SHOCK STORY: Notorious Church-Suing Lawyer Obtained Clients by Phoning Parishioners and ‘Fishing for Victims’

John Manly Catholic abuse lawyer John C. Manly

Unethical conduct for financial gain? Southern California contingency lawyer John C. Manly

Southern California contingency lawyer John Manly, who has pocketed millions of dollars by suing the Catholic Church, has now admitted that his office has obtained clients for abuse lawsuits by making unsolicited phone calls to Catholic Church parishioners.

This startling new revelation in the Catholic Church abuse narrative was exclusively reported by Sue Nowicki at The Modesto Bee newspaper.

According to Nowicki's piece, numerous individuals in the Diocese of Stockton (Calif.) have said that they received unsolicited phone calls to their homes from a woman hired by Manly. These calls, they claim, left them to conclude that Manly was "fishing" for victims in the case of an accused Catholic priest, Fr. Michael E. Kelly.

Manly has admitted that he hired the woman, but only to "investigate" Kelly.


The obvious question for Manly is this: For what other reason would a Church-suing contingency lawyer "investigate" a Catholic priest except to garner clients?

Confronted with the charge that he was "fishing for victims," Manly, of course, denied the claim.

"We don't call people and ask if they want to be in lawsuits," Manly said in part to Nowicki. "That's not happening; it's not what we do. What we are doing is investigation. 'Did you ever see anything that was odd with Father Kelly?' That's how we got our first client."

So Manly has pretty much admitted that he found his first client against Fr. Kelly by "investigating" areas where the cleric worked. Wow.

The phone calls revealed

Some recipients of the phone calls from Manly's employee say the calls left them "infuriated and disgusted." Nowicki reports:

"[One recipient said] she was given the 'strong impression' that if she said her son, now 32, was interested in filing a lawsuit, 'they would have jumped all over that. They were going to find something (against Kelly), regardless if there was any cause for action.'"

And another:

"[Another woman] tried to tell [the caller] that she has known Kelly for three decades and described his positive influence on her sons. 'She told me she has found 10 more victims … She was going on and on and tried to convince me that I was stupid and didn't realize this was going on. I finally had to hang up on her.'"

Are these calls legal?

In her article, Nowicki reveals, "According to the state Bar Association, it is unethical for attorneys to make calls soliciting clients for financial gain." Indeed, it will be interesting to see if the California bar says anything about Manly's actions. (In 2006, by the way, Manly was sanctioned by a judge for "unacceptable" conduct.)

Thomas Beatty, a lawyer who has represented Fr. Kelly, questioned the calls' legality:

"I think it's an inducement into making false claims. I don't think that mass telephoning at every church and every school that (Kelly has) served at to drum up business is a proper way to do things."

Yet another recipient of a phone call sums up how many would feel after such an episode:

"As a teacher, I feel vulnerable. If former students from 20 years ago can be gathered over the phone to make statements against former teachers, we're all at risk, including police officers, doctors, nurses, coaches, etc."

About the accused priest

The target of Manly's ire, Fr. Kelly, has repeatedly and vehemently denied any and all accusations that he ever abused anyone. "The allegations are completely and totally false," Kelly has recently said. "They NEVER happened. Never. They are utterly untrue."

In addition, Kelly passed a polygraph test in 2007 that concluded that he was being truthful when he said that had never abused anyone over his 35 years in the priesthood.

Unfortunately for Fr. Kelly, a civil jury earlier this year decided that Fr. Kelly should be held liable for the abuse of a now-adult male who says he was abused by Kelly in the mid-1980s. The accuser invoked the discredited theory of "repressed memory," and Manly corralled a psychologist from Connecticut to take the stand and testify that the bogus psychological theory was actually true. Shockingly, the jury bought into it.

The Diocese was forced to settle this first case for $3.75 million. Now ever since, not surprisingly, new accusations are popping up.

Stay tuned.

Kudos to Sue Nowicki at The Modesto Bee for some great work.



  1. jim robertson says:

    I praised Manly once for being able to use the word collective in a sentence with out wretching. He did it.
    Not that anyone here likes the truth.
    John Manly is to the right of Attila the Hun and Pub. He was the kind of Conservative planning to fly back to Florida to investigate the hanging chad vote count to make sure them ther Democrats wouldn't pull a fast one. He personaly told me so. He'd booked his flight.
    Joelle Castix  in my early dealings with her before she became SNAP Queen of the  Western U.S. Australia and Guam, worked for Manly. They were both little right wing darlings. She tried to steal me from my lawyer saying "I wish you'd gotten a better lawyer" as she sat next to John Manly at the first SNAP convention in St Louis. This is long years before Joelle became Mrs SNAP West.
    Let's see rabid Catholic Conservatives suing the Church???? SNAP was created by rabidly Catholic Conservative Dominican nuns; and little Tommy Doyle was and still is a conservative Dominican priest. Where's the radicals, the leftys organizing the victims to get a better deal for our selves than  a 40% cut to a lawyer.
    I thought your contra point in this musical was that it was the leftists  or the liberals who were controling victims suing. Make up your minds. You can't have it both ways.
    Or is this the time we pretend that you lot and Billie Donahue are the real center of the Catholic road. If that's true then I just saw Atilla passing out Mao's little red book.

  2. Sue says:

    How do these crooks get away with it? 
    Oh yeah the media rarely reports stories like this. 
    Thanks to the Media Report again.

  3. Sixupman says:

    In a case in Scotland, a firm of lawyers placed press adverts in local papers where the order of nuns had homes – touting for claimants.

    • jim robertson says:

      So what? You live in a market driven economy. Lawyers advertize their services.  Now you whine about that? You are panicing because the sane world holds your Church barely accountable for it's actions? And you see that minimal about of responsability as oppression? The only people feeling sorry for you is you. Get over it.  The only "victimists" here are you.

  4. Julie says:

    Good Lord. Of course they were fishing for false claims. Money, money money.

  5. Laurie says:

     Although I acknowledge that there have been some real heinous cases of predators in priestly disguise, the media has jumped on the bandwagon to make sure that any priest who  is accused is automatically guilty. Their target is essentially the Catholic Church, and the reason is to discredit the moral teaching. The teaching of the gospel of life and of sexual morality is particularly despised. The lure of quick windfalls of money also became a factor.  People (lawyers and alleged victims) who had no conscience regarding the telling of lies in order to get rich began  taking advantage of the defiled reputation of Catholic priests. And there are those charlatan psychotherapists who assisted in the fabrication of false memories in people suffering from psychological problems.  There is a snake bed of false accusations to uncover. Whether you agree with the teaching of the Church or not, you cannot believe that it is right to falsely sully the reputation of another human being and even inflict long jail terms for crimes they did not commit. Truth will prevail in the end.

    • Peter says:

      No innocent person deserves any of this. The worst that happens in my opinion is when it's made an 'us and them' between true victims/survivors and those innocently accused – more victims. I know three who took their lives because of early abuses and later abuses by hierarchical mis management and cover up. They almost succeeded with me too. I looked higher than the highest ranks of the hierarchs and got the help I needed. Don't fall into the 'us and them' mindset when it comes to innocents – lay or cleric. It hurts everyone and prevents true healing for all. 

    • jim robertson says:

      What moral teaching can the Catholic Church preach after the Church's response to the children they abused either actively or passivly? Even when the Church is correct about the death penalty even that moral stance is overshadowed by it's horrific treatment of victims.
      Hi Heil, Having lived in Galway and i have been in that hospital . I'm furious. Thanks for the link.

    • jim robertson says:

      Lauri dedicate yourself completely to Priests you feel are falsely accused. It shouldn't take much time there aren't that many.

  6. Walter says:

    Show me the money!!!!

  7. jim robertson says:

    Why is the majority gay Catholic hierarchy obsessed with sex? Maybe because they are so self oppressed.

    • Ismael says:

      Jim you are a tereotype cashing out stereotypes that are grounded in ignorance and half-bakes 'news'  that some authors or journalists try to pass for the truth.
      I think that if there is an obsesses person with problems… it's you who seem to spens an unhealty amount of time trying to find ammo to attack the Church with (usually the same old nonsense, of course).
      Obviously you have not got over your psychological traumas and problems. I think it's obious that because you were hurt by some you feel the need to attack ALL without any discrimination of who is innocent and who is not.
      I recomend a good psychiatrist, in that case.
      Medicine will help you more than spamming the internet.

  8. I'm offended by Mr. Robertson's suggestion that nobody reading this post "likes the truth."  I happen to be very fond of the truth, and I commend David Pierre for his dogged pursuit of it.  The revelations in this story might be new, but the story itself is not new at all. Going all the way back to the days of claims against  Fr. James Porter, ambulance chasers in the Boston area took out ads in The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald solicitiing claimants against Fr. Porter and other priests.  Not long ago I received a message from a woman who attended a meeting of accusers of Fr. Porter (there were hundreds) at the office of Attorney Roderick Macleish.  One woman reportedly stood up and declared that the accuser of Fr. Porter wasn't molested by Fr. Porter at all, but by his own grandfather. Reportedly, the attorney shut down the meeting immediately and pulled that person aside for a "private" consultation. It was the first "mediated" settlement in which 80 plaintiffs shared $7.2 million with no evidence, no corroboration, and no questions asked. 

    • jim robertson says:

      By your post alone you've proved my point. The Church is just going to pay up like that? Just pick a figure we will pay? LOL LOL LOL LOL

  9. Julie says:

    Jim, sometimes your comments reveal your true agenda. I see it here. You are not in any way serious about real discussion. You want to bash Catholics. I no longer read much of what you write on here because you either aren't following or are just being nasty.

    • jim robertson says:

      No Julie I am not following here. If I followed the most verbose person here Pub. I'd be left no where. Using theory as fact. sans any proof of his premiss. I'd be playing ring around the rosey with some antiquarian cleric who doesn't have the decency of naming himself. The way you and I do.
      What exactly do you see my "true agenda" as being, Julie? I don't get you. And your extraordinary coment that Manly is looking for false claims. Prove that and he'd be disbared. But as per usual here. No proof.
      Do you all just feel your version of fact?  Empiric methods of analysis unimportant compared to what you just believe to be true?

  10. Dave Pierre: How much do the bishops contribute to your enterprise?

  11. jim robertson says:

    My apologies Ryan, I should not have said that. I probably should have said " know the truth" You maybe very fond of it, the truth. But you've seen very little of it here. Saving  yours truely of course.

    • jim robertson says:

      Ryan, what does 80 victims dividing up $7.2 million with 33 and 1/3% to the attorney add up to for each victim? 2.5 million for lawyer. Garabedian is his name I think…leaving 4.7 million for the 80 victims. giving victims somethin like $60,000 each on the average. Some would get more probably than others. Not very much compensation. Remember what Porters "et all"'s victims went through? Fr Birmingham made Porter seem sane compartively. You know if SNAP wasn't keeping victims from meeting up. (If we attempted to meet other victims without knowing who or where they are: imagine the difficulty. SNAP gets called by victims.) You would hear victims abuse history. But SNAP/Church doesn't want you to hear our childhood horror. Now isn't that odd? Victims of hurricanes; wars; fires; 9/11 have all talked about their experiences. But since the Boston Globe's expository investigation very, very few victims histories have been shown to the public.. Now there lies the ruins of any veracity in SNAP's claims to care for; help and represent victims. SNAP became the voice for the victims that SNAP has coerced into remaing silent. Even after settlements. Don't you think a real victims group would want the truth out? Imagine the survivors of the World Trade Center being coerced by a group saying they represent those survivors into silent acceptance of what ever that group says.( Oops isn't that what the 9/11 report did.)  II guess it depends on how big the scandal is.
      As far as the story about the mother yelling out at a meeting about her son. What people will do when they are afraid their chance at a better seat near the Lord might be jeopardized. She "defended" , read chose the Church over her own son. Who just as easily  could have been abused by both his grand father and his priest.
      Here's my small example. I was offered settlement monies on my own, no lawyer.$12,000. I had a Protestant aunt who was livid I didn't accept it. (this same aunt once said:" Catholics really arn't Christians are they?".) Children who are sexually abused are an embarassment to some people and I was an embarresment to her. My sex abuse embarressed Her. It was this anger she showed me; that the family laundry was being displayed by me. And that it was connected, some how, to God through religion Ah the love! It was all to icky for her. Imagine how I felt. It happened to me.

  12. Julie says:

    Jim, I agree. He should be disbarred.

  13. Joe McGee says:

    I was sodomized by the friendly parish priest hundreds of times from 1953 to 1956 because back then I believed I had to obey a priest or spend eternity in hell. If I had a dollar for everytime a "good" Catholic called me a malcontent, a trouble maker, an evil person, etc after I mustered up the courage to talk about at the age of 49 I'd have some money now. The hierarchy made it very plain to me that the statute of limitations ran out long before I started talking. No wonder the hierarchy fights so hard to keep the statute of limitations from being changed so people like me who kept the secret for years before talking can have justice. After all my dealings with the hierarchy I can only conclude they are for the most part nothing more than amoral parasites

  14. Joe McGee says:

    Furthermore why is any attorney labeled "unethical" for exposing the truth? Anyone who thinks the numbers of abusing priests is very small simply does not want the truth. Take a look at . Is shocking and that is all who have been credibily accused.

    • jim robertson says:

      Joe, Sorry can't cover any part of what happened to you and continues to happen because the Church refuses to help you. But I am sorry you were hurt.
      Amoral parasites just about covers it.
      Again sorry doesn't do much but I am sorry.

  15. Julie says:

    I see SNAP has discovered this post.

  16. Joe McGee says:

    Damn those whiney victims who feel badly when they get revictimized when they tell what happened. Some of these people here thinks like the clergy. It is unethical to shine the light of truth on this centuries old problem. Is it unethical for a priest to rape repeatedly and then tell the kid it is Gods will that this happens? And you must never tell anyone lest you burn in hell forever. Not only unethical for the priest but the greatest betrayal of power and trust.

    • jim robertson says:

      Mr. McGee, welcome, a sane voice.hopefully. But you can write. You must be one of those writing types.

  17. Publion says:

    An interesting bunch of comments.
    In the Western legal system, in criminal matters it is the DA’s Office and the police – acting with the sovereign authority of the government – that investigate. In civil matters, attorneys have always been barred from ‘fishing’ for clients; nor is it possible for a civil tort attorney to ‘investigate’ and simultaneously be in the business of acquiring clients. The Bar and the courts have long recognized this and thus there are the regulations – which Mr. Manly appears to have breached, and not for the first time.
    In that regard, I recall that one of the problems in the recent Philadelphia case was that the DA kept as a Defendant a priest against whom the DA’s own intensive canvassing and investigation could not turn up any further allegations.
    Nor is it possible to excuse his actions by claiming that he is ‘exposing the truth’, since it is precisely the point that we don’t really know what the truth is in the matter; that’s what a formal and disinterested and impartial investigation is designed to do. Civil tort attorneys can investigate the case of a client who has sought their services, but are barred from approaching potential clients or seeking to drum up business. If this is what Manly has been doing, there is indeed a story here – by any legal and professional standards.
    The assertion that a person can be raped “hundreds of times” over a period of three years by the same perpetrator poses a challenge to any reasonable assessment, no matter how predisposed to generosity and indulgence the assessor might be. Of course, the claimant might be speaking figuratively, but if that is the case, then how can we know where he draws the line at all between truth and exaggeration in the first place? This is a problem of fundamental commitment to veracity that exists not only in the internet forum but also in the basic reality of making the claim; it is precisely the same issue highlighted in the Clohessy deposition where that gentleman asserted that he operates on a double-standard of truth: the Church must be held to the strictest standards, whereas victims and – self-servingly – their representatives must be given the widest latitude in being ‘truthful’. The usual come-back claim here is that there is a ‘larger truth’, but that has been dealt with at some length in prior comments on this site.
    Of what relevance an internet story about abortion in an Irish Catholic hospital has to do with anything discussed on this site is anybody’s guess. That ‘JR’ – why is it not surprising? – suddenly recalls being (an inpatient?) “in that hospital”, that very hospital,  is … what it is and every reader is free to make of it what s/he will. Perhaps he was merely conducting an “investigation” and was not there to avail himself of any of its professional or clinical services.
    As is the assertion that the Catholic hierarchy is “majority gay” (what is it with JR and gayness?) and “self-oppressed” (whatever that means). But if his claim about his being an embarrassment to relatives in his childhood is to be credited, then there are far less convoluted possible explanations for his relatives’ discomfort than the proffered (and conveniently self-serving) explanation that he was a ‘victim’; his material produced with remarkable consistency on this site certainly lends itself to the possibility of ‘issues’ reaching far deeper and pre-dating any putative abuse experiences. I point this out merely as a matter of competent analysis and consideration of causality.
    The bit about the Church somehow no longer having the “moral status” to address moral issues in society – if it is to be considered a rational and logical principle and not simply one more communication from the tin-foil hat – serves to equally undermine the US government’s status in making strong moral stands for democracy, since it has by its own admission engaged in such practices as deliberate torture and has caused the physical (not metaphorical or figurative) deaths of a rather large number of human beings in the past twenty or so years, including women and children (whose loss, some may recall, was publicly characterized by Madeleine Albright – then Secretary of State – as “acceptable” in her scheme of things).
    Ditto another message from the tin-foil hat has revealed that there are few falsely accused priests. This bit has been dealt with before in comments on this site. I’d be careful about throwing around the “credibly-accused” term until it was determined exactly what definition of “credible” is being presumed; the Bishop-Accountability site had to put up a disclaimer about the clerics it put on its marquis ‘list’ for much that very reason.
    And also from the tin-foil hat: I am apparently some form of conservative. Which is both odd and illogical, seeing as how the greatest enabler of the American mutation of victimist theory was Ronald Reagan in the 1980s (precisely when the McMartin Pre-School Day-Care Satanic Ritual Abuse trials and the Catholic Abuse Matter suddenly sprouted up). I could once again ask for some explanation, but apparently the messages from the tin-foil hat only dispense one-liners, and don’t provide the wearer with any larger, rational or coherent explanations.
    I think ‘Julie’ is on to something with her thought that this site has finally attracted the attention of the SNAP types.  Perhaps the fact that the lawyers are now coming under scrutiny has something to do with that. Maybe some rational and substantive discourse might develop out of it; but from my own reading of comments on some of the SNAP-friendly sites (and NCR’s is a tame example of the genre) I think we will mostly see further examples of the inimitable stylings which we have already seen.
    Last point: it cannot but be of clinical interest that the person most demonstrably unable (or – let’s not rule it out – unwilling) to spell correctly or even to conceive and express thoughts coherently considers persons not so characterizable as “verbose”.

  18. Julie says:

    The bishops don't fight to keep the statute of limitations down. They fight for the statutes to be fair, so that ALL institutions can be sued. We are starting to have commenters here now trying to stir up the same old thing — saying I am a victim and so any ugly thing I say about the church and any unfairness handed to the church is well and good no matter the truth or whether innocent priests or shyster lawyers get caught up in this. I am not sure all of what Joe is saying is the truth, I see some improbabilities, but God bless him and I believe he is not an evil person. All of us here have acknowledged that victims should be compensated and guilty clergy punished.

    • jim robertson says:

      LOL.LOL. [abbreviation for 'laughing' expletive deleted by moderator] julie. Just because the Church, in your own opinion, offered you support emotionally doesn't mean it offers the same to us. You were bring money and devotion and respect and money IN. We were taking money OUT.  if we had the ability to sue.
      Ah Pub, what can I say, anyone reading your recent post above can see the insults you write about those of us who disagree with your sad positions. You can't fool all the people all of the time Pub. Ad hominem attacks are you merely displaying your own self loathing. Projecting your view of you out onto the planet. The fact that you pretend, rather pompously, That yours is a simple analysis of the unknowns of this scandal only washes if you offer proof rather than the speculation you profer.(Maybe I should say, prefer) Whatever. I don't know Joe but how kind of you to welcome him here. What grace on your part. (per usual). A victim speaks and you call him a liar in a not so round about way. Charming as always. If Christianity was judged by your behavior It would have never gotten out of Israel.

  19. jim robertson says:

    P.S. Are you getting your insights from my tin foil hat or yours? Or maybe it's Ratzingers?

  20. jim robertson says:

    You are unbelieveable. My cousin Carol Coleman who played piano at Ashford Castle, Cong, County Mayo. for 20+ years.( Cong was where "The Quiet Man" was shot), was in that hospital in Galway. before she died. i visited her there. You are a social oaf.

  21. jim robertson says:

    Here's what "self oppression" means: If they are the hierarchy and they are Gay (boy are they) and they tell you and themselves that "God" says that gay is bad. And since God hasn't made a personal appearence in some time (not ever actually.) It means they are oppressing all gay people including themselves because they are the ones talking not God. Clear enough for you?

  22. jim robertson says:

    The "strong moral stand of the U. S. government for democracy" is one of the most incredable remarks ever.
    Killing people in order to free them, seems like only something a religious person could find liberating.

  23. jim robertson says:

    If i would only count the number of verbs used by you; Verbose is a most apt discribtion. It also means wordy. Still apt. I do admit my spelling is lacking. Sorry.

  24. Joe McGee says:

    This quote by Judy Herman really sums up my feelings: "It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, to hear, and to speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering."

  25. Publion says:

    A couple of things.

    First, in regard to ‘JR’, I think the record shows with sufficient clarity at this point that ‘JR’ has ‘issues’ the nature of which are sufficiently probable for me to assure the readership of the following: I do not in any way seek to bait or taunt persons not fully in control of themselves; if there is material in the ‘JR’ comments about which I decide to comment, it is only because I think that such material – whether it be the content of assertions or the various rhetorical gambits deployed – needs to be noted because anybody who wishes to delve more deeply into the Catholic Abuse Matter is going to encounter this type of stuff. I imagine that SNAP meetings (such as the one JR reports having attended) are chock-full of this sort of stuff and that it constitutes the general content of discourse there, as it does without a doubt on the various relevant websites where adherents allow their expressions to flow freely.

    In fact, I have considered it a positive boon that through all of the material ‘JR’ produces in comments readers are presented with such clear and unmistakable examples of SNAP-type material; through ‘JR” the Oz-like curtain is drawn back and we are able to see what mentalities actually play and have played for so long a major role in fueling this whole thing.

    I am also grateful to TMR for deleting the expletives.

    Mr. McGee’s quotation of Judy Herman is fair enough and he is welcome to embrace her thoughts. But I point out again that Ms. Herman starts the chain of her thought precisely after making the huge presumption that is fundamentally at question: she presumes ‘victims’ – self-proclaimed – are exactly and everything that they claim to be, and that the same goes for their allegations or stories.

    Having thus quietly (not to say slyly) moved past the core Question simply by presuming it away, she takes a legitimate-sounding high ground by making a plea for the (presumed genuine) victims to be heard and so forth. Which seems a nice and even logical thing to do. Which it is. If you presume that all victims are a) genuine and b) demonstrably credible.

    But that presumption is exactly what is at issue.

    And thus the victims’ demands – in Ms. Herman’s statement of it – are already hanging in the air when they are made. And this is especially so when on the basis of that huge presumption such extravagant demands are placed upon the public – for legislation, for shared outrage that tends to stampede and sidetrack rational assessment, for all manner of weakening of fundamental and traditional jurisprudential protections.

    Thus it is not at all the whole truth – to say the least – for Ms. Herman to imply that the victims seek very little except some empathy and that what “action” they demand is a small enough thing to ask for. As we have seen for decades, what ‘victims’ – or rather their self-appointed spokespersons and organizations – demand is not “small” or harmless. The “action” that is demanded has demonstrated itself to be very significant and substantive and heavily freighted with negative consequences for the integrity of the Constitutional justice system and – through the manipulative stampeding of public opinion – the integrity of deliberative democratic political process itself. (I am saying here nothing that I have not already discussed at length in comments on this site.)

    I strongly approve of genuine and competently-run ‘support groups’ and supportive therapy for genuine victims. But even in the matter of genuine victimization, I cannot approve of the methods by which public opinion is manipulatively inflamed and legislative and judicial process skewed. Surely – it seems to me – any genuine victim who is also a Citizen of this Constitutional republic can understand the larger issues and dangers involved here, many of which dangers have already been actualized.

    Nor is this merely a veiled defense of the Church and the hierarchy. First, because I do not deny the possibility of genuine victimization being perpetrated at the hands of some priests. Second, because it is now clear that this method (which I will call ‘victimist’) has migrated to many other areas of national life and public discourse.

    To use a short image: it is hugely imprudent and dangerously self-defeating to burn down the ship to get rid of the rats. I say this without in any way inferring that all priests and bishops are demonstrably ‘rats’ – far from it. Both the Republic and the Church are Vessels bequeathed to all of us; and as the deep ocean and its stormy great waters once again threaten us as they have rarely if ever done before since 1787, then I firmly believe that we need those Vessels to be as strong as they can be made and kept.

  26. Julie says:

    Thank you Pub. Once again, you have visited the issue with clarity. I am beginning to realize that JR doesn't even read your posts, which is a shame. Some of us who don't have agendas are reading your posts and gaining some understanding of the issues at hand. I feel like I am in grad school again when I read your comments.

    • jim robertson says:

      There is a diference between understanding the issues at hand and definition of the issues at hand. Pub defines them for you; no thinking or proof required. Every thing he claims victims do to the Church, he has the Church doing back. But guess what? he's defining the perimeters of the arguement and throws ad hominem attacks on top of HIS definitions to seal the deal for you .Nice!

  27. Doug says:

    This is a sad story affecting all religions that I know of. (A friend is married to a pediatrician who has spent 'too many' hours on the stand as a witness as to physical signs of abuse; he says 'all religions have sinned'.)
    What I find missing from the mainstream churches is the knowledge that they had the means to deal with most of the offenders right in their own Bibles, at Mt 18:15-17, which I quote from the Douay:
    Jesus: "But if your brother shall offend against you, go, and rebuke him between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you shall gain your brother. And if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican."
    To update the language, 'If a church member [lay or clergy] is molesting children, confront him privately. If he listens, confesses and turns himself around, you have gained him for the Lord. If not, take another one or two mature Christians to repeat the conversation. If he still doesn't listen, report to the congregation overseers (or elders or senior priest or whatever), and they will announce that he is to be treated as an outcast.' That is, excommunicated.
    What is common to so many of these cases is that the overseers had not the courage to follow these steps, even from the first. So many wayward clergy were protected by so many bishops that their bad ways continued under color of authority, often in new congregations that were given no accurate knowledge of the situation. And that means the civil authorities ("Caesar") were not notified, either.
    Too much bureaucracy, not enough Christianity.

    • jim robertson says:

      Doug what you are managing to overlook here is crime.It's a crime to not report a child abuser. a crime. We live in the real, the secular world. What was perpetrated on us were crimes. Not sins but CRIMES. Bigger than the bible dear they can't put you in jail for disobeying the bible. (Any more). For enabling child rape, perpetrators, if they are religious never see the inside of a jail most of the time.

  28. Ismael says:

    Too bad for you anti-catholics that the story is not as one sided as the anti-catholic media wants to show it:
    Savita's death is a tragedy… and pro-abortion and anti-catholics who exploit her death unjustly are like carrion birds on her corpse.

    • jim robertson says:

      May I call you Ismael? :^) The  needless death of Savita is horrific. Your post exploits her death unjustly.

  29. Joe McGee says:

    Is sad that one is labeled anti-Catholic because one believes the only way to stop clergy from molesting the faithful is to confront the evil by exposing it. But, it was much more comfortable practicing Catholicism when we refused to look at evil. Damn those people who try to force me to use common sense.

    • jim robertson says:

      Joe welcome to clown college. Where up is down and black is white. Julie will help you lose your way.  Her loving anger is so self righteous.  Pub will bore you to death. Both pretend they hold a moral high ground. When really they are rent a cops guarding the Church's banks. You'll have a grand old time here.

  30. Julie says:

    Joe McGee, You are not reading the posts and comments, are you.

  31. IllinoisMan says:

    I get the feeling that the truth about the fake victims' movements, SNAP and SNAP lawyers is so bizarre that it would make a good article for one of the Lyndon LaRouche newsletters or books. 

  32. Joe McGee says:

    The Catholic church has never paid one cent to any victim where there was not absolute evidence that the accuser was telling the truth. NOT one goddamned cent. The faithful sheep would be shocked if they knew how much has been paid with strict gag orders. Govenor Keating likened the Catholic hierarchy to the Mafia and then later apologized to the Mafia. Like I said here before, the Catholic hierarchy are for the most part amoral parasites.

    • says:

      Joe – While we allow different opinions on the site, we do not appreciate people coming on here and making up their own facts.

      1. Your claim that the “Catholic church (sic) has never paid one cent to any victim where there was not absolute evidence that the accuser was telling the truth” is 100% verifiably false. In fact, due to “blanket settlements,” many accusers have received humongous cash settlements even though the claims were later shown to be completely bogus. I actually provide a significant number of concrete examples in my book, Catholic Priests Falsely Accused.

      2. While Gov. Keating did indeed compare the Catholic Church to the Mafia (an episode which shows that even smart people can have really stupid ideas), he never apologized to the Mafia. (I have searched for evidence of this claim, but I have found none.)

      3. As far as your claim of “strict gag orders,” that is completely false as well. You need to read this by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz.

      Again, we welcome your thoughts, but not your fabricated “facts.”

    • jim robertson says:

      The victims can no longer be impelled by settlements to remain silent. However the Church is now telling victims if you ask for silence as a part of the settlements that's legal and binding.


  1. [...] Church-Suing Lawyer Got Clients by ‘Fishing for Victims’ in Churches – Media Report [...]