‘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.


  1. dennis ecker says:


    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:


      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:


     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:


    • 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?


    • 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:


      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:


      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:


    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:


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



    • dennis ecker says:


      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.




  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. [...]