Hilarious: Rally to Oust Newark Archbishop Myers Draws 3 People (Plus a NJ Star-Ledger Reporter and a Cameraman) [w/ PHOTOS]

NJ Archbishop Myers resignation rally, 082013

A rally to drive out Newark Archbishop Myers is a bust.

Recent reporting from the New Jersey Star-Ledger about Newark Archbishop John J. Myers and his handling of a now-deceased priest in the Diocese of Peoria back in the 1990s would have you believe that New Jersey Catholics are rabidly up in arms to the point that they are fervently seeking Myers' removal.

However, the meager gathering for an August 20, 2013, rally outside Newark's archdiocesan headquarters, apparently organized by local gadfly/ex-priest/"Catholic Whistleblower" Robert Hoatson, suggests that anger against Archbishop Myers has barely extended beyond the editorial rooms of the Star-Ledger and the basements of the usual Church cranks, such as Hoatson.

A whopping three people showed up for the rally last week seeking the prelate's resignation.

New Jersey Star-Ledger arrives for support

Yet the paltry turnout did not halt New Jersey Star-Ledger ace reporter Mark Mueller from eagerly arriving on the scene to work the crowd of three and lend his tacit support to the cause.

NJ Archbishop Myers resignation rally, 082013

Dogged NJ Star-Ledger reporter Mark Mueller (blue shirt) pushes through the crowd for an interview.

Moments later, Mueller was even joined by a cameraman from local community television's "NJ Today," who dutifully recorded the historic event:

NJ Archbishop Myers resignation rally, 082013

A "NJ Today" cameraman gives angry ex-priest Bob Hoatson (brown pants)
media exposure for the big event.

After Mueller escaped the throng, and the cameraman somehow managed his departure from the frenzy, well … the excitement finally subsided.

NJ Archbishop Myers resignation rally, 082013

Time to order a pizza? A busted rally finally draws to a close.

Comments

  1. Monroe Monaghan says:

    Yes, because "The Media Report" is so credible. If you wish to vent your lies and hate, get on twitter. You are pathetic, laughing at childhoods taken, lives ruined forever and THEN you have the nerve to bad talk the Star-Ledger? ATLEAST IT'S A REAL NEWS SOURCE. By the way 100's of other outlets have covered it as well. 

    • Mark T says:

      That's not fair. The Media Report never laughs at childhoods taken or lives ruined forever. Your comment makes you just as bad in God's eyes as the pedophile priests and bishops who didn't stop them.

    • Walter says:

      You don't actually read the posts do you?

    • Eliane says:

      The only thing being laughed at is an obsessed, unhinged news staff heaping personnel resources on a nonevent that they desperately hoped could happened. Ha, ha. And do you actually fancy that they care about victiims of abuse? If they did, they would focus their spotlight on the people who engage in it, not on an archbishop who has never been accused but might have deep pockets nontheless. Effectively shills for Jeff Anderson, they got caught making fools of themselves  by a  camera that was apparently trained on them from inside the archbishop's chancery. Now that's funny.

  2. Lieutenant Worf says:

    For battle come to me!!!!!!

  3. Catherine Mary Henry says:

    Archbishop Myers IS a disgrace and should resign ASAP.  Read the following.  At least some church people are willing to speak out.

    From Sunday's edition of The Record:

    In response to "Archbishop Myers blames his critics," (8/21/2013):

    Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, NJ has failed in his fundamental responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us — the children and when called to account for his failures he lashes out at everyone and everything in sight including the media, politicians, the violated children and their families.

    This is all so familiar and all so heartbreaking.

    The same wailing continues to be heard from too many bishops ever since Cardinal Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston, MA, called down the wrath of God upon the Boston Globe newspaper.

    Even though the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops mandated accountability and transparency in 2002 it remains elusive. So much for their promises.

    Have any of the U.S. bishops spoken out against these rants by Myers? Have any of them dared to tell Myers to his face that the time has come for him to resign as Archbishop of Newark?

    Archbishop John J. Myers is a disgrace to the office he holds and an embarrassment to the People of God.

    The damage he continues to inflict on those violated, their families and their supporters is beyond measure.

    Has the man no fear of God?

    Sister Maureen Paul Turlish

    Advocate for Victim/Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse & Legislative Reform

    Founding member of Catholic Whistleblowers.org

  4. Delphin says:

    Oh yeah, who is anyone to "bad talk" such an honorable publication as the lib-loving Star-Hedger, who had to recently be shamed into correcting their slimey [dishonest] hit-piece against Myers?

    One would hope that they could perhaps spare a reporter or two to cover the genesis of WWIII being initiated by their idol, Obama (well, if they can't spare a minute from their non-stop pounding of Christie and the Catholic Church).

    The only lies and hate on TMR is that which is provided by the 'drive-by' antiCatholic bigots and their media lackeys and sycophants.

     

  5. Mark Mueller says:

    You'll notice, Bill, that The Star-Ledger didn't write a story about this get-together. I was there in case more people showed up, not to 'work the crowd' or lend 'tacit support.' When it became clear it was just a few people, I left. Interesting, though, that when The Star-Ledger takes pictures, we do so in the open, not hiding in the Archdiocesan office, from which these pictures were obviously taken. I'm transparent about everything I do. Maybe you should take a lesson. 

    • It only took one man to change the course of religious history.  Jesus had to do it on his own, for the most part, and look what he accomplished. Imagine if he had two others with him at all times?  Three of us accomplished more that day than all the picture takers from the chancery's upper floors. 

    • Karen says:

      Oh yes everything about reporters–including their biases–is transparent and above board.

      As if….

    • TJW says:

      The fact that only three people attended is significant.  It shows a lack of popular support for this particular cause.  The fact that you failed to publish a story on the clear lack of support indicates you're not so "transparent" with your readers after all.

    • Eliane says:

      In the face of all the self-serving calls for Myers to "resign," there appears to be no traction among the Catholic populace to see this happen. Can't get anyone to even turn out for a "rally" on a nice sunny day. That is the story that the Star-Ledger came nose-to-nose with at the chancery, then pretended it was "not newsworthy."  In fact, there was big news about Myers' status with his flock. Those Pulitzer hopes are looking dimmer and dimmer.

  6. paul d says:

    Thank you for continuing to uncover and speak the truth when emotions and biases have muddied it considerably!! 

  7. Kyle Reaves says:

    Deflections! Anti Catholicism is the weakest deflection in the book. Thank God for Bob Hoatson for exposing McCarrick Egan Myers and Hubbard. Gay American Bishops are notoriously indiscreet, messy, and unethical. Myers put an alleged predator into my highschool and in so doing endangered the welfare of thousands of children. 

    We can see through the poorly veiled and thought out rhetorical gestures and deflections. Myers is a messy queen who needs to go. 

  8. Kay Ebeling says:

    Where is the support?  There are a hundred thousand victims nationwide, what happened to the network?  http://cityofangels2.blogspot.com tells my theory of why no one is at this event. The crime victims in this issue were sabotaged from the mid-1980s on. 

  9. Mark says:

    If there’s one thing I like to have a good laugh at, it’s anti-Catholic bigots. And, man, did this make me laugh!

    The comments are also hilarious. Where to start? First, M Monaghan keeps the comedic theme going by announcing that the Star-Fudger is a “real news source.” He advises us that “100’s of other outlets” have covered the white hot story. Curious to witness this media frenzy, I performed an internet search. Oh dear, Monaghan. Oh, dear. But, hey, at least you can console yourself with the fact that your favorite manifesto rag got a world exclusive.

    Or could have done – had they actually reported on the “story.” You see, Monaghan, it’s nowhere to be found on their site, and Mueller advises us that the Fudger didn’t write about it. So I’m a bit confused when you say that 100s – or was it 1,000s? – of other outlets covered the story “as well.” As well as who? I hate to disillusion you, but it’s not even on SNAP’s website. And you know how desperate they are for a story. Any story.

    As for Mueller, who’s Bill? I think you may have that name wrong. Don’t worry, though – I know how it is with you Fudger writers. Names? Places? Facts? Who cares, as long as you can concoct a scandalous story that’ll keep the Pavlovian punters slobbering and the circulation figures in double digits. By the way, to understand what professional reporting looks like I suggest you visit bigtrial.net

    Hoaty? Is that you again, my old fruit bat? Hold it, old boy – “…all the picture takers” in the chancery’s upper floors? I fear it was but one – but I do appreciate the irresistible image of more people photographing the rally than attending it. You old so-and-so, you haven’t lost your sense of humor, have you?

    Ms Henry! “..some church people” are willing to speak out? Members of Catholic Whistleblowers.org – church people?? Please! The gambit used by the anti-Catholic bigots of CW, SNAP, etc of claiming to be “Catholics” has worn a bit thin. Nobody takes them seriously anymore. The claim doesn’t lend weight to their angry rants – just ridicule. How assiduously you post on any matter related to any accusation, anywhere, by anyone, against the clergy. Yet how quiet you are on the huge miscarriage of justice that is playing out in your own archdiocese of Philadelphia, with yet more innocent Catholics being imprisoned on the word of liars and false accusers.

    Ah, Ms Ebeling, how desperate you sound. It’s all falling apart at the seams, isn’t it? The Church has long ago put its house in order. People are no longer interested in historical cases being regurgitated by the gutter rags like the New York Times and the Star-Fudger for the 100th time. They have become weary and embarrassed by the false accusers, corrupt contingency attorneys, mendacious “victims groups”, witch hunts, kangaroo courts and abuses of justice. The game’s up.

    Do let us know when the next rally is planned for, though. Why, if you can muster more than 5 people you may even get a front page splash at the Fudger.

    • Kay Ebeling says:

      There can't be hundreds of thousands of false cases, all in different cities, reporting the exact same pattern of crime by the bishops.  False accusers are a tiny minority of the cases, read bishop accountability and go through the database, and you realize it. As for me sounding desperate, that is exactly how the sabotage of survivors was set up to play out.  What happened to me proves the church orchestrated this entire response to the pedophile priest discovery, including plaintiff attorneys dominating the show and the "survivor network" that keeps us separate, since the mid-1980s.  

  10. TJW says:

    Actually, all they needed was two.  Then they could use the headline "Victims Protest Bishop" and get away with it.

  11. Delphin says:

    Sounding like the problem with the "whistleblowers" and their media pitbulls that are infesting TMR recently is with those 'messy queens' and 'indiscreet gays' – why all the hatred directed against Catholics? Take your beefs to the homosexual community, from which the sexual abuse crimes against minors largely eminates.

    [edited by moderator]

  12. Publion says:

    What an amazing coincidence: at last some actual photographic evidence of the Abuseniks in action, and suddenly this site is visited by a dozen or so. What a coincidence.

    And yet almost none of them actually addresses – faces up to – the emptiness in the photos right before our eyes. Except for one who gives a stab at explaining the emptiness by claiming that somehow “the crime victims were sabotaged since the 1980s on”.  In other words, ignore the immediate reality of the photos and look at (her version of) The Big Picture.

    And then somebody using the same name as (and may actually be)  the reporter in the photos, who says – in a somewhat offended tone – that he left once it became clear that there weren’t going to be many people at this news event. But that fact should have been clear from even a block away. Still, he was given an assignment and had to put in his appearance as an agent of the paper that employs him and he can’t be faulted for wanting to keep his job; I certainly don’t fault him on that score.

    But the “hidden photos” bit goes over the top. He and the ‘event’ were on a public street and in full view. The photos were taken not from any sort of “hidden” camera(s) but simply be somebody standing at a window – of the building, perhaps, in which were the objects targeted by the event in the first place. What’s the beef here? If the photos were taken by AOP staffers then they were well within their rights and they were also wise in not going outside and making a scene: a ‘scene’ after all, would play right into the hands of the Playbook: it would have provided an opportunity for somebody out on the street to don a Wig and ‘create a scene’, which would then have provided a nifty opportunity to distract from the vivid reality that there was almost nobody there in the first place.

    Another commenter tries to distract from the reality in the photos by quoting Sr. Turlish, one of the founding members of the new Whistleblower organization (created, as I have opined recently, in order to put some daylight between the now-wobbly SNAP front organization and the various interests that have always been behind the Stampede). But the point of this TMR article is not the overall view of the Whistleblower organization. Rather, it is the stunning actuality of the photos and what flows from them. Turlish here is a distraction, and certainly irrelevant to the article.

    Also, I note that use of Turlish when she is referred to as “some church people”. This is a media gambit that goes back to my extended comments on the Anderson Axis (of media and tort attorneys): create a conflict by finding somebody or anybody on ‘the other side’ of the controversy. In this human world of ours, there will always be “some” people on the other side of anything and everything. This “some” gambit makes it seem as if wherever there are “some …  people” on the other side of any thought or idea or position, then there is a solid and well-founded and substantive controversy worthy of serious public attention (which attention must be manipulated to avoid any public consideration or assessment or deliberation that might go in the ‘wrong’ direction).

    We are told that TMR is not a credible news source. Yet here we have actual photographs (and not photo-shopped) of a public happening. What is not credible here? (Answer: What is really going on with this objection is that TMR has not put up “correct” information and therefore – in the eyes of the Abuseniks – the information must not be believed; who ya gonna believe – the Abuseniks or your own lying eyes? That sort of thing.) And furthermore, TMR has offered the opportunity to see ‘news’ and deliberation that nobody is going to get from allies participating up to their elbows in the Anderson Axis.

    Another comment asserts – apropos of nothing in the photos, to say the least – that TMR “laughs at childhoods taken or lives ruined forever”. If any commenter can substantiate that accusation (with accurate quotes) then let them put that material up here. Indeed, the record here shows that the only laffs and yuks have come from assorted Abusenik commenters looking to distract the readership from the issues by cheap shots and adolescent verbal fireworks.

    Another comment insists that “we can see through the poorly veiled and thought out rhetorical gestures and deflections”. That’s a nice word, “deflections” – but it’s only a more polished way of saying ‘distractions’ and on this site the ‘distractions’ have come from the Abusenik Playbook. Unless you want to claim that any deliberation, analysis, questioning, or thinking is a ‘distraction’ or a “deflection” unless it goes in the direction the Abuseniks want it to go. (And – but of course – with a shrieking obviousness it is this “deflection” assertion itself which is clearly seeking to ‘deflect’ readers’ attention from considering the photographs themselves. And so: Yes, “we can see through the poorly veiled and thought out rhetorical gestures and deflections” here.

    And then we are reminded that it only took Jesus and a few others to “change history”. Yes, in about three years Jesus accomplished something amazing indeed. But it’s been three decades now, and what is now happening – finally – is that the Oz-like ‘reality’ of the Abusenik Stampede is starting to show its creaking machinery that makes smoke and is designed to seem much much larger and more powerful (and truthful) than it actually is.

    Some readers may recall that January, 2012 SNAP nation-wide (or world-wide) tenth anniversary of the initiation of the Anderson Axis phase in which the Boston Globe (for its own purposes) started up its own Phase of the Stampede: there were less than two hundred persons, including staffers, speakers, and ancillary others, leaving not much more than one hundred actual attendees. And the Globe’s photograph of the inevitable Sunday demonstration at the Cathedral was carefully staged as a ludicrous close-up of a small gaggle with their signs and placards; it could have been a small gaggle of public demonstrators anywhere on a sidewalk – the photo was so closely focused on them to make them look as numerous as possible and to avoid having any building – the Cathedral itself perhaps? – in the shot; that focus would have enabled readers to actually see the size (or non-size) of the SNAP nationwide or worldwide demonstration; if you didn’t read the photo’s explanatory caption you wouldn’t have been able to figure out what was going on at all.

    My take on this sudden spate of interest in TMR: this bunch was mustered off-stage to come out of the woodwork in order to do whatever they could to distract from the photos themselves and whatever discussion might flow from those photos. And what we see in this spate of comments is all that they could do.

    I have said this before: minus the inflationary effects of the Anderson Axis strategy and the internet it is quite possible that the Abuseniks have never been a large presence at all. And this is over and above the fact that whenever we have had a chance to look at cases or documents that have been touted as somehow ‘proving’ whatever point they claimed, we have instead discovered – in that curiously consistent Oz-like way – far far less than was asserted and claimed.

  13. Julie says:

    Mark, Why did the Star-Ledger send someone over to cover the protest?

    • Mark Mueller says:

      Julie, I received a news release saying there would be a protest outside the Archdiocesan offices. We get releases on all kinds of topics all the time. Given that I've been writing about the Archdiocese, I thought it would be prudent to check it out.

    • josie says:

      Good question. Here in Philadelphia, the local news people don't bother anymore when they receive notice of a little protest (very few go and there is no point to it) at the Archdiocesan building. I have 2 good friends and a relative who work for 3 different stations. The feeling is that the news story has long been over..

  14. Mark says:

    Mark Mueller, waiting for your answer to Julie's question. It may provide some illumination as to how the Star-Fudger allocates its resources, to what agenda/purpose, and, by extrapolation, why it is going out of business.

  15. Publion says:

    In regard to commenter Ebeling’s of 958AM:

    First, I don’t see where she gets “hundreds of thousands” of cases, let alone false cases. The John Jay Reports tallied up all the formal allegations and they are somewhere between 10-11 thousand . So right off the bat we are dealing with some form of exaggeration here – though she is welcome to explain her calculations.

    So then her assertion that “there can’t be hundreds of thousands of false cases” is thrown awry. But in that regard we are also faced with the reasonable probability of a very large number of false claims in light of a) the Anderson Axis strategy with its serious derangement of media and perhaps even attorney integrity – all of which contributed to the Stampeding of public perception and opinion; b) the weakening of jurisprudential and evidentiary principles; c) the introduction of the possibility of huge payouts if allegations are successful; d) the Anderson ‘bundling’ strategy of presenting many-Plaintiff lawsuits such that no organization could contest each allegation in court without spending huge sums; e) to which must be added not only the skewing of evidentiary principles and the skewing of media ‘reporting’ of those ‘law office histories’ but also i) the decease of many of the accused and ii) the reigning Victimist mantras that ii) to doubt or question or even examine an allegant’s claim is tantamount to ‘re-victimzing’ a ‘victim’ whose actual victimhood has precisely not been established and iii) the virtual certainty that false-claims will not be prosecuted if exposed because to do so would have a “chilling” effect on any future allegants iv) whose numbers are asserted to be at least 100 times as high as the formally known allegations; f) the tremendously dubious elasticity and vagueness in the definitional content of such terms as ‘abuse’, ‘molesting’, ‘rape’ and so forth; and g) the results of the examination of such claims and documents as we have actually been able to examine (such as the various document-cache releases and the few trials – such as in Philadelphia – that have entered the public record).

    How can all of those elements be left-out of any reasonable assessment as to the possible number of false claims?

    As far as the widely-dispersed similarity of the (alleged) acts and “crimes”: I mentioned in a comment on the immediately preceding article about the Levack book’s toting-up of all the many ways that the “script” of demonic-possessions was disseminated in Early Modern Europe. And that today’s internet and the sites (Ebeling mentions Bishop-Accountability) and the Anderson Axis of attorneys, media, and ‘law office history’ – all serve precisely the same purpose today: to disseminate the “script” and in great detail, such that claims demonstrate a certain uniformity and similarity.

    Indeed, in regard to Bishop-Accountability, the site mimics almost exactly the content of the Early Modern “possession narratives”, wherein those claiming possession related what would become the ‘template’ for all such claims, allegations, and stories. In such a situation, an enterprising potential allegant can go to (or be steered-to) the site in order to glean various bits from previous stories in order to make an allegation conform more suitably and with more ‘detail’ to the now commonly-accepted ‘victimization narrative’. And this dynamic would only intensify if persons discovered already-accused priests and decided to ensure that their own claims followed the pattern already set forth for that individual.

    Thus too, I would take issue with commenter Ebeling’s far too easy leaps from small evidence to great and putatively decisive conclusions and thus to sweeping presumptions and assertions. She claims some sort of journalistic or reporting chops but what sort of reportorial skill is this?

    Thus whatever “happened to” her is a single instance, of which we have here only her interpretation (and ‘reporting’) of it. But it certainly cannot of itself provide the ‘proof’ that “the church orchestrated this entire response to the pedophile priest” (and I would add: here we go again with that grossly inaccurate but oh-so manipulatively vivid phrase).

    But then in that very sentence she veers off onto a new tack in which – as best I can follow here – she impugns “plaintiff attorneys dominating the show” and also the “’survivor network’ that keeps us separate since the mid-1980s”. Is she somehow here putting the plaintiff attorneys (following the Anderson Axis gambit) and the “survivor network” into cahoots with the Church? (And here we go again with that queasy and manipulative appropriation of the Holocaust terminology).

    As always, this tack yields the prospect of the Church orchestrating a legal attack upon itself which has cost her over a billion dollars. Rational and reasonable observers are welcome to make of that prospect what they may.

    I am reminded of the World War 1 German command that began believing its own domestically-disseminated propaganda about the evil power and competence of the Western Allies and thus frightened itself into actually committing more heinous acts on the illusion that the Allies themselves were bloodthirsty ogres and had to be met with equally bloodthirsty and ogre-ish acts.

    And thus The Ball Kept Rolling on.

  16. dennis ecker says:

    TMR uses the term "Hilarious" because only three people showed at a rally.

    Now only if one person  showed up it still gained the attention of TMR to report about it.

    …and once again to refresh the memory of TMR, was it not only ONE PERSON who recently in Philadelphia seen to it that the priests and the teacher who abused him and the priest who failed to do his job to protect him from a known animal were sent to prison.

    Mr. Bob Hoatson, two thumbs up sir.

    Now I would like to step back for one second and this question is directed to Delphin and Julie. You both have stated you recently gave large contributions to your church. My question is to both of you is you are not or will refuse to claim that gift on your taxes correct ?

    [edited by moderator]

    • Bam Gallagher says:

      are you referring to the one individual whose story changed each time he was asked to state it on the record, whose family is well connected in the Phila. PD and FOP and the DAs political motivation for even trying the case that sent innocent men to prison?

      and don't forget to mention that the one person's criminal record of four criminal actions was wiped clean and now ceases to exist for public record. Four cases dismissed for each false story that he told. 

  17. Delphin says:

    Only a leftist bigot would be so rude (the most polite word I can use to describe such an ill-conceived question) as to attempt to indict ones motivation for making any charitable contribution. This recent indictment of intentions is about as valid as the majority of those indictments, from these same sources, that have intentionally attempted to sully our clergy.

    The divide between the left and the normal is greater than feared. 'They' actually think that 'we' think and act like 'them'. That is a very scary disconnect with reality being displayed there.

    I wonder if such a question would be asked if those donations were going to any leftist organization? I doubt it.

    And, they question why we don't trust their claims. Who, in their right mind, would?

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      So let's take D (for Dip)'s answer, as a yes. She/ it will be writing off her/ it's gift to the wealthiest organzation (bar governments) on this planet.

      Kay Ebling is absolutely correct. She should be treated with respect for telling you the truth but your lying can not allow that. You are simply scum.

      If you remember when I posted regularly here there were 5 people posting.  Now there's a flurry of posters. A miracle or a plan?

      As far as the 3 person demo goes. Your trinity is only 3 and look what you believe it did. And Rosa Parks was only one person and she kicked ass.

      Don't wet yourself D. I'm not back. Just a drive through.  Hold the fries D. You'll need them to live. [edited by moderator]

       

       

  18. Publion says:

    Not much new in commenter Ecker’s of 454PM. Except that we have now gone from the asserted multitudes of Abuseniks who constitute the majority to – now – the plaint that even “if one person showed up” then it was still a success because TMR still reported it.

    Two points:

    First, it seems not to have occurred to Ecker that the “report” was prompted by the now-stunningly obvious fact that there aren’t many folks on the bandwagon after all. Apparently, as in Hollywood, Ecker subscribes to the idea that there’s no such thing as bad PR. And yet his Oz is here revealed as a very small thingie indeed. But then, to a greater extent than most might think, the Abuseniks have been in show-biz all along.

    Second, this “if only” trope: It has become a familiar bit of the wallpaper in recent decades: “if only just one” … (fill in the blank). But in a large and messy world, there is probably at least “just one” example of anything you could imagine. The question that has occupied me for quite a while on this site is: just how much more than “just one” incident of ‘abuse’ (however defined) has there actually been? Because it certainly seems reasonable and even perhaps probable that while there has been at least one incident of clerical abuse, there has not been the innumerable amount that Abuseniks continue to insist-upon.

    Lastly, as to the truly silly bit about tax-deductions … well, it is what it is. But clearly commenter Ecker has not ‘stepped back’ from his usual M.O.

  19. dennis ecker says:

    I wonder how giving Delphin and his friends would be if they took away that tax deduction ?

    Would they continue to be as loving to their church ?

    • josie says:

      Ummm..Ecker…What would YOU know about charitable deductions of any kind? First, you atated that you don't work, that you are "retired" (you used the quotes to mean what? it is a pseudo-retirement?) at approximately age 50.. OK, one gets the impression that you are on some kind of government assistance like welfare or disability and would not pay taxes. Maybe you believe that you are truly physically (handicapped) or mentally disabled -like as you once said you scream during the night so much that your poor daughter may need counselling paid for by the archdiocese (what a stretch), because you say you were abused (although you say you were that "raped by a pedophile". You have stated that the term rape is the same as any other abuse-it is all the same to you. (I will find the quote from your frequent outragious comments if I have to).

      In any case, please make all necessary corrections to my assumptions about your status in the work force, noting that if you are able to ask questions about others charotable deductions, one can wonder aloud about your paying of taxes.

      Furthermore, if not industrious, you do sound a bit self indulgent (even all cock in the hoop-like) as you celebrated with champagne and london broil (not that great a cut) when any development in the Philly trials pleased you with no sense of justice whatsoever  Frankly, that sounds a bit sick right there as others have noted as well.   

      As far as giving to Church, you have no clue, once mentioning that people can put their "$5 and $10 " . When was the last time you gave to any charity? You sound like a moocher to me . Possible, you were that way all of your life and your family was that way too. Again, correct me if I am wrong and that you just don't give because you say you are victim-and that is SINCE you discovered that you were a victim or that you were always a victim and so was your family.

       

       

  20. Julie says:

    Dennis, I don't put my church contributions on my taxes.

  21. Delphin says:

    Anybody, in capitalist still-free America (thank God), can hang out their shingle claiming their affiliatation or expertise with an organization or within a particular field (presuming they've been sufficiently trained and licensed – access which is available to all citizens, regardless of leftist rants to the contrary). Yet, the 'Land of Opportunity' is still very much an experiment in terms of beneficial social-cultural construct. I've encountered Australian and British colleagues making comparisons of US culture regarding access of all its' citizenry to self-proclaim "expertise" with other westernized nations that still had a bit of the social class and birthright system dictating that access. The perpetration of fraud upon the citizenry was their overriding concern.

    Regarding those that still self-proclaim their "professional" Catholicism, in spite of their clear statements in contradiction of Catholic dogma and doctrine (via the Magisterium), they are the very frauds that our fellow westerners were citing. Just because you say you're Catholic, "Sister" and "Father", doesn't mean that you are. You are wolves in sheeps clothing, and nothing more to us. Drop the vocational-professional title/label affiliations with the Catholic Church, you have lost the right to claim them. No faithful Catholic needs to hear your proselytizing since it clearly eminates from a source other than the Holy Spirit.

    It isn't unusual that those whom are frauds in their own person would practice the same fraudulence while in white-hot pursuit of their perceived enemy – the true and faithful priests, religious and faithful congregants of our magnificent Church.

     

  22. Delphin says:

    Once again, one of the resident antiCatholic malcontents makes a presumption [out of thin air], and then builds a case around that presumption. I obviously refuse to respond to the probing inquiry, it is no one's business (as well as irrelevent to the topic), as I have clearly stated; suffice to say that my point was, and still is, that the more the insidious enemies of the Church assail Her, the more Her faithful will support Her. Don't worry yourself about my personal finances, the left is far too focused on other peoples money (and abilities, possessions, families, talents, gifts, religion, etc.).

    You may chase your little butterfly distraction all by yourself, though, if it pleases you.

    But, the story you have built around your assumption (which, again, will be neither confirmed nor denied) is an interesting revelation in how your types think and act as pertains to "your truths": that is to say 'Let's presume something to be true because it fits with our own ideology and then build a case (sans anything even remotely resembling evidence) all around it'.

    Sound familiar?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your diety is invented out of thin air but that 's never stopped your church from literally killing in 'his' ' their' name. Real blood for an imaginary god. Wonderful.

  23. Mark says:

    Good post, Delphin. As one of those British (with a healthy dose of Irish!) observers you mention, I could not agree more. So to all the impostors, to the "Sister Spurious" and "Father Frauds" out there, to the dissembling "Catholics" who long ago became unmoored from Catholic theology and sacramental practice, please disabuse yourselves of the notion that your disingenuous claims to "speak as a Catholic" will somehow convince people that you speak from within the Church. You don't. And you can't. And everybody has seen through it. Know why you people are always so angry? Because you realize you need the Church more than the Church needs you. But the Church isn't there to be a crutch for you in your deceitful muckraking. So stop your hypocrisy – either deal with your personal issues and reengage with the true Church or go spew your bile in one of the 30,000+ sects. Oh, and while you're deciding, do take that "Catholic" badge off. It makes you look really silly.

  24. Delphin says:

    "Where is the support?  There are a hundred thousand victims nationwide, what happened to the network?"

    Seriously?  Did you really think that the gig wouldn't be up sooner or later? Some of you, mostly slimey attorneys, got very wealthy off of the fraud of the century, that which is the Church Abuse Matter, while the rest of you were used like the blow-up dolls that your own wrath, greed, slothfulness, pride, lust, envy and gluttony invited.

    You've well-earned your 'keep', such that it is.

    Get on your knees and get prone as you beg forgiveness from God for your unholy transgressions against Him and His church.

    The correct and holy use of this true servants position will likely be new to most of you, but, in God's great mercy, it's never too late to repent-

  25. Delphin says:

    Vacation over so soon?  What was that reentré….your typical "I'm home, honey" grenade?

    "Real blood", and more of it, was spilled for centuries – before, after and totally unrelated to the revelation of our, the One True God. Tell your sob-story (and, oh, what a whopper it is) to the Islamists, Animists, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Pagans, Shintos, Confucianists and all the rest of those unChristian 'peace-loving' people.

    And, when you escape with only the skin on your bones, if you're lucky, from that little adventure, go into the average American ghetto/hood and give them a piece of your mind about how it is God that is causing them to kill each other in record-breaking numbers exceeding even the worst of times in US history.

    It is perfectly clear which path in life is best for humanity; the one with and to God.

    The evidence (still ever-elusive to the antiCatholic crowd) is available for all with eyes to see and ears to hear-

  26. Delphin says:

    Such understanding from liberal attorneys/"thinkers"/artists. Wonder when their "humanism" will extend to priests?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sex-between-students-and-teachers-should-not-be-a-crime/2013/08/30/dbf7dcca-1107-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?hpid=z3

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    So the god of love's religion slaughtered  less people than say paganism? Bravo! And that makes it better?  Not to those killedf it doesn't.

    How absolutely fortunate that you believe in the "one true god" ( Why not prove it?) while all the other religionists you degrade were unlucky. They were born into the wrong faiths with the wrong gods. (You know they see yours as the false faith. Maybe you should have a "god off"?  Winner takes the universe.)

    Your god makes it tougher for them because they have to drop their childhood beliefs while you get to carry yours directly to heaven.

    Moronic.

    [edited by moderator]

    Intelligent people are sick to death of fantasy being passed off as truth. All these premises with out a jot, a micro speck, of proof to back you up.

    Righty? No, you wrongy.

  28. MReed says:

    I am calling on Mark Mueller to resign.

    End the suffering.

  29. Julie says:

    Mark, OK. Just curious. I work in a newsroom. I can see not wanting to poke the protestors in the eye by pointing out how few of them showed up. If it were the same number who had come to support the archbishop, would you have written the story? And I understand, yes, often it is the squeaky wheels who get the newspaper's attention. SNAP has always counted on that. That and individual reporters' and editors' agendas. Not to say that you, Mark, have an agenda. I was just curious if an editor assigned the story, or what. And yes, people do glom onto the fact that a newspaper looks like it has an anti-Catholic bias, and are then quick to contact the newspaper if they have a beef with the church knowing they'll get support for their own agenda.

  30. Julie says:

    I would like to level one criticism of Catholics who do support their bishop, archbishop, the church, etc., so very infrequently use the voice the newspapers give them, and that is the letters to the editor.

  31. Kitcat says:

    Meow.

  32. Delphin says:

    Mark Mueller: swap out the object of your "jounalistic affection" from Myers to a black or a Muslim subject (or one in the same, if you've got the cojones), let's see how your incredibly bigoted "profiling" story is accepted by the local progressive "masses", then. Oh, blacks and/or Muslims don't offend you say, really? How would you know, you've never looked anywhere but the Catholic Church for offenders.

    Take that electron microscope you use on the Church, replace it with some real journalism (actual "work" will be required here) and go elsewhere, anywhere but the Church, where children are at risk – now, today. Find another axe (one that doesn't also feed your insatiable antiCatholic appetite) to grind for awhile, you're boring us and your readership with your unhealthy obsession with the Catholic Church. 

    Hypocrites, all – both you and your spineless editor.

    It's easy to pummel the white Catholic guy, how much safer can a slam piece be…hey, tough guys? OK, maybe hitting an aged, rather uncouth, chubby white 'southern belle' is less risky, but, hey, even that one is blowing up in your true-blue faces.

    The days of yellow journalism, as practiced by you and your editor on this issue, and apparently endorsed by Advance Publications, are nearing an end, thank God. If you let your politics/ideology bias your reporting on this issue, what can we trust from you?

    Nothing. You have no cred.

  33. dennis ecker says:

    Josie,

    Such an attack from a follower like yourself. I'm impressed.

    I am a firm believer that charity begins at home.

    The church I attend now gets what I can afford to give them. Sometimes they get nothing at all because my family comes first. Unlike the catholic church who hands down the belief that you can buy your salvation with God, my church does make you feel that way, and don't dare tell me the catholic church does not make  their parishioners feel quilty of doing something wrong if they do not give the suggested amount. I have a recent church bulletin telling people what they NEED to give.

    Now it seems you don't believe I am retired at 50. So I want to direct you and anyone else here who wants to put a face with the name  to go to http://www.bing.com and enter my name Dennis Ecker. There you will see a photo and next to the photo it states "That's You" click on that photo and you are more than welcome to read the caption.

    Why you and everyone else here was sitting in front of a tv set on that day playing Monday morning quarterback, I along with other brother and sisters were doing something that you can only imagine in that little pea brain.

    So for now on Miss Josie Bailey you call me Mr. Ecker. I earned it.

  34. dennis ecker says:

    Footnote,

    Contrary to the the belief by Josie Bailey that all victims/survivors have tattoos or had to do drugs to kill the pain I want to ensure everyone it is false.

    The spinster's thinking comes from having a one track mind, and not being educated enough in the subject.

    • josie says:

      I don't have a belief of anyone's tattoos or doing drugs to avoid pain-where do you get these ides, Dennis? You sure can assure people that it is false. Why? Because you made it up just as you make up a lot of outlandish things to suit your comments, to make some kind of point when there is  none to make.

      For once, will you please try to use sensible words. I can't be called a spinster if I was married at 23 and have children. You are so goofy.  

  35. Julie says:

    Where I work, the "newbies" figured out they would get positive feedback from the anti-Catholic managing editor by doing anti-Catholic stories; that's not to say that that is the situation in every newsroom. But really, people go into journalism wanting to do good and make a difference. The Catholic church is a big target, and an easy one, if you ignore all of the safety measures in place.now and focus on old stories, and those stories tend to come to you in the form of agenda. The Associated Press has been complicit in keeping similar stories coming out of protestant churches at the local level by not putting them on the wire. What journalist doesn't want to shine the light on evil happenings? But then again, the media now has become largely mouthpieces for some people. What about abused children in other institutions? I don't know; the media is ignoring them.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Julie, the scandal isn't about the fact that the catholic church has child molestors. It's about what the bosses did about those molestors, i.e. passing them on to molest again; with out protecting the flock. Get it?

  36. Julie says:

    BTW, I remember reading a blog post by a bishop somewhere, and a newspaper reporter got into the comment boxes and said that he is the one covering the issue at hand, and that he thinks that the Catholic Church is evil and he is very happy to be able to expose how evil the church is. That one sent chills up my spine. Fair coverage? Nope.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Evil is as evil does, Julie. And giving opportunities for rapists to rape anew the most vulnerable, is doing evil.

  37. Publion says:

    In regard to the interesting possibilities raised about journalism and its relationship to faith, I can suggest a look at this very informative and worthwhile article: “Pedagogues, Periodicals, and Paranoia” by Robert L. Jackson. It appeared in the print edition of the academic journal “Social Science and Modern SOCIETY” (caps are in the formatting of the journal’s title), Vol. 45, No. 1, Jan-Feb 2008, pp.21-9. All but the first two pages of the article are now behind an online pay-wall but as it turns out the two specimen pages available (through the link at the end of this comment) are the ones I am using here.

    On page 21 in the first column, Jackson refers to the writing of Jeff Sharlet, who – among other things – is an NYU journalism instructor who (in 2008) teaches a course entitled “Journalism Faces Faith”.

    Jackson notes and quotes Sharlet’s basic approach: “the ways in which journalism confronts belief and the ways in which it makes the peculiarities of beliefs presentable to public opinion”. Jackson continues: “Indeed, locating and describing peculiar religious people is Jeff Sharlet’s gift”.

    Sharlet’s approach is to find the most outré representatives of what we might recall as the Fundamentalist Christian Right (mobilized during the Reagan years in response to the Democrats’ raising-up of what we can call ‘secular liberalism’). Sharlet then interviews them as if they were the mainstream of religious believers (which, of course, they are not) and then contrasts them with the sweet-reason voices of secular liberalism, thereby clearing his path for making the case that the country is under attack by “religion” (while all of his examples are merely of the fundamentalist religious fringes). And thus “journalism” can do its patriotic and philosophical bit for the country by going after “religion” wherever it is found.

    Other commenters may be more familiar with what is being taught in J-School these days, but I expect that Sharlet (in 2008 a contributing editor of both Rolling Stone and Harper’s) and the approach he espouses is held in some regard, right up there with the old ‘advocacy journalism’ of the 1960s (whose basic bit is: don’t report ‘facts’ ‘objectively’ – instead, find what you think is the right and good side of the matter and skew all your ‘reporting’ to make sure it supports that ‘side’ and makes ‘the other side’ look as bad as you are sure it essentially and really is).

    As with the  Law-Schools, I would say that with the professional schools putting out some form of a combined ‘advocacy’ and ‘anti-religious’ approach, then we are going to wind up with some very skewed approaches in some very vital national institutions (law, legislation and politics, and journalism).

    It becomes possible – perhaps even probable – that newspaper editors so-inclined can find professional support for skewed ‘reporting’ from their own institutions of higher education and preparation. And thus it factors in with other journalistically-related elements that I have mentioned in earlier comments on this thread. We saw from D’Antonio a while back that the then-new editor of the Boston Globe had his own reasons for wanting to make a splash in the summer of 2001, which led – as we saw – to the Globe’s January 2002 initiation of a “new” phase of the Stampede which was actually just a repeat of what Jeff Anderson had been talking-about and implementing since 1990 or so.

    But as with all such gambits – and we have seen a lot of this in the past 45 years or so – it’s a lot easier for “new” and “fresh” “thinking” to tear down the old than it is to come up with a workable replacement. Adolescents are famous for this: easy to mock and make fun of and dismiss and to ‘deconstruct’ the ‘old’ stuff, but not so hot when it comes to constructing a workable replacement and installing it before the culture you’ve just taken your hatchet-to starts to come apart. Unlike replacing vital machinery – especially if you think of planes or ships, you can’t simply take a culture ‘out of service’, shut everything down, and replace the ‘old’ machinery with what you think is much better stuff; what we have been seeing is more akin to trying to replace the engines while the plane is in the air (and full of passengers) or while the ship is out at sea (and full of passengers).

    Or – if we prefer a more organic image – you can’t simply take a culture like an organ-replacement patient and put it on some temporary life-support while you replace the heart or brain or other such vital organ.

    The Stampede, in this discussion, assumes a substantial significance as one way of trying to ‘deconstruct’ the Church – and for many, any religious belief and any Multiplanar vision of human existence – in order to smooth the path for the asserted and prophesied marvels of a secularized, Monoplanar culture. (Meaning: these new ‘engines’ haven’t even been tested under operating conditions yet … but we are assured by those who have been putting the ‘engines’ together that they will work both marvelously and way better than the ‘old’ engines. It’s been almost half a century and I haven’t seen those prophecies fulfilled yet, and meanwhile the culture is losing altitude and speed.)

    So I’m glad to see that the Church in this country is a) beginning to lose that old City-Cohort and ‘garrison’ mentality, where everything is familiar and same-old/same-old and predictable. And b)is beginning to become once again alive to her ancient Gifts and Mission. (Perhaps it wouldn’t be such a bad idea of Rome declared this country once again a ‘mission territory’; just to remind all Catholics – clerical and lay – of the true dimensions of the challenge facing them.)

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12115-007-9038-4#page-1

  38. Delphin says:

    Homosexuals comprise approximately 2-3% of the general  population, yet, they commit close to 33% of sexual crimes against male minors. That's >10X their proportion of the general population.

    Priests total approximately 40K worldwide. Approximately 0.04 of that subset were determined (without evidence, this includes "settlement" cases) to be "offenders" (50 year horizon).

    If you had a minor male child, where would you want him; in the Church or out with the "general" population?

    Who's doing all covering up outside the Church?  Where is the Dallas Charter for the general population?

    Where is the media on this?

    Why is this problem so prevalent among homosexual males and why isn't anyone analyzing, publishing research (social, medical, media) on this unique psycho-social phenomena?

    Political correctness….coverup, you bet.

    Conspiratorial, organized cover up in the Church?… there's absolutely no evidence of that, and it certainly isn't due to lack of media attention, judicial investigations or political cronyism. Nancy, Joe, the Kennedy's, Cuomo's – they're about as far removed from the Church (ideologically, philosophically) as you can be and still make some half-hearted claim to Catholicism (more of a "born this way" Gaga-ism).

    This is how you deflect the root of the problem away from the true culprits, the newly "annointed",  and onto the latest "scourge" in a corrupt culture, our Catholic priests, scapegoats both here and abroad (Egypt, Syria, equatorial Africa).

    Speaking of cover-ups, I haven't seen anything in the MSM on the Benghazi, NSA, IRS, AP, shall we add Syria soon (?) scandals of late. I hope it isn't because they're so worried about the [bogus] claims of dead priests offending juveniles 50 years ago. We could be missing some pretty big one's, here-

    • Grace says:

      Delphin.

      Is the 40′,000 approximation for the U.S. or worldwide? We would not want to point out an error made by such a perfect person. Why not change your name to Flipper?

  39. Publion says:

    Well, well, well. So much for the reliability of JR’s predictions. And we already have a good idea of the reliability of his retro-dictions. One might have imagined that he would have devoted himself to starting his own site – but it was merely that old psychological bugbear of ‘projection’, when he and others cackled that without their input the rest of us would have “nothing” to talk about. Actually, if it weren’t for the indulgence of some sites, it is they whose stuff would have nowhere to go; and they know that nobody would waste a keystroke to go to any site that they might set up on their own.

    No surprises there.

    However, while he and similar others are certainly not reliable, I would say that they are also not some lunatic fringe of the Abusenik movement. Rather, their type of mentality is at its core. Raised up out of the queasy swamps beyond the solid ground, they were given ‘voice’ by the internet and became useful and blithely ignorant tools of the larger interests that have always been behind the Catholic Abuse Matter. And they’d happily do it for free – happy just to inhabit the center of the illusion that they have some status and something worthwhile to say. If not Lenin’s “useful idiots”, they have certainly taken to the role of useful-tools.

    But take a look at how their ‘concern’ mutates with the tides: first it was all the allegations made by the present ‘victims’; then it was the future ‘victims’; then the un-reported ones; then the still-unreported ones; then current allegations dropped off steeply after reforms were introduced and it wasn’t about the victims but about what the Church hadn’t yet done for past ‘victims’ (an almost impossible task to accomplish, given the problems already discussed in connection with it); and now we are informed today that it isn’t that the Church’s “child molesters” (demoted from rapists just a comment or two before) did what they did – but rather “it’s about what the bosses did” (nicely parroting the Jeff Anderson strategy to the effect that in order to maximize payouts you had to by-pass the individual priests and go for the “deep-pockets defendants” at the level of the Bishops and Dioceses and their Insurers).

    And we notice that’s it’s all couched in the past tense. And we recall that LA document cache where the “passing them on” wasn’t quite established to be a widespread phenomenon or a frequent one even in the pre-Dallas era.

    So do we “get it” now? If not, here it is: whatever claim or focus works in any given moment to make the Church look baaaad, is what will be tossed at the screen; and it will be done so with the mimicry of authoritative knowledge that makes certain individuals feel reely reely goood about themselves and how important they can feel they are.

    And anybody who won’t play that game is baaaaad.

    This is what happens when the internet collapses all the spaces into one, and serious work has to be conducted in the cafeteria or out on the sidewalk or – let’s face it – out on the sunporch.

    Back to the necessary protocols then, and let’s stay focused on the task.

    And expect no rational explanations. But there’s nothing new about that.

  40. Amy says:

    I'm a life-long Catholic, and I no longer attend church because of Archbishop Meyers.  I can't in good conscience support an organization that stands by a leader who scares people into believing his point of view.  I guess that makes me "evil" and a "sinner."  If I have to be a sinner in order to question the Catholic hierarchy, so be it.  I'm much smarter than that.  

    And, I applaud all of those who are protesting how the Catholic Church has handled abuse cases now and in the past – it's the right thing to do.

    • josie says:

      You don't seem all that smart to me-having faith ("life-long") and now you don't attend Church because of one man. Seems pretty lame. What you need to do besides "applaud all of those who are protesting" is join them. You have their same agenda; there is valid point to posting on here.  

  41. Jim Robertson says:

    The church looks bad because it is bad.

    You are written off by good people, not because of what the press simply reports. (after all the parish members didn't commit the crimes of coverup); but because you've manufactured a persecution that does not exist, that you might feel "pure" when you are not.

    Your church was so used to being handled with kidd gloves that when when truth is told about it's real actions. You cry persecution;and that's called lying.

     

  42. Bob says:

    When is Mueller going to do the honorable thing and resign?

  43. Mark says:

    Amy, nice try, but your grandstanding formula has become so hackneyed and transparent that nobody takes it seriously any more.

    "I'm a lifelong Catholic, but/however/and/……." Sorry – if you no longer seek communion with Jesus Christ within the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church that he founded, then you are an ex-Catholic. That is, of course, if you ever were a Catholic…..

    You use relatively minimal, historical cases of abuse as your purported alibi; and you hide your true motives behind self-aggrandizing sanctimony. Clearly, you have little trouble reconciling such dishonesty with your good "conscience."

  44. Publion says:

    An article in The Atlantic (first link below) has an interesting and relevant comment: “Syria coverage is American’s newspapers is the latest example of purportedly neutral, ‘objective’ press coverage that’s bursting with contestable assumptions” [italics mine].

    This matter of media coverage that is “bursting with contestable assumptions” is very relevant to the matters under discussion on this thread and in this TMR article.

    I myself would not use the word “persecution”, but when I think about it, the underlying dynamics are somewhat the same. Readers will recall a recent link in my comments to that article on the Goebbels gambit of 1937 (second link at the end of this comment).

    So to assert  that claiming Church “persecution” is “lying” requires the acceptance of a number of “contestable assumptions”: i) that the Church not only did some things less well at one time but (simply and totally) “is bad”, which is as sweeping and unsupported an assertion as one is likely to encounter; ii) that how the Church “looks” is totally and completely the result of its actions and not the result of any efforts by various interests and types to use those past actions (such as they may be – itself an assumption not only not-established, but highly dubious in the instances we have managed to examine it) to undermine the Church’s status and credibility for their own purposes; iii) that anybody attempting to examine this highly suspect PR phenomenon is merely trying to “feel ‘pure’” ; and iv) “when you are not” – which assertion itself requires huge leaps and presumptions as well as requires a definition of “pure”; v) that the PR phenomenon we are looking at is nothing but “truth”.

    And then the incoherent conclusion of all of the above that to respond-to or even examine the phenomenon is “lying”. Which presumes precisely what has yet to be demonstrated: that there is and has been no distorting PR effort by any interests to use such ‘abuse’ (however defined) and handling of priests (such as it was) to undermine the credibility of the Church (which by the most amazing coincidence remains the largest and strongest institutional voice against elite-sponsored and government-abetted Monoplanar Secularism in the West).

    And we then have to add the assertion – passed off as a fact – that the Church is “written off by good people”; and who might those be? So in addition to being assured of the existence of those myriads of un-reported allegations of abuse, and – more recently – of  the existence of a “majority” of people who are pro-Abusenik, we are now assured that there is a large number of “good people” who have “written off” the Church.

    And how has it been established that the Church has been “written off”? (Which in the first place is probably going to require a definition of “written off”.)

    Lastly, we are – but of course – left with the prospect of taking JR’s expert word on what “lying” is – which, however, actually may be somewhat ‘expert’ in its way. Although – as always now – we must include one of the latest additions to the Notebook on the Playbook: that troublesome but ever-so-enlightening psychological gambit called “projection”.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-press-and-the-syria-debate-neither-neutral-nor-balanced/279256/

    http://www.cesnur.org/2010/mi-goebbels_en.html

  45. Delphin says:

    Imagine one Archbishop (rightly or wrongly) affecting one's passion for and commitment to their religion, or their God.

    You don't "go to Church" because of your fondness (or not) for a pastor/priest/bishop: you go to worship God.

    Cradle/Cafeteria Catholics are usually the first to bail at the slightest hint of discomfort. They have so much trouble seeing past a tree or two of problems to observe and experience the majesty of the forest.

    [edited by moderator]

  46. Delphin says:

    Using the hypocrites MO for determining guilt and cover-up – I do hope they're UTD on the findings of the Penn State abuse scandal – you know, the one where the government is culpable in an actual conspiratorial cover-up, with evidence (look that word up in your pocket dictionaries), of their minor abuse problem to protect the school, athletics and states interests (aka the "institution").

    And, since we're so fond of extrapolations, let's extrapolate those 'hard evidence' findings to every public school system (…and every and any other place where men congregate) in every municipality in every state.

    I hope the Amy's of the world can find a safe place to go, because the Church problem is a gnat on the rump of the elephant that is minor sexual abuse, in the US and worldwide.

    This isn't  a Church problem, kiddies, it's a cultural problem – your typical "lefty loosey-goosey, let it all hang out (literally) anything goes wherever you want to stick it" world view.

    It's what happens when you run God out of town.

  47. dennis ecker says:

    A Reminder:

    This coming Monday once again another Philadelphia Archdiocese priest trial date is set to begin, and once again its not for a traffic ticket.  (The AOP should be so proud)

     

  48. Jim Robertson says:

    Some god, that it can be so easily" run out of town".  Has this all powerful diety been tarred and feathered too? Poor little god to be so abused by those created in it's image and likeness.

    When a diety must rely on obfuscators; liars; smoke and mirror artiests; bullies and prefabricators like those who post here, for protection from honest criticism. How powerful  and moral can it be?

    You go to church to pray to be given something or protected from something. That's a Morality based on greed  and fear. Or maybe you just go, to revel in your own imagination; and that's called Narcissisum.

     

     

  49. Publion says:

    Further on the journalism aspect here.

     

    I am going to discuss the article “The Media and the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression”, by researchers Jonathan Leo and Jeffrey R. Lacasse; the article appeared in the print edition of the academic journal “Social Science and Modern SOCIETY” (caps are in the formatting of the journal’s title), Vol. 45, No. 1, Jan-Feb 2008, pp.35-45. (Readers may recognize this as the same journal issue to which I recently referred for another relevant article. The pay-wall issue still exists but the journal is also available from various sources in its print-hardcopy form.)

     

    The researcher-authors here are examining the role of media in the matter of whether or not it has been reliably established and demonstrated that “depression” is caused primarily or essentially by “chemical imbalance” (they say No and examine the scientific and clinical research aspects at some length, showing that the “chemical imbalance” theory has not been established through any reliable research and that thus there are many other possible causes of depression, with “chemical imbalance” being just one theoretical possibility).

     

    But then they get to their main point: that media ‘reporting’ about the topic reveals an eye-opening amount of unsubstantiated repetition of supportive assertions about an idea that a) has not actually been established and that b) is being pushed upon the public by a variety of under-the-table interests.

     

    I am not taking a position on the clinical issues involving the etiology of depression here. What struck me was the usefulness of seeing the media-reporting problem in a setting other than the Catholic Abuse Matter (which – thanks to the Stampede – almost automatically now brings with it all sorts of baggage that clouds the core dynamics involved).

     

    What these researcher-authors did was to follow-up on a large number of the media news articles discussing this depression-etiology topic: they got in touch with the reporters who wrote the articles and asked them for the references to material which they used to write the article. What they got back from the reporters was highly instructive.

     

    One reporter (p.38, col.2) had used the subjunctive (the sufferers “may have a chemical imbalance” but then went on to state that such research supporting the theory is out there (“numerous studies have been done” and “the research is definitely available”). Our two authors contacted her and said that if the research is wide and widely available, then she should be able to provide some of the references she consulted. But they report that “she did not reply”. However in a later reprint version of the article picked up by another paper in the area, the assertions they questioned had been excised.

     

    Another reporter (p.38, col.2) complained that “she did not go back to find the original references and that it would be difficult ‘to start from scratch every time I wrote a news article’”. To which I would immediately respond: if you don’t know if what you’re writing is accurate and true, then how can you think you are writing a “news article” to begin with?

     

    A third reporter (p.39, col.1) who had stated definitively that “chemical imbalance” was “a hypothesis that proved to be right” did not answer email requests for substantiation. (This reporter was, by the way, from The New York Times.)

     

    A fourth reporter (p.39, col.1) – also from the Times – sent back a link to a scholarly research article that did not actually address the core issue.

     

    A fifth reporter had written that she herself  had been “diagnosed with depression or a chemical imbalance” and emailed that she relied for her information on her own primary care physician and nothing else.

     

    A sixth reporter (p.39, col.1) had asserted that a low amount of a certain chemical is “one symptom of depression”. The reporter had simply taken a press release from a local university study that had specifically stated that the lack of certain chemical “is thought to cause depression in some people”. Queried by the authors about the substantial disconnect between what was reported and what was stated in the actual study, the reporter did not respond.

     

    Another media piece (p.39, col.1) turned out to be written by an advocate for a suicide-prevention group, and claimed that “chemical imbalance” “often could be” a cause. Queried by the authors, she provided the URLs of two websites. The first was her own group’s site and the second was the general URL to a national organization for mental-illness with nothing more specific. She was “interested in the clinical side of things” and not in research, she said – but I would ask how you can expect to be clinically effective if you don’t really know what the actual research and evidence has or has-not established in terms of the causation-of (and this therapy-for) a specific problem you are trying to help people deal-with.

     

    Another reporter (p.39, col2) quoted a psychiatrist who then – when queried – provided the link to a scholarly article that actually had stated that “it is not clear whether these changes” were or were not caused by any “chemical imbalance” or other organic problem rather than environmental stressors affecting the brain. Nor had the study – done in 1991 – ever been replicated since it had first been published.

     

    Another reporter (p.40, col.1) – from a Philadelphia paper – simply asserted outright that “mental illnesses are simply chemical imbalances”.  Queried by the authors, she returned a link to a study on bipolar illness which was thus not only off-topic but also had never been replicated. And her second reference was a statement by the head of a professional scientific Society as part of a request to Congress for more funding (which requests are the type of documents that are prone to remarkable distortions in order to improve the possibility for the funding). When that was pointed out she simply said that she didn’t’ have time to really research articles deeply and assumed that the experts knew what they were talking about.

     

     Another reporter (p.40, col.1) provided a reference to the National Institutes of Mental Health which provided a single link to a then-recent scholarly article reviewing research that simply speculated about possible causes of suicide. Asked for more specific evidence of “chemical imbalance” the NIMH did not respond.

     

    Another reporter (p.40, col.2) wrote “It’s not a personal deficit, but something that needs to be looked at as a chemical imbalance”. Queried as to her evidence, she said she heard it from a psychiatric nurse-practitioner and left it at that.

     

    Another reporter (p.40, col.2) wrote an assertive article in which he gave as the source a doctor in charge of a Florida “research-center” but neither the reporter nor the doctor responded when queried by the authors.

     

    A CNN science reporter actually put up graphs and charts of brain scans, using various advanced brain-imaging and scanning technology to demonstrate that “chemical imbalances were real”. But the authors – themselves medical/scientific researchers – point out that such imaging technology is at this point only useful for research purposes, and in any case cannot work for “identifying depressed individuals”. As they note: it’s one thing to image a brain-state, and something else altogether to figure out how the brain reached that state.

     

    And in a media interview the then-president of the American Psychiatric Association stated that “there was a constructive debate” about the “chemical imbalance” topic. Although that Association’s own Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders states bluntly that “the cause of depression and anxiety is unknown”. And, the authors continued, in genuine scientific procedure questionable hypotheses are not “debated” but rather are proven or disproven through experiment and research. The authors also note that although he had stated that the “chemical imbalance” theory as if it were a proven fact for which scientific evidence exists, yet the interviewer (Katie Couric) did not ask him to what evidence he was referring.

     

    I went through this list here just to give you an idea of how techy the ‘reporting’ problem is. And if it’s this way with scientific research, then imagine how much more difficult it is with assertions and allegations about (past or long-past) incidences of ‘abuse’ in the 3-decade old atmosphere of Stampede.

     

    But there’s more.

     

    It turns out, the authors continue, that the pharmaceutical companies (colloquially known as Big Pharma, one of the larger economic ‘producers’ left in this country) are heavily invested in getting people to see themselves not simply as needing tonics and pick-me-ups (the 1950s and 1960s advertising reason for seeing about getting yourself some prescriptions drugs for mood and mind) but rather as having ‘mental illness’ of some sort that required prescription-level drug therapy.

     

    In this context, what is needed is not “analysis” but “hype” – because the real objective is to increase sales by increasing (or creating) a market for the product. (And – in a dark obverse side of this – you don’t want any short-comings or failures of your drugs to receive wide publicity.) If people doubt the “efficacy” of the drug or start wondering about its “side effects” then they might not buy it or accept a prescription for it.

     

    One major company provided references to a textbook – which, as it happened, had been authored by two doctors, one of whom was employed as head of neuroscience at another drug company and the other a member of the advisory committee for marketing a particular depression/anxiety drug.

     

    The result being that “Many newspapers and websites continue to mention ‘chemical imbalances’ as if there is an abundance of scientific evidence in the literature … Several authors claimed that there were numerous studies available, yet they did not provide any specifics”. (.p.43, col.1) Our two authors wonder whether such failure to provide actual supportive evidence is the result of professional ignorance or because asserters know that there actually is no such evidence and that their claims are merely based on “hearsay”.

     

    They are also concerned that reporters simply do not understand the topic they are writing about.

     

    They are also concerned that “for some media outlets, the evidence is just not that important”. I would say here that media who rely on advertising revenues might not want to alienate prospective deep-pockets advertisers (i.e. Big Pharma); and that the ‘drama’ of persons afflicted by ‘illness’ and then happily and marvelously  ‘rescued’ by heroic drug companies is too good a hook to pass up.

     

    The authors are also concerned for the competence of the “reporting”: some outlets will “essentially publish press releases that are handed to them” (as if these were ‘reports’) and will do so “with little analysis on the part of the staff”. (p.43, col.1) I would point out here the similarity of this dynamic and Jeff Anderson’s strategy of creating what I call the Anderson Axis between tort attorney and willing media outlets, especially in pre-trial or pre-lawsuit phases where public opinion can be prejudiced or manipulated beforehand (thus confronting – say – the Church with an already-hostile public environment and the prospect of potential jurors tainted even before they are called for jury duty).

     

    Certainly, the authors say, it is possible that in some cases or under some conditions a chemical imbalance may play some causative role, but that is a far cry from simply asserting that chemical imbalance is in all cases the basic cause of depression. As they say, “It is one thing to say that extraterrestrials might exist somewhere in the solar systems” but “It is another thing to say ‘there is evidence of extraterrestrials in the solar system”.  (I note here, for example, the profound difference residing merely in the simple plural “solar systems” and the singular “solar system” – for those who might not think that in clear thinking and expression it’s the little grammatical bits that count for so much.)

     

    They also note the effect of slyly worded and interpreted ‘surveys’: one market research/survey company claimed that “virtually all (ninety percent) of North Americans believe that depression can be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain”. But, the authors note acutely, such a question would have almost no meaning to most average persons since they are not scientifically informed to the extent that they could have an informed opinion. And further, the response was that “chemical imbalance” could be caused by that imbalance – once again the use of the subjunctive rather than the indicative carries profound weight in accurately interpreting this datum.

     

    And the authors are concerned that editors are not exercising more oversight in ensuring the accuracy of their reporters’ stories, a matter we are seeing vividly demonstrated in this current TMR article.

     

    Well, sorry for the long comment but I think it’s useful to see how the method of Stampede – in this case, toward the increased use of prescription drugs to deal with what has been very dubiously spun as a “disease” – is more widely spread than we might imagine, and that in such Stampedes there are always special ‘interests’ to be found driving the herd. A Stampede as I have been using the term in comments is certainly no figment of anybody’s imagination.

  50. Delphin says:

    In case some of  the TMR contributors missed it (just a reminder), the real reason behind the attacks on Archbishop Myers at link below.

    The Bishop committed the 'cardinal' sin of crossing the PC line into "Entitlement-ville".

    Mueller and Moran are both (in addition to rabid antiCatholics) gay marriage supporters (as are most of the MSM). It's the new "civil" (however uncivil they are) rights issue, after all (just as anyone who opposes the current Administrations' policies is racist. Wonder how that will wash with the antiwar OWS-type zealots?).

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/newark-archbishop-catholics-who-support-gay-marriage-should-not-receive-holy-communion/

  51. dennis ecker says:

    Information Update:

    Accused – Father Andrew D. McCormick

    Charges –  involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory sexual assault, sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, corrupting the morals of a minor, indecent assault, and indecent exposure.

    Background – Father McCormick is 56 years old. He was ordained in 1982. He has served at the following parishes in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia: Saint Adalbert Parish, Philadelphia (1982-1986); Saint John Cantius Parish, Philadelphia (1986-2000); Saint Bede the Venerable Parish, Holland (2000-2004); Sacred Heart Parish, Swedesburg (2004-2011).

    Comment from Archdiocese – Father Andrew McCormick was one of a number of priests placed on administrative leave by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in March of 2011.  Since that time Father McCormick has not been permitted to exercise his public ministry, administer any of the Sacraments, or present himself publicly as a priest.

    I am to believe this individual is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers, and since I DO believe in our justice system I will do that. However, if this individual is found to be innocent I can live with that, but if found guilty will I or we once again hear the stupid excuses ?
    That action was in response to concerns noted in the Grand Jury Report issued last February. The cases of those placed on leave at that time ranged from allegations of sexual abuse to boundary issues with minors.
    Last night he was arrested and charged withenforcement that they received an allegation in December of 2011 which led to this arrest. This is a new allegation to the Archdiocese.
    If you have any information regarding this situation please contact the Philadelphia Police Department Special Victims Unit at 215-685-3251 or the Philadelphia District Attorney's Family Violence and Sexual Assault Unit at 215-686-8080

    • josie says:

      why are you posting this?

    • Bam Gallagher says:

      because he thinks he is making a difference and getting the word out. notice how little or no media coverage this case has gotten because it does not involve an official from the archdiocese. ask yourslef what kind of advocate this fraud really is and where he will be next week? we know it will not be in the courtroom.

      Dennis that's great you were in NYC as a paramedic. Dan Gallagher also says he is a paramedic on his singlesbee site (along with a pro surfer – LOL) Coincidence? Friend of Danny's? 

  52. Jim Robertson says:

     Did the media tell your cardinals to cover up perpetrators or did they come up with that themselves?

    If that issue wasn't there, there would be no scandal

    • dennis ecker says:

      Josie,

      Your not proud of your local priests and the accusations they are facing ?

      Also don't forget once this trial ends there is another trial for another priest scheduled to begin on October 21, 2013. Information on that case will be posted soon.

    • dennis ecker says:

      No Bam I do not know Danny or his mother or father. However, one day maybe I will meet him, and at that time I will tell him Thank You. Thank You for having the strength to come forward, thank you for being the strength for other victims of not only clergy abuse but all abuse to report what they have been through to authorities. I would also tell him that he will have his bad days and on those days he must rely on his strength as he did in the past.

      Now you think I am a fraud and that is your right. But once again I came forward with information about me that I so much wanted to keep private. I did it for two reasons, the first being I have nothing to be ashamed of and second  to show Josie how much truly a fool she really is. My life is an open book for anyone including yourself to research. My information is only a click away.

      Have a nice day son.

  53. Julie says:

    It's quite difficult to be a newspaper reporter, because you have to be a mini-expert on many different issues. Make it a Catholic issue and it's just easier to repeat what other journalists have written because it is a difficult water to navigate if you are completely unfamiliar with Catholicism. Liberal reporters absolutely tend to be anti-Catholic, and so there is another dimension to it. And as SNAP knows, dangle controversy in front of a reporter and they are going to bite. Catholics need to become more media savvy. It is one thing to comment on this site, which is an exellent site, IMHO, and another to write letters to the editor, send press releases, etc. Get the Catholic side OUT THERE. The ignorance among journalists is appalling, somewhat understandable, but many journalists are lazy and biased. I toil in the vineyard.

  54. Delphin says:

    We're proud of the over 96% of the priests and their bishops that serve their parish, mission and God charitably, mercifully, honorably and faithfully, for over 2000 years – in every corner of this cruel and miserable world.

    Are you proud of the much greater proportion of men (non-priests) that commit rape outside the Church; ditto the white men that perpetrated slavery upon black men and the black men that perpetrated slavery upon black men, ditto the men that beat, enslave and mutilate their women, ditto the men that perpetrate white slavery, ditto the men that offend against their own children, ditto the men of the legal system and the media that lie, cheat, steal (as part and parcel of their "jobs"), and convict honest citizens, ditto homosexuals that sexually offend, ditto black men who commit crimes disproportionately, ditto Islamists?

    Are you proud of your Profiling? Does that Profiling only work when attacking the men of our Church or do you use it everywhere, against all men?

  55. Publion says:

    We are given an “information update” by commenter Ecker. My first thought, reading the first few lines, was that he was – perhaps not unwisely – refraining from revealing too much of his own mentation and simply putting up material from … somewhere else.

     

    But then he adds his own bits further on, or some of his own.

     

    First, the Archdiocesan press release – dated July 27, 2012 – is available through the first link at the end of this comment. As you will see by reading it, substantial chunks of it are simply repeated in the Ecker comment.

     

    It was the AOP that removed this priest from practicing active and formal ministry simply “in response to concerns raised” in the second Grand Jury Report of February, 2012.

     

    That “last night he was arrested” section – presented by Ecker without quotation marks – is actually from the text of the press release, and thus “last night” refers to July 26, 2012. The charges for which the arrest was made were based on an allegation made directly to a police agency in December, 2011.

     

    The release further states that “this is a new allegation to the Archdiocese”, meaning – I imagine – that the police were the primary recipients of the allegation and did not inform the Archdiocese until the arrest was made seven months later.

     

    The listing of this priest’s assignments is also from the press release.

     

    And so is the exhortation for anybody with relevant information to call one of phone numbers given, to the Philadelphia Police unit involved or to the DA’s Office.

     

    Ecker’s own material is in that “I am to believe” paragraph. If he can provide examples (accurate quotations, please, and perhaps an identifying link to the TMR article or the particular comment he is quoting, and perhaps an explanation of what he sees as “the stupid excuses” then that would be useful here; I don’t recall seeing any such on this site, but perhaps he could share his vision of what they might be. Or would that be – as it were – ‘a bridge too far’ for him?

     

    In a Philly media article dated July 28, 2012 (second link at the end of this article) it is reported that the offending incident occurred in December, 1997. The article further refers to Seth Williams – the Philly DA – as saying that “it appeared that the priest had groomed a number of altar boys” at the parish involved, and the article and/or the DA urged any other “abuse victims” to “come forward”, although the article says that the police – acting on a list of possible contacts provided by the AOP – had interviewed fifteen possible victims. Whether any others have come forward or whether police have been able to discover any in the intervening 13 months is not reflected in the single-victim charges here, and it appears that the priest is charged with only offenses relating to the single allegant, who was “encouraged” (in July 2012) “by the news coverage of the abuse scandals in the archdiocese and at Pennsylvania State University”.

     

    In a follow-on article dated October 4, 2012 (third link at the end of this comment) it is further reported that the felony sex charges against him were dismissed at Preliminary Hearing by a Municipal judge (although she retained the misdemeanor charges), but then the felony charges were re-instated by a Common Pleas judge “at a brief hearing”.

     

    Certainly, in light of various dynamics exposed by Mr. Cipriano’s recent analyses on the Big Trial site in regard to the Billy Doe trial, there exists some very reasonable grounds for curiosity here.

     

    In an article dated August 24, 2012 (fourth link below) further light is shed: the DA had argued that any contact  - “however slight” – between an adult’s male organ and the youth’s lips constituted “sex” and a felony, while the defense argued that no penetration had taken place. The priest maintains his innocence.

     

    The core offense with which he is charged appears to be forcing oral-sex on a ten year-old boy (making the allegant now twenty-six, if my math is correct); specifically, forcing his penis on the allegant’s lips and teeth, in the rectory of the parish involved.

     

    The defense counsel is quoted  as pointing out that if the Commonwealth needed  to obtain a second hearing (in order to get the charges re-instated) then there is the clear possibility that the Commonwealth “will have trouble proving its claims at a trial, where the burden of proof is much higher” (than at a Preliminary Hearing). “If the commonwealth is on the ropes in round one, then perhaps they should reconsider this prosecution”, said the defense counsel.

     

    The priest had been removed from actively practicing priestly ministry by Cardinal Rigali after the second Grand Jury Report was released.

     

    I hope that the Big Trial site will follow this case. As with all priest-abuse cases, and certainly in Philadelphia, there rarely seems to be a ‘normal’ trial.

     

    http://archphila.org/press%20releases/pr002015.php

     

    http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-28/news/32890088_1_sexual-assault-sexual-abuse-mccormick

     

    http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-04/news/34240198_1_altar-boy-sexual-assault-felony-charges

     

    http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-24/news/33343435_1_felony-charges-altar-boy-sexual-assault

  56. dennis ecker says:

    Thank You Publion for adding the additional information that I did not have time to mention.

    Your not so bad after all.

  57. Mark says:

    Delphin – so THAT'S what this is all about? Thanks for the link to the article with Archbishop Myers' comments on the gay "marriage" charade. Now who would have guessed that those with ulterior motives (the homo-fascists) would seek to besmirch the name of a Catholic cleric who speaks the truth on marriage? In fact, whenever we hear a Catholic priest or bishop accused of sexual deviancy (barring the long-since-dealt-with historical cases), we need only look to what the ulterior motives might be: money, bigotry, vengeance (for whatever reason imagined) and attacking Catholic doctrine are the usual culprits. Such calumny and defamation has been going on for centuries. The Church outlives it all.

    Thanks also to Publion for separating the facts from the…..hysteria. “….encouraged” (in July 2012) “by the news coverage of the abuse scandals in the archdiocese and at Pennsylvania State University”. Enough said. Ker….ching. Amazing how little encouragement some need. And how little evidence others need. Is Williams in prison yet?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When real facists, like yourself, Mark start calling other people, gay people, facistic because we want equal rights regarding marriage, only one thing can be said: Mark don't marry a person of your own sex. If you don't like gay marriage don't use it.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I attended a gay wedding of an old friend (since Christmas eve 1964) in Berkley the 26th. It was held in their living room on their 15th anniversary of being together. It was very nice. The next door neighbor kid, 4 years old, was the ring bearer. His mom and dad were very proud. There was real love and community in that room. It reminded me of the wedding in "The Best Years of Our Lives" very simple in the living room. Lovely. What business is such a nice thing of yours? How did that wedding affect your marriage, Mark? If you are married.

  58. Publion says:

    Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth, but while commenter Ecker’s thanks are charming, I would be remiss if I did not state here that my purpose was not so much to do anybody a favor as it was to set a good example. Once one decides to set oneself to the keyboard, and for the specific purpose of providing an “informational update”, then one has committed oneself to the responsibility to provide as much accurate information as one reasonably can.

     

    My own information came – as may be inferred from the links – from a simple internet query by entering the priest’s name into a search engine.

     

    I had to commit myself to making the time available to do that, simply because to do otherwise would violate the integrity of the informational picture I had committed myself to provide.

     

    I’ve always felt that internet commenting imposes its own discipline, if one is going to be faithful to truth and accuracy, and do justice to the subject about which one is claiming to provide information. Readers deserve no less; they do not exist to be manipulated, but rather to be informed.

    • josie says:

      I am familiar with the July 2012 notice that the archdiocese posted as well as the year old news pieces. I have seen nothing recently written or said about this trial dennis refers to. That is why I asked the question. I don't read bishop accountability so I don't know what they reported. It is redundant stuff, misleading and many other things that don't interest most people. Gee, Dennis, you must have all the time in the world if you read that. God knows you don't spend too much time reading the material here. You just throw out these bloopers all day long. Anyway, where do you see that this trial starts Monday-please tell us-no one is paying attention contrary to what you think so I don't think the spotlight is too bright? 

       

  59. Delphin says:

    "You go to church to pray to be given something or protected from something. That's a Morality based on greed  and fear. Or maybe you just go, to revel in your own imagination; and that's called Narcissisum".

    Faithful Catholics go to Church to worship God, and pray for the eternal salvation of others (here and hereafter) and for world peace. That is a morality based upon Faith, Hope and  Charity (Love).

    'Others' may go to Church for the reasons you cite, I trust your own experience there,  with a subset of those 'others' who go to Church to defile the Sacraments, find boyfriends, or discover a new source of income.

    Redefining words to suit one's ideology, such as narcissism, is the left's folly.

  60. dennis ecker says:

    Some people don't have the time or care  to do those in depth investigations or lengthy comments such as you. PEOPLE HAVE LIVES. People don't sit around a computer 24/7 as you and await for someone to comment so you can feel that you are making some intelligent response.

    I could care less about McCormick. My support goes to his victims. If he is guilty would I like to see him punished ? Sure, just like any other survivor, parent, human being excluding you, Delphin and josie who feel because he wears black pants, black shirt and a white collar he should have a get out of jail free card.

    Then you make the comment that you would like to see Ralph Cipriano and his blog cover the McCormick trial. I truly believe with that comment you do like biased and non objective reporting. The man who has a negative past in his reporting skills. The man who gave me a so-called lifetime ban to his blog only to send me an e-mail within a few weeks asking me to write comments again on his blog and stating "lets have some fun" Now don't you think if these were false statements that I was making he would have sued me by now. No, because he can't because he did teach me one thing by saying to me "if you have written statements you don't have to be Hemingway"

    I'm no fan of TMR and D. Pierre but at least they have a set of rules even they follow and don't make them up along the way, and when they do edit a comment most of the time the meat of what the commentor has to say remains.

    McCormick trial starts on Monday, but his case is not the only one that will once again thrust Philly into the spotlight. You have Brennan's re-trial next month (he should thank the Lord above I won't be on his jury) for abuse, and you have the appeal for Lynn also in a matter of days. the man who allowed TWO animals loose near a school. Yes I said two. One you know of as Ed Avery who admitted to abusing a child and has been in the media, but there was also a second priest who was allowed to work in the nursing home next to St. Jeromes school with accusations of misconduct towards children. Literally a spit away from the school playground were children go for recess and lunch. And what was his response. "I dropped the ball"

    His appeal is not based on his innocent or guilt in his case, but a loop hole in the law if his job also MADE him protect children. What adult in today's world except for abusers, you and the catholic church feel adults should not be held accountable in protecting any child. Like I said before and will say again Lynn could have been the hero in all of this. Instead HE decided to be the follower instead of the leader and that is why he sits were he is and no matter if his conviction is overturned or upheld he cannot change what has happened to him or soon block out the memories.

    Hmmm something a victim/survivor goes through.

  61. Delphin says:

    '…. you, Delphin and josie who feel because he wears black pants, black shirt and a white collar he should have a get out of jail free card."

    And, this is the main reason why the victim crowd has no credibility. They lie.

    If they will lie, boldly [and rather obnoxiously] and in print, repeatedly, for which there is a clear written record of their 'newly accused's' stated position on guilty clergy who have been proven, with hard evidence (not railroaded by lies), beyond a reasonable doubt, to have harmed a child and the just punishment they deserve, then, they will lie about their own abuse story and they will certainly lie about their reasons (usually ideological) for wanting the Catholic Church to be persecuted.

    You just got busted in another bold-faced lie. We don't believe anything you say.

  62. Delphin says:

    "Did the media tell your cardinals to cover up perpetrators or did they come up with that themselves? …If that issue wasn't there, there would be no scandal".

    The fact is that the media is fabricating the majority of the cover ups. There was some, to be sure, eminating from mixed motives on the full spectrum of reasons from sheer stupidity and fear to full-blown corruption, no doubt.

    That fact is that the real abuses and the real cover-ups are/were not the norm, but the rarest of criminal acts. The media is lying about both, with lots of help from so-called victims and their advocates in and out of the legal system – all of whom have personal gains at stake, whether financial or ideological.

    There is hard evidence of the persecution of the Church, more than there is of actual crimes committed by clergy.

    And, that is the scandal.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If god was god he could snap his manly fingers and have world peace in a mila- second. But he doesn't therefore he is niether all powerful nor all good.

      A good all powerful god wouldn't let the innocent suffer.

      6 million children every year die from malnutrition. Some love. Why does your god need to be worshiped?

      A needy god, great!

      How does one defile a sacrament? Do you think your god is defilable?

      Again what is this demand under threat of hell fire that your god makes on the next to powerless, mankind. We are powerless compared to it. Yet it, your god demands love or promises eternal flame? Superstious nonsense.

      You aren't pretending that with out one tiny sherd of truth, i.e. evidence for your god's existence; that that isn't narcissism on your part? You want us to believe you or what you read. That seems to be pretty much all about you; therefore pretty narcissistic. Your god; your beliefs. you you you and more you. Nobody else is talking god and what god wants here but you and yours. God hasn't opened her gob. Hello Narcissisus.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! this laughter is in response to your garbage about the rarity of cover up by your hierarchs. LOL!

      All over the [edited by moderator] world, country after country, they behaved EXACTLY the same way. COVERING UP!. You can pretend it's not true but that's all you do any way pretend. Pretend you know what god wants pretend pretend pretend. You pretend we were not victimized. Hell you were victimized but you're too damned dumb to know it.

  63. Publion says:

    Far be it from me to engage in trying to conduct substantive interchange with an Abusenik simply looking to toss preferred piles and then trying to cover it over by claiming he’s just soooooo busy he can’t take the time to really do serious commenting work. So I will take a look at commenter Ecker’s 103PM material simply for those who are keeping a Notebook on the Playbook.

     

    We recall that, having been caught in playing his old spinning-game under the guise of an “information update”, Ecker quickly came back with the excuse that he really doesn’t have the time to do anything more than what he does here. Of course, while he claims not to have the time to do any serious work, he makes it his business to make the most serious and sweeping claims, assertions, and allegations (and I’m only referring to his comments; let’s charitably prescind from whatever claims and assertions and allegations he made or makes about his own personal Holocaust experience of victimization).

     

    Now at 103PM we are told again that he (under the myah-myah cover of “some people”) doesn’t have the time to “do those in-depth investigations or lengthy comments”, but then also that he doesn’t care.  Why make comments at all, then? What is his ultimate purpose in making comments in the first place? To blow off steam (through the clearly limited piping system available to him)? To add his own distortions to the universal fog of distortions and inaccuracies already permeating so much of the Web (and the Catholic Abuse Matter)? Or perhaps because he is satisfied with the personal belief that what he puts up – even though he doesn’t have the time or interest for it – is somehow useful? Useful to what purpose?

     

    And does a quick check in a search-engine constitute for him “in-depth investigations”? And is accuracy and truth not worth the “lengthy” comments required to demonstrate them (especially in light of some of the material that’s tossed at the screen by certain commenters here)?

     

    We are told – in Ecker’s classic give-away tactic of all-caps exaggerated formatting – that some people (we are of course to presume this includes the variously super-busy Uber-Wig, Ecker) “have lives”. Apparently then Ecker is to be presumed to ‘have a life’, but that life doesn’t include doing or caring-about doing even the slightest bit of checking on his material before -  in the midst of so very full, rich, genuine and busy a life – taking the time to hammer out something to toss at the screen. (Or – perhaps – Ecker’s commenting is actually a very substantial bit in that ‘life’, but its purpose precisely does not include accuracy.)

     

    In order to effect that tactic, Ecker then has to presume that I “sit around a computer 24/7” (do I really, O Great Wig of Knowing?) and “await for someone to comment so you can feel that you are making some intelligent response”. Well, now, about that last bit: I do try to make intelligent and accurate comments, responding to material that – alas – does not always admit of rational explanation or comprehension.

     

    Does Ecker – then – sit around all day making dreck-ishly misleading or skewed comments, and then wait to put on the Wig of Victimized Umbrage when somebody tries to make sense of them? No, that’s not his ‘life’ – I would say. Rather, he puts his stuff up and expects to be accepted as right and very knowledgeable and shame on those who think ill of it. And what we see here now is simply the visible irritation and confoundment at others’ not performing as the background herd in his own little version of the Stampede.

     

    Ecker cares about McCormick’s “victims” and yet a) not only have we not established that anybody was his “victim”, but b) there is only a single allegant in this whole case and c) the combined police and DA resources have not been able to come up with anybody else (according to the Philly media reports I linked-to).

     

    What Ecker is really going-for here is that in the matter of Catholic Clerical Abuse he isn’t interested in accuracy or clear-thinking, which – in that classic bit taken from ‘revolutionary’ praxis – simply get in the way of the ‘revolution’ and obstruct the achievement of the revolution’s ultimate and abiding ulterior motive.

     

    Readers are welcome to make what they will of Ecker’s comment that the Big Trial site is an example of “biased and non-objective reporting”. Could Ecker explain that characterization in some detail? Or is he just too busy with his busy ‘life’ to explain his material and its claims?

     

    Readers familiar with Ecker’s experiences on that site will recall the actual reason that triggered his being  banned. So much for rational commitment to free exchange in the service of truth and accuracy. Ecker’s “ideas” (a rather generous characterization) were not the reason he was banned.

     

    One doesn’t have to “be Hemingway” to write comments, but one does – as I said in a prior comment on this thread – have to have some commitment to the discipline of truth and accuracy … if one wishes to be taken seriously. And if one takes one’s readers seriously.

     

    I am in absolutely full agreement that anybody – including also the justice system itself – “should thank the Lord” that Ecker isn’t serving on a jury on any case whatsoever.

     

    Given what we now know of the Philly trials of the several clerics (or does Ecker care to point out any inaccuracies – accurate quotations required here – in any of Mr. Cipriano’s material?) and the fact that appeals are in-train, then it remains to be seen how those cases ultimately turn out. But even beyond the individual cases’ resolution, there remains Mr. Cipriano’s exposure of what most certainly have been demonstrated to be textbook examples of skewed justice deranged in the service of a foregone conclusion and agenda.

     

    Further, in regard to the vivid but ultimately non-sensical imagery of children being “at recess and lunch”: is Ecker here seriously proposing that anybody was going to wade into the middle of a recess or lunch period and start raping or molesting or abusing? If not, then what’s the point of his bit here?

     

    The difficulty with Monsignor Lynn’s case is not a “loophole in the law” but rather a violation of a profound and essential principle of Western law: you cannot be prosecuted for violating a law that wasn’t in effect when you committed an action. Otherwise known as the Ex Post Facto principle. If he isn’t too busy, he might want to do some research on it – it shouldn’t be too hard, even for somebody with so full and busy a ‘life’.

     

    If he would care to explain (accurate quotations required) just where he finds accurate grounds for claiming (and imagining) that any commenter or article on this site holds that “adults should not be held accountable in protecting any child” then let him share that with us here. Surely he is not so very busy as to be unable to explain the rationale and grounds for his own claims? Or is such explanation not part of his business-plan in the first place?

     

    Whether Ecker has the knowledge-base to know what a “victim/survivor” (again with the queasy, cheesy appropriation of Holocaust imagery) “goes through” is anybody’s guess. The key practical point – beyond the conceptual problems involved – is in establishing the genuineness of any particular ‘victim/allegant’. And that has always been the essential (and difficult) link in the process that Abuseniks have always sought to avoid.

     

    So since Ecker implies (with that “Hmmm”) that he actually does do some thinking, then perhaps he can find the time to apply his thought and effort to explicating some of the issues I have raised here.

  64. Delphin says:

    Didn't take much to trigger the usual ranting and raving meltdown of the lunatic fringe.

    It is obvious that God is the main focus of their problem since they don't deteriorate into their usual diatribes with any focus on the sexual abuse of minors issue because we all know that would lead them out of the Church, far away from God, and right into their very own over-landscaped backyards.

    '…why does God do this and not do that, why is he so mean to us..'.  Oh please, grow up Peter Pan.  Read a book, already, I could recommend a very Good one.

    While you play childish Matron-of-Honor games in FairyLand (lefty Berkeley is so "over"), kids are being ruined by homosexuals (at over three times the rate of their proportion of the population). Why isn't that fact disturbing to you, is it OK because it is your own community causing that carnage?

    You'd rather debate the merits of 'gay marriage" and the existence of God then have to face the fact that it is predominantly homosexuals that prey on minor males.

    I suppose the next hissy-fit we'll have to endure will be the usual  "I'm outta here…."  for the fortieth time. How boring.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Allowing 6 million innocent children to be born and starve to death every year is beyond just "being mean" it's evil.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Can you count? Do you ever tell the truth? If I leave again it would be my 3rd time. "Fortieth"?. Since you exaggerate everything, somebody should reign you in.

      There is one athiest posting here of two victims. Veracity isn't your strong point. Playing the self written part of a truth teller requires one tell the truth. Since that seems beyond your ken; why not give it up? The pose that is. When you start telling the truth that will be amazing. I have nothing to watch for; that day will never dawn.

  65. Delphin says:

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/conservative-leader-abbott-expected-win-australian-election-polls-022037221.html

    Predicting the DownUnder lefties witch-hunt against the Church may lose it's ideological fuel.

    Also predicting life will get better for all Aussies.

  66. dennis ecker says:

    Fr. Andrew D McCormick Docket Link:

    http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP.aspx

    That's for you Josie since your church would like you to remain in the dark.

    Publion, Where in my comment do I say I don't have time to do my research ? I reread what I wrote and I believe it says people.

    Get it right !!!

     

  67. Publion says:

    Is this a put-on?

     

    Commenter Ecker’s 1141AM link is simply to the general intro-page for the Court of Common Pleas docket page. So what here is that the “church would like you to remain in the dark”? Additionally, the docket sheet is simply going to have the materials the validity (or otherwise) of which have already been discussed above. If he is actually going to do research (instead of simply putting on the Wig of Research) then why did he not go a step or two further on that court site, read the documents pertaining to the priest, and then give us his thoughts (with references to the documents) on the topic. Instead he a) gives us nothing useful (although he could as easily have given us more) and b) demonstrates that his idea of ‘research’ is nothing more than mimicry.

     

    He then tells me that he didn’t say he didn’t have time to do research but simply that “some people” don’t have time to do research. But if his comment was not meant to refer to him, then of what conceivable relevance and use was it here?

     

    I think that in regard to comnenter Ecker I have indeed ‘gotten it right’: a) he is committed to his Wigs and nothing is going to stand in the way of that; and since his primary Wig requires an evil Church and all the rest then he is going to hang onto that too.

     

    But also b) looking at his material we are looking at someone who appears to be capable of coming up with nothing more than tactical excuses for his failures, which he quickly throws out even though they are either illogical or incoherent (in light of other claims and material) or both, and then will continue to come up with more excuses and diversions as those excuses fail under analysis.

     

    But in a larger sense, we have seen this characteristic in the material of so many of the Abusenik commenters here: claims and assertions which fail, and are then pooh-poohed with an excuse, and then the excuse itself creates more problems, so they come up with more excuses and distractions. The bottom line being that we are dealing with people here who are only on nodding terms with truth and accuracy and surely give no indication that they are or ever have been seriously committed to truth and accuracy or are competent in deploying truth and accuracy.

     

    And instead will try to mimic such commitment and such competence. And then don assorted Wigs of outrage and umbrage when their material is again exposed.

     

    These are people who made claims and allegations and continue to do so.  And readers are welcome to give some thought to that.

  68. Delphin says:
  69. There is no pain on God's green earth as the pain of another human being destroying the entire future of your child, he or she, of whom you have attempted to nurture to be ALL HE OR SHE CAN BE and anyone who has not experienced this pain has no business talking or joking about it.  This is one subject about which you must feel on a personal level for the 43 years that I have felt it as have many friends with whom I share their pain!!

  70. Delphin says:

    Some interesting stats…"just the tip of the iceberg".

    And, these cases had actual 'witnesses and evidence'. Imagine the numbers of convicted "innocents" sans any evidence and chock-full-of bucks for the "victims, their liars (err, lawyers) and prosecutors who are either promoted or jump into private practice based upon their conviction rates.

    http://theweek.com/article/index/228292/25-years-of-wrongful-convictions-by-the-numbers#

    • dennis ecker says:

      Delphin,

      I am really starting to believe you don't give a damn about your priests. What you really care about is how much money each victim/survivor is awarded because of the pain your clergy has inflicted upon them. Are you jealous ? I'm sure any victim/survivor would love to turn the time of hands back so they would not of had their childhood stolen from them.

      We know how much you hate homosexuals just by the words you place on this blog without being at least man enough to come out and say it.

      Grow up people your church, its leaders, and its clergy are being trashed because they deserve it. Next time you go to church look around at those empty pews, they tell the truth.

  71. dennis ecker says:

    Yes that is only the link. But it is the link to enter the information that they request. Such as name, common pleas court, criminal case and so forth.

    I did not know I would have to hold your hand like a little child and walk you through the steps.

    Can't you people do anything on your own ?

  72. Delphin says:

    Innocent priests and their families feel pain, also.

    No one is minimizing the pain of real victims of abuse.

    And not enough are worried about the pain caused by wrongful convictions.

  73. Publion says:

    Commenter Taylor sounds the hardly inaccurate note that “there is no pain” as great as “another human being destroying the entire future of your child”. I would add that to do such a thing is also a grave sin – something that – rather significantly – does not appear in her comment, which focuses on the trope of “pain” (however defined).

     

    However, a) the key to the legal aspect of the Catholic Abuse Matter is not to merely (if vividly) imagine the crime but rather to sufficiently establish if the crime has been committed by the specific person(s) accused. What has happened in the Catholic Abuse Matter (as a subset of the larger sex-offense and “pain” focus of the past few decades) is to become fixated on the worst-case scenario of an imagined outrage, and then simply use the legal system in a secondary sense as an adjunctive weapon to strike out at the perpetrators of the pain in that vision, wherever they might be imagined (or presumed) to exist. This is precisely why the Catholic Abuse Matter is compared so often to the Salem (and other) witchcraft trials: the core dynamic is the same.

     

    And b) we see here clearly the tendency to i) imagine the worst possible consequences of an (admittedly repellent) act and then to ii) presume that those worst-consequences are and always will be the outcome of every instance of such an act. This dynamic is the essential lubricant of a Stampede.

     

    It has not been established in any research I have seen that every single instance of ‘abuse’ (however defined) along that long and broad spectrum of definition results in the ‘destruction of the entire future’ of an individual. Indeed, common sense would seem to indicate that the species would not have survived if the allegedly long-rampant ‘abuse’ (not merely by clerics but by any adults of the species) had such totally-destructive consequences.

     

    That is not in any way meant to excuse the actual perpetration of abuse by any adult upon a child. But it is meant to emphasize that there is (or was) a legal system designed specifically to handle such accusations of crime. The lethal civic consequences of a Stampede (the core dynamics of which I have described above as well as in prior comments) are that the public is inflamed by the vision – the phantasm, even – of the worst-case scenario and thus is led to unthinkingly presume that every allegation of such is true and that every instance occurs at the extreme end of the spectrum and/or creates the worst-case consequences. And this illogicality – irrationality, even – cannot but have profoundly lethal consequences for the justice system and the public sense of how order is maintained through a legitimate justice system that maintains its integrity and principles when dealing with any claims of crime. As we have already seen happen in the Philadelphia cases and as we saw happen as early as the McMartin Daycare Ritual Satanic Child Abuse trials (quickly repeated in other locations throughout the country) three decades ago.

     

    Personally, I am happy for the Church in this country that the crucible of the Catholic Abuse Matter has taken place: the Church in this country had, I would say and have said, become something of a garrison-and-parade force. It is in that sense that I recently suggested that Rome declare the US once again a ‘mission country’, to recognize and require American Catholics (clerical and lay) to recognize just what a challenge faces the Faith – and indeed all religious faith – in this country nowadays. For this we need the mentality of the legions, as it were, rather than the ho-hum complacency of a parade.

     

    More specifically, I see whatever instances of Catholic clerical abuse that have occurred as stemming in great and essential part from this complacency among all Catholics – clerical and lay: were all of us more vividly and robustly alive to i) the challenges facing the Gospel and the Kingdom of God and therefore ii) the great responsibilities facing us and therefore iii) the tremendous responsibilities that those challenges lay upon us … if we are more alive to those fundamental realities then the laxity that allowed any actual instances of abuse would be eliminated.

     

    The Dallas reforms have demonstrated themselves capable of eliminating almost entirely the formal allegations of abuse. But that is only the first step, in my opinion. There remains the responsibility to embrace and deploy a more robust spiritual sensibility as Catholics engage the condition into which the country has fallen.

     

    And that condition comprises not only a variety of cultural and societal and economic and foreign-policy realities, but even more vitally a fundamental collapse into the Monoplanar flatness and imprisonment within a merely this-worldly vision of human existence and potentiality and future. It is this threat to our common and individual “future” that is the most lethal and dangerous, not only for “children” but for all of us and for the Americans to come after us.

     

    Then to commenter Ecker who now claims (in a style we have seen from other commenters on this site when caught-out in their mimicry and gambits) that he is not responsible for doing our homework for us – neatly packaged in a whining yet assaultive plaint that we can’t do anything on our own and thus: must poor Ecker (the Wig of Exasperated Goodness firmly planted on his head) then do everything for us?

     

    His ‘research’ is the equivalent of claiming to have information on a specific subject and then linking not to – say – a particular article in The New York Times but simply to the general Times website; or claiming that a particular element in the federal budget is vitally of concern, but then merely providing a link to the text of the entire, multi-thousand page annual federal Budget document.

     

    But this is not mere laziness or the incompetence to actually provide useful amplification and justification of his claims. There is an element of queasy sleaze in it: because in providing so vague a link Ecker can avoid actually having to tackle the court documents themselves. A task which is either beyond his mental capacities or which – he may well suspect – would not do his histrionic Wiggery any real good and may actually undermine his performance.

     

    And yet he demonstrates a quick and obvious (and sly) capacity to somehow cover his tracks by blaming the whole thing on the rest of us. I imagine that if I were to put up an extended examination of the court documents here, we would then be informed by the Wigs that it was merely a verbose exercise in defending pedophiles or what-have-you. Readers are welcome to comb the records of commentary on this site for instances where the Abuseniks responded substantively to substantive analysis of court documents and other documents; such readers will find little in the record because the Abuseniks studiously avoid such engagement. And that is, I would say, not simply out of laziness but out of a sly awareness that careful analysis isn’t going to help their Game in any way.

     

    Had Ecker done any work at all, he would have discovered that the Court site requires more information than simply the name of the accused (or the defendant); had he any respect for the readers here – rather than for his own Wiggy performance – he would have done us the courtesy of giving us a quickly useful link to the material that he himself recommends (presumably as justification for his position).

     

    And thus Ecker concludes his vaudeville with the Wig of Exasperated Adulthood facing the childish children that are the readers here. He has thus – in that childish way with which any serious adults are familiar – gotten himself off the hook here (at least, to his own satisfaction) but at the cost of revealing both his own character and his opinion of the readership.

     

    Wigs confer neither genuine adulthood nor character. Even vaudeville performers should know that.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Pain maybe a "trope" to you, you're the only one here who thinks that it's a tact taken to allow evil ends; but to a victim and our families it's just pain we didn't have to go through if your hierarchs had been protecting your flock. If you Can't imagine , or empathize with humans who go through that pain, it might be that the fault lies with you and not with us victims.  If you didn' feel Constance's pain in what she wrote. Well that speaks volumes.

      You define virtues like adulthood and character by your judgements (as I do by mine) and you don't qualify as having either, in my opinion. You are the protector of abusers. Otherwise why presume the hoi poloi are the liars and not the clergy? If lying was ever the subject I notice it's not the subject coming from you when your patriarchs lie. Why is that? Deny and hide. Hide and deny. You're amazing!

  74. Delphin says:

    Inhumanity 'permits' the suffering of all.

    What have 'you' done to change anything for starving children, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of your resources on frivolity, such as "gay" marriage, style-fashion, theatrics, drugging and hooking up, and protesting everything in our society that is traditional and good, among the rest of your usual OWS-grievance whiney nonsense.

    That antiCatholic profiling 'sickle' of yours swings both ways – for which you should have a 'special' appreciation.

    No entity on the planet, across all generations, has done more for the suffering, especially children, than the Catholic Church. A fact that even the lying-lefties cannot deny.

    Of course, the only retort the left ever has to this inarguable historical fact is their massive distortion and destruction of historical facts (silly revisionists) that claim that the Church killed more than any other entity, too – which is pure rubbish so save your fingers the extra work – no one, except your own 'kool-aid crowd' can be so easily reprogrammed from perceiving the truth to accepting your lies.

    Those lies have about as much veracity as the concept of  'gay marriage', which had to redefine the meaning of an ancient word and human practice (oh, what to do about uncooperative nature, our very basis for existence among the evolutionists?) to pass the laugh test - even among your own two-percenter community.

    If you're truly worried about starving children, get off your antiCatholic soap box and start banging that drum, and then make the largest contribution you can to any one of the myriad of Catholic charities and missions that tend to those children.

    Or, better yet, take your Church booty (anything left?), board a plane and head off to those netherlands of the starving - just dont the little gay cat thing out of the bag because you're not likely to have the rainbow carpet displayed for you upon your arrival unless you're in a Christianized country, where there will likely be far fewer suffering as compared with a non-Christianized culture (wonder why?).

    No one stops you from making a better world, God has apparently given you many resources, so what have you done to alleviate the truly suffering? 

    Stop complaining and start acting.

     

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your god permits "the suffering of all".

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Who's anti catholic? Have you ever seen any anti catholic demo's at your church's? You've seen SNAP demos but that's a ploy so that you could start screaming anti catholic. SNAP is YOU. I'm anti god as defined by anyone. I'm not against people. When has their been a headline about anti catholic mobs ravaging believers?????? Where? Being held responsable for actions committed by your leadership against your own children is not a persecution by any stretch of even the most gullable of imaginations. Except somehow here.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Isn't Uganda a christianized country? Can't be gay there. Can't be gay in other African "christianized" country Liberia for one. Does christianizing something make someone antigay? Is being anti gay people the primary not so secret secret tenant of christianity? Why? Cui Bono?

      Why did the church change how people could recieve communion? Did it look too much like a sexual act? I'm not being crude. I'm being accurate. Freud would have had a field day. You see you've been programed. The Jesuits had it correcto: Give us the child and we'll give you the man. Programed to accept horrific behavior and if it's called good by the right person(s) It becomes good to you. If it was done in the name of a god you don't believe in you'd be appalled but because it's done in your god's name. It's o.k. Hence every real persecution that's ever been launched any where.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      By the way D, posting here is an attempt on my part to "alleviate the truly suffering".

      [edited by moderator]

  75. Delphin says:

    Words of Wisdom for those of us that are still too blind to see or too deaf to hear-

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/08/are-believer-in-exile-invite-to-try-god-again/

  76. Publion says:

    More from the journalistic angle and the Anderson Axis.

     

    An AP article reports that in Boston a few days ago (see link at bottom of this comment) that area’s most notable tortie practitioner of the Anderson strategy press-released the names of seven persons (5 priests, a nun and a lay choir director) for allegations against whom that Archdiocese has settled within the past year.

     

    This strikes me as interesting for several reasons.

     

    First, the alleged abuse occurred between 1963 and 1985, thus 28 to 50 years ago.

     

    Second, at least four of the accused are deceased (for how long and did they have a chance to defend themselves or were they already dead when the allegations were made?). The whereabouts of two of the priests and the nun are not known nor is any information as to whether they are living or dead.  The article does not go into any further depth on this aspect of thing.

     

    Third, the settlements were each settled for amounts ranging from the high-five-figures to the low-six-figures; thus perhaps from somewhere between – say – 75 thousand and 125 thousand dollars. That this particular attorney, well known for his immensely lucrative settlements in Catholic Abuse cases, would settle for such comparatively paltry sums is a point that the article does not pursue.

     

    Fourth, this attorney does such press-releasing of names “periodically”, while simultaneously excoriating the Church for not doing the same. Yet in this case four of the settlement-targets (their guilt not having been formally established by trial – such as trials are in this type of case nowadays) are dead and the others must be rather advanced in years. So this bit leads me to think that the attorney is simply tossing in his usual boilerplate, although it is actually irrelevant to the cases that he has named in his press-release.

     

    Fifth, the attorney claims that “public disclosures are necessary for the victims to heal and also as a matter of public safety, if the alleged abuser is still alive”. In regard to the ‘healing’ bit: I don’t see where it is so much a matter of being a necessary element of ‘healing’ (a term which begs definition in this context) as it is either of i) vengeance on the part of the allegant or ii) a further nail driven into the coffin of any possible future examination of the allegation and/or iii) the tortie’s opportunistic use of the names for the purpose of drumming up more business. (In (iii) the cleric is thus used – as old time meatpackers used to do with the carcasses of animals – for every possible bit of profit and advantage to the tortie.)

     

    And “public safety”, as I said, seems clearly irrelevant here: even if the three unaccounted-for are still alive, they are well along in years. Again I see this as a form-letter type of boilerplate to be used in the texts of any press-release that reveals names.

     

    Sixth, the article gives a valentine to The Boston Globe by describing it as the media outlet that made the Catholic Abuse Crisis ‘break’ “nationally” in 2002. We have already seen the actual dynamics and tactics and objectives of that paper in D’Antonio’s book (where, by the most amazing coincidence, it was precisely this attorney who forged an Anderson Axis with the Globe back then, playing as well on the ulterior personal and professional motives of its then-new editor who was looking to make a splash for himself).

     

    Seventh, one of the allegants claimed that long-ago her target-accused had reached under her clothes and “fondled her chest”, so much so that – she says – his nails left a physical scar. This is clearly a case that would not be able to stand on its own, and one in which the particular physical ‘evidence’ could quite easily be alternatively explained.

     

    Be that as it may, the Archdiocese settled – for whatever reasons.

     

    Eighth, the attorney is mentioned as saying that “despite the decreased media coverage, the clergy sex abuse crisis is on-going”. And yet clearly what we see in this report does not support that since these cases are anywhere from three to five decades old. More standard boiler-plate trying to a) maximize the use of the carcasses but also trying to b) Keep The Ball Rolling (although the size of the settlements indicate that the Ball Is Not Rolling quite so fast and lucratively any longer).

     

    And he is directly quoted as saying that “I don’t expect it ever to end”. I would call this a manipulative expression of a ‘hope’, coming from a person who – like a Cold War defense contractor back in the day – has every motivation to make the ‘Reds’ seem as dangerous and powerful as possible. Otherwise he loses the income that is thrown at him out of public fear that he himself has helped to whip-up and is trying to keep at fever-pitch.

     

    Ninth: I wouldn’t call this AP bit a ‘report’ so much as the stenography of a press-release sent to the ‘reporter’ by this attorney. There is no effort to examine the assertions or background of the information that is ‘reported’ and everything plays to the advantage of the press-releasing attorney.

     

    This is what journalism has come to in this Abuse Matter.

     

    But I would also say that this appears to be where the Abuse Matter is now heading: such torties as are still trying to stay in the Game are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and it is only the continued stenographic support of some media outlets that gives any enabling help at all to the gambit.

     

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/lawyer-for-clergy-abuse-victims-releases-new-list-of-alleged-abusers/

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [Delphin] [edited by moderator] was talking about false convictions, Dave, not false accusations.

  77. Jim Robertson says:

    That dead  priests can and did commit crimes in secret, while they were alive. This is news?

    Hitler's dead. Did he ever personally kill a Jew or Gypsy or Jehovah's Witness or a GAY person or a Communist? Probably not. Who does the world hold responsable for those slaughters?

    In California we are most likely opening a window to sue. I have a friend who was molested by 2 priests as an 11 year old. He will now have his chance to tell his story of what happened to him and seek compensation. And you will pay for your church's sins of ommission.

      You should be happy to compensate the people you've helped to injure. (Helped by supporting the perpetrators.) That's if you were good. But you are the ones inventing fake persecution stories that don't pan out. And then you project that on to injured victims.

    If I wasn't watching you do it. I wouldn't have believed it possible.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What's real persecution to you? Being held responsable for your actions? Where's the morality there? You have to make the victims out to be liars. If we are telling the truth somebody else is lying to you and if it's the hierarchs doing the lying .  Well where's the all good god in this best of all possible churchs if it's leadership lies?. Not there? .

  78. dennis ecker says:

    Everyone,

     

    PUBLION NEEDS EVERYTHING SPELLED OUT FOR HIM.

    So if you place a comment make sure it is something a child would understand.

    See priest walk towards child, see child runaway.

    Easy enough for you now ?

  79. Jim Robertson says:

    Hasn't it occured to anyone else but me, that a huge chunk of P's arguement is a smoke screen designed for a perpetrator to hide behind? Are you a perpetrating priest or layman P?

  80. Jim Robertson says:

    A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

    • josie says:

      Your question does not deserve even a simple answer. I would hope that noone else thinks the way you do. Without question, you are a very sick man.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator

      If others here don't think as I do, maybe they are too busy imagining things, like the existence of a god perhaps.( Call your god Apollo and substitute Apollo's name for god when you talk about your god and see how quickly your beliefs become questionable).

      Why shouldn't P answer. It's a simple yes or no question. Is he too good to be questioned? His behavior says he may not be so great. Maybe if you asked more of your leadership questions about their behaviors; there would be far fewer people like me, demanding they be answered now.

  81. Delphin says:

    Hitler killed plenty of Catholic religious and faithful – yet, they were intentionally and quite conspicuoulsy omitted from the latest pants-on-fire rant -  I wonder why? Don't they count?

    Perhaps the antiCatholic bigotry is just so ingrained that the perpetrators no longer even consider covering their biases, um, I mean bases, anymore?

    The fact is that there are fraudulent claims of clergy abuse, which means that there are innocents that have been persecuted. Why is that fact so distasteful to self-proclaimed 'victim advocates'?  No one suggests that real victims should not realize justice and that real perpetrators should be penalized (a fact that goes chronically unnoticed by the professional lefty whiners). Of course they should. But, why is it so offensive to the "advocates"  that we also want to see real justice for the accused innocents and the perpetrators of victim fraud?

    Must be something besides the quest for justice in play here, perhaps a certain political agenda is at risk?

    But, of course, Comrades.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But we weren't talking about catholics and victimization of catholics. We were talking about the lack of evidence for any remote flicker of persecution on your side . If you had any such evidence of persecution You'd yell it from the house tops and rightly so; but you don't have any evidence of persecution because there is none.

  82. Delphin says:

    "In California we are most likely opening a window to sue. I have a friend who was molested by 2 priests as an 11 year old. He will now have his chance to tell his story of what happened to him and seek compensation. And you will pay for your church's sins of ommission."

    And, as promised in a previous submittal by this commenter (think an overdramatized Scarlett O'Hara swearing 'never to go hungry again' as she grasps the soil of her beloved 'Tara') you can be sure that this friend has been thoroughly coached on exactly how to lie, err, I meant 'testify',  to get his retirement booty from the bad old rich Church, sans any evidence, witnesses or anything else but a long-winded and tear-laced politically-correct story that does not even remotely resemble an actual [factual] case to be made against some poor unsuspecting innocent priests.

    Notice, there is no mention of Justice in that direct quote from the 'victim advocate'. But, do remember, we're told by the 'victim advocates ' that it is the innocent priest advocates that are focused on the money.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Projecting again D? How do you know what evidence my friend has? Oh that's right you don't.

      What other compensation would you suggest other than money? What else have you got to give? You're obviously morally bankrupt. Empathy is not a strong point with you. You tell me. What have you got to give that will compensate for the damages that occured? Oh that's right you don't want to pay for anything you've done. Believe me we all know that. Hence you are morally bankrupt.

      And again you accuse people you don't know of lying and felonious behavior. With you the innocent are criminals and the real criminals are being lied about by their victims. That's your position and frankly it sucks. It sucks because it isn't true. And if you can't tell the truth how have you any hope of being considerd moral?

      Justice would be much harder than money for you to muster. you're already lying about the innocent. Who would believe you but someone who needs to believe such lies.?

  83. dennis ecker says:

    I have no idea who is more in tune with reality Delphin or Publion !!!

    Or could it be they both have no idea what truly has happened, what is going on, or what future holds for their church.

    Do they need to be sat down like a child and be told the difference between right and wrong ?

    I give up on those two. The term keep it simple keep it stupid. They give it a whole new meaning.

    Oh God, Publion most likely will want this spelled out for him also.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dennis in accuracy, the anacronym is KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.

      KISS is used in 12 step programs. Addicts tend to complicate matters that their life can seem harder to deal with and thereby have an excuse to "use". FYI

      Dennis, sociopaths don't care about right or wrong they only care about themselves.

      People, who deny victims cases while defending perpetrators and their enablers, belong in a catagory yet to be named clinically. But sociopath seems good enough.

    • josie says:

      Dennis, you didn't walk, you ran into this one. You have adopted the "keep it simple (as in lacking in knowledge or expertise) keep it stupid" as your motto. Just stay with that to keep you happy as a clam with the confidence that you have acquired. However, don't waste your precious time, busy as you are, figuring a way to "spell" it out to anyone. You will confuse us if you do that and besides your spelling is not good.

  84. Jim Robertson says:

    The only comrade here is me. So stick to the singular. You should be able to do that you're all about the individual as long as the individual is you.

  85. Jim Robertson says:

    I would never coach anyone to commit fraud because a, it's immoral and b, it's a criminal offense. and c. there are more than enough real victims for you to deal with. The same victims you've failed over and over again. to deal with.

  86. Julie says:

    I'm amazed at the condescension and vapidity of the posts here by Jim and Dennis. So in their minds, if only we knew what really happened in the church, we would see things their way. Give me a break. Rolling eyes. It appears to me that neither has read very extensively at all on this issue. And Publion has. As have I.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The fact that Dennis and I were abused by your church, in your church, does not qualify us as having more information than you on said subject? Oh! okay…….??.

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Vapid? Really?

    • Mark Munos says:

      Has Dennis' abuse story ever been verified? It's a claim and that's it. Another in a long line of individuals out for money if SOL is lifted. 

  87. Publion says:

    More for the Notebook on the Playbook: commenter Ecker now suddenly changes his bit. He now steps back from indicting the entire readership and shifts back to me: I need everything spelled out for me. Referring to his failed mimicry of ‘research’ by simply tossing up the general link to the Court website, without sufficient information to actually reach any relevant documentation on the case he himself had pointed to.

     

    We see here minds that work merely at the level of myah-myah cafeteria table back-and-forth.  But in the process, so sleazily and slyly avoid coming to grips with the issues that they themselves have raised.

     

    We are also so floridly bethump’t by JR, who this time around offers not even an excuse (such as: “It amuses me” to comment with “immoral” types such as are on this site). Apparently we are expected to forget everything that has gone before and simply welcome a new wise and insightful and acute and serious commenter. Readers may do with that what they will.

     

    The problem with “pain” is that it is i) an entirely subjective phenomenon (not all people are ‘pained’ by the same things and “pain” cannot be guaranteed to affect all persons in the same way) and ii) it is – in a marvelous symmetry – ‘spectral’, meaning that anybody can claim to be afflicted by it and yet nobody else can actually determine that independently of the claim. A claim which, on top of all that, might well be merely mimicry or outright deception.

     

    Thus the introduction of “pain” as an actionable phenomenon has – who can be surprised? – reintroduced “spectral evidence” into a modern world that had once upon a time grown beyond such things.

     

    Let us not be long-detained by the many many things that (so he claims) amaze (and stun and stupefy and otherwise discombobulate) JR.

     

    I would submit the following thoughts on a deeper theological rumbling that has showed up here: there is a distinction between ‘theism’ and ‘Christianity’. ‘Theism’ is the belief in some form of divine being(s). ‘Christianity’ is a specific subset of theism that is grounded in the belief that in the life and experience of Christ God has revealed the nature and meaning of human existence and experience in this world.

     

    This is the core ‘stumbling block’ because Christ’s revelation is that there is most surely an unavoidable and profound suffering that is built-into human experience in this world and that it is (as the Christian community realized) a profound mystery that God’s love somehow still permits the consequences of human sin to affect history (and other humans), and many times in ways that ordinary human intelligence (i.e. unsupported by faith) will find confounding and unacceptable. This is why genuine Christianity is a seriously adult challenge, requiring a heretofore unimagined level of spiritual maturity – simultaneously drawing-upon and nurturing and sustaining a human self open to the fallen-ness of this-world while anchored in a faith-relationship with the divine love.

     

    It is hardly surprising that such a reality (and Reality) completely escapes the analysis of persons who do not participate in the initial faith-relationship. Thus we see many such types – of varying levels of competence and maturity – claiming that a God who permits such pain and suffering is clearly no God or god at all. (And is there anywhere in the history of human culture a god who does not permit it?)

     

    Personally, I see Christians as Resistance agents in the Occupied world of 1941, sustaining their efforts despite the nay-saying of those who say that what has happened (the Nazi Occupation of everything around) is pretty much the way it’s going to be and there is no hope for the Allies or any ‘London’ to ever redeem the situation and so we should just settle-down and settle-for the New Order. Thus the secularist and atheist collapse into Occupation by the Monoplane. And active collaboration with that Occupation by the Monoplane.

     

    Thus much of the adolescent croaking we have seen here about ‘God’ and His presumed failures and shortcomings is just a modern (if adolescently-put) variation on the ancient Stumbling-Block problem that has been around since the earliest period of Christianity. The various croakings merely demonstrate that Paul was pretty much spot-on with his Stumbling-Block observation.

     

    So the frogs (and their croaking) we will always have with us – and let us proceed from there.

  88. Publion says:

    Just a quick run-over of some of the lavishly-provided examples of the Playbook that popped up.

     

    As to Sunday’s 439PM comment: we precisely do not know if the dead priests committed the alleged crimes or not. That remains the problem.

     

    And it is perhaps an unintentional revelation that this new possible CA allegator will indeed by telling a “story”.

     

    As to Sunday’s 701PM comment: Being held “responsable” is exactly the problem and has been all along. We haven’t really established the responsibility in so very many of the allegations.

     

    As to Sunday’s of 459PM: Has it ever occurred to anybody that the Abuseniks here are doing nothing but putting up a “smokescreen” to cover the fact that the whole Stampede, like an inverted pyramid, rests on very very little demonstrable and demonstrated evidence? Also: No.

     

    And if something has occurred only to JR, then … perhaps it has not occurred to him that there are several substantive alternative explanations for that admittedly odd phenomenon.

     

    As to Josie’s of Sunday at 1101PM: I think she’s onto something here.

     

    As to today’s at 134AM: Have we not seen the quality of JR’s own “evidence”? How reliable a judge would he be of “evidence”? Especially if it’s – as he claims – from a “friend”. Further, we still haven’t seen much that establishes the truth and accuracy of his own allegations. And indeed we have seen material here from him that would give any reasonable reader grounds for doubt as to his commitment to truth and accuracy. But as I have often said: the settlement of the brilliantly-conceived legal tactic of multiple-plaintiff lawsuits left the path open for allegants to claim that the settlement itself ‘proved’ the veracity of their allegations while their actual claims now remain hidden from public examination.

     

    As to Sunday’s at 1029PM: Apparently the new scam is that anybody who asks Ecker to explain his claims or the grounds for those claims “needs it spelled out”. Even if that were an accurate characterization, then Ecker could demonstrate his reliability by thus ‘spelling it out’ (I’m sure he didn’t want his phrase to be taken literally). But I think that a) this new ‘spelling it out’ trope will be Ecker’s fallback come-back for a while now; because b) it gets him off the hook for being ‘held responsible’ for his claims while making it look like he is the Mature and Knowledgeable Adult who is simply being harassed by ignoramuses. Another chance to trot out a Wig and start hoofing the vaudeville boards with it.

     

    And lastly, as to today’s at 156AM: we have precisely not established how many “real victims” there are.

     

    With the possible exception of the ‘spell it out’ trope, there is nothing here in any of these JR and Ecker comments that we have not seen and discussed and addressed at length. Which demonstrates a) that the Abuseniks are not so much interested in trying to get at the bottom of anything but rather are simply tossing the same old-same old up on the screen (and do they actually then imagine that they have done a good day’s work?). And demonstrates b) that they truly were projecting when they claimed that if it weren’t for them we would “have nothing” to discuss on this site.

     

  89. dennis ecker says:

    ONCE AGAIN the defense has asked for an extension to prepare for Comm V. McCormick.

    Nothing new and NOT shocked.

    However, what more does this "innocent" defendent need to prepare except tell the truth ?

    • josie says:

      Once again, Dennis, you have failed us and "dropped the ball" (as you have quoted others saying). You have not done your homework, been as bright as you claim to be. The trial date is February 24, 2014. This was decided on August 26. So there you go again, forcing us to just look up these difficult things ourselves.

      I suggest that you busy yourself studying how Philadelphia court cases go. It is not like other counties where you might have as many in a month as Philadelphia has in a day. The defense has a reason to want a speedy trial. Sometimes the procecutors witnesses bail and more time is needed. Apparently, both sides were good with a continuance.

      I guess that new bottle of champagne will be chilling a lot longer in your frig.

    • josie says:

      P.S. Are you being coached by SNAPpy personnel/torties related to them? Just wondering..

  90. Jim Robertson says:

    Yes or No? Simple enough to answer……

    My friends' "story" could also be called "his history of abuse by priests".

    What's your story?

    You keep quoting from "the greatest story ever told"; but we can't tell our real stories of our real abuse in our own real lives.

    Let me list the insults you've written above in order:

    "Playbook". (I never got my copy. Oh, that's right you invented it for me)

    "His (Dennis's)"bit" not insight or position but "bit". (degrading)

    "indiciting the entire readership" (He didn't indicite me or any other victims here)

    "failed mimicry" and "tossing" (Dennis must be an inferior and a loser)

    "minds that work merely",  "merely" (Not enough to suit you?  Dennis and I are both inferior. So you also said about Learned Council, but only after you'd kissed his butt for being a Harvard grad. The butt smouching stopped when you found out he wasn't up for your toadying )

    "sleazily" and "slyly" ( I guess with satan on our side [IRONY] we must be sleazy and sly. I never heard you call a perp or enabler "sleazy or sly" only former child victims. wonderful!)

    "myah -myah". I don't know what that is. Anybody else know? ( Aren't we ever allowed out of your self created caferteria?)

    I "floridly bethump" ( I wouldn't call anybody florid if I were you)

    I need to offer an " excuse" for  being here? O.K.! (I did but Dave didn't post it. I'll repeat it now. "I'm here at my pleasure not yours.")

    And all that in the first 3 paragraphs of the above posts. What a shining example of intelligent discourse. (irony) It goes on for 20 more paragraphs of insult and innuendo.

     He finishes his post's first half by calling us "croaking frogs".( Kiss me. I'm really a Prince)

    All of his psuedo intellectual nonsense belies the fact that what he really responds with are insults and personal attacks.

    No need of intellect with you. I will always return in kind. Mozel Tof!

  91. Delphin says:

    Just an observation [fact-based] – it is the abused that typically become offenders. Just something for the professional victim crowd to keep in mind as they sling their mud (apparently, about the only thing at which they excel). "Mirror, mirror, on the wall….wicked Queen".

    Another observation – why is it that TMR 'attracts' a minority of those that are not supporters of TMRs research, as published in the authors' books on the subject? The rest of us are honest about why we are here, basically as 'believers ' in DPs investigations into and revelations of the well-documented legal system and media transgressions that define the treatment of the Church abuse matter.

    Just to sweeten the pot for both the believers and the mudslingers, I strategically placed a copy each of Double Standard and Catholic Priests Falsely Accused in a large gathering area (library/kitchen/break room) utilized throughout the work day by over ~800 employees in my home office and another copy of each in two field offices that house another ~200 employees (across three states). The revelation of the truth regarding this media-generated fairytale has expressed itself in healthy discussion, and much astonishment that another side of the issue actually exists.

    And the best news of all – the pews at the Catholic Church across the street from the home office are starting to be occupied by more colleagues (primarily Gen Xers) every day. Can't claim that it is DPs outstanding research and writing skills that are responsible, or if it's just time for that errant pendulum to swing the other way – back toward the light. Probably a little of both, and a lot of God.

    We can expect the wolves to get even more vicious, naturally, as the Truth boxes them in.

    Correction to an item in a previous comment I submitted: the 40K active priest estimate is certainly national, not worldwide (kind of a no-brainer). 

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well she's 180'd it.

      Now we victims are perpetrators.

      Only a catholic could come up with this and hand it to the people injured as "fact".

      Perpetrators also put their pants on one leg at a time does that mean all pants wearers are perpetrators?

      This is what no morality brings you. You are not the way; not the truth; and certainly not the light.

      What you are is…….. Just guess what I think you are.

    • josie says:

      Delphin,

      i have been finding more and more that people get it now-the media bias and the out of control hunt for victims by greedy lawyers. People realie that  fraudulent suits have been filed. I have talked to many people who are not Catholic since this business started and exploded; they get it.and are appalled the way the Church is still being portrayed.

      I would also add that I see people in Church all the time, supporting their parishes,participating in the mission of the Church, volunteering and being a community of believers who have not abandoned their faith. It has been a rough patch ;the awareness that victims suffered is still painful but for the most part people are moving on knowing that the child protection policies that have been put in place by the Catholic Churchare like no other church or organization of any kind. Those that are still yammering haven't got a clue, but do have their other agenda. They were never faithful to begin with and seem more and more to be in their 70's and 80's so they are not really the future of the Church. Not many paying attention to the old protesters anymore.

  92. Jim Robertson says:

    P.S. Did human original sin cause your god to create a world where 7/tenths of new born baby sea turtles  are devoured by birds as they race, crawl really, to the sea just after hatching? No pain there. What was the sea turtles original sin? Did they have a forbidden sea weed of knowledge that they ate of?

    Your's is a brute god. Smashing galaxies for it's pleasure?

    No pain there either I suppose.

  93. Jim Robertson says:

    I just watched this Militant Church guy Voris out of Detroit, D are you him? Your rap is identical. But he doesn't like the church fathers because he's too far right and they won't put him on their network.( In the "90's I directed the move operation for ETWN( or is it EWTN sorry] from Hollywood to Burbank.a friend who had left the L.A. Weekly became their treasurer and she gave me the job. a diversion sorry.) Voris is the product of the new catholicism the J.P.2 Ratzinger brand of catholicism. Obama is satan to this guy. Literally and Voris graduated from Notre Dame in 93. Wow! I remember when a catholic education made you smarter not dumber.

    Obama may well be satan. I would have expected more pyrotechnics. Well he does want to shed more blood in Syria. smart move let congress take the heat. 72 percent of Americans don't want another war. Maybe democracy will work for once. Maybe. Maybe the economy needs a push. Spending on wars is all we seem willing do.Therfore we must have a war. Is that the reality for the number one moral leader of the free world? No morality there.IMHO

  94. Publion says:

    At 813PM last night, a curiously sustained go-through of my comments of yesterday at 1128PM and 1202PM by JR.

     

    Let’s see what we’ve got.

     

    I did answer with a simple Yes or No. Did JR miss that in his reading despite his extensive education acquired through “reading” like they do at British elite universities? But since we’re into such questioning: Did JR ever receive a psychiatric diagnosis? A simple Yes or No would suffice – but it’s a rhetorical question I pose here since the answer couldn’t be relied-upon anyway. To keep it simple: no answer requested or required for my immediately-preceding rhetorical question. However I would point out that with his tossing around of “sociopath” JR has opened the field and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

     

    The ‘story’ could be characterized any number of ways; that’s precisely why analysis and examination of a ‘story’ is required. Which – as I have often said here – is impossible to do with almost all allegations and claims.

     

    Once again with the question “what’s your story?”. I have no allegations to make in the Abuse Matter and thus present no ‘story’.

     

    We have no way at all of knowing whether any allegants are telling “our real stories of our real abuse in our own real lives” – that’s precisely the problem and has been all along. Nor has JR increased the probable-believability quotient for himself by his performance in material presented here. Would he care to put up here the relevant bits of the official Complaint relevant to his own ‘story’; this would be the one he swore under pains-and-penalties was true. Then perhaps we might have something more substantial to consider. Surely he still has his own copy of the Complaint from his own court case.

     

    And now to the “insults” (and presented in some coherent order – most unusual).

     

    “Playbook”: I didn’t “invent” it, I identified it – there is a difference, if that has to be pointed out. And that is something nobody was ever supposed to do. And the material here has simply been analyzed for more bits from the Playbook – which Jeff Anderson had pretty much put together as D’Antonio reveals in his book.

     

    The “bit” is a repetitive trope deployed in lieu of actually engaging the material at hand. If you don’t want to be ‘degraded’, then don’t use “bits” and instead simply engage the material at hand. Handsome is as handsome does, says the old proverb. And we recall that incisive exchange between Molotov and Harry Truman: ‘I have never been talked to like that by anyone before in my life’, whined Molotov. To which HST responded: ‘Honor your agreements and you won’t get talked-to like that’. The ‘agreement’ here on this site is to participate in substantive exchange in a serious way. ‘Nuff said.

     

    Whether JR considers himself indicted is JR’s business; Ecker’s statement grammatically indicted the entire readership. Perhaps those two can do lunch and work it out.

     

    “Failed mimicry” is precisely what it is. It’s JR who draws from that observation the conclusion that “Dennis must be an inferior and a loser”. Had I wanted to make an assertion that went that far, I would have provided grounds for it when I stated it.

     

    Ditto about “minds that work merely”.  Also: kindly provide a quotation where I ever “kissed Learned Counsel’s butt for being a Harvard grad”. First, I never have accepted that he is; second, I continually pointed out the gaping discrepancy between his intellectual performance in comments here and his claimed intellectual formation at Harvard. Ditto about the “toadying” to Learned-Counsel because of his alleged (and highly suspect) claims and his clearly insufficient performance in comments. I gave him a brief initial period where I presumed his claims were true, but that period quickly ended when I encountered the quality of his material. And before long he was rather unhappy with my reception of his material.

     

    As for “sleazy and sly”: I don’t have any evidence that any “perp or enabler” (more properly: accused) was “sleazy and sly”. I have, on the other hand, a voluminous amount of material from JR and Ecker upon which I have formed my assessments and explained them often and at length. And – as always – we really don’t know if we have ever encountered any genuine “former child victims” here in the first place. Nor have any of those who have claimed such done much to demonstrate their credibility or reliability in matters of truth and accuracy.

     

    “Myah-myah” is what one’s little sibling would say as a come-back when s/he didn’t have anything else and had been caught in a tight spot. We encounter it a great deal on this site, but then it’s part of the Playbook that I have identified.

     

    Who really cares what JR thinks about my use of “florid”? (It’s used in psychiatric diagnostic discourse, by the by.)

     

    I was looking for an explanation as to how any rational and competent and mature commenter could so clearly and definitively take his leave from a site (yet again) and then return with nary an explanation a short while later. Of course, there is a rather clear possible explanation for such behavior … but I was giving JR a chance to provide a less-unflattering one. Apparently not, though. And, logically, while JR can do whatever he wants for his “pleasure” and it’s his own business – yet when entering into commentary on a serious site then one enters (see above about Molotov and Truman) into an “agreement” and therewith goes a certain responsibility (or “responsability”, if that’s more familiar).

     

    Thus my “20 more paragraphs” worth of “insult and innuendo” are subsumed under my foregoing observations.

     

    The “croaking frogs” was a literary reference, of course. But I thought it quite apropos on the basis of the material under discussion.

     

    If JR can explain “pseudo-intellectual” and then how it is aptly applied to my material, then let’s see it … without merely deploying the Wig of Intellectuality himself.

     

    But then – and marvelously – JR indicts himself in conclusion: if my material is “pseudo-intellectual” and JR “will always return in kind” then …

     

    Again, what’s of use here is more bits for any readers’ Notebook on the Playbook.

  95. dennis ecker says:

    Another observation – why is it that TMR 'attracts' a minority of those that are not supporters of TMRs research, as published in the authors' books on the subject? The rest of us are honest about why we are here, basically as 'believers ' in DPs investigations into and revelations of the well-documented legal system and media transgressions that define the treatment of the Church abuse matter.

    James, I'm really starting to believe we are not wanted here. If I am to believe what Delphin has to say is the catholics have a new God in Dave Pierre (I think Bill Donahue would have something to say about that) and what he writes here on TMR or his book can only be considered as the New New Testament or bible.

    Instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the catholics now have Publion and Delphin. I would include Josie and Julie but since I am led to believe by their names they are women they would not be welcomed to have a voice in the new church. Only followers as they are now.

    ….and you and I must be considered as the devil himself, with the court rooms being hell and the district attorneys the lions that are in the arena we are sending their innocent priests.

    Now to be fair I will agree with one thing that Delphin did preach and that is you and I are the minority on TMR but he fails to mention we are the majority when it comes to seeing and applauding the convictions of their guilty priests, and if Delphin and his friends would take a step outside of TMR they will be able to see those facts too.

  96. dennis ecker says:

    The following is a comment that I read on NCR by one catholic who feels to solve the problem of sexual abuse by priests now and in the future. This catholic is not looking for pity as those here are looking for.

     "its not natural for a man to deny his sexual gift (to an adult consenting person). Maybe they should castrate all Priests in a Holy Pageant Ceremony at the Vatican, and solve the problem once and for all. They truly will be Celibate just like the Power of the Catholic Church insists."

    This guy would get my vote for pope.

    • josie says:

      You are a hopelessly immature and,stupid man! You are actually quoting a commenter on an article written  on NCR without even naming the article? You actually think that this commenter has any sense or is capable of adding anything constructive to the discussion about abuse? I am sure that the editors and writers of NCR would not entertain anything that your "commenter" has to say. As usual, you add nothing to the discussion either.

      You must have missed my comment above in answer to your lack of information on the trial you think deserves coverage (there has been none in local news or papers) Being the sicko priest hater that you are, I thought that you would be on top of the story for us.(Maybe you are too busy reading comments on random articles so that you can make dopey comments here). Your bloviating does nothing for your cause. If anything, you are making people distrust you more as a victim. Someone needs to tell you (if you have any family,friends or advisors with any sense) that you are not making a good impression here. I, for one, cannot understand why you don't go to an catholic hating blog that can share your soap opera all day long. They are repetitiveand boring but you would get the attention that you so desperately need (and I suspect needed and didn't receive in your childhood). 

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Jesus Josie. So Dennis didn't reference by name the article he quoted from? SO WHAT? If you'd treated people respectfully; all you would have to do is politely ask him. But no you can't do that. Why?

    • josie says:

      Jim,

      Dennis did not quote from the article, whatever it was. He quotes a "reader comment" because he thinks it is real nasty and pertinent. Who knows? He desperately needs attention (as I suspect you do as well)and he just throws these things out bcause in his small little, absurd mind, he is upsetting everyone. (He also has absolutely nothing to do but read and type all day long albeit he doesn't comprehend all he comes across.)

      The "reader comment" he "quoted" was just ignorant as well as mean-spirited. He doesn't deserve any respect. Read his comments. And what exactly does he do for victims-he is a fraud as well as obnoxious far as I'm concerned.

  97. Delphin says:

    The antiCatholic bigots need to get their religious instruction from another source, hopefully at another site, re: Catholic dogma, doctrine and philosophy on suffering, death, creation, nature, etc.  I might only point out that unless you gain your sustenance from thin [purified]air, you, too are likely getting your daily caloric intake from other living things (which also reside in our water), and be thankful to God (at least, you should be) for the opportunity to do so (as are those evil birds being cited). We all want the lion to lay down with the lamb, some of just have trouble expressing that desire and recognizing that promise, accurately (with Gods help).

    Is the dialogue here regressing down into the emotional and intellectual depths of "why is the sky blue" adolescence, or is it just another figment of my reportedly vivid imagination?

    On the other hand, at least there is some progress on the political front, because, if even the leftist ideologues can see the errant ways of our current socialist/communist wannabe "dear leader" ('from behind' would be a vast improvement at this tragic point in time of our glorious history), then, that pendulum has been sufficiently primed to swing back to the middle (or sligtly right), where it belongs. We're certainly in the proverbial 'outhouse' when a Russian [former] KGB-bred dictator shows us how to lead the west away from war, and hopefully back to freedom from radical Islamists (don't kid yourselves, lefto-kiddies, this IS a global Islamo-Christian war drumbeat). What an unbelievable mess the progressive loons have caused for us, politically, internationally and domestically. Perhaps less "rainbowing" and more effective foreign policy and leadership at perhaps the most dangerous time in our short history is warranted.

    We may consider ourselves blessed with a relatively painless lesson in humility from God, for sure-

  98. Delphin says:

    Jesus' apostles personalities and characters ranged from the sweet and gentle devoutness of the Beloved Disciple, John, to Judas Iscariot, the traitor, with everything in between. It is the Judas' in our Church that grieve us, most recently.

    There is no God-given law about how you follow (and fight for) Christ, so long as you do it justly, honestly, and faithfully.

    I admit, my 'style' may be more in line with Simon-Peter, or the Archangel Michael. I am honored to be a warrior for Christ. Focus less on the 'style' and more on the 'truth' of my words (a good suggestion in all aspects of life). Substance over style.

    And, I am also proud to defend my country. Keeping her free (as in faithful to her fabulous Constitution) so that her detractors, mostly found on your dazed and confused side of the political aisle, can continue to complain about how terribly grieved they have been/are, is only one of my many objectives.

    Victims of sexual abuse are more likely to offend than other segments of society, that is no secret to anyone – but, the faux outrage response is mildly entertaining, just the same.

    If you don't like the profiling I undertake to attempt to reflect your own profiling of my priests and religion, you should stop. You started it, I only decided to reflect it back to you (and the rest of your posse) by using it on your own precious protected classes. How does it feel?

     

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus (in your fairy tale) there would have been no redemption. Remember "Redemption" the very purpose your god sent his son to earth in the first place.

      If he didn't die for your sins; you could never be forgiven.

      So no Judas. No redemption. You should have made him a saint.

  99. Publion says:

    Commenter Ecker is now into making an “observation” – nice. Better than an ungrounded assertion, certainly.

     

    But it’s a bit difficult to follow. Who is this “minority” that are “not supporters of TMR’s research” and yet Ecker includes himself among “the rest of us” who are “honest about why we are here, basically as ‘believers’ in DP’s investigations … “ and so on? As best I can make out the thought-sequence here, Ecker is “a supporter of TMR’s research” and a ‘believer’ in DP’s “investigations and revelations”. But does that make any sense in light of the material he has put up here?

     

    Also: it is not so much a matter of “belief” when it comes to evidence; belief comes into play when there is no evidence that commands intellectual assent. Thus, for example, the photographs that are the subject of this TMR article. (Let me save us all some time here: in the Catholic Vision, in matters of religious belief, the faith-encounter with God precedes but does not overwhelm the intellect, which is then free to consider what it will do with the divinely-proffered Gift of Faith. What we might call ‘true believers’ (as the term is popularly used today) refers to persons who have preconceived notions and will thus reject demonstrable evidence if it conflicts with their preconceived notions or agenda. As I have said before, these are the types who will figuratively ask: who are you going to believe – Abusenik dogma or your own lying eyes?)

     

    Then we get to more familiar territory: Ecker has a one-on-one with JR (“James”, if you please) to the effect that Ecker is “really starting to believe we are not wanted here”. Once again, inaccurate conclusions from the clear evidence: what is required here is serious discussion about a serious Matter; such is always welcome here – and such as is not that is what is not well-received here. Thus the personalizing and exaggerated conclusions by such as Ecker and JR create a situation that does not exist (but that does give them a chance to trot out the Wigs).

     

    I am now – in another gross and unjustifiable exaggeration – included among the Evangelists. I hereby most robustly decline this honor. But if Ecker and JR bring to the Gospels the same flawed ‘reading’ competence that they have demonstrated here, then it is no surprise that they find Christianity a stumbling-block.

     

    Or perhaps Ecker is simply exaggerating for some deliberate effect. That’s certainly a possibility, but then we have to wonder if the same characteristic was a factor in their claims, assertions, and allegations.

     

    Then a cutesy bit with a feminist twist that has no other relevance to the matters at hand here.

     

    But: if Ecker is implying that without the ability to be ordained as a Catholic priest then women cannot achieve the fullness of their personhood, then that says either a) an awful awful lot about the importance of priestly ordination or else b) doesn’t hold women’s ability to actualize themselves in very high esteem. Would Ecker care to elaborate on his thoughts in this regard?

     

    As I have said before, the “persecution” image is not one I would use, but the underlying dynamics actually are very similar. And the similarity to the essential dynamics of witchcraft trials is – to my mind – even more striking.

     

    And thus in such a condition of public inflammation, then determining the guilt or innocence of this or that accused becomes an even more iffy task, and outcomes are consequently cast in a dubious light. As I have often said, the trouble with a Stampede is that you wind up so fundamentally deranging the legal process in order to get what you want that the very legitimacy of its findings are cast into doubt. The hot ironies of historical process, no?

     

    And it is an odd “majority” that never seems to show itself when it could be photographed (the photos here; the Boston 2012 SNAP conference). At this point Ecker’s “majority” seems more akin to Sasquatch (and, for all we know from what we have been able to examine here, so is the elusive ‘genuine abuse victim’).

     

    And I no more trust Ecker’s capacity to identify an actual “fact” than I do JR’s self-presumed confidence to distinguish a “pseudo-intellectual” from a genuine one.

     

     

    And from the 504Pm comment: who is looking for “pity” on this site, except the Wigs (if they can manage to hit what they think are the right buttons among the readership)?

     

    It is – indeed – not “natural” to be a committed celibate; it is – not to put too fine a point on it – supernatural. In fact, and as I have been mentioning in comments, it is precisely because the American hierarchy allowed a merely ‘natural’ and “garrison” and “City Cohort” mentality to seep into priestly formation that have had such incidences of actual and genuine clerical abuse as have occurred. The multiple simultaneous cultural derangements of the 1960s should have prompted an intensifying of priests’ ‘supernatural’ grounding, rather than allowing a drifting descent down to the Monoplane. That would be my take on that subject.

     

    Needless to say, I would not trust the responsibility of the papacy to either the NCR interviewee or to Ecker. But I don’t classify the possibility of such an event happening as being imminent.

  100. Jim Robertson says:

    She just makes it up. And so viciously too.

    A warrior for Christ? Now there's the Prince of Peace for you. Is there only peace when we all agree with you?

    Is it only your country or is it mine and Dennis's too?

    What if John and Jesus were gay? What if the "beloved" got to third base?

    The only protected class in America is the top. Since you work with 800 other people I don't see you as being in that percentile. But you're going to "warrior" it out for Jesus, to protect the part of the populace you will never, never be apart of. And you're at war with us who were raped.

    You know St. Michael before he was an archangel was considered along with Gabriel in ancient Israel, god's kid. But when the boys took over and tossed out Mrs. God the kids were transformed into the leaders of the heavenly army. Onward Christian soldiers. LOL!

    Hey why don't you go to war? You said you had a military career. Could you kill a few more Muslim babies for Old Gory….  I mean Old Glory. After all they'll only grow up to be Islamic. Or are you just another chicken hawk?

    Do you even know what profiling is? How many priests have been stopped and frisked?( Not including the priest who was caught screwing a sex worker in a cemetary.)

    I profile no one if a victim says something happened to them done by a priest I listen and that's it. I profile no one. I'm not in charge and you're not being threatened with anything but your own self imagined fear. All people are precious from all classes. Everyone but you, that is.

  101. dennis ecker says:

    You are so wrong. I, Jim or any other victim/survivor started nothing. We did not sexually abuse ourselves. Your priests are the ones who did that. Then along with the abuser your church made the decision to continue to harm and disrespect  their victims by attempting to sweep the sins underneath the rug, and today you ask the world to have pity on your church.

    No, we did not start the fight but we now as adults who stand on our on two feet and no longer feel the shame of what has happened to us because we now understand we have done nothing wrong will be the ones who will finish the fight.

    You and your majority here on TMR may continue to insult and pretend to impress, but unlike the nightmares of my abuse you people do not keep me up at night.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Go Dennis. You nailed it. Thanks man.

    • Mark Munos says:

      Are you one of the 3 individuals at the rally? Based on your hatred of the catholic church and knowledge of victims abuse needs i would think you would be at every event in the tri-state area. Or do you only show your support from behind a keyboard? 

      Hope i didn't say the wrong thing to avoid being sued by the retired dennis ecker.

  102. Jim Robertson says:

    P.S.You know we used to kill Germans and Japanese and Commie's. Now  China's our buddy so's Germany and Japan . What changed? A lot of people died.

    Changing subject.

    Why would I answer and dialog with someone who calls me insane?. Why would he ,P, even want an answer from a mad man? Who's saner, the guy who wants a debate with a mentally ill inferior or the guy who refuses to speak to anyone who attempts to use innuendo and insult as  tactics in his own obliteration?

    I'm going with the latter, myself.

    I don't remember you saying no or yes regarding, your being either a clerical or lay sex abuser. When did you answer? I don't believe you did answer.

    If Aristophanes is your "literary reference" fabulous. Another gay Greek. Ribbit!

    • dennis ecker says:

      There it is again by another catholic church follower Mark Munos with the catholic church hater bit.

      Lets put and end to the name calling and say yes I am. I'm a bigot too, I'm a fan of the Philadelphia District Attorney and Marianna Sorenson is my hero. I'm a divorced/remarried ex-catholic who denounces the teachings of the church. I don't care one bit about one's sexual life style, and I make love to my wife only to express the love I have for her and no other reason. What else can I say ?

      Oh, and I stereotype all priests as abusers until proven otherwise. You know rather be safe then sorry.

      Now you Mark, lets hear your story. No wait. I already know what your going to say. Please have pity on my church. Our priests did nothing wrong. I've known Father So and So for many years he could not have done such a thing. Your abuse happened many years ago, get over it. You are only saying things for the big pay out.

      Heard them all Mark.

       

      NEXT.

    • KenW says:

      Dennis Ecker said, "Oh, and I stereotype all priests as abusers until proven otherwise. You know rather be safe then sorry."

      That is blatant false witness, Dennis. That is my biggest problem with the likes of you, your recklessness in lobbing out allegations. I'd rather know the truth than be safe or sorry. With that one sentence you have just admitted to the world that the truth means nothing to you. 

  103. Jim Robertson says:

    Is that the same Harry Truman who killed all those Japanese people in the '40's? He sure was a great example for mankind.

  104. Jim Robertson says:

    Which anti catholic bigot? I'm sure you see them everywhere. They're hiding behind the drapes with the Islamo-facists. Now I know why you don't tell us who you are. Have you tried smearing lambs blood on your lintels that the angel of death will pass over? Or are you armed to the teeth? Wait don't tell me I don't really want to know.

  105. Jim Robertson says:

    Ah "also No" was your answer? Cryptic. Thank you. Now when you believe me then I'll believe you.

  106. Julie says:

    Once more, Jim is inspiring me to open my heart and pocketbook to the Church. God bless, Jim. And I will pray for you even though you don't believe in it. Just in case I might send some goodness your way.

  107. Publion says:

    Well, I don’t “want an answer” from JR – he constructed that scenario from an improperly-drawn conclusion (so what’s new?). I simply go with whatever material is put up here that seems to have some useful connection (in a positive or a negative way) to the Catholic Abuse Matter. Yes, as he says, he may be a “madman” – but that simply makes me less desirous of having to wade into his material. But you have to go where the material goes in order to assess it. It is what it is.

     

    Thus while it is JR who gives us the phrase “mentally ill inferior”, yet I do not “want” to get into his material. I simply have to go where the material goes.

     

    The reference to Aristophanes being gay is … what it is. And utterly irrelevant.

     

    Ditto the irrelevance of the comment about Harry Truman. But for the Notebook on the Playbook we can see just what the Abusenik mind does: ignoring the gravamen of material and trying to come up with some – or any – way to somehow deride the material. As if by making fun of the material and the questions they are somehow wished-away. And this type of childish mentality can put up such a comment and then imagine it has successfully and sufficiently dealt with the challenge presented by the material. (Anybody who has watched a vampire movie knows that this type of character doesn’t last long.)

     

    But the thing to note here is that for so very long the media have given these types not only a free-pass (not wondering about their being “mentally ill”, among other things; or characterologically-challenged, to put it nicely) but also given them serious chin-stroking attention (using them, thus, like Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’ to satisfy the media’s need to create the appearance of conflict in order to have soap-operas by which to sell papers and attract viewers and readers).

     

    And then – finally – at 1237AM today JR finally finds my answer to his demand for a simple Yes or No. I had said “No” but apparently he hadn’t seen that. And now, having gotten the simple one-word answer he asked for, he is dissatisfied that it is – waitttttt for itttttt! – a simple one word answer. (Or is there a way that that “No” can sound not-“cryptic”? Or is it “cryptic” at all; perhaps it is simply clear and concise, as requested.

     

    JR can do whatever he likes in terms of believing or dis-believing me. I think I have established beyond any reasonable doubt my assessment of his qualities and capabilities such that his opinion isn’t really anything to be concerned about. And he was the one who asked for the simple one-word answer in the first place.

     

    But for the Notebook on the Playbook I call attention to yet another marvelously blurted-out revelation: ‘belief’ isn’t a matter of evidence for Abuseniks. Rather it’s a mutual admiration society: you believe me and I’ll believe you and if you don’t believe me then – myah myah – I won’t believe you. Long ago on this site I suggested the possibility that this dynamic is precisely what is operative in virtual or actual Abusenik get-togethers: they all have a ‘story’ and they ‘support’ each other by simply ‘believing’ each other’s stories. No questions asked of me and no questions asked of you – that sort of thing.

     

    But as I also said long ago here, this dynamic serves several strategic purposes: i) it provides a way of avoiding the inevitable doubts and dissensions if any individual allegants were suddenly to start using their brains and questioning some of the stuff that was put in front of them by other allegants as ‘fact’; ii) it therefore preserves a sense of (illusory) common identity and unity for what is in essence a disparate bunch of story-tellers looking to be ‘accepted’ and ‘believed’; iii) it also then clears the path for a further (illusory)unity to be premised upon ‘healing’ and ‘supporting’ (and the passing out of attorneys’ phone numbers and consultation of the ‘possession narratives’ cataloged by various helpful sites such as Bishop-Accountability); iv) it thus creates a useful ‘pool’ in which torties so inclined can troll for ‘plaintiffs’; v) it thus also creates a useful ‘pool’ of ‘some’ voices that can be erected into the anti-pole in a bipolar conflict polarity (here: Abuseniks vs. Church); vi) it thus also creates a use and ‘need’ for the Abusenik front organizations such as SNAP and the ‘possession-narrative’ dissemination organizations like Bishop-Accountability as well as creates jobs for those ‘spokespersons’ who now get a status from the organizations; vii) it gives all the participants the illusory sense that they are right, believed and believable, numerous, and thus simultaneously grants status, meaning, purpose (and cash) to persons who otherwise would not have so much of any of those things.

     

    What was not to like? And the Stampede came.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Throw in a buck for me Julie. What [edited by moderator] has your heart got do with it. You sound like the old Goldwater slogan "in your heart you know he's right". And it may have been Mort Sahl who retorted with "In your heart you know he's nuts". Are you mistaking your "heart" for a Disney cartoon heaven. With fluffy clouds and apple blossoms. Or will it be you just staring into the face of your god like a gigantic love kalidescope. And while you play with the angels. Yip pee Them what didn't make the cut went to a place of eternal ETERNAL torture  their screams were not joyous, burning! never to die burning. Horrible!

      So the story goes.

      So  what weve got is either ether land or HELL FIRE! I aint feeling the love in that choice.

      Why? What did we do? Hitler and his henchman, for them a hell. But for Joe and Jane Average What did we do? . What's our biggest sin? Not changing the system?

      A cromagnon and her spouse ate an apple and we've got to pay for it over thousands of generations? Your god's a gangster. He's creepy. Real creepy. Does he turn down the volume on the hell speaker and crank up the Yippey! Goofy in heaven show?

      What's your heart got to say hon. Is it "A Dream is a wish your heart makes" Or "Someday my Prince will come on a cloud of gold being born by the Serafin?…Doo da!

      What the hell does the church want with your open heart? they've got your mind and your purse.

      And I'll say a prayer to my athiest god for you and goodness has everything to do with it. I wish you well but if there is a god  oh never mind there isn't so just use the brain god didn't give you, the one your family grew for you. Why does the church need you to be open hearted because people aren't liking them ? Are you being conned? I say yes.

      Sorry if I was terse above. I have a lot of Eyore in me. (aside) It was a  little show I used to put on in T.J.rimshot!

  108. Delphin says:

    Josie- yes, it is good to hear that you also see the results of the truth finally emerging on this played out, overhyped matter – Thank God.

    Thanks to truthtellers like DP and certainly many others, as well the faithful, the relatively minor Church abuse problem (fact) is revealed for what it truly is, an antiCatholic campaign driven by leftist politics.

    Now, the Church can move on to more important tasks, such as continuing to feed those 'millions of starving children' the not-so-savvy Church detractors whine about purely as a distraction, but for which they do absolutely nothing to correct – except blame God, or Catholics, or conservatives or anybody else but themselves.

    The Church, with our Pope at the helm, will also be called upon, once again, to provide necessary moral leadership to the world to fill the incredible void created by the vapid US leftist leadership – which has severely endangered all our freedoms, including the lefts most cherished sacred cows, to a degree not witnessed in several generations.

    A fair analogy of the results of permitting leftist ideologues, a minority, to dictate (another sad fact) might be indulging the petulent (obnoxious) child that demands as much candy as his greedy little stomach can physically contain, only to have to hold his hand and console him as he violently vomits as a result of his own selfish and stupid demands. This is what the left in the US has visited upon us all, via a thoroughly selfish mentality that elects to define itself via a small proportion (racially, sexually, economically) of his overall spiritual and non-spiritual being and worth (strictly to gain unfair advantage over the moral majority in order to advance an antisocial agenda), rather than in terms of his total and wholesome humanity, as created in God's image.

    Thankfully, you are correct in that it appears as though the old, played-out 60s radicals numbers, and therefore, their ridiculous and socially damaging demands and influence are on the decline.

    Finally, todays 12th anniversary of the radical Islamic attack on US soil should remind us all of the global holy war (jihad) being waged against Christians. I was exiting a PATH train under WTC 1 when the first plane hit that structure. I was covered in the debris of the building collapse as I ran up Church St, along with thousands of others. I am also a member of a first-responder agency, as well as part of an extended family of firefighters, EMTs and law enforcement- all of which were fully-engaged in the response to that attack. Family and friends were lost directly in that tragedy, and since in the wars and attacks that ensued. The rest of us worked the "pile" and/or the Staten Island "landfill" – where we sorted through debris searching for human remains and belongings, for weeks and months after the tragedy. Sometimes, we found remnants or belongings of family members and friends. We tearfully 'celebrated' those rare times. Yet, we blame no one but the actual perpetrators of that heinous act, and those that would continue to distort a peaceful religion to commit their hateful acts of murder.

    While the selfish, deranged antiAmerican and incredibly over-indulged leftists continue their quest to destroy American exceptionalism and freedom, under the guise of being 'anticapitalists and defenders of the poor and marginalized', they need to be reminded that they weaken America, with their relentless attacks and traitorous acts, in the eyes of the world. This world, with few exceptions found in mostly Christianized nations, is brutally cruel and evil in ways the well-fatted and overly protected typical leftist can only read about in some novel as he lounges about Washington Square Park with a joint in one of in his soft, chubby hands, and a NYU law book in the other. Very few leftist ideologues have witnessed first-hand or tackled the evils of this world, beyond our borders.

    Never forget 9-11, and never forget that our enemies will never stop trying to either convert us or kill us all. They make no secret of their intentions. We must keep our eyes on the real threats to us that eminate external to our borders, while we attempt to manage the spoiled brats within our borders. We are all victims of one evil or another, it is part of being in (but, not of) the fallen world. The challenge is to rise above it, move on, and most of all - forgive.

    God bless us all, and especially God Bless America.

     

     

    • dennis ecker says:

      James I'm done.

      I will try and keep this as clean as possible for the moderators. First I am witnessing clearly a scraping of the barrel when anyone starts to agree with Josie and who actually thanks God for her.

      Then once again Delphin claims our abuse is nothing more than, let me quote "Thanks to truthtellers like DP and certainly many others, as well the faithful, the relatively minor Church abuse problem. I wonder since he has spoken these words before if he would be singing the same tune if his young son or daughter were abused by clergy ?

      But the straw that broke the back today was him patting himself on the back on this day September 11th. The second most horrific day in my life. The timeline of the events of what he did on that day. Our house called people like him, Wannabees or Wackers. You know the type who failed civil service tests and got stuck behind a desk pushing papers. The individual who because of no ones fault except his own could not fulfill his boyhood dream.

      He takes this day with the priority being the attacks and not the lives lost of 343 brother firefighters, the innocent lives lost in both towers, policemen, transit authority officers, and lives of innocent people in the air on three jets and the lives on the ground.

      Then he continues to fail to remember the family of those left behind. Children who are able to remember a hug from their father, or being sung a lullabye by their mother.

      He truly fails to know what the meaning of Let us never forget means. In one way it could mean never forget so our guard is never down again, but its true meaning is the rememberance of those individuals who have their name called out every year.

       

      A so called american who lives off the coat tails of others to make himself look good, an individual who has told so many lies he is starting to believe them himself.

      Delphin, if you were man enough to use your real name you know I would try and check it against the sign in sheets. The same type of sheet that I signed at Mets Stadium before being shuttled onto the fire ground.

      James, these people are clearly dangerous. They continue to live a lie as put by Delphin "the  relatively minor Church abuse problem.

      But I will leave them with this image and that is a man and his family jumping up and down everytime a clergy member hears those words guilty, and if one should have his conviction overturned I will still be jumping up and down knowing that innocent or not a clergy member spent time in prison because of the crimes of his church, and my final response would be oh well, its relatively a minor mistake.

      I am not saying I am gone forever. I will be back anytime its time to gloat or when information is presented to wake these people up.

    • josie says:

      Thank goodness there is room for your well chosen words and description of another day that will live in infamy. Your personal involvement makes it all the more real as we pray for those who died this day and their loved ones. Most people get it-God does not cause these evil things to happen. We can only pray that men can let there be peace.and try to do our part as part of the human race.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      From the mountains to the praries to the oceans flecked with foam God Bless America my home sweet home. ….. Can I unwrap myself from the flag now?

  109. Delphin says:

    Good grief, just saw the ridiculous, incredibly juvenile comments in response to a couple of my posts. 

    I am not at war with real victms of abuse, just with the liars that use their claimed victimhood (charity demands that I accept your stories on face-value [at no cost to me] because I have no information to the contrary, not because you have proven anything) as a ruse to viciously attack the Church.

    My reference to DPs fact-based investigations and reports and my decision to "believe" (accept as fact) them is not replacing God with DP. What a childish attempt (embarrased much?) to distort words and intentions.

    If you two think you can turn white to black with a mere twist and distortion of written [documented] reality, what have you done, will you do, elsewhere – such as your insistence that we all rely on your word against others you convict or condemn?

    Calumny come to mind? Did we leave Catholicism because it demands certain standards of behavior that are just simply unattainable for some? Shall we lower the standards in every aspect of life so as to make sure the lowest common denominator is all that is ever acheived, and not aspiration to excellence? How thoroughly Communist of you both.

    With every [fairly useless and almost universally hateful) word you two contribute, you are responsible for undermining any legitimacy other real victims might enjoy in the public discourse. You and your juvenile antics, on this site and others, and likely wherever else you two amateurs can garner a sufficient audience you desperately crave, have done more damage to real victims seeking justice (not just booty) than anyone else on TMR, or anywhere normal, sane, rational observers might congregate to discuss and debate the merits of the ideologically-manufactured case against the Church.

    Aside from your own experiences, you claim, as fact, that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy of crimes, ranging from white collar financial irregularities to murder and everything in between, being committed in/by the Church, yet you offer no evidence to support your claims in that regard. That makes you liars.

     It is clear from your comments that your beliefs of the "Catholic Conspiracy" are fueled by your hatred of the Catholic Church, therefore, that means that you have an agenda against the Church that is driven by hate. Do you finally get it?  Repeat: No evidence of your [baseless] claims of a criminal conspiracy within the Church exists, anywhere but in your diseased minds, and then unfortunately, as expressed by your own hate-filled words which clearly and unequivocably prove your antiCatholic bigotry.

    And, that, our friends, is exactly why only three people, and only a failing local notoriously biased  "rag", showed up at Archbishop Myers roasting party.

    The gig is up.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I can't stop laughing. It's a sad day but you've made me laugh.

      Law left the U.S. Why? Because he could have been in jail himself. Mahoney resigned . He had to and when the documents came out he had most clearly commited felonies.i.e. Aiding a pedophile priest to avoid prosecution. A felony FELONY crime. So wish away reality sunshine. Your own leaders commited crimes. Every group has child molestors that's not the issue. it's the cover up. So you have at least two cardinals (goodness knows there's more) From the old catholic city Boston and The largest archdiocese Los Angeles. Again FELONIES! And you pretend that it didn't happen.

      [edited by moderator]

      Commies under the bed. Islamo Nazi's wearing the bed sheets with knives in their teeth. Yet we are the ones who keep killing them.

      We aren't commanded by god to go half way round the world to kill. Are we? We're just doing it because we can or to keep this economy a float?

  110. josie says:

    Publion,

    It appears that someone is donning an extra-large Wig of Aggravation and now asking me "simple" questions-like why can't I be polite to Dennis and I think that the thread may close. So, just in case you missed it-about 17 comments up from the last on the first page of this long discussion, I note that the trial Dennis was intent on reporting about (and didn't except to make his "editorial" comment on its continuance) is scheduled now for 2/24/14. To my utter dismay, I had to do the hard work myself. Just imagine! I was mistrusting of his puffed up demeanor (and sketchy info). Absolutely nothing was reported about it. (The news people know that the spin now is turning people off so they don't consider it newsworthy.( I know that first hand from 3 good friends who work for local Phl. channels).  I do not know whether Ralph has any interest either-it is not really a "big trial". I am sure he will cover the appeals and the other trial. I have need to move on from the gross infiltration of absurd Wigs (love that expression). 

    So please, lastly for now, to you and all you haven't read Archbishop Chaput's Sept. 6 column, it is worth the time. http://www.archphila.org/archbishop-chaput/statements/statements.php

    I am passing you

    • dennis ecker says:

      Now lets pick apart Josie's boyfriend's report:

      Philadelphia Catholics have lived through a decade of tough news: the suffering of abuse victims and their families; two grand jury reports; priests removed from ministry; parish mergers; school closings; declining Mass attendance; well-intentioned but poor financial management; outright embezzlement – all of it compounded by complacency, inertia and too little transparency and accountability at almost every level of Church life.

      Its funny I can't. Maybe to stress that the outright embezzlement he speaks of had nothing to do with abuse victims, but to someone on Charlie's own staff.

      Oh, I know is this not the same problems that I mentioned before and Josie claimed it was not the truth, and was it a pure mistake that he failed to mention the four recent convictions of his abusive priests, with more heading to the courtroom in the near future.

      The only other thing that I did not see is the final report of the remaining child abusers STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION by the AOP.

      A great example of how the catholic church picks and chooses what they will tell their flock.

       

       

    • dennis ecker says:

      Josie,

      I want to say that when I read Charlie's statement I noticed he mentioned he talked about the hate mail he received. I can tell you it was not me.

      How many times can one individual read "I do not wish to feel pressured"

      It must have been those unhappy catholics in the parishes.

      Get em Josie, tell them to stop picking on your boy.

  111. Delphin says:

    You two started the Profiling, which was the topic of that post- do you really have this much trouble comprehending words, concepts and context (any focus, discernment possible?)? And, the "atta boy" by your cheerleader (does that come with pom-poms?) is equally revealing (and sad, considering your chronological ages).

    It is time to consider the intellectual and emotional aptitudes of these two dissenters, and move along, charitably. The majority of TMR contributors thoughtful and logical contributions are being hi-jacked by insanity and irrationality (whether intentional or otherwise) at a very base level, and that serves no one.

    Bring on the logical and honest dissenters – we need real meat (sustenance). Debating with 'petulant overindulged children' isn't fruitful. It's really just suger overload-

     

  112. Publion says:

    Responding to Josie: yes, thank you, I saw your research results when you put them up. I had had no luck on the court site but perhaps that was because I was entering it as an 'active' case and it wasn't; nor did I have enough information about the Defendant to satsify the site's search parameters.

     

    You raise an interesting point about the Philly media's new distancing from the Stampede. I don't know what Mr. Cipriano's decision will be but there are several months yet and who knows what might happen?

     

     

    • dennis ecker says:

      See one thing that our Miss Josie Bailey has forgot to inform her fellow mousekateer is the start of the appeal of the pimp of the AOP Fr. Lynn this coming Tuesday.

      Not only does the church pick and choose what information gets out, they do it to themselves.

      How many days has Lynn been in Prison ?

       

  113. dennis ecker says:

    Delphin,

    Here is what today is all about

    http://genealogytrails.com/main/sept11_wtcdead.html

    [edited by moderator]

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Sorry TMR, I will rephrase my last edited comment regarding Delphin, and to remind him that the ten commandments state bearing false witness is a sin.

  114. delphin says:

    Looks as though we struck a[nother] nerve with the victim-claimant crowd. How very interesting.

    It appears as though 9-11 first responders are so revered that they have been elevated  to 'worship' status, such as one would treat their religion or God. How rich. Let's take the comparison a tad further, shall we?

    Let's take our first responder 'herd' and reduce them down to their sinful human component/individual 'cow' parts. Then, let's smear the entire 'herd' with the sins of a few, say, thieves ripping off the Fund, others committing criminal acts, make that heinous sexual acts, against first responder and other victims family members, and then we'll spin it up real good into to a major conspiratorial coverup of grand proportions (just with a wave of our magical 'wordwand' – no evidence required). How's that going for you, so far? Still with us?

    Like I've said, we all have our sacred cows. How does it feel having yours skewered?

    The obvious point of my posting on 9-11 was to demonstrate the lack of profiling of any group due to the actions of a relative few, and the forgiveness by those affected which is absolutely required to be able to move on and live a normal, productive life (this is likely the key part to which they just can't relate). The intentional misinterpretation of that salient point is your problem (one among many).

    How is it that you regularly [and brutally] profile Catholics as a result of your personal experiences, but not Muslims? How does that logic toggle work?

    Of course, we all know the answer- you need not bother with an attempt that would likely be as painful for us to decipher as it would be for your to pretzel-twist in to.

    This is probably where he exists, stage left, as huffy and indignant as his personal cheerleader pretends to be when he similarly bails out… when it gets just a wee bit too warm.

     

    • dennis ecker says:

      Your ranting clearly makes no sense.

      [edited by moderator] What is the name of that first responder agency you belong or belonged to ? What's the names of those extended family members of firefighters ? I'm sure you would have no problem with a brother speaking with a fellow brother would you ?

      You don't just hate Jim or me or any other survivor, you truly must also hate yourself to pretend to be something you are not, and the only advice I can give you there is no matter what you do you should give it a 100%, the world also needs pencil pushers.

      You owe alot of people an apology.

      and to respond to your final sentence." bails out… when it gets just a wee bit too warm". Like I stated I'm not gone for good and anytime you feel like turning up the heat I welcome it, just be careful you don't burn yourself like you did today.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Nobodies reducing catholics to anything. No one said you are the perps you are in fact enablers however because you've done nothing to punish the enablers. In fact because you so idenified with a goodness that wasn't there; around this rather personal issue to the church: celibacy the hypocricy of the men you trusted  your acting out on the very people who you want to blame , us victims for speaking up for sharing the truth and horror that happened to us as children at these mens and womens hands. (Sorry for the run on).That just seems to be the truth of it. You so want to pretend that there are more fake claims than not but it's not the truth, it's just not. And that makes you immoral. Not catholics ,you, as individuals. That's immoral.

      If you ever experience glory or awe that's in you nobody told you what's beautiful in nature you just know it when you see it. That's you your response to the universe? isn't that glory enough for you? You want too much A life after death. Hell a life before death even . you want too much. You don't need heaven you are heaven and sadly hell too.

  115. Publion says:

    Am I correct that we have just seen the shortest Wiggy Farewell-Tour on record here? Ecker’s retirement from the stage lasted from 353PM to 423PM … half an hour. Surely we are approaching the frontier of the ridiculous – or at least the ludicrous.

     

    I would say that if the actual dimensions of the Catholic Abuse Problem (as we may reasonably infer them from the material we have managed to examine here) are compared to the horror-show scenario painted so vividly by the Abuseniks then there is – to say the very least – a wide discrepancy indeed. And in that sense I could agree with the characterization of the actual dimensions of the Catholic Abuse Problem be as “relatively minor”. This is not the result of ‘minimizing’ on behalf of the Church as it is the result of finally getting an actual grasp on the exaggerations fomented by the Abuseniks and the various elements behind the Stampede.

     

    As it was with the Bolsheviks: the status-quo which they were seeking to rip away had to be characterized as outrageously as possible in order to justify the Terror which they had already determined to impose. Same thing with the Stampede.

     

    But Ecker will now try to deploy the same gambit that lubricated – by the most amazing coincidence – the various unhappy military misadventures of the recent past (and may yet lubricate one in the very near future): if there is only just one in pain, then things must be made to happen.

     

    And do we even now who has genuinely been in pain? Does Ecker actually know? Can anybody seriously rely on his word or claim?

     

    A lengthy aside on 9-11 which appears to be a commercial for Ecker somehow. Who knows?

     

    A collegial bit with “James” that “these people are truly dangerous”. Compared to the people who fomented the 9-11 that Ecker claims to have taken so heroic a part in? Clearly, Wigs do not bestow a sense of proportion.

     

    But at any rate, Ecker’s responsibilities here on this site are not connected to whatever he claims to have done a dozen years ago. What is required here is serious and fact-based thinking (so that we can get a clear picture of the Catholic Abuse Matter, in case he forgot).

     

    Nor does knowing his real name (and how – really – do we even know that? Is the ‘tomdoyle’ who sometimes comments here really the actual still-Father Doyle of SNAP?) contribute in any way whatsoever to the value or quality of his comment material (he can put that on the agenda for when he and “James” do lunch; they may want to rethink their positon).

     

    And he shares that he will be happy even to see innocent priests in jail if only because of the “crimes of his church . I don’t take issue with that opinion – he has a right to his opinion. But it is up to the readers what to make of the type of mind and character that can make such a claim in a spirit of exhilaration.

     

    But then – waitttt for itttttt! – he will not be “gone forever”. No – like Superman or Batman or any other cartoon hero as he heads for the door or the skies, he promises to return if he (thinks he is) needed. Either to “gloat” or if “information is presented to wake these people up”.

     

    But we have already seen that Ecker as a source of “facts” and “information” is not at all reliable. And what sort of person is this who does so like to “gloat”? There is a molten and rather unpleasant core here, beneath the Wigs.

     

    Aaaaaand as it turns out, Ecker decided he was needed here yet again a mere 30 minutes later (or perhaps he began composing the 423PM comment as soon as he’d gotten behind the curtains and taken off the Wig from the 353PM show).

     

    As “Philadelphia Catholics” – and a whole lot of others – are now beginning to see: they have been snowed with all sorts of exaggerations and false reports for quite a while. (Ecker witlessly or slyly conflates the modernizing of the AOP’s operations with the purported shocks of the Abuse Crisis itself.) And if those Philly Catholics are part of the very Catholic laity that Ecker includes in his indictment, then we are even further down the rabbit-hole here. (Alas they can’t simultaneously be victims and perps – it goes against Abusenik dogma.)

     

    Then the incoherent “Its funny I can’t” sentence that as it stands makes no sense because it has no referent. (This is a mind that once upon a time wrote (heroic) official reports?)

     

    As we have seen, the “four recent convictions” have resulted in the weakening of the legitimacy or integrity of the Philly justice system from police to DA and courts. And the appeals are yet to be heard, so I take his gloating here the same way I took the gloating of Abuseniks when that glorious crimes-against-humanity lawsuit was filed by SNAP with the ICC at the Hague: I’ll be interested to see how it finally turns out.

     

    We shall also see how the AOP investigations (exaggerated formatting omitted) work out. Does Ecker see some particular significance in the investigations or is the exaggerated formatting merely a tic? Or the work of a Wig? What precisely does he see as the significance of the investigations? Or is it just his oft-deployed game of innuendo? (Note for the Notebook on the Playbook: toss out innuendo and then when asked to explicate, claim that you are too busy to “spell it out” for people and whine that you are too busy. Neat.)

     

    What precisely does the Church ‘pick and choose’ to tell its flock? Clearly the fact of the investigations are public knowledge. Or is this remark indicative of Ecker’s attention wandering to something else (seriously: this is a mind that wrote official reports and made verbal reports in emergency situations?)

     

    The characterization of Msgr. Lynn as a “pimp” is florid in its exaggeration. And we have yet to see what higher courts will make of his conviction.

     

    And the concluding remark about Msgr. Lynn indicates without a doubt the essential twisted nastiness in the molten core. Hardly heroic. Repellent, even. But clearly, back from his half-hour retirement.

  116. Jim Robertson says:

    Is there a doctor in the house? Someone's claiming to be a hero vs. someone who is one?  Where's the "warm"?. I haven't seen any warmth here.

    I'm personally a 9 11 truther. Building 7 convinced me. That and the thermite residue and the buildings freefall speeds. Just keeping it honest.IMHO.

    A lot of energy just exploded here. Dennis was your disability connected to 9 /11?  you don't have to answer.

    I have so many feelings about 9 11. I hate the permanent war this country has been in my entire life. I hate it. the country side is nice but why do we always go into other peoples countries and kill them and be killed ourselves? Only to become friends afterwards. It's nuts.

  117. Jim Robertson says:

    You keep inventing things I do that I don't do. Where have I profiled anybody?  Now D your not claiming to be a first responder? Or a family member was? How lucky you were in NY that day and got hit by debris. That kind of makes you sacred too. Will a curtsey suffice? This show has just rode right off the rails.!!!!!

    • dennis ecker says:

       I am also a member of a first-responder agency, as well as part of an extended family of firefighters, EMTs and law enforcement- all of which were fully-engaged in the

       The rest of us worked the "pile" and/or the Staten Island "landfill" – where we sorted through debris searching for human remains and belongings, for weeks and months after the tragedy. Sometimes, we found remnants or belongings of family members and friends. We

      Like I said before. He has told lies that even he is starting to believe.

      JAMES, here is your answer to your questions in case he ignores them !!!!!

       

    • Mark Munos says:

      Congrats. I doubt anyone on this site cares about your resume and where you were twelve years ago. Silence to your service during that time would be more appreciated.

  118. Jim Robertson says:

    [edited by moderator]

    I'm to believe you just happened to be there exactly at the time the plane hit tower one. You were lucky you weren't hurt. I'm not saying I don't believe you. It's quite a thing to have gone through. I don't know what to say.

    And wasn't it amazing how both buildings fell right into their own foot prints and building 7 too.  After standing tall for 40 years. Free fall speed.(I went to the top of one tower once, bad vibes). Nothing to slow it down. Did you hear the popping sounds others heard?

    Why do you think Bush and Cheany didn't want a investigative committee (comission) created? Why did they have to testify together and not under oath when one finally was. ? We have the largest military budget in human history yet on that day no jet fighters went up.

  119. Jim Robertson says:

    Why are you now insulting first responders by calling them a herd? We've never called all catholic priests sex abusers. Nor have we implyed they are. Why are you making up such a lie?

    Dennis I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt here today, honestly. I get why. I want no one in jail who does not deserve to be there; and I know you do too.

    Do what you want. You tried.

     

     

  120. delphin says:

    "…yes I am. I'm a bigot too, I'm a fan of the Philadelphia District Attorney and Marianna Sorenson is my hero. I'm a divorced/remarried ex-catholic who denounces the teachings of the church….What else can I say ? Oh, and I stereotype all priests as abusers until proven otherwise. You know rather be safe then sorry."

    Probably the most honest revelation this individual has ever undertaken, and, it is to be commended. Of course, it also means that he has no credibility on the church abuse matter since, as we all knew, he is just another antiCatholic bigot.

    Now, just imagine the outcome of claims against clergy that lead to investigations and charges, which in turn lead to settlements or convictions (condemnations) that are being pursued by similarly-minded bigots in the population (many of our 'victims'), law enforcement, legal-judicial system, and the media. Sweeten the bigot pot with a big payout day at the end of their happy ideological trail, nestled in an intentionally secularized society, and you've got that perfect storm that's been brewing for generations now slamming up against the shoreline.

    Astoundingly, the bigots are of such low moral character, they will continue to submit comments here, with their virtual 'pants down', and not suffer the slightest pang of consciousness (shame, regret?) regarding their contribution to the condemnation of innocent men, most directly, and millions of faithful Catholics, somewhat less directly. If this intentional harm to others isn't pure evil, then nothing is.

    The payout at the ends of their miserable earthly lives will likely be a much less rewarding, and lengthier experience, I fear.

    We must pray for their conversion.

     

  121. Julie says:

    The Catholic Church has withstood several evil empires. According to some commenters, we are supposed to believe the Catholic Church ITSELF is an evil empire, and in their narcisisstic minds, if they post enough nasty comments the rest of us will follow along. If the church were an evil empire, it would not have lasted for 2,000 years. Yes, there have always been evil people, including clergy and bishops, and some not evil, just cowardly, within the church. We are humans in a Christ-established church, a divinely-overlooked church. Divine oversight is the only explanation for the church lasting intact for 2,000 years. It is the only institution to do so, even when evil people get in it and wield power. J.R., you lost credibility when you first came on here and said Hitler was a Catholic. Those closest to Hitler recorded his disdain for Christianity in their diaries. Hitler was a rabid atheist who vowed to destroy the Catholic Church. Like you. And he was as successful as you will be. I for one am going to put more money in the collection plate. We need protection AGAINST evil, not to fall for it, in whatever form it takes, in the form of a predatory priest, a murderous dictator, or a manipulator in the comboxes.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Julie the religion of Egypt lasted 2500 + yrs.. It's gone.

      Pride cometh before the fall.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hitler was no atheist. He referenced Jesus as his Lord in many speeches. He was sieg hieled, including the arm salute, by many bishops of the catholic church. He was baptised, took holy communion; and was confirmed a catholic. He was an altar boy. Maybe he was even molested. I don't know.

      When did I vow to destroy the catholic church? I must have missed that.

  122. dennis ecker says:

    No Jim, I'm not like that but sometimes you have to give the crowd what THEY want to hear.

    It shuts them up. So if they wish to think of me as the person I described then let them. It most likely will make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I GIVE THOUGH NO APOLOGY.

    Now my credibility. They have questioned it time and time again. To the point were I have proven it also time and time again. I even made public a part of my life that I wanted to keep private. A part of my life that I cherished and is so proud of.

    Then comes along an individual who would like to live off the coat tails of others. When he should be proud of his own accomplishments. Will we hear or will he tell others he was part of seal team six and he was the soldier who took out Bin Laden.

    It is no suprise to me that there will be people who will defend him, that is because they would like to live in the same world that Delphin does pretending to be something that they are not.

    If this individual wants to end the attacks by me let him show me and others the proof. I'm sure without a doubt I will be able to find the truth.

    Otherwise he acts the same way as his church, and what he writes has no merit.

     

    Dennis Ecker

    Firefighter

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dennis, I support you. I salute your sacrifices, your health was one major sacrifice.

      We have stepped through the looking glass by visiting this site and like Alice  have wandered into a not so happy wonderland. P's the Caterpiller, going "Who are you?" and D is the Red Queen, painting the roses red and screaming "Off with ther heads!" Josie's the Mad Hatter and their god is the Jaberwock or maybe he's just a "tea tray in the sky".IMO

  123. Publion says:

    Before we get substantively derailed into 9-11 ‘truthing’ about the actual causes and fomenters of that event (a hall of mirrors that could keep ‘non-substantive’ commenters burning up the keystrokes ad infinitum), I would say:

     

    First, JR is understandably excited about the prospect of the 9-11 and the Ecker-role bits. First, as I said above here, it opens up an entire ‘important’ field of historical events that can keep us off the substance of the Abuse Matter for quite some time, while simultaneously providing the scope for what JR and Ecker do best (indeed, it’s the only thing they seem able or willing to do): tossing out ungrounded if not also un-demonstrable assertions and claims as if they were “facts” while living happily in the sure and certain knowledge that they are right, very clever, and importantly involved in important stuff.

     

    Second, JR – his own heroic military service actually having been nothing more than sitting around in the Canal Zone (half a world away from unhappy Vietnam; and not far (we recall) from a military unit that didn’t exist when he was there counting the days until he could get out - can support Ecker’s various claims as to employment and being in on the 9-11 response. By presuming the veracity of Ecker’s claims, and then automatically adding the “hero” characterization, JR gets to be somewhat of a hero (finally) by riding on Ecker’s (alleged) coat-tails. This is more like something one encounters in script-writing, but then the Abuseniks have been in showbiz for quite some time.

     

    Third, was Ecker actually a) employed as a first-responder in NYC at the time of 9-11 and b) actually a responder to the Incident … who can really know? We might take Ecker’s word for it (supported by JR, as an additional credential; but unless JR is personally acquainted with Ecker off-site (now there’s a thought) then how does JR know either?) but I don’t see taking his word for it as a rational solution here.

     

    I can say that the competence in mentation and expression we see in Ecker’s material certainly doesn’t make it probable that this is a mind reliably capable of making accurate and precise written and verbal reports in emergency situations. (And was that a factor in his presently no-longer being so employed? These are the adventures of historical research for scholars so inclined.)

     

    In any case, none of that ‘history’ (real or alleged) is relevant to the material here.

     

    Unless one wants to consider that theory wherein the huge consequences of the 9-11 event were specifically manipulated by various interests in and outside-of government to create a Stampede (successfully, as it turned out) to take the nation to military adventures in Iraq (as if it were involved in 9-11) on the basis of 9-11 and WMD … with the stunningly sobering results we have since experienced and are still experiencing as a nation.

     

    But beyond that theoretical possibility of 9-11 somehow being the initiating pretext for a Stampede, then all the rest of the discussion is only going to take us off into places we don’t need to go.

  124. Jim Robertson says:

     P,

    Delphin said she was there when the plane hit. You may not be interested in the subject. I am.

    You've bored every one to death with your tropes and abuseniks and nonsense. Those are your views and you are entitled to them. Lame as they are.

    Delphin was there at 9/11 I'm interested in her/his experience. Do you mind?

    Dennis wants a little proof of said experience of D's. a sign up sheet could do that.

    If I had a sign up sheet available for my "meetings" with my abuser I'd share that with you. I don't have that kind of evidence.

    P.S. Why does, people addressing each other by their first or "christian" names bother you so? Is there some reason you mock that or is it just another ploy in your never ending denegration of your opposition?

     

  125. Publion says:

    Well, now we have Ecker’s of 929AM this morning (which is the last Ecker comment up as I write this; following it is mine of 1037AM).

     

    “James” has been demoted to “Jim” – but who knows why. Perhaps it has something to do with the particular Wig in use at the time the keyboard is being used.

     

    Having suddenly been caught-up by JR, who doesn’t want to gloat seeing innocent priests in jail, Ecker now has a problem: not only a) is he at risk of being in overt disagreement with  “James” or “Jim” but b) he realizes that even if JR could be construed as thinking he (Ecker) had revealed too much, then Ecker has to somehow cover his tracks. Whatever shall he do?

     

    Ecker being Ecker, he suddenly now claims (to his pal “Jim”) that “No”, he’s “not like that but sometimes you have to give the crowd what they [exaggerated formatting  omitted] want to hear”. In other words, Ecker is saying that what he said did not arise from his actual self, but rather was i) a fake self-presentation, ii) deliberately deployed, iii) because it what the readership wants to hear from Ecker.

     

    Willy-Tango-Foxtrot?

     

    We are now to believe that what Ecker said is not an unintentional but vital self-revelation, but instead was a deliberately faked ‘Ecker’ (a nasty, molten-cored creature) which Ecker deliberately deployed of his own free will simply to give the readership what we are presumed to “expect” from him.

     

    Why, pray, would we have come to “expect” such material from him?

     

    Why would we not apply Ockham’s Razor and go with the common-sensical intuition that Ecker – who evinces no sustained and substantive respect for the readership here – has simply revealed unintentionally the ‘real’ Ecker (or as the German would have it: the echt Ecker) rather than go with the clunky proposition that he made himself look so repellent merely as a favor to readers for whom he holds so little regard?

     

    This is not a person who enjoys a working relationship with truth and accuracy, perhaps even toward himself.

     

    And clearly, if his objective was to “shut” us “up”, then he has failed spectacularly, and hardly unpredictably.

     

    But on some level he realizes what he’s done, since he then says – again with the exaggerated formatting that ever indicates he is shouting because he has nothing else to offer – that he will “give no apology”.

     

    And so what? The revelation is there, and now the cheesey effort to extricate himself from … himself … is also up there. The tangled webs one weaves when one first … and so on.

     

    And then – sublimely – he segues directly to his “credibility”. (And No – I no longer think Ecker’s material is a put-on; I think he actually thinks he’s performing well in and through his material.)

     

    Apparently putting up whatever one has cooked-up on one’s own, personally-controlled Facebook page is to be considered evidence. Or are there – as it were – independent sources of confirmation?

     

    Then a confusing bit of Wigginess: while he has “cherished” and is “proud of” that (alleged) part of his life yet he made it “public”. The Wig of the Self-Contented Hero who as a public service reveals his marvelousness. Perhaps this Wig goes with a George Washington mask. (Just as he “made public” whatever allegations he may have made and perhaps was remunerated for? Who knows?)

     

    But then he goes off the rails. “Then along comes an individual who like to live off the coattails of others” … that characterization was made of JR – and does Ecker once again get himself into a conceptual bind with his dear friend James/Jim/JR? And as to the “seal team six” and “he was the soldier who took out Bin Laden” – not even JR has claimed that and certainly JR is the only other person who has tried to make his military “career” an issue here. What is going on? Who knows – once Ecker’s mind now starts going into overdrive.

     

    And things only get worse as Ecker then asserts that “there will be people who will defend him” … defend JR? Here? Or has Ecker – like JR often seems to do – suddenly gotten involved in another conversation with other entities he perceives to be hovering around his keyboard? What are we seeing here?

     

    And then down the rabbit-hole completely: “If this individual wants to end the attacks by me” … so … Ecker is ‘attacking’ somebody on this site? Charming. And what “proof” is “this individual” supposed to demonstrate? Proof of what? What are we seeing here?

     

    However, Ecker sniffs that he is “sure without a doubt I will be able to find the truth”. Really? First, the truth about what? Second, Ecker’s ability to “find the truth” seems grossly insufficient, as we saw as recently as that link to the Philadelphia court site, based on Ecker’s faulty presumption that there was an imminent upcoming trial.

     

    He signs this comment as “Firefighter”.

     

    From a purely historical-method point of view, there are several vital steps necessary to successfully perform in order to ground Ecker’s heroic past: a) that Ecker was a firefighter at the time of 9-11; b) that he responded to the Incident; c) that he performed well – or ‘heroically’.

     

    I am not going to go looking for answers to these questions, although I am also not going to accept unsupported claims on the Facebook page of the clearly-interested Party.

     

    But we have all seen people sporting FDNY tee-shirts and ballcaps and such since 9-11; it’s a standard phenomenon that follows all such large historical happenings: people can get the stuff, they want to be ‘part of’ the glorious scenario, and before long who is going to know if one is just a person with a tee-shirt/ball-cap or an actual veteran participant? Variations of this theme are seen in bars and around water-coolers everywhere: ‘war stories’ by people who claim to have been there. Genuine Vietnam combat vets are often put-out by this sort of thing, and there is now federal legislation against wearing combat or military-service medals and ribbons one didn’t actually earn. That sort of thing. There will always be some loose electrons who see such scams as a quick and easy way to some status (and maybe a free drink), and some of them have even convinced themselves that they deserve the medals/ribbons (or would have deserved them if only … and so on). And on the internet the scam is easier to pull off than it is when actually facing actual people.

     

    All of which also raises some interesting aspects of relevance in regard to allegations and claims of victimhood.

     

    And that leads to my last point: it seems to me that the use of “hero” here is in some fundamental ways similar to the use of “victim”: both confer a certain social status and role that can (nowadays) easily and without too much difficulty be assumed by any persons (those loose electrons) who feel they aren’t getting the ‘status’ and ‘respect’ they feel, or are convinced, that they deserve. And, once again, this is even easier to pull off on the internet than in actual human situations.

     

    It has been a vital element of the status that “victimhood” has been endowed with such status as it has been in the past three decades or so in this country. If you can get ‘status’ (and the attendant public recognition, sense of ‘meaning’, and so on) by claiming to be a victim, and the media go along with it without question, and then you might even get a big payday out of it, and then the courts themselves begin to rule-out any substantive examination of your claims … well, you can see where this sort of thing can go. And has.

     

    And in a world-class historical irony, as something of a counter-weight to the valorization of ‘victimhood’, there then arouse the valorization of ‘hero-hood’, such that the term is now used to characterize  a stunningly wide range of situations.

     

    With a concomitant increase in the possibilities of scams by loose and needy electrons, especially on the internet.

     

    And – I would say – in the Catholic Abuse Stampede.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      How did I live off the "coat tails of others " Willy Tango Foxtrot? Dennis wasn't talking about me He was referring to Delphin.

      Why must you drip venom? What does that get you but poisoned your self? Where's the beauty on your side. You're not showing any.

  126. Jim Robertson says:

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Every one in my baracks counted the days till they would get out. Every draftee; every enlisted man who wasn't a lifer counted their days.from the first day of basic training.as people 's time got short.

    In the morning; getting up,they would should out the word, "short" and announce the number of days left. They were called and called themselves: "short timers"  It was bliss to be a short timer. All of us felt that way from the begining of our time there. I still have dreams of waking up back in the Army and either I've stayed longer than I needed too past my discharge date or that I have forgotten I didn't have to be there and could leave at any time.

    You obviously know nothing about the military at that time.

    And as far as my being "heroic" goes, I drove my jeep every work day into Panama to work at the U.S. Embassy and other embassies. There were political riots between the Embassy and the Zone. I had to avoid and get back to the Canal Zone through. I did my job. What did you do in the military ,your judgementship?( That's If you did serve in the military or maybe you're like D who invented a military "career" [ which is usually 20+ years of service])

  127. Jim Robertson says:

    As I was driving through Panama a man tossed a small photograph into my jeep as I waited at a stop sign. It was a picture of Che. Dead lying on a table. It upset me. I couldn't understand why he'd thrown the picture to me. a couple of years later. I found out I had gotten the visas for the Special Forces guys from the notorious School of the Americas who had killed Che. I'd been a cog in Che's death. I don't think the guy who tossed the photo knew about my  small connection. I still have the photo.

  128. dennis ecker says:

    Gallery | 9/11 aftermath in NYC: AJC staff photos | Photo 7 | ajc.com

    projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/metro/news/9-11-staff/7.html

    Philadelphia firefighter Dennis Ecker washes out a firefighter's eyes after he finished working a rotation at the World Trade Center on Sept. 12, 2001.

    The last time I prove anything.

     

  129. delphin says:

    The dissenter crowd sees the world quite differently; they get bogged down in the trees and, therefore, never get to see the forest.

    The point of invoking my 9-11 experience was not to make claim to anything (what have I to gain with a false claim – after all, no Church booty to be gotten or antiCatholic grudge-axe to grind?) but to juxtapose how one deals with adversity, suffering and pain. The point is that we're all (every human) victims of some adversity, to varying degrees, but, the really important thing is how you deal with, and finally resolve, your victimization.

    Did any of you ever discover, gain something, anything positive from your experience (adversity)? Cancer patients, and many others as severely (and worse) afflicted certainly do. Or do you backfill reasons and assign blame to justify your hatred?

    The 9-11 comparison was also meant to point out the hypocrisy of the antiCatholics, who would rather focus on the merits of my experience (simply to provide context) rather than how it is they negatively profile Catholics as a result of the minor abuse matter, and not Muslims as a matter of the 9-11 mass human destruction matter. Still awaiting an answer to that one. Not holding my breath.

    Other than that, I've made my point. These hater-bigots do certainly engage in negative profiling of Catholics, especially our priests, as admitted and as clearly documented, yet, they insist we believe their hateful words and support their bigoted acts of aggression against our Church, the faithful, and our Lord.

    It is also not a surprise that we have a "truther" among us. This could signal the end of a beautiful relationship between Rick Blaine, the reluctant ex-pat 'hero' and Captain Renault, the gambling, soundrel Inspector, since 9-11 'firefighter heroes' and OWS-type conspiratorial 'truthers", who are already distancing themselves from each others most recent revelations,  are thoroughly incompatible.

    Politics certainly does make strange bedfellows-

     

  130. delphin says:

    Just dawned on me, we have a triple-dipper here, folks!

    One of our resident bigots is drawing a tidy retirement from the Church, the PFD and the 9-11 Fund, how sweet. Thank you, America, Oh, and of course, God.

    No wonder we're "retired" at 50 YO. Got an awful lot of free time – not to mention Church, City and Fed booty on/in our hands, heh?

     

  131. TheMediaReport.com says:

    Thank you, everyone.

    This thread is now closed.