*SPECIAL REPORT* Obsessed With the Catholic Church? NY Times’ Laurie Goodstein Reports On Sex Abuse In Catholic Church And Nowhere Else

Laurie Goodstein

Front and center in the attack on the Catholic Church: The NY Times' Laurie Goodstein

[This post has been regularly *UPDATED* since the original posting to reflect our
LAURIE GOODSTEIN SCOREBOARD on our home page]

TheMediaReport.com has surveyed every article that New York Times National Religion Correspondent Laurie Goodstein has written (or co-written) this decade and has found that while Goodstein has composed dozens of articles about sex abuse in the Catholic Church, she has authored exactly zero articles on abuse elsewhere.

TheMediaReport.com has identified 267 articles written or co-written by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014.

Imbalance at the Grey Lady

83 of those articles have specifically trumpeted the issue of sex abuse in the Catholic Church. 0 have addressed sex abuse in any other religious institution.

This also means nearly one third of all articles written by Goodstein this decade have been solely about sex abuse in the Catholic Church!

In other words, being the "National Religion Correspondent" for the New York Times is really code for being the Times' principle obsessor – among the many there who obsess – about old cases of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

Not even a single article by Laurie Goodstein this decade has headlined sex abuse in any other religious organization. Nothing from Goodstein about child abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community. Nothing about abuse in the Muslim community. Nothing about child abuse among Evangelicals. Nothing about child abuse among Baptists.

The disparity is glaring.

Ignoring other aspects of the abuse story

Also notably absent from Goodstein's recent coverage are other important aspects of the Catholic Church child abuse narrative:

  • the widespread prevalence of false accusations and the fact that nearly half of those accused nowadays are dead;
  • the troubling financial and operational relationship between Church-suing contingency lawyers and the anti-Catholic group SNAP;
  • the injustice that accused priests find themselves in trying to defend against acts alleged to have been committed many decades ago;
  • the sordid histories and hateful motivations of dissident priests and SNAP members who have attacked the Church; and
  • the unprecedented measures that the Catholic Church in the United States has taken in the last two decades to make the Church the safest environment in the world for children today.

As we have often stated before, it is well known that the New York Times editorial policies stand in heated opposition to the Catholic Church on nearly every "hot-button" social issue, whether it be gay "marriage," abortion, or birth control.

And in the end, Laurie Goodstein is simply carrying the water for her struggling employer, which proudly boasts of its animus for the Catholic Church and is using the issue of decades-old cases of abuse to bludgeon it for not being sufficiently left-wing on issues of sexuality.

[Important note: There was an article published by Goodstein on March 7, 2010, entitled, "Defectors Say Church of Scientology Hides Abuse." However, the "abuse" cited in the article has nothing to do with sex abuse. Sex abuse, rape, and molestation are not mentioned in the article at all. Instead, the article addresses the alleged "abusive environment" (social/emotional/mental) of the Church of Scientology.]

Comments

  1. Sarah Pulliam Bailey says:

    To be fair to Laurie, she hosted a panel at RNA where an evangelical and two Jehovah’s Witnesses talked about abuse. Also, it’s much harder to cover sex abuse in evangelical churches because of the lack of structure. Also, did you search her work on Scientology?

    • Roger says:

      And so Goodstein knew about it but was working on a story abouit a dead priest alleged abuser from 1957 so she didn't have time to write about it?

      Nice.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Ms. Balley, The rabid catholic apologists here don't want a reasoned analysis of Ms. Goodstein's work. what they want is an antisemitic, well veiled of course, holy lynch mob.

      "Them atheistic N.Y. jews are screwing catholics agin. Yee Ha! Let's git em."

      No, you all. It's catholics screwing catholics again by denial of responsability for the rape of their own kids. And they deny that responsability by never calling their hierarchy to account for their crimes. Ever.

  2. Jen says:

    Goodstein is exhibit A among the many Catholic haters at the Times.

  3. Publion says:

    This is a thought-provoking idea: that “it’s much hard to cover sex abuse in evangelical churches because of the lack of structure”.

     

    It raises the thought that the Church has been the focus because it is ‘easier’ to report on: it has “structure”, i.e. records, a legally-traceable corporate reality, and lotsa money. Although we have seen enough document-cache release material here to realize that those records don’t actually support the (ever-trumpeted) Abusenik phantasms.

     

    Nor – therefore – would torties (those stalwart and Stakhanovite obtainers of justice and cash for allegants) care to invest their time and energy in such materially mushy venues as evangelical polities where none of the foregoing advantages or payoffs exist.

     

    Nor – apparently – do acclaimed marquis ‘reporters’ wish to do any heavy lifting in their professional field by trying to delve into what – for all we know – might be far more active sites and venues of abuse.

     

    All of which has to be added to the fact that the Beltway elites – so thoroughly indentured to secularism for various reasons – don’t see the evangelical polities and entities as being anywhere near as great a threat to the governmentally-embraced pseudo-religion of secularism and its agenda as does the Church. Ditto the now greatly self-secularized mainstream Protestant polities (yet they also have a useful amount of that “structure”, although not so much cash to make the pure quest for ‘justice’ profitable).

     

    In a very real sense, secularism is indeed a ‘religion’ for all practical purposes (albeit not avowedly so and not a religion of the Multiplane but rather a pseudo-religion of the Monoplane, and – as I said – very dear to the government). In that sense, then, the Catholic Abuse Stampede can be seen as a ploy in a ‘religious war’ between a) a secularist and pseudo-religious government trying to displace a rival and b) a long-established and highly-developed actual religion of the Multiplane (and one which has been instrumental in the formation of that very Western civilization and culture which the government ideology’s most eager adherents want to see erased and replaced … by themselves and their own beliefs and world-view and agendas, by amazing coincidence).

     

    We saw the very same sort of thing with the three major Western secularist and ideologically-based totalitarian systems in their heyday: the Fascists in Italy, the Nazis in Germany, and the Soviets – especially under Lenin and Stalin. (Again, Michael Burleigh’s second chapter of his 2007 book Sacred Causes is a valuable and highly instructive bit of reading for those who wish to pursue in more detail the core dynamics I have outlined above.)

     

    The only major difference between those historical instances mentioned above here and the American variant we have been watching for some decades now is that in the present instance the government did not have the option of simply imposing its agendas merely on the basis of its fiat authority (as the overtly totalitarian governments did).

     

    Instead, a ‘front’ or ‘pretext’ issue and cause had to be provided, since public opinion in a still-functioning democracy had to be somehow manipulated into supporting the whole project. And this is where Victimism came in: the ‘valorization’ of ‘the Victim’ and his/her ‘pain’ allowed the government here to undermine numerous existing obstacles to its agenda while seeming to be merely trying to obtain ‘justice’  for the aforementioned ‘Victim(s)’, whose story or stories were thus made the centerpiece of a full-court press to i) ignore all other considerations (such as truth, accuracy, and long-established legal principles) and to ii) justify the creation of an objection-squelching threat that any doubter or questioner would also quickly be tarred with the brush of depravity. (And who can forget that element that was present also in the Salem Witch Trials: if you tried to defend an accused witch (male or female) you were probably a witch yourself.)

     

    And things have gone downhill from there.

  4. Penny says:

    What is happening in the world of religion in the US?

    Only sex abuse in the Catholic church according to the soon to be bankrupt Times.

     

     

  5. delphin says:

    "To be fair to Laurie, she hosted a panel at RNA where an evangelical and two Jehovah’s Witnesses talked about abuse. Also, it’s much harder to cover sex abuse in evangelical churches because of the lack of structure. Also, did you search her work on Scientology?"

    So, assuming we'll see the fruits of these great "Laurie Labors" someday/any day soon, in print, in the NYT?

    The disparity in "Laurie" reporting that TMR analysis so pointedly summarizes is just a function of the "ease" of reporting on a 'structured' institution? It has nothing to do with bias, bigotry, ideology? She can reportedly break through the notoriously criminal Scientology protective resources barrier and 'bob and weave' her way through the global and ancient Catholic heirarchical structure, but, her renowned investigative and reporting talents can't break down those 'wascally' Hasidim or the forever laissez faire Protestants?

    So, are you also waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up in a few weeks?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Aren't you waiting for your own "Great Pumpkin" to show up and to judge the quick and the dead?

      He, who has Great Pumpkins themselves, should not be throwing stones.

  6. delphin says:

    In response to Penny's question: Secular-Progressivism (relativists) is what is happening to religion in the US today.

    And, only the Catholic Church has the ability and will to stand between them and us, for now; hence, the full-frontal assault by her enemies, both old and new.

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    Your "enemies" what are you your dogma?

    What happens when the pope changes your dogma?

    So you're not in opposition to change per se. You just want validation from on high.

    And you are the one who has picked your "enemies". No one's done that for you .You chose to be at war.  Why?

  8. bill bannon says:

    This article near the end subtly conflates Goodstein with the NY Times as though the NY Times is obsessed which would mean the NY Times has articles on no other religion and sex abuse. Google the words: NY Times sex abuse Hassidim. Many entries come up…many nytimes articles which means that other reporters are working on the other communities; Goodstein is specializing and maybe because we are organized, unified and a block…unlike many disparate Protestants. She has twice written complimentary articles on Cardinal Wuerl partly for his work against sex abuse…google the words involved.

  9. Mark Halper says:

    Jim Robertson: we are commenting on an outside report that shows media bias against Catholics in a very striking and obvious way. You can try to deflect blame by making this a case of anti-Semitism, but in fact, Catholics cannot be anti-Semitic, as Jesus was Jewish. They do, however, differ markedly in philosophy from those who reject Christ. It is not a question of racism. It is a question of diffrerence in morality, ethics, and world view, e.g., religion.

    In any case, Catholics are not drumming up this report: TheMediaReport is the source, not the Catholics who may be commenting on this page.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Mark,

      Tell that to the 6,000,000,000 dead who were all killed in catholic countries, allways within the sound of your church bells.

      Where do you think tmr comes from, in spirit, Mars?

      It pretty much all catholic all the time. I don't see them defending the hassidim clergy "under fire". Catholics by the way invented anti-semitism. FYI.

  10. delphin says:

    From Bob: "Jim, accusing your opponents of being anti-semites with no evidence?

    Very nice."

    Sadly, it's as simple as falsely accusing an innocent priest (dead or alive, now or 50 years ago) of abuse with no evidence. Fool them once…

    And, this is the evil that has been unleashed on all innocents, here and abroad. But, have no doubt, that mad dog will eventually turn on it's owner-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      We victims have been accused over and over again here of not only lying, bad enough, but of fraud. A criminal felonious act.

      All we've accused you of is you letting your hierarchs off the hook. They did crimes. Many crimes but somehow not a crimes, only thanks to statutes of limitations running out.

      It's about accepting responsability. you know, the MORAL thing to do.

       

  11. Mathius says:

    New York Times, by it's own admission, is just a tabloid.  What they publish is irrelevant.

  12. delphin says:

    "We victims have been accused over and over again here of not only lying, bad enough, but of fraud. A criminal felonious act."

    Real, actual victims, those wo have exhibited virtues such as honesty and integrity which are required since the majority of the abuse cases actually do boil down to 'he said, he said', are never accused of lying or being frauds.

    The most vocal victim-claimants here at TMR have never demonstrated the required character virtues. Lying is a venial sin; capitalizing on that lie via the secular legal system (conviction, settlement) is committing fraud, which is a mortal sin when it causes harm to another.  Not exactly honorable (virtuous) character traits.

    "All we've accused you of is you letting your hierarchs off the hook. They did crimes. Many crimes but somehow not a crimes, only thanks to statutes of limitations running out."

    You have no proof or evidence to support your claims. You also have no integrity since you lie on a regular basis, here at TMR, and elsewhere. You have no credibility, and you are not privy to any information (documentation, evidence, proof) that should change anybody's mind about your claims against our 'hierarchs'. If we doubt, with obvious cause, your claims about your own abuse, why would we not also doubt your claims against our 'hierarchs' and our Church?

    Haven't you been able to wrangle any other attorneyholics to attempt other settlement payouts against these elusive 'hierarchs'? Money, after all, is the main focus of the majority of victim-claimants, including yourself.

    You have exhibited severe emotional and integrity problems, such that all of your claims are in doubt.

    Consider yourself fortunate that you got your settlement without anybody taking a hard look at the 'claimants'. You were lucky once due to the political climate, don't push it again. And, stop trying to justify your ill-gotten booty (conscience kicking in much?) by trying to prove your obviously bias-driven claims against all priests, post facto.

    Nobody sane is buying it-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I consider myself fortunate that I survived my abuse. I consider myself fortunate that I've survived your consistent barrage of lunacy.

      I'm not a liar and i don't commit fraud.

      (By the way lying can be a mortal sin. If a person lies about A committing a murder and A is excuted based on that lie; that's a mortal sin. Think of Bush's lies, that caused the invasion of Iraq and all those deaths. Those lies were mortal sins.)

      I was quoting you directly about myself when I wrote "ill gotten booty" . Don't even try that cukoo crap with me.

  13. delphin says:

    "Your "enemies" what are you your dogma?"

    Specifically, where in my statement do I claim 'my enemies'? Direct quote, please.

    Specifically, where do I mention me in relationship to dogma, or dogma as a stand-alone? Direct quote, please.

    "What happens when the pope changes your dogma?

    Specifically, where do I mention/discuss the 'pope' or 'dogma' or 'changes'? Direct quote, please.

    "So you're not in opposition to change per se. You just want validation from on high."

    Specifically, where do I discuss 'change', or 'validation from on high'? Direct quote, please.

    "And you are the one who has picked your "enemies". No one's done that for you .You chose to be at war.  Why?"

    Specifically, where did I mention or discuss 'my enemies', or 'war'? Direct quote, please.

    And, this is a perfect example of how they distort, lie and establish the false premise upon which they attempt to make their case against our priests, our Church, our religion – and us.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Full frontal assalt (of the church) by her enemies"  Your enemies aren't the church's enemies? You always seem to come from that bellicose position. If your being "full frontal (ly) attack (ed)" isn't that a war?

  14. delphin says:

    "Catholics by the way invented anti-semitism. FYI."

    Imbecilic statement, read a book, for God's sake.

    Antisemitism predates Christianity by centuries.

    As Bugs would say "What a Maroon"!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why did the catholic pope find it necessary to tell catholics that the Jews were not responsable for killing christ, after WW2.? Yet for 2000 years never found it neccessary to say that till after the shoah? Why?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Don't you know when you quote Bugs Bunny like that it makes Bugs and therefore you out to be said "maroon"?

  15. delphin says:

    "Why did the catholic pope find it necessary to tell catholics that the Jews were not responsable for killing christ, after WW2.? Yet for 2000 years never found it neccessary to say that till after the shoah? Why?'

    Umm, oh, I don't know, maybe, because the world had just witnessed the first holocaust, perpetrated by atheist socialists/fascists against Jews, Christians and others, in recent human memory?  Maybe, because the 'catholic pope', as opposed to all those 'other' popes, foresaw the unimaginably even worse carnage that would ensue under Stalin, Kim and Mao, the century-from-hell's most notorious murdering atheist communists?

    D'ya think?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What, catholics weren't around to do something to stop this slaughter? catholics drove the trains, refuled the trains. There were catholics everywhere around the holocaust.

        Anti -semitism had it's matrix and it was catholic fueled all the way for centuries. Martin Luther the heretical priest took his antisemitism right into the reformation. What was his matrix? The catholic church. It was the church who made him, the culture he had come from was rabidly anti jew..

      When 35,000 Rhine jews were slaughtered by crusaders on the way to regain the holy land.; they, the murderers were all catholics.

      History doesn't happen in a vacum.

      (As an aside I saw the original deed to my parents little 2 bedroom house.

      Gardena California was a "restricted nieghborhood (before my parents bought the house)

      No blacks, no jews, no asians. And we were supposed to be the good guys.)

      History is written by the winners but it's written by the losers too.

      Those 35,000 jews were murdered because the murderers believed they, the jews, killed god. The fact that god the father sent god the son to die that we might be redeemed from sin demanded that god the son be killed. The outline of his becoming man was that he be killed otherwise his whole "transistion" into human being would be for naught. He came here to die. Why not blame him? His mission was to die…. for us of course.

      No the jews themselves were the problem they didn't believe god had a son and for that thought they had to pay for centuries. Remember the inquisition? It was a lovely day for an auto de fey. Just another catholic love fest.

      This does not excuse any other forms of murder. Perpetrators of all castes and political colors, including Reds, who destroy their fellow man (what ever the excuse). Must be held accountable.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Just as we Americans must hold ourselves responsable, accountable for our own lack of action in ending the wars we presently are in. Allowing any system to treat human beings badly is unforgiveable and should never be allowed to happen ever, anywhere; but that requires a conscious public ready to act non violently to end oppression everywhere. And that is what we all are evolving toward. IMO

  16. delphin says:

    "What, catholics weren't around to do something to stop this slaughter? catholics drove the trains, refuled the trains. There were catholics everywhere around the holocaust."

    Actually, no faithful Catholic would have knowingly cooperated with anything having to do with mass murder, then, or now. If you're throwing around the 'catholic' label just because they may have been baptised as Catholics ('cradle catholics'; who knows, you?), that means nothing – they are not Catholics, they were/are CINOs. Given that criteria, you may as well call yourself a catholic (but, please, don't).

    But, faithful Catholics did risk their lives, and lose them, while they were fighting the NAZI's, and saving (hiding, feeding, rescuing) the Jews (and other holocaust victims) from the Atheist NAZIs.

    There is no proof of your bogus claims, as usual.

    It is too bad that your hero FDR, and the NYTs Sulzbergers were not as heroic (as the Catholics that fought and died in WWII) in their reception of, or response to the reports of the horrors of the holocaust; many lives were lost as they fiddled around (back home, safe and sound) with socialism. And, the only reason the atheist socialist/communists in Russia finally moved against the NAZI's was the hatred that drove their ideological divide and lust for power and control, not because of the crimes of the holocaust. The Commie-Atheists had their own very special plans for Jews, Catholics and many others.

    Your version of 'history' is really nothing more than histrionics.

    But, I'll suggest it again; if the US, Catholics and Christian-capitalist (western) ethics and morals (and accomplishments) are so untenable to you, you should certainly head out to Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China or wherever any of the other atheist/communist despot regimes rule. Why stay in such a 'hateful' place- you certainly have your booty; 'have booty will travel' -

    Might not want to let that 'lifestyle' thing of yours out of the bag right away, though…. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Ah but it was all those "unfaithful" catholics, millions of them, that allowed the holocaust in all those catholic countries. Looks like the "unfaithful" trumped the faithful in those 99% catholic countries. A real failure morally. An all catholic, all the time, failure. Where's the lord when you need him? Crying in some star lit corner of the universe over the failure of his one true church?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      My heroes are FDR and the owners of the NY Times? I did not know that. Do I have any other heroes I don't know I have?

  17. delphin says:

    "…but that requires a conscious public ready to act non violently to end oppression everywhere…"

    Your naivete is astounding.

    Such fantasy might be tolerated in a child, but, not a man of your advanced age. Time to grow up, Peter Pan. Even Jesus had to resort to some force of will (aggression) when confronted by evil. The Catholic War/Self Defense Doctrine is an entirely appropriate guide for a civilized [western] society. If you had the ability, would you not have broken the arm of the one that twisted and abused your own as a child? Would you not do the same to protect or save another child the same fate?  Stop your silliness.

    Why don't you walk into the Iranian ayotolla's cave, or one of Kim's special 'reeducation centers', especially those he reserves for Christians, and ask them to 'peacefully end their oppression'? Please, just promise to take a videorecorder with you, I'm predicting the YouTube hits would be recordbreaking.

    I think you may have met your intellectual-emotional match in one Dennis Rodman-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Wow. Are the only real human beings pro god and pro capitalist? The rest of us aren't your equal?

      I would not have wanted to break my perps arm. I loathe violence. It's completely unneccessary. I wanted it to stop. I wanted it to have never happened, like you I wanted to ignore it and get on with my life. The problem was that the abuse changed everything for me. How I looked at and delt with the world. That all changed.

      Here's a piece from the Sidney Herald:http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-truth-is-that-the-effects-of-child-abuse-are-longlasting-not-just-on-its-victims-but-on-the-health-systems-bottom-line-20131006-2v282.html

      The government has to pay the bills the church refuses to pay. Talk about fraud and theft. Look to your own house.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P.S. Jesus, evidently, stopped being aggressive with wrong doers ever since he left this vale of tears. Explain our abuse, the holocaust, nuclear weapons that were dropped by the U.S. on Japan, if J.C. was so "aggresive" against evil. From all the evidence of all that horror, he allowed; that only shows him to be passive. Or even passive aggressive.

  18. delphin says:

    As is the result of all articles published at TMR, and anywhere else antiCatholics are generously permitted to post comments, yet, another debate-debacle that is focused on the selfish victim-claimants own personal issues (and they are many) that has deteriorated into just another typical antiCatholic tirade.

    When we're done revisiting the claims of centuries old 'catholic crimes' (even BC as in the case of antisemitism originating in Christianity), we'll eventually wind back around to the heart of the matter: false claims of abuse against innocent priests and the media's enabling of such crimes.

    I never lose sight of those crimes which have been perpetrated against innocents by false witness, here at TMR, and elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, I'll enjoy the brief Catholic history summaries being offered by those who have actually demonstrated knowledge, comfort and confidence in the subject.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Groovy for you. I notice you didn't mention the word, truth in your litany of "knowledge, comfort (!!!) and confidence", D. You did however mention "comfort". Comfort? I think that's the core of your religiosity, comfort.

  19. delphin says:

    "You did however mention "comfort". Comfort?"

    Yes, Boy Wonder, comfortable in the material (familiar, educated, versatile, versed) as opposed to someone like you and your side kick who think that trolling the internet only to excerpt bits and pieces out of questionable sources that they didn't read, understand, digest or thoroughly analyze (comprehend) - the principles and concepts with which, in their original context, they clearly struggle, for the sole intent of attempting to defend their versions and/or revisions of history as framed by their antiCatholic bigotry.

    Stick to dressing up like a girl on the weekend, or undertaking your braggadoccio (Cliff Clavin) down at the local watering hole to keep your buds green with envy at your latest tinkertoy, you know, what you two amateurs actually know about. You are clearly so far out of your league on these intellectual, analytical matters that you only manage to come off as Archie and Edith Bunker to many of the resident Steven Spielberg and George Lucas commenters; commenters who have exhibited incredible patience.

    [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      D are you having a complete breakdown?

      If I did dress up like a girl, so what? Who cares? If I screwed a thousand people, so what? Those thousand people wanted to screw. What's it to you?

      What business is any that of yours? And if I did those things; why is my doing those things supposed to be an insult?

      Spielberg and Lucas? They are leading lights, intellectually, to you?

      Well that's sad.

      Who ever the "Spielberg and Lucas" commentators who have exhibited incredible patience with me, are, tell them not to bother.

      As if you and "run on" have been holding back any of your nonsensical opinions of someone who doesn't believe what you do and questions the beliefs you do hold.

      And if you're pretending to be "Lucas" what was with the last 3 Star Wars? They sucked. And Jar Jar Binks makes Step'n'Fetchit seem normal.

      FYI. I don't dress up as a girl on the weekend or on any other days; but If I wanted to I would.

      What is it that you want to do, that you don't?

       

  20. delphin says:

    "The government has to pay the bills the church refuses to pay"

    The government should pay for the sins (fallout) of the secularism/relativism trash it has visited upon its citizens, only to maintain its atheist/secular/leftist power.

    Rampant AIDS, STDs, abortion, child and female (domestic) abuse, family destruction, addiction, violent crime, are only a few of the social disorders caused by your gang's social 'policies'.

    You want to have 'no rules', 'no morals', 'no ethics' about any abherrent social behaviors, have at it.

    And, also have at it when you're paying the price, in this world, and the next.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! Now, according to you I have and or belong to a "gang" that has "social policies" that cause disease, "AIDS; STDS, aborton, child and female abuse; family destruction, addiction,; violent crime; are only a few of the social disorders caused by (my)( sic) gang's social 'policies'" Did I and my gang kidnap the Lindberg baby too?

      After all , according to you, and i quote I (sic), "want to have no rules" ( Sure, let's get rid of gravity first) "no morals, no ethics about any abherrent social behaviors" (Do you mean wearing white after Labor day?)

      Thank you. I did not know I and my "gang" A) existed as such. and B) had no morality or ethics.

      My entire life of struggling to do the right things was realy just an attempt to end morality and ethics.

      What a silly ass you are.

       

  21. delphin says:

    "Ah but it was all those "unfaithful" catholics, millions of them, that allowed the holocaust in all those catholic countries."

    No, it was the evil of rabid antiCatholicism, and Atheism, that perpetrated this evil in Christian nations. Just as it wasn't any real abuse vicitms fault for being abused, it is always the fault of the perpetrator, not the victim, remember? Did their passive, non-violent objections to the slaughter of innocents underway not please your sensitivities regarding violence? From which face do you now speak?

    "Looks like the "unfaithful" trumped the faithful in those 99% catholic countries. A real failure morally. An all catholic, all the time, failure. Where's the lord when you need him? Crying in some star lit corner of the universe over the failure of his one true church?"

    No, thousands of Catholics suffered both inside and outside the death camps in those countries; remember, they were the victim-nations pilloried by your Atheist antiCatholic brothers.  Nazism failed, in large part due to Christianized nations counter-assaults, you know, that 'violence' thing you claim to loathe, well, unless and until you and "Squeeky Fromme' are wishing evil crimes be committed against TMR commenters and all other faithful Catholics. Anytime you need schooling on the sacrifices and successes of Catholics during WWII, ask the Nation of Israel and the great majority of noteworthy Jewish/Israeli historians (not the very few lefty ideologically bigoted dissenters that we're sure you'll dig up from under those rocks of yours), they will gladly recount the greatness of these righteous Christians.

    Our Lord is with his flock in their suffering, always. His Church withstood two thousand years of assaults, it's still here, stronger than ever in most corners of this fallen world. He ultimately always triumphs, don't worry. He is with us here and now, and hereafter.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No I just wished it on you and P, D. or on someone you loved.

      I wished it because then you might know what we know.

      Demanding compensation for the crimes committed by your church is not an attack. It's JUSTICE!

      [edited by moderator]

  22. delphin says:

    "Remember the inquisition? It was a lovely day for an auto de fey. Just another catholic love fest."

    Actually,the worst elements, which were at that still very rare secular events, were a state run/controllled and enforced entity. Yet, the Church still managed to bring sanity and charity to turbulent times. Madden, Lockwood, O'Connel and numerous other reputable historians have already handled this topic well enough. The black legend, as propagated by vicious antiCatholics and antiSpaniard bigots, is as thoroughly debunked as is the 'Galileo Affair'.

    Books, analyzing extensive documents/records that were meticulously preserved, are wonderful resources to establish these truths, you should try one some day (as in 'No, Mel Brooks and Monty Python are not reliable sources from which to draw your silly conclusions').

    Got anymore virulent antiCatholic 'legend'? You do have 2000 glorious years of love, charity and beauty to troll-trawl through, don't give up now, there, Sir 'GalaVictim'.

    Remember, this is all about priests raping children…

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Poor poor catholics always being attacked by your own imaginations. LOL! Not only is your god not there niether are your enemies.

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    Warning to the World watch what you say around christians, catholics included. They are hyper sensative. Don't make any sudden moves around them. They might stampede. (Forgive my using your word, P) If you leave them alone to rule the world like they were used to they'll calm down and head straight for the barn.

    What, that didn't work out very well? 2000 years of christianity and we got Hitler's Germany? That, the Holocaust is the biggest failure the world's ever seen. And it all happened in catholic countries. You can lay blame here or lay it where ever but that will never not be true. That's where it happened.

    If you weren't capable of amealiorating those horrors occuring. What moral good are you?

    Were your anti sex laws worth it? Was there a payoff for all those eons of self sacrifice and neighbor's sacrifice? You failed. The whole so called christian world failed. So why should you be granted any moral power? Rewarding failure is supposed to be un American. (After 2008 it seems that's not true.)

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    Just heard a Quinnipiac University poll was done of catholics, those who go to mass every week,. 56% of all catholics polled supported gay marriage and most importantly 72% of catholic women who attend mass weekly, support same sex marriage.

    I've heard that Bill Donahue now admits that you've lost on the gay marriage issue because the young are not with you. And now it seems the old aren't with you either. It must get pretty lonely out on that limb.

    I claim the right wing has kidnapped the church and is demanding all our democratic human rights as ransom. You and this entire blog represent a tiny minority of American catholics. At last my faith in humanity is proven true. Lol! it just proves you can't fool all of the people all of the time, not even religious people. They are better than YOU think. Would you like some ketchup or blood to go with that survey? You can smear it over your lintels……

  25. delphin says:

    Why, that's quite a bit more of a celebration, perhaps even close to an actual transcendental experience, you've got there going in your Snoopy Dance.

    One would think that the Pope himself just admitted to a conspiracy to cover up minor abuse, NAZI-Vatican partnerships, antisemitism, racism, sexism, and the ritual secret murder and eating of babies – all in one-fell swoop; instead we have one poll about some Catholics being accepting of gay marriage.

    Are you sure the bone you're picking with the Church is the one this site analyzes regarding false abuse claims and media bias; you know, minor abuse by priests, remember?

    This hatred of yours for the Catholic Church is really only about everything gay, isn't it, Sparky? I find it interesting that you've had such little sympathy for those gay priests that did step over the line…..or did they? Martyrs for the cause, perhaps?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator]

      Bring one American victim forward who's been proved false in his or her abuse claims.You can't even name one.

      My being gay should be reason enough to hate the church's b.s.. My abuse (that didn't happen according to P) would be another.

      But what has driven me to loathing and not being civil around your beliefs is you and P.

      I dedicate every ounce of honesty I have, to breaking your hate filled, soap bubble, dreams.

       

  26. delphin says:

    http://www.catholicleague.org/quinnipiac-poll-on-gay-marriage/

    Not exactly new, and not exactly as recently 'reported' -

    Our 'lintels' are safe, for now.

  27. delphin says:

    "If you weren't capable of amealiorating those horrors occuring. What moral good are you?"

    Silly libs are apparently under the impression that the Nazis won? Ask Israel if they won.

    Das da sprechen sie Deutsch?

    It's long overdue to trigger Godwins Law and start pulling the plug on the TMR kooks as soon as they collapse into Nazi-land. It's to where they default everytime they lose the argument (100% of the time- what a record!).

    It just encourages the crazies for us to atempt to charitably respond to/correct their insanity anymore.  They so enjoy wallowing in their mud that it actually makes them sicker, not well.

  28. delphin says:

    http://superstore.wnd.com/Whistleblower-Magazine

    What is really going on over and under the rainbow.

    Dopes don't realize how they're being used, but, being used is, sadly, the extent of all their interpersonal relationships.

  29. delphin says:

    This writer-analyst wraps it all up in a short, sweet little package (that even a lost-leftist can understand).

    And, it is the Catholic Church that is the only entity that stands between us and them-

    Expect the assaults against Her to ramp up.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/secular-humanism-is-evolution-atheism/

  30. delphin says:

    "If you stood up for victims in your churches rather than claiming we are for the most part lying about our abuse, what a change that would make.That's reason enough for any victim to post here.

    But you don't do that. instead you attack all our claims. You've attacked my claims and I've been compensated and therefore believed by the church and it's insurors"

    So many untruths, such little time:

    1. We believe that many victim-claimants are lying. The evidence appears to support our belief.

    2. Real victims would not likely be interested in posting at TMR – it's mission would not appeal to real victims, which is why only you and Squeeky are likely here. If there are 'zillions and millions" of real victims out there, where are they, where are their thousands of websites, blogs, pickets, legislative actions, media profiles, books, movies, etc?  Only ambulance-chasing attorney-holics manage to dredge up 'victims' to use as their 'settlement whores",  to be found where they trawl through prisons, gutters, crack-houses and other sub and countercultural ratholes.

    3. We challenge your claims (since they are just that; claims, and not facts), the majority of which cannot be corroborated by evidence or witnesses and which are made by unsavory (lying, stealing, cheating, addicted, antiCatolic bigots) characters (see #2 above). Who in their right mind wouldn't challenge such dubious claims?

    4. Compensation via settlement does not confer either guilt or innocence, it means that an agreement was reached to settle out of court (aka payoff to go away; blackmail). No verdict or determination of guilt or innocence is made. It is a financial decision made by the entity's insurors to reduce costs – it is not based upon belief (but, it is interesting how you do believe some things and not others). Wise up, while it is evident that you don't comprehend many things, we actually do.

    In effect, we 'attack' (challenge is far more accurate) the claims of those who we believe, and for which there seems to be a predominance of evidence, are liars.

    That is our prerogative, in and out of the Church.

  31. TheMediaReport.com says:

    Thank you, everyone!

    Comments are now closed on this thread.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Lawrence Lew OP, New Liturgical Movement Not By Reason Alone - Ben, Two Catholic Men and a Blog NYT Reports On Sex Abuse In Catholic Church & Nowhere Else - MRep A Brief List of Annoying Expressions & Verbal Fumbles - Msgr. Pope, ADW Five Steps to [...]