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

 Credibility.

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

What goes around comes around.

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

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

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.

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

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

Linus

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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

It is good to see some people fight back:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508800/Children-liable-calling-ex-Catholic-school-teacher-perv-creeper.html

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?

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.

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.