Federal Judge Vindicates Cardinal Dolan, Another SNAP Publicity Stunt Is Exposed, And NY Times Goes Silent

David Clohessy : Peter Isely : SNAP

Tired bigotry in search of publicity: SNAP's David Clohessy and Peter Isely

A federal judge has ruled that the creation of a cemetery trust fund in 2007 by then-Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee – the subject of a lot of hysterical coverage a month ago in the New York Times – was a completely legitimate and warranted financial transfer.

"Because these funds were held in trust as prescribed by canon law, they were independent of the general assets and could only be used for their intended and pledged purpose – to care for the resting places of the departed as sacred places under canon law," according to the judge's statement published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

SNAP rejected – again

The judge's ruling roundly rejects claims from the anti-Catholic group SNAP and many in the media that the transfer was somehow an illegal and diabolical plot to keep money out of the hands of people who have accused priests of abusing them many decades ago.

Peter Isely, the bleary-eyed "Midwest Director" at SNAP, had even gone as far as to write a letter last month to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Milwaukee asking that it criminally investigate Dolan for the creation of the trust. With the judge's ruling, it can be said that Isely essentially filed a bogus report.

And after the ruling, SNAP's nasty National Director David Clohessy, issued what can only be described as a dishonest and vile media statement which recklessly smeared Cardinal Dolan by falsely accusing him of "misusing donations" and "fighting dirty."

Of course, Clohessy is flat-out lying, as Dolan created the trust for the explicit purpose of protecting donors' donations and having them used as they were intended – for the care of over 100 Catholic cemeteries in the archdiocese.

Clohessy also went on to accuse both the judge and Cardinal Dolan of "misusing" and "misinterpreting" the nation's First Amendment.

Clohessy's statement is grossly dishonest, and the time is long overdue for the media to call out Clohessy as the bigot that he truly is.

Where are you, New York Times?

Last month, the New York Times fell over themselves to portray the transfer by Dolan in the most sinister and mean-spirited light by publishing no less than three articles about the transfer.

For example, a Times editorial declared that the routine and rational transfer of funds by Dolan was somehow "shocking."

Yet the Times has reported absolutely nothing about the judge's recent ruling vindicating Cardinal Dolan and his transfer. Nothing.

The Times' willful decision to not report the story about the judge's ruling again illustrates that the Times sets the gold standard for anti-Catholicism.

Comments

  1. Publion says:

    And yet again.

    In a tasty symmetry, we might recall the revelations about SNAP’s finances in Mr. Clohessy’s own Deposition a while back: a large travel-expenses budget and an almost zero therapy budget.

    Major elements of the media have committed themselves to the project to weaken the Church’s status (and the Abuse Stampede has been a major and very useful front for that project).

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    [edited by moderator] You and SNAP SNAP and you. round and round you dance; meanwhile completely ignoring the victims A G A I N.

    Dave there has been a lot of bigotry displayed here by D and at great lengths I might add.

    [edited by moderator] There are bigots who bathe daily I'm sure. Your Jesus called such people: " whited seplecures".

    Now I'm not allowed to quote Jesus, D? I can't remember you quoting him even once. They can't teach you a lot at Saturday Catechism; except obedience. Right D?

    D that seems to be all your really interested in: Who is obeying your church and who isn't. Or are we to just obey you?

    And Dave maybe the N.Y Times was correct in doing 3 articles on Dolan's transfer of monies to protect "donations'. From the victims getting any of those sacred monies.

      I can see the headlines in heaven now:Holy Money Protected by Dolan. What victims? There are none!

    God, knows they didn't protect any of us children.

    Child hood victims of sex abuse snubbed again. Evidently your church only pays prostitutes God knows they don't protect or compensate the people they've raped.

  3. Julie says:

    SNAP, lawyers and the media are collaborating to put the church in a NO WIN situation, no matter what. And once again, Jim ignores the real issue here.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hi Julie what exactly is a "WIN" for the church? Never having to compensate any victims?

      Or is a "WIN" for you declaring all victims frauds?

      I thought the church was supposed to consist of it's membership? Through the sacraments aren't we are all part of the mystical body of Christ?

      How did the people raped get to be frauds?

      A declaration of  new"truth' by Pope Dolan and Pope Donahue and Pope P?

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    Josie pulls no punches. In her last post, previous thread she says she's been an Executive Officer and a President. And that people mistake her for being in control.

     Dennis and I have not made that mistake and will never do so. We are not her immediate family. Where she IS in control according to her.

    For somethings I'm very grateful.

    I move on.

    I need to analyize something I see happening again and again here.

    When ever I write about my life. I'm nit picked over nothing by P and avalanched with anger by D. And I get to hear about how mentally ill, I am, from both of them. (No ad hominem there.) And this from people who believe in and pray to, nothing, that they call god. A delusion.

    And when I've explained my self clearly and honestly. And done a rather good job of explaining my end of my life.

    [edited by moderator]

    Another thing I've noticed is an echo of catholic "reasoning" in that a declaration that some one is mentally ill is the same thing as that person being mentally ill. With no proof and no doctor. It's like your pope declaring himself "infallible". Cute but no proof; just a declaration.

    I don't expect the m.o. here to change. I'd be shocked if it did; but don't think you're fooling anybody but your own followers.

     Enter P or D or Josie on cue.

  5. Publion says:

    Readers may notice a number of my own usages and phrases in the 1120AM comment today (“on cue”, “analyze”, “echo”, “m.o.” – as in modus operandi) and it’s all nice mimicry and unusually well-deployed here, all things considered.

    But as always, the Content leaves much to be desired and some of the Content is so wide of the mark that it has to be pointed out.

    First, there is nothing in my material that states any “anger” at JR or anybody else. I said I was angry about the Stampede itself, and at whatever has happened in this country to allow the Stampede to get rolling and stay rolling for so long. But if anybody has any (accurate) quotations from my material that indicate “anger” at any particular commenter then they will need to put that up here to support any assertion that any commenter here is “avalanched with anger” by me; unless – but of course – one chooses to declare any questioning or examination of one’s material as being sourced purely and utterly in “anger”.

    Second, I will say that JR is far too lenient and generous with his characterization of his own performance and material: I am not ‘nit-picking’ here; the issues I have raised are significant and substantial.

    Third, JR once again tries to conflate what I said on the prior article’s thread with some “declaration” by me that JR is indeed and indubitably “mentally ill”. Again I repeat that I raised only the general clinical principle that the existence of an institutional-grade mental illness in one’s immediate biological family and parents is a flag that must be taken into consideration in any formal clinical analysis or in any assessment by readers – because in both cases the ‘flag’ creates the possibility of such an element existing in the offspring. For those familiar with English grammar, that statement does not constitute any sort of a “declaration” that an individual is “mentally ill”. Thus too, the negative reference to God is thereby undermined and rendered irrelevant to the discussion here.

    Fourthly – and to repeat myself yet again – I have continuously stated that I am able to find no supporting evidence of JR’s claims in any material we have seen here; nor do his explanations serve to answer more questions and solve more difficulties than they create. And I have explained all that at length. But since he has made the assertion here I will offer my responsive opinion that I don’t think he has done “a rather good job” of explaining his “life”, since his explanations raise more questions than they answer, and he appears unable or unwilling to deal with the complications raised by those explanations and their subsequent questions. And we are still left with no documentation that can bear the weight of his claims.

    The readership is welcome to consider the asserted possibility that DP/TMR is purposely weakening JR’s material so that I and/or other commenters can “catch up” (with, apparently, the advanced level material submitted by JR and some others). Well over a year ago JR – in a pique over so many “expletives deleted” and other deletions to his comments, made a claim along these same lines; at that time I stated that it is highly implausible and improbable that DP/TMR is deliberately editing out JR’s best material and only leaving the weird or incoherent or otherwise enfeebled parts; and that – I said at the time – is the equivalent of saying a) I had a 10-page term paper but I left it home and only submitted this 2-page thingie and b) that – as in the publishing business – certain unhappy scribblers claim that “the editor” blue-pencilled my best parts and made my magnum opus look and sound dumb. Some authors need no help whatsoever in achieving that effect.

    And then an incoherent statement that is somehow supposed to be an “echo” of “catholic ‘reasoning’”: “in that a declaration that someone is mentally ill is the same thing as that person being mentally ill”. First of all, it would depend on who was making the “declaration”: if it was a formally and clinically trained and certified practitioner announcing the results of his/her comprehensive analysis, then anybody would be ill-advised to ignore such a “declaration”. But – second – no such “declaration” has been made or asserted here (precisely the opposite, in my comments).

    Third, we want to avoid making here the “you don’t know me” error (recently deployed on this site by commenter Ecker): since no human being can ever truly and fully “know” another human being, then no human being can legitimately and accurately certify another human being as having a mental illness. But in any case, no comments I have made have made or attempted to make such a “declaration” about JR.

    And thus fourth: it’s anybody’s guess how either (a) or (b) have some rational relationship to papal infallibility or “catholic ‘reasoning’”.

    The enter-on-cue trope is a nice bit of pre-emptive maneuvering. But that’s all it is.

  6. Mark says:

    Dear oh dear. SNAP and the NYT looking more pathetic by the month. The Abuse Matter has all but run out of steam and they are both behaving in a pretty desperate manner. "Shocking," really. Excellent job in keeping the spotlight on them both, TMR. Keep the scrutiny up. It is helping to keep them both in the gutter. Such a joy to behold.

  7. dennis ecker says:

    Hmmmm Jim,

    Your crazy, I'm violent.

    What a imaginary team Delphin and Publion think we are.

  8. Delphin says:

    Know thine enemy:

    http://www.libertymind.com/

    Could not possibly be more relevent to the Church abuse matter.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

     And P enters on cue as forseen. I declare myself a prophet.

    Should I pay you rent on the words: on cue, analyze, M.O., echo.?

    I don't know how old you are P but If you are younger than me , then I learned English before you did. So you pony up.

    Are you like Delphin? Has the language become private property, your private property?

    You only raise questions like: When did you stop beating your wife? The innuendo is all there. Don't play innocent.

    "Enfeebled"? Ad hominums with out end.

    For readers who happen not to know what ad hominum means.( there may be some here). It means attacks to the person making the argument rather than the arguments themselves. It's bad debating. It's bad form. It's not fair play.

    [edited by moderator]

     

  10. Publion says:

    Conceptually, one’s age has nothing to do with the language competence and in JR’s case his own material demonstrates rather clearly the level of his language-skills (and also the level of his Content-processing skills) – it’s all right there on the screen for anybody to see. For quite some time I would have taken the juvenile such as  ‘I learned before you if I am older than you and that means I know it better than you’ as some sort of intentionally-distracting gambit deliberately deployed; I now realize I must consider other possibilities.

    In regard to “ad hominem” (spelling corrected from JR’s original): according to the Oxford Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases it means: appealing to the person rather than to reason. I have consistently assessed not JR as a person but rather JR’s material as to the quality of its ‘reason’ and its rationality. This type of mentality  has constructed a world for itself in which any disagreement or assessment whatsoever – except if it is largely approving – is somehow an attack and is therefore ‘ad hominem’.  Thus this type of mentality can conceive of no distinction between its ideas and its personal self. And that makes for a certain fragility and rigidity when one’s ideas are made public and encounter questions and even opposition.

    This ad-hominem plaint is an Abusenik gambit of long lineage. If you can find a way to cast yourself as the victim or the aggrieved, then simply go with that no matter how you have to twist thoughts and words to do it, and thus you are a) happily ensconced on the ‘high ground’ of victimization and thus need not humor your ‘victimizer’ (i.e. whoever doesn’t buy you ideas, such as they may be) with any serious response. Thus you have made a Wig to add to your collection (rarely do such types have only the one Wig – they go for collections of the things).

    Notice that whenever JR is disagreed-with, he does not further refine the thought of his that originally prompted the comment, but simply claims – in this case – ‘ad hominem’ victimization and leaves it at that.  I say this not to get into JR’s personal schtick but simply to point out a not-infrequently encountered Abusenik gambit.

    It wasn’t supposed to be like this. The way the Stampede was set up, persons would simply claim victimhood through whatever claims, allegations and stories they presented, and then things would proceed from there along the narrowly-defined path of discourse in which they were the ‘victim’ and everybody else was simply the herd stampeded into empathy, sympathy, empathetic shock, sympathetic outrage, and so on. Or else – for doubters and questioners – there was, in this scripting, merely the ‘low-ground’ of ‘unchristian’ and/or uncharitable and/or perp-enabling evil and awful person.

    And against such evil and “immoral” types, the usual pastiche of gambits could be deployed: imprecations and epithets (like calling somebody “Fool!” – a rather clear ad-hominem, by the way) and all the rest. There would be a Wig for every gambit. All of which we have seen richly – even floridly – demonstrated here by certain commenters who either a) haven’t figured out that this isn’t your standard Abusenik support-site (tell your story and be instantly empathized-with) or b) have no other gameplan for discourse about the Catholic Abuse Matter besides their basic ‘victimhood’ scripting.

    And when that doesn’t work, and when they are confronted with sustained efforts to actually try to rationally grasp and comprehend their stories and claims and assertions and the deeper dynamics of the whole Catholic Abuse Matter, then they have no recourse but to twist and shout. And threaten and so on.

    So – taking a bit from one of commenter Ecker’s bits today – they are indeed “imaginary” … but the ‘imagining’ is mostly in their own mind, where they are locked in that carnival midway hall of mirrors where they can only see themselves reflected back at them. And figure that what they are seeing in the mirror is not only real, but the only reality there is.

    I say this not so much to try to ‘change’ any commenters here, but simply to point out what I think is a significant dynamic in the Abusenik inner make-up. It will be encountered wherever serious discussion about the Catholic Abuse Matter is found.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm not a person? Just something that holds up "wigs" according to you?

      Well if religion teaches you to de-humanize your fellow man like that; any claim to morality on your part is void. [edited by moderator]

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    P Diddy  What's "abusenik" a siren song?  I didn't say I hadn't returned the favor. But if we counted insult by insult and who started it and who starts it everytime with every victim that has posted here. You win for insults hands down though god knows D's a very close second. Name one victim you haven't attacked here? If you think I'm going to let you get away with your insults think again. How dare I question your morality? How could I be moral and not. [edited by moderator]

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    When i see you use the word "types" over and over because after all you are an intellectual. (cough) I cringe.

    Oh lord and "gambit" again? Trope's probably in there somewhere too.

    Call him home to you Lord he's too good for mere mortals. We are not worthy.

  13. Delphin says:

    To simply disgree with the self-appointed "victims" on any point is to "insult and attack" them. Their leftist ideology has taken control of their logic.

    Want to see an excellent example of a true-blue lefty (eg. the mental illness, the lies, distortions, verbal and physical attacks on everyone who questions or opposes him, the nastiness) at work, look into Anthony Weiner's mayoral campaign in NYC. He is the lefts (liberal, progressive) poster child, and the Dems still-favored spokeman/attack-dog.

    The attacks against our Church, under the abuse matter ruse, originate in liberal ideology.

     

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    The "attacks" against your church originate in the crimes commited inside your church by your clergy against your children. The fact that you don't get that speaks volumes.

     

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's a link to part of an article in which the suit against the Vatican was thrown out of a court in Oregon. You'll have to scroll down to it. But SNAP says that the Vatican lawyers are 'batting 1.000" and are successful due to "smart lawyering". Who needs a press agent spinning for the church when you've got SNAP. When will the light go on for you people SNAP is all yours.http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/jesuit-missing-syria-vatican-batting-1000-american-courts

  16. Delphin says:

    Deviant homosexuals (those that prey on minors) committed their heinous crimes in and out of the Church.

    Is it more palatable for the left to rationalize secular homosexuals to abuse minors than Catholic  priests, as is clearly occurring currently and in massive proportions throughout the public school system (for only one example) because they align ideologically with those offenders?

    Do leftists apply the same double standard regarding who can use a word or racial epitheth or misogynist label?

    Yes to both questions- of course they do.

    The moral relativism argument the lefties hold so dear to their little black hearts, in order to appear to win at least some ideological debates, does not seem to extend so generously to their opposition- does it?

    "Priests" (not a "sexual preference" entitlement category) did not abuse minor males, deviant homosexuals did. That is a fact.

    The devant homosexuals in the Church predominantly abused post-pubescent males. That is not pedophilia. That is a fact.

    The problem in the Church is deviant homosexuals. That is a fact.

    Relativism (a screwball ideologically-based experiment in-progress) and hard facts (things you can prove with reason) do not align very well, do they?

  17. Publion says:

    At 1158PM on the 8th JR tries to reduce all of the general exchange to “insults”. (Get ready for it: to doubt and point out difficulties with claims and assertions is ‘insulting’ as well as an ‘attack’.)

    I will ask JR: “Name one victim who has posted here” whose story has held up under even the most modest analysis. But to point that out is to have “attacked” them. But of course. There’s no other gambit they have than to grab the Wig of Outraged and Confounded Victimization. Have any story-tellers here actually been able to demonstrate even a coherently-related story, let alone prove it? (I’ll save us some time here: the answer is No. And so we can legitimately wonder if this is a rather widespread phenomenon in the Stampede. That’s the value of this site: it allows Questions that have never been seriously taken-up by the mainstream media. And since this site now allows Questions that for which the media has always given them a free-pass, the Abuseniks are really really irritated – and head not for more substantial contribution of relevant material but instead for the Wig closet and the bathroom mirror. This is the Stampede writ small.)

    What is JR not going to “let [me] get way with”? Is he under the delusional impression that simply by tossing up his various handfuls of steamy stuff (while offering no substantive responses to the questions and issues that have been raised) then he is somehow “not letting [me] get away with it”? This is his idea of success?

    To his comment of the 9th at 110PM: I did not say he was not a person. To use his own casting of the situation here, I will say he is most surely a person – one who uses Wigs.

    Now to JR’s of 123PM on the 9th: First, SNAP has not said that “Vatican lawyers are ‘batting 1.000” – it was John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter who said it. (And are we now to believe that the NCR is also part of the SNAP-Church collusion?) Can JR – who has claimed to have made an educational career of it – not read?  (Readers are welcome to read the text of Allen’s material at the link provided by JR; the relevant part is about halfway down the text.)

    What SNAP did say was that the various lawsuits have all failed simply because of “smart and aggressive lawyering” on the part of the Vatican lawyers. (Jeff Anderson’s strategy – described so well in D’Antonio’s book – is, no doubt, not “smart and aggressive lawyering” but rather heroic efforts of embattled country-lawyers against an Evil World-wide Arch-villain on behalf of ‘victims’…  that just sort of happened to go well for the torties and piñata-whackers. And for a textbook example of how to use good lawyering and one’s own ability to avoid questions, one could do no better than review the transcripts of SNAP CEO Clohessy’s Depositions a year or two back, and then contemplate the marvelous slyness of their attorney withdrawing the relevant legal action before Barbara Blaine had to face Deposition after her CEO said he really knew nothing about how the organization worked but that “Barbara would know all that”.)

    Trying to keep his employer happy, Allen bends the presentation just a little by saying that “the Catholic Church got lucky” when a federal judge finally agreed with the fact that the Church is not a monolithic world-wide organization (like, say, a national military) in which everything is controlled by numerous specific orders that come down from the top. It’s something of a commentary on the state of things to say that a Party “got lucky” when a judge finally agrees with what has been a reality that should have been realized as such long long before. If a priest has an “employer”, the court has said, it is the Bishop and not the Vatican (which deprives the torties of the untold fathomless and countless riches of the Vatican as possible goody-stuffing in the piñata to be dangled before the eyes of possible fresh Plaintiffs).

    To get an idea of the ‘lawyering’ involved in the Stampede, Allen draws the veil aside a bit when he notes that it was Jeff Anderson’s Oregon case that drew the most intense scrutiny instead of a Kentucky case that had been filed by a local attorney in 2004 and withdrawn by that attorney in 2010; the attorney withdrew it because “he couldn't find other victims who hadn't already been part of litigation against the church; hence, the costs weren't worth the potential payoff down the road”. What we see here is a tactical success in the Stampede serving only to neutralize a larger strategic purpose.

    Although there’s no guarantee that the withdrawn Kentucky case would have succeeded since it was simply trying to make the argument that not the priests but the Bishops were the Vatican’s “agents” and “employees”. And then although there is still a question as to whether the Vatican had issued actual instructions overtly telling Bishops to commit cover-up crimes, there remains (Allen doesn’t mention it) the US legal principle that in some circumstances an Employer can be held civilly liable for misdeeds of an Agent even if the Agent had violated the Employer’s own regulations.

    At any rate, the torties would truly have had cause for expensive celebration if the court had ruled in their favor. And – especially taken in conjunction with any further Statute-of-Limitations ‘reforms’ – it would have opened up the possibility of huge new pots of gold at the end of the Stampede rainbow.

    Lastly, Allen pulls some major punches by referring merely and blandly to “the litigious temper of the times”, rather than go into the dynamics of the Stampede and the torties’ need for fresh “deep-pockets defendants”.

    Thus SNAP’s effort was aimed not at trying to burnish the image of the Church but rather to try and minimize the success by inferring that the Church did not win “on the merits” of its case but rather simply because it had better lawyers. (Better than Jeff Anderson? But then – I would say – there is only so far even the best lawyer can go in putting lipstick on a pig before some court somewhere along the line notes that the lawyer is asking the court to hold the mirror while the lipsticking continues.)

  18. Jim Robertson says:

    D, you don't " simply disagree" you rage. Big dif.

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    Princess. i know this will be a big shock to you but about 60% of your priests are homosexual.

  20. Delphin says:

    Dolan masterfully handled Anderson (who fell all over himself) during the deposition, mentioned a few weks ago in a response to an past TMR article. Andersons legal "brilliance" can be directly attributed to much help from lefty activists in and out of the legal system.

    Hopefully, Cardinal Dolan is celebrating his recent success with a bit of good Irish brew, and also enjoying the fact that the NYT couldn't even bring its cowardly self to follow up on their own hype-tripe.

    Just an interesting aside: LA just made the top ten list of unfriendliest city's in the US (along with a few other Cali cities) - seems as though the nasty-list is comprised primarily of lefty-liberal bastions of [un]civilization. The friendliest cities are in the south and midwest – good old Christian strongholds. Also, Dawkins apparently just stepped in it when he turned his usual ire-hate from Christians to Muslims. The libs are in an uproar – he can't seem to tweet his way out of trouble. Hope he can hang on to his miserable head!

    Love watching those vicious dogs turn on their owners-

  21. Delphin says:

    The cardinal sin that was committed, by an atheist here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/richard-dawkins-anti-muslim-tweets_n_3732678.html?islam

    Hairless Reed just announced that if you disagree with Obama on anything, you are racist.

    Let the lefty games begin-

  22. Delphin says:

    Willing to bet that 60% (or whatever the number actualy is) homosexual priest number  would directly correlate with the priest-abusers ratios; same theory would naturally apply to anywhere there are male minors being abused.

    Not exactly a "priest" problem, now is it? Let's state the obvious: Men don't abuse because of their occupation, vocation, or religion – they do so in spite of their professional obligations (priests, pastors, teachers, coaches, rabbis, imams, movie directors/producers, actors).

    Catholicism could not be more clear about the gravity of the sins associated with such abherrent despicable, deviant behavior (which is also why radical gay activists and their lefty-buds have targeted the Church as their number 1 enemy).

    Celebate homosexual priests are not any more of a problem than celibate heterosexual priests- hence, the Church's correct position on that matter. It seems as though some homosexuals have "special" problems with that aspect of their committment, as well as with their morals and ethics regarding the deviancy associated with molesting/abusing juveniles. And, as we know, the medical literature on the subject, supported by actual data, supports the fact that homosexuals offend at far greater rates than heterosexuals.

    The lefty-progressives hate data, facts, that undermine their anarchistic and dictatorial philosophy-agenda and the only response (such that it is) they ever can conjur up is to accuse those 'dastardly perpetrators of facts' of some "ism" or "phobia".

    Good game plan, do stick with it, we're all being fooled.

     

     

  23. Jim Robertson says:
  24. Delphin says:

    The liberal media has been reporting, ad nauseum, on all 15 of those items – not one of those items is 'news'.

    Even the media admits it's liberal bias, so, you're kidding, right?

    Newsflash for the Kool-Aid Klub: the libs are as bad as, if not worse, than the crony-capitalists on the right (and they're pretty bad). While the rightwing engages in similar behavior, they at least want you to be independent, free of government oppression/rule (off the dole). Not so for the left, they want the same wealth and power as their elite right cohorts (and the left actually have it – by the numbers, incidentally), but, they also want you enslaved by their socialista regime.

    Be brave, go it alone (no statism)- and only trust in God.

  25. Julie says:

    I have a question for Jim Robertson. One time when I was a grade-school kid at Mass before school, I threw up in church. The priest walked me home, stopping to help me whenever I threw up. He never touched me inappropriately or anything like that, but he and I were alone for a good period of time. I could have said he touched me, and made a claim against the diocese, and it would have been my word against his. And if anyone else made any type of complaint against him in all his years of ministry, they would have called my claim credible and I would have gotten a settlement. Do you think I should have done it?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Julie, if you want to be a thief; you should have done it.

      What a silly question to ask me. You act like a priest behaving decently towards a child is something I should be upset about?  Or that it's a rarity for a priest to behave well. I've never said that .

      But what I will say is the vast majority of your hierarchs have all commited felonies in covering up for and then transfering priests and clerics who did not behave well with children at all.

      I expect adults to behave decently towards children. Always. When they don't as they didn't to me and over 100,000 children in the U.S. alone. I have a very big problem with that.

      Why don't you?

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Which dole? The one the military industrial complex as been on since it figured out it could have eternal war and the American people would pay for it? Or the dole, that thanks to libertarian boobs, corporation/people (the ultimate zombies) are on because they don't pay taxes? Or is it the dole Wall Street and the banks are on because they blackmail the American people with fears of economic collapse unless we "follow their lead"? Or is it the dole the media receive because they don’t pay the American people for using our air waves for propagandizing us against our self interests.i.e. identifying with the one %?

    Are you any less enslaved by capitalism that you are by an imagined fear of socialists?

    God who?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Or is it the dole your church is on; because they refuse to aid the people they've injured and let the state pick up the tab?

      What government benefits have you recieved D? Which to you expect to recieve? Social security? Medicare? Or are you too rich to worry?

  27. Delphin says:

    Now we're going to be subjected to the typical lefty-isms about the MIC- OY, what a bore; perhaps a little less MSNBC, HP, DK and a bit more of a sanity check on the real-life situation out there would be very helpful to your local and geopolitical worldview.

    Stop the sulking, it's (whatever "it" is) been 50 +years since your life-changing "event", get over yourself. Any one of the three girls that were held in that hell-house in Cleveland and raped, beaten and tortured repeatedly for a decade are stronger, healthier and more resilient surviviors of real horrors (far from the "crime" of the groin-groping of a younger homosexual by an older homosexual) – learn the lesson of real courage and healing. If you were so damaged by your juvenile "abuse" experience, how is it you chose that same lifestyle of your abusers as your "preference"? How is it you can be so accepting and forgiving of homosexuals and their lifestyle- isnt that environment a constant reminder of your "abuse"? How do you find it unbearable to forgive Catholics, and move on, while forgiving the homosexual community that commited the deviant action? Don't bother to answer, we all know the answer (the truth). Technically, a law may have been broken (statutory "something") in your case (I am willing to accept your claim on face-value), but, the chances are that most of the post-pubescent hormonal juveniles "abused" by priests were on the prowl for some action, and they got it. Then, they figured out how to get more "action", the kind you can retire on – years and decades later.

    Aren't we just a tad immature to still be chasing the ever-elusive anarchist butterfly;  usually the juv's outgrow the lofty utopian nonsense in their twenties, you know, when they have to grow up, marry, raise some kids and keep a job (or commit to a vocation)?

    On the other hand, you do still live in that selfish "never gonna grow up" Peter Pan Never Neverland. Not in much touch with reality way out there, are we? Seen any crocs hanging around, lately (Tick-Tock….)?

    Neither I nor other TMR commenters inquiring about the legitimacy of most Church abuse claims (yet fully acknowledging that true crimes were committed by a minority of priests) make any claims of our own – how are we liars- what are we lying about? Who's in denial about anything-except you two petunias (three when the BS LC throws in)?

    And, this is probably where the resident "maid of honor"  chimes in with an "I, I, got your back…I won't let them do this to you…." and then flames out with [not so] veiled threats designed to oppress the speech of the "opposition".

    [edited by moderator]

  28. Julie says:

    Jim, I am trying to figure out where you are coming from, because this site is examining peripheral ugliness coming out of this mess, for example, false claims, of which a former FBI examiner, I believe, has said that fully 50 percent of claims in the Los Angeles Diocese were false. I could have jumped into the lottery, and it seems, pretty easily. I wondered if you care if innocent priests are being smeared and ruined. That is BESIDES the guilty filth that called themselves clergy, and who are guilty. I am talking about the false claims. Because that is no small matter – at least one innocent priest is sitting in jail, and has been there for a number of years.

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    Julie. You don't have one proven case about a false claim; not one. The priest you mentioned is in jail because a jury found him guilty. If he is innocent I'm sorry and hope he gets out. That's IF he is innocent.

    An FBI examiner who was working for the church; who was not under oath, smeared all victims with his false statement.

    Can't you just admit that what this site is really about is smearing all victims? Look at P. and D. for example. P hasn't believed one victim who's posted here. Not one.

    D calls raped children: Petunias. And said we were looking for "action" as children.

    Dennis Ecker was in grade school when he was hurt.

    I don't know what else to tell you Julie. I wish you well because you are with bad company.

  30. Julie says:

    OK. Thanks, Jim. :) I had just wondered where your mind is at. You want to believe all accused priests are guilty. But your comments come off as vicious bigotry, FYI. I think it because you don't give any actual facts that are supported by evidence. Flinging mud only goes so far.

  31. Delphin says:

    The claim is that 100,000 "children" were abused by priests in the US. Divided by the 50 year horizon in which abuse claims have operated, that averages the claimed abuses to 2000 per year. Knowing that no evidence was neither required nor provided, an application of a statistical probability of actual abuse would require a 50% reduction of that number, which leaves you with 1000 children possibly abused by priests per year. That's about 20 "children" per state, per year, in the US.

    Let's look at the "children" claim; children are classified as prepubescent, that would be <12 years old in the US. Approximately 90% of the claimed victims were post-pubescent, called juveniles – for which in some states, can be processed as adults (relying on a legal definition of understanding the ethical/moral implication of their behavior/consequences of their actions) if they are engaged in criminal behavior (like those 3 "little" 15 year old "children" who threw the vicious beat-down on one thirteen year old on the school bus in Florida). So, in reality, actually only 2 children per state, or a total of 100 per year can be assumed (big assumption) to have been "abused" (def. from touched to groped to "brushed" to raped) by priests in the US over the past 50 years. Yeah, wow, how underwhelming. Of course, to state the obvious for the self-declaring geniuses, one abused child is too many, but, perspective (reality check)  is required here. Men do commit evil acts everywhere, but, far less so in the Church.

    I wonder how those numbers stack up against the general population? You know, like in the LAUSD (or any public school district), or in synagogues, mosques, boys clubs, athletics, Hollywoody, etc.? Obviously, the Catholic Chuch is the absolute safest place for male children and juveniles in the world, even safer than their own homes.

    Even under the best of circumstances for the "victimhood" crowd, their claims of vast, extensive/universal, conspiratorial, epidemic abuses and coverups is laughable in light of evidence (none) and logic. It's actually an incredibly criminal claim (intentionally evil) when you consider how many innocent lives of priests and their families and friends were sacrificed on the altar of the diseased leftist ideology via the legal (trial and settlement) process - designed only to punish the Church for the sins of her conservative-traditional philosophy.

    I do wonder if some of the resident victim-claimants consciouses are rearing up and causing them to haunt sites, such as TMR, in a feeble attempt to find some/any guilty Catholics, somewhere, anywhere (…because there certainly aren't very many guilty clergy) as a matter or exorcising those demons?

  32. Publion says:

    In the matter of the 100,000:

    I believe this was discussed a while ago. My thought was that the 10,000 or so allegations formally made (and the number is given by John Jay in its first Report) are then 'extrapolated' by the assertion (nowhere demonstrated that I have been able to find) that as many as 9 out of 10 cases of 'abuse' are not-reported. Thus, to some minds a) this constitutes 'fact' and/or 'evidence' and so the 10,000 is enhanced by adding in 9 more 'un-reported cases' for each formally reported allegation, and so you wind up with this 100,000 number.

  33. Mathius says:

    Jim, how much do you get paid by SNAP.  The IRS statement I received is missing some information.

  34. Delphin says:

    Calling out, yet, another lie: "D calls raped children: Petunias. And said we were looking for "action" as children."

    Who "D" actually calls Petunias are the two grown (elderly, actually) men, who purport to be abuse victims, and who live their entire lives in the constant hum of the never-ending self-centered woe-is-me whine.

    "D" actually said that post-pubescent juveniles (clearly distinguishing them from children) - invoking the image of the three predatory 15 year olds that recently nearly pummelled a thirteen year old to death on a schoolbus in Florida, were possibly simply looking for some hormonally-induced homosexual action, and later, much later, perhaps 50 years later, claimed victimhood to the betterment of their bank and retirement accounts.

    "D" stands by both statements within their original context and intent, not as they were clearly distorted by the "Perpetual Victim".

    If the written word, so young in age and readily available for review, is so brazenly distorted, what was done regarding those stories (fables?) that originated 50 years ago (or yesterday)… and with so much money at stake?

    And, we're asked, begged to believe them- when all they are capable of doing quite well, time after time, is lying. The devil is a good liar.

  35. jIM says:

    The take home messages of this news is that:

    1. SNAP members should all take a few tranquilizers and relax.  The Church has been doing its utmost to address and prevent a recurrence of the sexual abuse scandal of many decades ago with the victims, the clergy, and the laity.  Please make it a goal to STOP ENJOYING PLAYING THE VICTIM,  ad nauseum. Give it a rest and STOP IT!

    2. The New York Times, the worst rag in the country, makes no apologies for its virulent anti-Catholic venom which it spews with great regularity.  It hates the Church and will therefore zealously report stories that place the Church in a bad light, and COMPLETELY IGNORE any story that portrays the inherent goodness of the Church.  Why should the despicable behavior of this rag's editorial page SURPRISE ANYONE ???  Miss Maureen Dowd is the best par excellence at reviling the Church with massive hatred. Too bad she hasn't a clue about what she is writes about.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Only Great Literature Has РOddie I Sentences 3.4.5. РJames Chastek PhL, Just Thomism Judge Vindicates Crd. Dolan, SNAP Stunt Exposed, NYT Silent РTMR Gay Panic Over New Russian Laws - Austin Ruse, Crisis Magazine Woody Allen & the [...]