Hollywood Awards Accused Child Abuser and Elmo Actor With Three Emmys; Media Sees No Problem

Michael Jackson : Kevin Clash, Elmo : Roman Polanski

Kevin Clash (with Elmo) joins the Hollywood abuse club with Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski

How do the cultural elites in Hollywood deal with a successful actor after he has been accused by at least four different men of child sex abuse? Not screaming headlines, of course. Instead, it rewards him with three Emmy Awards.

Kevin Clash struck it big in Hollywood by developing the personality and voice of the popular Sesame Street character Elmo. Yet after a number of men came forward late last November to accuse him of abusing them as boys, he resigned from the hit children's show, thus joining a growing list of Hollywood celebrities accused of sex abuse with scant media disapprobation.

Roman Polanski: 'It wasn't rape-rape'

Clash is not the first Hollywood star to be celebrated by media elites even after being accused of child sex crimes.

In March of 1977, Los Angeles law enforcement arrested famed director Roman Polanski for the savage rape of a 13-year-old girl that happened at the home of his famous friend, Jack Nicholson. Court records indicate that after Polanski plied the underage girl with alcohol and drugs, he then forcibly performed oral sex, intercourse, and sodomy.

Polanski never denied the crimes. In fact, he told an interviewer a short time later, in 1979, "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!"

Yet through it all, Polanski, the admitted child rapist, continued to have a successful and celebrated filmmaking career, with Hollywood ultimately bestowing its highest honor, an Oscar award, for Best Director for his work on The Pianist (2002).

It seems that child sex abuse can be good for one's career in Hollywood.

And, shockingly, several high-profile media figures have actually jumped to Polanski's defense. Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and Debra Winger were reportedly among the list of over 100 Hollywood figures who demanded Polanski's release. On a CNN interview, Tom O'Neill, senior editor of the celebrity magazine In Touch Weekly, cried, "It's mind boggling why they're still pursuing this … It just seems that the prosecutors in Los Angeles won't let go these many years later."

On the nationally syndicated television show The View, co-host Whoopi Goldberg downplayed Polanski's rape of a 13-year-old girl. "It wasn't rape-rape," she claimed. "We're (the United States) a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds – in the rest of Europe, they are seen, often times [as adults]."

And Tom Shales, television critic for the Washington Post, opined, "[I]t may sound like a hollow defense, but in Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old."

The 'King of Pop' vs. a Catholic bishop

Bishop Juan Arzube : Los Angeles

NOT the "King of Pop":
The late Bishop Juan Arzube

Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, possibly the most successful musical artist of all time, was accused multiple times of child sex abuse. In 1993, Jackson paid a whopping $15.3 million to quietly settle an abuse claim.

In a 2003 television interview, Jackson even openly admitted that he slept with underage boys and actually defended his practice. "It's what the whole world should do," claimed Jackson.

Yet when Jackson died a few years later, and newspapers mourned the loss of the musical legend, the Los Angeles Times, for one, blared a humongous, fawning headline that the "King of Pop" had passed, with his criminal troubles merely meriting secondary attention.

Contrast the treatment by the Los Angeles Times to the death of Jackson with the death of a popular L.A. cleric, Bishop Juan Arzube, who passed away less than a year before Jackson. Arzube was the target of a single accusation during 2003, the year that California lifted the statute of limitations in order for accusers to file money-seeking lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

Arzube vehemently denied the decades-old allegation, but that did not stop the Times from devoting nearly 30 percent of his obituary to the stale accusation against him and stamping the word "ACCUSED" below the photograph accompanying it. (See for yourself and read about this episode.)

Meanwhile, unlike Bishop Arzube, charges of abuse against Jackson continue to this day, even after his death.

'The number one problem in Hollywood' you will almost never read about

In August 2011, Hollywood child star Corey Feldman flatly declared during an interview on ABC:

"I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That's the biggest problem for children in this industry … It's the big secret."

The mainstream media's reaction to Feldman's remark, however, was almost undetectable. In fact, the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper right in the backyard of Hollywood, never even reported on Feldman's remark. Instead, the paper buried it in a little-noticed blog item a few months later.

Yet mainstream media outlets like the Los Angeles Times continue to hyperventilate over abuse committed decades ago by Catholic priests. In fact, just yesterday, the Times published a splashy, front-page, 2,100-word piece about a priest who was arrested for abuse some 32 years ago.

And surely you would never find a famous media figure defending a Catholic priest accused of sex abuse with defenses like "A 13-year-old is not really a 13-year-old" or "It wasn't rape-rape."

And so the double standard continues.


  1. Delphin says:

    Maybe that's the movie Spielberg needs to make. He could then employ his industry/neighbor pedo-fella buddies.

    Must be something awfully "quirky" in the [filthy] air out there-

  2. jim robertson says:

    Yes people in Hollywood breath air . What do your breathe, arsenic?

  3. jim robertson says:

    Such hatred. Such a wild lashing out of hatred towards others. Why? Does your side of the arguement require a frothing of the mouth? you are a rollercoaster. You are Bill Donahue after all.

  4. jim robertson says:

    The vast majority of Angelenos have never raped anyone. FYI

    • KenW says:

      The vast majority of Roman Catholic priests have not raped anybody. FYI.

    • jim robertson says:

       KenW, Did anyone say they did? Quit projecting. I see priests still treated with respect consistantly in the media. Particularly since the new Pope. If anyone thought the "vast majority of priests were abusers, would that treatment by the media occur?

      But the hierarchy is a very different story. Why? Because the hierarchy has covered up and passed abusers on to new parishes as a mater of policy everywhere. You name the country and that's what the hierarchy did:  Moved the problem around.

      When do you plan on taking responsability for those consistant crimes world wide?

    • KenW says:


      Your first paragraph, you plainly implied that the vast majority of priests raped, you did so by contrast. Conclusion: no projecting on my part. The media does not, at large, treat priests with respect. 

      Your 2nd line, that is the way that SNAP and the mainline media portrays it, but when I examine individual cases on their own merits, I find that explanation waaaaaaay to simplistic and myopic. I have found many instances where the local authorities declined to do anything, yet the "hierarchy"gave the perp the choice of a life of penance or total excommunication. I have also found many instances where the perp chose to leave, often disappearing off of the face of the planet, only to leave the diocese and a new bishop that did not even know the perp holding the bag when the accuser comes forward -decades- after the fact. 

      Your final line, 1st, it's not my responsibility. My responsibility is to my family, to my home parish, and to my diocese, now, in the present. 2nd, consistency has not been proven or established, it has only been alleged. The ones making the allegations often bypass the criminal aspect and go straight to the civil process. More often than not, the accused are either dead or have long ago left the priesthood and disappeared. Of the ones that remain that are alive and wearing a collar, very few admit guilt. Matter of fact, most of the accused that are living DOGGEDLY maintain their innocence and stand ready to face their accusers. 

      I have been Catholic for 2 years now. When I first set foot in a Catholic parish 3 years ago, the contrast between what the media, SNAP, and yourself portrayed vs. what I saw with my own eyes, that contrast was stark and vast. What is OFFENSIVE to me is the rhetoric given by the media, SNAP, and yourself creates a myopic tunnel vision, where whenever the subject of pedophelia comes up, the naive' public automatically equates that word with a collar, and their attention is diverted away from where pedophelia is happening right now, often under their very noses! That aspect of the topic at large makes me SPITTING MAD! My local news outlets IGNORED a baptist music minister caught molesting 7 boys at a local church, and it was later established that his pastor hindered the investigation and that this music minister moved from church to church unhindered with his superiors knowing he had a problem, yet the local paper IGNORED that story, while plastering the front page with    huge headlines about decades old -allegations- of abuse against priests that were either dead or long gone. I double dog dare you to put yourself in my shoes and note the contrast. 

  5. Martha says:

    Great post.

    Child rape is ok if it is done by liberals in Hollywood I guess.

  6. Mark T says:

    Whoopi Goldberg has a double standard all right. She's quite happy to defend Roman Polinski, but puts the boot into the Catholic Church. I remember seeing a Youtube video where she hit back at Bill Donohue (or as she dubed him, Bill Donohoe) for blasting her for having abortions. I remember posting on the video to express my point of view and someone by the name of Jack started giving me a hard time, even going as far as to call me a bigot. The more I defended myself, the worse he became.

  7. Delphin says:

    Such defense of the movie industry pedophiles.

    Where is the outrage over the victimization of the children? Are the anti-Catholic bigots abuse victim advocates, or not?

    Will there be the victim advocate group cottage industry springing up throughout Louse Angeles?

    Will there be special legislation proposals and "outraged" prosecutors and judges?

    Will there be politicized movements to litigate Hollywoody out of existence?

    Should the Catholic faithful, and others of honest and decent morality be demanding these things to make the movie industry "compensate" victims- beginning way back in the Golden Era to present day?

    We tried to warn you that the dog you made vicious would eventually turn on you.

  8. TrueCatholic says:

    Hollywood is much worse then the few thousand, child raping priests, we Roman Catholics, Cardinal Brady, and the Vatican, lie about.

    • Walter says:

      I don't know who you think is lying about what.  There are 1.2 billion Catholics and almost no pedders.  That is a fact.

  9. Julie says:

    That is the thing that bothers me. It depends very much on who the victim is. The focus has been on lawyers "helping" 50-year or so past claimants with little evidence. Nobody cares about victims in institutions that don't have deep pockets, and they don't care what is going on NOW to children. Absolutely ANYBODY truly victimized by evil people who got into the church should be compensated. BUT ALSO, why doesn't anybody seem to care about safety measures NOW. NOBODY asks, not the media, not the so-called victim's groups. HELLO!

    • jim robertson says:

      If other's commit crimes that can't be used as an excuse for your clergy commiting crimes..

      Why should the world be more interested in your protection of your children now when you still don't actively care about your victims then? The world can see you do nothing for us unless forced to. Absolutely nothing. You had "cure" homes (the Paracletes) for your priests and you still have nothing for your injured children. It's that real hatred for victims by their abusers, your hierarchs and by you ( you are co conspiritors by enabling, in this) that the world see's and loathes about you.

      All SNAP does is underline it's interest, it's only up front interest, and your very same interest, as being "protect the children". More concern for the unraped than for the allready raped.  Does that sound normal for a "Victims' group" to be more interested in the non abused that in the people they pretend to be interested in????? That's why they are a fake.

  10. Julie says:

    Another thing that worries me. With the focus solely on the Catholic Church, such child abuse is surely flourishing elsewhere under the light. Like Hollywood. And the schools. As we in the church discovered, you get complacent or stupid or don't have all your ducks in a row, it is going to HAPPEN, and you must be diligent.

  11. Delphin says:

    TrueCatholic is neither. [edited by moderator]

    I'd sooner send a minor boy into the Catholic Church than into the Hollywood movie industry – unless, of course, I am an advocate of the Hollywood liberalism that supports man-boy "love"  -  even if it does mean sacrificing an innocent child. After all, NAMBLA does state that these "relationships" benefit the "boy" most of all. So selfless. Yeah.

    We've been there already- before our Lord educated the pagans that openly practiced man-boy "love"- it isn't good for anyone (i.e. boy, society), except the pedophile.

    And, of course, pagan pedophiles hate the Catholic Church. [edited by moderator]

  12. dennis ecker says:

    It is funny to read that the catholics get upset when one of their priests GETS accused of child abuse and arrested and faces trial, and their argument is I have  known Father such and such for many years and he could of not have done such a crime.

    But when someone else is  accused of the same crime they must be guilty as sin.

    Catholics need not blame others or other organizations. WORRY ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR OWN HOUSE FIRST. Don't look at the possible crimes of others to minimize your own.

    WE will get them too.

  13. jim robertson says:


    I have to tell you that I have a very long history with Bishop Juan Arzube.

    As a child I attended mass and school at Ascension parish in south central L.A., in the early '60's Father Juan became our assistant pastor at Ascension.

    I remember being a very religious child and going to confession to Fr. Juan. Evidently I was the only 13 year old confessing to masturbation. Father Juan made my penance 2 weeks attendance at mass. His 8 am mass before school started.

    Later I was a member of Chi Rho club that met in the rectory, at a meeting i had to use the restroom. I had to go through Fr. Juan's bed room to the toilet. He was in bed (it was 8:00 pm) I remember smelling sperm saw he was naked and his jockey shorts were by the bed. He lit up when I came in and was sort of hyper smiley  towards me. Nothing happened but the energy was there.

    Years later ( early '80's) I was doing a radio show, a gay radio program on the Pacifica station KPFK. It was called I am R U. (I loathed the title).

    My first interview was with William Burroughs, author of the The Naked Lunch. Second with Harry Hay , father of the Gay movement in America.

    Looking at the time for other interviewies We had a new Bishop in L.A. it was Fr. Juan so I called him. I wanted the Catholic take on the Gay Revolution. And feeling he was gay himself I thought why not? It would be great radio.

    He spoke to me immediately; was very very nice; said it would not be possible for such an interview. But with that same energy I remembered in his bedroom years before asked me to get together with him. I said no.

    None of this proves he was an abuser but there was an energy there.

    Arzube as a young man was in a Hollywood film; and credited, It was the Razor's Edge with Tyronne Power and Anne Baxter. She,Frank Loyd Wright's grand daughter, won the best supporting actress oscar.

    I write this FYI.

  14. jim robertson says:

    I know P will ask why I would have to go through a priests bedroom to use a restroom, I don't know but Fr. John Coffield who was running the youth group said it was o.k.. (It was the closest or the down stairs was being used) Father Coffield has also been accused. By an 11 year old at a later parish.

  15. Publion says:

    The LA document dump looks to be shaping up this way: nothing really current or earth-shaking, so they will trawl the cache and occasionally come up with ‘stories’ like this, from the wayback, with as many memories from various involved players as possible.


    This will serve to a) wring whatever reader-numbers possible out of what little there is in the cache; b) keep unreflective or hasty readers under the impression that the Ball Is Still Rolling; and c) perhaps jog the memories or at least ambitions of assorted persons who might still see a future for themselves in the accusing-for-dollars game (although it seems like this vital element of the Playbook is starting to lose its luster).


    As for the curious disconnect between Hollywood’s approach to its own ‘sex abuse’ (extending far beyond Polanski’s famous/infamous incident) and the Catholic Abuse Matter: first, one can wonder how much of a ‘cover-up’ has been going on for quite some time in show-biz and even the media itself (the recently-revealed BBC-Jimmy Savile example comes to mind, as well as the examples DP mentions here).


    Second, Hollywood is now hard aground on the rock of double-standards, although the rest of the country is too (whether the fact is widely noticed or not): on the one hand, sexual activity has for decades now been touted as nothing more than i) an individual choice, with the individual making all the decisions as if it were merely a matter akin to selecting one’s favorite ice cream for a cone; ii) a healthful and indeed necessary ‘option’ which must not be viewed with ‘negativity’ (or caution or prudence) because of old (i.e. traditional) rules that were thought up by kill-joy (and hypocritical) religious types merely to interfere with personal pleasure , choice, desire, health, liberation and fulfillment; iii) an increasingly ‘available’ recreation and even usefully distracting stress-reliever for many who have lost any larger sense of Meaning in their lives (think here of not only Hollywood-party types but also several recent cohorts of youth raised in the glorious possibilities of the ‘hook-up’ culture.


    On the other hand, the same secular-liberal interests are simultaneously pushing the victimization and outrage of ‘sex abuse’ and ‘sex assault’ (see the military’s current woes, college speech and sex codes, ‘abuse’ legislation at all levels, and – some might recall – the original uproar over ‘sex offenders’ (widely and broadly defined) who were mostly men and who – like McCarthy era commies or like vampires – were everywhere.


    Thus current American culture has been trying to step down forcefully on the gas and the brake pedals simultaneously – which is neither good for the vehicle (our society and culture) nor productive of any forward motion or progress.


    The mainstream media – by and large – have accommodated themselves to this whackness by simply reporting some sex stories as feel-good narratives of liberation and fulfillment while reporting others as outrages and victimization. Yet all without any deeper consideration of the fundamental whackness of the general schizoid approach to sex to begin with.


    Underlying this, I think, is the following bit of conceptual alchemy: the only thing that can ever be ‘wrong’ with sex is if you ‘victimize’ some other (non-consenting) person. There is no other standard by which to gauge or judge ‘sex’: there are no ‘moral rules’, there is no ‘moral nature’ – either in the person desiring sex or in the person consenting-to that desired sex, and there is no official conceptual concern for any other persons whose lives might be affected by the desired sex. And, but of course, there is no relevance whatsoever here for any concern about the overall moral quality – and commonweal – of society or culture, which might well be affected negatively by such an approach to sex.


    All of the foregoing is contrary to the Catholic position on sex: that it is (like nuclear or atomic power) a marvelous but also highly volatile human capability; that it has been designed to fit into a human Nature and human Project that has been Created by God; that the preservation of the Image of God in which all human-beings are made must be the primary factor used to assess the decision to engage in sex (much as warship commanders can’t simply decide to fire their weapons because it’s a slow and boring day at sea and it would be fun, exciting, distracting, and provide some laffs and jollies to pass the time). In other words, sex is a serious and rather demanding adult-type activity for which some gravitas and competent decision-making chops are required.


    As for such cases of priestly-perpetrated genuine abuse as may indeed have happened, I continue to insist that the Church and the Bishops need to seriously spackle-up their seminary training and assessment; and that an absolutely vital element in this is to more rigorously prepare priest-candidates with a robust and vital awareness of just how all this works and what their role is in incarnating this wisdom in their own lives.


    It’s thought-provoking to realize that until 1908 the United States was still classified as a ‘mission country’ by the Vatican (coming under the authority of the Vatican office for missions). And throughout the later 19th-century and into the 20th the primary goal of the American episcopate was to somehow demonstrate to native-born Americans that the huge numbers of immigrants from Southern and Central Europe (following the sizable influx of Irish and German immigrants in the 1840s due to the Irish famine and the failed revolutions of 1848) could and would make ‘good Americans’, fitting into American society and culture.


    The American Church succeeded almost too well in conforming-to American society and culture; its responsibility to witness-to the Gospel by providing an alternative to the less-sober elements of that society and culture was diluted because Catholicism here was able to build so extensively upon the Western and religious elements already present in this country’s heritage. Things got too easy and priests and bishops became more ‘administrators’ than apostles and witnesses – thus what I call the City-Cohort mentality came to dominate.


    There was only a half-century or so after 1908 before Vatican 2 came along in the early-mid 1960s, and then the simultaneous huge upheavals in American society and culture. And those changes worked mostly toward a secularist, this-worldly, mono-dimensional framing of American and human life, with no multi-dimensional Beyond and instead only the Flattened world of the ‘Modern’ (and then the ‘Postmodern’). Even Vatican 2’s efforts to make the Church more accessible to that Modernity often wound up simply conforming the Church to (way too much of) that Modernity.


    The Catholic Abuse Matter fits in here – I would say: the Church – even in her ‘conformed’ condition – continued to provide an alternative (and I would say a true alternative) Vision to the Flattening, mono-dimensional Secularist trends in American society and eventually a concerted synergy developed to discredit the Church as an alternative (and rival) Vision and Framework for Meaning. And to the extent – not yet authoritatively established even now – that sexual immaturity had been allowed to continue within priestly ranks then the Church herself provided the fuel that gave impetus to the Abusenik Stampede.


    And that’s where we stand today, as this Stampede begins – finally – to be subjected to some amount of examination and analysis. Much work remains to be done by all concerned.


    Readers who might be interested could read John Tracy Ellis’s short but very informative and useful 1955 book American Catholicism; it is a brief and simple history of Catholic activity in North American since the first Europeans arrived and takes matters up to the immediate postwar period. Ellis, I find, is rather optimistic about the future (as it appeared to him in 1955) and you need to factor that into your thoughts about his material. There’s been a lot of water under the bridge since he wrote it.

  16. Publion says:

    While I was putting my prior comment together, two others appeared.


    We are advised by commenter Ecker that Catholics “get upset when one of their priests gets accused” (exaggerated formatting omitted).  It becomes increasingly clear nowadays that such Catholics might well find the accusation out-of-character for the priest and wonder about its veracity. Especially if they have known the priest personally and for quite a while; as opposed to those who only know that priests-are-pedophiles as a presumed mantra (or bumper-sticker).


    It is interesting to note, however, that commenter Ecker shows so much tender concern for the various celebrities and does not wish to jump to hasty conclusions, despite the media coverage. Admirable indeed. But rather uncharacteristic in the Abusenik Stampede universe.


    I would also point out that his use of the present tense (“what is going on in your own house first” – exaggerated formatting omitted) is once again a Playbook effort to Keep The Ball Rolling and lead readers to presume that it is still (name your favorite decade here).


    And are Catholics – as Citizens – not entitled to be concerned for possible sex-abuse elsewhere in the country? It is said to be rife.


    And who is this “we” (exaggerated formatting omitted) who “will get them too”? What appears here is the sense (or conviction, or delusion) that anybody who claims to be a victim is somehow deputized to go out and “get” everybody who strikes them as being guilty. One thinks of Mao’s Red Guards during the lamented Cultural Revolution. And when will this ‘getting’ be done? Has commenter Ecker and all the rest who putatively comprise his “we” already gotten started on all the rest of “them too”?


    And if we are well-advised not to “minimize” purported and alleged crimes, we should also not “exaggerate” purported and alleged crimes. Especially on such grounds as Exaggeration In the Pursuit Of Abusers Is No Vice. Especially if the abuse is alleged but not proven.


    JR then appears to give us some history, in which – but of course – he conveniently played a great part. I would only suggest that “FYI” is not quite the right phrase here, since we really have no way of knowing if what we are being given is “information” rather than … something else. I would propose “FYC”: For Your Consideration. And let’s leave it at that.

  17. jim robertson says:

    May I remind you that the issue here is not only about sexually abused Catholic children. The issue the key issue in fact is the cover up and transferring of abusive priests by their bosses the hierarchy. That's the issue the cover up.

    Why don't you lot quit whining at the victims and put the blame where it belongs on the very people you support.

    You're really cowards.

  18. jim robertson says:

    You are the ones whose  own children were put in danger by these guys. Whose side would, God forbid, you be on if you or yours were victims. Oh wait a minute, you were abused too by the very risk those enablers put you and your chilldren in.

  19. Dorothy Stein says:

    As sad and duplicitous as this story is, the polar opposite is happening in the U.S. Catholic Church where since 2002 the bishops have redefined the theology of redemption by inventing a second unforgiveable sin. I just read a memorable description of this by a priest who seems to be serving a prison sentence for the sins of the Church.  Please see Father MacRae's "Our Catholic Tabloid Frenzy About Fallen Priests."

    • drwho13 says:

      Dorothy Stein,

      Is this the guy that's doing 33-66 years? I read somthing about an appeal, but there was not enough evidence to warrent an appeal, true or untrue?

  20. jim robertson says:

    Look it up yourself nonbelieving boy. Look at Arzube's career on line at Bishop Accountability

    By the way you believe in a diety and a Resurection that have never been proved. Nor could they be.

    Why would i bother to make it up. You are an idiot. Quit insulting me or I'll sue you for the LIAR you are.

  21. jim robertson says:

    All you do P is repeat this theme: unbelievable. So you have a problem P you just don't believe except in the unbelievable

    , You've knda cancelled yourself as a discerner of truth. You are uninterested in the truth unless it supports your position. You are therefore untrustworthy.

  22. Publion says:

    At 359PM – in a comment uncharacteristic both for tone and diction (is there software available now that can work such miracles?) – JR seeks to remind us that the issue is not simply “sexually abused Catholic children” but indeed that “the key issue in fact” (has not been or is not any longer the abuse but rather) the “cover up and transferring of abusive priests by their bosses the hierarchy”.


    This is the post-2002 line, when – see my extended comments discussing the D’Antonio book – the Boston Globe needed to come up with a new ‘success’ to burnish the image of its new editor back in 2001. The Globe wanted to be seen not as simply re-hashing a decades-old issue, but rather breaking brave new ground in playing-up the “cover up” by the hierarchy; that was going to be the Globe’s contribution and its ticket to the big-time.


    But then suddenly the train of JR’s thought derails itself: Where a sentence before he had been juggling two issues (abuse and cover-up) he suddenly asserts “That’s the issue the cover up”. What dynamic might be driving this oddness? Prescinding from interior processing and mentation issues, I would suggest that the oddness stems from the tactical problem created by the fact that the Arzube story doesn’t really pan-out in the abuse department, so one has to go to the back-up generator and remind everybody of the ‘cover-up’ bit – which is then put forward as “the key issue in fact”, thereby shunting ‘abuse’ to a secondary position.


    Such are the mistakes to be made when one is trimming one’s arguments to fit the material. And if JR will now feel confounded by the fact that words and ideas have once again escaped his control … well, if you decide to play in the lab, you’d better know how to combine and not-combine chemicals and how to keep track of possible reactions when you start doing some fancy mixing with the beakers. But so many Abuseniks, I think, see themselves not so much as serious chemists working with complex and volatile materials in a carefully-structured lab, but rather like Tom Cruise gleefully and acrobatically mixing drinks for the admiring bar-goers in the movie Cocktail.


    And the media allowed them to carry on like this while seriously stroking its collective chin as if it were hearing marvelously serious stuff from seriously serious people.


    And again, one can only wonder what cocktails of words and concepts and dates and times and names were gleefully concocted behind the bar during Allegation Happy-Hours back in the day (and right up to the still-bubbling Billy-Doe trial in Philly).


    Then at 622PM JR returns to the scene – although to unhappy effect. We must be lectured as to the fact that our children “were put in danger by these guys”. Underlying this lecture is a) the sly presumption that “these guys” actually did do all the stuff concocted in the numerous stories and allegations; and b) the implicit condemnation of all of us who – in having some serious doubts about the Stampede (not to say various Abuseniks’ credibility) – are witlessly or evilly colluding with all of “these guys”.


    But then – again the lions escape the fearless lion-tamer’s control in the center ring – his idea opens up an entirely new approach to matters here: To what extent are many of the Catholic readers and Catholics generally the victims of the Abuseniks’ sustained concoctions about priests and bishops and the Church and the integrity of people who believe in God and such stuff?


    “Oh wait a minute” … that’s not where that idea was supposed to go.


    And the beat goes on.

  23. Hegesippus says:


    Is it time to redirect your energies towards other groups who need to deal with the abuse issue? Can you name any other group who have made so much progress in weeding out the perpetrators? Do you have an a priori issues creating a very strong perceived bias against the Catholic Church while seemingly explaining away issues regarding other societal groups? Can you genuinely say you are being balanced in your approach towards all abuse, or is the status of the abuser more important?

    These are merely the questions that spring to mind in reading your posts.

    God bless

    • jim robertson says:

      Heges, Your group, the Catholic hierarchy, have been forced to finally do something by victims coming forward. Their new policies emplaced to protect children only occured after victims came forward. The Church did not self correct with out our complaints. They were forced to do it.

      I was abused by Catholic clergy, enabled by Catholic hierarchs. It is with them and only them; I am concerned.

      Those abused by other groups have my full support. I focus only on who I was abused by because the vast majority of the Church's victims have yet to be compensated for their injuries.  To pretend the scandal is over, while ignoring the victims of that scandal, is both stupid and malevolent.

  24. jim robertson says:

    Listen, You've [edited by moderator] moaned endlessly about public schools having more abusers than Catholic schools; but nobody's said differently. The difference is the cover up by "religious men".  All over the world the very same behavior of cover up has been shown true of your hierarchy by documents forcibly released. So what's the deal are you or are you not, morally responsible people?

    • Hegesippus says:


      I am sorry if you found it difficult to answer any of the four questions directly. However, you have managed to answer them nonetheless.

      God bless

  25. Catholic & Proud says:

    Sounds like there is plenty of hatred going on here.  "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."  Together, this leads me to think you are all saints who are hateful – which is an oxymoron.  Consider talking with God instead of this computer.  He alone has the power to heal the hatefulness you have within you.  Lord, help them see the light of your love!

  26. dennis ecker says:

    Publion, Its not over ! When the church continues to fight the change in laws that will benefit victims/survivors its not over. When the church continues to lie and protect abusers its not over.

    I can refer you to how abusers are supervised in places like those in Childs Maryland. I can refer you to web sites like Philly.com who posted on their face page (6/28/13 posting) three articles about Chaput alone. How he states the church is financially sound, and on the same page in a different article it states the liquidation of 8 archdiocese properties, and then again in a different article on the same page it states how Chaput will announce how the church is continuing to crash and burn.

    Two different articles that prove Chaput the CEO of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia continues to lie.  What else is he lying about ? Where are the findings of these remaining clergy members under investigation by the Archdiocese ?

    See you don't see the real facts of the catholic church. It has been business as usual for them. The deceit, the lies and the attempt to minimize the crimes of the church by looking at the possible crimes of others as this article is trying to do.

    Do I believe there are individuals out there like those pictured above who are guilty for crimes against children ? Sure. Just like you and I and most of the nation believe O.J. and the bimbo from Florida are guilty of taking a life. But they are our opinions and thoughts. What I present to you are not only facts in Philadelphia but what is happening across the country.

    But the catholic seniors on this earth are dying out and they are the ones who were raised in the old school like me that anyone wearing a white collar deserves respect. Then I see and speak with the younger generation who are proud of their faith and are asking questions. Making sure ALL clergy members from any faith EARN respect. If not they will leave the church find another and take their money with them.

    Changes are coming, and the catholic church will change if they like it or not but for right now it is business as usual.

    I often wonder if I was not abused, would I be on the same side of those who continue to find excuses for their clergy members ? Would I not be standing along side Mr. Robertson in a fight to see abusive clergy members get punished. Or would I ignore the subject because it did not happen to me and would I be one of those who would tell Mr. Robertson and others like him to get over it.

    Sadly, it may have been the later.


    • josie says:

      Huh? What the heck are you rambling about, Dennis? You are making no sense whatsoever. Your high and haughty attitude is a bit obnoxious, as well. You seem to speak with some authority on various subjects but …umm..guess what! You draw the wrong conclusions,you misinterpret people, you misread material, you go off on goofy tangents. But,  I must admit that it is pretty funny sometimes.(in a Mrs. Malaprop kind of way if you know what I mean (but maybe not I suspect). 

    • josie says:

      I am sorry, Mr.Dennis, if you possibly suffer from dyslexia. Or is it that you like to SLANDER the Archbishop because of your  "victim" status, or is it your hatred for all things Catholic?  You really have a nerve calling AB Chaput a liar. Wow! That is an insane, offensive remark

      (Oh, and please, don't concern yourself with my support for the shepherd of the Catholics in Philadelphia. I assure you that he has plenty of support, respect and love in this city, all over the nation and the Catholic world.  You truly know and understand so very little. It is a shame).

      Coincidently, why do you refer in another comment to the right to know everything as if you are a Catholic? You use the word "we" as if you were deserving of information as a registered, active Catholic when you are not. (I will find where you said this if you forget and I find the time).Aren't you the guy who writes tons of letters asking to be severed from the flock.? What concern are the finances of our archdiocese when you tell people they should not contribute?  (sorry-most are not listening to you) You, who makes fun of good Catholics who love giving to their Church, tighthing, remaining active in the activities of their parish which they don't mind supporting, don't "know it all" as you seem to think. As a matter of fact, you made a comment once about people throwing $5 and $10 into the Sunday collection. News fash–people give a lot more than that on an average. But what do you know? Not much.

      I can't believe you talk to the Catholic youth in Philadelphia. It is a known fact that there is a vibrant youth population here who embrace their faith-the Catholic High Schools (and colleges are filled with very impressive kids who living their faith , supportive of their Church and are looking to the future. If you are active, you would see them everywhere. But again, your exposure is nil. 

      I am sorry for you if you have problems. I have no way of knowing if what you say is true about yourself. There are other sites where you can be a victim all day long and bash the Church and yes even speculate, spin, twist the truth, spread rumors, and tell whoppers for a reaction (oh and people will buy it all day long).   

    • josie says:

      FACT: The Philadelphia Church is not crashing and burning as I am sure you will hear but you have to pay attention now!

      TRUE: People need to earn respect (that is a given -you are right there)

      HEARSAY: Lying witnesses are holding up the completion of the remaining cases of those that were ACCUSED of some type of inappropriate conduct or abuse. Wouldn't you want a thorough investigation if you were accused of something? Wouldn't you want to be treated fairly? 


  27. Publion says:

    I think I do quite a bit more than simply repeat the theme “unbelievable”. In fact I don’t even do that. The theme I keep repeating – because I keep encountering the reality – is more aptly and acutely characterized as not-confirmable or not-demonstrable – in the internet modality and/or in any other way.


    Bishop-Accountability as a reliably dispositive source of information? Seriously?


    I believe in the “diety” and the Resurrection because I have had some rather strong personal intimations that they are actual facts, even if not scientifically and materially demonstrable. I do not easily credit JR material because I have had rather clear experiences of unreliability – and have explained them at length. In fact, let’s keep JR from distracting us from the key point in my take on things: I find his material largely unreliable.


    Why would he bother to make anything up to post here? Well, why would anyone bother to make anything up in the accusing-for-dollars Game? Ummmmm – because there is a big payoff, either fiscally or in terms of other bennies (here one would consider the psychological bennies of status or at least of the delusion of status).


    JR will sue me for being a liar? But first we have to establish the truth of what JR claims to tell, don’t we? And so back to square one. And this “idiot” is still waiting politely for an answer to the question about opening the floor to diagnostic thoughts.


    And we note the classic projection: JR uses his own brand of logic to prove somebody else is “untrustworthy” but not ever – no never – himself.  But the too-easily donned Wig of Logic only works in the personal bathroom mirror. That’s the trouble with most of the wigs in the collection.

    • jim robertson says:

      Thank you Dennis for the honest writing. I'm grateful.

      P do you wear a wig? I sure don't. So please place none on my head. Everything I've said here about my abuse; your Church; and my personal history is the truth. Just because you will or won't believe me does not stop it from being true all the same. I find it funny that an unidentified poster, sans any degree in psycology is so eager to play shrink on me. I, unlike yourself, hide nothing here but why would I want to hear an obvious bigot's opinion of me? Me, an already injured victim of your Church and it's machinations.

      You are the people who are hurt again and again by the very people who hurt us and instead of actively siding with the injured. You pretend you are the injured and are vicious about it to boot.

      I may be wrong often, sometimes, now and then, who isn't? but I am trustworthy. [edited by moderator] Jesus, whether he existed or not, was never vicious.

      [edited by moderator]

  28. Publion says:

    Now comes commenter Ecker to report – a tad breathlessly – that “it’s not over!”.


    The Church continues “to fight the change in laws that will benefit victims/survivors”. What laws might those be specifically? Surely commenter Ecker might be less vague. Of course he might be, but he slyly won’t be, because he doesn’t want to spell it out: the Church (and she is hardly alone in this) opposes the reckless extension of Statutes of Limitations (SOLs), that latest frontier in the victimist-revolutionary law strategy. Which, of course, will not only a) benefit whatever genuine victims (that Holocaust-filching “survivors” is simply too much) are out there, but will b) put the accusing-for-dollars Game back in cash-producing business while c) creating lethal precedents in the legal firewalls that limit the ungrounded expansion of the Sovereign Coercive Power (all of which has been discussed at length in prior comments on this site).


    And once again we see the old revolutionary Playbook play: if you try to defend yourself then you are simply compounding your crimes. One recalls the ants’ war-cry in – if memory serves – The Once and Future King by T.H. White: “They are attacking us by defending themselves!”.


    A few minutes ago I checked the Philly-dot-com website and found two articles on Archbishop Chaput and the AOP (links to both at the bottom of this comment). The first is the report of Chaput’s announcing “mixed financial news” about the AOP in the upcoming annual financial report. That piece goes on to say that as a result of decades’ worth of less-than-effective fiscal management some hard decisions had been postponed and he has now taken some of those decisions.


    Leading to the second article, in which eight of the AOP properties for sale are listed: old former schools and old former convents. Hardly an ill-advised corporate move, disposing of un-needed real estate and facilities. One might notice the DOD’s recent announcement that it will leave or scrap seven billion dollars worth of equipment it sent to the AfPak theater and is deemed too expensive to justify shipping it home (including half of the twenty-five thousand MRAP IED-protected vehicles – at a million apiece – that were specifically developed and produced in quantity for operations in that theater).


    Where is Chaput “lying” here?


    And although I couldn’t find a third article where Chaput claims the AOP is “financially sound” (unless it’s part of what he did say in the first article I referenced) I can state that corporations that are divesting themselves of unnecessary facilities and properties are far more financially sound than corporations that don’t. Is that news to Ecker?


    And I will need to see the link to the article in which Ecker claims that Chaput “will announce how the church is continuing to crash and burn”. And if Ecker thinks that divesting the aforesaid types of facilities and properties is a sign of ‘crashing and burning’ then his reliability as a financial commentator is rather substantially self-undermined.


    Thus then Ecker also undermines the next step in his Rube-Goldberg construction here: that since Chaput is “lying” about the fiscal health of the AOP then – waitttttt forrrrr ittttttt! – “what else is he lying about?”.


    Thus then Ecker also undermines the next next step in his Rube-Goldberg construction here: that therefore I “don’t see the real facts of the catholic church”. What “real facts”, pray? Because so far here Ecker has presented precisely none.


    Thus then Ecker also undermines the next next next step in his Rube-Goldberg construction here: that what he “present[s] to you are not only facts in Philadelphia but what is happening across the country”. First, he hasn’t presented anything but his own assertion here about what is going on with the Church in the rest of the country. Second, if what he means is that the Church is finally spackling up its corporate management chops and starting to get rid of unnecessary properties, then we’re back to square one (see above).


    He then opines that with “catholic seniors on this earth” now “dying out” then – apparently – there will be an end to the idea that “anyone wearing a white collar deserves respect”. Since I don’t have access to the same tea-leaves, tin-foil hat, or voices that seem to sustain and inform Ecker, then I’ll just leave that assertion to hang up there where it was put.


    I might – however – suggest a far more relevant change that Ecker might consider: that not everybody who puts on the Wig of Victimization and heads for the nearest stage “deserves respect” simply because they have put the Wig on. (The Wig, marvelously, operating not so very differently from the “white collar” in the dynamics that Ecker himself has set up here.)


    One wonders how any of these Wig-wearers will respond if any of the fresh generation of questioners start asking They of the Wig any probing questions about the genuineness of that Wig. From what we have seen on this site or in the Billy-Doe trial, I don’t think the questioners will be well-received at all.


    As far as spackling-up the seminary formation and episcopal chops, commenter Ecker is hardly breaking new ground here at all. I myself have commented at some length at what I would like to see happen.


    And in what way is it “business as usual” for the Church? Ecker himself has clearly demonstrated that corporate management is being spackled-up and if he cares to characterize the Dallas Reforms (and their subsequent enhancements) as “business as usual” then let him say so, because it sure doesn’t look like “business as usual”.


    In fact, it seems that only Ecker and They of the Wigs are actually still locked into “business as usual”. The hot ironies.


    Ecker will also need to demonstrate where – if he is referring to this site – he finds “those who continue to find excuses for their clergy members”. For that matter, he will first have to define that charge of ‘finding-excuses’ so that we are all clear on just what he means. We don’t want another two-years-equals-a-career type of mix-up here, as so often happens with Abusenik material.


    And again and again and again: we really don’t know when we are actually dealing with an “abusive clergy member” and when we are dealing with a phantasm created – or concocted – by various allegants. If Ecker has any solution to this profound difficulty – beyond simply presuming the truthiness of anyone who has put on the Wig – then I for one would deeply appreciate his sharing that solution. I shall await a reply.


    Lastly – and passing over in silence Ecker’s valentine to JR – I would suggest a) that they not “get over it” but rather that they get on with it. It is decades later and – as with MADD’s efforts in the matter of drunk-driving – things have changed. And in this I am accepting for purposes of the present discussion that Ecker and JR can be characterized as other than other-than-genuine victims.


    But b) I would also point out that competent therapeutic practice would call for enabling the patient to move forward, having gained some mastery of whatever (genuine) unpleasant experience was undergone. But for such patients – decades later (and again, presuming the actuality of the claimed experience) – to still be waving that bloody-shirt and indeed clinging-to it … that would not be considered a good thing at all. If any commenter cares to provide the name of any clinician who has given them contrary advice, then let them share it – because such commenter has truly been abused.





    • jim robertson says:

      "They are attacking us by defending themselves" is exactly what we can claim the Church is saying about victims through you and what you write. "us" being the Church; and those "defending themselves" being the abused.

      Playing the victim is not the same thing as being one.

  29. Martha says:

    Jim why don't you stick to the post topic?

    • jim robertson says:

      Martha, If you mean by "sticking to the post topic" agreeing with the "post topic"? Never Watching Catholics trying to wiggle their way out of moral responsability won't be happening, without criticism, while I'm alive.

      And frankly since I'm the only one here who knew Bishop Arzube I feel I'm a bit closer to reality re topic than you.

  30. Delphin says:

    Church (i.e. Catholic) haters will never acknowledge that the Church has successfully, and completely addressed their minor abuse problem.

    Church haters will never accept the annual reports as having any integrity- no matter the evidence. Evidence is foreign to Church haters, think of the latest trials against innocent priests.

    Church haters will reference corrupt media to defend their position that the Church has not fixed the problem.

    Church haters will permit the ongoing abuse of minors everywhere else so as to ensure that the cannons barrel is aimed soley on the Church- this is as a result of the insatiable hate for the Church that drives them.

    Church haters are not to be trusted with the Truth- they have demonstrated by their words and deeds that they are not friends of the Truth. The Truth to Church haters is something to be twisted and distorted to support the 2000 year war of hate they've waged against the Church.


    • jim robertson says:

      What about us, "Church haters" that were raped by your Church. That rape being the very foundation for our "hatred". [edited by moderator]

    • KenW says:

      You were not raped by the Church, Jim. You allege that you have been raped by an individual wearing a collar, but you were not raped by the Church. Get that fact straight.

  31. Delphin says:

    I wonder why this site is apparently only haunted by the ghosts of well-compensated and adjudicated "self-declaring" victims (who also happen to be uncontestable antiCatholic bigots)?

    Where are all the "thousands, millions" of uncompensated, unadjudicated "victims" out there?

    Where are the "thousands, millions" of compensated and adjudicated victims that don't also happen to be antiCatholic bigots – don't any exist?

    Wouldn't these groups be interested in using the TMR forum to contribute to the dialogue or expose the Church "lies", educate the "illiterate and unenlightened" faithful Catholic masses about "cover-ups" and "ongoing" abuses in their evil Church?

    Where are these victim unicorns?

    Do these unicorns know who have set themselves up, in the form of the magical "get your  Church-booty pixies" as their spokemen? Is there a "finders fee" associated with these "services"? Is it a case of "I got mine from the evil Church, I can show you how to get yours, too"  that enables these magical  "pixies"  to get their kickback from similarly-minded lawyers? Corrupt lawyers use the services of these sorts of "street pixies" (called CI's), for which there is direct compensation for every productive "case" referred,  all the time – has anyone investigated these illicit alliances?

    I am wondering why those who have gained their justice, such as the two TMR "pixies",  still beat the drum – so very much louder and longer than all other victims. And, no one is buying the  "it's for the other guy"  pant-load.



  32. Publion says:

    JR insists that he doesn’t wear a wig (while trying the old I don’t/You do comeback from the cafeteria).


    Here’s what I think and why I think it: I think JR does wear a collection of wigs. How else to explain the rather extraordinary variance in the tone and quality of his comments? If he is doing it deliberately, then we have to ask ourselves why anyone capable of the (seemingly) higher ranges of comment-quality would even want to deliberately descend to the lower ranges and to descend so frequently and so vividly (again with thanks to DP for deleting the expletives).


    On the other hand, if he is not doing it deliberately, then clearly there is a variety of personas or ‘wigs’ in there, and no rhyme nor reason as to which one will be in charge (which wig will be on the head, as it were) when the tap-tap-tapping at the keyboard starts.


    Which would then leave the question: is there any deliberate control over which wig is on the head that is doing the tapping at any given moment?


    I make no effort to answer these questions. I simply point out my own thought to explain why I will continue with the wig imagery. The readership, as always, may make of it what they will – as is their right.


     JR is welcome to assert the truth of whatever he claims. But he is invited to consider – from all of his material here (and on the BigTrial site, among others) – why others might rather reasonably and legitimately consider his truthiness to be rather unreliable.


    Again with the “unidentified poster” – and yet JR has burbled and gone gaga over the commenter ‘Learned Counsel’ (ex-‘Boston Survivor’) who not only does not use his name but also makes the most extraordinary (in terms of the quality of his material) claims for himself. Clearly using one’s name does not enhance the truthiness or quality of one’s comments.


    He will – tah dahhhhh! – not be approving any thoughts as to matters-psychological since he doesn’t need to submit himself to a “bigot”. ‘Bigotry’ here meaning that I notice the Wigs and am rather curious about the dynamics involved.


    And JR has “nothing to hide here” … except the story that got him his million (yes, minus the outrageously victimizing attorney’s costs and fees). Imagine if a person goes into a bank and claims to a loan or finance officer that he is victimized by not-having-money and insists on being given some; the officer asks politely to look at this person’s financial history; the person replies that to have his financial history examined will merely serve to ‘re-victimize’ him by reminding him of the fact that he doesn’t have any money.


    You see where this sort of thing can go. Indeed, did it not play out in the mortgage crisis that led to the finance crisis of 2008? “Funny how the night moves” (as the Songster saith): the basic dynamic that played out catastrophically in the mortgage/finance crisis was the same one that had been deployed in the Victimist and Abusenik universes for two or three decades prior to that.


    Thus JR merely wishes us to accept without further ado precisely the point that is at issue and that may have been the base dynamic in creating and sustaining the Stampede: the unexamined acceptance of claims and allegations. And yet he cawn’t think why anybody would have some doubts about granting this point gratuitously.


    We see here the Stampede writ-small.


    What am I ‘hiding’? My thoughts? My ideas? My questions? And what  - aside from his name – is JR hiding here? Again, this point is made not to get into the mud with JR but simply to demonstrate further the dynamics operating here.


    We are then lectured that we have been “injured” by the clerics and hierarchy and that we thus should be “actively siding with the injured”.


    But a) we don’t really know who is genuinely “injured” and who is otherwise classifiable.


    And b) we don’t know the extent of the genuine injuries – either in specific cases or in general – and thus we are denied the information that would enable us to assess how large (or otherwise) a “crisis” we as a Church face. And instead, we are bethumped with the wiggy insistence that we simply take allegants’ word for it and join the Stampede. Stampedes are such fun, and can be remunerative if you chart your course right.


    And c) I note the ‘taking-sides’ trope: to the Abuseniks, among their other juvenilia, is this basic sense of us-vs.-them and whose-side-are-you-on. This is not the best way to seriously assess a rather complex set of assertions leading up to the claim of a major ‘crisis’ that exists, has existed, and will continue to exist. Instead, we are either ‘with’ the Abuseniks or else we are (fill in the blank here, possibly  starting with ‘bigots’ or ‘haters’ or ‘truth-deniers’ and go on from there). This is a Cartoon approach.


    JR then claims that even if he is occasionally wrong, well – “who isn’t?”. But that is not the crux of the matter. People who are demonstrably wrong will – if mature – deploy self-examination in order to discover where and why they are wrong and thus institute some changes in their methods of operating that will result in being either less-wrong or less-frequently-wrong in the future. I have seen no such trajectory in any material from this particular commenter over the course of a year or more. It is what it is.


    Lastly, “Jesus was never vicious”. So true. Calling people “Idiot!”, “Fool!”, stuff like that. But He also called the shots as He saw them, whether chasing money-changers out of the Temple or engaging various sly interlocutors with ideas and reasoning. And, of course, if you don’t agree with JR then – the bouffant Wig of Hurt Outrage here, although rather clumsily stacked on top of the spiky Wig of Sly Nastiness – you must be and are “vicious”.


    Ovvvvvvvvv coursssssssssse.

    • jim robertson says:

      Brutalized as a child, Brutalized as an adult. Catholicism = Brutality to me. Thanks, lesson learned.

    • KenW says:

      Pure evil of you to equate disagreeing with you as "brutalized". That is Goebbelistic deceptive propaganda in it's very ugliest form. 

  33. Delphin says:

    If you can hate the Catholic Church because of your rape, why can't you similarly hate the deviant homosexuals (again, those homosexuals that commit the illegal and immoral actions) that actually committed the crimes? Church doctrine, and her faithful priests and laity, clearly condemn such acts. 

    Do you hate buildings because it was within a building the crime against you occurred? Do you hate men because it was a man that committed the crime against you? Was he blond, brunette, redhead – do you hate a certain hair color, or skin and eye color as a result of your stereotyping?

    Where is the logic?

  34. jim robertson says:

    Because the matrix, the Church, enabled the damage to all victims by not warning our parents.

    You don't care what I think any way or really what any victim thinks.

    You know I came here to tell you my truth about my experience and maybe engage constructively with the peope here. That's not happening. obviously. So it's break time.

    I don't hate my abusors they are very damaged people enabled to act out sexually by the Church's pretending it never happened in the Catholic Church when in fact it was endemic to the Church. It's the people deemed normal who enabled these abuses to occur that I hate.

    It's break time. I don't enjoy the people who respond from your side and they are so set in their ways, rational discourse seems verbotten. IMNSHO and really the people who post the most [edited by moderator] are beyond any hope. Break time.

    • KenW says:

      The time has come for you to distinguish between actions/inactions of individuals vs. actions/inactions of the Body. 

      You are correct, in that I do not care what you or any "victim" thinks. The reason for that is simple: the collective mindset of "victims" is not interested in resolution and healing, they are interested in spite and scandal. You have made it clear on these pages that you choose to live with your demons. If that ever changes, then I will care.

      We have no proof that what you claim is the truth, your account is simply anecdotal to your experience, and what nerve you have to imply that your experience is relevant and ours is not! Newsflash!!!!!!!!! The problem of pedophelia is rampant everywhere EXCEPT for the Catholic Church, and it is attitudes like yours that divert the attention AWAY from where it is happening RIGHT NOW! The devil LOVES diversion. 

  35. dennis ecker says:

    This is the headline that Publion chose to leave out and the one I spoke about in a earlier comment. All three articles were posted at the same time.


    Philly archbishop: Church finances are improving


    Why does Chaput continue to lie ?


    Then Josie wrote this: I can't believe you talk to the Catholic youth in Philadelphia. It is a known fact that there is a vibrant youth population here who embrace their faith-the Catholic High Schools (and colleges are filled with very impressive kids who living their faith , supportive of their Church and are looking to the future. If you are active, you would see them everywhere. But again, your exposure is nil


    The catholic youth you speak about are they the same ones who entered mass yesterday with their hands tied behind their backs, or are they the ones who were wearing blindfolds or were they they ones who had their mouths covered and are they the same youth who have left comments today on Philly.com.



    • josie says:

      Just so you are aware, Dennis. The reporter said that one man had a blindfold, one woman had tape on mouth, and one man had his wrists tied-all in protest of the closing of the Spanish chapel owned and wanting to be sold by the Vincentians . You are not in the loop of information-no matter how much you read philly.com (and because you read only philly.com!!) Get over your despicable ignorance and hate. Get help ASAP.

  36. dennis ecker says:

    It looks like Chaput needs to return to the Seminary.

    During a Mass yesterday here in Philadelphia it appears the leader of the catholic faithful (Chaput) has stepped over the line by refusing to give communion to individuals who were celebrating mass in addition protesting the closure of Church's in their neighborhood.

    It has been understood that Chaput refused to give communion to one individual because he was protesting.

    Under the Catholic Church' Canon Law it gives examples when a parishioner maybe refused Holy Communion. (e.g. excommunication, mortal sin) Since Mr. Chaput in no way knew the truth of this man' soul chaput had no right to refuse the sacrament.

    • josie says:

      You are a sick man, Dennis. I am sure that Archbishop Chaput prays for you and would encourage all to do so. I have not 1/100th of his charity

  37. Delphin says:

    This is an interesting lesson in how to forgive your "victim" [damaged] homosexual rapist(s) while simultaneously condemning the Catholic Church as bigots and haters:

    "I don't hate my abusors they are very damaged people enabled to act out sexually by the Church's pretending it never happened in the Catholic Church when in fact it was endemic to the Church. It's the people deemed normal who enabled these abuses to occur that I hate"

    It is the good Catholics (presumably faithful, hetero, conservative) to blame for the "bad actors". Even those darned rapists were victims of the bad old Church.

    Oh, OK, now we all get it, in your own words.

    I'd look to run away on a self-imposed "sabbatical", too, If I had the nerve (kinder word for what the disease of rational actually is) to think, never mind actualy write,  those words

    And, on a related topic:


    Isn't that an…. interesting development?


  38. Publion says:

    The third article in commenter Ecker’s collection is linked-to in his 855AM comment above.


    The article specifically points out – in its first sentence – that “troubling financial date being released next week about [the AOP] does not reflect recent improvements in the church’s monetary health, according to the archbishop”.


    The Archbishop is saying here – again – that the data for the past year are not as happy as he’d like, but that the data, including the annual fiscal audit, do not reflect the upcoming sales of unnecessary and unused properties and other cost-saving measures and new fiscal leadership that have all been recently introduced. (They and their fiscal effects will, of course, show up in next year’s audit … is commenter Ecker not clear on the concept of annual audits?)


    Thus – again – the Archbishop took steps during FY 12 that will improve the fiscal position and those steps – offering great reason for optimism – will be demonstrated in the FY 13 audit. Meanwhile, the FY 12 audit reflects the accrued and accumulated fiscal problems left from several prior decades and archiepiscopal administrations.


    He honestly reveals the present state of affairs, explains some of the new programs and measures and steps being taken to improve the AOP’s fiscal position (including those sales of unused properties), and expects that those measures will demonstrate their effectiveness in the audit for FY 13.


    So once again I ask: where is Chaput “lying” here? What here differs from any conventional corporate fiscal audit report?


    Thus nothing changes in the gravamen of my comments of 728PM on the 29th.


    I would also note, in terms of process, the wiggy all-caps and exclamation point restatement of Ecker’s original (and – I think I have demonstrated clearly – grossly flawed) crash-and-burn conclusion. Behind this is some sort of molten persona that is rather different from the Wig of Sweet and Mature Reasonableness. And once again then, we see this jarring dissonance in presentation and in the particular persona in charge when this or that comment is made.


    I will venture a further thought here. We have after all this time seen very little closely-reasoned and coherent explanations of the various aspects of the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter.


    One possible explanation for this is that the serious and coherent and capable thinkers supporting the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter are simply too busy to bother themselves with explaining themselves carefully in this (or any other?) forum. And that consequently the field is left to such commenting mentalities as we have seen demonstrated so often here.


    But – as I said – one doesn’t run into competent and coherent forthright explanation of the Abusenik position very often anywhere else either. Even on Abusenik-friendly sites, the commentary does not run to extended thought and analysis; rather, the vast majority of material is simply rehash and repetition of mantras and claimed-‘facts’ and the quality of thought resembles more the bumper-sticker school than any other school of conducting thought.


    Thus the thought that occurs to me is that there really is no serious and substantive core to the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter. “There is no there there”, to use Gertrude Stein’s pithy phrasing.


    Instead, I would say that what has driven the Abusenik side of the Catholic Abuse Matter is merely a collection of unexamined claims, assertions, allegations, and the bumper-sticky conclusions drawn from that mélange, repeated ad nauseam and greatly amplified by a collusive media that largely has not bothered to do any analysis, but rather simply serves as a public stenographer of whatever this or that Abusenik or Abusenik-advocacy group has concocted and rehearsed for public performance and consumption.


    Think of it: an Oz-like show of smoke and mirrors, run by clanking and grinding machinery for which media refusal to ask any ‘insensitive’ questions has created the curtain that hides the actual reality of that Oz.


    This is not to infer or imply that there have not been specific instances where truly deranged individuals were for a time allowed to function in the priestly ministry – and I have commented about that before. But that the genuine reality amounts to a wide-spread, ages-long, profoundly deep and frightfully deranged individual and corporate Church clergy and hierarchy … where have we seen any evidence of that at all?


    All we have are that faithfully-stenographed mélange of unexamined claims and assertions that provide the wood that is then whittled into the most sweeping and vivid sharp-stick conclusions that are not supported by any actual evidence. Nor, as I said, by any serious and coherent and sustained explanation or analysis or exposition.


    There are times when it must occur to some readers: why bother with the crazies at all? I have offered my answers to that question before. But I will add now that in terms of looking carefully at the Catholic Abuse Matter, there may not be any other type of commenter (pro the Abusenik position) to engage.  The Abusenik Oz project has either not attracted support at that level of serious discussion and thought, or else it does not dare expose its vital core vacuum by engaging – especially publicly – in any such level of serious discussion and thought.


    Get selected story-tellers in front of the media to tell the stories, but don’t get into any serious analysis or even explanation (beyond the sound-bite friendly bumper-stickies and the usual mantras).

  39. Delphin says:

    The Truth can be Brutal to those hell-bent on continuing or enabling Evil acts.

    Then, you've got the other one opining a priests decision not to provide one of the Sacraments to Church dissidents. These self-engrandizing individuals decry the Catholic religion, her priests, laity and her dogma, doctrine and magisteruim; and then think their opinions have any value regarding our obligations. Their egos are boundless.

    Here's a suggestion- the practice of our religion, and the true administration of such by our priests to the faithful, is neither a democracy nor a republic, and certainly not subject to your opinions, complaints, whining… or polls. But, your chosen current US Administration is (well, at least it was at one time). Why not go haunt the Obama White House website with your opinions and grievances – maybe they will be "receptive" to your criticisms and musings (which is an interesting concept given the NSA, AP, IRS, Benghazi, Syria, Egypt,  et al scandals du jour). They evidentally need your "guidance" on how to conduct their business, your business, presumably with your tax dollars….far more so than does the Church. The Church does not need you.

    And, the conduct of Church business is simply not your business.

    • Grace says:

      Re: Delphin (post) July 1 @6:07 p.m

      The answer is because they are cowards.  There is so much conversation in our society

      with regards to the prevention of bullying, which is good.

        Who is better poised to advance this agenda than a man or woman who has dedicated their life to peace?

    • dennis ecker says:

      The church does need us. If for anything they need us as a number just like you. You are nothing more than a number. That is why me and others are denied an official excommunication when requested even after we denounce the teachings of the catholic church.

      Then you have the conduct of the catholic church that is now everyones business. It is the business of everyone who wants to see justice be done to any clergy member who harms a child.

       I will presume that you are a parishioner ? If so, you are just as dangerous to children as those who physically harm children. Because you have a voice to question what happens inside your church but you do nothing but sit back and let it happen.

      It is true that I am an ex-catholic but I care more about the wrong doings in your church then you do. So step aside let me do what I have to do.

  40. Publion says:

    Two quick points:


    Commenter Ecker claims that I “chose to leave out” the third article he referenced. I specifically said that I couldn’t find it, provided the links to the two I could find, and asked for any further links to the third article. What we see here again is an instance of how the Abusenik mind works. And this is on top of the fact that the third article, when examined, doesn’t support any of Ecker’s claims at all anyway.


    Meanwhile, JR (at 102AM on the 1st) now assumes the Wig of Exasperated Honesty and claims that he had originally come to this site “to tell you my truth about my experience and maybe engage constructively with the people here”.


    Several points arise.


    First, the curious phrasing “my truth about my experience” (italics mine). The conventional phrasing here would be ‘the truth’ … but perhaps this is either a) an unconscious admission that what JR thinks is ‘truth’ and what would generally be construed as ‘truth’ are two different things or b) a sly way of leaving wiggle-room about ‘truth’ without making it too obvious.


    In which case (b) would be a neat Playbook ploy: use wording that will leave the impression of having told the ‘truth’, while – if you are called on it – leaving room to claim innocently that you had specifically said “my” truth.


    Second, I have seen very little from this commenter that indicates either the competence or the basic attitude to “engage constructively”. Rather, there have been nothing but assertions of dubious and unsupported claims and allegations and assertions, buttressed by a remarkably consistent reliance on mockery and expletives. Thus the Wig of Sweet Reasonableness simply doesn’t fit here at all.


    Third, we are now given yet another reason why JR comments on this site; we had previously been told that he did it because it somehow “amuses” him to traffic with “immoral” types here.


    Fourth, we may be seeing here yet another ‘retirement’ from the TMR commenting ‘stage’ by this veteran hoofer. This would give him almost as many farewell-tour comments as Cher or perhaps The Rolling Stones (although The Stones may not have actually ever claimed to be retiring, come to think of it).


    But in any case, a “break” from the expletives-deleted material will certainly be welcome. Perhaps it will also give readers a chance to evaluate the JR thought (expressed most recently on the BigTrial site) that without such types as himself and assorted lunch-and-valentine partners then the commenters on the site “would have nothing” worthwhile to discuss.


    All of which goes ultimately to the point I made in my most recent prior comment here: try to examine the core of the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter and you get no substance but only psych-drama.

  41. dennis ecker says:


    Headline from MSN today:

    Documents show Milwaukee archdiocese shielded pedophile priests

    By Brendan O'Brien and Geoffrey Davidian, Reuters

    Roman Catholic Church officials in Milwaukee vigorously shielded pedophile priests and protected church funds from lawsuits during a decades-long sex abuse scandal, according to hundreds of newly released documents.

    Those who feel it is lives under a rock or does not want to face reality.

    Another thing that I see that these two authors of this article did right was to call it right. The church protected PEDOPHILE PRIESTS. They did not say what others on this site say it being a homosexual problem. 

    The continued crimes within the catholic church can only be blamed on one group of people, and that is the parishioner who fails to question their church, the parishioner who allows the abuse to continue, the parishioner who is not saying enough is enough.

    WAKE UP.

    You are just as guilty as the priests who put their hands on an innocent child.


  42. Delphin says:

    Re: Josie's observation: it is the same sickness that prevents these "victims" from admitting their "know-nothing" mentality and also from receiving the gift of restorative health and forgiveness that most victims of crime experience.

    You would think these two were the only victims of crime in the world. Such a very small world they inhabit, one that revolves around them.

  43. LearnedCounsel says:

    "You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know."

    ~ William Wilberforce


    Kevin Clash is guilty. Ovvvvvvvvv coursssssssssse. Let's see what can be done about it. The revolution will be televised. These cases do get covered in the media.

    And there is a revolution, by the way. And cause behind the revolution is the promotion of secular communist ideals  .  .  . no, just kidding, it is standing up for children against sexual abuse by adults. It is truth coming out. We know so much more now.

    Even when, for whatever reason and they are many, cases cannot be brought before or won in a court of law, one can know the truth of the matter. You get the best information that you can and then use reason and weigh evidence against interest. And, yes, you could be wrong. You could also be right.

    Publicly Publion may relax on this comment, of course, because this is a secular matter and thus does not require his attention. Anyway, I assume that he is preparing the apologetics of Mr. Dolan and the most recent media treatment of the latest so-called "document dump," as if that were an apt description, of Milwaukee, WI.

  44. Delphin says:

    For the haters/bigots: Presume nothing about me, personally, just be responsive to comments.

    Re: Milwaukee; I have about as much confidence in the MSMs honest translation and interpretation of those 6000 pages of documents as I do that the TMR resident Church haters will suddenly speak in tongues of Truth.


    You're right, Grace, the last thing these cowards want is resolution, or healing. Just look at the celebratory bent of their posts about the Milwaukee Archdiocese, they can barely contain their euphoria- it must be absolutely orgasmic for the satanists.

    Not so fast revelers, the whole truth, in perspective, and within context, will have to be first revealed, and then analyzed.

    Re: Clash- yeah, I am betting the farm that the MSM will perform the same minor molestation procto exam on the entertainment industry as it has on the Church. Yeah, right, sure.  Just like they did with Polanski and Jackson, and thousands of others. What I would expect to see is a movement to suspend the SOL, not to indict Hollywood or the public school system and few hundred other industries still offending, but, to refocus on the Church. The problem isnt about minor abuse for the progressives, it is about their hatred of Catholics, and that will feed the frenzy.  And, that is what makes you all so happy.


  45. Delphin says:

    "Pedophile priests" that are heterosexual would be targeting prepubescent girls, which does not happen to be in line with the facts of any authentic cases that involve the Catholic Church.

    The majority of the real victims are post-pubescent juvenile males, which makes their adult male offenders homosexual statutory rapists.  In my chosen lexicon, that makes them deviant homosexuals, but you can call them oppressed sisters in arms if you choose, so long as there is recognition of the facts (not subject to biases, polls or PC) of who these offenders are sans any of your hate-based scrubbing.

    Which leads to an interesting question for the medical community: why don't heterosexual adults of any vocation or occupation offend at the same rates, proportionately, as do homosexual adults?

  46. Delphin says:

    "You name the country and that's what the hierarchy did:  Moved the problem around."

    Time for a fact, or two: awhile back I provided links to sites that identifed sovereign nations Age of Consent (AOC) laws and sites that identified nations where homosexuality was illegal (for which capital punishment, in some cases, was the penalty). If the blinded-by-hate types had bothered to peruse them, we could all be spared dopey statement and claims.

    So, in light of the facts pertaining to relevant laws of other nations and in response to the ignorant quote above, the Church's problem in many other nations was one of the conduct of illicit homosexuality, which is outlawed at any age, or no issue at all since the AOC was not violated, and in some nations, where both a low AOC and outlawed homosexuality were applicable (usually mideastern nation-states).

    In those nations where no crime was committed against that nations AOC laws, why would the above erroneous claim apply?

    In those nations where homosexuality is forbidden by law, should the Church have condemned those homosexuals under that nations draconian anti-homosexuality laws?

    The small-minded (miserly, really) cannot grasp the breadth, width and depth of the Church's global responsibilities, obligations and missions for millenia. Their hateful little world is so narrowly focused on their own petty local gripes (biased, politicized) against the Church that they've lost sight (if they ever had it) of the grandness and vastness of Catholicism's worldly [and otherworldy] presence, and influence.

  47. Publion says:

    As if on cue.


    I concluded my last comment by discussing the rather unimpressive quality of Abusenik material. It would almost seem as if the entire Game is being run from the cafeteria and there is no faculty involved at all.


    And then we are provided with more examples.


    From commenter Ecker on the 2nd at 454PM we get a wiggy scream. That’s the best option when there isn’t a lot of substance – just scream (using internet formatting, if you’re on the Web) and hope to move everybody beyond analysis to emotion; classic Stampede.


    Ecker is almost too wigged-out to wear a Wig because of what appears to be – and hardly unpredictably – a replay of the LA document cache-release, now taking place in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee (hereinafter: AOM).


    Ecker gives his own take on the ‘report’ he brandishes here, but oddly doesn’t give a link (in case, perhaps, his targets and victims – i.e. other readers – might actually go and read the thing for themselves). Anyhoo, the link to that article is here:




    Reading the ‘report’, you will see such bits as: the cache yields documents going back “eight decades” (thus to the first Administration of FDR); Abp. Dolan “appealed to [the] Vatican on numerous occasions”; at one point in the early 2000s he asked the Vatican for permission to transfer 57 million to a cemetery fund to protect it from the sue-the-Bishops-phase of lawsuits; the Vatican was slow to respond when the AOM asked the Vatican to remove priests; the individual file of a Fr. John O’Brien is mentioned – who had asked to be laicized in a letter from September of 2003 – and it is considered revelatory that the AOM forwarded “two more accounts of abuse” (probably in procedural support of the request – but note that “accounts of abuse”, which by this ‘report’s’ sly wording might simply mean two more stories) – and it is not until April 2009 that the priest is “removed from the priesthood” (although the ‘report’ doesn’t say when O’Brien was removed from ministry, a rather key distinction); another priest received two allegations (1961, 1983) and was given counseling and then finally sent to a nursing home where there would be no contact with minors; also that the AOM “on a regular basis requested that priests accused of abuse be laicized”; and lastly, some definitely mushy claims in the ‘report’ that priests accused of abuse and in the process of laicization “were paid $10,000 to start the process and $10,000 during the process” (plus $1,250 per month for health and dental insurance) – which, as written, clearly requires further explication.


    In short, this ‘report’ (and there are others like it if you work your search engine; PBS actually interviewed Laurie Goodstein for its coverage) throws out a lot of factoids for which no evidence is given that what we are seeing here is not largely the records of an organization (the AOM) that is subordinate to the regulations and requirements of a larger organization (the Vatican) trying to deal with the occasionally aberrant priest (going back 80 years) and – more recently – trying to navigate what we now know are the slyly treacherous complexities posed by the Abusenik Stampede and the sue-the-bishops phase inaugurated by Jeff Anderson. In short, there is nothing in this ‘report’ that establishes any of the usual Abusenik tropes and scripts (see commenter Ecker’s material here for some nifty examples of same).  


    The report also allows Jeff Anderson (representing “five hundred clients”, although whether in Milwaukee or in the old LA case is not – neatly – clear) to characterize that transfer-of-funds request as “money that was to be used ‘to pay off some of the offenders to go quietly away’” – no verification given here, from a clearly ‘interested Party’. Such a ‘report’.


    And again, we see the Abusenik tendency to use projection in painting its Cartoons of the world: Abuseniks insist that they are the ones  fully locked-into “reality” and then accuse others of “not want[-ing] to face reality”, and yet clearly they do not establish the “reality” that they claims that they can see, and that anybody who doesn’t see such “reality” must be (fill in the blank, but kindly omit expletives).


    Bolstered by the unsupported assertion that “these two authors of this article did right was to call it right” [sic]. First, these two authors rather slyly didn’t actually commit to all the elements of Ecker’s Cartoon. Second, to establish that they ‘called it right’ we would have to rule out all the numerously omitted possibilities.


    And now a new bit: “continued crimes” (not-established nor distinguished from unexamined allegations)must be blamed on the “parishioner who allows the abuse to continue” and “who is not saying enough is enough”. But a) the AOM clearly had been asking for numerous laicizations (quite possibly only on the basis of allegations, which the Vatican would be bound by canon-law to resist until full laicization procedures were completed); and b) how are parishioners themselves to determine a genuine from an other-than-genuine allegation?  And c) all of this goes back not only one or three decades (thus before the Stampede erupted in the U.S.) but eight decades, to the Great Depression if not the end of the Roaring Twenties.


    Which leads us back to the time-warp-lock dynamic: Ecker here is trying to re-establish 1985 or 1991 or 2002 – let alone 1930 or 1940 or 1950 – (each of those years becoming increasingly less connected to the actual realities of events as they have developed over those stretches of time and history).


    Thus when Ecker screams that “it’s not over!” (excessive formatting omitted) he is actually voicing a plea that Time not be allowed to move forward (a rather significant element of “reality”), but rather that Time be frozen (in, I might add, some particular moment that has proven utterly essential to some Abuseniks’ sense of self-worth and self-importance).


    But – yes – we can expect this Cache-Gambit to continue, even as it failed in LA. As dioceses/archdioceses that agree to release records continue to do so, then each such release-event will provide the opportunity for a queasy congeries of types to play the old songs and wave the old flags and placards and churn out the same old media ‘reports’. And that is what is not yet “over” and won’t be until the media start looking carefully at whatever material is in this or that cache.


    But I think that generally these Cache-Events will reveal themselves – as the LA Event did – to be the sly and desperate efforts they are and perhaps have always been.


    Thus too we may leave to hang where it was put that stentorian Wig-of-Authority order to “wake up” (excessive formatting omitted).


    And since we haven’t established the guilt of the priests (or, for that matter, the authenticity and veracity of the claims of victimization and “brutalization”) then the discourse here remains where it is. And had Ecker come up with any solution to that authenticity/veracity Problem that I asked him about a few comments back?


    Then at 812Pm on the 2nd, Ecker returns to try to establish the necessity of his (and others’ of his type) efforts. Although this effort collapses into incoherence: Abuseniks are needed because – just like Catholics – they are “a number just like you”. The only sense I can glean from this is that Abuseniks need “numbers”, but I’ve been saying that all along.


    Then a foray into his failed demands for “official excommunication” – which I have dealt with in prior comments on this site. (I had mentioned that he had to do something  specifically proscribed in order to be excommunicated because – the hot ironies – his status was protected by canonical regulation as well as by the sacramental workings of Baptism. I also noted that he might well simply be looking for another excuse to wear the Victim-Wig, perhaps with the Oppressed-Whistleblower Wig perched on top of it.


    And in fact I would say that we recently saw another stab at that taken during the recent denial-of-Communion flap, where persons tried to receive Communion wearing various bits of costumery designed to create a public media-event – an incident which instantly attracted Ecker’s attentions, as we have seen in his comments about it on this site).


    And again, the sly conflation of accused-priests and the (queasily suggestive) reference to “any clergy member who harms a child” – although just how many actual and genuine cases of that type of thing is a fact that has never been reliably determined.


    And somehow this all validates and justifies his (and others’) efforts to “denounce the teachings of the catholic church”.


    Ecker then crowns himself with the Wig of Concern, on the authority of which he declaims (ex Wigedra, if I deploy a Latin neologism) that Catholic parishioners are “just as dangerous to children as those who physically harm children”. The Wig has spoken; shame on those who think ill of it.


    The whole presentation then topped off with the Wig of Dedicated and Essential Mission: why don’t all the Catholics just “step aside to let me do what I have to do”? Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that Ecker and others of his ilk do indeed “need to” do all this stuff that we see in their material here. But again, I would strongly suggest that they examine just precisely what are the operative dynamics driving that “need”.


    And finally, at 1236PM on the 3rd, there returns Learned-Counsel – last seen not-answering my question as to examining his own sense of the significance of my Flight-School analogy, the one that – I have said – is vitally significant (although, alas, in a negative way) for his philosophical position. Apparently we are not supposed to be intelligent enough to remember prior comments; he starts up here de novo with material that has nothing to do with that question he has not-answered. Perhaps at Harvard all those elite professors of Philosophy didn’t really track the integrity and coherence of their students’ positions over the course of a semester or an academic year – so that a student could just ‘forget’ the problematical bits in his/her position and – like Abuseniks – just come up with new steaming piles to submit as if they had created no personal history of submissions at all. Or perhaps there were no Harvard professors involved at all.


    He is on about Kevin Clash – although I had not mentioned that case in any comments. (And nicely copies my “ovvvvvvv courssssssse” styling – although I have often said that mere mimicry of phrasing does not constitute any further competence than imitation.


    Somehow he is trying to connect “revolution” and “secular communist ideals” and Kevin Clash. Now that would be an interesting project, but – ovvvvv coursssse – Learned Counsel doesn’t do projects because he doesn’t need to impress us with his knowledge. Ovvvvvvv coursssssse.


    I would like to know just what “we know so much more” of at this point (emphasis on know), and how that specifically ties into the Catholic Abuse Matter. Or is he implying somehow that there is child-abuse (however defined) just about everywhere? And what does he see are the sequelae of that knowledge? Especially, perhaps, in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter.


    And – he clearly reads other comments as little as he maintains a grasp on the track of his own material – he seeks – as Abuseniks so often do – to conflate the knowledge of the popular forum and the knowledge of the legal forum: that is to say, it’s one thing to ‘know’ through some intuitive personal decision to believe, and another very different thing to establish in the legal form the verifiable reality that justifies the deployment of the Sovereign Coercive Authority of the government against an accused (we recall that LC is also a practicing and trained attorney, of course; but maybe they didn’t teach philosophy-of-law at his law  school).


    And he will use the same personal “reason” that he claims to have been taught how to deploy at Harvard (see prior comments between myself and LC). This is precisely what Robert Bolt was getting at when – in the book and film-script of A Man for All Seasons – he has Thomas More say to the Court: “The world must construe according to its wits; this Court must construe according to the Law”.


    And we are also reminded here of a recent JR submission that about telling “my truth” (italics mine). This may also be on a 3×5 card about Samuel Beckett and that gentleman’s assertion that “I believe it because it is my belief” (italics mine).


    But clearly, if everyone has their own believed version of reality, then there can be no reality. Is this news to LC? And while a culture or civilization or society can handle a certain amount of such solipsistic my-belief type of thing, yet the whole commonweal will be fundamentally undermined if there is no common-belief whatsoever, or if one’s own personal my-belief beliefs trump any larger consensus.


    And if ‘belief’ is somehow cut-loose from any coherent and comprehensive discipline of con-forming to reality – and if instead it is claimed that the only reality is whatever ‘reality’ individual humans form for themselves individually.


    Yet it would make for a nifty ‘philosophical’ consolation for persons concocting allegations: what I claim is really and actually true because it is ‘my truth’. You see where this type of thing can go.


    But perhaps these matters are not covered in the Harvard curriculum and course syllabi. Presuming LC actually went there and graduated as he claims (and in the modern Colonel-Klink world, who is to say for certain?)


    So while LC is correct that this particular Clash case is “a secular matter” and I needn’t involve myself in it (and I haven’t kept on it in the news), yet the philosophical implications are – as always – of concern to me, especially since those implications are vital to the Catholic Abuse Matter and the Stampede.


    As for his ketchup-stained thought about the Milwaukee document dump, I have dealt with it above.


    Still waiting for his work-up of the Flight-School analogy.

  48. jim robertson says:

    [edited by moderator]

    No one will ever trust the church again.

    The Catholic Church is Satan; as it has been for 2000 years. Ask anyone who's ever gone against it's "wishes".

  49. Delphin says:

    Looks like we've been subjected to another "drive-by" verbal barrage. And, a contribution of "stuff" so original, profound and responsive, just full of …..revelation.

    That was a way too-brief sabbatical.

    Why don't the haters put their theory, that we only thrive on these sites because of their "contributions", to test. You need to run the experiment longer than a few days, perhaps weeks or months for a good sample size.

    Addiction to hate is the most powerful and destructive addiction of all. And, hate is Satan, which is the opposite of Love, who is God.


  50. dennis ecker says:

    Has anyone taken notice that when the truth is told Publion's comments get longer and longer.

    When he is told that its not over, and more facts are presented to prove it. He makes the statement "Thus when Ecker screams that “it’s not over!” (excessive formatting omitted) he is actually voicing a plea that Time not be allowed to move forward."

    So please tell us Publion how much time does the RC need to move forward ? Years, Decades, a century.

    Sorry Pablion "TIME IS UP" When the catholic church continues to bury itself I will make sure those who feel the church is now warm and fuzzy are told the truth.

    I hope I'm wrong but your church is nothing more than a cancer that is in remission.


  51. Delphin says:

    Remind me, again, exactly who are the intolerent [left] haters?


    Perps name says it all-

  52. Delphin says:

    Actually, what I have noticed is that Publion absolutely nuke's the haters/bigots contribution every time, and is generous enough to provide the commenter a thoughtful response that reflects RATIONALE, with FACTS, EVIDENCE, HISTORY, LOGIC and WITNESS for the position proffered.

    Some people communicate in erratic "sound bites" and colloquialisms; others actually have linear and sequential thought processes that require the precise construct of words, sentences and paragraphs, and never the twain shall meet.

    • jim robertson says:

      Hey how do you "nuke' something "everytime"?

      I would think one nuke should do it.

      But I know who you write for and the end you seek. And I'll bet the majority of visitors to this site don't need to guess why you two both demonize and repel by anger and boredom any normal dialog. You've both done it from the start.

      I would like the readers here to think: Possibly I may be wrong about God but I ain't wrong about such obvious and consistant repulsive behavior on your part. Adults don't behave the way you two do. They just don't. So consider yourself outed. You fool no one.

      And of course the Editorial board of the N.Y. Times got it wrong abour laughing boy Dolan, millions for lawyers pennies for victims. Oh yea you believers are so morally superior. Ha!

    • amazinggrace says:

      Publion, without a doubt is a superb and gifted writer.  However, when out and about in

      life, simply stating "we like and trust our parish priests" has been more than 99% of

      the public has done in my experience.  In other words, when it comes right down to

      being supportive of our parish priests: A term paper is not required!

  53. Publion says:

    Now comes commenter Ecker at 650Pm today.


    Apparently Ecker – or the tinfoil hat or the voices or the Wig that informs him – has decided the following: there is a directly proportional relationship between “the truth” that I am told and the length of my comments.


    Which actually doesn’t work as stated. Does Ecker mean to say that the stronger the truth, the longer the comments? That would be the only way to maintain a coherent dynamic that renders his comment intelligible (we’ll leave 'accurate' out of it for now). Otherwise Ecker has basically said that he keeps telling the same quantum and quality of “the truth” and my comments – for whatever reason not related to any variables in that “truth” – just keep getting longer and longer.  Which – who can be surprised? – puts us into a stalled conceptual loop that gets us nowhere but rather keeps spinning matters around and around.


    Of course what we are actually hearing here is the age-old complaint of the cafeteria and the bumper-sticker bunch: there’s too much stuff to read and I don’t like what you’re saying anyway. The Abuseniks have a nice simple (simplistic, even) Script: they want it followed and they want to be acknowledged for their handiwork. Anything that somehow interferes with the sugary rush of accomplishment and approval that they have come to expect is simply ‘baaaad’ – as any kid might complain when the supersized soda is taken away and replaced with a nice big glass of fresh orange-juice.


    As I have said, Ecker has presented precisely zero “facts” in support of the claim that “its not over”. (Nor – for those who keep track – has he responded with the marvelous solution to the credibility issue: how distinguish between a) genuine and b) otherwise-classifiable claims and allegations?) Does he care to quote from his own material just what “facts” he has indeed ‘proven’ in support of his position? I can find none and have taken a substantial amount of space and words in recent comments to demonstrate that.


    If, according to Abusenik dogma, the Church has been in the pedophile-priest-conspiracy-racket business for 2000 years, then how much time would an organization need to change? Just what sort of time-line is the time-lord Ecker working on here? How long is too long – in whatever cartoon schematic he has devised for himself?


    But, of course, in the Church and the Catholic Abuse Matter we have seen some powerful changes – whose effects have clearly revealed themselves in reliable assessment measures – in just the past decade or so.


    And the AOM document-dump goes back at least as far if not further in time than the LA dump: 80 years. So how does Ecker claim that material so many decades old is an accurate indicator of the current Church and the current state of the issue?


    So that’s what I would “tell” you, commenter Ecker – in response to your direct question to me.


    And that’s what I also ask you directly.


    And then – again declaiming ex Wigedra – the self-appointed time-lord now pronounces (in the sure certainty of infallibility, no doubt) that “time is up” (excessive formatting omitted).


    Nor do we have any “facts” supporting the (delusional?) insistence that “the catholic church continues to bury itself”.


    And – wearing the Wig of Infallibility now also bespangled with The Teeth of Power – Ecker then declaims that he “will make sure” that “those who feel the church is now warm and fuzzy are told the truth”. Will he indeed? His material demonstrates no competence – perhaps not even familiarity-with or predisposition-toward – “truth” or “facts”.


    And where did “warm and fuzzy” enter into the deliberations here? The Church has taken serious, and by all extant indicators effective, measures in both abuse prevention and fiscal management. There is nothing “warm and fuzzy” about anything in all of this, which is a term more suitable to teddy-bears and stuffed toys.


    But that – I think – is indicative of the level at which – Wigs and all – certain Abuseniks work; the time-loop into which they are trying to enmesh the Church and the Catholic Abuse Matter is somehow connected to some personal time-loop enmeshment. We are seeing the psycho-drama (molten and negatively-valenced across a broad spectrum) that is – and perhaps always has been – at the core of the Catholic Abuse Matter.


    Ecker concludes with the stunningly revealing bit that while he “hope[s] that [he is] wrong” yet – waittttt for ittttt! – “your church is nothing more than a cancer that is in remission”.


    First, there is nothing in Ecker’s material here or on the Big Trial site that supports any assessment, or self-claim, that Ecker hopes in any way that he is wrong about his fancied vision of the parlous condition and nature of the Catholic Church.


    Second, having worked up the bit earlier in this same comment of his that the Church is not changing or has not changed, he now claims that the Church as “a cancer” is merely “in remission” – which in medical usage indicates some substantial improvement. And thus he admits what he started out claiming was my gross ignorance or disregard of the facts and realities involved in the Catholic Abuse Matter as it currently stands.


    Wigs may look nice, to certain types, but they cannot impart any deep gifts to the interior workings of the heads upon which they are perched. Is that news?

  54. jim robertson says:

    May I suggest at this juncture (Thank you Broadway Danny Rose) that people skip reading Pub and Delph? One is a wig maker and the other a dig maker. Who both "dehumanize" their self created "opposition".

    Dennis Ecker and Learned Counsel since you are both victims let's organize with each other and connect through email. Telling the truth here is both furtive and futile IMHO, Delphin and Pub are professional obfuscators and are, like Canute, attempting to hold back the sea.

    Every day around the world and particularlly in Rome we see these royalists with their pants down. The monsignor with the $7,000,000 art collection in his humble 7500 sg. ft apartment running millions of Euro's of Vatican laundered money.

    All the good done by decent priests, if their is any good done, Is demeaned by the Church's rulers by the hour.

    Notice Pope Francis the Talking Mule, he "humbly" is fast tracking two former popes, John23 and JPII to sainthood. One for the left wing one for the right wing. Using the dead to attempt control of the living; sans the usual number of "miracles" required. What a circus of charletons. Clowns in gowns.

    If one ignores P and D and their diversionary attempts against the real victims who post here, one may win against this 2000 year old life-mare.

    As Hamlet says, "One may smile and smile and be a villain".

    [edited by moderator]

  55. dennis ecker says:

    Publion, you are set in your ways.

    But, again I say your church is in remission because parishioners, not all, are the cancerous cells that will let history to repeat itself, because you and others like you want to just forget about what has happened.

    Your words that you speak are only that. Actions truly speak louder than words, and what has been released to the public from Milwaukee shows that. Your blessed church has done the same thing as other diocese have done, and like Philadelphia and others across the country they have been caught. NOT BY THAT ARCHDIOCESE COMING FORWARD ON THEIR OWN, but because people are tired. They want to see abusers put away for as long as possible and any individual that protects or moves an abuser will face the same punishment and they do not care if that person is wearing a collar or not.

    So, please keep rambling on. But until you can tell me you have done something to prevent the past, the present and sad future from ever happening again you sound like a very sad individual waiting for the Lord above to call you.

  56. Publion says:

    Now  comes JR at 1053PM on the 5th  - so much for this episode of the farewell-tour. Or maybe he was just kidding or exaggerating or is just misunderstood.


    Merely as point of relevance: if I read Delphin correctly, there is a fresh ‘nuking’ required for every new instance; thus each ‘nuke’ would indeed have its own target. Thus – simply in terms of the logic in JR’s use of the analogy in his comment – there is indeed only the single nuke for each target.


    But things have to be repeated because – as I have been saying for quite a while here – the Abusenik modus operandi is simply to toss up a steaming bumper-sticker pile and then just forget about that thread of discourse and start all over again and de novo with a fresh and different pile next time around. (In the military this would bear close similarity to the ‘fire and forget’ type of weaponry.)


    And this is especially true if one has actually put up some material that i) questions and confounds their scripts and bumper-stickers and/or ii) requires them to actually think-through what they have asserted with such insistent brassiness.


    Thus – and truly marvelously – JR reveals even more (I always find him to be most valuable when he doesn’t even realize what he is revealing): it is the fault of his interlocutors that no progress is made in discussion because it is the fault of his interlocutors that he is derailed by “anger and boredom” as a result of looking-at (or reading … perhaps, even, maybe) their material. He is victimized – doncha see? – by people who get him mad and bore him. Shame on those who think ill of it.


    And clearly his interlocutors are guilty in the first place for putting up material that would ‘anger’ and ‘bore’ so astute and incisive and virtuously truthy a person as JR. What sort of “demonizing” monstrosities must they be – these interlocutors – to so discombobulate such a truthy and committed paragon of constructive and sustained discourse, deliberation, and accurate analysis?


    That’s what makes such interlocutors so “repulsive” to JR – who, of course – in any normal circumstances would be the very incarnation of sweet and sharp and sure reason.


    See how that works?


    And we are then lectured by the Wig of Discerning Maturity: “Adults don’t behave the way you two do”. And, whether to reassure himself or lard on an extra dollop of this queasy frosting he adds immediately: “They just don’t.” (If you repeat it, that makes it even more true – doncha see? And this maxim could even be more fully demonstrated if you repeat something with exaggerated formatting or – but of course – expletives.)


    We are thus lectured in the characteristics of discerning and mature adulthood by JR, expounding on his implied diagnosis that we are not “real adults”. (Readers are helpfully reminded that this diagnosing gambit will not be well-received in reverse; JR doesn’t like to be diagnosed in terms from that universe-that-shall-not-be-named, often referred-to colloquially as the psychological and/or the psychiatric.)


    What an amusing thought (and doesn’t JR comment here for ‘amusement’?): I am not a “real adult”. Perhaps I am a 6 year-old (or a particularly precocious infant like Stewie from Family Guy), putting aside my baw-baw to retreat to the secret library-lab hidden behind the crib in my nursery, and pursuing a fake ‘identity’ on the internet masquerading as an adult with the ability to think and assess the world around me.


    If this scenario were accurate, then JR has found me out … but still can’t manage to do better than to be reduced to anger and boredom by my material. Wouldn’t that be a pretty fragile ‘adulthood’ – that it could be so thoroughly and vividly derailed by a six year-old? Perhaps some enterprising fry-fly, for lack of any more substantive material to put up, might want to declare – ex Wigedra of course – that henceforth I shall be called ‘Stewie’.


    But it's OK if that becomes the case. I understand. We all do now.

  57. Delphin says:

    Ah, let's redefine the language from Truth, Facts, Honesty, Evidence… and Witness to "…boredom and anger…".  The Truth does hurt [for some].

    And, imagine citing the editorial board of the NYSlimes, for anything. They've been so thoroughly discredited (eg. endorsing BHO) that the National Enquirer is more likely to rate higher on integrity.

    Other than that, nothing much worth responding to since the commenter contributes nothing more than the usual baseless mid-slinging, as duly noted by just some of those "visitors" and "readers",  Josie, Grace and KenW.


  58. Delphin says:

    If only those "clowns in gowns" were sexually cavorting and gyrating with each other and inanimate objects and animals atop a rainbow-colored float, as is the case in any Gay Pride parade in any city, USA -  could we then be lectured, by the likes of Danny-boy Savage (pig incarnate) about "love, tolerance, equality and acceptance".

    I wonder when cross-dressing became the object of acceptable ridicule by the left? Perhaps this recent phenomenon could be best explained by Alec Baldwin, another darling of theirs?

    And, what any of "it" has to do with deviant homosexuals abusing minors, everywhere, and the corrupt media cover-up of that fact while they hype the Church's relatively negligible minor abuse matter, we'll never know (well, we do know, Nothing).

    As we've suspected all along, and as has been proven with every word written (and likely uttered) by these frauds, their feigned outrage over Church-related problems is just another outlet for hatred of the Church, and Catholics. This hatred is as old as the Church -nothing new to see here, move along.

    • jim robertson says:

      The difference between a gay pride parade and the Vatican is one is hypocritical and the other is not.

      So A for honesty, my drag queen brothers. You are absolutely honest compared to Rome. Honesty ever hear of that Frick and Frac?

      Why am I talking to stooges?

      Self hatred is the very core of Catholic thought. Your world is ending. And better sooner than later. Look around you at mass and remember the good old days. They are gone. Never to return again. The tides gone out only the very evil and the very frightened are left.


  59. Publion says:

    We recall – some of us, anyway – that the New York Times was gung-ho for the Iraq invasion and the existence of WMD.  For quite some time I have felt that the paper was not really clear on the concept of truth and of facts, let alone admitting its role in enabling and supporting catastrophic mistakes. And – as so often happens, through some interesting dynamics  – it has attracted cheerleaders who are equally unclear on certain essential concepts. Be that as it may.


    Commenter Ecker comes at 1220 today.


    What “ways” am I “set in”? I keep asking questions in light of assertions and claims that some people keep making. To describe that as merely being “set in [my] ways” is grossly insufficient; there is a discipline to pursuing  rationally demonstrable truth and I do my best to hew to that discipline.


    Even though it includes running into all sorts of material from persons who don’t put up their assertions, claims and allegations to be questioned, but rather merely to be accepted without question. Nor are they amused when questions are aimed, thus, in the wrong direction. They already have the truth – doncha see? – and all we are here to do is to accept it and stampede on cue like useful cattle in an old Western.


    Catholic parishioners – now – are the true culprits and the “cancerous cells”. But not to take that personally, because “not all” of them … just the ones pointed out and classified ex-Wigedra by the self-declared Victim-Wigs. (With all respect to Rembrandt, I can’t help but imagine his The Syndics – all of those high and mighty Dutch burghers gathered for a group portrait: picture, if you will, a group shot of certain assorted self-proclaimed ‘victims’, sitting in that pose, but in place of the lace collars of the era, each crowned by the most favorite Wig in their respective collections – or perhaps several Wigs simultaneously, perched one atop the other like an over-frosted layer cake. Perhaps if they were to all convene (I had formed the impression that they were already communicating privately with each other, exchanging the contents of 3×5 cards) they might sit for a group portrait.)


    Wearing the Wig of Future-Telling, Ecker informs us that the afore-mentioned “cancerous-cell” parishioners “will let history to repeat itself” [sic].


    And that will be because I and others like me “want to just forget about what has happened”. Where, I ask, in all of my material have I ever made such a suggestion?


    Rather, to bring commenter Ecker back to reality here, my point is not to try and “forget what has happened”; my point has always been to try to find out what has actually happened.  And it is precisely here that the Victim-Wigs must and do deploy every bit in their bag to try and prevent that.


    It is They of the Wig(s) that are set in their ways: by the very nature of the Game they are playing, they must ensure that nobody else starts looking at allegations and assertions and claims; rather, they will control that history (real or otherwise) and the rest of us can simply stampede on cue and dance to their tune.  And so preventing the examination of their allegations is so utterly and absolutely vital a precondition for the Game, and To Keep The Ball Rolling, that they wind up being set in their ways as if set in concrete.

    “Your words that you speak are only that.” Meaning what? That they are only words? What else do we have to examine all this if not concepts and the words that express them?


    And then – building on the old ‘actions speak louder than words’ bumper-sticker – Ecker again simply reasserts what I have already called into question. But just what does the AOM document dump tell us? But rather than put forth his own analysis of the AOM reports (I haven’t seen copies of any actual documents) that would respond to my analysis, he simply tosses up another handful from the previous pile and makes the assertion that “what has been released to the public from Milwaukee shows that”. I say again – to a readership who has now been provided with the actual news report – that Ecker’s referenced article reporting on the AOM cache-dump reveals nothing. If he disagrees, let him show us in an analysis here just which bits demonstrate and justify just which conclusions he makes. (My bet: he won’t, because he can’t; his whole Game is based on innuendo and suspicion; he isn’t looking for analysis, he’s looking for agreement and acceptance and that’s all.)


    And – marvelously – Ecker gives us this gem: none of the documents that have come out have come out “by that archdiocese coming forward on their own” (exaggerated formatting omitted). The Stampede outcome here would be – as Ecker tries to herd us along – to jump to the conclusion that the documents were hidden for a nefarious purpose. But from what we saw of the AOLA document dump (and the actual documents we saw) and from the bits mentioned in Ecker’s own recommended article on the AOM dump, there was no smoking-gun, no definite proof, and none of the material supported the Abusenik Cartoons.


    Leading therefore to the perfectly plausible explanation that the reason these documents were not eagerly (and at great expense) compiled and released was that there was nothing in the documents that would wind up supporting the Abusenik Cartoons anyway.  The AOLA dump has already faded away; but now we are being assured that the AOM dump will do the trick for the Abuseniks (the AOLA fizzle being conveniently forgotten).


    On top of the fact that the further back you go in time, the more complex it is to distinguish between what was the standard social approach to a problem then, and what is the standard approach to the problem now.


    Which then leads to the thought that the reason so many dogs didn’t bark in the wayway-back was because not that many dogs saw that much to bark about. Were there individual cases where things were not handled well in a particular (now-historical) era decades ago? I would say yes, indeed. Were there enough cases to justify the dark vision that the Church has been primarily running an Abuse-Mill for centuries or millennia? I would say that the only way such a vision could be credited would be if media helped stampede everybody into simply accepting whatever claim and story and allegation came up to the cash window from the long-ago.


    Bringing us right back to square one here, with Ecker’s efforts to keep this whole Matter “set” in his ways, which means set like concrete in looking back for a period of almost a century. Is there any similar mass of fresh and current allegations? There is not – just the opposite. Does Ecker care to deal with that? Ecker does not.


    Even if Ecker and JR and whoever else were to get together, how would even they actually know who among them was a genuine victim and who was otherwise-classifiable? They would not be able to actually know. They could share check stubs, or press clippings of the trial, or even pass around copies of their sworn statements made to their attorney – but none of that goes to establishing, even among themselves, what actually and truly happened to whom by whom. When you actually clear away the dust of the Stampede and look for a minute, they can’t even legitimately vouch for each other’s stories and claims.


    Unless we posit some sort of magical-mystery Victim-radar (Vikdar?) that enables those of the Mysteries to unerringly and unfailingly and with total comprehensive clarity suddenly perceive that they are indeed in the presence of genuine others of their kind. But if you are willing to accept the existence of that, then I can’t see where you can go making fun of people who believe in theological and religious mysteries. Is not the whole Abusenik Project in some fundamental way merely another version of belief, rather than of scientifically demonstrable proof? Why else have the politicians gone to so much trouble to water-down the traditional evidentiary laws and standards? Because if the legal system insisted (as it traditionally has and as it conceptually must) on rational and demonstrable evidence, then the Abusenik Stampede would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.


    What “people are tired of” – I would say – is the Stampede. And when they actually start to realize just how they were cast as dumb cattle for the Stampede scenes in this whole Thing, they are not simply going to be tired; some of them are going to be very mad. Another reason why the Abuseniks and all their aiders and abettors and all those who have made piles of cash off this Thing absolutely must remain ‘set in their ways’ and Keep The Ball Rolling. Just the same way as that long-ago apparatchik on the Central Committee in Lenin’s day asked ominously: But what will happen when the people find out what we’ve really done?


    Then, having completed his stab at factuality and fortune-telling, Ecker changes to the Cafeteria Wig and refers to my “rambling on”.


    And then quickly changes Wigs again and heads for the high-ground. But – alas – incoherently. I am not involved – as apparently Ecker is when wearing the Wig of Glorious Purpose – in doing “something to prevent the past, the present and the sad future from ever happening again”.  (If you stop for a minute and think about that, then how, pray, does one go about preventing the past, the present, and the future from ever happening again? But it sounds nice and it goes with the Wig.)


    Do all the extant and current studies of hugely reduced allegations not indicate that remedial steps have been effective and that the Catholic Church now has the most stringent anti-abuse (however defined) policies of any corporate entity in the country (including the government and the military)?  Just what, then, does Ecker envision himself trying to do here that hasn’t already been done and isn’t already being done? (Hint: Ecker, with others, is heavily invested in Keeping The Ball Rolling for reasons that have little if anything to do with the actual historical realities … ).


    Ecker then does another on-stage change and now assumes the Wig of Concerned and Prayerful Sadness, although – as so often with him – deeply bespangled with the Teeth of Sly Nastiness: I am “a very sad individual” and then a bit about “the Lord above” and my upcoming death. Charming. And that is a bit that flags some rather remarkable if not also disturbing sub-surface currents. And so Spiritual, doncha think?


    What we have seen here is somebody who is very “set in [his] ways” and must – for reasons interior and external – Keep The Ball Rolling, no matter what has to be exaggerated, what has to be ignored, what has to be twisted in order to do so. Some readers may consider that sad; I consider it disturbing and meretricious.


    But it’s his right to put up what he wants. And it certainly seems useful to our purposes here: we can see, as if in a surgical procedure, the dark beating heart and mind of the Abusenik Stampede.                                               

  60. Delphin says:

    There is such an easy solution to the problem that the antiCatholic bigots and haters can implement to cure their disease: stay out of our Church, and her matters.


    Blame your parents for exposing you to such evils as children [were they abusers and enablers, too?].

    Blame yourselves, if true victims, for not informing your parents of the crime(s) committed against you, as you should have done (required) as young adults (anything near puberty is old enough to know right from wrong), and pray for forgiveness because you, too, were complicit, along with any others, in enabling deviant homosexuals to continue their crimes.

    You come to this site, not to convert, but to seek forgiveness;

              -forgiveness for not doing what you needed to do to stop the crimes decades ago,

             -forgiveness for your parents, who should have known their children were at risk and being physicaly injured (rape leaves physical, emotional, mental and psychological evidence),

            -forgiveness for abandoning God when you need[ed] Him most,

            -forgiveness for proselytising hate for God and for man,

            -and forgiveness for your unjust war against the Catholic Church.

    As faithful Catholics, we forgive you for your trespass against us, but you need to seek God's forgiveness for your trespass against His house and His priests.

    You, and ONLY you, ever had the power to stop the abuse, with the help of God, and by choosing good over evil. You chose evil all along, with your silence when you were required to speak, and now with your speech of hate designed ONLY to divert from the sins of your past.

    • dennis ecker says:


      We may have unable to stop the abuse we suffered as children. However as an adult I will do my best to prevent it from ever happening again to another child, and I will make sure your church be held liable for the crimes they have committed.

      If I do it alone or with the help of Mr. Robertson and others we will make sure what has happened is never forgotten so it NEVER repeats itself.

      I suggest though don't stand in my way, Mr. Robertson's way or others like us, because unlike you and publion who only put words on a comment site we have a goal and our actions are speaking so much louder than your words.

    • jim robertson says:

      D I Blame you. Not for then but for now. [edited by moderator]

      I simply want you to know I never hated the Church before I met you and P.

      But thanks to you I now loathe it. 

      You know,eventually, as more and more and more crimes and coverups are revealed, you become more and more absurd and useless.

  61. Delphin says:

    I am sure the Church would be happy to help these guys out with their model of a successful program to virtually eliminate the problem of unchecked deviant homosexuals preying on minors-


    Thank you, Ms. Brown. At least there is [potentially] one courageous and honest journalist out there.

  62. Delphin says:

    TMR Victim-claimants ACTIONS are nothing but idealogical cliches wrapped up in hate and bigotry. If you were "Men" of Action, you would be "on the streets" doing the dirty work of actively addressing abuse of ALL victims where they are (they ain't in the Church, anymore, geniuses) and not uselessly and hatefully haunting a site dedicated to tracking a corrupt and biased antiCatholic media. What Good do your contributions, such that they are, do for the victims of ongoing abuse?

    [edited by moderator] Where is your NGO/charity, what did you do with your Church-booty (any of you) besides enrich yourselves, and what have you done, as pertains to Action, to change anything for the better for victims?

    My Church admitted its wrongs, compensated victims and non-victims (and their rat-eyed attorneys) in the billions (to date) and developed a fool-proof (for the "fools" themselves) monitoring and reporting system to address their problem, Actively and Effectively. That is called Action. My Church did more to address, and fix the minor abuse problem caused by deviant homosexuals than any other entity in the world. I gladly support them wherever they are, in all their works and acts of charity- because they ACT.

    Remind me, again, what have you fools done to "fix" anything for other victims (you know, the kind that were actually victimized)? This is your great "civil rights"  moment in history- to use your own victimization experience to change the cruel world for victims of sexual abuse everywhere (boys, girls, women, men), you have the bullhorn, and what have you done?



    • jim robertson says:

      Hun huh Princess We don't have the "bullhorns".

      SNAP, which is the Church you so love, has the "bull horns". [edited by moderator]

  63. Publion says:

    We are advised by commenter Ecker at 250PM that he and others claiming to be similarly-experienced were unable to stop the abuse (however defined) that they suffered as children. Nobody without Vikdar is going to be able to gratuitously accept that assumption about having been abused; for all we know, we are all simply a captive audience to some psycho-drama playing out in the mind of the commenter. (Question: Does Vikdar work on the internet or does it require actually being aimed at somebody physically present and within actual range of the equipment?)

    The Wig of Authority – a rather regular accessory for this commenter – is deployed forthrightly: he “will make sure” that the Church “be held liable for the crimes they have committed” (presuming, of course, that we can identify and demonstrably establish the specific crimes … or would that be thinking-too-much?).

    And further along that queasy line: he and others like him “will make sure what has happened is never forgotten so it never repeats itself” (exaggerated formatting omitted). That presumes not only a) that a lot of such crimes actually happened, but also b) that by simply ‘reminding’ people one can ensure rather totally that no such crime (presuming some crime here for the purposes of the present discussion) will then ever be committed again.

    But if these hypothetical abusers are genuine pedophilic abusers in the clinical sense, then will they be deterred merely by ‘reminding’ people? Is Ecker familiar with the formal parameters of the clinical diagnosis and the dynamics involved?

    And what power on earth can ever guarantee “NEVER” (exaggerated formatting not omitted)? What sort of megalomaniac posturing is this?

    And then – as if to hammer home the alarms thus raised by his immediately previous statements – Ecker goes on to warn ominously: “I suggest though [:] [D]on’t stand in my way, Mr. Robertson’s way or others like us” … What sort of whacky Wild West animated cartoon movie does this commenter think he’s the hero of? Are we to imagine that we are all cast as the leering banditti in Ecker & Company’s cartoon remake of The Magnificent Seven? (Hint: I think the answer to this question is: Yes, absolutely.)

    And then – the Teeth of Nastiness in the double-layered Wig of Victimized Authority chattering like cheap castanets – Ecker actually expands that thought: he and others of his ilk are not like myself and others in the readership “who only put words on a comment site”. Because “unlike” such types, Ecker and the rest of The Magnificent Wigs “have a goal and our actions are speaking so much louder than our words”.

    First, he presumes that there is not much use or value in “words” (a rather predictable self-justifying philosophical position for ketchup-splattered fry-flies who don’t really like working with words (although “words” sure “been bery bery good” to some of them, haven’t they?).

    Second, he infers that he and others of The Magnificent Wigs are currently involved not in useless wordiness but rather in “actions”. And that those “actions” are “speaking so much louder than our words” (translation: forget the fact that our comments here don’t make much sense; our actions are really burning up the road!). And what “actions” might those be, pray?

    And what does Ecker define as an action that is successfully having an effect? Could he unpack that “louder” and give anybody an idea of just what these un-described actions are accomplishing? Are intended to accomplish?

    Here’s what I think: Ecker and Company (does he by his own fiat incorporate unto himself any and every Alinskyite media-event that anybody tries to pull off anywhere in the country, whether they have ever heard of him or not?) aren’t doing much more than commenting (take a look at the BigTrial site as well as the TMR site), but a) those comments are ‘just words’ and b) they aren’t really very good at making sense by using words, so they will now claim that they are part of a mystical body of media-event perp-performers, and all of them plan to keep busy just making sure that the “sad future” doesn’t repeat itself, no never – not ever. And this will keep them in their psychic comfort zone until the Catholic Church collapses in a heap or Time ends – whichever comes first.

    Meanwhile the rest of us have been warned and put on notice: The Wigboys are back and there’s gonna be trubble, heads will roll, and exaggerated formatting will make the internet run gray with extra pixels.

    Don’t let the Wig fool you; it’s really a Napoleon hat – and if you realize that, then you are well along in figuring how to handle yourself in the presence of this time-lord universe-master of the New Order.

  64. Delphin says:

    When the so-called victims are not blaming the Church, the world, or their mommies for their ills (failed lives), they are blaming their idealogical, philosophical and religious opposition on TMR (…or whatever other sites they haunt).

    When will they grow up and blame themselves for any of their problems?

    Hot flash for you, boys, there is no mo' "NOW" when it comes to minor abuse in the Church.

    Let it go, it's all over, fellas. The Good Times are over.

    Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

    • jim robertson says:

      Well now I know how old you are. Jimmy Durante references? Younger than springtime. But literally stealing my lines. [edited by moderator]

  65. jim robertson says:

    Princess, it's neutral juries who've blamed the Church not just victims. Oh that's right all juries are wrong unless they agree with your pov. [edited by moderator]

  66. jim robertson says:

    What low fakery you offer. In a world of high definition your fake myths like Dracula can not stand the light of day.

    Remember the first sin was eating from the tree of knowledge, one can't go back. Though people like you try in order, it seems, to control others into your brand of "happiness".

    What's that need about? Are you angry about how you've been controlled and are instead of having empathy you've chosen to identify with the oppressor? Why? For a little pat on the head?

  67. jim robertson says:

    Or is your own personal brand of heaven to be richer than other peoples? You're going to "get more " when you die than everybody else?

    [edited by moderator]

  68. LearnedCounsel says:

    OK, the flight school analogy. I fear that I may never, that no one may ever hear the end of the flight school analogy not being addressed.

    The essence of the flight school analogy is .  .  . anal! Just kidding. No, the essence of the flight school analogy is the tried and tired argument that without god, there is only moral relativism. No god equals no grounding. God makes the rules. God gave us the rules through Jesus and in the New Testament. No god means no rules or at least no authority for rules. And we have to have rules to live successfully. Say it all together now, "You cannot fly a fixed-wing aircraft backwards!" Physics, more of god's rules. Sorry, the rules or laws of Physics whether you believe in god or not, whether you are catholic or not.

    If you would like to take it easy and not work out ethics for yourself by all means resort to god and the one book he ever gave us. Or, you know, inspried by the holy spirit. By the way, the muslims and the mormons have basically the same claim (that there is a god and that he gave us a book) and they each just happen to have a different book. Oh, and the Jews too but they (some of them anyway) are sticking with the 1.0 release  .  .  . I mean, revelation.

    There are so many religions and versions of them. What are the chances that you are with the right one? Well, that is your problem, not mine. I choose none. So too with the flight school analogy. I do not accept publicly publion’s premise that god did it. That he is behind it all, the grounding. So that kind of ruin’s the analogy for me and anyone who is not a theist.

    Having said this, two Hitchens quotes come to mind. (1) "Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did." Just look at all the splintering of the so called christian faith into catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox, anglican, and protestant. And these major groups breakdown into many smaller subgroups, especially in protestantism. (2)"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." I agree with Hitchens. Humans are mammals that have evolved to have moral and ethical thoughts. That is it. No god in the system.

  69. Publion says:

    The AOM document cache has – according to an AP report – actually revealed some interesting bits.


    The then-Archbishop of the AOM, now-Cardinal Dolan, “faced increasing pressure as archbishop in Milwaukee to cut costs by defrocking problem priests and [faced] pushback from his staff when he hesitated, according to newly released records”.

    What we see here is not the usual Cartoon vision of a criminally-complicit organization highly and rigidly organized around the process of ‘cover-up’. Here, a) the archdiocesan staff wants to get rid of ‘problem priests’ (although there is no distinction made here between priests who are a problem because they have demonstrably offended and priests who are a problem because they have been allegated-against). And b) the Archbishop doesn’t have the authority to “defrock” a priest. But c) the staff realizes that if nothing else, these priests – whether actually guilty or not – constitute a financial vulnerability to the AOM and want to cut costs and potential losses somehow.

    “Clergy sex abuse victims have harshly criticized Dolan for payments made to at least seven abusive priests who were forced out of the church; they view the money as bonuses given to criminals”.

    But d) there is – as usual – no distinction made between allegators and genuinely demonstrated victims. And e) there is again no distinction between an allegedly abusive priest and a proven-abusive priest. And f) there is no clarity here as to whether the priests 1) were removed from ministry (which is within the Archbishop’s authority) and priests who 2) were laicized (the technical canonical term for the popular term ‘defrocked’ – and only Rome has the authority to impose this sanction).

    In fact, there is g) no mention of when (within the 80 year span covered by the document-release) the alleged actions actually took place.

    And h) we note the standard Abusenik insistence that any money sent to the priests in question constituted nothing more than “bonuses given to criminals”. If the priests were not demonstrably proven to have committed the allegations than they are not characterizable as “criminals” (and the AP – by merely quoting the Abusenik position rather than making any assessment of its own – neatly avoids the legal complications here).

    And if the AOM kept paying them or contributing the usual amounts to their support for living expenses and insurance (health and dental, etc.) while the allegations were being examined, then this is the same type of situation as a corporate or public employee who is put on ‘paid administrative leave pending investigation’. There is nothing of “bonus” about it. But “bonus” makes it all sound so much more slimey and suspicious – which is always what the Playbook will try to go-for.

    Then things get even more curious: “The archdiocese has said that it long provided money to men leaving the priesthood as a means of helping them transition into new lives; most were not accused of wrong-doing” (italics mine). So i) it might well have seemed to Dolan that if priests were being forced out of ministry or urged to request laicization voluntarily (which greatly facilitates the process in Rome), then some payment was required – especially if the allegations were not demonstrably proven.

    Other documents, this piece then goes on to say, “show that others in the archdiocese were pushing to get rid of the priests as a way to ensure that money was focused on caring for victims and [for] church operations”.  So j) the Archbishop faced pressure from both pro-‘victim’ and pro-AOM operations types, both of which groups wanted to see these (allegated-against or demonstrably-proven-abusive) priests removed somehow as quickly as possible, in order to use AOM funds for other purposes.

    It reminds me of damaged aircraft in the later years of the Pacific War simply being pushed or bulldozed over the side of the flight deck into the sea; or excess but perfectly functional helos coming out of Saigon at the end of April, 1975 and simply being sent over the side because there was no place to store them.

    We see here the pressures generated by the Stampede and the Anderson strategy: any still-living priest against whom an allegation was lodged instantly became a ‘liability’ precisely at the moment when he would most need the support of his Ordinary (at least until substantive investigation established the actual credibility of the allegation). Dolan was not caving-in to those pressures, which satisfied neither the victimists nor the bean-counters.

    The AP opines that “Dolan probably saw the payments as a cost-effective way to speed up the priests’ departure”. So k) even when Dolan decides to take the most cost-effective (and least time-consuming) route by using the carrot of financial payment to get a priest to voluntarily waive his canonical rights to a contested-laicization process, the Abuseniks prefer to characterize it as a “bonus”. And yet, if Dolan were to go the other route and request numerous laicizations – contested though they would be – and thus tie up AOM funds and staff and resources and energies in a necessarily time-consuming process, he would then be criticized for not taking steps quickly enough. The Playbook here simply demands that the Church be made to look evil no matter what it does; that’s how this Game is played.

    I imagine that if Dolan or any Ordinary had a magic wand and could simply make the accused priests dissolve in a puff of smoke, he would then be accused of ‘cover-up’ because he removed the priests from the possibility of any further investigation (even though – of course – the Playbook isn’t really looking for real ‘investigation’; it’s simply seeking more piñatas to whack somehow).

    Even more vaguely, this short AP piece then goes on to say that “the data was made public as part of a deal between the archdiocese and the victims suing it for fraud”. And here we again see l) the failure to distinguish between allegators and demonstrably genuine victims.

    And we see m) a scintillating hint that somehow there is a (current?) lawsuit that is based on charges of “fraud”. Readers of Michael D’Antonio’s book may recall the discussion of legal strategizing that involved using this ‘fraud’ route as a way of opening up the possibility of ‘punitive’ as well as actual damage-payments, which opens up the payoff possibilities astronomically for everyone (plaintiffs and attorneys) involved. But the AP report does not follow up here.

    In its final paragraph, the AP notes that it was in 2003 (a decade ago now) that the AOM offered “deals … to six priests accused of sexual abuse to get them to voluntarily leave the priesthood” (italics mine). And thus n) we see again the derangements flowing from the pressure of Stampede: the AOM pushes to have accused priests waive their right to canonical due-process simply to get them ‘off the flight deck’, as it were.

    To an accused or allegated-against priest, now facing a career-ending and potentially life-wrecking challenge that – under the deforming pressures of the general Stampede – has almost no good outcomes no matter how it is resolved, the offer of at least enough money to retain private counsel and keep a roof over one’s head must have been a desperately attractive option. But – of course – to accept the offer meant erasing the last chance to salvage something.

    This is all easily handled by the Abusenik Playbook: if we simply presume the total truthiness of the allegations, then we can all console ourselves with the thought that the accused-priest was absolutely guilty and deserved whatever catastrophes befell him. Thus – in the faux-Frenchified phrasing of Inspector Clouseau – “the case is sol-ved” and the Game can roll on to the whack-the-pinata phase without further distraction. See how simple it is?

    Lastly, I would note that no matter how informative all of this AOM document-dump-derived material is, it still reveals nothing that would support the general Abusenik Cartoon that the various Ordinaries and their staffs were busily ‘covering-up’.

    And indeed, we instead wind up with an even heavier load of doubt as to the guilt of numerous accused priests whose cases were never allowed to receive a full airing. But it was a hellishly clever strategy:  in a time of Stampede many accused might very rationally presume that there would be no real expectation of due-process anyway, so why not try to simply get out of this runaway-train’s path and give up any hope of pursuing further defense?

    Now we shall probably never really know the extent of guilt (or – slyly to the advantage of the Stampede) the extent of false allegations. But the Playbook has evolved a dogma to cover this truly disturbing and dangerous possibility: simply claim as a matter of faith and belief that very few allegations are or ever were false, a belief itself based on a presumed belief as to the truthiness of allegators. This reduces everything to nothing more than a house of mirrors, with one doubtful image justifying itself through another doubtful image. A lethal carnival midway indeed.

  70. Delphin says:

    No, you don't know "how old I am", and I am not your "princess".

    I can quote Thomas Jefferson and Jesus, but, it doesn't make me a contemporary of theirs.

    Stop personalizing the dialogue, it isn't about me, but, you did make it about YOU when you claimed "victimhood" and then also claimed to possess gnostic abilities regarding the FACTS of the Church abuse matter. If you and your other loosey-goosey victim-claimants here didn't want the focus on "YOU", you should have restricted your debate points to the FACTS.

    After all, since there has been NO EVIDENCE to corroborate the "he said, he said" charges, all any of us really have is your CREDIBILITY and your WORD to assess guilt.

    • jim robertson says:

       There are the letters admitting guilt by both the Cardinal and the head of the Marianist order plus the settlement.

      But those little FACTS mean zippo to you just like the reality of no god no Original Sin; no heaven and no hell.. Absolutely no proof for any of your firmly believed fantasies.

      Shouldn't your own hypocricy, demanding more proof from others than you require for yourselves, be obvious to even your limited abilities to reason?


  71. Publion says:

    While I was composing my immediately prior comment, there came Learned-Counsel, for whom it has taken all this time to get a handle on his thoughts as to just why he himself doesn’t think much of my Flight-School Analogy. One would have thought he already had done the thinking before he made his objection, but apparently not.

    Donning the Wig of Exasperated Patience perched upon the Wig of Bemused Innocence, he doth “fear that I may never, that no one may ever hear the end of the flight school analogy not being addressed”. Alas indeed. It was a simple request for him to explain a comment he himself had chosen to make – yet he seems now both bemused and bethump’t that he has been asked to explain the thinking behind his comment. It must have been a very indulgent Philosophy Department at Harvard indeed – invertebrate, even.

    First, a joke: “anal” – perhaps derived from “analogy” … see, because there’s “anal” in “analogy”. Thus the initial move is from the Peter-Griffin Family Guy school of philosophy. (Was that cartoon character on the faculty of Harvard’s Philosophy Department when L-C allegedly attended classes there? Who – in this Colonel-Klink world of today – could say No for certain?)

    Then he gets down to his best stuff.

    And repeats what we had already discussed: that “without god, there is only moral relativism” – which he dismisses as merely “the tried and tired argument”.

    Spiced up with the marvelously adolescent plaint that if we go with the Flight-School Analogy (hereinafter: FSA) then “God makes the rules … [and] no god means no rules or at least no authority for rules … And we have to have rules to live successfully”.

    Then – after a juvenile re-phrasing of my point about not-being able to fly a fixed-wing aircraft backwards – he doesn’t actually explain how that point does or does not connect to his own position. Followed by an incoherent bit in the two sentences from “Physics” to “catholic or not”.

    To rely on God or Flight-School would be “to take it easy and not work out ethics for yourself”. Thus, apparently, you are lazy if you let God do your figuring for you. Whereas, apparently, if you do your own figuring-out of your personal ethics, then you are doing the really heroic and savvy heavy-lifting in life and in philosophy.

    Then a snarky bit about Mormonism and Judaism each having its own Book, so – clearly, it seems to him – there must be many different ethical options and there cannot be one Source of ethics (so, doncha see, it’s really an open field and anything goes for any particular person to figure out his/her own personal ethics … for the moment anyway).

    But both of those Books (to use the term a bit figuratively here) are also grounded in a Beyond. That’s where they get their authority; that’s where they get the ‘oomph’ which creates not ethical preferences, but ethical obligations. (And don’t the kiddies just hate that concept of ‘obligations’?)

    Then the publically-anonymous ‘Learned Counsel’ (ex-‘Boston Survivor’) tells us that he chooses not to believe in any god, since there are so many gods and ethical systems on offer – and (he feels) what’s wrong with that?

    In other words, for L-C it all boils down to the fact that there is no God so there isn’t any possibility of a God-Grounded ethics and thus he prefers his own preferences. And shame on those who think ill of it.

    And he concludes with more quotes from the congenitally adolescent Hitchens … about God and religion. And Hitchens’s analysis basically boils down to the fact that since there are so many ‘religions’ and so many ‘gods’ then there can’t really be just One, or maybe any at all … and so the whole ethical question is subsumed in this (somewhat cursory) analysis of religion and theology and ‘gods’: many religions means many gods means many ethics and who’s to say for sure and so L-C (and Hitchens) will do what they feel is best for them. And shame on those who think ill of it.

    Thus L-C’s Harvard-trained philosophical statement of his ethical position.

    But he has missed the key point in my FSA: it’s primarily a matter of the aircraft itself; there are rules that spring from the nature of the aircraft itself, and not from the whims of any external force or Force.

    Thus when I say that one cannot fly a fixed-wing aircraft in reverse I am speaking not of some Rule imposed by the whim of the FAA or the particular corporate airline for whom one works as a pilot; I am not appealing to any such externally-imposed Rule (we all know how the kiddies don’t like being imposed-upon).

    Rather, I am speaking about the nature of the aircraft itself: it won’t work if you try to fly it that way. Your options and preferences are limited by the nature of the machine you are piloting.

    Which instantly brings the discussion (or should bring it, in a philosophical assessment) to the Question: is there or is there not a common human-nature that by its very essence imposes certain parameters upon any human trying to live life by piloting a human self (and its human nature) through the crowded skies of human history?

    And if we examine humans and the ethical systems they have devised (the examples of Jewish and Mormon and Catholic ethics all flow from the Judeo-Christian Vision) we can get a clear sense that there are certain basic characteristic elements that consistently show up: one should try to do Good rather than Evil; one should not inflict gratuitous harm on others; one should not dissipate oneself purely in the this-worldly but rather should strive to develop beyond one’s own purely personal concerns and be concerned for others (in some way).

    These are not rules imposed upon humans externally; they appear in various ethical systems developed by humans regardless of whether those humans are devotees of the Judeo-Christian God or not. In their basic forms they predate Christianity and Judaism – although they were given profound enhancement in the Judeo-Christian Vision.

    Thus what the Flight-School (in my usage, the Church) is doing is not simply imposing upon student-pilots an arbitrary set of rules thought up by a bunch of frumpy grown-ups. Rather it is trying to teach the student-pilots the essential nature of the aircraft they are going to be operating in the crowded skies.

    Aspiring pilots who simply prefer to ‘not take the easy way’ by going to Flight-School, but instead (and, in their vision, heroically) coming up with their own preferred operating practices defined by whatever they feel they’d like to adopt … are thus going to run into complications both in operating their own aircraft and then in operating up in the crowded skies. Thus you wind up with individual “moral relativism”.

    And if on top of that, they are flying in skies crowded with large numbers of other pilots who also neither a) understand the operating characteristics and parameters of their own craft nor b) the operating plans and preferences of all those other pilots up there … then you wind up with a lethal and probably fatal confusion indeed. Thus you wind up with group “moral relativism”.

    Here is the first fatal problem for L-C: if there is a common human nature and essence, then to simply rely on one’s own feelings and one’s own limited abilities to comprehend the full complexity and nature of the human ethical challenge is pretty much guaranteed to lead to a substantially and fundamentally insufficient capacity to pilot the human aircraft. One’s personal individual knowledge and experience is hardly sufficient to provide all the necessary knowledge (that’s why you have to go to flight-school and get certified and licensed if you want to fly an aircraft). And if you figure you can just make it up or learn as you go along, the probability of crashing on your own or crashing into somebody else up there before you get it all worked-out (if you ever do) is pretty high.

    So the first problem goes to the very nature of the human ‘aircraft’: does it or does it not have a ‘nature’ and ‘essence’? If it does … then what flows from that? If it doesn’t … then what flows from that? What is L-C’s position in regard to the existence of a common human nature? If there is one, what are its operating parameters? If he thinks there is not a common human nature, then let him say so and explain what observations support his conclusion.

    Hitchens’s assessment suffers from two core simplistic flaws: a) it presumes that ethical systems are merely impositions externally made on the individual by ‘religion’ (and by extension, God); and b) it presumes a grossly insufficient grasp of the various levels of ethical requirements and principles.

    In regard to (a): ethics flow from the nature of the human being as a species, not merely from some Marxy-type power-play of hegemony and oppression imposed by adults or authority figures on everybody else (or like grown-ups imposing their stodgy will arbitrarily on fun-and-freedom-loving kids). Thus all human beings, since they are all flying the same type of aircraft in essence, have to conform themselves to what is basically their own human nature and essence. They have to do this in order to respect their own nature and essence and they have to do this in order to respect all other humans’ nature and essence – which they all share in common.

    In regard to (b): Consider air travel. There is a first level of authority – residing in the individual airlines – that can say what style and color the crew uniforms and plane-interiors will be and what the logo for the airline will be. The airlines can change these if they wish. There is a second level of authority – residing in the FAA – that says what minimum distance must be maintained between aircraft in flight and what altitude and routes aircraft flying – say – east will fly, and what altitude and routes aircraft flying west will fly. No airline and no pilot can disregard those regulations; the government through the FAA can impose such changes. But then there is a third level of authority that stems simply from the nature of fixed-wing aircraft in flight: no airline and no pilot can fly the aircraft in reverse because the aircraft will simply not stay up in the air. And neither the corporate offices nor the pilots nor even the FAA can change that reality. There are certain laws of aerodynamics (or “Physics”) that humans don’t have the power to change even if they as individuals or as corporations or as governments might want to change them.

    The Hitchens approach – embraced by L-C – simply presumes a simple single source ‘authority’ for ethical strictures, and says No to any other source for that authority except the free-thinking individual and his/her preferences.

    Thus in noting the variety of religions and some levels of various ethical systems, Hitchens uses the variety of logos and interior upholstery patterns and colors of uniforms among – to use the terms of my analogy – the various ‘corporate airlines’ to then claim that therefore there are no legitimately authoritative rules at all, and it’s all totally and clearly up to the individual pilot and whatever s/he feels is the way s/he would like to do things.

    And the second fatal problem for L-C is this: even if you were – per impossibile – to figure the whole thing out correctly all on your own, then i) since it is your own preference, how can you or anybody else be sure that what you feel is your set of ethical preferences today is going to be your ethical preference tomorrow or next week or next year? You wind up becoming morally relativistic even toward your own self.

    And ii) how can you be sure that all the other pilots have come up with the same preferences that you have? And will stick to those preferences? You wind up with a sky-full of pilots who are morally relativistic towards themselves and all other pilots. This leads to a happy-face version of Hobbes: a human existence full of selfs that are un-guided, under-guided, and/or concerned only and ultimately for themselves.

    And thus the third fatal problem for L-C: how can you impose a set of ethical preferences (thereby turning a preference into an obligation) on yourself or anybody else? And if there can be no obligation, then how can you reliably sure what other persons are going to be doing and how they will be acting in regard to you?

    And even if you admit that there is a common human nature, then how can you be sure others will ‘prefer’ it the way you define it? And if you don’t even admit that there is a common human nature and essence, then you are even deeper in the hole here.

    And then: if you do manage to envision a common ‘obligation’ arising from somewhere, then upon what strength will you be able to ensure general human faithfulness and loyalty to that conceptual obligation even under stressful – perhaps life-threateningly stressful – challenges and situations?

    The assertion concocted to deal with all of these profound challenges is that “human decency precedes religion”. In other words, that humans are and were somehow already reliably  ‘decent’, long before ‘religion’ and its ‘gods’ came alone to capitalize on that (mysteriously-sourced) decency.

    That is not at all evident from the historical record – quite the opposite. By the time the Greeks tried working on an ethics derived from human reason alone, human civilizations had already amassed a record of ethics intertwined with some authority from the Beyond, expressed in their particular religious vision. Confucius approached the problem by developing an ethics of family and ancestor and tradition … but I doubt Hitchens or L-C would care to go that route (correct me, please, if I am wrong in this). Nor did Confucius’ vision extend beyond a respect for one’s own family and ancestors and traditions and certainly didn’t envision the entire human species.

    And again, the assertion concocted to further support Hitchens’s (and others’) desired conclusion is that human beings are merely “mammals that have evolved to have moral and ethical thoughts”. That is far too huge a leap to be sufficiently and reliably bridged by the mere deployment of the concept of ‘evolution’. There is a not merely a quantitative or stage-dependent development that built upon prior developments; we are looking at a profound qualitative difference here, between the human species and all the rest.

    And look what this Hitchens-type approach winds up doing to somehow get rid of religion and the Beyond and God: it willingly yields and reduces the essential human reality to being merely a slightly (if curiously) more advanced form of the other fauna on the planet. In trying to get rid of the Beyond, this Hitchens-type approach willingly dismisses and reduces humanity to essentially and merely a different form of terrestrial fauna.

    This is liberation?

    And this further suggests that there is some sort of connection – apparently not evident to Hitchens and others – between humans and some Beyond. Such that you can’t reduce one without reducing the other.

    Of course, the comeback to that is that the connection is based in pathetic human illusions and delusions – perhaps arising out of fear or some species-wide megalomania that fancies itself in the Presence of some Beyond (let alone being the object of that Beyond’s benevolent attention).

    That assertion requires at least as much conjecture as anything human religious thought can be accused of coming up with. And it runs even more against the grain of what humanity’s own history has demonstrated consistently from the beginning.

    It may serve as a nice psychological sop to certain Hitchens-type folk to imagine that they are actually the cutting-edge of a vast and liberating discovery that bids fair to change the very course and nature of human history and human existence. But I would say that it resembles nothing so much as a kid figuring s/he doesn’t have to waste time learning how to fly an aircraft and can just take a flying leap off a tall building and get from Point A to Point B whenever s/he likes, and to complete that journey without incident.

    I don’t think that is going to work out well at all.

  72. LearnedCounsel says:

    I am responding now, not because it took me all night and this morning to formulate a response but because I now have the chance and the inclination. Publicly Publion always makes it out like however long I take to do something that must be how long it takes me to do that. I admit that I do like this critical teasing. So I guess I am putting on the wig of complaining but I am also wearing the wig of kind-of-enjoying. The hot ironies!

    "But he has missed the key point in my FSA: it’s primarily a matter of the aircraft itself; there are rules that spring from the nature of the aircraft itself, and not from the whims of any external force or Force.

    Thus when I say that one cannot fly a fixed-wing aircraft in reverse I am speaking not of some Rule imposed by the whim of the FAA or the particular corporate airline for whom one works as a pilot; I am not appealing to any such externally-imposed Rule (we all know how the kiddies don’t like being imposed-upon).

    Rather, I am speaking about the nature of the aircraft itself: it won’t work if you try to fly it that way. Your options and preferences are limited by the nature of the machine you are piloting.

    Which instantly brings the discussion (or should bring it, in a philosophical assessment) to the Question: is there or is there not a common human-nature that by its very essence imposes certain parameters upon any human trying to live life by piloting a human self (and its human nature) through the crowded skies of human history?"

    Yes. Let me be the first to rush to this common ground. I agree. There is a common, in the sense of typical or usual or normal, human nature. (There are also plenty of people on the spectrum of defect and extremes, like psychopaths and sociopaths, etc.) The rules spring from the nature of the human beings themselves. And we just want to flourish.

    Normal, typical, well developed people have an innate sense of right and of wrong and of empathy and of human solidarity and many other emotional and intellectual things. We creatures have evolved to have these things and to perceive them to he the highest and best traits in the animal world. We as a species have flourished all over the world, more so than others. Through communication, learning, thought and experience we can increase our sensitivity to and awareness of right and wrong; expand our empathy and strengthen our solidarity with other humans or, in fact, other creatures.

    "Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." – Charles Darwin It would not be a bad thing if, among other things, humans had bigger brains and smaller adrenaline glands. Thus, despite all of these excellent capabilities for living well together, we also have an innate capacity for anger, jealousy, violence, and tribalism.  We bear the stamp of our lowly origin. If flight school means education that enhances our ability to navigate and do less harm to others, then I am all for it.

    You say at the end of what I sampled, "Your options and preferences are limited by the nature of the machine you are piloting." True. Equipment is key. You get what get when you are born and you do not do anything to deserve it. You also cannot do much if anything about it. You can build on what you have but you cannot build much beyond the frame with which you were born. For example, some men can exercise and build an Adonis-like physique. Others can exercise so that they are very strong and fit but will still have a relatively slender appearance.

    I mean something deterministic like this when I say that you are your brain. The brain you get does your thinking and your processing and your deciding. You cannot be any smarter than you were born to be. Also, thoughts just pop into your head so that you become aware of them. But you do not consciously originate the thoughts. I am staring to make an argument against free will now and I do not mean to go too far from where we started. I will just jump to my conclusion then that we do not have free will, just the appearance of it. Much the same way that humans/the world are/is not intelligently designed but do/does have the appearance of it.

    To reiterate then, no god, no soul, no free will, no religion for me, please. Flight school is OK, as long as it is a secular school with no supernatural/divine instruction and no bible or new testament as required reading.

  73. dennis ecker says:

    I think the statement below holds so true for the Roman Catholic Church.

    "The further backward you look, the further forward you can see."

                                                                                   Winston Churchill

    I along with many others see a very bleak future.

                                                                                   Dennis Ecker

    • KenW says:

      Churchill was wrong. Mindsets like your own have the naive public looking for pedophelia where it is not, while unaware or apathetic of where pedophelia is. That is my biggest problem with mindsets like yours. I believe….rather….I KNOW that mindest is extremely dangerous. That mindset is also offensive to the legions of abuse victims outside of Catholic circles. 

  74. Publion says:

    Learned-Counsel comes up with a response – but “not because it took me all night and this morning to formulate a response but because I now have the chance and inclination”. Of course – and the rather lengthy delay in coming up with the prior response, then, was merely that he had neither the “chance” nor the “inclination” for quite a while. Sure.

    I think L-C misses a key point: I am not “critically teasing” him. I am personally convinced that he is not what he claims to be at all and that his material demonstrates nothing to controvert that conclusion.  When I take the time with him it is neither to show off nor to convert/convince him but simply to use whatever is useful in the material he throws up in the service of highlighting this or that bit for readers.

    We are then treated to a spate of mimicking my own usages without making any useful input at all.

    Then four paragraphs of quotation from my own comment. Apparently he is not familiar with the concept of commenting-on rather than simply copying; nor competent in being able to extract the gravamen of concepts from a text and accurately re-state it for his purposes.

    And after all that, what does he say?

    He agrees that there is a common human … something: “There is a common, in the sense of typical or usual or normal, human nature. (There are also plenty of people on the spectrum of defect and extremes, like psychopaths and sociopaths, etc.) The rules spring from the nature of the human beings themselves. And we just want to flourish”.

    But is he saying that humans have a constitutive human nature, common to all humans? Or is he simply saying that there is a “typical” or “usual” or “normal” spectrum along which we observe certain similar behaviors?

    It appears that he agrees when he then says that “the rules spring from the nature of the human beings themselves”.

    In fact, he then goes and defines the apparent core of human nature: “we just want to flourish”. So a) he apparently has agreed to the existence of a common human nature. But then b) he reduces it to – in a marvelous bit of juvenilia – a desire (“we all just want to flourish”).

    But now L-C has painted himself into this corner: we all want to ‘flourish’; but in order to define ‘flourish’ we have to know things like What is the human being designed for and In what does ‘flourishing’ then consist? How do you define the content of ‘flourishing’? Or does he want to head down the Sartre slope: the essence of the human is to be free which means having the freedom to have freedom and being free enough to choose to be free … ?

    For that matter, if he hasn’t answered the questions at the core of this Question, then how does he or anybody know (let alone have the authority) to classify some persons as having “defects” and “extremes”? How does he have the knowledge or authority to classify persons as perhaps being “psychopaths and sociopaths”? If we don’t know the core and the core purpose, how do we identify the defects and extremes?

    He simply defines it all his way: An “innate sense of right and wrong” is simply presumed to be something that “normal, typical, well-developed” people “have” – it’s just part of the wallpaper and you shouldn’t bother asking how it got there. We humans just sort of “evolved” them – well, actually he gives us a two-fer here: we not only a) evolved the having of them, but also b) evolved the ability for self-aware self-perception that enables us to see that we have them.

    Once again we see a stupendously deep reliance on “evolution” here: it is now – and unquestionably – to be accepted as the source of both an innate sense of goodness and of the capacity for moral self-awareness. And yet the profound – almost abyssal – difference between the non-human fauna and the human being is so qualitatively different from or beyond the merely mammalian as to require very substantial and very detailed demonstration of how all this just ‘evolved’, and it is hardly sufficient to leave all of this profoundly abyssal developmental gap to conjecture and assertion, no matter how wittily or snarkily expressed.

    He is “all for it” if Flight School helps us to “navigate and do less harm to others” … And to himself as well? How does he then mesh his apparent embrace of personal-autonomy and human-flourishing with the strictures placed on the individual pilot from any of the three levels of authority, but especially from the third level (i.e. emanating from the nature of the aircraft and the fundamental and essential laws of “Physics” themselves)?

    Does he actually realize what is he saying here?

    We as a species “have flourished all over the world”. Have we? In all dimensions of human existence and human-being? Or just in those aspects that are materially obvious? What is the definition of ‘flourishing’ – especially if one hasn’t established what the core nature and purpose of the human being is?

    And where does the human “innate capacity for anger, jealousy, violence, and tribalism” come from? Is he claiming that we started off sunk in this mire, and then simply ‘evolved’ beyond it? And are all the other fauna still, then, mired in “anger, jealousy, violence and tribalism” because they haven’t ‘evolved’ as much as humans have? If all the lower fauna are thus so profoundly and vitally flawed, then on what grounds do we worry about keeping them around?

    Or is there some magical tipping point where animals can’t be held morally responsible for their gross flaws? But where is that point? When was it reached by humans? How do we find it, identify it, explain it? Whence the ‘moral’ dimension that humans have and the flawed-fauna do not?

    Are we also thus to presume that the morally flawed fauna are not flourishing and haven’t flourished? Why- then again – keep them around?

    The Hitchens-evolution-personal autonomy-flourishing theory raises an awful lot more questions than answers. Can it answer those questions?

    Neatly, L-C tries to make a case for the determinism of the ‘aircraft’ by using merely physical examples: some people can’t ever attain “an Adonis-like physique” just because of their bad luck at birth. But the realm of human nature and character are not so physically-limited: can one develop one’s character and improve one’s basic functioning patterns? Can one rise beyond one’s ‘background’ or ‘birthground’? It would seem so.

    This won’t help L-C who is trying to work toward a profound determinism: there is no such thing as character; you are what you are and will always be that not only physically but in all other respects.

    And this determinism would only intensify if ‘we are our brain’ and nothing more. Is there no non-material dimension to the human-being and the human-self at all? There can’t be if you are going to rely utterly on material-based ‘evolution’ as the only developmental dynamic in history. (And yet too: just how much ‘development’ are we seeing here? We have ‘evolved’ into … determinism? This is somehow Progress?)

    And L-C concludes by yet again changing his position: Flight-School is OK as long as there is no god and religion and so on and so forth. But if there isn’t, then what is there that makes the human self and the human being so remarkable. And how to rationally and coherently explain it? Surely not by the mantra-like dependence on the bumper-sticker of ‘evolution’. Look where it gets us here.

    L-C ends up being a kid who isn’t going to eat vegetables. And if it is demonstrated that his anti-vegetable rationale is largely and substantially insufficient then he will simply fold his arms, sit there with his mouth closed, and not eat vegetables whether he can rationally explain it or not.

    Fair enough. Maybe you can get a degree for it at Harvard.

  75. Delphin says:

    Nary a Catholic in sight-




    Hope they consult with the Catholic Church for an effective way to crush the deviants-

  76. Delphin says:

    Perhaps the newly-formed Churchill fans (because we can pretty sure they hated everything else about the man before today) should look way back to paganism, when children and minors (and women) were nothing more than expendable tools for the sexual and murderous deviancy that prevailed prior to Christianity.

    How far back shall we look? Perhaps to the atheist Communists and Nazi's, where, in one generation, millions slowly perished in "camps", when not lucky enough to be outright slaughtered (including Christian religious)?

    I can't seem to stop looking back, as I drive into the "stupidity" wall I've constructed from my "logic".

    • jim robertson says:

      Princess you don't have to look as far back as pagan times, Catholics owned men, women and children right here in the good old USA.  Less than 150 or so years ago. Now that's morality.

    • jim robertson says:

      What "newly formed Churchill fans"? I'm the only one who dislikes Churchill here as far as I know.

      That's the lapse of logic we count on from you and you never fail to deliver.

      Dennis Ecker believes in God.

      L.C. and I don't. Try and remember that.

  77. LearnedCounsel says:

    In publicly publion's last post, he makes most of his comments with a "could-he-really" tone. Funny though, the answer is a resounding Yes every time. Evolution delivers it all. Nothing separates us from the animals. There is nothing extra in humans. I am a materialist. I am also a determinist – there is no Fate though, just brains making thoughts that we do not control. There is nothing that makes human beings "remarkable." I assume this was another of your disbelieving slightly sarcastic questions, though you did not mark it with a "?."

    Just like people cannot change their bodies much beyond the frame that they have from birth, they also cannot change their character much. Recall the saying, "That which I would not do, I do and that which I would do, I do not." It is expressive of the human condition, no control. You only react to conditions. Free will is an illusion. You sound silly for not hearing the irony in saying that we have free will because the boss gave it to us.

    Call yourself a plant if you wish. I think that you are much more than that. You are an African ape like me. And we will both die and return to the matter from which we came. And you and I will have all of the consciousness that we had before we were born. None.When the party is over, it is lights out. Too bad. This life is so much more precious when you know that it is all you will ever have. Now, eat your vegetables and enjoy. The boss insists.

    • jim robertson says:

      Beautifully said, L.C.

    • dennis ecker says:

      Yes Jim, I still believe that there is a God, although my belief in him has been tested many times.

      The point I do want to make here is though I surmise that princess, publion and josie also believe in God, I think if they truly had their way I would be casted out as a heathen or sinner and sent straight to hell because I do not believe or think the way they do. Similar to the way they have treated you because you choose to live your life your way.

      Thank You for showing me respect in my belief, something I would not receive from the other three who call themselves christians.


  78. Delphin says:

    I must agree with the 7:54 pro-evolution post, with one caveat; liberals/atheists apparently did evolve and conservatives/believers were the creation of a glorious and loving God.

    Totally works for me.

  79. Publion says:

    Well, we are now advised that L-C is a “materialist” and “also a determinist”. Glad to see that’s on the table. But it’s his preference; he hasn’t really been able to answer many of the questions that flow from the position he prefers; it remains a preference, not a philosophically-explained position.

    My purpose was to draw out as much philosophical material as I could in this exchange, for the sake of the readership. It’s certainly not my intention to ‘convert’ L-C, either philosophically or theologically. He can prefer to his heart’s content (which, presuming his claimed educational background, seems to satisfy the basic requirements of the Harvard Philosophy Department.

    But now that he has come to it outright and admits his thorough-going materialism and determinism, then that does account for my “could-he-really” bits: I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was not given to that preference, and that by asking the (many) questions I did it meant jog a philosophically-trained mind into further exertions. But that is not to be and that’s as may be.

    St. Paul, however, is dragooned into this: the evil he wishes to avoid he does, and the good he wishes to do he does not. However Paul then goes on – at rather great length – to see what he can make of this confounding tendency in being-human. And thus comes to realize that with grace and the willpower to sustain an openness to grace then there’s a lot you can do with yourself in terms of growing-toward your better or more ideal or Echt or Christ-like self. On the purely neurological level, this is most likely connected to the brain’s ability to actually develop new pathways at any age in life; but to sustain that effort to work-toward God one also has to act-in and cooperate-with that Beyond as its energies interact with the willing human self (or soul, if you wish). It’s amazing what a relationship can achieve, especially a relationship with the Beyond and with grace.

    “No control” in “the human condition”? How then hold people responsible for their actions? Are they not then merely fauna that have no control over their thoughts, their actions, or themselves? In such a world, only the brute police-coercive power of Leviathan can impose any sort of order at all – what sort of polity will result from that? Surely not a democratic one, nor one committed to limited-government … why limit a government Leviathan that is the only source of ‘control’? Perhaps there were no political philosophy courses required at Harvard. Perhaps the (claimed) law-school had no faculty who could connect the dots. Whatever the case, clearly L-C hasn’t done any of that work on his own. Or if he has connected those dots, the results haven’t impressed him as worthy of concern. I could recommend trying some trial work as a defense counsel – but that type of work, apparently, doesn’t fall within the purview of the type of attorney L-C also claims to be.

    Life need not at all be considered “precious” when “it is all you have”. Many respond to that thought with a nihilistic shapelessness. Whence this happy-face presumption that if life is all there is then human beings will automatically become even more cheeribly attached to it? Why and how presume that materialism and determinism leads to the happy-face rather than to Hobbes?

    And not only for this and that particular individual, but for whole societies and cultures and peoples. What happens when entire collectivities are brought to the edge of such an abyss? Nor is life now or in any hypothetical materialist-determinist future characterizable as a “party”; that’s sort of the collegiate bong-session consolation that doesn’t have the chops to face either the challenges of the high glare of noon or the dark of the deep-night.

    Anyhoo, it’s L-C’s preference and he’s welcome to it. It is not my preference, and in his material here he has convinced me neither a) of its capacity to explain itself and all of the problems it has assumed as a philosophical option nor b) of his own ability to explain philosophically how he has come to embrace it and what value it holds for human-beings trying to conduct a life. It can deconstruct, but it can’t construct – relying instead on vague mantra-like presumptions to plaster over the holes in its thought. And to hold together as a bridge over the abysses of human existence it offers no grounds for confidence at all.

    Perhaps his embrace is not at core philosophical in the first place. Again, that goes beyond any concerns here.

  80. dennis ecker says:


    My mindset is only dangerous to you because I and many survivors represent alot of things in your world, and one of those things you think is dangerous is CHANGE.

    Now to quote another famous saying and I believe is true, is that you and your church "Have done nothing but awoken a sleeping giant." and the fact that the catholic church has turned many into victims we have fought back without any help from your church and turned ourselves into survivors, and that HAS been noticed by others of abuse by speaking out.

    • josie says:



      Ignorance is a danger-idle threats are too. I have already reported to various parties to watch out for the threats that seem to permeate your comments from time to time, maybe depending on the amount of agitation you are experiencing. 


      As far as so-called victims speaking out–. Huh? All I read is the same 'ol stuff from the same 'ol so called victims on tired blogs that noone reads. People have so moved on -I am out and about and involved with a lot of activities in all areas of life. You are just stuck in nothing.


      I think it would be great if you tried to better educate yourself (even with some basic English) in a lot of areas that may enhance your life somewhat.  

    • KenW says:

      Dennis, you are not only wrong, you are twisting my words and intent and you are lying. It is obvious that you have not been in a Catholic parish and experienced the dynamic for yourself for a very long time. 

      Your mindset is not dangerous to me personally, and it is not dangerous to the Catholic Church. Your mindset IS dangerous to current society and her children as whole, because it diverts attention away from where pedophelia currently is, and towards where pedophelia currently is not. Your rhetoric in this very comments section proves this. At the top of this page are 2 -proven- pedophiles, living and breathing and still among us, and you have not said one word about either of them! I can give you scores more, if you care (you don't). 

      The devil LOVES diversion,[edited by moderator]

  81. LearnedCounsel says:

    publicly publion, you fail to acknowledge a key point and so let make it here. When one thinks as I do or anywhere near like i do, religious thinking like your paragraph beginning "St. Paul .  .   ." just makes no sense. Talk of the "Beyond" and grace is babble. You are reading fiction and then applying made-up things in real life. Thus, many of your wonderings are just that, wonderings, and many of your questions are not worth answering. Fortify and sooth yourself with your imagination-based philosophy and so called theology, if you like.

    Life is precious.  I would think that this would go without explanation, especially to a catholic. But maybe this is news to publicly publion. Proper catholics are supposed to be pro-life. Certainly, this must be at least in part be because life IS precious, even the life of an unborn child. (btw "unborn child," a real concept in my opinion) Alas, perhaps, the pro-life movement has not yet reached publicly publion's geography. Or maybe he is not pro-life and maybe he doubts that life is precious. He may want me to firm up his doubts about the preciousness and value of life. Sure, he may figure, "if the godless can think that life is precious, then L-C must have encountered some really persuasive arguments." "L-C should state these persuasive arguments to me that I may know them! And if he cannot or will not then I will assume that he knows nothing about anything. I will taunt him that he is not learned at all," publicly publion perhaps bellows in the warm glow of his monitor.

     Life is precious because I enjoy it and I appreciate that so many people do not get the chance to enjoy it or not for very long. You and yours can look gleefully past this life to the end of this veil of tears and to the glorious next world that awaits only the virtuous believers.

    " .  .  .  in his material here he has convinced me neither a) of its capacity to explain itself and all of the problems it has assumed as a philosophical option nor b) of his own ability to explain philosophically how he has come to embrace it and what value it holds for human-beings trying to conduct a life."

    I know this sounds a bit cras but what do you care? Oh, at the end, you acknowledge, "That goes beyond any concerns here."  Then, why write such things? Perhaps, my preferred philosophical outlook holds no value for human-beings. So what? I am not selling anything. No value proposition needed. I sometimes do not go beyond using labels to describe my thinking, e.g. materialist. If you know what I mean, great. If you do not know, then, well, you do not. I cannot be bothered. Go look it up. Do you own study. I am commenting.

    You have set yourself up as the educator here, writing for the benefit of everyone else. You claim to be producing scholarly work. I, however, see your work as apologetics and propaganda. Your fans love it. No problem. Keep it up. At least your bias, though extreme, is no secret.  You can throw around terms like "Beyond" and grace and the fans are right there with you. No explanation needed. You can talk about catholic theology like it is a fact. None of them will question you or even ask you to explain. Certainly, I will not ask. Enjoy.

  82. Delphin says:

    Condescension is so effective- DO use that tone in both the courtroom and the classroom, it'll get you far (as in "away"). Other than that, you should forcefully plant it where the sun probably does shine all too frequently.

    It is so clear to TMR posters that Publion ate your lunch. At times, though, as a faithful Christian observers, it has been hard to watch the relentless pummeling. There is a valuable lesson in there for you and other liberals, though – respect your intellectual and moral superiors.

    Clearly neither philosophy nor law are your strong suits, perhaps you should consider another handle (and certainly, perhaps another occupation?), one that fits better, such as, AtheistBigot, LegalWannabee or PhiloNot?

    Trying not to actually laugh out loud……

  83. Publion says:

    At 834AM commenter Ecker now assumes not only a Wig but a uniform (or costume, at least): revealing a sudden and unfamiliar familiarity with the history of World War 2 – or at least a 3×5 card from somewhere and somebody – Ecker now casts himself as the American leadership after Pearl Harbor as he (partially) quotes Admiral Yamamoto’s (alleged) ominous reflection after discovering that a) the attack on Pearl took place before the formal declaration of war was delivered to the US government and b) the American carriers were not in port during the attack and were thus undamaged and loose somewhere in the Pacific: “I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant” (in the 2001 movie  Pearl Harbor)  or “I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve” (in the 1970 movie Tora! Tora! Tora!).

    The screenwriter from the 2001 film admitted he adapted it from script of the 1970 movie, and the screenwriter of the 1970 movie said he sort of made up what he thought Yamamoto would have felt, even if he didn’t actually say it.

    Ecker has now created a vision in which he stars as the entire American leadership (perhaps graciously sharing that top-hero-billing with ‘all victims’ – genuine and/or otherwise) and the Church is cast as the nasty and sleazy Imperial Japanese government and the Imperial Japanese Navy. Woe betide the nasties now – Admiral of the Full Wig Ecker will soon take the fleet to sea. Perhaps the Pope is Emperor Hirohito and … you see where this sort of thing can go.

    Neatly though, it may finally mean something close to a highly-accomplished military career for JR, who will no doubt be assigned to the command of one of the great carriers as Wig-Captain of the First Class.

    All hands to Wig Stations and break-out the reserve popcorn supply.

  84. Delphin says:

    "Democrats, Liberals, Atheists, statutory rapers/abusers, paroled serial rapists and You, Perfect Together"  in LA, Land of Arses-


  85. Delphin says:

    "Now to quote another famous saying and I believe is true…"Have done nothing but awoken a sleeping giant." and the fact… has turned many into victims we have fought back without any help…and turned ourselves into survivors, and that HAS been noticed by others of abuse by speaking out"

    Ditto, as pertains to the persecuted Church.

    • jim robertson says:

      What "persecuted Church"?

      Being held accountable for criminal actions is not a persecution.


  86. Publion says:

    Learned-Counsel (who is no more “public” about his identity than I am – and perhaps for good reason) reports now that he has just (at this late date?)  isolated a “key point” that I “have failed to make”: I talk of the ‘Beyond’ and of ‘grace’ and that – to him – “is just babble”.  And “fiction”.

    Well, I would look at it this way: explaining the dynamics of radio-communications to disappointed cargo-cult natives in order to help them understand why their deeply-invested efforts to talk into coconuts attached to vines aren’t bringing the great silver birds and the big canoes … would seem like “babble” to them, surely. But is that essentially a problem for the laws of radio-communication or for the aforementioned disappointed natives?

    L-C has spoken about his preferred universe of discourse, limited as it is – to use my terminology – to the Monoplane of Materialism and Determinism and to the merely this-worldly Plane of Existence (PoE).

    In the spirit of philosophical exchange and examination, I have tried to a) demonstrate some of the rather substantial problems which his approach doesn’t seem able to deal-with effectively while b) pointing out (without trying to get ‘preachy’) that the Multiplanar Vision (of, in this case, the Roman Catholic version of the Christian approach) can handle and has handled those vital Questions far more effectively.

    There is no way for him to demonstrate conclusively that the Gospel or the New Testament material is “fiction”.  Even Pascal realized that and figured the wisest thing a human could do when confronted with the challenge of belief in the Beyond is to bet on it. Nor – having read his various takes on how ‘evolution’ somehow and mysteriously but unquestionably and indubitably has been responsible for whatever  progress humanity has achieved – can we avoid the thought that ‘evolution’ requires as much belief and even more conjecture than religious-faith. Everything he has given us here requires as much if not more “imagination” (with no coherent rational analysis accompanying it) than the comprehensive system of Catholic philosophy (buttressed rationally by theological insight) that he seems to think is the real fantasy parading around on the field here.

    Thus it certainly seems to me that his insistent but apparently philosophically inexplicable death-grip on ‘evolution’ (and secularist Monoplane determinism and materialism) seems far more of an effort to hold a teddy-bear tight to make the boo-boos and boo-hoos  go away.

    The question isn’t whether life is precious. The question is Why is life “precious” to a materialist or a determinist? On what basis would a determinist and materialist coherently ground that assertion?  Or has L-C simply tried some happy-face version of Thomas Jefferson’s gambit: to see if he can get the (Monoplane) bennies of the Christian Vision without having to go for all Multiplane stuff (i.e. the Beyond, the supernatural, the workings of grace through sacraments, the sacramentality of Creation and of human-existence itself)? This is like saying that all these Ford automobiles ‘evolved’ and that there never was a Henry Ford and you don’t need any ‘Fordist’ approach for these nice thingies to keep coming and keep working. Or – again – like saying that you can fly an aircraft any way you want to and that you don’t need no stinkin’ laws-of-aerodynamics classes to do it successfully.

    So … No, you can’t just presume “without explanation” that “life is precious”. The whole idea of philosophical inquiry is precisely not to leave presumptions unexamined. Especially when you are trying to use that presumption to dismiss without further ado a major world-shaping philosophical system that has been a profound fundament of Western civilization for millennia. And if you want to dispute that claim, then be prepared to deal with historical fact as well as rationally coherent analysis and thinking.

    In a world with no real freedom (how does a materialist and a determinist also manage to feel ‘free’ – without violating the coherence of his/her position?) then it is equally rational for a person to lose all interest in life since it offers no real opportunity to develop or to achieve.  In fact, given the role of the human emotional need for Meaning, then the embrace of materialism and determinism abyssally limits the possibilities for any genuine freedom whatsoever. Unless – as I said – one goes Sartre’s route and simply embraces a content-less and shapeless ‘freedom’ and figures to build and sustain a human life and a society, culture and civilization on such a vaporous and empty mental construct.

    Dragooning the “pro-life” bit won’t work at all here. Catholics are “pro-life” and believe life is indeed precious, and they can explain why: because they are made in the Image of God who sustains them with His grace and remains faithful to them even when they so frequently fail the responsibilities and gifts latent in that Image. Whereas L-C has no explanation for why life is or should be precious; and – as I said – for a materialist and a determinist, such an decision to opt for life’s preciousness  can be nothing more than a preference – because it is not a rational consequence of that materialist and determinist philosophy. I didn’t say I was not pro-life; I pointed out that L-C’s assertion that life should simply be presumed to be precious despite the materialism and determinism and evolutionary complications could not be guaranteed – or even expected – to generally and reliably result in the conclusion that life is precious.

    So his pro-life paragraph dissolves into irrelevance here. Had he not noticed that difficulty when he was thinking-through his comment before composing it?

    And I would say that “the godless” (or individuals here and there among that group) may personally prefer to believe that life is precious, but they can’t explain why that would be or should precious. Nor can they explain why anyone should hold tightly to that belief when things get tough. Nor can they explain why persons who don’t prefer to believe that life is precious should be considered ‘wrong’ or not-normal. “The godless” here -  those who have locked themselves and seek to lock everyone else into the Monoplane – have nothing but their preferences from a pick-and-choose Rube-Goldberg vision of life and the world, which they cannot explain and can only assert as a preference which cannot be questioned.

    And then consider their consequent that’s-my-story-and-I’m-sticking-to-it stance and their take-it-or-leave it stance to be some form of bold and creative and forthright and heroic Stance in the face of fuddy-duddy Shape and Order imposed merely on the whims of those who are less imaginative and adventurous and creative and those who are mediocre and those who are nothing but oppressively manipulative and hegemonic. This manages to be both elitist and adolescently dismissive and delusional simultaneously.

    I am inferring from the quality of L-C’s material – the thinking and coherence and sufficiency (or lack of the foregoing) evinced through that material – that he doesn’t have the philosophical chops one would legitimately expect from having Majored in the subject at an elite university. Ditto the law-school material. Whether L-C “knows nothing about anything” is not a global surmise that I have ever made.

    Thus the bit about ‘bellowing into my monitor’ also dissolves into irrelevance. Again.

    If life is only precious because (and for as long as?) one can “enjoy it” – then we are dealing with a childish vision that will not be able to stand the challenges posed by human-existence. Adulthood requires sterner stuff and you don’t need to be a practicing Catholic to realize that. Persons heading into life with nothing but ‘enjoyment’ as their guide are going to wind up greatly disappointed or deranged (in order to keep up some sense – any sense – of enjoyment).

    And if they ever get into a position where others rely on them for training into the living of a human life, then it can easily be seen how things are not going to work out well all around.

    L-C may not be “selling anything” but he is claiming something – and doing so in such a way as to demean or undermine the beliefs of others on the basis of what he insists on sharing about what he believes (which theoretically justifies his dismissal of the Catholic and generally Multiplanar belief vision). His embraced and preferred position seemed to offer a fine opportunity to engage the general thinking behind it, for the benefit of other readers. Since most of what L-C says is floating around out in the secularist Monoplane – he himself relies rather heavily on quotations from some of the paragons of that position – then it seemed to be a useful thing to do.

    And where have I ever claimed to be “producing scholarly work” here? Or is L-C, like some other commenter on this site, suddenly addressing phantasms hovering in the air near his keyboard while tap-tap-tapping out a comment to me?

    I had not set myself up as a teacher. I had figured to engage a philosophically-trained individual – with the added heft of a law-school education and the professional chops of a practicing attorney – and through whatever would come from such an exchange, to offer the readership some useful material for further thought.

    That I found myself dealing with a mentality that more resembled a high-school student in a cafeteria or a cargo-cult native was not something I planned. In fact I had been assured at the outset that I would be dealing with a rather different level of competence entirely.  But it turns out that I was deliberately misinformed: as the rest of L-C’s comment demonstrates rather well on its own.

  87. jim robertson says:

    Pub is always leaving the conversation in his huff mobile. Huff, he goes: "I expected better".

  88. Publion says:

    In regard to JR’s latest: it’s something not so far from persecution if the “criminal actions” have not been proved and yet the government presses ahead continually. We recall the Reich’s prosecution of an entire community of brothers in Bavaria on charges of sexual deviance. The pretext: the brothers ran a hospital for seriously ill and disabled children; they had to wash the patients; the Reich claimed that each time any brother washed a patient, it was a case of deviant sexual abuse. The Bavarian public didn’t buy it and Hitler’s government quietly dropped the matter.

    In regard to JR’s bit concerning my most recent comment to Learned-Counsel: where is it evident that I left the conversation “in a huff”? Was there exaggerated formatting? Were there expletives? Did I insist that I was never coming back because my interlocutor was “immoral”? Now that would be leaving “in a huff” and JR has done all of those things.

    Where is it even evident that I was “leaving” the conversation?

  89. LearnedCounsel says:

    "For the benefit of other readers," should be publicly puerile publion's ("3p" hereinafter) slogan because he has stated over and over again that he magnanimously writes for this purpose. He assumes that his words and his analysis improve the other readers. He does not write to express himself or to voice his opinion. He does not write to argue and to criticize. He writes for your benefit because if he writes it, you benefit. And you need his help, by the way, that is the necessary implication. If you did not, then surely you would not benefit. Sounds like holding yourself up as an educator to me.

    Indeed, some, like Brutus Delphinius, do need help and have become rooting, cheering fans of the unsolicited aid of 3p. When CCD writes an aside to say what a gift 3p is and suggest to him that he should be a college professor (memba' that one) he does nothing to discourage this over-the-top water-carrying praise. Did he ask for it? No. But he does nothing to stop it. It is the same sort of thing with Brutus Delphinius. 3p does not usually write the imbecilic, sordid sorts of things that Brutus Delphinius writes but he does not do anything to distance himself from these awful things either. In fact, 3p often aligns himself with certain bits of things that Brutus Delphinius writes. If this is denied, I will go back and grab the examples of 3p supporting Brutues Delphinius' statements.

    Switching gears but still on the same last post. Pascal's Wager? Or you would say Pascal's Gambit? Immoral. What sort of god would accept someone hedging a bet? This bit is very weak on your part but it is what I have come to expect from you once I get through the sometimes blinding recitation of back story about who is what character in an old war movie. Somewhere in another part of town, Brutus Delphinius is reading 3p's previous comment and cheering with a mouthful of meat sandwich, "Go, publion, Pascal, yea! Eat his lunch!" Hey, that is your fan not mine and you have written nothing to distance yourself from him.

    On the theme of tired and tried, you bring up the how do you get a Ford truck without a Henry Ford. You bore me, baby, and you show that you really have not done much work around a position like mine. This Ford analogy that you bring up is, you say, the flight school in another form but it does seem slightly different to me beyond the swap of planes for cars. Be that as it may, both analogies are the Watchmaker Analogy in form. Basically, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy is really common in the so called Argument from Design or Teleological Argument, where it has been called on to support arguments for the existence of god and for the smuggled-through-customs intelligent design, fka creationism.

    The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology. So that is pretty new. Slightly more recently, Richard Dawkins referred to the analogy in his 1987 book The Blind Watchmaker: Why Evidence Reveals a Universe without Design giving his explanation of evolution. Dawkins says, "Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." The basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we do not need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe. Things in nature maybe "apparently purposeful" but that is it. They are not purposeful. Why do cows exist? I will give you a hint: It is not to praise god with their cow-ness. They have no purpose. That they exist is good enough. Planes, cars, watches, computers are intelligently designed and do have purposes. Animals, plants, people do not have a purpose. We were not on earth in the past and we may not be in the future. We are not necessary.

    Near the end of the 3p comment we get, "L-C may not be “selling anything” but he is claiming something – and doing so in such a way as to demean or undermine the beliefs of others on the basis of what he insists on sharing about what he believes .  .  ." Hurt feelings? You are claiming that I am hurting people's feelings? Now, who sounds childish? “Waaaah! Stop saying that there is no supernatural dimension. Sniff. You can't prove that!” True. And you cannot prove that it does exist.

    Finally with regard, then, to all of 3p's "questions" about evolution, they are all argument from personal incredulity. “How can that be? Seems crazy to think that  . . . is possible?” All those questions show is that you do not know. It does not follow that I need to explain. It also does not follow that there really is a mystery there. You just do not know. That is all. And the only people who think that those are winning points by you are other people who do not know, the fellowship of the willfully ignorant.



  90. Delphin says:

    The only "imbicillic and sordid" writings appearing on this site, lately, have been from the imposter LearnedCounsel (grad asst, maybe?) attempting to razzle-dazzle the adults with his newly-acquired "brilliance". You struggle with the material that is obviously familiar (quite well-worn) in both language and concept (not "new sneakers" as in your case) to Publion. Know your place, please. Publion doesn't need a cheerleader anymore than do your cohorts (you all know who they/you are), who regularly embarass themselves with their outrageous emotional outbursts, threats and dishonesty.

    What, actually, have you brought to the debate, besides your humoungous, self-engrandizing Ego?

    Nothing. Yawn

    Your namecalling bears no sting, has no more weight or effect than a toddler calling an adult a "poopy-head". But, in a pinch, upon realization that you've lost the debate (and a lot of "face"- even if it is anonymous), it's all you have left. It is the Left's last trump card-

    Sticks and Stones, baby.


  91. TheMediaReport.com says:

    Thank you for your comments, everyone.

    We are closing this thread.


  1. [...] About Contraception? – Bra. Millegan Scotch Review: Peat Monster – Whiskey Catholic Hollywood Awards Child Abuser 3 Emmys; Media Silent – The Media Report Catholic Ecologist: Obama’s Climate-Change Plan Hypocritical – [...]