Comments on: Even Summer Vacation Does Not Stop Avalanche of Teacher Abuse Atrocities, But Major Media Continue to Ignore Stories

By: mary

mary — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:48:29 +0000

Quick Question: *SNAP seeks max for Penn

Would it be possible for someone to approach "SNAP" and ask them to consider
changing the "P" to another word that starts with P, making it more relevant to current events?
There is no other profession I am aware of that must endure their professional/vocational title
being used in this way.

By: kmc

kmc — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:11:55 +0000

One parishioner’s response to the report of a Miami priest being arrested for shoplifting twice in December potentially a result of media bias. Here is why: One parishioner responded: "He cannot comeback to Saint Clare's". "Oh, Heavens, no." Really, why?
This response does not seem “typical” and/or compassionate.
We loved our parish and the priests. If this had happened to any of them, this would have been our response: First, we would have felt sad that our priests were having the problem and publicity associated with the problem. Second, we would have questioned the underlying problem. Third, we would have questioned whether as parishioners there was more we should be doing, including recalibrating our expectations in general and especially "December."
Finally, we would have purchased a gift certificate for him for twice the amount of the items taken and hoped he waited until January so he pays closer to what the merchandise is actually worth.
**This "does" have to do with the sex abuse crisis. This incident illustrates the power of attitudes and opinions.
Would the parishioner have disowend a family member or close family friend? This question is key because if the answer is "no", why the priest?

By: Publion

Publion — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:56:55 +0000

The comment by ‘Ryan A. MacDonald’ about the two cases in NH is the clearest example I have ever seen of the double-standard at work in this Catholic clerical abuse matter. (And thanks and congratulations to him for bringing it to light).

I would add that the NH example he mentions is a result of the synergy between several elements.

First, the type of ‘injury’: before the victim-friendly acceptance of psychological and emotional and behavioral conditions as ‘injury’, the ‘tolling’ mechanism of civil-litigation was still anchored to some demonstrable reality. Thus, if a plaintiff only discovered the injurious consequences of a defendant’s action(s) later on – and could not reasonably have known of those consequences earlier – then the law (rightly, I would say) allowed the ‘tolling’ to come into effect. So if – say – a defendant caused a traffic accident and only later did medical specialists discover an injury that the layman would not have noticed, then that ‘tortious’ consequence could not ‘reasonably’ have been known by the plaintiff until the doctors discovered it, and the ‘tolling’ comes into play to allow the plaintiff a reasonable time to act on it legally if s/he wishes. The medical reports and technological scans and expert testimony of the doctors provide clear and demonstrable proof of the injury, of the ‘tort’.

But what we see in these abuse-cases is a much more dubious form of ‘evidence’: 1) the victim’s self-reported ‘problems’, which are of such a nature (emotional, psychological) that the problems are not easily observable to any other person (a judge or a juror, most relevantly);

2) The mechanism so often claimed for this ‘discovery’ by the allegant-plaintiff is some form of ‘repressed memory’ – which is hugely debatable and no longer enjoys the confidence of courts – or else the issue is clouded (strategically) by the claim that it took the allegant-plaintiff all this time to work up the ‘heroism and courage’ to speak up (although for the past decade, at least, the general public atmosphere is such that one can make such a claim with no more embarrassment or fear than somebody pulling a fire-alarm hook. In fact, one comment-maker on the Philadelphia site mentioned that s/he had very recently overheard a youngish waiter at a restaurant matter-of-factly relating a story of abuse to the people he was serving, as if it were ‘just a thang’;

3) Nor is there clear evidence that the alleged ‘abuse’ actually caused the emotional or psychological or behavioral ‘problem’ that the victim, years or decades later, now claims is purely a result of the alleged abuse. Thus: an allegant now, say, in his/her 40s or 50s claims that a decades-old alleged abuse (and not necessarily anything as overt as genuine rape) is responsible for the ensuing years’ or decades’ worth of alcoholism, psychological difficulties, and/or behavioral issues that have resulted in a greatly impaired maturity and adult life. But there are any number of elements that may have contributed to such an impaired adult performance: genetic, familial, personal (including ‘poor choices’, as it might be called nowadays). Judges and jurors (and – through the media – the public) are quickly rushed by this vast and glaring set of possibilities, often using the excuse of ‘not blaming the victim’ (although right here you run into the huge and utterly vital disconnect that the allegant has not yet been proven to be a genuine and actual ‘victim’ of the alleged act and its alleged perpetrator in the first place).

So, to use a recent relevant example: it has never been formally established either that a) William Lynch was indeed raped by the priest as he claims in justification of his assault or that b) William Lynch’s entire failed adult life (as he describes it) is totally or greatly ascribable to whatever Lindner may have done to him; and – indeed – there is certainly reasonable grounds for considering the possibility that Lynch preceded his (quite possibly premeditated) assault-and-battery on Lindner by lying about the effects of Lindner’s alleged act 40 years ago so as to absolve himself of any responsibility for the failed-adulthood he now so publicly claims.

Now, finally, other – and perhaps even more substantial – arenas of abuse are coming under public attention. It is quite possible that there has been an organizational tendency by both teachers and administrators (and politicians) to cover-up. But I think it’s clear also that any group would want to avoid the type of un-balanced and highly-weighted (not to say ‘rigged’) public treatment that has been heaped upon the Church for years now.

And this is the problem with such inflated, exaggerated, unbalanced, non-rational and in myriad other ways selective forms of public and official examination: the (legitimate) fear of being the target of such a powerfully deranged dynamic creates by itself an equally non-rational desire to avoid any publicity or public examination at all.

And this is ascribable not simplistically to the ‘perp’s’ desire to escape investigation and possible punishment, but also the natural desire to avoid stepping into the path of such a lethally irrational but highly focused type of public investigation as you wind up with in sex-abuse matters.

Genuine abuse – the perpetration of it and the suffering it creates – is an issue worthy of serious public inquiry. But that inquiry has to be precisely that – ‘serious’ – and not the sly but irrational P.T. Barnum show that has been played out for so long, turning the public forum into a circus-tent.

By: Ken W.

Ken W. — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:12:45 +0000

"ideas and indeed mentalities" that have always unapologetically and brazenly lobbed out accusations and presumption of guilt with no regard for the veracity of any given allegation. And now we see this exact same mindset advocating mob mentality and flat out illegal violence. Not in my America!
When SNAP and those of a similar mindset illustrate that they value the truth over agenda, and demonstrate that they will always seek out the truth BEFORE presuming and proclaiming guilt, I will support them. It's that simple.

By: Publion

Publion — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:44:35 +0000

My own comments in regard to FAAF worked off the congruence between FAAF's comments and the SNAP agenda – and thus whether FAAF is/was or is not/wasn't a SNAP member was never a key point. Let me say here that in any subsequent comments it may be taken as given that I do not presume or infer that FAAF is formally a member of SNAP.

The question arises in my mind, however: is FAAF's recent insistence purely a) merely a fact-check type of minor correction, or is it b) an effort by FAAF to distance herself from SNAP or c) an effort by SNAP to distance itself from FAAF?

As I have said, I don't troll listserves, but if you make a simple review of such easily-accessible sites as the 'National Catholic Reporter' (in its 'Accountability' section articles on priest-abuse matters) or that site set up to cover the Philadelphia trial or even some of the commentary on this site then you get a sense of what sort of ideas and indeed mentalities are behind so much of the 'Catholic abuse crisis'.

By: Julie

Julie — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:54:22 +0000

Fit as a Fiddle makes me uncomfortable, SNAP member or not, because she is rolling SNAP's ball of always bringing it to Catholic priests no matter what and that they are always guilty, as SNAP always says. It is becoming clear to our horror that innocent priests are getting caught up in this, their lives ruined, and some in jail. I don't care what happens to the guilty priests. But the innocent ones are heartbreaking and they deserved to be heard also. We have no idea if accusations against a priest from 40 years ago or earlier really are true in some cases, especially when it is one or two people making the accusation and there is money to be had. SNAP works to put names out there and a template, and lobby for laws, in order to generate huge numbers of lawsuits, whether the priests are guilty or not. I am getting very uncomfortable with what is going on. When the tune has one note, there is something very off.

By: kmc

kmc — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:41:04 +0000

Would this suggest "SNAP" is becoming an unappealing acronym?

By: TheMediaReport.com

TheMediaReport.com — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:18:15 +0000

Hi, guys. Fitasafiddle has indicated that she wants to make it very clear that she is not a member of SNAP.

So let's steer away from saying this.

Otherwise, thank you to everyone for contributing to the discussion!

Best,
TheMediaReport.com

By: TheMediaReport.com

TheMediaReport.com — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:16:36 +0000

Hi, guys. Fitasafiddle has indicated that she wants to make it very clear that she is not a member of SNAP.

So let's steer away from saying this.

Otherwise, thank you to everyone for contributing to the discussion!

Best,
TheMediaReport.com

By: Julie

Julie — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:37:07 +0000

Clohessy doesn't care, because it doesn't involve the Catholic Church and the potention for lawsuit.