Willingly Manipulated: Media Touts Meaningless UN Committee Questioning of Catholic Church; More Free P.R. For SNAP

Barbara Blaine : United Nations : Pam Spees

Wild-eyed: SNAP's Barbara Blaine and CRR's Pam Spees

When an unknown and powerless group of bureaucrats from the United Nations somehow managed to question officials from the Vatican about the issue of sex abuse in the Catholic Church for several hours, the mainstream media was naturally more than willing to herald the event, which took place in Geneva, Switzerland.

But as is so often the case, the media missed the forest for the trees, reporting the subject with notable inaccuracy and a glaring lack of perspective.

A solution in search of a problem

The most egregious problem with the media's coverage of the UN-Vatican face off was that the issue was presented as if sex abuse is still a significant problem in the Catholic Church today. As we have relayed countless times before, it simply isn't, as much as haters of the Church may wish it to be otherwise.

In truth, in the United States, contemporaneous accusations against priests are extremely rare, and on average, only 8 allegations are even deemed merely "credible" by review boards each year.

Moreover, nearly half of all priests accused in recent years are long ago deceased, and the vast majority of accusations against priests allege activity that took place many decades ago.

But this context was sorely lacking in all the media coverage that we examined.

The mainstream media: SNAP's enabler

Nicole Winfield : Nicole Winfield AP Associated Press

Nicole Winfield : AP Associated Press

The mainstream media once again turned the event into another free publicity event for the anti-Catholic group SNAP, led by its radical founder Barbara Blaine, and an allied group called the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), represented by the daffy Pam Spees.

In fact, this was SNAP's and CCR's second attempt to garner international media attention over old sex abuse claims. As we reported last June, the International Criminal Court (ICC, aka "The Hague") roundly rejected the pair's wacky petition to prosecute Pope Benedict XVI and other Vatican officials for purported "crimes against humanity" for their handling over decades-old abuse allegations.

The groups' effort was clearly a silly publicity stunt, as the ICC quickly recognized. But since the stunt gained the desired publicity, the groups then apparently decided to try the UN committee in hopes of obtaining even more media attention.

Following the sessions between the UN committee members and Vatican officials, SNAP and CCR presented a long and rambling "live stream" video, which only a die-hard bigot could possibly have seriously appreciated.

In fact, at times SNAP's Blaine appeared so discombobulated by the whole experience that she no longer made any sense in the video. At one point, Blaine uttered:

"I think we have to judge Pope Francis by his behavior, not his actions."
(18:40 on the video)

The media coverage was equally inaccurate and off point. After the Vatican released the statistic that it removed 400 priests over a recent two-year period, many mainstream outlets picked up on the breathless reporting by the Associated Press' Nicole Winfield, who appeared confused about whether the Catholic Church has the ability to jail any of its 400,000 priests worldwide.

Apparently trying to suggest that the Vatican's defrocking of abusive priests was still not a sufficient penalty, Winfield darkly wrote:

"The maximum penalty for a priest convicted by a church tribunal is essentially losing his job: being defrocked, or removed from the clerical state. There are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from raping again."

Winfield may want to familiarize herself with the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Obviously, no organization has the authority to "jail" any of its employees, and unless a priest is a residing citizen of the Vatican, it cannot "jail" anyone.

Comments

  1. Oumou says:

    Does the UN do anything that is NOT a joke?

  2. Publion says:

    By an interesting coincidence, the group ‘Catholics for Choice’ has been lobbying to have the Vatican’s Permanent Observer status to the U.N. revoked, since the Vatican has an unacceptable position on abortion.

  3. Pat says:

    I can only imagine what the CCR folks are alll about.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Pat, they are probably fooled by SNAP's own loudly heralded pr and the broad support and authentication SNAP's recieved from the media.

      SNAP's deep background story, created to fool and cross authenticated by other dubious groups like Voice of the Faithful, has never been seriously questioned by the media. SNAP's m.o. has only been questioned by those of us activist victims who come from a real history of activism and who were and are appalled at SNAP's behavior towards victims. Let alone it's hostility in behavior towards the church as a religion rather than as a corporation. a hostility created to drive the people in the pews and the quilty hierarchs closer together in a "circle the wagons" political stance. A stand that pretends that the church is being attacked when it is only being held responsible, and only barely at that, for it's horrific behavior towards it's own children.

      Demanding compensation, something SNAP has never ever done, is not attacking the church. It's just that, seeking restoration through compensation given the damage done. Religion hasn't a thing to do with it.

       

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    Well that's a sane answer.(irony)  Now we are going to debate the U.N.? Who cares?

    The issue is( and u heard it here first from me) about Barbara's complete act of goofy innocense and confusion. She's been playing that number for twenty three + years now. You'd think a real activist would get smarter and better with time but not your Barbara. That's not incompetence. That's the act. 

  5. Kay Ebeling says:

    Blogger from Boston calls UN insignificant.  So funny. 

    And we don't hate the church, David, we hate what the church did to us.  So your premise from square one is off mark. 

    nice try though, bloggers have to make a living too. 

    http://cityofangels12.blogspot.com

    -kay e

  6. Delphin says:

    Actually, wannabe 'actress' from Lousy-Land, the majority of Americans find the UN insignificant, and worse, criminal (as do most of the civilized [not despotic] nations of the world).

    How does a blogger from Looser-Land make a living (aside from extorting the Church)?

  7. Publion says:

    I point out again that Kay Ebeling’s (the 23rd, 423AM) remark about TMR/DP’s “premise from square one is off the mark” isn’t quite accurate. Because her premise (“what the church did to us”) is unsupported and remains merely an assertion. But the entire Stampede is based upon this conceptual gambit: we must simply presume that stories and claims and allegations and assertions are true, and then go on from there

     

    But that presumption is precisely where the Thing has sought to manipulate public opinion and how the Thing has managed to survive this long: as long as there is no requirement for evidence, and we are left merely with the various stories and claims and allegations and assertions, then the Ball can Keep Rolling ad infinitum.

     

    And while we have Ms. Ebeling on the line, perhaps she could be of some help here. A few threads back JR directed readers to her site (well, he actually only provided an email address, rather than the URL of any evidence) in regard to proof or documentation about the Sinsinawa Dominican Sisters having been involved in setting up SNAP as a non-profit. The deceased Economus was mentioned as well. His work is said to be archived on a site that includes the Vatican and Satan in the same sentence but there appears to be no such documentation accessible there.

     

    Could Ms. Ebeling provide any help in this?

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    You are a piece of work. D. And I for one have had enough of you.

    Your full tilt attacks in response to civilized discourse is unbearable and nasty. You should be banned from posting here. Your aim is to end discussion not to illuminate through your participation.

    Ending dialog seems to be your goal. So let's end your participation in said dialog. If Dave won't ban you, I will. You are an anathama to me from here on. Consider yourself excommunicated.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Sorry, ARE unbearable and nasty. My gramatical Faux pas.

  10. Kay Ebeling says:

    The documents that show SNAP formed under the aegis of the Dominican Sisters is down near the bottom of this very long post, where the Bold Type reads "Not a Smoking Gun But…" 

    http://cityofangels2.blogspot.com/2011/09/whole-snap-story-from-city-of-angels.html 

    All the wannabe actress stuff in comments here is so mean spirited and hateful it does not deserve responding.  Nice example of Catholic compassion.  Ugh 

    My earlier comment here  should have read we hate "what the Catholic Church allowed to happen to us."  

    There's a long post at that link to CofA2 that is more or less rambling notes about SNAP, posted a few years ago, updated now and then  If you ask around, there aren't a lot of survivors who still affiliate with SNAP, we kind of watch what SNAP does in wonder.  We don't have a voice there, so we don't really have a voice anywhere, except as individuals here and there, on Facebook, etc.  Something is wrong there but I've stopped second guessing trying to figure out what it is, I just trying to keep on in spite of them. 

    You can also link to the post about problems with SNAP this way http://cityofangels2.blogspot.com 

    -ke 

     

  11. Dennis Ecker says:

    http://www.thereporteronline.com/general-news/20140123/police-lansdale-priest-admitted-touching-mans-genitals-in-ymca-locker-room

    The Lansdale Pa. priest charged with indecent assault who was appointed to his current position by archbishop chaput who initially denied the accusations against him has admitted guilt.

  12. Dennis Ecker says:

    http://wnep.com/2014/01/22/priest-pleads-guilty-to-corruption-charge/

    Another story that has developed out of Scranton Pennsylvania only a short ride north on the turnpike or Rt. 309 from Philadelphia we see yet another priest pleading guilty of felony corruption charge of a minor.

    This priest when sentenced may face seven years in prison and may have to register for life  as a sex offender.

    I would like to truly believe the single digit numbers that have been reported about the amount of catholic clergy sexual abuse cases but I'm sorry I don't see it. 

  13. Delphin says:

    Nothing mean spirited or hateful about the CoA crusade against all those "pedophile priests", wtih all those 'commercial breaks' in between the emotional tugs at the old heart strings – is there?  From CoA, paraphrase "…All those raped little boys cries muffled by the priests garments…leaving their priest assailants with blood draining from their bodies…". No, nothing mean spirited, or more accurately, nothing much truthful there, is there now?

    I apologize for one thing in that post-  misspelling "LOSER"- that one got by me.

    I guess begging for blog-bucks is a way to 'make a living,' too, - in case a Church settlement or Hollywoody producer doesn't/didn't happen along to support you. I have no compassion for exploiters, frauds and bigots – ugh.

    Let me tell you for what/who I do have "Catholic" compassion (oh no, you're not the least bigoted, are you?) – I have compassion for true innocents on both side of this issue, and I have compassion for all victims outside of the Church where the majority of child abuse is occuring – today, now- happening to kids in schools, at home, in sports and entertainment, and everywhere else but in the Church. But, thanks to you and too many other exploiters and extorters just like you, the media and governments throughout the world are focused on the Catholic Church while real pedophiles, not pederasts/ephebophiles (where a much lesser traumatic statutory crime between homosexual men and post-pubescent homosexual teenagers occurred), are ravaging children.

    So, save the 'act' and the feined 'outrage' when someone finally decides to slap you back.

    It is a worthwhile exercise to slap back, if only to witness the hypocrisy of those so accustomed to perpetrating their brutal beatdown on the Church, with the full force, support and protections of powerful governments and their media lackeys, with no fear of any backlash, retaliation or exposure.

    Practicing the barbaric sport of hate and bigotry, as the antiCatholic gang here well knows, is a contact sport. Expect to take some hits back. We're not all encumbered by vows and vestments-

    The irony of a filthy, despot, corrupt and child killing and rape-infested organization like the UN questioning or investigating the Catholic Church is akin to Larry Flint (or any Hollywood producer) declaring Michaelangelo's David pornographic.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Turning the other cheek" seems to have been overlooked in the Angriest catholic in the World's religious education.

  14. Dennis Ecker says:

    She steps aside at her request. Now we will see the children jump on this like it was the discovery of fire.

    However, these same children have forgotten about their spiritual leader stepping aside.

  15. Delphin says:

    On 22Jan @736pm a couple TMR articles ago, some commenters here were excoriated for 'knowing nothing of our faith', requiring enlightening and in need of moral education'. We were advised that viewing a film would provide a fine example of 'Christian dogma';  a film by an Italian gay Communist (highly recommended by another gay Communist).

    I don't suppose that the irony of a film recommended to teach a couple of 'rogue' Catholics what Catholicism should look like, which was made by P.P. Pasolini, an infamous ephebophile/pederast, who openly declared his love, at 41 years old, for a 15 year old minor, and who (Pasolini) was later murdered, at 53 years old, by another one of his rent-boys (not the vast right-wing conspiracy, again?), will be lost here, will it?

    I think I'll pass on this critics choice.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Evidently the angriest catholic in the world. refuses to look at a film that the vatican awarded it's top film prize to.

      Pasolini was murdered by Italian fascists. the young man that took the rap for the murder was set up by the fascists.

      The Gospel according to Mathew, with the Missa Luba as a sound track, is beautiful.

      Da Vinci creater of The Last Supper also was a child abuser and criminally tried and found guilty for it in Firenzi. Does that make the Last Supper less beautiful?

      I don't do a background check on every artist that moves me with their art. I'm not hiring them to teach and watchover my grandchildren. I am admiring the good art they've created per se.

      And I wouldn't take The Angriest catholic in the World's word for anything. It's rabid right wing politic colors all it does.

       

       

  16. James Dallen says:

    Because the Vatican is a signatory to the UN statement on protecting children (though it has failed to make the promised reports), the "interrogation" was legitimate. The Holy See sometimes claims it has no authority outside Vatican City and at other times micromanages local churches throughout the world. HOWEVER, the UN's credibility is itself an issue, considering the record of its own staff, peacekeeping forces, etc., in the physical and sexual abuse of women and children. Perhaps it needs to do some housecleaning first.

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    When will you compensate the victims of your corporate hierarchy? When will you demand compensation for your own catholic raped never mind anybody elses raped? You are not in control of those institutions. You own this one.

    • KenW says:

      Jim, it has been revealed in recent times that my great grandfather was a creep. He died when I was 3. In your opinion, do I owe compensation to any victims of my great grandfather? Because that is EXACTLY the rationale that you ar espousing. 

  18. Delphin says:

    What should happen is that the UN should be exposed for the corrupt despotic and antisemetic, antiChristian an antiAmerican criminal organization it actually is (if we had an honest media here, that would have already happened).

    Then, the US should lead the way by disengaging itself from this entity, entirely. Having embassies/exchanging ambassadors is sufficient for maintaining and expanding international relationships. The Vatican should be the second state to leave the UN.

    These two back-to-back actions would show the world secular, spiritual and moral leadership that is sorely missing on the world stage. These actions would establish the new standard and model for Europe (maybe they'll find their spine?) to emulate, at which time we might be able to stop the slippery-slope slide into full despotism (socialism, communism, fascism, Islamization, atheism, statism, crony-capitalism) that is pulling the whole globe ever deeper into economic and moral/ethical depression and darkness.

    The UN, by every metric, in every initiative, is beyond repair, and is a monumental failure in it's primary mission of peacekeeping. It needs to go the way of the League of Nations.

  19. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment by ‘James Dallen’ (the 24th, 938PM): I am not sure that the Vatican was called to this session in Geneva because of its failure to file mandated reports.

     

    The text of the ‘UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ is available by entering the phrase “un convention on the rights of the child text” into your search engine.

     

    The relevant bits of that text are to be found in Part II, Article 44.

     

    That Article sets forth the responsibility for reporting. It lays that responsibility on the signatory “State Parties”. This term is not further defined in the text of this Convention. But in the many places where it is used throughout the text it discusses the responsibility of governments (which are the State Parties) for ensuring the fulfillment of the Convention’s requirements in their respective countries and sovereign territory, through the appropriate deployment of their governmental powers and authority.

     

    Thus, working from the text of the Convention, there is some question as to whether the Vatican (which has the status of Permanent Observer to the UN and is not a national government or the government of a nation) is actually a “State Party” to which the reporting responsibility applies.

     

    Section 1(b)(4) does state that “The Committee may request from States Parties [sic] further information relevant to the implementation of the Convention”, but once again we are back to the question of whether the Vatican (a Permanent Observer to the UN and not actually a national government) is formally a “State Party” to which the reporting requirements apply.

     

    It is possible – I am no expert on UN laws and procedures – that the Vatican, by signing the Convention, is somehow to be considered a State Party for the purposes of the Convention, and thus that the reporting responsibilities as set forth in this Article do apply to the Vatican.

     

    It is also possible that the Vatican State may be required to report as an actual government and thus as a State Party. But that would mean that the Vatican would have to report on the relevant activities taking place within its sovereign territory of the 109 acres surrounded by the city of Rome and the Italian State, and perhaps on the doings of its directly-connected agents (members of the Vatican diplomatic corps and so forth, the Swiss Guard). But even so, it would be a stretch (under the terms of the Convention) to presume that the Vatican is somehow to be considered responsible for reporting on all Convention-relevant Catholic activities throughout the world.

     

    But there remains the possibility that the Vatican is actually not required to report – not being an actual national government of a nation, and as a Permanent Observer that is not actually a State or State Party – and that opens up the possibility that this Committee in Geneva wanted to somehow and for whatever reason(s) draw the Vatican in, which at this point the Vatican has assented-to, although not because it is a formal State Party and thus not because it is somehow in default of its reporting responsibilities as a State Party.

     

    These are the real-world complexities of documents and formal inter-State agreements and treaties and Conventions: the formally-adopted text is a vital starting-place for analysis.

  20. Delphin says:

    Just for the record, since truth matters when determining mens fate and reputations; DaVinci was not found guilty of sodomy – that unfounded claim is just another baseless gay urban legend, like most of the bogus claims of minor abuse by Catholic clergy.

    Apparently, enough of a background check was either known or undertaken to provide the recommended deviant 'artists' sexuality and politics (as an aside- there was never any evidence that the right-wing murdered him, but, hey, don't let any facts ruin a good 'story', as usual). Perhaps, it's simply the case that the elitist 'artists' are exempt from having to abide by, or be burdened by gaydom's rules of the road for the rest of us. It's the same reason that true pedophiles, like Polanski and Allen (to name two out of thousands in 'artists-ville') and bigoted rants by Baldwin and other gay 'friendlies" get free passes by the rainbow crowd and their media acolites. As the TMR author documented, it's a Double Standard, all the way.

    And, unlike the antiCatholic bigots here, I neither ask nor expect anyone to 'take my word' for anything, much less on a highly suspect claim that would unnecessarily burden and disparage an ancient institution or any man's freedom, livelihood and reputation.

    You are, though, compelled to ask this very important question when considering all the [baseless] claims being made by these bigots; if they can't get documented and verifiable history and other facts right, what do they do with/to the truth under cover and/or in the dark as expressed and filtered through the prism of their bigotry?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      DaVInci was found guilty of sex abuse of one his apprentices. Angriest catholic ignores history one more time.

      Could someone please turn down the volume on Angriest catholic. It's rants of ad hominem after ad hominem are unneccessary and obfuscating. Yelling bigot and bigotry again and again proves nothing other than one person and or one clack has chosen bigotry as their word du jour.

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    Who is anticatholic?

     If  being a catholic consists of allowing enablers of catholic child rapists continued respect and obedience ;power and privilage. Then I'm anticatholic. Guilty as charged.

    But if being a catholic consists of religious tenents obeyed as part of one's faith. When have I ever denied anyone's choice in matters of faith? A) I don't have the power nor B) do I have any interest or need.

    Inventing catholic haters where there are none. Seems to be a public relations spin done for effect.

    What's the effect? Creating  an illusion that the faith is in question or "under attack" When all I personally want is for you to compensate the innocents your corporate officers behaviors have harmed.

    The angriest catholic in the world and her bretheren seem to be on a mission that has nothing to do with the question at hand, i.e. When will you pay the uncompensated?

    Screaming hysterically over and over lies (just like the lies that started the slaughter house of the war in Iraq) is beyond dangerous. It's stupid to boot.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    KenW if your grandfather's wealth is now your wealth. And your grandfather raped innocent children. Then I would say yes. You do owe these unaided victims of his bad behavior big time. And if there were no statutes of limitations on child rape. That wealth could be used to aid the people who were harmed by your realative.

    As an example Germany pays reparations to Jews to this day for crimes commited against them by the Germans Nazi grandparents. Jewish art stolen by the Nazi's are even now being returned to the heirs of the people that art was stolen from..

    • KenW says:

      Jim, you have just PROVED your unending stupidity and bias, My great grandfather hd no wealth. And even if he did, and it is now mine, it belongs to me and no one else. Period!

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    "is even now" Apologies.

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    Do you think the capital that was created through the selling of slaves shouldn't be returned to the slaves heirs? I certainly do. And many a new England and Southern fortune created by the slave trade is still earning interest in the banks of America. Benefiting not the grandchildren of the harmed but the grandchildren of the oppressers. Does that seem right to you?

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    Let's imagine ourselves note release valves on the pipe organ of life. Some of us are squealy high notes that irritate for the sake of irritation but there are other notes being played quietly ;no hysteria neither a male nor female note just some quiet human note in which dialog is not limited by a maddning decible level.

  26. Delphin says:

    There just doesn't seem to be anything in the literature documenting DaVinci's conviction for 'apprentice abuse". Perhaps, we'll just have to take 'your word' for it. Better yet, maybe you were that apprentice (in a former life?) and you can sue……Italy, or Italian artists or Leo's family's genetically-related descendents. Or, you can can claim that you are simply speaking out on behalf of getting justice for abused artist apprentice's the world over for the last 500 years and demand 'someone' pay them or their desendents for all that pain and suffering?

    Reparations all around! Let's take it all the way back to the 'Garden of Eden' (or to your monkey-uncle since you're a Darwinian) and pay it foward right all back to….you?

    Yeah, that'll work, it's a perfectly sane position.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      White America has always recieved the benefits accorded us for just being white at the expense of America's former slaves and all people of color.

       We inherited that privileged position the same way heirs inherit property. People of color inherited degredation and oppression and poverty. That's our system. That's the way our system has always worked: Blame the oppressed for their own oppression. Amerika da Bootyful

      And then we have ACW pretending we are all equal and are treated equally from the get go; and that privilege and oppression are irrelevent. Such arrogance! Such ignorance!

      When will you compensate your own catholic victims? When will a committee be emplaced to start doing that? Timeline please?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      My word is as good as gold. It always has been. It always will be.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your church is Darwinian as well. Why do you claim to be a Roman catholic when you know nothing about your faith?

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    When will you compensate your own raped catholic victims? When? Next month? Next year? Never? Set a time table.

    Dennis and Kay were harmed deeply, permanently by their rapes when will you pay them what you owe them? When?

  28. Julie says:

    There goes Jim Robertson again, pretending he cares about victims, when it's really all about bashing and hating the Catholic Church.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Why is it Julie EVERYTIME Jim, myself or anyone else who speaks the truth about your "catholic church" is because we are either bashing or hating it ?

      I know a priest who works out at the YMCA who would love to shake your hand.

    • Mark says:

      Not sure if she is his type?

      and nice try on the joke, doubt anyone is paying attention to what you have to say. You care about the victims yet do nothing to help them. Your story is old, it happened 40 years ago, of course I am telling the truth, now give me my money

  29. Dennis Ecker says:

    A BAD OMEN

    I  understand now after a incident that occured the other day could explain the thousand upon thousand of children that were sexually abused by catholic priests.

    We were nothing but SACRIFICES.

    The other day two children along with the pope released two domesticated white doves in the name of peace.

    After being warned in the past of the dangers of this ritual practice by a Italian animal protection group the two doves were released only to be attacked by a crow and a gull witnessed by hundreds, you can even see  the pope consoling the young male child after the incident.

    If the pope and the vatican still want to cover-up the attacks on children I ask the animal protection group what makes them think they would be any different ?

    At this time the fate of the two doves is unknown.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I agree with Dennis sacrifices we were and are without our consent too. I know what Issac must have felt when Abraham got all glinty eyed and said to his son? let's take a little trip. Yea sacrifices that's us. Burnt offerings.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Only with Isacc your god stopped Abraham from sacrificing him.

      Your god didn't stop our abusers.

  30. Delphin says:

    I wonder what the priest at the YMCA, who is just another homosexual trawling for some seedy "stranger action", has to do with abused or violated minors?  Are we going to set ourselves up to be the judge, jury and executioner of all priests trangressions?

    No, of course it has nothing to do with Catholicism- especially when the religion is the dominant focus in all cases involving priests. Not profiling much, are we?

    Let's play a game, replace the work Catholic for all cases involving priests with black or African-American or Muslim and let's see if that profiling makes it into the media, and however rarely it does, for how long it lasts before all the lefties scream bias.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      I guess all those guilty pleas from priests mean nothing ?

       priest trangressions ? How about priest stupidity.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Some one should check their own seediness before mentioning others. See what I mean, jesus is as far from you as possible. Did your lord use the word "seedy" when discussing other people? Anybody? Do you know anything about jesus at all? Since when did the prince of peace yell "seedy" at anyone?

      Gee angry catholic sure is angry all right. But I don't think it's about anything we can do anything about. I think "angry" is the only note being played by he/she/ it? Why?

      Somebody needs a migilagh? Why?

  31. Julie says:

    This quote from Simcha Fisher made me think of Jim Robertson, Dennis Ecker and the other bigots who post on here: "It's hard to argue with numbers. It's much easier to say 'Boo, Catholics! Priests, Yuck! Ratzinger guilty!' But folks who do that are lazy or ignorant at best, or at worst, something far worse: They are telling children who are exploited and abused by imams, protestant ministers, rabbis, librarians, pediatricians, swimming coaches, and Starbucks supervisors, 'Your suffering isn't useful to me. Get back to me when you've been molested by a priest. Now that's a story.'"

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Julie,

      I believe in an earlier statement you stated at the urging of Mr. Robertson you would dig even deeper into your pockets to give to the church.

      If a Archdiocese of Philadelphia or a surrounding area diocese parishioner get ready to dig even deeper. Maybe your food money, medicine money, or the money you use to pay the bills.

      It is already in discussion Pope Francis MAY make a visit to our fine city of brotherly love in September 2015. Although the city will pay almost 100% of the cost for crowd control, protection and other expenses that are spent for his visit, you will have to pay for things the city will not pay for.

      Where does a archdiocese who is in debt well over 300 million dollars come up for the funds to pay for this visit ? FROM YOU !

      I hope you are sitting down for this next fact. If Pope Francis does come to visit. You will have to stop and say THANK YOU to me, every homosexual,  every atheist, and every bigot in the tri-state area for paying our taxes to allow the event happen.

      In short if his visit occurs and you see only one police officer you have no choice but to say Thank You.

      Would you like to say it now or later.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Is it bigotry to tell the truth in your world?

    • malcolm harris says:

      Perhaps Julie, posting on the 28th, might have telepathic gifts. Because on that same day an authoratative report came out, in the Australian press, that seemed to support her line of thinking. The Commissioner for the Victims of Crime said that "stranger danger" was a myth, in the context of where the greatest danger for children lies. The Australian Institute for Criminology had concluded that biological fathers were just as likely to sexually abuse children as step-fathers. They also challenged the notion that the family home was always a safe-haven..because for many it wasn't. Another expert in child protection said that national statistics did not specify when the perpetrator was a family member….this was a mistake… because a public view had evolved that assumed the pedophile was always a stranger. In fact 90% of the time it was somebody living under the same roof. Many victims did not report because they felt that nobody would believe them…. that it happened at home.

  32. Publion says:

    In regard to JR’s historical examples (the 25th, 644PM and 658PM), they are inapplicable to the Catholic Abuse Matter. There is no doubt that the Holocaust and American race-slavery existed and that there were indubitable victims of those events. (Although even in these historically demonstrable phenomena, there are those who have claimed victimization who did not actually hold that status.)

     

    But this is precisely the problem with the Catholic Abuse Matter: we don’t know (even if we generally acknowledge that some amount of clerical sexual abuse existed or even exists) just which individuals validly hold the status of ‘victim’ and which do not. (And I have pointed out numerous elements – introduced or embraced by the Anderson Strategies – that work to keep that confusion or that veil of ignorance in place.)

     

    Additionally, of course, we do not know how many – if many at all – un-reported valid victims are still out there. Efforts to claim to know or prove that such and such a number exist simply by a) extrapolation of b) self-reports from surveys or from other source fail because upon analysis such predictions turn out to be simply surmises and guesses and – even – imaginings.

     

    But I think we can see how the effort to tie clerical abuse into the reality and status of the (indubitable) perpetrations of the Holocaust and race-slavery also fuel the proposal – put forth from time to time by Abuseniks here – for some sort of ‘truth commission’. We recall those commissions in South Africa a few decades ago, with their large and small ‘courts’ which were actually somewhat closer to Maoist public-exposure-and-shaming performances during that leader’s now-lamented Cultural Revolution (who can forget his stentorian exhortation to ‘Smash the Four Olds: customs, habits, traditions, ideas’?)

     

    Seen in that light, I think this Geneva U.N. panel’s effort was some sort of effort to get the same type of thing rolling in regard to the Church (although with the problems I noted in my comment of the 25th at 220PM about the actual formal status of the Church/Vatican according to that U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! What you mean we white man? You got a mouse in your pocket? Your church hierarchy has given you no report on the claims outstanding against it? They have all the compaints. Get them to tell you what's what. You believe them about the invisable. Tell them you'll believe them about any visable info they have as well. Where's the structure in place for doing the right thing by your injured? What are you doing about your harmed compared to you manufacturing a fantasy about being treated exceptionally by the media?

      A truth hearing exactly like Bishop Tutu led in South Africa is exactly what is needed to end this.

  33. Dennis Ecker says:

    I truly get a kick out of those like Mark who make a comment that states "doubt anyone is paying attention to what you have to say'"

    Then Mark if I posted something and you feel this way :

    1. Why would you read a comment I left ? You can simply scroll past my posting like I do with Publions

    2. Why would you leave a comment directly meant for me to read ?

    I am not twisting an arm behind your back, or holding a gun to your head. Put your big-boy pants on Mark.

    • Mark says:

      You just answered your own question. Because this is what you live for and cannot stay away from- online conflict where you will never have to confront someone. we all know what you are about and it is certainly not about protecting the innocent. 

      big-boy pants – come on? isn't that what someone says to a toddler? Your next repsonse will be that is how you are treating me. one step ahead of you in this game.

  34. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~The District Attorney's office filed an appeal with the State Supreme Court on Monday in the William Lynn case.

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    Your telling me that hierarchs who transferred abusing priests shouldn't be ashamed?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Or is it you don't want them shamed publicly? What good will that do? How would that send a lesson? Since none of them have been punished very much anyway. You do catch the public eye but not a single one of your cardinals or arch bishops has been held to any normal standard penalty for enabling child abusers. That's just the facts. And pope Frank is getting the 2nd coming treatment from the press. So as I see it your geek chorus here is naught but a clack. In other words: You just aint telling the whole truth.

  36. Delphin says:

    I heard a rumor that the two doves were actually picked up by a couple of gay jays –  they flew off from Rome headed to Amsterdam to get married, honeymooned in Gay Paree and are living happily- ever-after now in San Juan Capistrano, where they reside with the swallows (not going there).

    Unfortunately, there is a scandal brewing back in Rome because the antiCatholics have started an action against the Vatican claiming that the two doves were actually underage 'chicks' that were abducted by two priests disguised in magpie garb.

    And, if this debacle wasn't enough, the Italian SPCA version of SNAP, called BLAME (Bird Lovers Against Minister EpheBirdphiles) is initiating lawsuits against the Vatican for covering up this diabolical disgrace that the Church has hidden dating back to Jesus' cleansing of the temple (he was actually after the birds) and right up through St. Francis' (don't you see all the links here??) Canticle of the Creatures and his 'preaching' (code for grooming)  to the birds.

    So, there you go-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin Come on now, what planet are you really on? Come on really is it Fantasy Island? " Have you mistaken a bird for a plane? You're actually attempting gay jokes? What's next Your personal re enactment of Brokeback Mountain? That should prove jolly. We hear your good on horses. Yee Haw! But the pope said be nice; play nice with our little gay friends. You can start being obedient to him anytime. Maybe you didn't get the memo. pope Frank could you give pope Delphin a call.

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin, you, "chicks"" swallows"  st Francis, the beloved hippie, (I think Disney stole" talking to the birds" and birds talking back from st. Francis.) Say what? what? It's all so overwhelming! You're reaping a whirl wind. Going faster and faster . A tornado is an odd thing to aim at being don't you think?  You're kind of like someone who needs a good cry. (sorry bad boundries on my part.) Do you cry? (I'm terrible sorry really)

      You're not going away and I'm not going away. There's no peace pipe available here? Who cares what you think or I think? we won't be around to think forever? Is this how you want to spend your time?

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Delphin,

      What is it with you and gays ? Did your church destroy you that much ? I am sure men like Jim could care less how you attack them but are you trying to hide a bigger secret about yourself ?

      I would take a shot in the dark you are trying to hide who you truly are by attacking a group of people who you belong to.but for some reason do not wish to admit to others and yourself of how God made you.

  37. Julie says:

    Malcolm, It's sad but true, isn't it. Dennis and Jim: Rant on, brothers.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When will your corporate church and it's faithless followers compensate their raped children, Julie?

  38. Dennis Ecker says:
    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dennis this article is great. thanks very much. The criminal accessories who post here should read it and weep. This is just one abuser that they have, and possibly still do support emotionally and finacially. While they attack without an once of remorse the victims of "men" like this. P.U.!

    • Delphin says:

      Isn't it interesting how none of this predatory homosexuals'  (MOST BRUTAL ABUSER) homosexual friends and homosexual neighbors contacted the proper authorities regarding this deviant perps recent (not decades old) offenses against minors?

      Who to Sue??

  39. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 1052AM “Dennis” mentioned again that he doth “simply scroll by [Publion’s] posting”. Just to point out: I don’t scroll by anybody’s material, but read all postings (distasteful as it may be, in some cases, to wade into the mentation that constitutes the atmosphere of some commenters’ mental planetoid); it’s a responsibility that goes with keeping up with the state of the question in order to increase the chances of formulating useful input.

     

    “Dennis” has absolved himself of that responsibility. He is a ‘debater’ of course, and welcomes debate … but only when he has his Wig Of Debating on; when the Wig comes off and goes back into the Wig closet, then we get a different “Dennis” altogether, defined by whatever Wig has now been plopped firmly on his head.

     

    I also notice – apropos of nothing and not even a phrase that enjoys status as a cliché phrase in English – the queasily suggestive imagery constituting the instruction to “put you big boy pants on”.

     

    On the 28th at 530PM, JR asks if me if  “you got a mouse in your pocket?” – again with the queasily suggestive Abusenik usages and imagery, and I have no idea what it means.

     

    Has the Catholic Church formally reported to JR on “the claims outstanding against it” (surely that cannot include his own, which has already been settled and he has banked the check). Or did he mean something else?

     

    I would imagine that the torties have copies of all the stories, claims, allegations and assertions that constituted the Complaints for which those billions in settlement monies went out – might the torties rescind their secrecy requirements and let a whole lot of sunshine into the material that they were so eager to hide?

     

    JR has already gone on record as claiming that aside from the swag there’s nothing the Church can do for the “injured” – but here we see him again speaking out of the other side of his mouth and bleating about there being “no structure in place for doing the right thing by your injured” … this show could run (far) off-Broadway for quite a long while.

     

    The truth-commissions, as I said, weren’t courts set up there to determine facts because those facts were presumed to be generally and accurately known. Rather the commissions were simply show-venues where persons so inclined could vent their stories and – perhaps – a villain could be inveigled or required to come on stage and ‘confess’ and so forth. But SNAP has already been doing this, for the torties, with the various ‘press conferences’ it has held (the ones where victims can tell the stories they choose, but no questions – but of course – are needed or allowed, unless they are ‘empathetic’ and ‘not sociopathic’ and so on and on).

     

    And what – pray – hasn’t been ‘ended’ and how – pray – will some sort of ‘truth commission’ accomplish that ending?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why isn't there a structure in place in your church specificly for your victims. You have a special catholic orphanage in the Philippines for the children of catholic priests. What have you done for the raped? Your raped.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Princess, "torties" really? You worship money; not god , money. You don't give a s*%#  about anything but.  Certainly not the people you've harmed. Victims didn't injure each other. There were some priests involved. As a matter of fact a whole wide range of priests were involved from the bottom to the top. We weren't alone in this. Where's your sane priest help now? Where are you behaving like the moral religion you claim to be? Moral how? by ignoring your own victims?

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    You don't care what happens or has happened to catholic children. You've stolen the church and then pretend that your way of behaving is the way it should be if you're a "real" catholic. [edited by moderator]

  41. Julie says:

    Publion, I don't think Dennis and Jim understand your posts, reading them requires quite a bit of intelligence. I don't want to say "dumb down," but would you consider making them a bit simpler?.

  42. Jim Robertson says:

    You know, Asking for a timetable for you to repay something you owe, to someone you owe, Is somehow not considered moral in your world? Why is it not to be spoken of? When will you compensate your uncompensated victims? Soon ? Never? Friday? Sunday? When?

  43. Delphin says:

    Some more media manipulation and bigotry to mull over-

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/out-of-date-message-movies-2

  44. Jim Robertson says:

    Swag we aren't f%#@ing pirates. We were raped catholic children who have suffered major consequences from our abuse.

    We aren't pilaging your church. You are. You back a small rather odd segment of catholicism.  We seek compensation for damages done. . So what's the deal?  What has your corporate church got in mind to help their harmed instead of hindering them with your worrries about fraudulent claims. (Which you have made more important than truely helping the truely injured). You are a freaking RELIGION for god's sake. Shape up!

    Do the right thing and your p.r. will soar. A good chunk of the christian world has been waiting for your corporate church leaders to start behaving like jesus instead of just yamering about him. Talk as they say is cheap. If (I believe this is true) the church is the largest charity giver in the christian world. That's according to your own church leaders p.r. .

    Well how hard is it to compensate the harmed, your own harmed first?. Do that, justly, and the Jesus path will open for you. You will gain more because your image would respond to the message you talk about. You could slay the great hypocritical dragon you appear to be. If victims caused you to loose respect. Your treatment of victims could return you to the worlds respect. The world could give you respect again because you would be doing the right thing.That's how it works. You can not be this dumb. Your leaders can not be this dumb. Get the job done right and you restore yourself to morality which is a virtue that gives you an emotional reward for doing the right thing. Some people call that: grace. Grace is fine for me.

    Go with grace. Go. Do the right thing. Save your church and yourselves as you save us.

    • Delphin says:

      Paying off liars and thieves (i.e. fake victims) is neither 'graceful' nor 'salvation';  it is participating in/perpetuating a fraud, and, therefore, is illegal and unethical.

      Paying out $3B,and counting, admitting wrongdoing and implementing a fool-proof system to protect minors (who else has done this, inside or outside religion?) is penitence enough.

      When we see the other religions and both public and private institutions world-wide catch up to the reparations undertaken by the Catholic Church- we'll talk again.

      See ya-

  45. Delphin says:

    Julie- I don't think Publion's audience is either of the two professional victims, or their occasional drive-by cohorts; the rest of the readership here is the targeted audience – and, we all get it just fine.

    At least the PV's usual rants have been reduced, mercifully, to just the 'give me mo' money bad Catholics' mantra. Maybe the "Eveready Professional Victims" batteries have finally run low.

    • Julie says:

      Delphin, you make some very good points here. The rants are getting uglier, punctuated with more, raped children! raped children! When clearly, neither give a rats a$$ about victimized children. Mo money; bad Catholics. Right you are.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      We aren't asking for "mo'" money, [edited by moderator].

      We are asking, demanding a policy that  compensates all your victims justly. the vast majority of your victims have recieved no money honey.

      Money is all you can give victims. You, from your behavior here, have nothing else but money to give. Empathy is not your strong point; facist delusion is.

       You need to start compensating all your victims.

  46. Jim Robertson says:

    Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb,

    When will your corporate catholic church help the catholics they have raped?

  47. Jim Robertson says:

    Using the word "mo' " by you is racist. Is there no low to which you will not stoop in your self righteousness? Is there no human you won't step on so you can pretend you're supperior? Disgusting!

  48. Publion says:

     

    Before I offer some thoughts on the topic raised by both ‘Julie’ and ‘Delphin’, I will make the following observations about various JR bits.

     

    On the 30th at 108AM we see – once again and characteristically – the queasy gender-bending in addressing me as “Princess”, and about a term (the use of “torties”) which I have been using for quite a while as short-hand for tort-attorneys. Whether this queasy gender stuff is putatively a consequence of some ‘abuse’ or whether it is simply a rather revealing characteristic of character is anybody’s guess.

     

    Also, we note again the assertion (unsupported by any thought or quotation) that I don’t care about anything but “money” – although I have said (and nothing has been introduced to refute it) that it was the torties and their clients, following the path opened up by Anderson’s Strategies, who focused on money (several billion divided among eleven or twelve thousand allegants – minus the various fees and expenses).

     

    And we see again the presumptions that the Church has “harmed”, as if that fact has been established in all or even  many cases; and that “victims didn’t harm each other” – which simultaneously presumes a) the genuineness of any specific victimization and b) ignores the hardly improbable possibilities that the damage demonstrated by victims might have pre-existed any putative harm.

     

    Would it not be immoral to start ladling out money to persons who might be attempting to run the Anderson Strategies gambit? And if the Church were simply to start doing so, what would be the legal ramifications from Insurers (who might refuse to simply fill the ladle with cash?) This is a neat but not-often noted element in the Anderson Strategies: the Church can’t simply start handing out monies to anybody who knocks on the door with a story, but that very fact is then spun by the Abuseniks as the Church’s refusing to “compensate” (for claims that have not been established, even by the dubious mechanism of the bundled-lawsuit strategy).

     

    And thus too the Church is neither “ignoring” nor has it been established in fact just who is and isn’t a genuine victim (with whatever damage might be claimed as having been caused by the as-yet-unproven abuse).

     

    Thus too this new “timetable” bit (the 29th, 548PM) would depend on the effective resolution of the foregoing problems I outlined immediately above here. Because at this point it is not at all established just whom is genuinely and legitimately ‘owed’ what. Is it considered ‘moral’ in JR’s “world” to just ladle out cash to anybody who simply says they are owed some? If so, then how – exactly – would that ‘morality’ be established? And again I think we see how the legal-action fundaments of the Stampede bear so queasy a similarity to disability-scams such as are now the subject of a criminal trial in Manhattan.

     

    And – again and yet again – we don’t know how many – or even if any – “uncompensated victims” (presuming they are genuine) actually exist. JR still needs to demonstrate that fact or substantiate that assertion about the actual existence of such myriads of “uncompensated victims”. When will JR do that? “Soon? Never? Friday? Sunday? When?”

     

    Thus too then JR’s comment of the 30th at 1116AM: How are Abuseniks “demanding a policy that compensates all your victims justly” when not even the Abuseniks can demonstrate that any such persons genuinely exist? JR himself in prior comments on this site says that he doesn’t know what such persons want (let alone remaining silent on how he is so certain that they even exist).

     

    And we are now informed that lack of “empathy” not only qualifies as sociopathy but also as “fascist delusion” – although (as always) there is no explanation as to how that epithetical description might rationally, accurately, and coherently apply to the subject here.

     

    And moving on.

     

    ‘Julie’ (the 29th, 453PM) had raised a question for me which then she (the 30th, 848AM) and ‘Delphin’ (the 30th, 721AM) seem to have worked out among themselves.

     

    I would offer the following thoughts to further that discussion.

     

    I had originally – meaning quite a while ago, when I first encountered JR’s material on this site – also thought that perhaps he simply wasn’t up to following the train of thought in my material. But I soon came to dismiss that possibility. In addition to the fact that JR himself (the 29th, 1127PM) has now admitted that he doth “understand P’s posts” (using that “we” to apparently speak for himself and ‘Dennis’), there is also the fact that I had noted for myself early-on that a) JR manages to precisely miss exactly those points against the Abusenik material and position that require substantive response and yet b) JR manages to create various classic Playbook distractions at precisely those points where a substantive response could reasonably be expected from him (or ‘Dennis’). For me, that’s way too much coincidence for coincidence to be the explanation.

     

    Although it is also clear that ‘Dennis’ has solved that problem by simply refusing – he says – to read my material or respond to it. Which is his choice (or claim) to make.

     

    Which also raises again the shrewdness of the Anderson Strategies: taking into account the nature of the internet (where one can claim to be or to have experienced anything one has a mind-to claim) the Anderson Strategies surfed that Web reality by opening up an arena where any number of persons could go online and make their claims or toss up their talking-points  – completely unconnected in any formal way to Anderson or any other tortie, thus giving the impression that everything Anderson would like the public to presume is widely echoed by (presumptively) ‘true’ claims made by anybody who wants to go online and make them.

     

    Further, that no tortie has to risk putting such persons on the stand, where – as we have seen even in comments here – under even the least amount of pressure from questioning, various artfully-contrived Wigs quickly fall askew and the molten reality of the claim-makers is suddenly revealed in all its essential nastiness and/or  un-ripeness.

     

    Very neat.

     

    I also agree with ‘Delphin’ (and with ‘Julie’ too, I believe) that my intended “audience” is not actually the Abuseniks who comment here. Since I came to the conclusion I mentioned a couple of paragraphs back in this comment, I have been offering my thoughts for the wider readership, using the material put up by the Abuseniks here as the catalyst for furthering readers’ view and vision of the Stampede in its many aspects.

  49. Delphin says:

    Of course, you are the Grand Poobah of the language arts. So, if you say so, it must be true, right?  Why, your word is as good as gold, just like the Word of God –  yes?

    Racist-schmacist,  typical radical Alinsky tactics.  I suggest you use those silly tactics where they work- such as with your lefty stooges. I guarantee you, they won't work on me.

    Mo'ving on -  please do keep 'demanding' things, it's so quaint coming from you thoroughly useless and spineless types.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mo

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      God never wrote or spoke word one. Men did. Just men. Always men not women, men. You want to be a homophile fine but women hold up half, if not more, of the sky on this planet. Why not see what they think for themselves?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Which god? Zeus? Allah? Moloch? Jaweh? Take your pick. All invisable. all not there.

  50. Julie says:

    Here is what I am going to do. I am going to put an extra 2 fives in the collection basket this weekend at Mass, one each for Jim Robertson and Dennis. And, while at Mass, I am going to pray for Jim Robertson and Dennis. I urge all other Catholics to do the same. That, my friends, is how you fight evil.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! LMFAO! Now Dennis and I are evil for what? Telling the truth, calling you out for the sociopathic dead beats you are?

      I urge all catholics to look at the clack "defending" not the faith but the money and a radical conservative philosophy that is the antithisis of jesus and his teachings. The teachings you SAY you hold sacred. All the prayers, donations and false judgements in the world can wash you lot clean. 

      WHEN WILL YOU COMPENSATE YOUR OWN CATHOLIC INJURED? WHEN? PICK A YEAR.

  51. Jim Robertson says:

    Can't wash you lot clean. Apologies.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Evil? What have I done or said here that would ascribe the word "evil" would be said about me?

    • Delphin says:

      You got your 30 pieces of silver out of the $3B the Church has paid out to claimed (not proven) victims to date (much more than actual rape victims get from secular sources), why are you still not satisfied?

      If Dennis or any other victim-claimant needs settlement welfare from our Church, they know how to locate the 'puny one', Anderson, or other crooks just like him, so why keep haunting here with your attacks/assaults/insults against the TMR readership? Go forth and get your Church booty (assuming you're a real abuse victim) – who's stopping you?

      The fact is that you two, and a few other of your drive-by cohorts, just enjoy vomiting your antiCatholic bigotry, materialism and atheism where you know faithful Catholics congregate.

      You act in direct opposition to God by attacking the Church that Jesus started, and by promoting sinful behavior (ex. homosexuality) and godlessness (ex. materialism, atheism), and, that is the definition of Evil.

      If you don't like that well-deserved and earned label, stop being evil.

       

  52. Delphin says:

    Oops, there goes that nasty misogynistic "clack" label being tossed again, this time at Julie, an obvious female commenter. When will the bigotry and sexism end?

    But, this rant provides a bit more insight into what drives this contributors hatred against the Catholic Church;  why, of course it would be that '…radical conservative philosophy…that is the antithesis of Jesus and His teachings'. Nothing quite like having a Communist-Atheist arrogantly attempt to school you on your own religion. No thanks, I'll leave my Catholic formation to the grace of the Magisterium. But, how's this for extending an olive branch – if I ever need advice on how to be a Communist, Atheist or homosexual – I'll give you a ring, ok?

    Gee, and here I though all the while the problem was with those woefully wascally and winsome [homosexual] priests that "raped, groomed, preyed upon and thoroughy ruined the lives of…" – what, liberals, leftists, communists or atheists? Or, are we still talking about abused minors  – I can't tell as this commenter is all over the place, which is typical when you haven't yet figured out quite how to manage or camouflage your hatred so that it isn't transparent.

    Well, I guess this commenter can add this latest failure on top of all the others, beginning with his education (somebody was partying way too much when they were covering the three "Rs"), livelihood (failed 'actor'?) and relationships, and ending with his wee-bit-late-in-life 'activism'- such that it is.

    But, Julie, you are right. While it is our responsibility to inform others (and to be likewise informed, through discernment, by faithful Catholics) that their sinful behavior is not aligned with God's plan and law, we are equally compelled to pray for their conversion.

    And, so, pray we will-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Pray for yourself. You need something to help you. You think only faithful discerned catholics can inform you? Would pope Francis qualify as a faithfull discerned catholic to you? You don't listen to him.

      I have been an activist since I was 16 years old. That's how I know SNAP is bulls%#t. That's how I know everything you say is bulls%@t. Anybody who refuses to say who they are when they post on this issue, have something they wish to hide. Josie doesn't hide. Malcom and Julie don't hide. Dennis; Kay and I don't hide. Only P and D hide. Why?

      Why don't they want us to know who they are?

      When did you say you were going to compensate all your victims?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dear damaged one, How many years of religious education have you had? I had 12 solid years and another 10 say for the "religious education" I have recieved since 2002. To quote Mark Twain, "I never let my schooling interfere with my education". I was always a very devout believer when I believed.  I always got great grades in my religion class because I bought it, hook; line; etc. My abuse changed all that. It's the one good thing that came out of that for me. I won't get fooled again.  I hope.

  53. Publion says:

    On the 31st at 1135AM JR continues with his ‘when will you compensate’ trope. He insists that somebody “pick a year” [exaggerated formatting omitted] when the Church will “compensate your own Catholic injured”.

     

    I would suggest that that year might be the same year when it can be clearly and definitively established who is a genuine victim. If JR – I say once again – can offer a workable plan to effect that determination, then he will have done a great deal to hasten the arrival of that year.

     

    And in what year might we expect JR to submit his plan/solution in regard to the genuine-victim problem?

     

    On the 29th at 1155AM “Dennis” had posted a link to an article with nothing more than the comment “most brutal abuser”, which – although it is in quotation marks – is actually an inaccurate quotation from the article to which he linked, which referred to the former-priest B, of the Philadelphia Archdiocese (hereinafter: AOP) as being characterized in the 2005 Philly Grand Jury Report at “one of the most brutal abusers”.

     

    For readers who have read the article to which “Dennis” linked, I think the piece offers some useful material for thought.

     

    For openers, the two Grand Jury Report in Philadelphia are – both as grand-jury-reports and as Philly DA characterizations – somewhat dubious as reliable historical reports. Which is a matter we have discussed in prior comments on this site and which was discussed on the BigTrial site as well.

     

    But on to the historical facts that can be relied-upon.

     

    This B was ordained in 1977 and defrocked in 1985 – which is a period of 8 years and, for those days, reflects a rather quick process from allegations to laicization by Rome.

     

    There is an extensive recounting of what the neighbors in B’s housing complex in Dallas observed: while seemingly a hale and hearty fellow, who described himself as a retired Xerox employee with 30 years of employment at that organization, B seemed to always bring dinner conversations around to young males (he preferred them pudgy, he revealed), which seemed (and I would say rightly so) inappropriate and somewhat disturbing, even in an apparently out-gay group that existed in the housing complex.

     

    Worse, B seemed to pay far too much attention to young male relatives of complex residents who came to swim at the pool there. And even went so far as to send gifts and emails to some of those (minor) youths.

     

    Which prompted some looking around on the Web, where B’s actual history became known to the residents of the complex.

     

    Some of them confronted him, and received a menu of excuses and claims of early-abuse victimization (in seminary) and such.

     

    At some point thereafter B moved out without leaving a forwarding address, and his whereabouts are presently unknown.

     

    The basic slant of the story is that the AOP failed in its putative duty to publish the residence addresses of even former priests.

     

    Several thoughts come to mind.

     

    This gentleman is clearly not somebody who, as far as he has demonstrated by his actions at the Dallas housing complex, would be suitable for priesthood (without, possibly, some major repair and rework – which is now a moot subject). The AOP was right to request his laicization after finding at least some of the accusations made against him to be credible.

     

    Because of the Statute of Limitations, the article says, no criminal charges were ever brought. (The fact that B was the son of a police officer in Philly or thereabouts may have had something to do with that.) Thus B is not ‘eligible’ – as they say formally – for the national sex-offender registry, and is consequently not required to report his whereabouts to local police when he changes address. For that matter, it would seem that he has no criminal-record in the NCIC which would show-up if, say, he were stopped for speeding and his name was entered into the cruiser’s computer.

     

    However, given what they had learned about his personal history and what they had heard in the dinner-party conversation and what they had observed of his behavior and action at the pool and with various minor males, it seems that any of the residents (or relatives or parents of the minor boys) had more than enough reason to bring B to the attention of the local police in Dallas (not necessarily with a 911 call, but calling the business number and asking for the sex-crimes unit).

     

    It is possible that they did, and the Dallas unit did nothing; the article doesn’t say anything about any of this. But the point remains: in this Year of Grace the Two-Thousand and Fourteenth (or Thirteenth, if all of this happened in 2013), and of the Stampede the Twenty-Ninth (counting from the 1985 Doyle Report, but one might count from further back, perhaps to 1983 or even earlier), a whole lot of adults, with far more savvy than adults two or three or eight decades ago, and with far more information ditto, did not appear to take any action that might have brought local law-enforcement into the immediate picture, even if only for a serious chat with B and the opening of a file.

     

    Why did they not do so? I don’t pretend to have an answer in this instance, but clearly the non-action of adults in regard to calling the police is as vividly demonstrated in this day and age as it was in any prior era.

     

    Instead, this media report focuses merely on the AOP, which is putatively to be considered responsible for publishing the whereabouts of persons no longer in its employ, which persons are under no obligation to keep the AOP informed of their whereabouts.

     

    And one need only remind oneself of the assault and battery perpetrated on that elderly priest in Santa Clara/San Jose a year or so back to realize that there is both a) an actual danger in publishing such information and b) a clear potential legal liability if as a result of such publication an individual is subjected to physical violence or other types of harm.

     

    Nor has the Church or the AOP any legal authority to require that former priests provide current address information, let alone to release such information.

     

    Or perhaps the residents did call the Dallas sex-crimes unit, B was visited and a file opened on him, and the Dallas authorities now have something that they can, if the occasion arises, provide to authorities in whatever location B has now moved-to. But if that is the case, then why blame the AOP for something that it does not have the legal authority to do and actually might incur legal culpability if it did try to do?

     

    Would advocates care to approach legislators (State or national) and have it enacted into legislation that the Church is mandated and authorized and empowered legally to obtain and maintain and release the information? Would this media outlet care to spear-head such an initiative?

     

    Instead, we get this media report that goes for all the usual Stampede talking-points but ignores far more relevant questions and avoids altogether the question of how the Church might legally achieve what is being demanded.

     

    For the purposes of this discussion, I will follow the silence of this media report and assume that the residents did not call the police. Why did these adults not do so?

     

    But if a reader wishes, s/he may run with the possibility that the police were called and did pay a visit to B. And what then was the result? B has now left town with no forwarding address (not that the police had the authority to prevent that, and perhaps they even initiated the suggestion that he move on – or, for that matter, perhaps the residents of the complex made the suggestion).

     

    The gentleman is now at-large, with his unaddressed proclivities and his potential for creating more problems.

     

    But I can’t see how the AOP is somehow to blame for it.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When will all your victims be compensated?

    • Delphin says:

      We're assuming after paying out $3B, all vicitms of criminal priests have been fully compensated. If some of that money went to frauds instead of real victims because of the politicization of this issue- so be it, blame your own political hacks.

      No more Catholic Church money should be given out to anybody until all the other entities in the public and private sector that harbor predators to this day (and going back 50 years)pay up their $3B worth of awards (funny how that legal term doesn't seems out of place in this context)-

  54. Julie says:

    OK, Jim, I'll put an extra $10 in the collection basked and pray for you. You can rant and rave but you can't stop us from praying for you.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What do you think the word clack means? There is nothing gender specific about clacks.

      "Winsome"?????  You find gay priests "winsome"?

      You don't speak catholic.

      You don't speak jesus.

      And obviously you don't speak English.

       Where did you come up with my being an actor? 

      If I was acting about my abuse I'm not,according to you, then a failed actor but a rather successful one. Dolt!

       

  55. Jim Robertson says:

    Lol! Incredable. I'm compared to Judas? What Jesus did I betray? Tell me where he said "Don't help the people you've raped?"  Jesus said NOTHING about gay people. He and pope frank say" judge not lest ye be judged". Nobody here bring up hate but you. You, I do hate that's what you want. I'll give that to you.

    The catholic religion per se doesn't mean any thing to me.  How, I ,or any other victim feels about your church is irrelevent . We were raped by your church.The issue is our rapes and what the Greatest Charity Giver on Earth intends to do for their own raped catholics.

    Technically I'm still a catholic. I've received all but 2 of the sacraments. I'm one good confession away from glory. Praise he lord! So I'll match you catholic for catholic. your brand vs. my brand.

    How, in the name of all that's important , does not believing in god make me evil? Rape enablers are calling me evil for thinking critically; honestly? My atheism touches you in no way.  Atheism is mine not yours. Mind your own business. Your not helping your victims is what not's happening .Nobodies hating anyone but YOU and I hate you because you are always spewing hate.

    You are what you eat, I guess hate must be in your weaties.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Sorry about the double negative sentence above. It should have been. "Your helping your victims is what's not happening".

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Media Touts Meaningless UN Committee Questioning Catholic Church [...]

  2. [...] Stigmatic, Layperson - Mystics Women and Children First - Marion D. Boteju, Public Discourse Media Touts UN Committee Questioning of Church - Media Report Looking for the GOD & CAESAR news website, [...]