‘We’ll Say You Touched Us’: Robbers Attempt to Extort Priest With Threat of Abuse Claim

Catholic priest collar

No one is immune: Every priest is a target

According to a truly shocking story in the Chicago Tribune, two men recently walked into the sacristy of a Catholic church after Mass and demanded cash from a 73-year-old priest.

That alone is frightening enough. But what accompanied their demand should send chills through any decent person. One of the men ominously said to the priest:

"We'll say you touched us, read the paper, they'll believe us."

Indeed, such words are the fear of every living cleric. It is open season on Catholic priests today. An accusation, threat, or mere suggestion of abuse is enough to destroy a priest's reputation and vault a man out of the priesthood forever.

Even long-deceased priests with previously unblemished records are not immune from specious accusations, which the media then dutifully and loudly trumpet.

Whereas mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and the Boston Globe are willing to fall over themselves to report any and all accusations against Catholic priests – no matter how long ago or how flimsy – the time is long overdue for them to seriously address the issue of false accusations and the dauntingly vulnerable position which priests in society find themselves today.

This frightening episode in Chicago only underscores this critical need.

Comments

  1. dennis ecker says:

     Credibility.

    The catholic church has given society no reason why they should be believed over two thugs.

    What goes around comes around.

    The world has heard the lies the church has told over time and they themselves have written the final chapter of how they will be looked upon.

    "Credible" The catholic church has no clue what the word means.

    • Jason Miller says:

      Yes, but why should I believe YOU as well.  My guess is, like all people, you've done some things in your life that you aren't proud of.  For example, I wouldn't trust you at all as credible for dismissing this story about a 73 year old man that was blackmailed.  Your claims cut both ways – be careful.

    • Jacob S says:

      Replace "Catholic Church" with "public school system." Do you still believe what you said? If so then you are actually reacting against the terrible actions by some priests (wrongly reacting, because while the actions were terrible, they simply don't imply what you say since most in the Church are innocent, but at least you'd be reacting to what you're saying you are).

      If not, then you're either being dishonest with yourself and are really angry at the Church for another reason while using this mess (terrible as it is) as an excuse to say things that are wrong, or you are ignorant of the unfortunate state of our world.

      Which is of course not an attempt to say "they did it too, so it isn't that bad when we do it." If you truly believe that no organization where this has occured has any credibility, then that is at least consistent. But if you only apply this standard to a few organizations that you don't like, then you're not being honest.

    • TJL says:

      Credibility?

      Someone mentioned Credibility lacking by the Church, interesting. Could the false accuser please elaborate?

       

      Individuals are imperfect and prone to failure, but the entire Church? An entire organization?

      And, this priest who was attacked, is he the entire Church or is he an individual? Does the accusing commentor know of some credible reason to call the priest a liar?

      Perhaps the false accusing commentor requires some personal experience in the trials of a false accusation. We'll pray that the commenter is falsely accused for something hideous like a sex offense, and that the commentor suffers great public humiliation and spends at least a few years in prison for the crime that never happened. Then, while in prison perhaps the commentor will learn what "Judge not, lest you be judged" means.

       

  2. Julie says:

    It's only a Catholic priest, so who cares, right Dennis? The Catholic Church actually saved my life (along with Jesus), and so it has a lot of credibility with me. :) And it has a lot of credibility around the world, clothing, giving healthcare to, feeding and educating more people around the world than any other institution on earth. That's what bothers Dennis. The scandals should have destroyed it by now, according to what he had hoped.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Julie, it's your donations and the donations of all our dead catholic ancestors that allow the church to do what it does. ALL of what it does, the good the bad and the ugly. The good stuff is just that, good and that supposedly is what the church is about. But the Paracletes were funded to care for priest perpetrators and so far barely a candle's been lit for the victims, over all. Let alone the establishment and funding of an order to help us. That's just bad and ugly.

      (I don't need hear about the billions already spent on a small percentage of victims. You haven't paid enough. Simply because you haven't compensated all. Do the right thing; and stop your whining.)

      The big ugly is what is spewed here by P. Have any of you spent any time in L.A. or Hollywood ever?

  3. Publion says:

    We are given a lecture in the definition of “credibility” by ‘dennis ecker’. Then the Wig of Accusation points a tendril at the Church for its “lies”.

    Readers may contemplate the queasy but glowing ironies here.

    And we have seen how poorly this type of claim about the Church stands up when we actually take the time and opportunity to examine various instances of it.

    It is also relevant to note that the Playbook handles any inconvenient actual instance by retreating quickly to generalities (which themselves have been demonstrated to be less than accurate); and the generalities are precisely those that were fabricated to lubricate the Stampede in the first place. Thus, ever and always, the Playbook calls for trying to keep the Framing of the situation fixated upon all that ‘front-loaded’ presumption created by the Stampede in the first place. A neat circularity which has to be Kept Rolling; otherwise people might actually start to work with realities and actualities instead of the fabricated generalities.

    And then the sound-bitey “what goes around comes around” (the irony of his deploying it apparently lost on “Dennis”). The legal system had been designed to get to actualities and realities and facts – as best humans could achieve that; ditto for the media – equally cast as a vital source of actual information based not on some selected and embraced presumptive generalities but rather on rational inferences made from reported and demonstrated facts .

    But it is precisely an indication of the derangement required by the Stampede that both the Law and the Media were twisted-away from their original purposes in order to support ‘the Cause’ no matter what had to be done to facts, actualities, realities, and the principles designed to determine them.

    One commenter on those sites I linked-to in a recent comment – who signs his comment as a retired Philly police captain – opined that it is good for all the half-truths and suspicions to be printed and reported … since that would encourage more people to ‘come forward’ and more people to think about how awful the Church’s sex-abuse problems are.

    Of course, this is the web so who knows whether this is actually a retired Philly police captain. But let us move past that problem to the gravamen of that commenter’s opinion: it’s OK for the media to indulge in this type of ‘reporting’. And that is – as I have said before in comments – a seriously short-sighted strategy to recommend. Because ‘advocacy journalism’ – which is itself a nice term for the type of duplicitous and manipulative propagandistic media derangement recommended and actually required by the likes of Lenin and Goebbels  and ‘revolutionary praxis’ – constitutes a profound derangement of a vital element in the Framers’ vision of constitutional democratic dynamics: in order to govern their government, the public must be accurately informed as to its doings, and the role of the ‘free press’ is precisely to provide accurate and vital information.

    But when the media start to join in the pick-and-choose mudfight of competing interests and strategies, then a) the public is effectively neutralized in its vital role as governors of the government; and b) the public is instead reduced to a herd, to be manipulatively stampeded on cue; and c) with the public’s role as the ultimate check-and-balance within the constitutional vision thus removed, the governmental machinery loses both brake and steering and can go careening along wherever this or that stratagem may take it.

    And on top of all that, when you i) embrace a media vision that is not based on actual truth, but rather on some presumed or desired or imagined state of affairs, and then ii) key all of the ‘reporting’ not to actualities and realities but rather to those presumed, desired, and/or imagined phantasms, then Truth and Reality cannot act as brakes and steering. And instead the whole balloon (or ‘bubble’, if you wish) can simply keep inflating and inflating.

    And – as we have so often seen – this type of dynamic then attracts persons who aren’t quite so competent at living with actualities and realities and – rather – are more attuned to operating in the endless realms of presumption, desires, illusions and fantasies; which, on top of that, are not subject to the tempering effect of Truth and Reality and so they (the fantasies and the individuals) can go rolling and floating on ad infinitum.

    And lastly, as we have seen in this TMR material here, there is a lethal moral-hazard that is created by all this: realizing that Truth and Reality no longer govern the field, various bottom-dwelling types can rise up to spew whatever they wish, secure in the sure and certain knowledge (buttressed by the various conveniently ‘discovered’ mantras of victimist ‘science’) that they will be immune from examination and even from punishment if their scam is discovered.

    We note in that regard that ‘dennis ecker’ has slyly avoided any questions as to the credibility of the accusers here. Because – doncha know? – it’s not really about the credibility of this or that accusation; rather, it’s about the (presumed, desired, and/or fantasized) vision of the Church’s sex-abusive nature and thus we shouldn’t piddle over such quibbles as the truth or accuracy of any individual particular stories and claims. Don’t check the story – just ‘believe the victim’.

    Of course, if you check particular stories and find that they don’t quite work out in the truth and accuracy department, then you might logically wonder if the overall presumed, desired, and/or fantasized vision is itself merely a grossly inflated ball of presumptions, desires, and fantasies.

    And you would be right in wondering if that is – and perhaps always has been – the core reality all along.

    And – as we have seen in the recent Philadelphia cases – a country can reach the point where not only a) numerous individuals participate in this toxic gaming, but b) the government (legislators and prosecutors and law enforcement) do so as well. And that is surely an unintended but ineluctably guaranteed consequence of lethal proportions.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Precise and accurate as in "weapons of mass destruction."? Oh yea the media is always on the ball. All that the media seems to be doing, that you loathe, is mentioning anything about the church's crimes.

       Why shouldn't they?  Who gave your bad behavior a get out of jail card free? Only you guys.

      The government in  Australia knew they had some explaining to do that's why there are hearings as we speak.Would that have happened here.

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    How convienent, and in Chicago of all places! Home of SNAP and that supposedly false claim against cardinal Bernadin. I'm amazed it didn't happen in St. Louis. My My!

    Why of course this proves that all claims of sex abuse by priests against minors are false. Good job tmr. Between this line and filing for bankruptsy protection,that should handle your whole problem.

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    Sigh! you and your judgements about "bottom dwelling types" People who live in glass houses should not be throwing rocks.

  6. dennis ecker says:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20131114_Overdose_victim_s_family_sues_Archdiocese_for_wrongful_death.html

     The CREDIBILITY and troubles for the ARCHDIOCESE of PHILADELPHIA, Father Brennan and Father Lynn will be once again be questioned.

    The brave mother of a young man who can no longer speak for himself has filed a lawsuit on behalf of her son whose words need to be heard from heaven, a message that will be sent so the safety of children can be protected from the Philadelphia Archdiocese hierarchy and its clergy members.

    Protection from a clergy member who has numerous accounts against him, and another who is spending time in prison for looking the other way while putting children in the sights of abusive priests.

    We can only hope this latest strength being shown by the family of this young man will be considered by a particular three judge panel.

    The catholic church made children and family members victims. THOSE SAME VICTIMS AND FAMILY MEMBERS WILL TURN THEMSELVES INTO SURVIVORS.

  7. Julie says:

    Here is a very good link, mentioning The Media Report:

    http://www.pattimaguirearmstrong.com/2013/11/defend-priests-against-bullies.html

    • dennis ecker says:

      Boo Hoo Hoo. I read your link Julie.

      Nothing more then a self-centered article about how you and people like you (Bill Donahue) think your priests are being treated unfairly and bullied and how it can be quoted by others that it is open season on your priests.

      You must sit back and ask yourself the question why this maybe happening.

      I know of no organization and I will bet you can't name one either that is putting names of innocent priests in a hat and picking a name saying this is who we are going after this week.

      Oh wait, there is one the catholic church. If I can refer you to to a past blog was it not you who stated that YOUR bishops were throwing priests under the bus without due process.

      You need to look at your own house and see who is doing the greater damage to your innocent priests.  

      What I thought was cold about the article was the ending. THE PRAYER FOR PRIESTS.

      Does your church have a special PRAYER FOR VICTIMS of CLERGY ABUSE ?

    • TheMediaReport.com says:
    • josie says:

       Thanks Julie for that link. Patti Armstrong is talented and sensible-Also, her books a great read for young moms like my daughter and friends.

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    Comparing victims to Nazis. I guess that makes the church those persecuted by the Nazis. So you are the Jews; the Commies; the Gypsies; and the Gays.

    Completely Unbelievable! Given how buddy buddy the church was with the Nazis and how they enabled them.

    Your religion is all about obedience. Obey this and obey that and your payoff will be heaven; but sadly only after you're dead. How convienient for the powers that be and the status quo. (And not one return from the dead on the truth of that assertion) 2000 years of supporting the status quo, and what have the majority of believers gotten for that delusionary lie? Nothing.

    It was the Flavian emperors,with the Jewish historian turncoat Josepheus Flavius,  who invented christianity to end rebellion in their empire. (Josepheus was adopted into the Flavian household as an honorary for his work) You know, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars", using money to explain that obedience lesson. And" turning the other cheek" not much rebellion there.  Learn for yourselves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2KONcLKQU

    Your entire faith is a fraud, the good works it does are real, but so are the bad things it does.

    • KenW says:

      Jim, NO ONE has compared victims to Nazis. Self proclaimed professional "victim's advocates"? Those I will compare to Nazi's, because their propaganda tactics are identical to Goebbels. And I do not subscribe to Godwin's Law, so save it.   

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Having a criticism of victims and Goebbels mentioned in the same sentence, is a comparison, dear.

    • Julie says:

      Three million Catholics died in the Holocaust. It is sad that people like Jim Robertson choose to ignore them. In fact, I know a woman who is a Polish Catholic who was in Dachau. Her father died there.

    • KenW says:

      Jim, I did not criticize victims. I criticized professional victim's advocates. Note the difference or rightfully be branded a liar. 

  9. Linus says:

    People like Dennis make one ashamed to be a member of the human race. Even though abuse occurs ten times as much in the secular society, you hardly hear of it. The Media never turns loose of dirt it rakes up about the Church. It creates the story and hangs on like a dog with a treasured bone. There will come a day of justice however when God will give each slandered Priest his good name back and give those who slander what they deserve.,

    Perhaps even Dennis will need a priest in his dying moments and all those loud mouths in  the media as well. And will one be available?

    Linus

    • dennis ecker says:

      Sorry, I believe in one God the Father Almighty creator of heaven and earth, not some ordinary man who wears a white collar who you think fits the bill and who you feel can grant you absolution for the sins you have committed on your death bed.

      No priest needed here son.

      Because if you feel priests are the likeness of your God, then your God abused me and many others.

    • josie says:

      Dennis,

      We as Christians believe in one God, as you say. We are all made in the likeness of God. You are making things up (no surprise there) to just bash priests (or ministers, maybe too-they wear collars) "fit the bill", you say?.Please quote the commenter who said anything like that. Maybe, your parents gave you foolish instruction? Whatever, as was said below, you need more a priest.

  10. Christopher Browne says:

    Actually, Jim Robertson, the Paracletes were founded to care for alcoholic priests, not pedophiles.  Naming one, two, or a hundred guilty accused priests doesn't give anyone the right to drag an innocent priest through the mud.  No rational person believes guilt by association.  The proportion of Protestant and Jewish clergy who molest is just as high, but is less salacious and – dare I say it – much less lucrative.  And what can be said of clergy who molest is NOWHERE NEAR the proportion in the public schools of this country, and towards which the media gives scant attention.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      SNAP is the church children. Your criticism of profesional victims is based purely on SNAP's behavior and they are the church; therefore, THEY are not to be trusted. Get my drift?

      No one ever has suggested that innocent priests be accused. Who gave you that notion SNAP-0-Rama?  If you have the ability to pay a juries award. Well then pay it and shutup; but to invent a persecution that doesn't exist; is like inventing a diety that also doesn't exist. Certain people benefit. Who benefits from an untruthful accusation against a priest. Victims? I don't think so. Is it the church; or at least a certain portion of the church? There have to be some few fake accusations and those are CRIMINAL acts and should be prosecuted.

       Regarding the mission of the paracletes: How the hell would you know what their mission was? So before we victims spoke up. Your clerical abusors were never called to account for their sins? That says more about the victims keeping the secret than anything good about your system or the morality of your clergy.

  11. dennis ecker says:

    Thank You TMR.

  12. Christopher Browne says:

    And I personally knew several priests who were victims of the Nazis, and suffered terribly.  Though they survived, most clergy who were take into custody did not.  This idea that the Church was 'buddy buddy' with the Nazis is slander that did not take hold until Hochmuth's, The Deputy.  Up to that time, the record, including the witness of Jews and others, as well as that paragon of truth, the New York Times, told a different story.  Again, what is more salacious?

  13. Publion says:

    And in today’s episode …

    JR (the 13th, 128PM) tries to emphasize the ‘bad’ that the Church has done by pointing to the Paracletes, a) which “were funded to care for priest perpetrators”, while b) “barely a candle’s been lit for the victims”.

    In regard to (a), of course, they were founded to provide therapy in a secure setting – and not simply for priests with sexual issues but any addiction issues or other significant psychological or psychiatric issues. We have been over this at length before, and not so long ago: i) the Paracletes provide secure settings for therapy and not a ‘rest home’ (as JR opined a while back) and thus ii) it is highly problematic as well as dubious as to whether (genuine) victims would become involved in therapy and in such a setting.

    In regard to (b), of course, somewhere between one and two billion dollars is a pretty big “candle” (especially for somebody who snagged a chunk of it). And we still don’t even know who and how many among those claimants were genuine victims and who and how many are more accurately classifiable as simply ‘payees’. And on top of all that, of course, we have recently been informed by JR that nobody really knows what victims want (or, I would add, if many genuine ones actually exist).

    But JR has only a limited number of file cards in his mental shoebox, so we start to see repetition even after the actual contents of those cards have been dealt with.

    Nice try, though, with the tie-in to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly title of Leone’s iconic film.

    JR then tells us what he doesn’t “need to hear about” but seems to have lost track of the bouncing ball here and that “you” who “hasn’t been paid enough” (for some of the stories we’ve seen here?) is apparently the same “you” who is told to “do the right thing; and stop your whining”.

    Then – passing over with a polite ho-hum his bit about me – he asks if “any of you have spent any time in L.A. or Hollywood ever”. And this is a revealing bit. Apparently if one has “spent time” or perhaps has merely driven around-in or even more merely lives-near L.A. or Hollywood, then one is far more competent in Hollywood matters than those who do not have such proximity or haven’t had a chance to cruise the PCH or Sunset Boulevard. Of what conceivable relevance and use is such proximity? Is there some magical osmosis by which one who drives around those environs is somehow endowed with ‘knowledge’ (a word the meaning of which he might want to look up in a competent dictionary)?

    Or perhaps we are soon to be informed that as it happens he had a career in Hollywood or the film industry or perhaps has a relative who did (hopefully he will not name the same relative who was in one working lifetime becameboth a Lieutenant of Detectives in the LAPD and an “assistant to the director” of the FBI). Or perhaps we will be informed that he is the secret love-child of Louis B. Mayer or one or several of the Warner Brothers – but I still don’t see where that would make him any more knowledgeable than anybody else. If he gleaned as little about the industry from such a connection as he did about the military world from his years in it, then I can’t see the usefulness or the relevance.

    Or perhaps as a denizen of some part of L.A. he has simply appointed himself here as its spokesman the same way he appointed himself spokesman for victims whom he is not sure actually exist or have anything further they want to be represented-about.

    At 115PM he somehow tries to make a connection between Chicago (where the priest was confronted by those two) and the fact that Chicago is organizational home to SNAP. And that “supposedly false claim against cardinal Bernardin” – although if the allegant retracts the claim, as that allegant did, then what remains to be ‘supposed’? The relevance of the St. Louis remark is anybody’s guess.

    And again with the odd bit: whatever recently prompted him to correct himself on the spelling of “anathema” did not kick in for “bankruptsy”.

    At 117PM he apparently takes issue with my phrase “bottom-dwelling types”, which seems to irritate him. As well it might.

    Jumping ahead a bit, at 153PM he says “comparing victims to Nazis” – but who ever wrote that? Can he actually provide a quote (an accurate one, of course)? (Time-saver: he can’t because no such material exists.) I had – as I have often done here – pointed out the similarity between the Stampede’s manipulative public-opinion strategies and the strategies of the Stampede. And, repeating myself further, the ‘victims’ (genuine or otherwise-classifiable) did not think all that up; that was the brainchild of Jeff Anderson and whoever else contributed to the structuring of the Stampede. For which – repeating myself even further – the various individual allegants were merely pawns in a high-stakes game.

    I completely agree with him that the further connections here as to “the Jews; the Commies; the Gypsies; and the Gays” [sic] are “Completely Unbelievable!” – they are certainly the result of some phantasmagoric mentation, but not of my mentation. JR has once again created his own pillow and is now wrestling with it.

    Then more theological lecturing on what Catholicism is “all about”. But he has a bit of a point: one can get a pretty good payoff right here on earth, if one knows how to go about it and is willing to do what it takes. He also seems to be under the impression that believers are supposed to have been returning “from the dead” at some point before the Last Judgment at the end of Time – but wherever he has formed that impression (or perhaps he would deem it ‘knowledge’) it isn’t from Catholicism.

    But if we take his dynamic in a slightly different direction, then the hypothetically myriad un-demonstrably rewarded (or disappointed) believers who have passed-on and disappeared from this world are not so unlike the myriads of ‘victims’ who are still out there (whether genuine or otherwise-classifiable).

    He then informs us in no uncertain terms that “the majority of believers” have “gotten” “Nothing” for all their faith and troubles. He knows this for a fact, does he? That should make an interesting saga of intellectual exploration – perhaps we shall read about it in his memoirs. JR, of course, has had his reward, as the saying goes.

    We are then informed that “it was the Flavian emperors … who invented christianity to end rebellion in their empire”. Was it really? Was that Vespasian who claimed his dynastic descent directly from the gods? Or Titus who revived the cult of emperor worship and deified his father and put up the Temple of Vespasian? Or was it Domitian who persecuted Christians ruthlessly and who deified his brother Titus and put his name up with their father Vespasian’s on that Temple?

    Surely JR can share how he formed his historical conclusions. Or did he simply get these bits from something on You-Tube? I would paraphrase him: his entire historical presentation here is a fraud.

    Then (124PM) ‘dennis ecker’ offers a Philly online article about a family with a drug-addicted and recently deceased son (a month or so ago, at the age of 26). Since his criminal claim against the priest – none other than Fr. Brennan of recent Philly trial fame – was extinguished by his own death, the parents are bringing a civil lawsuit (Brennan was never criminally charged; at age 68 or 69, in 2005, he was told to cease priestly functions and he retired, after being mentioned prominently in those dubious Grand Jury Reports presented by the Philly DA).

    It is their right to do so and they are well-advised, inasmuch as the evidentiary bar is set lower in a civil trial (and that’s in addition to the Stampede nature of all these trials, especially – it clearly seems – in Philadelphia).

    We are informed by “Dennis” that Fr. Brennan “has numerous accounts against him” – which is perhaps an infelicitous slip of the tongue. And from that he arrives as the conclusion that the “the catholic church has made children and family members victims” – which remains to be seen, to say the least.

    But then we are given – in those giveaway all-caps – the histrionically styled but conceptually questionable assertion that “victims” can apparently turn themselves into “survivors” (again with that queasy filching from the Holocaust). This is apparently some victimist code: there is apparently a conceptual distinction in the code between ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’. Since – as I have recently mentioned in comments  – just about everyone of us is a ‘victim’ of something or other, then it might be helpful to know if we are also “survivors” – and how we achieved that status. That would be nice.

    There must be an awful lot of “survivors” in the world then, or is the term only applicable to those who claim a particular type of victimization? That would seem rather arbitrary.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Tell me the church couldn't have paid for as many treatment sites for victims as they had for perps. And the Paracletes were created for sex abuse issues to. They almost bought an island in the Carribean because the head of the order knew these peds were on the whole incurable. Well at least he knew.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Oh! I'm still spelling badly? There's a shock.

      Get over it. You'll live.

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    Chris you know priests who were good. Groovey! Me too…… oh wait a minute. In my parish I had two perps who were my priests through most of my childhood. They became monsignors and one a bishop. Both were credibly accused. Then I had 2 abusors of me, personally in high school. But maybe my experience is an anomolly. Just one working class kid's experience. You do the math.

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    [edited by moderator] compensation is not a "reward". It's an attempt at amelioration of damages done. [edited by moderator]

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    [edited by moderator] I can get Pinter and Beckett and Genet and Camus and Sartre on you tube. I can see and hear all the forsaid people speak. Where's you diety? Longtime no see. VERY longtime no see in truth. Never seen, to be completely accurate.

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    And Constantine never became a christian himself. He just conquered in it's name. IHS "in this sign" conquer. Talk about contradictions! Why, it's all so sane! LOL!

  18. bennie says:

    snap  NEVER  gave counseling-to anyone, you have to find your own, where is the money going  vacations, etc???

  19. Publion says:

    Moving right along …

    On the 13th at 620PM ‘dennis ecker’ says he believes in God but “not some ordinary man”. Fine – the old Reformation arguments about whether one needs a priesthood and what’s new? “Dennis” is welcome to whatever belief he chooses, but I simply point out for factual purposes that Catholic it isn’t.

    And I completely agree with him that his primary need at this point is not for a priest.

    As for his claim about being abused by a priest, we can simply file that with the rest of the claims he has placed on the record here and readers are welcome to make of it what they will.

    On the 13th at 1003PM JR advises us “children” that “SNAP is the Church” and nothing new there and more stuff for whatever file readers may keep. I don’t know who the “your” refers-to in the phrase “your criticism of profesional victims” [sic] but to the extent that it involves me, then I can state clearly and for the record that my assessment of victims and victimism stem from a) a substantial amount of reading on the subject (I have offered several books, articles, and journals for reading in comments on this site) and b) the material we have been presented by various commenters and c) the very process by which such commenters present and handle discussion about their comments. And while I am not familiar with any specially-set-up ‘victim’ listservs, I can certainly recommend the NCReporter site for the comments encountered there, as well as to various comments found on the various relevant articles on the BigTrial site and its predecessor site.

    In regard to “persecution”, I point out yet again that the strategies and dynamics of the Stampede rather closely follow the historically-established strategies of both Communist and Nazi regimes; although Stalin simply arrested, imprisoned and/or killed Orthodox bishops, nuns, monks and clergy outright, whereas what Hitler said at the outset of his mid-1930s attack on the Catholic Church in Germany was acute and revealing: he didn’t want them made “martyrs”, he wanted them made “criminals”. And thus the various efforts in Koblenz and elsewhere to taint priests, bishops and the Church with the sex-crimes tactic. (Readers are again referred to the relevant parts of Michael Burleigh’s 2007 book, Sacred Causes.)

    JR thinks that victims do not benefit from “an untruthful accusation against a priest”. Seriously? A million bucks for a sex-act that even the ‘victim’ insists didn’t happen is not a “benefit”?

    And if he could explain how “the church; or at least a certain portion of the church” [sic] benefits, that would no doubt be interesting. Unless he wishes to point out those elements and interests within the Church that wish to weaken the hierarchy and/or the male patriarchy and/or the concept of Order and Structure (that has kept the Catholic Church from becoming the smorgasbord belief-buffet now encountered even in many mainline Protestant groups).

     I agree with him that false-accusations are criminal acts (exaggerated formatting omitted) but I point out again that such a potentiality was neatly precluded by the Anderson strategies. (And in that regard, are we to imagine that Anderson is a tool or pawn of the Church? That explanation would really be interesting.)

    The mission-statement of the Paracletes is on their website. Had JR not bothered to check? See http://www.theservants.org/  … or perhaps we are to presume that since JR doesn’t know something, then it is ipso facto not worth knowing?

    And then the fundamentally incoherent assertion that “before we victims spoke up” (note the inclusion of himself here, and no distinction between genuine and otherwise-classifiable) “clerical abusers were never called to account for their sins”. But the Church has had canonical regulations regarding such transgressions for centuries, and clearly they were there for a purpose. Indeed, Abuseniks have called attention to the long-standing regulations precisely as indicators that the problem of clerical sex abuse goes back a long time. So what’s it going to be here? Also, does JR wish to address clerical sex-abuse as ‘sin’ (as he says here) or as ‘crime’? Canon law treats it as both. And lastly, from all the stories we have managed to examine from “we victims” who “spoke up”, it seems increasingly more probable that there has been some rather substantive exaggeration, bordering on deliberate misrepresentation. Has that not become increasingly obvious?

    The explanation that “victims” were “keeping the secret” is a) hardly the only possible explanation and b) doesn’t deal with the fact that after the past several decades of the Catholic Abuse Matter – especially the past decade – persons are still claiming they have just decided to come forward; the new explanation revolves around ‘courage’, but that explanation had to be devised to replace the old one, i.e. recovered/repressed memory (which has now been exposed in all its problematic essence, even by the courts and the American Psychiatric Association in its most recent edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual).

    Further – in regard to (a) immediately above – a perfectly rational alternative possibility is that there are i) large potential fiscal and status rewards, ii) small danger of being exposed for (criminally) fraudulent sworn claims, and iii) the near-impossibility of there being sufficient evidence to disprove them (thanks to the Stampede, which also neutralizes the fact that there is also the near-impossibility of proving them).

    Then (the 13th at 1007PM) JR insists that “having a criticism of victims and Goebbels mentioned in the same sentence is a comparison”. He can add the definition of “comparison” to the list of things he needs to look up in a competent dictionary, and in an earlier comment on this thread I have explained my discussion of “strategies” rather than the “victims” as being the subject of my discussion. But if he didn’t have something that fit (however inaccurately) into the limited material in his mental-shoebox, he would have nothing at all in terms of plop to toss.  And as so often with this commenter, when we get such bits as being-addressed as “dear” (or “children”)then we are looking at a clear giveaway that he is trying to plaster over the lack of content with some distracting ploy like sarcasm.

    And in regard to the comment of the 13th at 1004PM: the problems – legal and psychological – with the Church funding therapy sites for victims (genuine ones, at least) have been discussed at length here. So this is just a re-tossing of old stuff the problems with which have already been discussed (and not refuted by any of the Abuseniks).

    But I’d be interested in the grounding for the assertion about the Paracletes or the Church that “they almost bought an island in the Carribean” [sic; and you’d think he could spell it, having been stationed in that vicinity during his military victimization period]. And while actual clinically-defined pedophiles are indeed considered very difficult to “cure”, very few of the clergy-abuse accused have qualified clinically for that definition.

    As for his claims (the 13th, 1015PM) about his own “abusors of me”, we have circled that drain at length a number of times. Persons can add these present statements to their files and consider the material for themselves.

    And an alternative explanation to his “experience” being an “anomolly” is simply that his claims were – to use my terminology – “otherwise-classifiable” and enough said about that.

    In regard to JR’s of the 13th at 1007PM: I can’t see the relevance of the WMD reference in this context. And the point about “the media” that is most consistently made on this site is not that the media is discussing nothing but the Church’s crimes, but rather that when most of the media does discuss the Catholic Abuse Matter, it presumes that the allegated crimes have been committed. There is a substantial difference there, even if it seems to have escaped him.

    But while we’re on the subject, I would point out that the WMD-as-pretext-for-invasion was a mess created precisely in the same way as the by-then already-established Anderson-type Stampede strategy: make a whole bunch of claims and assertions, get people all worked up over the awfulness of what the claims paint as the real picture, and thus surf over the huge problems with the proof and veracity of the assertions and claims in the first place. Funny how the night moves, as the Songster saith.

    The problem, also, is not at core one of getting out of jail free; the problem is one of legitimately and demonstrably being proven to deserve jail in the first place. Which remains a substantial problem.

    The dynamic of the Stampede now being tried-out by other Western-connected governments has been discussed already in recent threads and nothing has come from the Abuseniks to indicate how – or if – they are successfully proceeding. Does JR have any new and verifiable information he would like to share on the subject?

    In regard to the 14th at 1152AM: we have yet to see just what damage was done that would justify the characterization of “compensation”. We do have, I believe, enough to see that there is a great amount of damage; we just don’t have much to indicate that the (non-)events allegated were the cause of it.

    On the 14th at 1229PM, putting on his Historian-Wig, JR avoids his “Flavian” problems and changes the topic to the Emperor Constantine, who – it should be noted – was also declared a Saint by the Church (formally titled “Saint Constantine the Great”). He “never became a christian himself”?  Talk about lack of historical knowledge yet making historical assertions – and I would recommend against JR raising the question of sanity.

    And finally, as to JR’s bit (the 14th, 1239PM) about his spelling. The problem I have been pointing out is not his misspelling as such, but the fact that he has to override his word-processing program in order to achieve it – which requires deliberate intent. (Unless, as I have said, he has a word-processing program that doesn’t have a spell-check; but then how did he know he misspelled “anathema” a short while back?) I couldn’t care less about his spelling in itself; my concern is a) how so extensive an amount of misspelling can take place with modern word-processing technology and b) how and why he saw fit to correct “anathema” while leaving so many other words (deliberately?) misspelled. The dots here – as in so much else in his material – don’t connect. Or at least not in any way that generates confidence in his project here.

    As always, the key issue is credibility. Because – as I have said in prior comments – the Stampede strategy relied-upon all sorts of people coming out of the woodwork who would create a neatly-distracting cacophony of negative commenting about the Church and priests. The sheer weight of all that – amplified in this era by the web and the internet  (as well as so much of the mainstream media for its own purposes) – would help raise a lot of the dust that would be thrown into the public’s eyes so that they wouldn’t focus on any analysis of the  actual allegations and claims, but instead would simply emotionally respond to the weight of all the negativity and thus be ‘front-loaded’ into presuming that with all this negative noise, there must be a lot of negative – verrrry negative – activity on the part of priests and the Church.

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    What "Catholicism is all about" is money; privilige; but most of all your own imaginations.

  21. Faith says:

    I pray for those who are so twisted with blinding rage and bitterness.  I pray for justice for them and also for the just punishment of their molestors whose terrible acts caused their psyches to be so deformed.  God grant them peace and have mercy on us all.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Maybe our "blinding rage and bitterness" (If that's how you see us) comes from the way the church has and continues to treat victims: as if we aren't here.

      Maybe my "blinding rage and bitterness" has allowed me to seek truth more deeply, that I might ameliorate my just anger at the institution and the ignorant who post here, about things they do not know.

      Why aren't churches asking victims to tell to adult catholics exactly what happened to us? So that they can hear what happened and what the real damages are to people raped by priests as children.

      Why won"t a church that demands moral responsability, as defined by them, from all it's membership, refuse to acknowledge the injured it's behavior created? Why the desire to loathe anyone who claims they were abused? What is this church thing about if we ignore them they will just go away or die off, then we can go back to pretending we're following the one true faith? Where's the morality in all of that?

      Your one true faith is like every other "one true faith":  earthbound machines designed for the benefit of a few and the control of all. That's what the reality is. Not the dreams. Not the myths. Not the imaginings.

      I pray to my atheist god that you and your church quit talking about morality untill you start behaving morally.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    When was Constantine made a demi-god; or as you call them saints? His ancestors Titus and son were made gods by the Roman senate. (How like the church in it's creation of celestial royalty.) Was he made one by jp2, that saint making machine?

    Constantine supposedly converted on his death bed but the simple facts that he murdered both his wife and son should have kept him from sainthood. But in vaticanland any fantasy is possible and any act acceptable that it's power and glory might be maintained.

    I'm proud to not know Constantine was a saint. Was he offed along with st. Christopher? Much revenue was lost in terms of medal making when Chris disappeared.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Constantine is not a saint in the Holy Roman Catholic church, dear.

      Don't be making any prayers to him.

      Did you go to catholic school,P? Or just get your religious history on a saturday?

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    P, regarding Anderson's role in this situation,

    Anderson like every other injury lawyer is only interested in getting damage money for their clients. That's his job. His relationship to SNAP is obvious i.e. he needs SNAP to recomend him as a primary legal rep regarding victims of clergy abuse. No SNAP = few clients; because thanks to massive publicity SNAP is the only organization victims ever hear of.

    Does Anderson do any analysis of what SNAP is or how it came to be? Probably not. It not his job. His job is to get clients and then get them compensated. He has to deal with SNAP. Where else would he go? It's the fact that SNAP was a skyscraper and never a collective corner shop from it's get go says much. Who needed another victims group when SNAP was everywhere? The creation of SNAP by the church is evily brilliant. Control the victims, you control a huge portion of your PR.

    The "stampede" ,you constantly speak of, is just the sound made when massive numbers of truely harmed people come forward.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      And isn't it better for the church that there is one go to lawyer in the mid west who also selected, by refering clients the lead lawyer in L.A.?  He was the lead lawyer because he had the most clients. Clients in large part referred by Anderson. Snap had an office at Boucher's for a time.Early in the struggle in 2002. Only proving there were sluce gates put in place i.e. Anderson and SNAP before the dam broke.

      Have you ever seen pictures of Anderson's office? Real Tiffany lamps (not museum pieces but real) etc but it looks like a bishop's office if the bishop were being played by Barry Fitzgerald. There's even something that looks like a confessional or possibly medeval choir stalls.  The accoutre of a victim friendly attorney? It's creepy.

      The church suits have made Jeff, a wealthy man. Why would he question SNAP's legitamacy? He needed and needs SNAP for clients. SNAP only pretends to be an Anderson directed event but they are not. They control Anderson not he them. It's a fact that has probably never been spoken to by both the parties I've mentioned. There was no need for them too.  They knew  who called the tune. He who has the clients.

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    I told you I only got a computer a year and ten months ago. I don't know how to operate the thing well. I'm a peasant.

    I know how to spell anathama.

    I only learned how to read using phonetics as a child. Not taught it in catholic school but by my parents. Sight reading I didn't understand. Phonetics made sense to me and I've loved to read ever since. But obviously my spelling suffers accordingly.

  25. Publion says:

    On the 15th at 121AM (has “Dennis” noticed these late-night postings?) JR declares the essence of Catholicism to be “money; privilige; but most of all your own imaginations”. Readers are welcome to file that where they see fit.

    On the 15th at 1217PM JR discourses about his (and – but of course – other victims’) “blinding rage and bitterness”, if it exists, maybe coming from the fact that the Church “continues to treat victims … as if we aren’t here”. I cannot see how a million bucks is not some sort of recognition (of something) and beyond that precisely what is it that the Church is supposed to keep on ‘recognizing’? And – I might add here – if ‘recognition’ is demanded, then on what basis can ‘analysis’ be rejected?

    Whether JR can or cannot “seek truth more deeply” in a general sort of way, he certainly hasn’t demonstrated any competence or inclination toward truth and accuracy in many of the specific elements of the material I have see on this site.

    And did not “the victims” have precisely the chance to “tell to adult catholics exactly what happened to us” when they swore-out their allegations in the formal Complaints which netted them their monies? How about if they put up their sworn-to allegations from the Complaints on the internet and let every adult – Catholic and otherwise – have a look for themselves?

    And how are we to be sure that JR – to the extent he is a genuine victim in the first place – can credibly (let alone coherently) speak-for myriad persons who have, as the current Abusenik position holds, not yet come forward? What we have here is a person who is not demonstrably a genuine victim (but claims to be) who is then claiming to speak or make demands for persons whom we are not even sure exist. Did I not say recently that the whole Abusenik operation is a maze of mirrors? But since the reality-principle has been dispensed with – as it always had to be – in the Stampede, then there are no limiting principles which might put a brake on the myriad possible permutations of damp-dreaming about Things Abusenik.

    And – as always and again and again – how would anybody know if the stories which these hypothetical victims might tell are true in the first place? (Of course, if they put their sworn-to stories up on the web, and those stories were examined for credibility and probability, certain unhappy consequences might be set in train for the aforesaid sworn victims or allegants or payees. So you see the problem here. Better to bethump the Church than to risk having the already-told – and indeed sworn-to – stories actually come out into the light. Neat.)

    He then loses control of his thought here and asks plaintively why the Church “won’t … refuse” to acknowledge …and so forth. And on top of that, he once again offers as a presumptive fact what has yet to be demonstrated, i.e. “the injured it’s behavior created” [sic] This beat can go on and on, around and around, ad infinitum … which perhaps is the objective in the first place.

     

    I recommend bringing the whole “morality” focus back to the question of telling the truth in those sworn-to allegations and stories. Then, with that step completed through analysis, we can move on from there with whatever results are brought to light.

    Then – abandoning all sense – he refers to his “atheist god”, which is an oxymoron.

    And I pray that JR stops talking about “morality” until we can examine what might be immorally (and illegally) sworn-to stories and allegations. Then we can move onto larger applications of the term.

    Then (the 15th, 1234PM) we are told by the Wig of History that Constantine’s “ancestors” were “Titus and son”. Actually, Titus was the son of Vespasian, and Domitian was Titus’s brother and the three – Vespasian, Titus, Domitian – constituted the Flavian dynasty or “the Flavians”. In relationship to Constantine, they would have been – at best – his predecessors. But of course, neither facts nor words mean much to Abuseniks, nor can they be allowed to, since the stories are always works-in-progress and it would be insensitive and re-victimizing to point out anything from some ‘yesterday’ that doesn’t jive with whatever is being put-forward in some ‘today’.

    The record will also show that I wasn’t the one who raised the subject of Roman emperors; it was JR, who clearly doesn’t know his way around his own references.

    Constantine had his wife and oldest son executed upon his authority as emperor; there is no definitive knowledge as to why, although the wife had reportedly claimed publicly to have had a sexual relationship with the son – which would have created, in both the act and the revelation of the act, a profound threat to the integrity and legitimacy of the throne and the dynasty and thus to public order and the security of the Empire; such a fact, or even the perceived truth of the rumor, would have had to have been dealt-with quickly and with utmost severity. So, as I said, Constantine did have both of them executed upon his imperial authority; whether he “murdered” them is something known at this point only to the parties involved, God, and (apparently) JR’s tin-foil hat hidden beneath the Wig of Historical Knowing.

    Constantine’s name is found on any competent list of Catholic saints. His sainthood predates the more formal procedures instituted in later centuries, as is so with a number of saints from the early Christian centuries ( Apostles and Evangelists included).

    A saint is not a “demi-god”, and that bit can also be filed with the rest of JR’s mistakings, for anyone who has the time and space to keep such a list. Also to be included: the assertion that “Constantine is not a saint in the Holy Roman Catholic church, dear”. (One can look him up on this list of saints: http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php   and for JR, he would be under ‘C’ for Constantine The Great. For reasons why he is a Saint, one can refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm  ).

    Then on the 15th at 1257PM JR turns to Anderson’s role (he had once, a while back, referred to Anderson as not being a very good attorney – to which I had responded that Anderson was certainly a sage legal strategist, with his bundled-lawsuit approach that prevented specific examination-of or trial-of the hundreds of individual allegations; a point which, as I noted at the time, provided the legal vehicle by which JR himself was able to acquire a rather substantial sum of money in that 500-plus Plaintiff LA lawsuit of half a decade and more ago).

    He repeats in this next paragraph the points I had made about Anderson in the role of tort-attorney and also his relationship to SNAP. JR then tries to go for the idea that Anderson didn’t examine SNAP’s actual agenda (in JR’s imagining, we recall, SNAP is a tool of the Church). Somehow JR then concludes that “the creation of SNAP by the church is evily brilliant” [sic] although to credit that vision we would then have to imagine that the Church has erected and controls an organization which feeds the allegants to Anderson, whose strategies have cost the Church somewhere between one and two billion dollars for largely unexamined allegations and claims … and thus the Church has evilly but brilliantly cost herself a billion or two dollars and all the rest. And that therefore in the matter of SNAP the Church has succeeded evilly and brilliantly.

    And I leave that hypothetical vision of JR’s – and such evidence of his mentation – to the contemplation of the readership.

    And we do not know how many of Anderson’s (and other torties’) allegants came from SNAP and how many came to the piñata on their own.

    And we do not know just how SNAP manages to “control the victims” and whether it actually does. Unless we take SNAP’s word for it – but how can JR do that if he presumes that SNAP is merely a tool and creature of the Church?

    Then, proceeding logically from nothing preceding it, he tosses in his own take on the Stampede – which readers may file as they wish.

    And lastly, for this episode, JR (the 15th, 106PM) swings into an old burlesque that he trotted out quite some time ago in comments on this site: he is “new to the computer” (as he said then) and now adds the specific time-frame: it has “only” been “a year and ten months” since he got a computer. (Web comments from him preceding that date were … well, why quibble?) He tells us that he doesn’t “know how to operate the thing well” – and yet he managed to somehow receive from “Dennis” and then put up on this site links that “Dennis wanted us to see”. But he doesn’t understand – poor working-class lad that he was – how to use the spell-check function on his word-processor (although I can’t think of any generally-available systems nowadays whose spell-checking doesn’t automatically operate, unless it is deliberately switched-off or (equally deliberately) manually overridden).

    The bit about knowing how to spell “anathama” is up there for anybody to try to make sense-of.

    But then we are told that this person who reported himself on this site to be a rather significantly outstanding student in his high-school career (at least until, he says, he was ‘abused’) was not “taught” to read “in catholic school”. Does that mean that he didn’t know how to read during that high-school career? Or does it mean that he hasn’t corrected the problem in the half-century since then? He was, after all, a passport clerk (a rather successful and promoted one, according to his report) when he was in the Army; did he not know how to read and spell during that tenure? Why then did the Army promote him on – he would have us believe – the basis of his competence at his assigned job?

    Nor is it a simple slide (“accordingly”) from having learned to read phonetically to not being able to spell properly half a century and more later. And that still leaves us with the spell-check problem because modern word-processing programs are specifically designed to automatically correct spelling errors for users so challenged.

    In following this bit here I am not trying to waste anybody’s time. What we are seeing here, I would say, is somebody who will come up with any excuse to absolve himself from responsibility for some personal short-coming. Not logic nor coherence nor rationality are allowed to impinge upon that objective of self-exculpation. And thus – not to put too fine a point on it – we are left to consider just how all of this characterological revelation might have played a role in the allegations of abuse. And we are thus reminded of that memorandum (released this past summer in the document cache relating to his case) from a high-school administrator fifty and more years ago who wondered if student-JR wasn’t perhaps trying to get back at a teacher whose subject JR was not doing-well-in (as former outstanding-student JR has since admitted in comments was indeed the case).

    And again – please bear with me for a moment here – I am not getting into this in order to simply get into JR’s business. Rather, we are seeing here in a specific instance the type of very possible – perhaps probable – general dynamic which may well have fueled not only the allegations in his own case, but also potentially operated in other (perhaps many other) allegations by other (perhaps many other) allegants and lawsuit claimants over the course of this Stampede.

    In which case, JR may wish to leave-off praying to his “atheist god” and give thanks to Jeff Anderson for the legal strategy that – with genuine legal “brilliance” – sidestepped all of this stunning array of problems and cut a clear path to a hefty payday.

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Total horses@#t. Constantine is not a saint in the roman church. He is a saint in the orthodox church.
    You always waste people's time. I don't even to know how to find a spell check control button.

    I have only told the truth as far as i know it here. The idea that I would end spell check myself and or invent my owning of my computer for x amount of time is ludicrous.

    [edited by moderator]

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    Your consistent defense of SNAP's legitimacy is only proof of it's lack of such. You believe in a perfect religion; a perfect church and a perfect SNAP.  Perfect in the sense that they are what they say they are.

    Again, did you ever attend catholic school? A simple yes or no, please. If yes, for how long and what orders taught you, please?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Simple one, imagine, instead of the 2 billion costs, if victims had organized ourselves. If all the victims in the U.S. and the rest of the world had beed able to link up, creat a victims' union. Do you think the joy boys who remain in power in your church would still? And 2 billion would look like a great deal (for the church) comparatively. But that's logic, something you don't understand.

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    Isn't it funny how a scholarship winning student goes from straight A's to D's and F's after they've been abused. My grades plummeted after my initial perpetration. But why would you want to hear the truth you're still praying to Constantine. 

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    "Ad hominem aims at discrediting the person in a debate by undermining their character or authority." This must be P's motto. It's all he does.

    Anathama is easily sounded out phonetically. Bankruptcy not so much.

    Why is it if I say something personal about my life, on this site. P has to jump in and mock? Why the extraordinary effort to make me a liar? It's such a cheap attempt at discrediting my more than accurate claims of abuse. And of course by discrediting me, he is thereby discrediting all victims' claims. If I can be shown to be a liar then probably all victims are lying.The world according to P.

  30. Jim Robertson says:

    How about Josepheus Flavius? The adopted Jew taken into the Flavian palace after the uprising in Israel against Rome ending with the Macabees. Where he created a messiah who had already come and gone and who fortold the coming not of himself but of the Flavian Emperors, that they were jesus"s, the messiah's, sucsessors. The Emperor was called the "son of man" not jesus.

    All done to curb rebellion. So that slaves would obey their masters. That ,what was Caesar's (money) should be rendered unto Caesar. That it is better to turn the other cheek when assaulted. The perfect religion myth for the perfectly obedient empire. No more messianic rebellions. Just obedience. If you look at catholicism and christianity still, they are much more about obedience than love.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P.S.

      They can even say in the most loving tones: "obedience is love"

      But who are you obeying if god is silent (since he isn't there)? You only obey what other men and women say. That's the reality. I'm defining reality as being truthful and provable.i.e. you're receiving your "commands" from priests; nuns and family, your working papers, as it were, in the rules of your "faith", what is required of a "true" believer to be a true believer are submision and obedience the initial, primary; and most crucial requirements of all "organized" religion.

      Since no proof for your diety existence exists. His existence is only based on your "belief" and "faith". Otherwise he would fade into the past as an odd ocurence. The same way we think now off Osiris; Bal, Ashtar, and Aphrodite. All old imagings of man.

      Your Jaweh is no different than those old myths.

      This does not mean that the tenents and some of the commands issued believers, by their fellow man (from on low) did not bring a sense of safety and comfort. They, obviously did and do. It must give you something you want or need. And that's great; but to pretend any of those myths are empirically true is dellusionary. They're just not. And to me, it's important to know that. To know what the truth is,other wise, you would be building your house on sand.

      Love is true. Horror at the stupidity of man is true. Suffering is true. Pain is true. Joy true but…… God….. not so much.

  31. True Catholic says:

    Instead of focusing on possible 3rd person info, about a possible threat from a insane, theiving drug addict, to an old man. Why not focus on all lies and coverup, coming from St Paul Minn. Seems you guys, and Bill Donahue, don't care how evil it is, as long as it's Catholic.

    • TheMediaReport.com says:
    • dennis ecker says:

      That is an investigation that has Bill Donahue's feathers ruffled. In his writings he questions why an investigation into Fr. Shelley and now the archdiocese has been re-opened. He fails to simply understand the police have questions that were not answered and they want them answered minus the lies and sugar coating.

      When the majority of your wealthy donors decide to put their checkbooks away until the archbishop is sent packing and when a priest questions the legality of his actions there is more to this story, but nothing that will shock the public because we all seen it before. The playbook of the catholic church Lie, hide and shred.

  32. Publion says:

    Before dealing with the most recent crop, may I reiterate for the readership that my purpose here is to demonstrate how to conduct – as best I know how – serious consideration of matters under discussion. Getting into personal back-and-forth sniping with online commenters is not something that I consider worth my time, nor is it something that I consider a good use of readers’ time, nor does it give – as the Sisters used to say – ‘good example’.

    That being said (again) then let me turn to the most recent crop of comments.

    At 1144AM on the 16th, JR apparently will prefer his own ‘knowledge’ to the material to which I linked in support of my statements. I stand by my assertion and the material to which I linked supporting it in regard to Constantine’s sainthood. But once again I think we see a characteristic Abusenik trait: they have their ‘personal truth’ and nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of it. This characteristic is certainly a tortie’s dream, because it becomes much easier to generate all manner of allegations and charges to be amassed in a lawsuit’s initiating Complaint.

    How often did this dynamic work in the Stampede? An interesting question indeed. So far on this site we have been able to examine several abuse stories, numerous other allegations and claims as to history and theology and other subjects, various documents released from this or that cache and published by media sources … and we have seen how poorly they stand up to even modest analysis and examination.

    Further, it is hardly possible to credit the assertion that JR doesn’t “even know how to find a spell-check control button” as if that assertion resolves the multiple elements of the misspelling problem. Because if he hasn’t deliberately disabled the spell-check then any currently available word-processing system would automatically correct his very numerous misspellings; thus leaving us with the alternative explanation that he would have to go back and manually override those corrections in order to achieve the grossly misspelled comments he puts up. And if that is – or must then be – the case, then why does he do that?

    Again, this goes to the question of the commenter’s purposes and whatever motivations and intentions would drive such a habit. But it is impossible to accept that somehow a) he can’t spell and b) the word-processing system he uses does not automatically correct his text. And – again – this leads to legitimate concern as to how such a characteristic might influence the telling (and even the composition) of allegation-stories.

    Thus too, the bathetic concluding claim in this 1144AM comment that he has “only told the truth as far as i know it here” [sic] cannot be credited. As “ludicrous” as the conclusions as to his antics must be, they are the only rational and logical ones that remain, once all the elements involved are taken into account. Such analysis is incongenial to Abuseniks, and quite possibly unfamiliar to them, and perhaps even a surprise, since the torties and the general victimist approach would guarantee them that whatever stories and allegations they made would never be subjected to analysis anyway (the Anderson bundled-lawsuit strategy neatly precluded that eventuality).

    But with JR we also see a refusal even to realize that by holding to his claims here he is endangering his bottom-line credibility generally: if he were such an outstanding student – although, as later admitted, not so much in math and science – then that leaves various subjects that require spelling, so how was he an outstanding student as he claimed? And how did the military put him – and rapidly promote him a number of grades – in a clerical office job, and one that required working with passports? Nothing adds up here, and his solution to that is to spin more webs or to engage in distractions (for which I appreciate the editing by the moderator).

    Then (the 16th, 1150AM) he characterizes my material as being “a consistent defense of SNAP’s legitimacy” (with no reasoning as to how he arrived at that conclusion nor quotations from my material to support it). And then adds the juvenile bit that such “defense” on my part “is only it’s proof of lack of such” [sic]. And then goes off on some internally-sparked tangent based on ‘perfection’, which is a characteristic I have never attributed to any subject I have considered, whether it be “religion” or “the church” or – good grief – “SNAP”. But at this point, he has to either engage the actual material or merely create stuff of his own, and he opts – queasily but characteristically  – for merely creating stuff of his own.

    His question as to whether I ever attended Catholic school simply has to be left up there where it was put (especially in the light of his recent howlers in regard to Roman and Church history). But he wants “a simply yes or no, please” (the Wig of Inquiring Righteousness, here) and so I will answer Yes. As for the rest of his question – it’s irrelevant and (deliberately?) distracting. Nothing new there.

    And then (the 16th, 1154) he steps on his own sword by referring to himself as “a scholarship winning student” who “goes from straight A’s to D’s and F’s after they’ve been abused”. But a) I have already pointed out that with his spelling problems he certainly wasn’t going to be turning A-level compositions in word-dependent subjects; b) he has already admitted in comments that he wasn’t doing so well in the math or science course that the accused Brother taught him; and c) we have seen demonstrated here on this site a panoply of both cognitive and characterological derangements that no “abuse” – especially where no actual penetration took place (if indeed, anything took place at all) – could possibly account-for, especially for derangements that have clearly lasted for over half a century.

    A far more competent explanation – that accounts for all the factors involved – is that a) this was a characterologically and cognitively low-performing student who b) told a story to take revenge (as that administrator surmised half a century and more ago) and then decades later took advantage of the Anderson-strategy/Stampede opportunity to take more revenge and get paid nicely for it to boot.

    Again, this is not to get into JR’s business; it is to point out a (hardly unpredictable) dynamic which the Anderson strategies quietly relied upon: persons looking for an excuse to explain-away unsatisfactory lives. I recall the father of one such allegant – twenty-something, with a long and sorry record of unsuccessful life experiences and uncongenial characteristics – who said something to the effect of: As soon as I heard of the abuse, I knew we had an explanation for everything. But of course.

    And Anderson and his fellow torties didn’t even need to consciously and overtly deal with this dynamic; they simply needed to surf it, because once the opportunity for embracing this type of excuse was erected into a Plan that was valorized by the media and – increasingly – the courts, then persons liable to indulge in such a self-exculpating/explain-all-away gambit would, with only modest need for prompting, simply pick up the phone to the torties or come on down to the office. And the game could proceed from there.

    And – in sublime self-parody – he then works to burnish his own credibility while distracting from his present mistakes by i) bringing up the non-credible story (and theory) that even the merest ‘abuse’ can so utterly and permanently derange a person both cognitively and characterologically; ii) referring to his story as “the truth” with no attempt to address the numerous non-connecting-dots on the table here; and iii) distracting from the ‘Constantine’ problem he has most recently created for himself (but if his credibility or commitment to accuracy or correction can’t be relied-upon in the ‘Constantine’ matter, then how are we to credit his stories from the long-ago?).

    And yet the Stampede strategies created a clear-path for such types and such gambits, with a pot of cash at the end of the shimmery, shiny rainbow.

    Then (the 16th, 1208PM) he goes for a definition of “ad hominem”. But neglects to distinguish between simply calling people names (his own preferred gambit) and my analysis of his material and the consequences that flow from that material. To which we then have to factor-in the fact that since he has put up so very much clearly questionable material, then so much of the analysis is going to revolve around that mass of questionable material. Easier to simply explain-it-all-away by insisting that if i) problems are found with his material (cognitive) and ii) his consistent efforts to dismiss or avoid or distract-from those problems and those analyzers (characterological) are also noted, then he is simply being re-victimized by “ad hominem” attacks. Neat. And clearly long-practiced.

    “Anathema” is not so “clearly sounded out phonetically” and it requires actual knowledge of the peculiarities of spelling specific foreign-derived words. And again, how can a person so phonetic-dependent be both a high-performing high-school student and a rapidly and much-promoted military passport clerk? Nothing adds up here.

    Nor do I “mock” him when I point out these points. Because they are all relevant to the credibility of all of that “something personal about [his] life” that includes both a) allegations of sexual-abuse formally lodged and sworn-to and b) a substantial and consistent corpus of material on this site revealing how queasily he deals with difficulties noted in his various stories, assertions, claims and so forth. But for him, all such difficulties can be dismissed as merely his being victimized (or re-victimized) by ad hominem mockery. The psychic economy of such a gambit is clear and simple, although it comes with many profound costs and consequences, as we (if not JR himself) have seen.

    And – if we wish to follow advice he gave a commenter to “do the math” – then I would point out that if all the stories we have managed to examine on this site demonstrate substantial credibility problems, then we must “do the math” and contemplate the question of how many more Abusenik stories are out there – unexamined but well-remunerated – that participate in precisely the same web of problems.

    Thus my “cheap attempt at discrediting [his] more than accurate claims of abuse” has to be put on one side of a mental scale, with the numerous and serious and clearly-demonstrated and identified credibility-issues and incoherences on the other.  And thus too the question of “discrediting all victims’ claims” becomes rather a function of our following his advice to “do the math”. But he doesn’t like it when his advice against the Church and against priests and religious is applied equally to the many stories, claims, allegations, accusations, and so forth. As CEO Clohessy revealed in his Deposition: Abuseniks subscribe to a clear double-standard: when it comes to the Church and accused priests and religious, suspicion and an inattention to facts and rationality and coherence must be the standard practice; but when it comes to victim stories, utter credulity and sympathetic clucks must be the order of the day.

    The world according to the Abuseniks.

    Then (the 16th, 1216PM) he goes into speculation mode: had all the “victims organized ourselves”. But why did they – in their actual-allegant thousands and their fantastically-imagined myriads – not organize themselves? JR has no answer or theory to explain that (except, perhaps, that somehow ‘the Church’ prevented them from doing so). My theory would be: they didn’t do so because until Anderson created the pathway for such persons to tell their stories and get hefty remuneration and a virtual guarantee of non-examination of those stories, there was no reason worth telling the stories. And now that some thousands of them have raked in that billion or two, then those story-tellers most certainly do not need-to (or wish-to) risk creating the opportunity for the analysis that they had so neatly avoided.

    As for “logic” being “something you don’t understand”, I would simply point out that – as with almost all concepts deployed by JR – there is “logic” and then there is JR’s ‘personal logic’, and readers are welcome to conduct their considerations from that base point.

    Then (the 16th, 1240PM) JR apparently goes for the idea that since “Josepheus Flavius” [sic] had the same clan name as the imperial Flavians (Vespasian’s grandfather was Titus Flavius Petro and Josephus used the clan name Flavius because although his father was a Jewish priest his mother claimed some imperial clan connection, and he played upon that to get Vespasian to become his Roman patron, even to the extent of sponsoring his acquisition of Roman citizenship) then the historian Titus Flavius Josephus was a Flavian. How many persons with the last name Kennedy claim connections to the noted clan sired by Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.?

    Readers who wish to inform themselves as to the queasy and problematic efforts of the Jewish Josephus to switch-sides and ingratiate himself with Vespasian may wish to consult, as an introductory effort, the Wiki entry for him ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_Flavius ).

    By the time he wrote in the late first century AD, Christianity was already established (although it would not be accepted throughout the Empire until the time of Constantine the Great in the early 4th century) and Domitian – the last of the Flavians – would openly persecute Christians while he and his father and brother before him restored and continued the imperial divinity cult.

    Whatever “messiah” – in JR’s telling – Josephus created, it was not Jesus who “fortold” [sic] “the coming of the Flavian Emperors”; rather, it was Josephus himself who claimed after the fact that he had had a divine revelation that then-general Vespasian (the patron to whom Josephus had ingratiated himself) would become Emperor.

    So whether it was Josephus who saw himself as the Messiah, or Josephus who claimed that Vespasian was the Messiah (in order to quell the post-Jesus Jewish revolt of the mid-first-century AD), we have the problem that from the beginning – before Josephus or Vespasian – the Apostles had already been preaching the belief in Jesus as the Messiah foretold in Jewish scripture and prophecy. Nor is there any evidence (JR is welcome to provide some if he has it) that the Jews ever at any time accepted Vespasian or the Flavians or any of the Roman Emperors as the Messiah. And their rebellion was not quelled by any sudden Jewish acceptance of Vespasian as the Messiah, but rather their rebellion was put down by brute military force (commanded by then-general Vespasian). So that dot doesn’t connect either.

    Nor does any claim of Josephus having invented Vespasian or the Flavians or the Roman Emperors as the Messiah as a ploy to quell Jewish unrest under the Empire do anything to explain how a still-persecuted Christianity then continued on with such success among the Gentiles who weren’t looking for a Messiah in the first place.

    And if JR – or whomever’s theories from which JR has derived this hash – posits that the Evangelists each individually went back and put into Jesus’ mouth messianic prophecies about Himself which they had actually filched from Josephus’s prophecies about Vespasian or the Flavians as being the Messiah (or, more accurately, an apparent succession of Messiahs) … well, readers are welcome to give that bit every iota of the consideration they think due to it.

    So JR’s effort – from wherever he has derived his (incoherently expressed here) inspiration – to the effect that Vespasian somehow was the Messiah and it was the coming of the Flavians that had been foretold, with Josephus being that Imperial ‘Messiah’s John the Baptist or prophet – fails substantively as an explanatory hypothesis. (But works rather nicely to demonstrate the sly and sleazy character of Josephus in establishing himself as the Flavians’ pandering court ‘historian’ – sort of like a Schlesinger or Sorenson if either of those gentlemen had also taken the family name ‘Kennedy’.)

    And if he is suggesting that the Apostles then took Josephus’s ‘prophecy’ and created the myth of Christ as Messiah … well, readers are welcome to consider this crack-dreamy vision as they wish. And – since I can’t really imagine that JR has come up with so intricate a web of theorizing on his own – then I would say that what we have here is some crackpot theory (akin to his recent embrace of Deschner’s lucubrations about the Vatican and the Third Reich) found on some crackpot website, which are now being channeled to us through JR’s variously-challenged capacities to relate coherent stories and hypotheses.

    The Emperor may have been “called the ‘son of man’” in Josephus’s pandering writing, but that was simply part of Josephus’s filching of Jewish Messianic writing and prophecy, and perhaps from the material that the Apostles had already been preaching, which Josephus filched from them as well.

    At any rate, there is as I said nothing in the historical record to indicate that the Emperor-as-Messiah bit was ever accepted as true by the Jews generally, the Romans themselves, or the various groups of Gentiles. Yet the belief in Christ as the Messiah has lasted into its third millennium, and even among many peoples who never knew any Roman imperium. And if JR wishes to infer that such a reality is even today nothing more than the lingering delusion created for political purposes by a Roman hack historian decades after the Apostles had already been preaching Christ as the Messiah on the basis of what Jesus Himself had said, then we can consider the possibility of that theory over a strong cup of coffee or a stiff drink and go on from there. Or simply file it with whatever file of JR’s eructations, claims and assertions any reader might keep.

    And such reader(s) can add to that file JR’s theological pronunciamento that “catholicism and christianity … are much more about obedience than love” – recalling that in JR’s ‘personal truth’ and personal theology Christian ‘love’ includes agreeing with all of his eructations, claims and assertions without any re-victimizing or ad hominem doubts and questions.

    However, if we go a bit further and accept that Christianity and Catholicism require some profound and fundamental obedience to truth … then I would say that it becomes clear why they are so uncongenial to JR and the types of theorizers with whom he seems to enjoy keeping conceptual company.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well then you should have known Constantine is not a saint in your faith. Unless you are an orthodox christian which you may be.

      Listen pal, why should your religion be the exception to the rule that all religions are bulls*%t? Christianity turns out to be the only true religion ever? Now that would be an anomaly. Given the falsehoods handed out as truth in all other "religions"; yours is the one that's really true? I do not think so.

  33. Publion says:

    Somehow I seem to have missed JR’s comment of the 15th at 639PM.

    In what conceivable way is it “better for the Church” that there are torties around the country to whom allegants can go? And while I agree that “there were sluce gates put in place i.e. Anderson and SNAP before the dam broke” [sic], in what way does this bear on JR’s pet theory that the Church controls SNAP? Somewhere between one and two billion dollars was lost by the Church – so how does that factor into the idea the Church set the whole Thing up, including – apparently – the torties themselves?

    Ignoring the irrelevant old-timey movie reference (apparently JR is trying to connect the very real rich furnishings of Anderson’s office with the 69 year-old movie-set version of the office of “Barry Fitzgerald” – who, JR might need to be reminded, was not Bing Crosby’s Bishop in Going My Way but rather his pastor) then of course Anderson and similar torties have become much wealthier because of their successes in the Stampede that Anderson’s strategies greatly helped to create. But in what way does this support the theory that the Church has controlled everything and all of them?

    I can’t disagree with the “creepy” nature of Anderson’s office furnishings, if they indeed include medieval-type churchy furnishings. But again, what is the relevance here? Is JR actually trying to imply that since Anderson’s (or some tortie’s) office has church-type furnishings, then this is evidence that Anderson is a tool of the Church? Would he actually advertise the fact if he were indeed such a tool? He would want to make victims more comfortable so that more of them would find the allegating experience enjoyable so that they would go out and tell more of their friends and perhaps make nice comments on websites. So this bit doesn’t really add-up.

    Whether Anderson did not at all question SNAP’s “legitimacy” or whether he simply kept his thoughts to himself and played the game with a straight-face, has yet to be established (nor am I about to imagine that Anderson has confided his innermost assessments and thoughts to JR). If he had a cash-cow in his stable, why would he want to go and mess things up by asking questions or expressing his own private and personal assessments? And it is certainly within the parameters of his Strategy (outlined and documented so carefully in D’Antonio’s book) that some sort of front-organization as SNAP would be precisely the ticket needed to go out and do the ‘ambulance-chasing’ and ‘client-advertising’ and – to use a term beloved of Abuseniks – ‘grooming’ of clients that Anderson himself was prohibited by professional canons from doing for himself. If SNAP didn’t exist he would have had to invent it – which, largely, is what he did. And SNAP’s operation as a front organization and feeder-organization has paid off handsomely for him and other torties who deployed his Strategy.

    But now to then suggest that SNAP does “control” Anderson and “not he them” is a bit of a stretch. First, they have a mutually synergistic (not to say parasitic) relationship. But, second, that in no way establishes that either Anderson or SNAP or both are tools of the Church.

    And “he who has the clients” relied on ‘they who acted as the net to draw the clients in’ – so again, we are back to square-one here.

    And no closer to any grounds for the assertion or theory that the Church controls either of them.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator] And you still haven't answered my questions about your education. So thick, I know B.Fitzgerald was a diocesen priest in Going My Way.. I was casting him as an imaginary Bishop in my description of Anderson's office. Duh!

      SNAP doesn't have to give Andrson as a referal to victims seekimg legal action. He needs them too. So he donates. SNAP runs Anderson because SNAP as a "victims organization" has appeared on Oprah; Donahue; all news channels and are constantly refered to in the media as a victims group, THE victims group in fact. Jeff Anderson hasn't had anywhere near the publicity SNAP's had.

      What is your hatred about P? You use the word. "grooming" so callously. What's all that about for you?

      Have'nt you been groomed to be the catholic you are? 

      If you think victims have been  created by lawyers grooming us. You need to call the police or why don't you wear a wire and catch these thieves in their dens. You go make up a case about yourself. and see if making up a case is what lawyers do.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You don't find it creepy that victims going in to see Anderson also get to sit inside a Hollywoodesque bishop's office? I sure do.  I find that very creepy indeed. Simply because so many victims are put off by anything "churchy". Especially when talking about their abuse. I mean I could see some victims decompensating, melting down in away, not because they're lying as P would say, but because the flashbacks to their own horror might be too terrifying.

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The gentiles wern't rebeling successfully. The way the Jews had been in their revolt.

      I see your one word answer. Given your verbosity I'm amazed how you can answer with one word one of my questions to you. The only other answer you ever gave to my questions was one word. Odd.

  34. dennis ecker says:

    Regarding this specific blog I hope these two individuals spend sometime in prison not because it was a priest who was a victim of a crime but because this priest was a senior citizen. Like children those who commit crimes against seniors are cowards.

    However, it has been reported by the tribune that the attacks on this priest have occured over a period of 4 years.  This priest never reported these crimes to the police or speak to anyone about them ?

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    You have enough imagination to picture an entire imaginary heaven and hell and the denizens there in and the rules that govern entrance. Yet you can't imagine what jeff Anderson might be thinking when it comes to SNAP.  The major access to his meal ticket. I'm sure Mr Anderson get's many of his clients other ways than SNAP but SNAP holds a big hand and it's quite ready to handle all public speaking and relations with media from victims. Surpise surprise!

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I told you above exactly why SNAP was created by a portion of the church: To mitigate victims. How many American victims do you think have been compensated? Most places the church if pressed will pay 40,000 $ to settle. A far cry from 1 million + that juries have handed down and that victims deserve.

  36. Publion says:

    On the 17th at 144PM ‘dennis ecker’ gives us yet another demonstration of his modus operandi: he hopes the two arrested extortionists spend some time in prison. But they should receive prison time not because they have tried to shake-down a priest by surfing the opportunities created by the Stampede (wouldn’t that be a nasty can of worms for him to open up?) but instead merely because the priest is an elderly person (“a senior citizen”) and – in the Eckerian world scheme – it is apparently baaad to do things to old people (which perhaps are OK to do if they are not old people, and if they are priests).

    One never strays very far from the fundamental Eckerian schematic – if one but taps the nicely-painted walls of whatever decorative touches he slathers onto his comments.

    And, we see it again immediately thereafter: the priest has been undergoing attacks for four years, and yet – wonders “Dennis” – this priest “never reported these crimes to the police or speak to anyone about them”.  [sic] To be elderly and in a tough neighborhood and having to live there after any reports one might have made … these are reasons which even the feds considered when they erected their matrix of elder-crime laws. And why do people, even those running a business, not report being shaken-down by some criminal elements: because they fear that those elements or their pals will come back to create great physical violence against property or person.

    (Time saver here: No, this doesn’t easily and simply equate to allegants in the Catholic Abuse Matter: they do not ‘fear to come forward’ because they fear that afterwards bunches of Church goons will come and beat them up or stomp their auto or wreck their house. Rather, they claim something along the lines of: i) the pain of the experience that they claim happened to them is too much for them to handle or ii) they had repressed the memory and had just recovered it; or iii) they are leery of the public reception (and analysis) of their stories. But (i)and (ii) are their own personal issues and (iii) is a natural result of publicizing any claim or story or allegation or charge for which one then seeks the deployment of the public authority in redress.)

    I would certainly imagine that another possibility for this elderly priest is the awareness that to bring to light these extortionists’ scam is going to willy-nilly publicize the scam’s basic gravamen: that the priest is somehow connected – even if only by story and accusation – to a sex-crime. And would any priest of any age really want to deliberately put himself onto the tracks in front of the runaway engine of the Stampede? Perhaps this old priest thought it was better to just put up with the various attacks.

    And clearly, the two self-declared ‘victims’ did not themselves go to either the police, the Bishop, the media, or a local tortie – and if this was indeed an extortion scam, that makes sense since the objective of this street-level extortion is merely to get cash out of somebody by the quickest or most direct means possible and to threaten (and if necessary perpetrate) physical violence if the demands are not met.

    The genius of the Anderson strategies – operating synergistically and cumulatively – is that they enabled what for all practical purposes creates an extortion-program, but one run in full public view, because clothed-with  and burnished-with and furnished-with, and fundamentally disguised-by, all the various trappings of victimism. The extortion dynamic here is not enforced by street-level physical violence against the target, but rather by a higher-level legal and media violence against the target.

    And especially among those victimist trappings: a) the presumption (included in the very use of the word ‘victim’) that some perpetration was indeed effected; b) because of that presumption the focus should be on punishing the (merely accused) defendant rather than solidly and demonstrably establishing the defendant’s guilt; and c) any excesses or derangements introduced to further the success of (b) are justified by the (presumed) truth of the claims in the stories and the allegations.

    In so doing, Anderson actually has managed – with a certain legal brilliance – to reverse Al Capone’s neat dictum that you can get more with a gun and a kind-word than you can with just a kind word. Anderson could dispense with ‘the gun’ by effectively arranging the Stampede strategy so that all of the ostensibly evaluatory elements in society (the laws, the courts, the media – and through the media – public opinion) were deranged precisely toward the service of achieving the payoffs, and away-from their primary task of determining the validity of the (effectively extortionist) claims. Verrrry neat.

    And it has worked well for quite a few years now. And paid off nicely for those willing to put their chips on the table.

    For these two street-level extortionists the only option they could imagine was physical violence. For those who had the wits to see more clearly, the Anderson-strategized Stampede was clearly the better way to go. But then white-collar crime always nets more for its practitioners than the street-level grabs and physically violent robberies.

    Just why after the reported four-years this is all coming to light now is something the report unhelpfully omits. (Is the priest now no longer living in that neighborhood or no longer within the grasp of potential violent retribution? Did the frustrated extortionists finally overstep some bound and threaten direct physical attacks on him? Did somebody in whom the priest confided his difficulty finally get fed up and override the priest’s own misgivings by notifying the police? Did the police simply come across this particular extortion while investigating these two for some other crime?)

    Rarely nowadays are media reports capable of giving any readers a sufficient and accurate enough grasp of a situation for them to formulate accurate conclusions or sufficiently-grounded opinions; almost always, serious readers of the news have much more homework to do after they finish reading (or seeing or hearing) a news report. And that is certainly true in this case. Whereas “Dennis” seems quite happy simply to paste-together some innuendoes from whatever snippets he comes across and considers it a good day’s work.

  37. Jim Robertson says:

    Any man who can't admit when he's wrong isn't much of a man, oh hidden one.

  38. Jim Robertson says:

    Since you hide in the bush to do your pot shooting, I think I'll call you Snipey. Short for sniper.

  39. Julie says:
    • dennis ecke says:

      I think it is great that the teacher fought back and won.

      However, what point are you getting at ? There is nothing stopping an archdiocese or individual priest from filing the same type of law suit.

      I am not saying there is no suits out there but I cannot recall any case of an archdiocese or clergy member fighting back the way this innocent teacher did.

      Can that be because there is more true accounts of abuse then false, or could it be because the church fears what else lawyers, media or private detectives may find ?

      We seen examples of this from Philadelphia and currently St. Paul Minn.

    • Publion says:

      Well, what can be made of the most recent crop?

      On the 17th at 109PM ‘dennis ecker’ seems not to have paid attention to the apparent basis (from what we can make of the published reports on the Shelley case) for the police re-opening their investigation: the claimed-to-be suddenly-remembered and allegedly complete copy of the Shelley pornography made by that gentleman who purchased the Shelley computer at a rummage sale.

      As I mentioned in my earlier comment, there are some substantive questions as to a) the evidentiary integrity of the copy as being a true and un-vitiated copy of original and actual Shelley material and b) the rather odd circumstances of its sudden discovery (or its suddenly being remembered) by that gentleman who had purchased the computer at the rummage-sale.

      One possibility is that Ms. Haselberger herself had somehow made this ‘new evidence’ copy – which then she would not be able to submit as such because it might conceivably expose her to a charge of knowingly possessing child-pornography and not reporting it (we recall that her complaint against the Archdiocese was that the material was not forwarded to Rome, not that it was not reported to the police – who actually had examined the material years ago and found nothing in it that merited further action). The laws about child-pornography are rather strict, and simple possession of it – for any reason – is a crime, which would not make Ms. Haselberger look well in all of this. It is also possible that more-incriminating photos were added to this ‘new’ evidence – which would be even worse. This possibility is not weakened by the fact that the ‘new owner’ suddenly remembered this alleged copy which he had made (and not reported to the police) years ago – for whatever reasons (which fact itself opens up another can of worms).

      As always, in Catholic Abuse Matters, nothing appears to be what it seems, and most of the ‘reporting’ doesn’t help much either. We shall see what develops.

      Thus the typical Eckerian bits about the police having “questions that were not answered and they want them answered minus the lies and sugar coating” do not correspond to the actual issues involved in this alleged ‘new evidence’. But it suits his preferred approach and that – I would say – is always the governing dynamic in his material.

      And if there is “more to this story” I think it will revolve around the sudden ‘remembering’ of this alleged complete cache of pornography that the ‘new owner’ had, he says, totally forgotten about until – somehow – just recently. Which is a story that certainly begs to be examined more closely.

      I don’t see where “shred” enters into the matter here at all. But it sounds nice. Maybe “Dennis” was thinking of Enron or some other case. One shreds paper, not electronic files.

      Then a bunch of bits from JR that serve mostly to further reveal the quality of mentation and character we are dealing with.

      On the 17th at 707PM the Wig of Acute Questioning whines that I “still haven’t answered [his] questions about your education”. I explained that they were irrelevant and if JR thinks that they are not irrelevant, then he can explain why he thinks they are not irrelevant.

      His attempt to explain-away his mis-characterization of the Going My Way material is par for the course and nothing new there; apparently we are too stupid to realize he was only joking or some such. Of course.

      His thoughts (as it were) about why SNAP “doesn’t have to give Andrson as a referal to victims” [sic] don’t make sense: SNAP and Anderson are in a synergistic and mutually-beneficial relationship. The idea that “SNAP runs Anderson” is yet another bit to be filed with the bit that the Church controls SNAP.

      And if “the publicity” SNAP has had outweighs the publicity Anderson has had, it is for the simple reason that in the strategy SNAP is the front-organization and its job is therefore to be out in front with the publicity; Anderson’s job is to get the cash through the legal maneuvers leading to settlements and payouts. So this “publicity” point is equally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

      The bit about my use of the word “grooming” as demonstrating to JR my “hatred” is yet another red-herring gambit, and readers are welcome to imagine how “grooming” can indicate any such thing. How it is used “callously” is anybody’s guess.

      The bit about calling the police because victims have been groomed is equally nonsensical. There is nothing technically illegal in SNAP’s grooming the victims; and I didn’t say that “the lawyers” groomed them , I said that SNAP filled that vital task precisely because the torties could not due to the prohibitions of professional canons. Once again, JR has incompetently or deliberately mis-read what I wrote.

      The final paragraph of this comment of JR’s depends on what is meant by “making up a case”. And JR hasn’t – but of course – bothered to define his major terms. When does embellishment, say, shade over into perjurious allegations sworn-to in a legal Complaint?

      And on the 17th at 719PM he continues to presume that Constantine is not a saint in the Catholic rite. Perhaps he has not read the link to the list I provided, or perhaps he has not read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry to which I linked. Or perhaps he is presenting us – yet again – with the question: who are we gonna believe – JR or our own lying eyes?

      But it does allow us to note a second bit of the legal brilliance of the Anderson bundled-Plaintiff strategy: not only does it a) pretty much preclude the defendant organization from defending against each of the hundreds of bundled allegations but it also b) precludes thereby the danger of Anderson (or whatever tortie is using the strategy) having to put onto the stand such hugely unreliable and clearly question-inducing plaintiffs as we have seen on this site. For example, having seen how JR handles the simple surface analysis he has encountered in comments on this site, imagine (as if you were a tortie contemplating a trial) how he would perform as a plaintiff-witness on the stand under sustained and informed examination by opposing counsel who would have access to far more material than we have access-to here. That mental exercise should render vividly just how useful the Anderson strategies are and always have been.

      JR’s theological stuff here can be filed with the rest of his ever-similar material. Readers are welcome to make what they will of what he does and does not “think”.

      Then on the 17th at 729PM he infers that I “don’t find it creepy that victims going in to see Anderson also get to sit inside a Hollywoodesque bishop’s office”. I suppose I would – and certainly didn’t say I did not – if we can establish what the standard furnishing of an actual (rather than some movie-studio set decorator’s idea) of a Bishop’s office (actually a pastor’s office) might be. I do find it hard to imagine that a Bishop would have a confessional in his office, but beyond that I am not familiar with what the standard and universally-recognizable furnishings of a Bishop’s office (as opposed to, say, a college president’s office or a wealthy lawyer’s office) would be. Could JR demonstrate with some relevant material (supported by links or references) what such a standard set of Bishopy furnishings would be?

      If JR can provide a quote of my saying that victims are “lying” he can put it up here. (He won’t because he can’t because no such material of mine exists.)

      What JR can “see” or imagine – especially about anybody “decompensating” – is something the value of which any reader can assess for him/herself. His further psychological speculations about terror and “flashbacks” ditto.

      Then on the 17th at 743PM he addresses some “you” who remain(s) unidentified. If he is referring to me, I don’t imagine much about the actual geography, furnishings, or any other aspect of heaven. It is a state of being in the presence of God directly, but beyond that neither I nor – as best I know – the Church officially have made any authoritative claims or assertions. If JR has accurately-quoted material to the contrary, he can put it up here.

      What I could “imagine” about “what jeff Anderson might be thinking” [sic] would be nothing more than mere speculation on my part. But this bit does reveal a typical JR deficiency: he seems to think that what he “imagines” constitutes evidentiary-grade comprehension of the reality about which he is merely ‘imagining’ on that little screen behind his eyeballs. (And thus, perhaps, can easily and legitimately be included in any ‘story’ he might choose to tell …)

      And again, SNAP’s role in the Anderson strategy is precisely to handle the publicity because it is the front-organization. Nothing surprising there, although it seems that JR is surprised.

      Then on the 17th at 750PM JR gives his troubled game away again: he thinks that simply because he has “told you”, then the reality has been established, with no further need for analysis or examination. And is this predilection a possible or probable element in allegators generally? And “exactly” is not a term that would come to my mind when considering JR’s material.

      And then an incoherent bit about allegants being compensated. To answer the question as to “how many American victims do you think have been compensated” we would have to know how many “American victims” (distinguishing, of course, between genuine and otherwise-classifiable) there are. And precisely here lies a significant problem: we can i) gratuitously presume the existence of myriads of undeclared allegants or we can ii) count up the number of formally-remunerated allegants as it exists in the record. I don’t think gratuitous-presumption is the way to go in so serious a matter. JR clearly thinks otherwise. Let the readership decide.

      I actually don’t know the average amount of remuneration – do those figures exist somewhere in a reliably documented form? If there have been 11,000 or so formal allegations, then we might do the math for the one or two billion in settlement payouts … but if JR has another form of math and has done the calculations, he is welcome to share that here. The bit about “victims deserve” has yet to be actually demonstrated, for all the many reasons I have put forward in comments on this site.

      Then on the 17th at 919PM JR dons the Wig of Historical Knowledge yet again: he is clearly under the impression that the Jews were ‘successfully rebelling’ – which would be news to the Chosen People indeed. And in any case, JR’s lucubrations here do not reach or address the fact that Josephus’s material extolling Vespasian as the Messiah post-dates the Apostles’ preaching of Jesus as the Messiah. In addition to not reaching any of the other points I raised in my prior comments on the subject on this thread.

      And he is now – yet again – blaming me for giving only a one-word answer to his demand for – waittttt for ittttttt! – a one-word answer. Such a hard man to please, no? And he apparently has forgotten that I have explained at length and repeatedly why most of his questions to me are irrelevant to any matters under discussion here. And he considers a one-word answer to a demand for a one-word answer to be “Odd” … which is itself not so odd, given what he has demonstrated about his mentation here.

      The remainder of his comments – the 18th at 1242PM, 1246PM, and 1248PM – require no further material from me and can stand in the record as they were put. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Julie, I too think it's great that the teacher will be compensated for his injuries. (Hint. Hint)

      If these kids were older when they attempted this; they should have gone to jail.

       

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    What apostles? Those inventend 200 years later, after christ? There was no mathew, mark, luke or john. No evangelists and no st. Constantine. The apostles and jesus were invented to pre date the time of Josephus to show that a messiah had already come to the Jews so they had no need of waiting for one.

    There's a st. Constantine who was not the Roman emperor. But according to both your links Constantine is only a saint in the eastern orthodox church and the coptic church. Not in the roman church. That's a fact Jack.

    And SNAP can be a fake front for Anderson but it's impossible for it to be a fake front group for victims created by the church, according to mr. know-it-all. It was created by the dominican nuns of Sinawa following father Tom Doyle's suggestions in his initial paper,  a secret paper to the American bishops conference. A paper that was later leaked by Fr. Tom Economus, now dead, and it described "The Project",i.e. "commitees" to be created to "control victims and their families". Wasn't SNAP started as a commitee of 3 in St. Louis? What about the other so called support groups for victims? They"ve worked so well for victims haven't they? Why you see them everywhere working for victims……..Wait a minute. you only see SNAP and Anderson. 25 years of revelations and scandal and you've only seen SNAP and Anderson. How normal.

  41. Jim Robertson says:

    The Jews were successfully rebeling till they lost. And it took a lot of soldiers and money for Rome to win. Rome needed a religion that offered "peace", cheek turning, and obedience. A religion that supported slavery and the status quo. So they made one up.

  42. Jim Robertson says:

    Who you are as a person here P is not irrelevant to the argument here. How do we know you're not a bishop or a lawyer for the church; or even the head of a pedophile group.

    You, given your amazing ability to discount your fellow human beings here, have all the traces of bad religious imaginings and education. I want to know who should be credited for such a bad education. Oh you can spell and reference and appear to be educated but really, to believe in an after life with no proof just isn't very smart. It's really dumb in fact.

    P.S.You have taken the personal information we, your opposition, have given here and slapped us with it again and again and again. I for one would love to return the "favor".

  43. Jim Robertson says:

    The figures for the average pay out lie in Rome and with the insurors who've paid. Why don't you ask them?

    That is another reason for SNAP being a fraud. Don't you think if SNAP really worked for victims they'd be complaining about the discrepancies in settlements from state to state here in the U.S. and from country to country internationally? But they don't. They are only "concerned" with "protecting the children" unharmed, who of course need be protected, but SNAP is supposed to be working for "survivors". You know, the already harmed? We who were not protected?

  44. Jim Robertson says:

    Yes. I asked you for a one word answer to my first question. You gave it. Thank you.

    But you didn't answer my second question. And since you are capable of expounding on just about everything we post here, I expected a more involved answer than you gave. I feel we, your opposition, have a right to know what matrix grew you.

  45. Jim Robertson says:

    As far as "Bishopy furnishings" goes. Don't they usually sit on the catholic faithful and dine off them too?

    How about that bishop's palace in Germany 53 million euros!!!!!! How christ like. And the vatican monsignor who was caught smuggling money from Swiss bank accounts into Italy. A million in cash, wasn't it? His apartment was spectacular with Miro paintings etc.. It's tough being a priest.

     

  46. Jim Robertson says:

    Since life after death is an imaginary thing.( Unless of course you have proof it exists?) Then heaven as defined by you as" being in the presence of God directly" is as imaginary as Never Never Land. Why do you think your god never gives mankind proof of these after lives, heaven or hell? Especially since, so much eternal pain and suffering vs. eternal bliss with no suffering is so important to us poor, short lived creatures created in his image and likeness.

  47. Jim Robertson says:

    And since god in all his christian permutations is always male, aren't we males more" like" "him" than those evil; temptation offering daughters of eve? Of course we are LOL.

  48. dennis ecker says:

    ~~SHOULD CHILD MOLESTERS GET THE DEATH PENALTY ?

    In recent years many states have answered that question as YES. They feel repeat offenders or those who abuse children under a specific age should be put down like rabid dogs and public opinion agrees.

    My thoughts on the subject is undecided even knowing first hand what child abuse can do to an individuals heart and soul. The lifelong damage that a abuser creates not only to his/her victim but also to the family members of that victim.

    I cannot even give you an honest feeling on the subject regarding my own abuser because Fr. Hermley is already dead. What I can say even though he no longer is part of this world his actions still haunt me today.

    We know there is no cure for these individuals and society knows they can never be trusted again and most will abuse again but is this the answer to solving abuse by clergy, teachers or any other animal out there who thinks our children are prey.

    You decide.

    Child abuse is not going away and it is sad to say those who fight child abuse and its outcome have a very secure job.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I am completely against the death penalty period. Why? Because it might be used against me and you. Anybody can be railroaded. Civilized people do not solve problems by killing people.

      Life is not a movie.

  49. Publion says:

    As of the 18th at 656PM it appears ‘dennis ecker’s assertion not to read or answer any of my material (ever ever again) has become no longer operational. I presume I am the “you” in “However, what point are you getting at?” – referring back to the initial paragraphs of my most recent comment.

    As if we were all living under normal circumstances (rather than in the regime of a Stampede) “Dennis” observes that “There is nothing stopping an archdiocese or individual priest from filing the same type of lawsuit”. This gambit is disingenuous in the extreme: how often have we seen the Church derided here and on other sites for ‘attacking’ the ‘victims’ merely by defending herself with statements or even simply by hiring an attorney. What would happen – do you suppose – if the Church, in this atmosphere of victimist Stampede, were to counter-sue a ‘victim’? Do you imagine any of the Abuseniks here oohing and ahhhing that it was a good thing that the Church or the accused priest were exercising their rights to defend themselves? Or might we not expect – as we have seen – complaints and outraged braying to the effect rather than ‘be honest’ or ‘be charitable’ or ‘do the right thing’, the Church was lawyering-up and thus oppressing and re-victimized the wrecked and traumatized victims even further … ?

    And then more slyness: he “cannot recall any case of an archdiocese or clergy member fighting back the way this innocent teacher did”. Notice, in the second place, that sly “innocent”, meaning: if the teacher fought back because he was innocent, then the Church and clergy do not fight back because they are … (fill in the expected blank).

    And in the first place, “Dennis” is – for once – probably accurate in his surmise that there are few cases where the Church or an accused clergy member has fought back. But that absence simply goes back to the success of the Stampede in all of its synergistic elements: there is no way that the Church or clergyman initiating such a case could escape the ‘front-loaded’ vilification of the Stampeded public, goaded on by the Stampede-supporting media and enabled by the various victimist law ‘reforms’.

    And, of course, if the Church or the accused cleric were to effectively declare themselves victims by becoming the Plaintiffs in a countersuit, then can you imagine the outraged hue and cry from Abuseniks that the Church has callously turned their suffering into a mockery and a game, and has further victimized and re-victimized them, and is the seat of all evil, and (fill in the blank)?

    Personally, I would like to have seen more standing-up to this or that allegation, but then I try to imagine what it would be like to defend oneself in a time of Stampede and I realize that there was certainly some justification for the do-not-defend strategy.

    And, of course, if the Church were to have defended against some accusations but not others, then it could be trumpeted by the Abuseniks and the media that the accused who were not-defended  were therefore indubitably guilty, while the ones that were defended were simply lying pedo-perps who hadn’t been dealt with by the law yet because their sleazebag enabling Bishop was using the untold wealth of the Church (turpitudinously filched from enabling and duped parishioners through millennia of collection-plate passing) in order to simply ‘deny justice’ to the (presumed, of course) victim. And so  on and so forth.

    But the gift of subtlety is not in him. He then has to pull the bat out from his nice-old-lady shopping bag and start whacking right and left: “Can that be because there is more true accounts of abuse then false” [sic; you always have to wonder what’s going on inside when he substantially loses control of his grammar] or – yet another insinuation – “could it be because the church fears what else lawyers, media, or private detectives may find?” In other words, “Dennis” is simply trying to run the old I’m Not/You Are play (usually a JR specialty). But the lawyers, the media and private detectives would have had that opportunity in preparing their own cases against the Church or the accused, and wouldn’t need to await some hypothetical Church or cleric counter-suit to research and investigate in preparation for their own lawsuit. So the dots don’t connect here.

     And then (you have to wonder if this is self-parody here) he concludes with “We seen examples of this from Philadelphia and currently St. Paul Minn.” [sic, again] We “seen” all that, have we? What we have seen in Philadelphia is the frakkulent whackery that can be produced by a legal system that is already susceptible to special-interests which is then placed into the service of a Stampede on top of that. And – as I said in my prior comment – no hierarch or cleric would willingly place himself in front of that runaway train.

    And we have seen very little from St. Paul yet, because that matter hasn’t yet ripened and – if I recall correctly – we are still awaiting word about the results of the latest police investigation . Which is being conducted not because the police have said they have “unanswered questions” but rather simply because somebody somehow has suddenly come forward with a curiously just-discovered cache of photos that include some that were allegedly removed from the original file that the police reviewed.

    So we “seen” very little so far in terms of enlightening revelations. Except about “Dennis” – and thanks for that.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Mocking again. That's all you do besides inventing catholic saints that aren't catholic saints. Who do you treat with respect? That has to be a shorter list than those you don't.

  50. dennis ecker says:

    http://www.petition2congress.com/2259/death-penalty-child-molesters/view/

    Some thoughts of what others feel about the subject Death Penalty for child molesters.

     

     

    • dennis ecker says:

      James,

      Thank you for being the only individual with the courage to bring your thoughts to the table regarding " Should child molesters get the death penalty."

      After giving this subject some thought I must say that my opinion differs from yours as long as specific guidelines are followed before taking a life of one who has committed such a crime. 1) They must be repeat offenders. 2) There must be DNA evidence. 3) Intercoarse must have occured. and other guidelines.

       

       

  51. Publion says:

    Once again to the most recent crop. Readers will bear in mind here, I hope, that the value of going over them lies purely in what we can learn about the overall Abusenik Playbook and the Stampede in its dynamics and its costs and consequences.

    On the 19th at 1133AM JR now doubts the existence of the Apostles and the Evangelists, asserting that they were “inventend 200 years later, after christ”. Reality simply cannot be allowed to interfere with the Abusenik mind’s dampdreams and phantasms, and in exculpating itself it demonstrates not even sufficient self-awareness so as to wonder if its immediate utterances will not generally undermine its own credibility even further. Again: you can see clearly the second great element of the Anderson Strategies: to prevent any tortie from having to risk the whole shebang by going to trial and putting such mentalities on the stand, for the record and in full view. (And, on top of that, to then claim that the reasons for so few trials of allegations was merely because the Church didn’t dare face a trial.)

    And in regard to the time-line involved: Josephus did not even write his works until after he had gotten himself ingratiated with Vespasian after both Vespasian’s quelling of the uprising in AD 70 and Josephus’s arrival in Rome; his writings date from the period of 71AD to 99AD; his Antiquities was not written until the end of that period. And by the 90s of that century the Apostles and the early Church had been preaching Christ for almost 70 years.

    So the time-line itself clearly indicates that the Christianity that Josephus allegedly invented had already been in robust and vigorous existence for at least half a century, and the “rebellion” itself – which was the alleged pretext for this whackery about Vespasian being the Messiah – had already been put down. This, then, in addition to the other points I already raised in prior comments here.

    Clearly, also, JR (who once told us that his “reading” sufficed as the equivalent of a university education) had not noticed in the material to which I linked that in addition to other Saints Constantine there was – as I had said – Saint Constantine the Great, the Roman Emperor. And the reasons why – as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains – he is a Saint. Nor does JR offer any support or links that might ground his claim that he is only a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches. So much for “that’s a fact, Jack”.

    He then rehearses his old hash about SNAP being invented by the Church or – this time – by “the Dominican nuns of Sinawa” who were “following Father Tom Doyle’s suggestions in his initial paper, a secret paper to the American bishops conference” [readers will note that I am not reproducing the JR grammatical mistakes since it’s a lot of work to override manually the word-processing program’s automatic correction function] – and all of this is according to that Economus website that was long ago examined for its problems in comments on this site.

    But that would be news to Barbara Blaine and Michael D’Antonio and even Anderson, for whom D’Antonio provides much verification for Anderson’s initial and subsequent encounters with Blaine and nothing about the aforementioned nuns. And in what way was Doyle’s paper (the rejected paper of 1985, one presumes) characterizable as “secret”? Since it was rejected even for consideration by the Conference, then there was nothing officially to publish. Which doesn’t quite add up to its being  accurately characterizable as “secret”.

    I would also note this curious historical symmetry: Reich Sicherheitsdienst Office II B 113 (the SD counterpart of Gestapo Office II 1 B 1), the SD unit specifically assigned to cover the Catholic Church, was comprised of 2 ex-priests and 4 ex-monks. These gentlemen, who in a prior era might have been termed ‘renegades’, had left the Church for whatever their personal reasons or issues, and had offered themselves to the Nazis, who were happy to give them SD rank and uniforms and pay (and all the other perks) since the government was trying to create as much negative material about the Church as it could possibly drum-up. While in our own day the primary drivers and writers seeking to expose (or, more accurately, establish) the Catholic Abuse Matter in this country include a number of disaffected ex-monks or ex-priests, including Sipe, Economus, and the curiously still-Father Doyle.

    Which leads rather strongly to the conclusion that the concept of a government embracing disaffected ex-clergy for the purposes of discrediting the Church … was not invented here in our own time, but rather was simply applied – as best might be done under the different historical circumstances– to the secularist governmental interest in trying to overcome the Church’s opposition to its regime and its agendas. (Again, Michael Burleigh’s Sacred Causes is an excellent starting point here for readers thus interested.)

    And as for the rest of this paragraph of JR’s, we have gone over this hash at length in prior comments on this site. Of course that was in some ‘yesterday’ and Abuseniks only live in some ‘today’ … except for the ‘story’ they want heard, so long as that being-heard is purely approving and accepting, and so long as it is accepted that the ‘story’ may change from time to time – perhaps even significantly – yet it still must be accepted as true and accurate.

    And as for the bit about there being “no other support groups for victims” – again and yet again – this would equally and even more effectively lead to the conclusion that such “victims” as exist are not interested in forming any other groups (which in the internet age is as easy as virtual creation can possibly be).

    And then to conclude his comment, JR defies even his own personal type of “logic” and refers to the “25 years of revelations and scandal” which have come about through the activities of SNAP and Anderson (who are, in this theoretical schematic of JR’s, tools of the Church). And I would say that what we have seen for the past three decades or so are not so much “revelations” as they are something far less certain and assured.

    Then on the 19th at 1140AM JR tries to square the circle by asserting that “The Jews were successfully rebelling till they lost” – which basically is to say that if you just saw off the bits of historical reality that are uncongenial or inconvenient, then you can claim just about anything you care to. The Jewish rebellion failed. And – as I noted above in this comment – it did so before Josephus had his alleged divine revelation about Vespasian being the next Emperor and (from wherever this bit comes) the Messiah.

    Wherever he gets the idea that “Rome needed a religion that offered ‘peace’, cheek-turning and obedience”, it is not from Roman history. The Flavians embraced or re-embraced the cult of imperial divinity and not Christianity (if that is what he is referring-to as that “religion that offered ‘peace’). And was Vespasian supposed to be – in this crackdream – the Jewish Messiah (to appease the allegedly rebellious Jews) or the Christian Messiah? Since clearly the Jewish Messiah – tailored allegedly to placate the Jews – would not be primarily interested in “peace”, as the Hebrew Scriptures rather voluminously demonstrate. And if Vespasian wanted to placate the Jews, why would he then create Christianity? And if Josephus wanted to ingratiate himself with Vespasian, why would he create a religion that utterly rejected the imperial cult of divinity? So once again we are confronted here with a hash.

    I would say that historical facts are not as malleable as the various Abuseniks and allegants and historical story-tellers and story-creators have imagined them to be. But those allegants cannot, I would say, be held totally responsible for this mis-apprehension, since the Stampede’s own core dynamics required it and assured them that it was all going to work out at the end of the (pay-)day.

    And in regard to the bit from the 19th at 1140AM: the Romans were quite capable of ‘supporting’ “slavery” and didn’t need any new religion to help them along on that score. Or was the Spartacus Revolt (only the largest of many smaller slave-revolts) also just ‘made up’ at some later date?

    Thus we can leave the continued riff (JR riffs when he’s on a roll) in the comment of the 19th at 1250PM to hang where he put it here.

    But now to the comment of the 19th at 1157AM, where JR tries to make a case for “who you are as a person here” as being “not irrelevant to the argument here”. Because – he gives the Game away yet again – “how do we know you’re not a bishop or a lawyer for the church or even [oh my, he gets positively nasty here] the head of a pedophile group”. Oooooh.

    First, I am none of the above-mentioned. But – again and yet again – what difference would it or does it make when what we are dealing with here are ideas and concepts and facts which are demonstrably coherent and rational and verifiable or else aren’t? An idea or a concept stands or falls on the integrity of its content, not on its source. The Nazis were baaad people, but they came up with (among other inventions) the first operational jets and the first operational ballistic missile.  Regardless of the desirability of the Nazis as a source, the content of their knowledge was world-changing and invaluable.

    But that’s not the Abusenik approach: in the Abusenik Stampede schematic, it does not matter whether you claim anything rational or coherent (or accurate); it just matters that the source of what you say is sourced as coming from a ‘victim’ and all the rest is doo-doo. As I have discussed at length here, the unwritten deal among them is that you don’t question my story and then I don’t question your story and so we can all believe all the stories and stay in business until payday. And we can thank JR for reminding us of this queasy bit once again.

    And thus too the bathetic but queasy efforts to characterize my material as simply being nothing more than “your amazing ability to discount your fellow human beings here” – when actually what I have done is simply analyzed the material that various Abuseniks have put up of their own volition and see where that material leads. But to the Abusenik it truly is a matter of love-me-love-my-dog: you either accept my story or else you are baaad and “discount” me. And as Sidney Greenstreet said to Bogie in The Maltese Falcon: I don’t see how we can do business on that basis. If I am to be required to accept whatever is force-fed to me in terms of Abusenik material, or else be characterized as evil or baaad in one way or another, then how is any analysis ever going to get done? (Time-saver here: that’s the whole Abusenik and Anderson objective – to prevent any analysis from ever being done.)

    JR then – Lord, just when you think you’ve hit the bottom of his barrel – tries to justify his demands and desires to find out about my ‘education’ because – waitttttt for ittttttt! – it was “such a bad education”. As opposed to … what we have seen here of his?  But when you’re in the plop-tossing business, then you have to toss a certain amount of plop every day or people will think you’ve lost your edge, I guess.

    And – the bottomless barrel just doesn’t quit – I clearly can’t be educated if I “believe in an afterlife”, which is just “dumb” – and not only “dumb” but “dumb in fact” (which is another term he needs to put on his list of definitions-to-be-looked-up). And this gentleman not only got a million bucks for the story he told, but apparently even enjoyed for a while some status as a media-type – which only goes to demonstrate to us all just how seriously deranging the consequences of the Anderson-media axis really were (and to great extent remain).

    But then but then but then: He actually gives the Game away even more marvelously: he wants to know about me so he can ‘slap’ me the way I have (in his personal vision of things) ‘slapped’ him. To which I can only respond: a) I can only work with the material provided by the Abuseniks and b) analyzing is not ‘slapping’, except to a rather primitive mind.

    (But again: if student-JR, half a century ago, figured that a poor grade for poor work was a ‘slap’, then can you imagine how that lethally irrational presumption would work out in his attitude to those who gave him the bad grades and thus ‘slapped’ him? And didn’t that administrator all those years ago figure that out? And when the Anderson Stampede offered him the chance to collect on his presumption, then wouldn’t it all have paid off? And how often did this scenario play-out in the Stampede, offering types similarly-minded a chance to a) explain-away their life problems while b) collecting handsomely on them at the same time?)

    Then – the 19th at 1207PM – he tries to get out from under the worm-can of payouts by asserting that (only?) “Rome and the insurers” have the figures for the average payout. But we needn’t buy that. There were 11 thousand allegations recorded in the most recent John Jay figures; toss in an extra thousand for the time elapsed since then. So take – say – one and a half billion and divide it by 12 thousand and … well, as he says, “do the math”. And – yes – subtract 35percent or 40percent as the torties’ cut. (But don’t include “Dennis”, who got his swag and trucks and boat and houses by surfing a different wave and – if I correctly recall – was never remunerated for his story about being abused by the Church etc.)

    Then an effort – perhaps supplied by more 3x5s in the mental shoebox – to change the subject and try to get into why SNAP doesn’t complain about payouts as varying according to this or that state. This is irrelevant to the question of SNAP’s being a tool of the Church – and I have never said that SNAP is an organization that is concerned for “victims” (genuine or otherwise-classifiable). SNAP and Anderson were focused on other things – and so, apparently – were most of the formally declared allegants (who at this point don’t seem to see any reason to band together and thus expose themselves to an examination they have already so nicely avoided). So JR’s point here does nothing to support the SNAP-Church tool connection, and yet works strongly to indicate the motivations driving the allegants and payees and also the torties.

    And the concluding plaint about “harmed” and “not protected”.

    Then on the 19th at 1215PM he thanks me for my one-word answer as he had requested. But then, as if he had not read my further comments on that point above, he notes – as if he was broaching a revelation – that I hadn’t answered his second question. He didn’t get the “more involved answer” because – as I explained – his question was irrelevant and distracting.

    He and the rest of my “opposition” here have no right to anything except to consider and respond as they see fit to the ideas and concepts and material that I put up here. And that is either something that they are incapable of doing or else don’t want to do. Which is not my problem. I didn’t ask them for personal “information” (or, actually, their stories as they have chosen to tell – and re-tell – them). They chose to go the ‘personal story’ route because, I think, it’s the only gambit that they have ever used and for so long and on a number of other sites that gambit has served them well enough. But that was then and somewhere else. And this is now and here. And that’s a fact.

    Then on the 19th at 1227PM JR tries to extricate himself from the bishop-furniture bit by tossing whatever plop is on the 3x5s. And thus brings up the German bishop (who, he neglects to mention, was called to Rome to get a lecture from the Pope himself). I would also note the sly and inaccurate concluding bit that “it’s tough to be a priest” and apparently he has to be informed that a priest is not a Bishop (the same way, if he has also forgotten his military training, that a Lieutenant is not a General).

    Then on the 19th at 1247PM he asserts (perhaps on the basis of the tin-foil hat) as fact that “life after death is an imaginary thing”. He has no proof to demonstrate that his assertion is accurate any more than anyone has proof that it is not. And I certainly don’t care to interfere with his beliefs. He then goes on about what is classically known as the Theogony Problem, but seems to be under the impression that he is the one who has just discovered it. It is a long-standing element in theology and has been rather extensively dealt with over the millennia. Perhaps he has come across it among all of his “reading”.

    And we can leave his (the 19th, 101PM) theological eructations about males for whomever cares to consider them for what they are worth.

    I would conclude the JR section of things here by noting that those comments of the 18th at 1242PM, 1246PM, and 1248PM are, I would say, JR without any Wig on at all, and thus revelations of the genuine article.

    Now to ‘dennis ecker’ on the 19th at 2254PM.

    That “many states” consists of five (LA, MT, OK, SC, TX). And yet not for “abuse” of children, but for the most extreme forms, i.e. rape, and repeated rape at that.

    But – on top of his rather inaccurate characterization of the number of states and his inaccurate characterization of the crimes which create eligibility for the death sentence  – he then apparently tells us  (without supporting links)what those states (but not himself, of course) were thinking or feeling when they passed these laws (the constitutionality of which continues to be uncertain) .

    Charming.

    His thoughts on this subject “is undecided”. And yet he continues to head further off the path of accuracy by trying to shoe-horn in his usual bits about “abuse” – which, as I noted above, is not the triggering event for the laws he himself has brought to the discussion. And readers can consider the sly insertion of his “knowing first hand” about abuse and “the lifelong damage that a abuser creates” [sic] – another story to be told, no doubt.

    And I would point out again that we have discussed at length the problems with establishing as fact and as general-consequence that any amount of abuse causes “lifelong damage”. Most Abuseniks don’t seem to notice the careful hedging of scientific studies that claim in conclusion that abuse may or can cause damage, nor how they do not establish correlations between the type or severity of the abuse and the type or severity of the consequences, and that even on top of that they are confronted with the problem of explaining how there can be so much variation in terms of consequences or sequelae among those who ‘report’ themselves as ‘abused’.

    And, of course, there is the Causality Problem: how establish a definitive link between the damage displayed by the patient/reporter/claimant and the abuse (however defined on the spectrum) that putatively caused it? And how rule-out diagnostically and reliably that the patient/reporter/claimant was not already long and/or deeply damaged before the claimed abuse?

    So this particular trope of victimist and Abusenik ‘science’ really stands on very little actual science at all.

    As far as I am concerned, genuine and serial pedophiles may very well need extended incarceration, but that’s a far cry from execution.

    Then a classic Eckerian construction whereby he is too victimized to give “an honest feeling on the subject” because – as fate (or luck, or the script) would have it – his abuser “is already dead”. Alas. But what difference does it make to the story if the bad-guy is already dead? They make movies about Jesse James and Jack the Ripper and such types even though they are already long and very much dead. I don’t see his point here.

    And then he continues with his riff even though there is a vast distance between his “abuse” and the serial-pedophile-rape that is the subject of the laws he himself has mentioned. But hasn’t this little bit about the death-sentence laws provided a handy mule for his purposes here? Why quibble about coherence, rationality, and accuracy? And the general run of abusers do not enjoy the same clinical high-probability of re-offending as do the serial-pedophile-rapists, as even the legislators of the five States apparently realized when they wrote the laws to apply to serial-pedophile-rapists and not to all ‘abusers’.

    So I concur with him that the readership should consider his material here and then, as he says, “You decide” – as to the reliability of his material.

     

  52. Jim Robertson says:

    My god man! you live on fantasy island. It was on your link I read that Constantine the Emperor ain't a saint. You are truely an ill person.

    It not just me who doubts the existence of the gospel writers M M L + J but many bible historians. Some just appeared in a documentary, Bible Secrets Revealed on the History channel that I recorded on Friday the 15 at 12:03 am. Let's remember it was your church and the state that supported it, that killed people who translated the vulgate into other languages; maybe your church fathers didn't want the man in the street to know anything ever..

    If Constantine was made a saint in the rcc when was it done? I remember no churches named after him. Like a st Constantine's grade school or priory or parish. What was he the patron saint of, wife and son killers?

  53. Jim Robertson says:

    I knew you'd try and wiggle out of the German bishops spending spree on himself. How did this guy get this far to be a bishop? That's the issue. Not that he was finally disaplined. If things weren't so looked at now in the church's behaviors would his behavior have breezed on through?

  54. Jim Robertson says:

    If no one ever came back from the dead (excluding j.c. and Lazurus, of course) Where's there proof, emperical proof for an after life? There isn't any and j.c. and Laz never described what went on on the other side. When they came back.

    Maybe they thought they left the oven on. Or maybe j.c. needed to give a 30 day notice to his land lord. So he could get back his cleaning deposit.

    Your banking on some big ifs.

  55. Jim Robertson says:

    We have every right to know who and what you really are. We have that right because you've libeled the victims who have posted here. You don't get to throw up your own PLOPS of libel with out being held responsable for doing so, Snipey.

  56. Publion says:

    On the 20th at 941AM ‘dennis ecker’ continues to flog his not-quite-relevant bit about the death-penalty for serial-rapist-pedophiles (the legislators on the record so far) or “child molesters” (‘dennis ecker’ and others). As we saw in the Jay Reports, very few of the Catholic Abuse allegations rose to the level of serial-pedophile-rape, so the relevance here is tenuous.

    He provides a link which brings us to an online petition on which – by amazing coincidence – “Dennis” appears as the top comment (as of the time of my reviewing it). Having dealt with his own thoughts in my comment of the 20th at 1151AM, let me focus here on the text of the online petition itself.

    First, there is the fact that while the accurate phrase “serial rapist pedophiles” was available, the petition chooses to open with the muzzier “child molesters”, although – as perhaps many readers now realize – “molest” can mean just about anything nowadays. (And I would say that there is no small possibility – especially given the tics in grammar and conceptual style – that “Dennis” himself is the author of the petition, although that does not strike me as overly significant. Yet, one has to wonder again: did this person actually have a job where delivering and writing accurate and comprehensible reports was essential?)

    Second, there is that vague “guidelines”, rather than something more specific such as ‘criteria’ – but that would require more serious and clear thinking-out of the proposal, which is not the Eckerian style.

    Third, the parameters in the text don’t actually correspond to the parameters in the bullet-points: the text’s one point in this regard does not mention serial or repeat rapings, whereas the bullet-points do include “Repeat Offenders”. But then again, the petition text is vague as to whether  its bullet-points are i) cumulative and must all be satisfied to trigger the death-sentence eligibility or whether ii) the satisfaction of any single one of them would trigger that eligibility.

    Fourth, we note that the majority of the petition text (after that first sentence) deals with a familiar Eckerian manipulative declaiming that seeks to sway the emotions of the reader (who would not have been too exercised or worn-out from considering the actual technical points of the proposal since there aren’t too many).

    Fifth, readers may credit the claim by “Dennis” that he is a parent (“us parents” – rather than ‘we parents’) or not, as they see fit.

    Sixth there is that innocent-sounding “in a reasonable amount of time” – which queasily blows the old Victimist and Abusenik dogwhistle that Due Process shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with conviction and punishment. (Yet – one might ask – what reason would there be for squelching the Due Process of appeals if the convicted is already behind-bars and unable to commit further crimes? The answer, I would say, is that the Eckerian position drinks deeply of the poisoned well of Victimist legal-theory: once you are presumed and/or found guilty by a trial court, then Due Process shouldn’t really matter because it merely re-victimizes the victim. This bit is gravid with deranging consequences for jurisprudence and the justice-doing process and the judicial system generally.)

    Seventh, since “inappropriate touching of the genital area or in a sexual manner” seems clearly included in “actual sexual intercourse” then we are left with the only rational conclusion (presuming the rationality of the original proposal here to begin with) that these “guidelines” are not meant to be taken cumulatively, but rather that any one of them would create eligibility for the death-sentence. Thus then: anybody over 21 who commits “inappropriate touching of the genital area or in a sexual manner” upon a person under 12 would be eligible for the death-sentence.

    Eighth, the term “in a sexual manner” is legally vague if not also overbroad and one has to wonder – yet again – if a great deal of informed thought went into the creation of this proposal. And – yet again – one has to wonder if the mind that created this proposal had ever been trained in clear and rational diagnostic and structural analysis and assessment. (Yes, a possible response to that is that “Dennis” wasn’t the author or guiding-force behind the proposal; but that would still leave us with the fact that whoever the author was, s/he did not really have the desire or the competence to think this proposal through. And thus “Dennis” has signed himself on to a rather mushy project indeed. But is that so surprising?)

    Ninth, the proposal concludes with the blithe Victimist bit that “this maybe [sic; “Dennis” again seems to echo in this text] a violation of their 8th Amendment” [sic; ditto] “but child molesters violate their victims 8th Amendment too” [sic; ditto]. The 8th Amendment – of course – prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”; it might occur to a reader that this Amendment specifically relates to punishments imposed by a duly-constituted court, which fact then becomes inapplicable in regard to what the accused or convicted had done to the victim, since the accused or convicted individual was not a duly-constituted court and thus the act committed by the accused or convicted does not actually constitute “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” by a duly-constituted court. But, as always, such thinking-through is neither the preferred modus operandi of Abuseniks and victimists, nor is it their objective (which is, rather, to stitch-together whatever Frankenstein skein of manipulative and emotionally-inciting mumbo-jumbo they can, larded more or less artfully with legal-soundy words and phrasings).

    Thus, it is a violation of the constitution for duly-constituted courts to ‘inflict’ “cruel and unusual punishments”; but it is not a violation of the constitution to commit a cruel and unusual crime (which is, rather, a violation of the criminal law). Again, this is a vital point that, to the Abuseniks and victimists, represents entirely too much thinking … and that, in no small part, is how we have gotten to the point of Stampede.  Nor can it be characterizable as “cruel and unusual punishments” if the proper pursuit of Due Process and related evidentiary and procedural safeguards built-into traditional Western legal process does not sufficiently quickly and decisively create for the accuser the satisfying and dramatic ending so often seen in the movies and on TV police-procedural shows.

    Thus the (so typically Eckerian) concluding declamation is not accurately grounded in legal thinking.

    And yet this online proposal takes upon itself the matters of life and death and the ultimate legitimacy and integrity of the legal system.

    It should be clear – I would say – just how profoundly unserious these gambits are, despite their histrionic and Wiggy declamations and the mimicry of legal thinking and the crackpot stitching-together of whatever emotionally-manipulative bits their authors can find readily to hand.

    Then – as for JR’s of the 20th at 704PM – he neatly avoids providing any quotation that justifies his ongoing claim that Constantine is (even by the material to which I linked) not a saint on the Roman Catholic list (which list he apparently didn’t read or has ignored in favor of the little screen behind his eyeballs). Would he care to put up the (accurate) quotation from my material that states that Constantine the Great is not a saint in the Roman tradition?

    Nor do I have any doubt that JR is the only crackpot who “doubts the existence of the gospel writers”; indeed, I presume the existence of others if for no other reason than the fact that the substance and composition of much of JR’s material along these lines is too much for his mind – as I have seen it demonstrated here – to come up with and express on his own. But beyond that, we find ourselves in his material back in sophomore year of high-school, with the cafeteria crowd who don’t find they need to do their homework instead contenting themselves with ‘doubting’ whatever they haven’t taken the trouble to carefully examine. And that is what it is and let’s leave JR to his fries.

    I haven’t seen Bible Secrets Revealed (again, the preponderance of JR’s ‘knowledge’ seems to come from movies, TV, assorted crackpot websites, and his own fry-fly predilections) but – oh my – how professional of him to note the date and time that he recorded this show. Perhaps his experience with the Deschner material didn’t impress upon him just how many such gambits there are out there in the wide world of the web and the media. But it does relieve him of the need to deal-with any of the conceptual problems with his Josephus-Vespasian material. There’s a method in the madness.

    As to his questions about Constantine, I refer him to my earlier comments on this thread where that material was covered.

    Then on the 20th at 709PM he accuses me of trying to “wiggle out of the German bishop’s spending spree on himself”. And how – pray – did I try to do that? I pointed out – and not disapprovingly – that he was forthwith summoned to the Vatican for a personal lecture by the Pope … which even in his own phantasmic vision of the Church must surely indicate a rather stern level of reproof.

    But when one is in the plop-tossing business – and perhaps has adopted it as one’s life project – then plop must daily be tossed. Yes, indeed.

    How did the German get to be a Bishop? I don’t know the specifics of his career. How did JR get to be a media-personality (so to speak)? Stuff happens and people get into positions they really don’t have the chops to be in.

    But at least in the German case here, appropriate authority has stepped in.

     

  57. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey Snipey, here's the link I got from the link you gave http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2731 He is referred to as a st. in a category discription but he's only a saint in the eastern orthodox; anglican and coptic churches HE IS NOT A SAINT in the rcc. GOT IT?

  58. Publion says:

    JR’s personal theological bits need not detain us here (the 21st, 1109AM).

    But (the 21st, 1131AM) it occurs to me that this ‘libel’ bit (as if anything anybody could say about his material could possibly do more damage to his credibility than the material itself) is the internet version of a claim of ‘abuse’: if I don’t like what you have said or done, then you have ‘abused’ me (if there was a physical presence to the interaction) or you have ‘libeled’ me (if there is only a virtual presence to the interaction).

    Readers may consider the possibility that a teacher giving JR lower grades than he felt his due was taken as a “slap” and perhaps as some form of “libel” but certainly (when the surf was up) as “abuse”. And the price for that outrageous outrage was … as we have seen (and, nicely, continue to see).

    Again – and this is the value of the material under consideration here: notice how nicely the combined Anderson strategies work to invite (or lure) such types out of the woodwork, and then simultaneously a) mine them for their allegations and outrage while b) preventing their ever being seriously examined while c) enabling the torties to avoid ever having to actually defend the ‘stories’ (or the story-tellers) and yet d) scoop up large settlements and fees (for largely unexamined allegations).

    Once the spell of the Stampede is broken – or once it starts to break – then I think people will see the actual lineaments of the dynamics that have always been driving it. Which is why the Abuseniks become so agitated (and nastily so) when the possibility of the spell being broken draws closer.

    • josie says:

      I feel the "spell" of the stampede has already started to "break". When I discuss these matters with fellow Catholics, there are very much over this "crisis". The fringe will hang around some more but they are getting nowhere as it is the same cry over and over. Most people are more tha comfortable with the way the Church has responded to past failures. The safety measures put in place to protect children are superior to ant other group. The press seems to cover this business less and less. Although, it would be great if they were to cover child abuse other than the small percentage of priest's old cases. We have a serious problem with child abure now (notin the Church) and they just ignore it, Amazing! 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Can you even admit that Constantine is not a saint in the rcc? Can you even do that one small thing?

      I told you I was failing my chem class. I didn't hide that fact from you. Your libeling me, as to my making up an abuse story to ameliorate my failing grade, is all on you.

      Do you ever take responsability for any of your actions/

  59. dennis ecker says:

    I wish I could agree with Josie and her statement that clergy abuse cases are beginning to "break" and she also states "most catholics are more than comfortable with the way the church has responed to past failures".

    Unless Josie has been living under a rock or has failed to listen to the news she would like you to believe those words. (FACTS PLEASE)

    Like in Boston, Philadelphia and other archdioceses across the world the surface of abuse by clergy  has only begun to be stripped away in other places like St. Paul Minn. We once again see the same old playbook being used. The moving of abusive priests, the hiding of documents and the destruction of evidence.

    The difference this time around we are seeing is more employees of the archdiocese coming forward, the parishioners speaking out, and most important we see the innocent priests speak out and challenge the hierarchy. One priest during his homily to his congregation has stated that in more the sixty years he is "embarrassed to be a catholic"  Strong words coming from a very popular priest who knows there are people like me who bunch together the innocent priests with the guilty. Fair or not this priest knows the catholic church is not giving the public any reason to trust him. He wears a uniform of shame.

    Then there are the donors who after decades have closed their checkbooks until their demand of the ouster of the archbishop is completed, and organizations who are telling parishioners not to give their donations to the archdiocese. Something the archdiocese has plead to the parishioners not to do. Cutting off the money is no way a business (as Josie put it) can survive.

    So as much as I would like to believe Josie's statement that clergy abuse has started to "break" there is no proof. As states change their SOL laws we will see for sometime in the future how evil the catholic church really continues to be.

    If clergy abuse happens in big city Philadelphia or small town USA it is still clergy abuse.

     

    • KenW says:

      Dennis, it is pure evil of yourself to bunch together innocent priests with guilty ones. The time for you to stop is now. 

      How can changing SOL laws (past) illustrate how evil the Catholic Church continues to be (present)? That is like saying that I am evil for the creepy things my great-great grandfather did. 

  60. Publion says:

    It’s not much but it’s all he has (or dares to deal with), so JR will dig himself deeper into the Constantine-as-Roman-Saint bit. Thus (the 22nd, 1015AM) we are now informed that while Constantine appears as a Saint on the list to which I linked, yet “he’s only a saint in a category discription” [sic]. Now this concept of a “category discription” provokes some thought, since it seems a rung or two above JR’s characteristic level of mentation. I examine this bit for its usefulness in de-coding whackery, rather than for the purpose of going around the bush on Constantine yet again.

    Thus: what does the phrase even mean here? Is this the equivalent of saying, for example, that George Washington appears in a list of US Presidents but that’s only a “category discription”? There’s a list of Catholic Saints, Constantine is on that list, and so what does “category discription” mean here?

    And on what authority are we to accept the term ‘category discription” in the first place? Does the site publish a disclaimer or advisory that the saints listed therein are only saints for purposes of ‘category description’ but really the list is not to be taken for what it says it is? (Time-saver: No, it does not publish such a disclaimer.)

    So, then, whence cometh the authority for JR’s invention of the term? And the short answer for that is: from JR, whose ‘personal truth’ should constitute more than enough authoritative-knowledge for us to credit his assertion because either a) he always tells the truth and does not lie or b) he always tells the truth as far as he knows it. And we note in addition that (a) does not equal (b).

    Even though JR goes to the trouble of ‘shouting’ (which apparently is supposed to make his assertion even more true than it allegedly was in the first place).

    Perhaps he has made the mistake of misreading that site’s text that Constantine “was revered as a saint, especially in the Eastern Church”. Is he under the impression that “especially” here functions to rule-out the Roman Church? But that “especially” cannot grammatically perform such a function.

    But what it does do is offer a possibility as to why JR is mistaken to begin-with: the Latin/Roman rite hasn’t done so much with the fact of Constantine’s sainthood, and thus Latin/Roman rite Catholics would not have put up so many parish churches named for him and thus – marvelously and characteristically – since JR had never seen a parish church named for him, then he jumped to the conclusion that Constantine is not a recognized Saint in the Roman Church. Because, of course, if JR doesn’t ‘know’ something, then clearly it is not worth knowing and – in the obverse – what JR ‘knows’ is and must be genuine ‘knowledge’ (and hence corresponds with ‘truth’ and ‘fact’) and nothing else does.

    But if we apply this type of presumption to stories and allegations in the general Abusenik universe, then you see what we are (and always have been) dealing with here in the Catholic Abuse Matter. And we see also the extraordinarily neat value of the Anderson Strategies as it relates to the credibility of those stories and allegations.

    Nothing they say can be relied upon, neither in its own right nor in terms of what they will claim on some ‘tomorrow’. I am reminded of the old Stalin-era witticism: that no Soviet citizen could ever be sure of what yesterday will consist of. (Because you could never tell when – on some ‘tomorrow’ – the Soviet spinners would suddenly change the history of ‘yesterday’.)

    And we are then (the 22nd, 1111AM) offered a You-Tube link to a “lecturer” at an Australian university. Once again, JR’s ‘knowledge’ seems more largely based in You-Tube and such rather than in published and peer-reviewed books. Nor, as ever, does JR care (or perhaps dare) to explain just what we are supposed to find valuable in this lecturer’s lecture.

    But have we not seen this gambit so often among Abuseniks, here and on other sites? They don’t explain their thoughts (perhaps reflecting upon the fact that they haven’t done any thinking) but instead toss up – magpie-like – whatever link they hope will lead others to feel as they do, perhaps picking up some congenial  and Stampede-friendly presumptions in the process.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Look chump, Is Constantine an official canonized saint in the latin rite roman catholic church, or isn't he? If he is, when was he canonized.? What miracles were credited him? Who canonized him?

      These are simple questions. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. Why won't you?

      I'll tell you why you won't. You have a need to appear perfect in this argument. Why you have that need? I don't know. Maybe it's because you think your defending something "perfect" like your imaginary diety or your faith.

      If our side in this debate  hasn't been thinking. i.e." explaining our thoughts"  according to masterly you; Maybe it's you that's the problem not us. Your bizzare standards and complete lack of responsability for your actions merely mirror what your church has done for eons now.

      Why don't you man up and quit being so stupid. If you can. Admit when you're wrong. Are you capable of that? Ever?

    • josie says:

      You sound like Bll Maher or Alec Baldwin.

  61. dennis ecker says:

    Recently Fr. Paul of Our Lady of Calvary church in Philadelphia left his position as pastor stating one of the reasons being stress.

    While under investigation by the archdiocese of Philadelphia for sexual abuse allegations archbishop chaput allowed Fr. Paul to remain in his position not only as pastor of Our Lady of Calvary church but also Our Lady of Calvary school where hundreds of children attend, in addition parishioners were kept in the dark regarding any claims against Fr. Paul.

    This story pulled at the heart strings of people like Bill Donahue who felt the innocent priest was a victim of the stampede and in an article that he wrote requested his readers to pray for Father Paul.

    Now recently I have learned that the archdiocese of Philadelphia has removed Fr. Paul from ministry and until further notice (if there will be one) Fr. Paul or as we should just call him now as Paul is not entitled to publicly present himself as a priest.

    Why this decision was made by the archdiocese is not clear, but why would chaput knowing of these investigations by his archdiocese allow Paul to remain as pastor, involved with children, to remove him only after his resignation.

    I am not the only one who has many of questions regarding the archdiocese actions, hundreds of angry parishioners of Our Lady of Calvary also have questions. The feelings that their own church did not give them the information that could have been used to protect themselves and their children.

    If I was to quote a statement that Josie had made on 11/23 at 0934 "most people are more then comfortable with the way the church has responded to past failures." I would suggest to her to go to the neighborhood of Our Lady Calvary and speak with the parishioners and get the truth of how false her statement truly is.

    I don't think we will hear Bill Donahue as for prayers for Paul in the near future.

     

    • Mark Manos says:

      When was the alleged abuse? In order for people to make a decison shouldn't they have all the facts? 

      Little research shows the alleged abuse was to have happened 45 years ago. And now since then there have been nothing else brought up against Fr. Paul i would imaging. Is that correct Dennis?

      And to you referring to him as Paul, that is your choice but certainly not your right. He is stll a priest and deserves to be called Father or Reverned until the vatican says otherwise. 

      PS – Keep up the good detective work. Makes me feel safer to know you are out there patrolling the internet for gossip that your so called work is doing to help protect the innocent. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well said, Dennis.

    • josie says:

      Dennis,

      Please provide a link, news article or quote from a named source as to the "hundreds of angry parishioners from Our Lady of Calvary" that have questions. I haven't seen that anywhere.

      Some of your comments have seemed regurgitated from a familiar anti-priest/ catholic church blog that I find boring and offensive among other things. Knowing that you even read all the comments after articles in the paper and get material there as well, you must know where you have been hanging recently.  I have told you before that you do not have to tell the truth on these other sites. You just say you are a victim and everyone says that they believe you, no matter what. You should stay on these blogs. You don't really cut it here.

       

    • josie says:

      Still waiting, Dennis.

      When were you in the neighborhood of Our Lady of Calvary Church or school? You imply that you have spoken to parishioners yet you live no where near there (you have said that you do not live in Philadelphia) and are not active in Catholic Churches or circles. You are telling me to go there to get the " truth" and thereby recant my statement that most Catholics are comfortable with the entire system of the protection of children that has been in place for years. I think that you have not spoken to anyone from Our Lady of Calvary, you read  one or two comments on another blog saying that they are upset about the investigation of the pastor due to new allegation and you start making stuff up. That is why I, for one, don't believe you. 

      I am in Catholic circles all the time. The pay absolutely no attention to the fringe-catholics for choice, change or whatever other fringes are out there. The majority of them do not blog anywhere-don't have time or desire, They know what is going on more than you ever can imagine. .Some are just plain sick of the press on this when public school child abuse, among others is ignored. Most don't believe Billy Doe in Philadelphia and hope justice will be served in the appeals. And I will add that they know that the Church did not handle these matters well in the past. It is you that needs the truth, Dennis. You are just deluding yourself and you arguments don't work. Go on that other blog that you have discovered. Again, you can say anything and people will rally around you.  

       

  62. Publion says:

    On the 23rd at 346PM ‘dennis ecker’ demonstrates some creative re-combinations of Abusenik methodology.

    He ‘wishes’ that he “could agree” with ‘Josie’ (thus here the Wig of Regretful and Pained True Knowledge): from everything seen of his material on this and other sites, it would be a sad day indeed for “Dennis” if The Ball Stopped Rolling (and we may rest assured that he will apply every effort and deploy every gambit to help prevent that unhappy dawn).

    ‘Josie’ opines that the abuse cases are beginning to break, and Dennis opines that such is not the case. He inserts the thought that ‘Josie’ might have been “living under a rock”. But by then shouting “(FACTS PLEASE)” he slyly seeks to structure the dueling-opinions as if his were somehow supported by “facts”. (And the prospect of “Dennis” basing his material on “facts” is nothing if not humorously ironic.)

    Continuing slyly, he leaps from “Boston, Philadelphia” to “and other archdioceses around the world”. But readers will note that “Boston” refers to more than a decade ago (during which intervening 11 years much has happened, including a verrry sharp decline in formal – not to say factual – allegations). And “Philadelphia” refers to the most recent and still-in-progress queasy revelations about the Billy Doe allegations and the local judiciary system.

    And then quickly leaps to “the rest of the world”, without further elucidation. Nor does it give him a moment’s pause that there is certainly no small probability that all we are really seeing around that world is an attempt by secular-wannabe governments to re-create the Catholic Abuse piñata under their own aspiring regimes.

    And then simply copies all the old decades-old stuff off his relevant 3×5: “The moving of abusive priests, the hiding of documents and the destruction of evidence” – without actually demonstrating that any of the recent material has been shown to have anything to do with those old primary claims (indeed, from what we have been able to actually examine on this site, just the opposite appears to be the case).

    He then tries to update the old stuff by putting a coat of fresh wax on it: there is “a difference this time around” (thus inadvertently giving away the fact that at very best what we are seeing here is some sort of resurgence following a prior fall-off – although even here he uses examples that simply seek to draw from the recent misfires in the MPR media gambits). Not “more” but “an” employee came forward; we don’t know for certain who among those “speaking out” was or was not a “parishioner”, and – I’m not sure of the provenance of this one – “we see the innocent priests speak out and challenge the hierarchy”.

    In regard to this latter bit: what “priests” are these and if they are “innocent” then about what are they ‘challenging’ “the hierarchy”? And – as so very often with this commenter – we are given no links or supportive material, and merely his own assertions, about his selected (if not entirely imagined or constructed) material: what priest said – and in what context – that he is “embarrassed to be a catholic” [sic]? Is this “priest” talking about abusive clergy or enabling hierarchs or is he, say, talking about Abuseniks?

    But again, we are cast as the herd in a Stampede; hence we do not merit evidence or context since our purpose in this movie here is not to consider evidence or material but rather our scripted purposes for existence is merely to stampede robustly when the emotional red-flag is waved.

    But then but then but then, in mid-paragraph, and from one sentence to the following sentence, the entire thrust of the material suddenly shifts almost 180 degrees: suddenly the “popular priest” who  – we are to accept, apparently – is the source of this “embarrassed to be a catholic” [sic; ditto] statement is a priest “who knows that there are people like me [i.e. “Dennis”] who bunch together innocent priests with the guilty”. Soooooo … if we can follow this erratically bouncing Eckerian ball here … this bit apparently involves a priest who is speaking out against the Abuseniks and/or the Stampede in some way (while, it seems then, his Archdiocese is officially keeping mum about such speaking-out). … And this is supposed to be an example of how ‘Josie’ has been “living under a rock” because – we are to believe – The Ball Is Still Rolling?

    And in what way is it, then, that this priest (prepare for the Wig of Reading Other Minds, here) “knows the catholic church is not giving the public any reason to trust him”? To which “Dennis” then slyly adds his own mind-reading take: this priest “wears a uniform of shame”.

    Queasy, repellent, but sly – that’s the tactical squirming we see here as “Dennis” keeps spinning his skein.

    “Dennis” then goes on about “donors who after decades have closed their checkbooks until” and so on and so forth. He knows this for a fact, does he? And does he similarly ‘know’ that there are no donors who have opened their checkbooks because they realize what a scam has been concocted and conducted against their Church? He knows nothing of the sort, if he knows anything at all.

    And once again “Dennis” – who has provided no thoughts about the fundamental problems with that online petition which he has endorsed (and perhaps written) – gives us the clear indication that he conceives of himself as being present at the creation of the demise of the Church. Readers so inclined may thus add his name to the file (a rather thick one indeed, covering two millennia) of individuals who in their brief moment were absolutely certain that they would see and perhaps even usher-in the end of the Church in their day. We shall see.

    Then – as always – he reminds us of his essential queasiness: he repeats that patently untrue smarmy clucking to the effect that “much as I would like to believe Josie’s statement” and so on. And claims that “there is no proof”. To which I would have to add: on the basis of his bits here, there is no proof against Josie’s opinion either. Not hardly.

    And then he proffers – again from a 3×5 card with no thought as to accuracy or relevance? – that “as states change their SOL laws”, although the most recent demonstration in that area has been precisely the opposite. But – so characteristically – he assures us that “we will see for sometime [sic] in the future how evil the catholic church really continues to be”.

    If – prescinding from the historical facts noted immediately above – SOL laws are more widely weakened, what we shall see is merely the increase of opportunities to deploy what we have already seen here to be a skein of sleaze, quease, and cash-grabbing, all of it lubricated and enabled and induced by the cumulative Anderson Strategies and the larger secularist special interests that have always been just behind the curtains on this slimey stage.

    And thus – apropos of nothing that has gone before it – the concluding remark that clergy abuse is clergy abuse no matter whether it happens in a big city (he actually uses “Philadelphia” as an example of the Stampede’s accuracy and legitimacy) or in “small town USA” [sic].

    To which I would simply echo: And a skein of sleaze, quease, and cash-grabbing is a skein of sleaze, quease, and cash-grabbing whether it takes place in a big-city or a small town. And clearly there are some . for whatever reasons and on whatever pretexts,  are heavily invested in seeing it all continue.

    • dennis ecker says:

      Mr. Manos,

      You are wrong. It is my right to refer to the ex- father John Paul as nothing more then Mr. Paul. He is no better than you or I even if the archdiocese did not remove him from ministry which they have. Fact is I am better then him. I am under no investigation by either the police or the archdiocese for child abuse. I went under the tuffest test anyone could face on this earth being abused by one of your priests and I survived with no help from your church.

      You feel since there has been no other claims against Mr. Paul in 45 years he should get a free pass. But what about his victims who may have lived with the torment of what he did to them for 45 years. The possibility one of his victims may have taken their own life because of his abuse, or the failed marriage, or the possibility of drug abuse or worse yet the possibility of one of his victims becoming an abuser themselves. Your closed mind like others would like to block those possibilities out. You are one of many who feel that if abuse has happened decades ago the victim should let it go. Let me assure you that is not how it works.

       I am not here to protect the innocent because the innocent do not need to be protected.

      You have entered your comment to me which was respected. But you can now go back and live your life with your head in the sand until once again you get the urge to leave a comment.

       

       

  63. Publion says:

    And now comes ‘dennis ecker’ (the 24th, 840PM) with a – rather breathless – announcement that he has “just learned” of a Philly pastor resigning. (The case seems familiar and I think we have discussed it before here, and recently.)

    I have looked at various reports and include here links to two of them: here http://articles.philly.com/2013-11-12/news/43935216_1_parish-rectory-allegations-archdiocese  and here   http://catholicphilly.com/2013/11/news/local-news/local-catholic-news/ne-philadelphia-pastor-resigns-due-to-stress-from-allegations/  .

    The pastor – now 67 – is resigning after having been very recently accused of sexual abuse that allegedly took place in 1968, now forty-five years ago, not involving any members of the current parish. The police have completed an investigation and the DA has declined to press charges. The AOP allowed him to remain in his pastoral position while it conducted its own investigation or assessment (still ongoing) and now the pastor says that after thirteen years in the office and considering all the brouhaha it would be best for the parish and because of his own “emotional duress” (standing in front of the Stampede runaway train) if he were to resign at this point.

    As is apparently standard practice, the AOP will continue to conduct “an internal investigation [that] seeks to determine whether he is suitable to continue serving as a priest”. (I include links to two local articles below; the first is from a local media source and the second is from the local Catholic media source.)

    The AOP – “in the interests of transparency” – notified the parishioners a week or two ago.

    Thus – even in the face of an allegation from almost half a century ago – the AOP implemented its protocols in terms of notifying law enforcement, initiating its own internal investigation, and requiring the accused not to have unsupervised contact with minors. But at this point the accused feels it’s in the best interests of the parish, and in light of the pressures on him personally, to resign – which is certainly understandable, no matter what may be the result of the AOP assessment when it is completed.

    The AOP allowed him to stay in his position and to continue ministry while the investigation was being conducted, which – given the ‘historical’ nature of the allegations and the fact that nobody from the parish was involved – doesn’t seem unreasonable.

    But we are now proffered the usual Eckerian treatment. First, no links, but instead just whatever specific spin “Dennis” wants us to take-away from his ‘report’.

    He notes that the priest was left in charge of a school “where hundreds of children attend” and “in addition parishioners were kept in the dark regarding any claims against” him. Since i) the allegations are rather ‘historical’ and ii) do not involve any members of the parish and iii) the law enforcement authorities have declined to bring charges, then readers are welcome to indulge or reject the usual Eckerian innuendoes.

    I can see why anybody – and not just “Bill Donahue” – might be concerned for the priest, given the circumstances and the ‘historical’ nature of the allegation(s) – dating back, as they do, to the era of LBJ.

    Then the snide – but in light of its gross inaccuracy, witless – bit about whether we should now be required to call him not “Fr. Paul” but just “Paul”. There is absolutely no indication in any of the media reports (one can enter terms into any search engine to sample the available media coverage) that Fr. Paul has been laicized. Nor is there anything in the reports – nor anything with which I am familiar in Catholic and canon law – that forbids him from “presenting himself as a priest”, since he has not had his faculties removed nor has he been ‘defrocked’ (as the general argot has it). He is now simply a retired pastor without assignment.

    “Dennis” then gets it wrong by referring to “this decision [that] was made by the archdiocese” – when actually the AOP has made no decision at all here: the protocols require the internal AOP investigation or (more properly) assessment, and it was the pastor’s personal decision to resign (which would spare the parish any sustained experience of being under a Stampede-media focus).

    Thus too it was the act of his resignation (accepted by the AOP) that “removed” him from his pastorate (and not “from ministry”, as “Dennis” puts it).

    And what did “chaput” [sic] know “of these investigations” such that the AOP would “allow Paul to remain as pastor” and “involved with children”? The Archbishop knew that a) there was some allegation or allegations dating back forty-five years and that b) the authorities had declined to bring charges. So what’s the problem here? And whatever the pastor’s ‘involvement’ “with children”, it hadn’t apparently caused any concern for the parishioners during the thirteen years of his pastorate.

    And thus so much for the typical Eckerian innuendo (never, of course, developed) about why the AOP would allow Fr. Paul to remain in office.

    We are then given another characteristic Eckerian bit: “Dennis” claims that he is “not the only one who has many questions regarding the archdiocese actions” [sic] since there are also – he asserts – “hundreds of angry parishioners of Our Lady of Calvary” (impressive use of appropriate caps, for once) who “also have questions”. First, there is nothing in the news reports I have reviewed that indicates any such thing. Second, “Dennis” neatly omits saying whether any such questions would be against or for the pastor (and given the ‘historical’ nature of the allegation(s), I could see where more than a few might be concerned for the pastor in all of this).

    And what “information” was there to give the parishioners that “could have been used to protect themselves and their children”? (Which phrase is standard Abusenik boilerplate and no doubt inscribed in big block letters on a 3×5 card at the front of the ever-handy file.)

    Thus too the inanity of the attempt to toss this incoherent pile of plop at ‘Josie’ by exhorting her to go to that parish “and speak with the parishioners and get the truth of how false her statement truly is”. There is utterly nothing in the reports (unless you want to go to something like the ‘crimes of the vatican’ website, which colloquially puts the Vatican and Satan in the same sentence) that indicates anything along the lines of the claims and assertions and innuendoes in this ‘dennis ecker’ comment. And as a further Note for the Playbook, I would always advise some whisker-twitching whenever Abuseniks start larding on various grammatical riffs on “the truth” and “truly”.

    What “Dennis” sees in the tea-leaves in regard to Bill Donahue is there for readers to assess as they wish.  But his theology – such as it may be – of prayer seems rather seriously deficient from a Catholic point of view. Nothing new there either.

  64. Jim Robertson says:

    Is he or isn't he a saint as dubbed by your church? if your church is the rcc, HE'S NOT!  ( I shout because you do not hear) Therefore, you again are wrong.

  65. dennis ecker says:

    You cannot make this stuff up.

    Sean Fitzherbert the athletic director at Roman Catholic High School in Philadelphia is under investigation by the Philadelphia Police Department SVU for inappropriate conduct with a minor attending Father Judge High School (site of my abuse) the archdiocese announced.

    With the resignation of Fr. Paul earlier this month and the removal of his ministry unexplained by the archdiocese this will once again place a black eye on the archdiocese and the protection of our children if a criminal act has occured.

    Anyone who feels that there is a "break" or people are satisfied of how the catholic church is handling abuse cases are sadly mistaken. The very sad part about proving those statements wrong is a child is affected.

    We can only hope and pray the archdiocese of Philadelphia cooperates 100% with the police and since the investigation is in its infancy if a victim has come forward you are not alone.

     

    • Mark Manos says:

      close minded? Take a look in the mirror idiot. You focus only on issues that relate to the catholic church. where is your position or backing of the youth football coach who was just brought up on charges. guess you missed or skipped over that one. and in typical DE style there will be no follow-up.

      And for your knowledge, Fr. Paul is still a priest until the vatican says he is not. where do you get your information from? Obviously it must be the highly decorated, recognized and chastised philadelphia inquirer. 

    • josie says:

      Actually, you can make this stuff (wow-rythmes with tuff but wrong spelling) up and some people do (N.B. we are not talking child here, Dennis).

      You can also make up spin which is what your comments does through and through. Particularly, your saying "we can only hope and pray that the archdiocese cooperates 100% with the police". Huh, what-they reported this as they have been doing. What are you doing? as in your fav expressions, 'putting your head in the sand', 'living under a rock'? Anyone who thinks that there is a (here we go) "black eye on the archdiocese for this one" is under all the debris that you can conjure up!  Again, stick with that other site-you can say anything! 

      I have asked this question before. You have to keep trying to convince us of your alleged abuse. You keep saying  Fr.Judge High School, yet you ran to a convent to look for a favorite nun who wasn't in the convent(and then just forgot about it?). So sorry if I have you mixed up with JR's story. If you would be less confusing, it might help. 

  66. Dennis Ecker says:

    http://catholics4change.com/

    More on the removal of Fr. Paul from Ministry

  67. Publion says:

    More interesting bits from “Dennis”.

    On the 25th at 1040PM, he instructs ‘Mark Manos’ that Mr. Manos is “wrong” because “it is my [i.e. “Dennis”] right to refer to ex-father John Paul as nothing more than Mr. Paul”.

    Marvelously, “Dennis” thus commits two charming howlers for the price of one. First, John Paul is at this point an ex-pastor, not an “ex-father” (a point which had been covered previously in comments on this thread).

    Second, “Dennis” had originally written (the 24th, 840PM) that “… or as we should just call him now as Paul is not entitled to publicly present himself as a priest”. Granted that given the iffy grammar (so characteristic of this commenter) it is not clear whether this bit is meant to be taken in the declarative or the interrogative. Yet there is a deeply revelatory bit yet to be found here: whereas in his comment on the 24th “Dennis” had proposed that all of us (“we”) “should” presume the accused to be an “ex-priest”, now he simply defends his characterization (and his consequent assertion that ‘Mark Manos’ is “wrong”) merely on the basis of it being his “right to refer to the ex-father John Paul as nothing more then Mr. Paul” [sic]. Because – doncha see? – “Dennis” can never be wrong because he has made his pronounciamento  Ex Wiggedra (once again, how quickly Abuseniks like to speak in the accents of hierarchical authority).

    And – doncha see? – “Dennis” is justified in this not only because it is a) his right to call persons and things whatever he wants to call them but also because b) Fr. Paul “is no better than your or I even if the archdiocese did not remove him from ministry which they have” [sic].

    In regard to (a): speaking for myself (other readers can speak for themselves if they so desire) I’m not really sure I want to be lumped into the same category of ‘goodness’ (i.e. “no better than”) as “Dennis” – but then again, all of this word-playing is simply taking place on the little screen behind his eyeballs so what’s the problem, really?

    In regard to (b): i) I don’t see where it’s been demonstrated that Fr. Paul is “no better than” “Dennis”. And ii) the AOP has not – by any extant information I have discovered – acted to “remove him from ministry”. Might we have a link and accurate quotation for the authority supporting this rather serious claim? Fr. Paul has resigned as pastor and his resignation as pastor has been accepted. He has not been “removed” from ministry (if by “removed” he means laicization, thus rationally and legitimately justifying the characterization of Fr. Paul as no longer being allowed to call himself and present himself as a priest; or if by “removed” he means the withdrawal of faculties); Fr. Paul is at this point a former-pastor. If by some workings of the AOP protocols there are any limits temporarily put on his ministry pending the outcome of the AOP investigation, then that is something canonically far far less than anything “Dennis” has sought to assert here.

    But we see two general Abuseniks characteristics displayed here: 1) that they cannot ever be “wrong” and 2) that what they want-to-see as being real is what not only they but also everybody else must see as being real. And thus for anybody to have the insensitive temerity to suggest or to demonstrate that what the Abuseniks see on the little screen behind their eyeballs is merely and only stuff that appears on the little screen behind their eyeballs … is an outrageous ‘mockery’ and re-victimization and (fill in the blank).

    But then but then but then: “Dennis” will wade even further into the Abusenik Swamp of Theory and declare that actually and come to think of it “Dennis”  is indeed “better then him” [sic], meaning better-than Fr. Paul. Because – doncha see? – “Dennis” is “under no investigation by either the police or the archdiocese for child abuse” – which point, for whatever it is actually worth, ignores the fact that being under investigation for X in a time of a Stampede-Against-X is hardly evidence or proof of either guilt or some deeper turpitude.

     But Abuseniks – and the larger category of Victimists from which Abuseniks derive – hold that once one is suspected or under-investigation then one is legitimately presumable to be guilty. (Some readers might remember the old Al Capp comic-strip Pogo, wherein – during the days of the late-1960s – the uniform-wearing police authority (in the form of a large dog with Spiro Agnew’s face) informs the storekeeper Miggle, whom he has just arrested,  that “A man is guilty until caught; you’re guilty, Miggle, so shut up!”.) As I have said before on this site: Victimist – and hence Abusenik – law ‘reforms’ actually constitute not progress but rather a profound regression in American law and the entire Western stance toward law and jurisprudence.

    And then and then and then: in the same (densely loaded) paragraph “Dennis” informs us that he had undergone “the tuffest test anyone could face on this earth” (we notice again the deliberate use of a spelling that no word-processing spell-check can be induced to accept). And we might also notice the queasily histrionic characterization (and self-dramatization) to the effect that some alleged “abuse” by a (long-deceased) priest was and remains simply the most trying and demanding test any human being could ever face. (To deploy a maxim he himself has deployed here in recent comments: why did he not report so utterly profound and extreme a “test” – and the alleged crime that constituted it – to the police or at least a tortie? And to deploy another Eckerian gambit (if I may): could it be that he knew his allegations could not stand up even in a Stampede-friendly forum? … Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, no?)

    And the paragraph concludes – once again – with a queasy filching of the Holocaust terminology and imagery.

    Then in the next paragraph – having selected another 3×5 from the shoebox – “Dennis” lards on all the bits about the many possible “victims” of Fr. Paul “who may have lived with the torment of what he did to them for 45 years”. Or – it must be added – what Fr. Paul did not do to them and thus that there are no such hypothetical and innuendo-sketched “victims” out there at all in the first place, whether in the ones or the tens or the hundreds.

    The text continues with material the overall problems with which we have already seen discussed at great length in comments on this site: A) establishing the veracity of any such allegations (especially from the long-long-ago) and B) establishing that any damaged personalities making allegations received their damage from the (alleged) abuse and not, rather, that their assorted characterological or cognitive or other damage is the source of the allegation – rather than the consequence of the (alleged) abuse.  Again, I point out how brilliantly the cumulative Anderson Strategies have worked to prevent such profoundly serious aspects of allegations from being examined.

    However, having kicked-free of the boundaries imposed by any reality principle, the Abusenik theory (deployed in this instance by “Dennis”) is free to imagine such horrific and vivid imaginings as it may find manipulatively useful.

    Further, I would say that it is not so much an issue of “if abuse has happened decades ago the victim should let it go”. Rather, it is an issue of establishing with sufficient evidence that any such (alleged) abuse happened in the first place.

    And further, that it is not a matter of any allegant having to “let it go”, because any person who personally knows him/herself to have been abused can and indeed must deal with that reality in his/her personal life. Rather, it is a matter of this: any person who wishes to take the matter into the public legal forum must be prepared to accept the fact that for the Sovereign Coercive Authority of the government to be deployed against whomever the person accuses, there must be sufficient evidence. And again, I point out the brilliant – if also profoundly corrosive – objective of the cumulative Anderson Strategies: to a) conflate the personal and the public forums, and thus to b) conflate i) the personal ‘knowledge’ which the accusing-allegant claims with ii) the objective evidence required (at least until Victimism did its work) to prove the allegation and justify the legitimate deployment of the Sovereign Coercive Authority against the accused.

    Thus readers may consider whether they wish to become ‘assured’ by the assurance “Dennis” proffers, to the effect that “that is not how it works”. Perhaps “Dennis” can explain a) what “it” is here and b) how “it” actually does work.

    And then the gnomic declaration that “Dennis” is “not here to protect the innocent because the innocent do not need to be protected”. Which is – to put it bluntly – baloney in the original package. The innocent must always be protected – that’s why the Framers wrote so many protections for the accused into the constitutional legal principles and praxis: because there will always be those elements or interests who will find it convenient to their purposes to deploy the Sovereign Coercive Authority against the innocent. Thus rules of evidence and statutes-of-limitation and the very presumption-of-innocence of the accused were enshrined at the outset – so as to provide firewalls and speed-bumps so as to prevent the type of deliberately-manipulated Stampedes by which the accused can be overwhelmed (and also  – the Framers were wise enough to see – the very legitimacy of the courts and even government be placed in great hazard).

    And again, I point out the brilliance of the cumulative Anderson Strategies in this regard, while also noting that Anderson’s work simply took advantage of long-standing dangerous tendencies in human affairs, i.e. the tendency to deploy officially-sanctioned violence on the basis of emotional urges, rather than rational reasons. And how often – even since the dawn of the 20th century or going back to the French Revolution – have we seen these dynamics run riot, and to catastrophic effect?

    But perhaps the “abuse” that “Dennis” underwent seriously degraded his cognitive abilities such that he forgot(or repressed the memory of) his civics classes. So many possibilities.

    And then – dear dear dear Readers – a marvelous and classic Eckerian conclusion, with the Teeth of True Nastiness chattering in the Wig of Outraged Decency like cheap castanets: “Mr. Manos” can now go back and “live [his] life with your head in the sand until once again you get the urge to leave a comment”. I can only add that Mr. Manos is lucky not to have revealed any of his personal information and address in his comment. Because you can see clearly where this type of mentality can go, and with few speed-bumps to deflect it.

    But before all this, “Dennis” had also shared some bits on the 25th at 718PM.

    The athletic director of the very high school (allegedly) where “Dennis” (allegedly) underwent his own extreme experience of “abuse” is now “under investigation” by the Philly Police (the suspicious credibility of whose recent burst of Catholic Abuse inquiry has been raised on this site) for “inappropriate conduct with a minor” (whatever that might mean in this era of Victimist/Abusenik Stampede).

    We are then instructed to think that this, on top of the Fr. Paul matter (such as it exists in the Eckerian imagination), “will once again place a black eye on the archdiocese and the protection of our children” … “if a criminal act has occured” [sic] [italics mine].

    The Billy Doe case – we note – brays forth its existence here by omission: what are we to think of the credibility of the Philly police and DA agencies after seeing what has and has not transpired in that repellently intriguing saga of official skullduggery?

    But the usual Eckerian innuendo here is that all of this (such as it is) must surely prove that those who see a “break” in the Stampede are “sadly mistaken”.

    And further that it clearly does indicate that “people” are not “satisfied of how the catholic church is handling abuse cases”[sic]. It does no such thing. And rather, it simply indicates that the agencies who were part of that matrix of special-interests working behind the color of law to pursue their agendas against the AOP and the Church are now trying even harder to find ‘stuff’ that can somehow make them look better to compensate for the Billy Doe fiasco.

    Then the Wiggy smarm in conclusion that “we can only hope and pray [bearing in mind the peculiarities of the Eckerian theology of prayer] the archdiocese of Philadelphia cooperates 100% with the police” and then that old Victimist/Abusenik dogwhistle about anybody feeling they might want to make a run at the piñata should consider this as an Eckerian invitation to have-at-it.

    One can only add that anybody who has knowledge of a perjurious and conspiratorially-concocted allegation against an innocent party – individual or institutional – and on the basis of which such conspiratorial and perjurious allegation(s) large sums of money were extorted from the accused party … might also feel free to “come forward”. We might also wonder (deploying a gambit here so dear to the Abusenik Playbook) if there are not myriads of such persons ‘out there’.

    Lastly, while I certainly do not hold myself more expert than Abuseniks in how to “make this stuff up”, yet I do have to say that one certainly can “make this stuff up” and, further, that such “stuff” has in all probability indeed been made up, far more often than the Abuseniks would like us to think.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P, must only use expensive castenettes in his Carmen Mirandaesque drag show. Ole!  You look so real, dear.

  68. Jim Robertson says:

    You are a punk, P.

    And Mr. Manos , Dennis posts about catholic perpetrators because he was raped by a catholic priest. That's his balleywick. He has no need to talk about other sex abuser there are more than enough catholic rapists to take up and post about for the rest of his life..

  69. Jim Robertson says:

    Josie what's your reason to post about this subject? Who are you to ask Dennis to provide you information about his abuse?  You are the next to last person I would tell anything to. About anything. You are, abysmally, close minded and nasty.

    Again, May I suggest you sponser a tour or press conference with all your falsley acused priests. Trot 'em out girls. If you've got 'em let's seem "em.

    • josie says:

      JR- Dennis has conflicting stories-I have said that I don't believe him. Dennis makes things up/spins it.Why should anyone believe him-because he said it is so? He said on this thread that he was abused at Fr. Judge High School-he just said that-I am pointing out his inconsistencies. Dennis should not talk about his alleged abuse if he has issses with anyone commenting (I told him he should move to a victims blog where they might coddle him!!!)

      You are calling me nasty? Oh my….Don't really have the desire to go back in forth with you (ever since I saw that picture of you chaining yourself to the  LA Archbishop's chair during Mass at the Cathedral there…well, let's just say you are a little outragious and leave it there). I figured that SNAP did not approve and that is why they distanced themselves from you. Hence, you hate them too.

      Six of the several falsely accused priests that I know have been exonerated, cases dropped, various scenarios…some have gone on with their lives and forgiven the poor evil men that accused them. There is no way there would be a "tour or press conference" or any outragious thing that you imagine would be done. What is wrong with you exactly?  

  70. Publion says:

    Well, I am called “a punk” (JR, the 27th, 1026AM). Does that mean I have been “libeled”?

    Then we are informed that “Dennis … was raped by a catholic priest”. Was he really? That’s news. Or – actually – it isn’t yet news, but merely a claim made on the internet. Nor – apparently – did “Dennis” report this outrage to the police, if for no other reason than to protect others and prevent a repetition of the alleged abuse being perpetrated on others (including, of course, “children”).

    And a) how does JR come by this information? And b) how does JR know it’s accurate and true?

    And as we know from the formal allegations, there are few allegations of rape (presuming, of course, that one does not define any and all ‘abuse’ or ‘molesting’ as rape … but with Abuseniks that’s admittedly a gratuitous presumption that perhaps should not be made.

    But I would note here that we are once again confronted with a key whackery in the Abusenik Stampede: the conflation of the personal forum and the public/official forum. When two persons who know each other well are sitting together over coffee or a beer and one shares such a story, then it is up to the hearer to decide – on the basis of a great deal of prior assessment and information about his/her friend – about that claim. That’s how it works among acquaintances and friends.

    But then there is another setting: a stranger sidles up at a bar (coffee or beer) and relates a story. Now the hearer is faced with a rather different situation indeed.

    But then there is yet another setting. On the internet, a person whom one does not know at all, and who is shielded from even the most minimal interpersonal interaction (whereby humans can gauge with some degree of intuition the veracity of the story-teller if not the story itself) claims a story. How does one even begin to assess that? (Answer: one must rely on the coherence of the story material in all its aspects and conduct a more analytical set of operations than would be the case with a face-to-face encounter. That’s – as some here like to say – the way it works and, I would add, the way it has to work.)

    Beginning with those 1980s TV shows where persons could get on TV simply on the basis of the story they choose to tell (or, if you wish, ‘share’) we began to see this conflation of the personal and the public forums. And after a while it migrated into the legal forum, which was the recipe for even more corrosive mischief (as we have seen).

    And it was precisely this development which Anderson incorporated structurally into his Strategies.

    “Dennis” has linked above to a website where one of the comments is indeed an extended example of this dynamic: a long and detailed story, the details of which are so vivid and engrossing that readers may well forget the fact that there is utterly no way for them to know or gauge its veracity. Yet it is – it must be – the story’s essential veracity, and not the ancillary details, that governs the reader’s conclusions. Otherwise, what can so easily develop is simply a large and credulous following for a ‘story’ that, in point of fact, nobody can be certain is true. On top of which, such a dynamic, once it is rolling, creates a gravitational pull, an invitation, a seduction even, for others to jump into the pool with their own stories as the ticket for admission to the warm and accepting membership of the club.

    As I think we have seen more often than we care to think.

    And then (the 27th, 1034AM) JR asks ‘Josie’ what “reason” she could have “to post about this subject”. The presumption here is that since ‘Josie’ hasn’t printed-up her own ‘ticket’ in the form of an abuse-story, then she can’t swim in the pool. Whereas others such as JR and – now, apparently, “Dennis” – have done exactly that and are not happy that non-storytellers are also in the pool. That’s how it works.

    As for the rest – including the queasy sexual/gender bit about calling the readers “girls” – we are treated to the “abysmally nasty” undertow that exists in so much of the Abusenik material we have so very often seen here.

    And if the Abuseniks have any credible stories to tell, well … “if you’ve got’em let’s see’em”. (But I wouldn’t advise readers to postpone Thanksgiving dinner until they do.)

  71. Jim Robertson says:

    Punk is as punk does and punk you are.

    Josie, If only 6 priests out of thousands of abusers that's still 6 innocents who should never have been accused. So if you have 6 and truely believe that the majority of accusations are false you should  do something. You don't like press conferences? If your issue is the church is being slagged by the media, I disagree. But rave away you're really turning the tide of public opinion.

    • josie says:

      I did not say 6 out of thousands. I I am in Philadelphia-no thousands in any city for that matter. I (personally) know 6 priests that were recently accused , exonerated beyound doubt and returned to ministry-scathed but forgiving. I am sure that there are more than are falsely accused here as well  Furthermore, I did not say the majority of accusations are false although it is looking more and more to be the case these days. You are not even mixing my words-you are just mixed up.

      I didn't say I don't like press conferences.  I was in a press group many years ago. I have relatives and friends in the local press.  You suggested tours and press conferences for the innocent priests just to be cute. I thought that I was reasonably implying that these exonerated priests are not in need of touting their innocence just in getting their lives back together after being placed on leave when falsely accused, going through a very painful time. You like chaining yourself to a bishop's chair for the press (or whoever)-most people do not like drawing attention to themselves in any way no matter what they have been through.

      You don't comment on what I said . You spin it and don't get it in the first place. I am done. Not interested in sparring with you. It is a waste of time. P.S. As much as you don't like it,it is very apparent that the tide has been turning for awhile. 

  72. Jim Robertson says:

    Really? where is the tide turning?

    I wasn't being coy. If you mention false claims against a few priests as being more or equally important to tens of thousands of real claims by priests' victims; who were raped as children. Then I wonder what your deal is. You don't think tens of of thousands of victims are more important than 6 priests? If that's true, your sense of justice is wanting.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] "We'll say you touched us": Robbers attempt to extort priest with threat of abuse claim… __________________ Your socks stink. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Ad hominem aims at discrediting the person in a debate by undermining their character or authority. This is one of the weakest and most inept fallacies. The truth will win every time. [...]