, child molesting, lying creeps, well then they deserve all the persecuting they should get. I think we should burn them at the stake or boil them in hot oil, as they did to others that didn't buy into their false cult. I wonder how many so-called martyrs of "the Church" really only got what was coming to them for the crimes they committed. One has to wonder?
By the way, what is a "COMMON DENOMIATOR"? Is that like the TERMIATOR? Guess so? Arnold Schwarzenegger, another fine example of a pure and humble catholic. LOL Why does everyone in this forum think I hate catholics, when instead I think you're all a big joke?
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Again. Your tirades are simply poorly disguised public (and annonymous, therefore cowardly) attackes on Roman Catholics. You have exposed NOTHING. But you have taken advantage of a great tragedy. What good have you done? Kindly reflect.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I asked you to give me a comment worth responding to, and yet you repeated now the same thing for the sixth time? What is the "great tragedy" I've "taken advantage of"? Cardinal Law lived a pretty full life dying at the age of 86. He most likely lived a much better life than the lives of the sexually abused victims of the slew of pedophile priests he protected. Maybe your cult can declare him a Saint to catholic child molesters. Get a life, Dick!
I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s comments as they appear on the site.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1159PM:
Here we see about as close to an encapsulation of ‘Dan’s basic operating equation as we are going to get: since the Church has sinners in it, then – popcorn, please – it is “not God’s church”. Reinforced by the odd usage “That’s period!!” – as if multiple exclamation points can substitute for rational explanation and demonstration.
If God and Jesus didn’t expect Christians to sin, then – to repeat a point I have made here on a recent prior thread – why did Jesus specifically give Peter the ‘power of the keys’, i.e. to bind and loose sins … ?
‘Dan’ – of course – doesn’t actually ‘sin’, although he has previously here allowed as how he has made the “occasional mistakes” (and perhaps continues to do so … ?). Or perhaps ‘Dan’ is also a sinner, but just not a “horrific” one … something like that.
Bottom-line: ‘Dan’s self-serving shtick is essentially that whatever else he may be, he doesn’t commit “horrific” sins; and with that point out of the way, he can go on about the Church … and on and on.
publiar, Who do you think you're fooling by taking what I said out of context in order to prove your point that all humans are sinners, so it's perfectly fine that your DISGUSTING CULT HARBORS many of the WORST. I'll put the important parts of my statement in caps for you, but I think you only want to see what suits your deceiving catholic agenda.
The statement was: " Yes, 'human agglomeration[s]' of the WORLD will have its share of horrific SINNERS, but when a church claiming to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD sports SO-CALLED HOLY LEADERS COMMITTING SINS AGAINST INNOCENTS "MORE" DISGUSTING than the WORLD, one would have to question their HOLINESS to realize they are NOT GOD'S CHURCH. THAT'S PERIOD!!
So spit the popcorn you've stuffed your gluttonous face with out of your mouth, and maybe you'll be able to read the full sentence and not pick little pieces that help to lend credence to your ignorance and false lying assessments. THAT'S PERIOD!!
You can make your false claims that Jesus gave your perverted leaders the power to "bind or loose sins", but that would be provided "the Church" truly was God's One True Church. That has already been proven false by your cult's own actions and unrepentant sin, and the All-Pure and Holy Father would never give the power to "bind and loose sins" to horrific pedophiles and pederasts and their bishop excusers. Please, try using some common sense.
Mr. Know-It-All, I'll let you add the quotation marks I missed after the 1st "THAT'S PERIOD" and then you can really believe you truly do Know-It-All.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1223AM:
Here he merely huffs and puffs that I do indeed “mock God” and “feel no fault in mocking His servants”. He’s – but of course – puts up no quotation of mine demonstrating that I “mock God”.
Rather, his scam is to claim that in noting the many many holes in rationality of his assorted bits then I am “mocking” one of “His servants”. Anyone baptized – if not also the un-baptized of good will – can qualify as being one of “His servants”; ‘Dan’ certainly enjoys no special status (nor gets a special pass) on that point.
But it is precisely that “special status” that is a crucial element in the foundation of ‘Dan’s whole whacko, self-serving agenda and shtick.
And his comment here trails off with the usual epithetical riffing, for lack of anything better.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1241AM:
‘Dan’ neglects to mention that he has pretty much left all churches, and not just the Catholic Church. They are all “man-made” as he has asserted on previous threads – doncha see? – which leaves just – had you been waittttingggggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – the church of ‘Dan’, the divinely-favored and semi-sinless ‘Dan’ presiding and attending.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 723PM:
Here ‘Dan’ has accurately noted my point that since Jesus didn’t have the internet, then ‘Dan’ isn’t actually living “as Jesus did”. I stand by that point: the way ‘Dan’ formulated his original claim, then my point follows logically from it.
‘Dan’s response is – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – to toss up a chaff of epithetical huffing and puffing.
And then a marvelous bit of sly silliness: ‘Dan’ doesn’t “own a computer or a cellphone”, doncha see?
Well, he uses a computer, clearly; otherwise he wouldn’t be able to toss his stuff up on this site. So my point remains standing. Jesus didn’t use a computer, whether His own or somebody else’s that He borrowed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 723PM:
It may seem a trite point, but then it flowed from ‘Dan’s rather trite toss-up about living “as Jesus did”, which surely required and still requires further explication if it is to make any worthwhile sense at all.
But ‘Dan’ isn’t into the worthwhile-sense thing; he’s a plop-tosser and a poseur and that’s about it.
As to whether ‘Dan’ will have access to a computer in the future … who knows? But I imagine he’ll be keeping that access for quite a while; without it he’d have nothing to do but go out and accost people in person.
Meanwhile, he and his “prophecy”-spouting female friend can go on and on.
Hi Dan! Guess i hit a nerve with you. Sad to say this but i think you have hatred in your heart! Was it Paul (Saul) whom was thrown of his horse for persecuting the early Catholic Church? What did Christ say to Saul! "Saul why are you persecuting Me" Why did Christ say "Me"? Instead of my Disciples. Maybe you can tell me! Could it be that Christ was referring to His Body the Church. Christ has only one Body and there is only one Head.., not 30000 !! But you already know that don't you? Judas thought that Christ was preaching the wrong gospel, and ended up betraying Him, and the rest is history. By the way i did say the Chuch has been persecuted for over 2000 years not 1700 years. But you're not big on history are you? My advise to you my friend, is to read the Fathers of the Church, that's if you have the courage… I'll give you a start… Peter was the first head of the Church, then came Linus and so forth… till our present day Pope Francis.
Cheers, Theodore……….
Hey Teddy (or do you prefer "the Beaver"), if you're answering to me, why did you reply to publiar? You caught me. I have hatred in my heart (poohoo!). I hate false religions brainwashing the masses. I hate churches claiming to be Christian, when they are far from Christ-like. Christ never started your church of heathens. How could his church be enormously rich and greedy, full of idolatry, sexually immoral, especially with children (sick), and plagued with compulsive liars. How is it that they can indoctrinate millions, who refuse to read the Bible to understand His truth.
This is going to be painful for you to understand, but try. Where does it say in the Bible that Paul "was thrown off his horse for persecuting the early Catholic Church?" It doesn't say that because the Catholic Church isn't in the Bible. Neither are any of your popes, because pope is not in the Bible either. Nor is the Rosary. Nor Mary sinless. Nor assumed. Nor immaculate. Nor Mary to be bowed or prayed to in repetition (Matt. 6:7). Do you like to babble like pagans do? Why can't you brainwashed catholics understand that your church is not following Christ and you are not Christians? I do not hate catholics. I hate your false church and it's lying hierarchy.
Apparently you have a problem with history, Theodore. I said 1700 years because Emperor Constantine started your Roman Catholic fraud of a church. That's when all the temples of your cult began, and Rome became the center and birthplace of your cult. Why do you think that St. Peters Basilica is crowned with Roman type statues atop their pagan temple. This is where all the greed and idolatry of your cult got started.
I have no interest in reading about the "Fathers of the Church", because I'm not into reading fiction and fairy tales. I'll leave that to the fairies. Speaking of fairies, publiar would probably be interested, since he's always mentioning being down the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and all his other Cartoon Time fastasies. Wasn't "Linus" also a cartoon figment of the cult's imagination? And pope francis, talk about a wolf in sheeps clothing, phony hypocrite extroadinaire. You can't see that your leaders act and even dress as bad or worse than the Pharisees of Christ's day? What does it take for catholics to remove the blinders? Try starting by reading the Bible, rather than your cults propaganda. servant of the Lord
I have no comment once again to your repetitive ignorance and stupidity, but my " 'prophecy'-spouting female friend" would like to tell you that you can "Kiss Her Grits", to which I would like to say ditto, but not the southern version of the phrase. fellow "prophets" of the Almighty
You don't think that your sarcastic, " 'prophecy'-spouting female friend", is mockery against someone who has the spiritual gift of prophecy that was given to her by the Almighty, and hence would be considered mocking of His Holy Spirit, blasphemer? So sad that you are so deep into your sinful lying life, that you have no conscience and yet think you know so much.
Moving right along to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1159PM:
Trying to keep his oh-so-necessary-for-his-purposes cartoon going, ‘Dan’ merely quotes – without refuting – my point that there are sinners in any “human agglomeration”; that statement of mine reflects the reality of sin as affecting all human beings (except ‘Dan’, apparently, who – some readers might recall – doesn’t do much in the sin line, although he does admit to the “occasional mistake”).
And – yet again – if Jesus didn’t expect even His own followers to be liable to sin, then why did He give Peter the ‘power of the keys’, i.e. to “bind and loose” sins … ? Regular readers might notice that ‘Dan’ has never tried to deal with this rather glaring Scriptural point.
Yes, I dealt with this previously, and again yesterday and I'll say it once again. Jesus gave NO permission to child abusing pedophiles and pederasts (priests) who have destroyed many innocent childrens lives and their bishop excusers and deniers, the power to forgive sins. That's Period!!
Catholic priests and bishops were parading around wearing the robes, some with crowns, of great kings and Pharisees, while in secret sexually abusing, raping and sodomizing little boys. Now use some common sense. Do you think these would be the disgusting nasty creeps that God would choose to have the power to forgive others? If your answer is yes, than your ignorance is far worse than one could have imagined. servant of the Holy Lord
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1159PM:
The Church’s “holiness” comes not from any perfection in performance but rather from the Church’s being instituted and given her mission by Christ.
Meanwhile, the delusional ‘Dan’-verse scam is this: once you declare that you are ‘saved’, then you are no longer a sinner (although – but of course – you might make the “occasional mistakes”). Thus, whatever else he might be, ‘Dan’s delusion allows him to take the high-ground by virtue of his not being a sinner.
And ‘Dan’ further tries to insulate his cartoon by also going for the idea that while some Christians may indeed sin, yet the sex-abuse sins (however many genuine such individuals there might be in that category) of her clergy are – oh so conveniently for ‘Dan’ – utterly beyond the pale of forgiveness. And ‘Dan’ knows this because his bathroom mirror tells him so. Thus, on the basis of his grossly self-serving presumptions, he can amuse himself by raving on and on.
Let's be clear, "sex-abuse sins … of her clergy" were not just "sex-abuse sins", they were repeated sexual encounters of sodomy, rape and child abuse performed by so-called holy men against innocent underaged victims. YES, they would be utterly unforgiveable crimes against God's precious little ones. That's Period!!!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1223AM:
Yet again, he tries to avoid my oft-demonstrated point: a) I don’t mock God, although I do take on ‘Dan’s stuff and b) ‘Dan’ is in no way beyond the most generic and universal sense demonstrated to be a “servant” of God; his eructations are far more attributable to his own scam (i.e. hiding his whackery behind a masquerade of direct divine authority) than to any speshull role and office as God’s chosen mouthpiece.
“Appalling!”, he brays, getting back to the posturing that is far more his natural stance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1241AM:
Readers may recall that ‘Dan’ not only left the Catholic Church; he left all “man-made religion”; thus although for his purposes on this site he goes on about the Church and Catholicism, ‘Dan’ is really not a member of any Christ-based religious polity. Instead, he is his own ‘church’, guided by that bathroom mirror and the entities he sees in it.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 201PM:
Here ‘Dan’ bleats that he doth “spend very little time feeling sorry for [him]self”.
Presuming that the reader has not thus choked on the popcorn that should always accompany any reading of ‘Dan’-stuff, I would point out that what ‘Dan’ has really done is merely to transmute his self-pity into self-justification, i.e. that his numerous legal and psychiatric misadventures were all the result of nothing but “lies” and more “lies” perpetrated by Catholics who have sought to “falsely accuse and slander” the poor ‘prophetic’ thing.
And actually he is a creature of “much joy”. Readers equipped with a divining rod are welcome to go over any selection of ‘Dan’s material to find such “much joy”. The only pleasure ‘Dan’ derives is from trying to spin his whackery as irrefutable Divine Truth, as guided by his bathroom mirror séances.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 201PM:
But – with an impressive slyness – ‘Dan’ then tries to slather some cover over the overtly disturbing nature of his performances here by allowing as how he quite understandably doth “have a normal human reaction to persecution”.
Thus that doubts as to his general wellness in the mental department are – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – merely the same type of “persecution” visited upon … oh, say the Apostles, for instance.
The Apostles were persecuted; ‘Dan’ is persecuted’; therefore ‘Dan’ is one with the Apostles and truly to be numbered among “True Christians” (the latter group being a pretty small number indeed, in his calculations). That sort of thing.
Did we know that ‘Dan’ is, by the by, a prodigy from San Francisco? Why is that not surprising?
As so often, he directs one and all to start “reading the Bible”. It’s a sly scam: the Bible doesn’t talk back, doubt or dispute anything that ‘Dan’ might – for whatever purposes – ‘discover’ in it. Actual religious groups tend very much to do the opposite, which is why ‘Dan’ found it far more convenient to dispense with real-life religion and create his own ‘divine’ fan club.
‘Dan’ has created not a doll-house for himself, but rather a doll-church, where he can move everything around to his own amusement, pleasure and satisfaction.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 247PM:
Here ‘Dan’ bleats that he has a “fact check” for commenter ‘Comerford’: ‘Dan’ – doncha know? – is not here to “tell [his] story or defend [him]self”.
I would disagree. ‘Dan’ is involved in an extended, pervasive and deep scam (or delusional plan, if you prefer) to precisely evade his own issues and whackeries by claiming a divine mantle for focusing on something other than his own issues and whackeries.
And I again point out that all of his bits here could be as easily applied if this site were an overtly Protestant (of any type) website since Protestantism too is in his fever-visions comprised of many variants of “man-made religion”; but he’s especially got this thing for Catholicism so this site gets his attention.
It gives him something to do. Otherwise he runs the risk of looking in that bathroom mirror and seeing – the horror! – himself.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 427AM:
Here, with his Pope-hat on (and no doubt admiring himself thus attired in his bathroom mirror) ‘Dan’ doth declare, proclaim and assert that “’the church’ is not forgiven”. Readers may judge the validity and reliability of that pronunciamento as they may.
I would say that it’s highly dubious that ‘Dan’ has “fooled the Almighty”. But rather possible and even probable that ‘Dan’ has “fooled” himself. But – again – it’s either fool himself or face himself … and we know what option ‘Dan’ has chosen in that regard.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 336AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will toss up a pericope from his handy 3×5 file.
Does ‘Dan’ presume that he has indeed ‘found’ that “narrow … way that leads to life”? It would appear so, which would be a necessary straw in the birds-nest ‘theology’ that ‘Dan’ has constructed for his own self-serving purposes.
Yes, ‘Dan’, Jesus has a great “speech” here. Recite it into your bathroom mirror more often.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 336AM:
But wait! There’s more.
‘Dan’ then trumpets that “only God can condemn and judge” – waitttttt forrrrrrr itttttttttttttttttttttt! – “your heathen false church”. Ummmmmm – it sounds like ‘Dan’ just did it on his own.
But – doncha see? – it’s not ‘Dan’ doing the judging and condemning here. Noooooooo – it’s God Himself, speaking through ‘Dan’. But I would say that – tempting as the image is when applied to ‘Dan’ – God doesn’t use people like ventroliquists’ dummies.
‘Dan’s dummy bits are all his own.
I have to disagree. Apparently God is using you as a ventriloquists' dummy. He's showing how dumb it is for a catholic dummy to mock Him and His servants. And we'll have to call the grammar police, because the dummy doesn't know how to spell ventriloquist. Oh! That's right! The dummy is the grammar police, so maybe he's just another one of those catholic pigs, dumb as rocks. You and your church are a lying accusing joke, publiar.
You catholics listen to publiar attack and throw jabs at me and my mental state, call me an anti-catholic bigot and I'm a catholic hater. Your biased defense of everything catholic and even catholic accusers and liars, would make you all haters and anti-Christian bigots. You apparently have no problem with that now, do you? Goes both ways, hypocrites!
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Yet again. You have exposed NOTHING. You have merely used this tragedy as an aexcuse to publicly and annonymously (and therefore cowardly) attack Roman Catholics. You have also misued this tragedy to complain about your personal problems with the Police and the Roman Catholic Church. You are acting like a spolied brat. Kindly reflect.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Dick, This is now the 7th time you've given the same programmed response. Are you a parrot or a computer generated response. And now I'm a "spolied brat". Satans' accusers and liars can sure throw the accusations out there, even when they make no sense. Maybe if you're going to slander a person, you might want to make sure you spell the lie properly. And may I end as you do with a phony and insincere, "God bless".
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Name one thing that you have exposed on this blog. One. OTH you have regularly and annonymously (and cowardly) expressed your bigotry against Roman Catholics. BTW a cowardly, annonymous bigot cannot be slandered. Kindly reflect.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I've exposed the fraud and lies of your cult, the disgusting sexually immoral sins against little boys and just about every unbiblical lie in the catechism of your church. All I've heard from you is, "You're a coward. You're a coward, You're a coward. You're a coward, and a bigot, and a bigot, and a bigot, and a bigot." If I wanted to hear a parrot, I could Youtube bird calls. Fly away, Dodo bird. Sorry. Forgot, Dodos can't fly. God bless.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 306PM:
Here ‘Dan’ suddenly admits what he has recently denied here: he does indeed “have hatred in [his] heart”. Brushing that whopper of an admission away with a mere “(poohoo!)”, he then proceeds to enunciate what are pretty much the actual dimensions of his shtick: he doth “hate all false religions” – which, of course, includes all of them (at least of the Christian variety). So – and most conveniently for him – it’s really just ‘Dan’s way or the hell-way. Neato.
Naturally, the only way you can truly and genuinely and accurately “read the Bible” is if you turn out to agree with ‘Dan’s take on the Bible bits.