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.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 306PM:
Thus doth he then condescend to the Bible-illiterates who don’t buy the ‘Dan’-verse take on Scripture: “the Catholic Church isn’t in the Bible” … true enough.
But if “the Catholic Church isn’t in the Bible” that pretty much takes the wind out of ‘Dan’s frequent claims that this and that Old and New Testament (especially Revelation) pericope actually refers to the Catholic Church.
Then again, to what “church” was Jesus referring when He gave Peter the Great Commission … ?
Ditto the word “pope” doesn’t appear in the Bible, but what then would one call Peter in the schema that Jesus outlined when he gave Peter the Great Commission … ?
And so on. And all of his following points have been addressed in recent comments here.
Must you always act so dumb. The "catholic church" is not named in the Bible. The pagan catholic false church is described in detail, without the name, in so many places I've referred to in the Bible, especially Rev. chapter 17 and 18. Do I have to explain everything like I'm talking to a 1st grader, or do you think your little word games are going to fool someone?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 333PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will give a history lesson, and it raises some interesting questions.
He now claims that it was Emperor Constantine who “started you Roman Catholic fraud of a church”, and “that’s when …” and so forth.
First, Constantine’s inspiration to place a form of the Christian cross on the shields of his troops at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge took place in 312AD. But while Constantine slowly moved the Roman state toward Christianity, it was not until Emperor Theodosius late in that century that Christianity was made the official religion of the Empire.
But second, what are we to make, then, of the prior centuries of Christianity and – not to put too fine a point on it – popes and bishops, in light of ‘Dan’s claim here that it was Constantine’s reign “that started your Roman Catholic fraud of a church” … ? Apparently all the popes prior to Pope Miltiades (thus from Peter and Linus up through Pope Eusebius) were … “True Christians”, as ‘Dan’ likes to say. And all the bishops and Patriarchs of those centuries as well.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 333PM:
Passing over for the moment the stupendous amount of Christian and Catholic history that ‘Dan’ simply accepts in his statement, what precisely was it that Constantine did that – in the ‘Dan’-verse vision of things – shifted Christianity from “True” to “false” … ?
And – seriously – are to accept with a straight face and no-popcorn that there were no church buildings before the reign of Constantine? The church building in Dura-Europos? The Aqaba church in Jordan? The church building in Megiddo? The Cathedral of St. Domnius in what is now Split? The Church of the Cenacle in Jerusalem? The church of Saints Cosmas and Damian in Rome? The Abu Mina Basilica in Alexandria? And all the Bishops and Patriarchs and presbyter/priests that went with them?
And historically, as Constantine allowed the open practice of Christianity, the result was simply that Christian worship could now express itself openly and publicly.
I never said there wasn't any pagan temples, and the catholic cult just added their own pagan temples and happen to make them more elaborate and bigger in their greed. Once more 'Dan' will lead you to the Biblical account of what God thinks of your stupid temples:
"So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, 'Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?' You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As the fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?" Acts 7:45-51
So you stiff-necked people, keep buying properties and building your worthless churches, and keep persecuting the prophets sent to warn you to stop your ignorance and nonsense, and keep denying that your nothing but a catholic mocking fool. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 333PM:
Thus we see the folly (if not duplicity) of ‘Dan’s bleat that he hath “no interest in reading about the ‘Fathers of the Church’”: his ignorance of early Christian history merely leads to such howlers as his Constantine bit here.
And then – and it’s always a sign with ‘Dan’ and other Abuseniks that they’re on the ropes – ‘Dan’ suddenly switches gears and goes on a riff about “fairies” (and this guy says he’s from San Francisco – go figure). And seeks further to evade his historical whackeries by merely bringing up “Linus” as a Peanuts cartoon character. And on and on.
Wow, what a comeback. Do all you rednecks think that there's nothing but fairies in S.F.? Your little S.F. shots are nothing but that, little and immature and childish. Grow up, peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 715PM and 722PM:
What passes for “prophecy” between ‘Dan’ and his friend is what it is and readers can judge for themselves if they consider the stuff to be “prophecy”.
Nor is it “mockery” since we don’t really know if this “friend” actually “has the spiritual gift of prophecy” or is merely another cracked case having a lot in common with nothing more than ‘Dan’ and his bathroom mirror kazoo band.
The "kazoo band" talking back to me in the mirror would be dick, marty, malcolm and publiar.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 149PM:
If ‘Dan’ is braying and trumpeting here that Jesus gave no Great Commission or power of the keys to Peter, then he’s got a lot of Biblical ‘splainin’ to do indeed.
If he isn’t saying that, then he going to have to explain what just what he is saying or trying to claim.
Funny how you can talk like a baby ('splainin', then he going to have) and have no problem with it, but I shorten because to cause and you're all over me. Hypocrisy at its best.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 201PM:
Here ‘Dan’ dons the Wig of Authoritative Clarity to declare that “sex-abuse sins” were “not just sex-abuse sins” … and anyone who can suss out the logic or rationality in that bit is welcome to share it here. Essentially and logically, ‘Dan’ is here claiming that ‘A is not-A’; which, I would say, is as neat an example of ‘Dan’s version of logic as one is likely to find.
What he’s really up to is to try and stampede the reader: “sex abuse sins” is a perfectly accurate general description but accuracy and rationality are neither ‘Dan’s preferred mode of operation nor are they useful for creating the type of emotional dust-cloud that is very much ‘Dan’s preferred mode of operation.
And, for that matter, we have seen very very few demonstrated and proven cases that conform to ‘Dan’s oh-so-sly visualization of “repeated sexual encounters of sodomy …” and so on. This is merely the Tied-To-The –Railroad-Tracks scare vision that describes – at the very most – only a very few of the cases that we have seen over the decades.
You would prefer the more general term, "sex-abuse sins", because it suits your agenda, to minimize and deny the disgusting sins of the church. They are "NOT just sex-abuse sins", they are far more disgusting and horrific because they are crimes of sodomy, rape and child molestation against innocent children, the most vulnerable of society, which makes the creeps of your cult DESPICABLE. There, is that better for you? servant of the LORD
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 201PM:
But this deceptive bit of manipulation then paves the way for the concluding assertion – as if he were God – that such scenarios are “utterly unforgiveable” and so on.
It won’t work. What a) furthers ‘Dan’s highly strategized scare-visions and what b) God finds “utterly unforgiveable” are not at all the same thing. Unless one were to share that bathroom mirror with ‘Dan’.
They are "utterly unforgiveable" sins of child abuse according to God and also according to any 'decent' human being, something creeps like yourself fail to understand. servant
Uhmmm! Seems to me you beleive Peter our first Pope was also a heretic. You certaintly are confused Dan!!
But I forgive those who persecute me.. Why? Because that is what Christ taught me to do, through His Church the Holy Catholic Church… So Dan i forgive you, and i'll pray for you..
God Bless.
Theo……….
Boy, are you confused, Theodore. I do not believe Peter was a heretic. What the catholic church makes of Peter (pope) and Mary (goddess) is heretical. There's the difference. It's the catholic lies that will never be accepted as Biblical Truth, only to brainwashed idolators. Your church preaches a false unbiblical gospel, the gospel and its characters are not to blame.
This is a prophecy from the Lord Almighty, to any and all catholics who may have doubt about how the Lord feels about those who bring harm to one of His innocent little ones. Don't allow the Son of Satan to lie and convince you that these are not the Words of the Lord. He's a deceiving lying creep, who prefers that you never come to know Gods' truth.
"Anyone who molests or hurts one of my little children, will be convicted by Me on Judgment Day. You can bet on it, and they will be prosecuted and held accountable for the evilness of their acts, for what they did to Me. Anybody who lays a finger on one of My children, without any reason, will be condemned and punished for what they did to Me. These are My precious, innocent little children, whom I will never ever stop protecting, from the people who keep harming them, for what they did to Me. I know and see how they claim to follow and love Me, then go and do the most horrible acts of crimes a human can do to one of My children. If you think I can forgive you for what you have done, you had better think twice, for what you did to Me."
Now catholics, you can listen to the lies of Satans' demons try to claim that this is not from the Lord, or you can wake from your stupor, read the Bible and find the One True God. Go ahead and call me any mean nasty names you wish, but you will know the truth when you stand before God. You may not have much time left to make this life changing decision.
So catholics, whenever someone claims he has a word of prophecy from the Lord, it must be tested against Gods' Word. So once more we go to Matthew 18:1-10 to find Jesus calling a child to himself, and saying we must become like one of these little ones or we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Still speaking with the child right there in front of him, he says;
"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea." Maytthew 18:5,6
Now the lyin' publiar wants to claim that Jesus was speaking to adults that must become like children. Using his stupid logic, if God says harming one of His chosen is worthy of a horrible swift death, just think the punishment one would deserve for sodomizing or raping one of His innocent little children? And he thinks he can get away with mocking Gods' servants or prophets. Don't let this catholic deceiver blind and fool your soul. He is evil personified and wishes to do the works of his father, the devil, lie, accuse and deceive. servant
I’ll go down the comments as they appear on the site, thus not chronologically.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1115AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to evade a point by deploying his old I’m Not/You Are bit: he tries to say that it is not he, but rather that “God is using [me] as a ventriloquist’s dummy”.
How exactly would that work?
Easy-peezy for ‘Dan’s cartoon world: I am demonstrating for God “how dumb it is for a catholic dummy to mock Him (i.e. God) and His servants (i.e. ‘Dan’). Ovvvvvvvv coursssssssssssssse.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1006AM:
Here ‘Dan’ doth bethump “you catholics” for ‘listening’ “to publiar attack and throw jabs at me and my mental state”.
‘Dan’s “mental state” – given the material ‘Dan’ has himself provided here – is clearly relevant to his entire position here. If those “catholics” who called the police and caused ‘Dan’s multiple misadventures with the law and psychiatry (and cost him somewhere around two thousand dollars in fines or court costs or some such, as he has recently claimed on this site) were accurately describing his activities and statements, then there arises the hardly avoidable picture of a somewhat unbalanced person harassing people on the basis of his insistence that he is a messenger of God and so on and so forth.
And anyone familiar with Catholic belief and teaching and with Scripture and Scriptural theology would thus have another reason – on top of the content of ‘Dan’s Bible-quoting eructations – to harbor grave reservations about his competence as a guide to either Scripture or Catholicism or even his own mental status.
And the habitual liar adds to the accusations as to my mental state, because compulsive evil catholics like himself lied to have me thrown in jail. You're just a flat out jackass lying accuser. How do you catholics defend and kiss the ass of a liar. Is there no honesty in your cult? servant
I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s most recent as they appear on the site, not in chronological order. Nor will I deal with all of them, since some of them are merely attempts at come-back while avoiding the points I had raised.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1243AM:
Here we get a nice statement of what ‘Dan’ happily imagines himself to be doing on the site. He is “exposing the fraud and lies of your cult”, ditto “the disgusting sexually immoral sins” and ditto “just about every unbiblical lie in the catechism of your church”. Readers may consider if this is what ‘Dan’ has actually done here.
He then bleats that all he has “heard from” me is “You’re a coward” and so forth. That is nothing I have ever said about ‘Dan’ on this site and if he thinks he has an accurate quotation of mine to the contrary then he’d best put it up with an accurate date/time and thread reference.
But that leads to a slyly distracting riff on birds and You-Tube and so on. And on that note he quickly gets himself off the stage.
That was directed to Dick, publiar.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1252AM:
I had said that the term “catholic church” does not appear in the Bible.
To which ‘Dan’ replies that “The pagan catholic church is described in detail, without the name …”.
In other words, we are to take ‘Dan’s fever-vision insistence that lots of stuff in the Bible backs up his anti-Church ranting … it’s just that the Bible doesn’t say it’s the Church that is the subject.
Then a quick plopping-on of the Wig of Bethumped Integrity: must the poor virtuous and divinely-informed thing “have to explain everything like [he’s] talking to a first grader … ?”.
Very good observation. Yes, many horrific descriptions in the Bible of a false church line up and describe in fine detail the catholic cult. Dick needs to know that also, if he wasn't so busy repeating himself.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1252AM:
What he ever so slyly tries to pull off here is this: the fact that he has utterly nothing but his own fever-visions and frothy assertions to demonstrate definitively the accuracy of his presumption (i.e. that whatever he says describes the Church indeed describes the Church) is actually just an indication that he’s dealing with first-graders who, apparently, are too dumb to see how true his claims and assertions really are.
First-graders might have comprehension problems with concepts, of course. But the problem ‘Dan’ has is, rather, a demonstration or proof problem, i.e. his stuff is nothing more than a bunch of his own fever-visions that he cannot demonstrate to be reliably accurate. It’s not his claims and presumptions that are the core problem with his stuff; it’s that he has utterly no demonstrable proof for his claims and presumptions.
Whatever!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:
Here he tries to dig himself out of the hole he dug for himself with his bit about the Church having started with Constantine’s reign. The buildings I mentioned all pre-dated Constantine and were in use as Catholic churches before his reign began.
Quickly trying to change the subject, ‘Dan’ then tosses up another pericope … from the Old Testament (or, if you prefer, Hebrew Scriptures). But how does ‘Dan’ square this with Jesus in the Gospels telling Peter that it is upon Peter that He will “build my church”? (Catholic answer: it was not until the arrival of Jesus on earth that God would be understood with sufficient accuracy – demonstrated through the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ – such that places of worship might be built in which the genuine worship of God would be conducted.)
‘Dan’ then tries to bring his performance home here by slyly trying to apply to Catholics a divine characterization (“stiff-necked people”) from the Old Testament that was actually applied not to Catholics but to an Old Testament people.
And on that basis, we get his concluding riff as he heads for the wings.
What is wrong with you catholics? 'Church' as it is defined in the Word is NOT a place of worship. The catholic church will never fulfill the definition of Christs' church. His church would not be plagued with pompous greedy men dressed like Pharisees, statue worshipping idolators, sexually immoral child molesters, cowards and compulsive liars. These terms prove that your cult is a complete failure and not anywhere near the One True Church of the Almighty. That's period!! So you can criticize and call me names and that will change nothing!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1025PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to claim that my use of “the more general term, ‘sex abuse sins’” is just “an excuse to minimize”. That would slyly require readers to presume that ‘Dan’s characterizations are a) accurate and are b) not merely an effort to maximize accusations that have rarely been demonstrably proven.
His entire manipulative presentation in this comment of his requires the presumption that the unproven and undemonstrated maximized fever-visions he so urgently prefers (and needs) are accurate.
As always, for ‘Dan’s stuff to appear to be on the level, you have to hold your head at a precariously steep angle.
Many "accusations" didn't need to be "demonstrably proven". The pedophile and pederast priests of your cult admitted to their guilt, others got off on SOLs, some died as old untried perverts and others were whisked away to the Vatican for protection. Why must you continue to minimize and excuse their guilt? All this proves is that the cult shows no remorse and is unrepentant, and therefore unforgiven. Catholics run from these lies and excuses.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1029PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will simply try to palm off on readers as being the mind and will of God what are actually only ‘Dan’s self-serving presumption, i.e. that all sins of “child abuse” are “utterly unforgivable” by God. He has never provided any demonstration of the validity of this (key) presumptive assertion of his (and we have dealt with this point several times at length on prior threads).
He then tries – through conceptual incompetence or sly legerdemain – to make that mind-choking claim more palatable by then adding “and also according to any ‘decent human being’”.
How God judges ultimately and how human beings judge provisionally are two very different things.
And in giving Peter the ‘power of the keys’, Christ gave Peter the authority to ‘bind and loose’ sins … which simply complicates ‘Dan’s theological and Scriptural problems even more.
Oh! I'm not a pompous creep! I can use words like 'legerdemain' to show what an intelligent snob I am. Talk about "mind-choking" garbage and ignorance. You're enough to make a person puke.
You haven't got to it yet. Proof positive on Jan. 9th @ 12:58pm, I sent you the prophecy that proves that "child abuse" is "utterly unforgiveable" according to God. "Anyone who molests or hurts one of My little children, will be convicted by Me on Judgment Day." It's rough when you have insight on the "mind and will of God". Difficult to stay humble, but the Lord has His ways of keeping us humble. servant of the Lord, with the Mind and Will of the Almighty God
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Again. Name one thing, just one thing, that you have "exposed" about Roman Catholics. Fact is you hate Roman Catholics. You are narrow minded and intolerant. You seem incapable of good will. Kindly reflect.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Thank you once again for your honesty and kindness, Dick.
And any catholic should understand the last paragraph as God's honest truth, coming from a lying, deceiving, Bible misinterpreting, coward, idolator, excuser and denier of pedophiles and perverts of his One True Church. Catholics should all take the hypocrites word for it. Despicable!
This was the response to publiars Jan 9th @ 12:56pm. Catholics can always trust a fellow cult liar.
I thought the Jehovah witnesses were hostile to the Catholic Curch. But you take the cake, "what the heart is full of flows out of the mouth". I'll pray for you Dan! As Catholic Christians that is what we do. I don't know what sect or cult you belong to but all of your comments is laced with hatred, it is like a poison that will eventually destroy you.
God bless,
Theodore………
I'm narrow "minded and intolerant"? If you think so, because I refuse to accept a false religion of hypocrites, have a problem with idolators who pray to false gods or goddesses, and can't stand compulsive habitual liars and slanderers, then quite possibly you're right. You don't know me. How dare you claim I'm "incapable of good will", slanderer? Who do you catholics think you are, worshipping false gods and demeaning anyone who questions your phony cult of perverts and creeps with character assassinations. You think you're special, LYING ACCUSING HYPOCRITES!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1036AM:
We quickly pass over the now-ridiculous bit about the Church having ‘made’ “Mary a goddess”.
The more interesting howler here is this: in regard to what, exactly, is Peter-as-Pope “heretical? You can’t simply ‘be’ heretical; heresy requires a negative relationship to a pre-existing corpus of doctrine. And what pre-existing corpus of doctrine is it on the basis of which ‘Dan’ doth intone the charge of heresy? (Short answer: it is heresy against the ‘doctrinal holdings’ of the church-of-‘Dan’-in-the-bathroom-mirror … for which bit of furnishing , clearly, ‘Dan’ requires a hefty dose of Windex.)
And the comment trails off with ‘Dan’ (wearing his personal pope hat) fuming on and on.
I'm stating that the majority of catholic teachings, along with it's unbiblical hierarchy and goddess worship is heresy against True Christianity, the teachings of Christ, the Apostles and Paul. The title of pope didn't even exist until Boniface in 606 A.D.. So "the Church" goes backwards to link itself to Christs' time by pulling names out of the Bible to title as popes, to fit their deceiving agenda, so they can make false claims that their pagan heathen cult began in the first century.
I just read today, pope Francis' infallible word on the "Queen of Heaven" in his book, 'Happiness in This Life', page 142 – "Think about it, Our Lady is more important than the Apostles! She is much more important!" HERESY!! I say HERESY!! What books of the Bible did Mary write, catholics? Someone should have papa read Ephesians 2:19-21
"… but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." Do you see any mention of Mary? NO! And maybe you can learn that the saints, members, apostles, prophets and especially Christ make up Gods' Spiritual Temple, not a man-made phony temple. Let me know when I'm through schooling you fools, and I'll take on the pope next. servant of the Truth
And don't try to kid yourself that "saints" refers to those charlatans that catholics name as saints, especially the ones that secretly hide the pedophiles and perverts of "the Church" (JP II).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1258PM:
Here – and had you been waitttingggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ has apparently decided that he isn’t going to prevail on the basis of his Biblical or theological chops so instead we get a whomped-up “prophecy from the Lord Almighty” that – by amazing coincidence – sounds just like ‘Dan’ trying to float an advertisement for his shoddy Scriptural and spiritual wares.
Readers are advised not to reach for the popcorn while reading it since there is some danger of choking on the kernels while reading the thing, especially out loud.
Now, Catholics, you can listen to ‘Dan’ doing his best (and a sad ‘best’ it is) imitation of God or you can – after reading it – engage in some thoughtful and prayerful munching on the popcorn.
Oh, and stop calling ‘Dan’-as-‘Dan’ or ‘Dan’-as-God “mean, nasty names”. ‘Cuz God’ll getcha “and you may not have much time left”. Take it from the horse’s … mouth.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 245PM:
And continuing with his riff, ‘Dan’ once again (and how many times have we been over this pericope before?) tries to twist the Matthean pericope to his own Catholic-bethumping purposes.
As I have said a number of times before: a) in verses 1 through 4 the disciples had asked Jesus who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven / in response to which Jesus called over a near-by child (using a show-and-tell methodology and teacher will recognize) and said that in order to believe one must humble oneself like a little child.
He then addresses Himself to His inquiring disciples and says that whoever causes a “believer” (i.e. little child) to not-believe in Jesus would better be drowned in the sea with a millstone tied around his neck. The little child is both i) a living image of what Jesus says a believer must be and ii) a warning to the disciples not to lead believers astray.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 245PM:
But the drowning-millstone image is merely an image tied to this-world. It says nothing about how God will treat any such sinner in the next-world. Jesus is trying to impress upon the disciples (some of whom were fisherman and were well-acquainted with the prospect of drowning out on the sea) the necessity of growing beyond concern for themselves and focusing on fostering the belief of believers.
There is no way that one can conclude from this pericope what ‘Dan’s faux-divine dog-and-pony show requires, i.e. that Jesus is giving a clear indication that there will be no forgiveness from God in the next-life. There is no way that any human can declare that this or that sin is ultimately unforgivable in God’s eyes. It is for this reason that the Church does not presume to definitively declare that any particular human being is actually in Hell.
But ‘Dan’ agenda requires exactly some presumption like this in order to stay afloat itself.
I have absolutely no problem with the meaning being that you must become like a little child in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, after all that is what it says. I'm saying that the child is still standing in front of Christ, when he declares the worldly punishment for harming one of his little ones and causing them to sin. If an adult rapes, sodomizes or molests an innocent child, you don't think it's possible that that will lead the innocent mind down a path of sin? Do you think that God will grant such a worldly punishment, for being such a creep, and then turn around and allow that same creep forgiveness. Now that is absolutely ludicrous, but I might accept that, knowing Gods' forgiveness, if I didn't have the prophetic word from God stating:
"Anyone who molests or hurts one of My little children, will be convicted by Me on Judgment Day. You can bet on it, and they will be prosecuted and held accountable for the evilness of their acts, for what they did to Me." You actually believe I would make up such horrible judgments against others, just so I can prove my point? That also is ludicrous and sounds more like something that your lying self would attempt to do. Pretty odd that I wish no one the punishment of Hell, and that's why I'm explaining Biblical Truth to those who have been deceived. Catholics read and study Gods' Word to find His Truth, and be careful of those who want to twist the Word in order to suit their lies and deceptions. You'll never be disappointed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 245PM:
Thus ‘Dan’s concluding paragraph gives us nothing but his own still-ungrounded assertions.
Thus that I ‘lie’ by claiming “that Jesus was speaking to adults that must become like children”. But in ‘Dan’s own pericope Jesus says to the (adult) disciples: “unless you turn and become like children you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven”.
And if there is a “horrible swift death” it is – to repeat yet again – merely a physical death.
And Jesus says specifically in verse 6 of ‘Dan’s chosen pericope: “whoever causes one of these little ones [i.e. adults who have become humble like children] to sin …”. But obviously anyone forcibly raped is not a sinner but a genuine victim; thus the only way that this pericope can be shoe-horned into ‘Dan’s usual agenda is to presume that by forcibly raping someone you force that person to sin – which is nonsense.
This pericope cannot work the way ‘Dan’ wants it to work for his usual purposes. Not that such an abyssal problem has ever stopped ‘Dan’ before as he continues to forcibly squeeze and squash Scripture to his own purposes.
The only "abyssal problem" I'm having is from the ignorance and stupidity of you and some of your catholic cronies.
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Yet. Again. You have failed to expose anything. You have merely, gleefully and thoughtlessly, repeated public attacks which have already been made upon Roman Catholics. And you have done so annonymously which is the height of cowardice. This is the act of an intolerant bigot. Time to stop feeling sorry for yoruself and grow up.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Balk! Balk! Balk! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Balk!Balk!Balk!
What do you mean, I'm "intolerant"? I've been tolerating your ignorance and stupidity just fine.
And once again, catholic liar, WHATEVER!! Are you sure you don't worship and pray to Cracker Jacks and Jiffy Pop, gluttonous pig? Maybe you can find a Rosary or Miraculous Medal in your Cracker Jacks box, peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1030PM:
Here ‘Dan’ – for lack of anything better – merely harrumphs that a comment of his I had discussed “was directed to Dick”. Again, it’s an open forum – which doesn’t often suit ‘Dan’s purposes, so he tries to head for the harrumphy high-ground here.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1038PM:
Here he doth declare that my comment of the 10th at 519AM was a “very good observation”.
In that comment I had pointed out that “In other words, we are to take ‘Dan’s fever-vision insistence that lots of stuff in the Bible backs up his anti-Church ranting … it’s just that the Bible doesn’t say it’s the Church that is the subject”.
Apparently – presuming here that ‘Dan’ actually has understood both what he has read and what he has written – he sees utterly nothing problematic with the fact that his own “fever-vision insistence” is all that he has to back up his many claims and accusations and fulminations.
This is the type of mind with which we are dealing.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1100PM:
Here – once he has lubricated his entrance with the epithetical bleat about “what is wrong with you Catholics” – he makes the claim that “’Church’ as it is defined in the Word is not a place of worship” (scream-caps omitted).
Prescinding from the relevance of his assertion to anything on the thread, one might note that “the Word” is a rather vague usage indeed.
And after he can a) explain what he means by “the Word”, then b) where in “the Word” is the term “church” defined clearly and definitively?
But rather than deal with those problems in his assertion, he simply riffs on with his own epithetical fulminations … as if they are somehow supposed to be convincing demonstrations of his assertion.
His bathroom mirror crew apparently only gives ‘Dan’ self-serving approbation, but not good information.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1116PM:
Here he gives us a masterfully vivid demonstration of how – to put it far too gently – his mind works: “Many ‘accusations’ didn’t need to be ‘demonstrably proven’”, doncha see?
“Many” priests “admitted to their guilt”, doncha see? But a) how many is that “many”? Or is this just another self-serving ‘Dan’ toss-off?
And b) we have seen here on this site several points, backed up by credible references, that address this problem of the deforming role of plea-bargaining in the contemporary criminal justice system. To which I would add the possibility that any astute defense counsel would realize the near-impossibility of a defendant succeeding on the merits in a time of Stampede.
One priest – in one of the (now largely discredited) Philadelphia cases, some here might recall – even admitted that he took the plea-bargain simply because he didn’t ‘want to die in prison’. Not the most courageous route to take, but hardly beyond understanding (especially when we see how the Philadelphia abuse trials were a frakkery of genuine legal process) and the man was probably right in his assessment of the odds against getting a fair trial.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1116PM:
And – to repeat yet again – the Statutes of Limitation are precisely in place in Western justice in order to prevent the willful bringing of accusations long after vital evidence might have dissolved in the mists of time.
Which was and is why the Stampede and its torties worked so vigorously to get the SOLs abolished or suspended in abuse-cases: such a gambit – too often successful with legislatures – effectively removed the requirement of evidence in assessing abuse allegations and claims. (Although as I recently noted here, the recent New York State experience was that so few came forward over the course of an entire year that the torties were reduced to actually putting up ads in at least one major newspaper soliciting such allegations urgently because ‘time was running out’; and still only 189 or so came forward from a very large chunk of the New York City metro area.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1116PM:
Then ‘Dan’ tosses in the fact that “some died” – which is hardly surprising given the very ‘historical’ nature of the allegations (i.e. they claimed actions from decades before). But then we get ‘Dan’s sly and deceptive and, frankly, deceitful characterizations of the deceased as merely “old untried perverts”.
As to just who or how many were “whisked away by the Vatican” is another dubious bit. Aside from the late Cardinal Law himself – whose possible motivations were discussed on this site very recently – can ‘Dan’ name any priests suddenly thus “whisked away”?
Why must ‘Dan’ continue to toss this stuff up and try to maximize without evidence? Short answer: because it’s his shtick and if he didn’t have it he’d have to face his own self in the mirror.
And he tries to bring the performance home with the quasi-theological but utterly unsupported string of assertions: that they and the Church “showed no remorse” / and therefore are “unrepentant” / and therefore “unforgiven”.
Readers may judge the accuracy of each of those elements of his bit here, recalling that in the final analysis only God can definitively judge hearts and souls.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1123PM:
Here he bleats about being termed “a pompous creep”, though I have never used that term. For the record here, he denies that he is.
But what we then see is the last subterfuge of ignorance: it tries to equate itself with not being “pompous”: ignorance is pure and simple – doncha see? – while actual knowledge is “pompous”.
This from ‘Dan’ who styles himself as “servant”, “Servant” and so on, of God Himself and then often adds that God’ll-getcha if ya don’t agree with his stuff.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1135PM:
Here – with another demonstration of his abyssal (but oh-so-necessary) lack of self-awareness – he doth claim that he has indeed provided “proof positive” of his ranting bits: there is “that prophecy” that he “sent” (the 9th at 1258PM on this thread).
So – follow his mentation here – ‘Dan’ insists that he has indeed provided “proof positive” of his assorted bits because he has put up a “prophecy” of his own (or perhaps from the “prophet” he lives with).
And so … what? We’re supposed to buy his whackulence because he tenders as proof yet another demonstration of his whackulence, this time masquerading as a Divine pronouncement?
But there’s a method in the madness here: his chosen Scriptural pericopes don’t actually establish his points (as we have seen here) so … he has to come up with his own version of Scripture, i.e. a “prophecy” that merely repeats his (still unsubstantiated) claims while claiming to be from God.
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
Again. You post nothing but classic, annonymous (and therefore cowardly), anti-Catholic bigotry.
Be careful who you worship.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Are you then an annonymous, and therefore cowardly, anti-Christian bigot and let's not forget intolerant of my exposing the lies and sins of "the Church". Apparently so, so we'll call it a draw.
Mr. Dan
Thank you for your reply.
No. I am neither annonymous, nor am I publicly attacking your protestant co-religious, nor am I opposed to the truth. You, however, have exposed nothing. You have said nothing new. You have however complained at great lenght about your personal problems – blaming them on the Roman Catholic Church and the police. And you have missed no opportunity to lauch nasty attacks on Roman Catholcis. IN short you are a narrow minded bigot an a coward.
Time to grow up I think.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 553PM:
Here, trying somehow to shore up his claims about the Church and so forth, ‘Dan’ now merely repeats what is one of the most basic points at issue: what is this “True Christianity” that he seems to be saying existed before the Church and was overtaken by the Church … ?
And among those “Apostles” was Peter, to whom Christ gave both the Great Commission and the power of the keys to bind and loose sins.
He then tosses up – like a magpie – whatever seemingly relevant bits he has in his 3×5 pile, thus that bit about the actual title of “pope” (which was in use as a term referring to all of the bishops and other senior clergy in the East before it became exclusively associated with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter).
But this is irrelevant to the point at hand here: the office and the holder of the office that continued the ministry and powers of Peter (i.e. the Great Commission and the power of the keys) was in place from the time of Peter and Linus. The terms used to denote that office changed, but the essence of the office remained.
No "the Church" until 300 years after Christ. No "popes" until 600 years after the Christ. Peter never had the title of bishop, never was a catholic, not known to be greedy, not an idolater, and surely not a habitual liar like yourself and the many I have run across from your cult of deceiving pagan heathens. Conclusion: Peter never was anything close to being catholic, let alone a false Christ, pope or bishop of Rome. That's period! Take your triple crowns and place them on your true catholic idol, Mary, "Queen of Heaven". I have no problem with Mary, mother of Christ in the Bible. Only have a problem with the lies "the Church" has put on her.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 553PM:
‘Dan’ then tries to bolster his stuff with the insinuation that the names of Linus (and all his successors up to Constantine?) were just sorta like “names” that were ‘pulled’ “out of the Bible”.
As to just who has a “deceiving agenda” here … readers may judge as they will.
As so often, ‘Dan’ quickly moves away from the historical (which is not at all his forte) to current events and goes on about Mary being called “Queen of Heaven”. (Catholic readers will already know enough to recognize the foolish ignorance of that “infallible word” bit that ‘Dan’ tries to lard onto the mess he is brewing here).
What ‘Dan’ is trying to do here is make it seem that if Mary is Queen of Heaven then that somehow demeans the status of “the Apostles!”. Since the Apostles were the very ones to whom Jesus had given the demonstration about who is “first in the Kingdom of Heaven” then we would have to presume that the Apostles learned nothing from Jesus’ own lesson and are now unhappy at not being named “Queen of Heaven” (although, as I have recently opined, I do think that ‘Dan’ himself is rather upset about not getting the title).
Catholic lies and liars shall never demean the status of the "Apostles". That includes the lies of your dopey anti-Christian pope, including "the foolish ignorance of that 'infallible word' ", added to all of your lying ignorance and stupidity. servant
Now the publiar wants to insinuate that the "Apostles" became "unhappy at not being named [the title] "Queen of Heaven". And he stupidly adds, "I do think 'Dan' himself is rather upset about not getting the title". And you think this ignorance is somehow valuable debate, rational assessing or knowledgeable questioning? Isn't it the queer child molesting priests of your cult that like to name themselves after Mary? For you to put that insult on other real men is deceitful and disgusting, underhanded and cowardly. Add lying and we can describe your complete disingenuous package, creep.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 553PM:
But then but then but then: as if mocking his own carryings-on on this site, ‘Dan’ doth both bleat and bray:“Heresy!! I say Heresy!!” (scream caps omitted). And his essay at stentorian harrumphing suddenly dissolves into the plaintive whine about “what books of the Bible did Mary write?”. Mary’s ministry was to be Mother of Christ, as announced to her by the angel Gabriel.
And whereas most Biblical book writers have not manifested themselves since their earthly mission and task was completed, Mary has remained rather very much active.
‘Dan’ then tries a pericope, Ephesians 2: 19-21, which he quotes accurately enough. What he’s going for is that there’s no mention of Mary. Alas, if no Mary, no Jesus Incarnate; her presence is pretty much presumed for being the necessity it indisputably is.
And since ‘Dan’ is on about the Apostles, he can give some thought to how he’s been treating Peter, who was given the Great Commission and the power of the keys and ultimately died for them.
As to who might be a “fool” (and perhaps a “pompous” one) needing “schooling” here … readers may judge for themselves.
Mary is very much dead and has only manifested herself in the false visions of idol-worshipping hypocrites from the Cult of Satan, the catholic church. I have never denied Mary as the mother of Christ, so stop your stupidity and ignorant lies, insistent liar. I have never denied Peter or the "Great Commission", only know that nothing catholic had any part in either, and it's just more of your ignorant lying, pompous fool.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1051PM:
Here, now claims that he doth “have absolutely no problem with the meaning” of that become-like-little-children pericope – since, primly postures, “that is what it says”. Well, that’s nice.
But as always with ‘Dan’, rationality and Scriptural chops are not only costumes and wigs he likes to don, but are also essential bits for his ongoing masquerade. Thus he immediately tacks on – in that great giveaway “I’m saying that”, as opposed to what the actual text of the pericope is “saying” – his own preferred bit as if it would fit as an add-on even if it won’t fit as the core of the pericope’s message.
But I had said – as ‘Dan’ seems to realize here – that the punishment mentioned is merely “worldly”, leaving wide open the question of what God ultimately judges (which would include knowing whether the accused actually committed such a sin in the first place to begin with).
Just because catholic deceiving hypocrites won't accept true prophecy from the Almighty, doesn't in any way negate the fact that it is the Lord's Word. Sorry, lying doubter. "God ultimately judges", and he has judged the pedophiles and perverted child molesters of your cult guilty as charged, no chance of repentance for "Anyone who molests or hurts one of My little children, will be convicted on Judgment Day. You can bet on it, and they will be prosecuted and held accountable for the evilness of their acts, for what they did to Me". servant of God Almighty's Truth, whether your doubting deceiving mind accepts it or not!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1051PM:
‘Dan’ then tries to break some new ground in victimology: if one is victimized, then it might be “possible” that “the innocent mind” will be “lead down the path of sin”.
First of all, it’s merely a possibility and not a guaranteed outcome. There is no certain assurance that a human sinned-against will turn to sin as a result of that initial instance of being sinned-against.
Second, we would have to distinguish between a) the tendency of all humans to sin in some way and b) the far more tighly-knit sequence of a person being sinned-against in a particular way and thus then sinning-against others in that same particular way. Nobody but God the Reader as well as the Judge of human hearts can trace and sort out the causality here conclusively.
Which is probably why Jesus limits Himself to merely this-worldly punishments in His statement.
You might want to look into how many raped, sodomized and molested catholic children became homosexuals, caused by the sexual lusts of your disgusting leaders and perverted priests. Don't act so stupid, you should be aware of several, if you're paying any attention.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1051PM:
As to what God will and will not do to this or that “creep”, that’s not something for humans to definitively know. Perhaps God will allow this-worldly punishment to meliorate any punishment in the next life.
And on top of all this, we note that ‘Dan’s shopping-list here ranges from rape to ‘molest’, that ever-fungible term.
That ‘Dan’ has huffily or pompously proclaimed anything “absolutely ludicrous” is not something that seems particularly substantive or reliable, and I counsel that it should not detain a rational mind.
I would further counsel that while God’s truth will never disappoint, ‘Dan’s bathroom-brewed “Biblical Truth” snake-oil will surely take its toll.
Could care less about you or your toilet fantasies, mocking creep.
On the 11th at 1219PM I had put up my explication of the Matthean pericope about who would be first in the kingdom of heaven.
On the 11th at 1003PM and 1053PM we get a nice sense of the genuine ‘Dan’, exuberantly released from the burden of having to think and explain his stuff.
But then we get the genuine howler on the 12th at 1042PM: after larding on a load of epitheticals (including, whackily, “anti-Christian”) ‘Dan’ now, somehow, after looking over the whole exchange, has decided to “call it a draw”.
This is the type of mentality … for which popcorn is perhaps the best antidote. Lots of it.
I called it a draw with Dick, not with you, publiar. No one can possibly lie to be equal to you. Shows your "mentality", that you think everything is solved by stuffing your gluttonous face with popcorn. Don't forget to wash it down with plenty of Kathlik-Kult-Kool-Aid, lyin' accuser.
You know, Dick, I have no personal problems, except those invented by your false church of lying hypocrites. The only time I mentioned these lies was when I did to defend myself, usually from publiars lies and now your stupid added accusations. I will not let you catholics claim that all your filth and nastiness is in the past and just "history". Yeah! You have a terrible history, but the fact that you've hidden and handled your perverts and perversions in house and refused to send them to the authorities has never changed. I will continue to shine the light in on your cults' filth and you can make any accusations you please. It changes absolutely nothing, including the deceit of you and your phony cult. Time for you to grow up and start thinking for yourself, instead of being one of your cults' puppets. God bless. servant of Truth
P.S. You wouldn't know the truth if it came and bit you in the ass.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 114PM:
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates the emptiness underlying his entire scam: he has nothing but mere (though self-serving) assertions, which he here again parrots mindlessly with not even a stab at dealing with the problems inherent in those assertions.
Thus – and note how the grammar gets somewhat iffy, reflecting the mentation – there was no “Church” “until 300 years after Christ” / there were no “popes until 600 years after the Christ” / “Peter never had the title of bishop, never was a catholic” and so on. (If ‘Dan’s scenario be followed, there was Catholicism for 300 years without any pope at all.)
And all of these bits now merely emphasized by ‘Dan’s favorite “That’s period!” bray – as if i) masquerading as someone definitively knowledgeable is the same as ii) actually being definitively knowledgeable.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 130PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to salvage something from his many previous bleats and brays.
Thus he now hath “never denied Mary as the mother of Christ” (though he accords no status at all to that position) and hath “never denied Peter or the ‘Great Commission’” (which puts us right back to my point about Christ saying that upon “this rock” of Peter He would “build [His] church”).
So where does that leave ‘Dan’? He doth “only know that nothing catholic had any part in either” – which is merely an assertion that remains baseless and undemonstrated … except by the fact that ‘Dan’ claims to “know” it. (His bathroom mirror tells him so, apparently.)
Fundamentalism has its core problems to begin-with; in the hands of someone like ‘Dan’ those problems are simply illuminated with neon lights.
And – but of course – ‘Dan’ attempts to substitute a thick lard of epithet for his abyssal lack of demonstration or explication.