How the Mighty Have Fallen: Chicago Tribune Reduced Again to Spokesperson for Contingency Lawyers in Chicago Archdiocese Document Dump

Stacy St. Clair : Todd Lighty : Chicago Tribune

Phoning it in for Jeff Anderson:
the Chicago Tribune's Stacy St. Clair and Todd Lighty

If there were still any doubt that the Church-suing sex abuse industry is on a steep decline, one need look no further than the latest tactic of contingency lawyers.

Contingency lawyers have recently been demanding as a condition to settle claims that dioceses first empty out their file cabinets of every unrelated accusation of abuse by any priest stretching back 50 or 60 years, an action which just so happens to generate more potential clients for the lawyers. The lawyers then hold a dramatic press conference in front of blow-up photos of the accused priests to announce the document release in front of a compliant media.

No other organization other than the Catholic Church has ever, of course, agreed to release decades of unrelated and embarrassing internal documents in order to encourage more people to file lawsuits against it. But for all the trouble, the Church naturally gets no credit. The media narrative is invariably that the heroic contingency lawyers had to bravely fight the documents out of the secretive Catholic Church for years – never mentioning that the delay is caused by the protracted legal proceedings necessary before releasing thousands of pages of legally protected personnel files into the public domain.

Barnum and Bailey comes to Chicago

Jeff Anderson : lawyer Jeff Anderson

Circus master: lawyer Jeff Anderson

So when contingency lawyer Jeff Anderson arrived in Chicago to put on another of his sideshows to announce the Archdiocese of Chicago's release of decades-old records relating to accusations of abuse, the Tribune sent in a swarm of reporters including, Stacy St. Clair, Manya Brachear Pashman, Christy Gutowski, and Todd Lighty. There was, of course, very little unexpected in the Tribune's coverage: hysterical headlines, lurid details, no context, and always the most sinister of motives ascribed to all members of the Archdiocese while portraying Anderson as only a noble warrior in search of the truth. Only in passing did the coverage mention that the documents were really only a painful history lesson as almost every document related to incidents which occurred before the late 1980s.

The sad decline of investigative journalism at the Tribune

It's no secret to anyone that the newspaper business, like the sex abuse industry itself, is in a sorry shape. Many newspapers have gone out of business or filed bankruptcy and slashed its newsrooms as the Tribune has. And due to cost pressures, the number of investigative reporters at newspapers has declined dramatically over the last several years.

But at the ailing Chicago Tribune, they have decided to send their limited number of reporters to press conferences to be manipulated by the likes of Jeff Anderson. We last spotted St. Clair and Gutowski in April reading through another document dump from the Diocese of Joliet, Illinois. But simply reading documents distributed at news conferences in Joliet or in Chicago would hardly seem to be the stuff of Woodward and Bernstein. But once again when it comes to the Catholic Church sex abuse narrative, the Tribune is always at the ready to throw its newsroom at any and every story.

For better or worse, the New York Times still sets the agenda for every mid-level and low-rate journalist in this country. And for reasons having much to do with the Times well-known political biases, the Catholic Church sex abuse narrative is a singular obsession of the Times. So it is little wonder that what now passes for investigative journalism at the struggling Tribune is not actually "investigating" records of sex abuse in the Chicago Public Schools or any other organization but simply showing up to press conferences hosted by lawyers to pen yet another tired story about old sex abuse claims in the Catholic Church.

Comments

  1. Pat says:

    The Trib did like 10 stories on this and had graphics and pictures and the like to boot.

  2. Mark says:

    Fun fact. The title of this report quotes from the first chapter of Second Samuel.

  3. Delphin says:

    It'll be fun to watch these bigoted rat journies sink on the ship of fools and frauds that they built themselves.

    Ms. St. Eclair and Mr. LightyLoafers would be the first two to toss out the poor little kiddies from the lifeboats-

    • malcolm harris says:

      Delphin is right about that 'ship of fools' and it's occupants. Most are fools due to self-delusion and naivety. But some are better described as 'crazy like a fox'. For example the contingency lawyers, with Jeff Anderson the chief fox….. leader of the pack. But the day will come when they run out of 'victims' to parade. The 'victims' already are middle-aged, and can't last forever. Even the most naive observer will find it increasingly hard to accept them as helpless children. Staying with Delphin's metaphor…..I sincerely hope that a fox can't swim.

    • Shawn says:

      Who?

  4. Sarah says:

    Shades of Cardinal Law calling out the Boston Globe.

    • Ted says:

      Not exactly.

      Signs of a story running out of steam.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Ted if the "story" is running out of steam" as you claim. Let's catch up in ten years and see where the steam is? I'll bet, with my church compensation, that as long as you do nothing for the harmed you haven't compensated; the "story" ( as you dufus-ly deem it) will still have legs.

      Think of it, ten more years of bad p.r. It's genius really. Genius if your job is to kill the church right along with us and out attornies. Claiments aren't harming your church. You are.

    • mark says:

      Shades of desperation from Jeff Circus Master Anderson and his pathetic lapdogs. Hypocrites and fraudsters in their last throes. It's all over, ladies. It was all over long ago.

  5. mark says:

    "nearly 10 percent of students are victims of sexual abuse by school personnel sometime during their school career"
    New York Times articles about this? 0

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/242695391.html#tDU6jlDycCq07bgs.01

  6. Dennis Ecker says:

    It is so pleasing to see the defenders of the catholic church and its animals up against the ropes or in this case down on the mat.

    1-2-3-4, I suggest they stay down.

  7. Delphin says:

    The good news, Malcom, is that our Church will outlive all her present-day persecutors, including the sly, scrawny, near-sighted fox (such a small man in stature, vision and morals) and his pied piper band of aging hippie malcontents and bigots. What a freak show.

    These victim-claimants are 60s-throwback perpetual dependents that are only barely existing on the fumes of their weed-filled glory days, ever-hopeful of realizing their incredibly juvenile utopian dreams via the extortion and brutalization of the Church.

    We will soon witness the day when the tide has turned against these miscreants, we're on the slack, now. 

    And, on this rising tide will come the truth, where the victims of abuse everywhere will finally secure the justice they deserve. Mark's link is just a hint at what is to come, finally.

    Pope Benedict, Emeritus, began this era's temple cleansing process, Pope Francis will complete it.

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    When will the real pope Francis create a victim let committee inside your church to amieliorate the damage it's done to your victims?

    • Lori says:

      That makes no sense/

    • Jim Robertson says:

      It doesn't mean women shouldn't be compensated for their rapes. it's that the system isn't set up to honor and support women. that can be fixed

       But your church with a top leadership of a few thousand prelates could be fixed a lot easier and faster. And since Dennis and I and Kay and several other victims are victims of catholic on duty clerics why not let us victims enlighten your church?  You owe us the money. pay up decently, fairly. And you are out of hole you are in and moving up on every level.

      Me, I've been compensated. But most of the other victims who post here, haven't. That's a real moral failure on your part. Fix it.

      Remember ,you won't have SNAP working for you in the sense of them never demanding compensation for victims, forever. They will be found out for the false flag fraud that they are.

      My proof, What's my proof?

      Since SNAP has been in charge of the victim's movement for 24 years, Why is it victims are getting less not more, individual compensation world wide? Why?

      Why is child rape compensated at $27,000 here $40,000 there, and we in Los angeles got the biggest amount. Is my neighbors rape any less horrific any less debilitating than my rape?

      SNAP's at all these places yaking  away "about" and "for" victims but not about what victims need; deserve; and are owed by your corporate church. A victims' group that never talks about the real damages that come with child rape is not a victim's group that represents victims. That just the pure and simple truth of it.

      SNAP focuses on how the church needs to be changed. I have no interest in having the "church change" be the focus or how the church is protecting children now. Groovy!  ( About time. good job. But you wouldn't have done that with out us, the allready victimized.) And yet there is nothing in place to aid your allready injured. Extraordinary!

      . SNAP and the church will be busted at somepoint and then: Oh baby! what a mess you'll have publicly.

      I do talk about money what else do you have to give us. that would ameloirate our damage?

      Prayers? Novena's? Apologies?  Nice, thank you; but they don't compensate for the damage done. Money's all you can give That and honesty too. Right now you aren't being honest. That only makes you look bad.

       

    • Delphin says:

      How do you know who is a victim (that posts here or not) and who isn't?  Why would we believe you about others claims – your own claims are highly suspect? What is it you think you know about other posters, or anyone's, claims that we can't similarly know, observe, determine or detect? Were you there – are you a witness to all claims against Catholic priests? Are you the Ark of the Covenent that contains actual physical evidence for all priests crimes – from the beginning? What kind of BS are you selling?

      Do you need a ladder these days to get up on that antiCatholic bandwagon?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No I'm not on an anti catholic band wagon. I'm on a provictims band wagon. Delphin you are hysterical calm down. I mean it calm the f down or I won't talk to you. Your name calling victim hating is malevolent. And you are the only one behaving so badly. Stop being so poisoness. Please. What the hell is wrong with you. You are screaming names at victims who've done nothing but tell you we are victims. That's why you are foaming at the mouth? Because we told? Or because we demand compensation because your church hierarchy's policy was to pass abusers around.  It was policy .

      They all did it and not only was it criminal it was and sometimes still is, actionable.  Juries aren't handing down $3,000,000 verdicts + because they don't like what you believe. They are passing verdicts like that because they don't like what you've done.

    • Delphin says:

      If I believed for one minute that you were just an innocent victim looking for justice, I'd be on your bandwagon, actually, I'd be pulling it for you.

      If I was ever aware of a sexual predator touching a kid in present time, he'd never make it to the authorities. I'm old school - street justice was, and still is, the norm in my world for those types of miscreants (abusers of women and children, and animals). I would leave judgement of my actions to God and not worry about the worlds judgement. I would do more than your parents, family or your community did to protect you- there would be more substantial damage to that predator than just 'bloody limbs'.

      Your father was a tough guy, a horseman no less, why didn't he take a bullwhip to or 'twitch' or 'brand'  or 'hobble' the creep that touched you? Why was nothing done, until now?  Who let's a dirtbag get away with that kind of crap? You say you were an activist at 16- you knew how to defend yourself, already- if not physically, than with your big mouth. It boggles the sane mind.

      Of course we're angry (newsflash: so are you), what right-thinking American and faithful Catholic wouldn't be? Angry that anything coming out of our Church could ever hurt a kid (pure evil), angry that for some un-Godly reason justice was not swift and sure (stop with the ridiculous conspiracy crap- it has no credibility), especially to prevent more victimization, and angry that some 30, 40, 50 years later way-too-many frauds want to use a tragedy, that was improperly, if not criminally, addressed and managed by all parties (from the victim to the family to society to the Church), to simply exploit and extort the Church for political and financial gains.

      Surely, you would agree that it 'took a village' to sustain this tragedy. If the Church is liable, so are all the others- starting with some 'victims' old enough to know better and that helped pass the trash, to their parents and other family members, to your community members, law enforcement and poltical leaders, to the greater society and culture that bred these miscreants and then excused their crimes via various psychological mumbo-jumbo excuses, justifications and passive and ineffective [polticized] treatments.

      My problem with you and others here is that you muddied up the waters for those of us trying to discern the real victims from the frauds and get a handle on the scope of this problem. Do you deny that bigoted frauds, from claimed victims to political hacks are exploiting this whole matter? I have no intention of being a party to the fraudulent activities that only serve to brutalize my Church under the guise of helping claimed victims.

      The best management practices and measures to make sure no kid is hurt by criminal, deviant clergy ever again were implemented with the Zero Tolerance and other Dallas Charter guidelines and mandates, and, to make sure miscreants are never again permitted to enter our seminaries or be ordained. That is how 'your Catholic children' will be protected. I wonder what your plans are to be sure all those non-Catholic children will enjoy the same protections, because, unlike you and a few others here, we Catholics also care about them. Why don't you use your 'vast activist, post-school education and victim experience' to help all kids? Your excuses for focusing on the Church abuse matter alone don't fly with rational minds here (or elsewhere, reportedly). Catholics help all poor, elderly, indigent, children – not just our own. We don't relate to your reasoning – it doesn't make sense to us. Unless, as we suspect, you are using your victimhood to pound on our Church. Your bigoted comments would certainly support that suspicion.

      When you decide to stop your snide, bigoted antiCatholic remarks – knowing full-well that the majority of your audience here at TMR is comprised of faithful Catholics (do you get cheap thrills from it?), I might consider not 'mirroring' your behavior.  Until then, expect in-kind treatment. Profiling sucks, doesn't it?

      Stop profiling my religion, my priests and my Church-

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Delphin,

      STOP trying to push out your chest like your some type of savior with a statement like "if I was aware of a sexual predator touching a kid in present time he'd never make it to authorities."

      Your not old school maybe just old.

      You are one of the reasons why the hell within the catholic church has escalated to the point it has.

      Father such and such is a good man he could not have done such a thing, its all about the money, all the media is corrupt, homosexuals are to blame. (would you like me to keep going on with all your excuses ?)

      Stop profiling my religion, my priests and my church. ?

      You should change the word profiling to policing. I would then say we have to because people like you are not doing it..

      [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well said Dennis!

    • Delphin says:

      Obviously, a nerve was scorched. I guess it's hard to be faced with your own and your family's astounding failures at prevention, protection and obtaining justice for their own, reportedly victimized, children.

      These 'Lilliputions' wait until it is 'safe' to 'fight back', and even then, their version of 'fighting' is going after aged, defenseless priests with the full force of law enforcement (if not the rule of law), the media and their politicians. How 'brave' you are. Where was this incredible heroism when you and your family was initially confronted by that vicious clergyman you claim assaulted you?  Your guilt at what you and your family didn't do to protect you, and possibly other minors at risk, is your problem.  No amount of Church money can fix that problem, perhaps, testosterone injections would help.

      Of course you can't relate to settling the score like any real man normally would, you've been thoroughly emasculated by the prevailing leftist culture that teaches men not to defend themselves or their families but to look to their Nanny government and it's corrupt cohorts to do so. How's that working out for you so far?

      What a sad crop of 'men' the leftist culture in the western nations have produced the past couple of generations. The Commie's must be laughing their red assess off at our ongoing self-destruction.

      At least there is still hope in the ranks of the US military- for now. They're being 'transformed' as we speak, unfortunately.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      So America's Littlest Nazi, when are you and your church going to compensate your own raped?

    • Ted says:

      Really?

      Not an anti–Catholic?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No Teddy bear. Really "not anti catholic" and if I was anti-catholic? So what? I'm not but if i was, so what?

    • Jim Robertson says:

       Lori,

      I was referencing Delphin as pope recently here and comparing her/ his "papacy" to pope Francis's questions on free range capitalism.

      and it should have said led not let

    • Oumou says:

      Jim: one word, "forgiveness".

       

      Without it, nothing else matters.

    • Delphin says:

      Oumou- these victim-claimants aren't after anything but money.

      They have already sold their souls out for all the materialism this world has to offer. They have no problem selling out their healing (if they were ever actually damaged by priests), peace or their own families if it meant a few more bucks in their bank accounts, their gods.

      The sinful behavior these bigots promote has stolen more childrens lives (55 million preborn babies in the US alone, and counting) and so many more millions of humans souls and happiness (ex. STDs, AIDS, addiction, slavery/human trafficking, cancer, etc.) than any number of criminal homosexual priests could ever accomplish. But you never hear the victims of those generational and despicable crimes against humanity look to make a buck out of their victimization.

      We know what are the priorities of these hacks. And, it ain't kids.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Are we victims guilty for boogers too? How about tooth ache and rhumetoid arthritis and crop failure and ring worm? How about warts? Are we responsible for warts too?

      Welcome back to the Middle Ages, Ladies and Germs. Ignore the Age of Reason to your peril.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I've forgiven my abusers for their behavior years ago ; but my forgeting their behaviot is not possible. Thanks for the thought though.

      I have one big question that needs to be asnswered. Here it is.

       HOW does asking for reparations for your raped equate with hating your church. How does you paying your injured equal out to hating your church? Where was that increadable piece of logic first feigned true???????

      Covering your fear with lying makes no sense. When did money become your church?

      One maybe two people here are attempting to spin issues that do not relate to each other at all. Reparating victims is the same thing as hurting the church? On what planet? Money for injuries equals hatred for you? Explain that to me if you will. I don't grasp it. Help me understand.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      ~~Nothing inspires forgiveness quite like revenge.

                                                                Scott Adams

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Led, again I apologize.

    When will you apologize?

    You and Malcom offer death to victims and our lawyers. Oscar Wilde said, "Each man kills the thing he loves". Are we going to be your dead Valentines this year?

    In my opinion, the opinion of a non human according to you: What you are killing is the thing you claim to love the most: your religion.

    You don't follow jesus's teachings.You support child abusers and abuse enablers in your hierarchy and you do not support your victims. Keep it up. You are only helping us through your hypocricy. Thank you.

     

    • malcolm harris says:

      JR quotes Oscar Wilde….perhaps there is a spiritual connection between them? But more to the point he has twisted my words into something misleading. What I was trying to convey was that a "ship of fools" must eventually hit the rocks, because it is navigated by fools and crewed by fools. Should I have sympathy for them, and hope that all survive the wreck? Normally I would… but this particular crew had been attacking my Church in a cruel and unrelenting campaign. What really angers me is their double standards. They would never attack Jews or Moslems, because they would fear retaliation….in spades. So they choose a soft target…a religion that has to show forgiveness, and turn the other cheek. Well I did that for a long time, but the wrongful convictions of priests is the last straw. Character assassination is one thing… but witch hunts leading to wrongful imprisonment is an attack upon freedom of religion and basic rights. 

    • Delphin says:

      Did Oscar Wilde, an admitted and convicted pederast, actually kill any of those 'things' he loved himself?

      Why not just go to Harry Hay, Harvey Milk, Dan Savage and all the rest of the LGBTs 'leaders' for both the moral and justice models the Church should follow?

      When the 'rainbow community' pays it debt for generations of abuses against our children, let us know, will you?

  10. Delphin says:

    One (with a rational brain) might ask why there need to be 'defenders' of any Church, or any religion. Since it is the people who comprise the Church, why would/should Catholics feel the need to defend themselves, unless, of course, they are being attacked and persecuted?

    Only a bigot driven by his own blind hatred could not see, what is clear as day to all others, the bias that drives his persecution.

    Pope Francis will eventually disappoint his new-found lefty fan club- as soon as they realize that he wont change Catholic dogma or doctrine to accomodate the lefties sinful lifestyles and degrading demands (as do most of the 'reformed' churches), he'll be tossed to the dogs (per our favorite Commie of the Day, Kim Jong-un) along with his predecessor.

    Good thing the Catholic Church has a longstanding practice of ignoring the worlds evil demands upon them/us.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      ….and there you have it folks Malcome Harris the poster child for the catholic league.

      Yo Malcome, ask Billy D this question for me. Anyone who is married in a catholic church must take the vow "Till death do us part" did that not pertain to Billy since he is divorced ?

      I guess its just another example what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

  11. Delphin says:

    Maybe, the Catholic Church should hold up before doling out any more 'justice' until such time cities like San Fran, and every other leftist, godless bastion of filth, figures out how to explain (justify) their internal 'problems', per the link below:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/

    WARNING: the imbedded links to the original article at PJ Tatler detail very graphic, and disturbing language and descriptions of the sexual/violent crimes committed against the infants/toddlers. But, maybe, we all need to know exactly what is being done to babies under the euphemisms of 'sexual freedom' and 'alternative lifestyles'.

  12. Dennis Ecker says:

    Julie stated she is going to place two extra fives in the collection basket, one for me and one for Mr. Robertson.

    Its only a shame we cannot knock out the middle man so it goes straight from Julie's purse directly into the pockets of the victims/survivors.

    No matter how she wishes to see victims of her clergy receive what is just I won't argue as long as they receive it.

    Thank You Julie.

    Anyone else want to say they are giving extra ?

    • Delphin says:

      Church insurance pays out the abuse 'claims'- are we all suppossed to be as clueless as the bigots?

      But, dont worry, we will all continue to support our Church in every possible way. As a matter of fact, the more she is attacked, the more the faithful support her.  Keep up the good work, boys, thanks to you she's doing quite well.

      Here's a thought for both of the professional victims;  real victims of abuse would prefer not to have anything to do with a pay-off by their assailant. Most of them simply want to be left alone to heal and live their lives, as healthy, forgiving and productive normal citizens – not as perpetual victims and social misfits. Which is also why SNAP, Anderson and other fraud activists have to generate fake victims and cases - because, in reality, there are so few real victims, and the few there were have long since moved on.

       

  13. Julie says:

    Delphin, it is good for you to bring attention to this horrible abuse. But as far as Jim Robertson and Dennis Ecker are concerned, they couldn't care less. They don't care about abused children. They just like to bash Catholics, the truth be damned.

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    Oh that's right never and you say SNAP's not the church. SNAP should have been demanding compensation for victims from it's begining. You should have been demanding compensation for your victims for years. Hide behind your aliases, Father Golf and Sister Poor mouth. Only cowards hide.

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    Your popes, the last two anyway, have apologized to us for our rapes. Yet they, with all their untold wealth, have not helped their own raped.  No hearings. No safe houses. No dedicated religious orders to help their victims. Nothing.

    Money is being spent in huge quantities by the church on lawyers and public relations firms (For a more sunny image, no doubt) and for treatment homes and retirements for the raped?. Oh no! for the ABUSERS!  UNBELIEVEABLE!.

    And then there are those expensive pay offs to your own counterintelligence false flag "committees": SNAP and VOTF. Not cheap.

    Helena Montana's diocese declares bankruptcy. Yet it's only paying it's victims and their lawyers $40,000 per victim. Vicim's lawyers get 33% + that leaves roughly $27,000 per victim in total compensation for their rapes, forever.. Wow!

    HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

  16. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~" real victims of abuse would prefer not to have anything to do with a pay-off by their assailant".

    Delphin,

     I would love to know were you came up with that statement ? In your mind you may want to believe your comment but even you know its only a wishful dream of yours.

    I will also assume that you believe victim/survivors do not wish to see their abusers prosecuted and sent to prison ?

    I'm going to pull a Publion on you.

    Cut and paste any link that defends your statement.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Delphin,

      …Insurance companies are paying for all the awarded claims ?

      Your church may not respect women and their thoughts, but if you want Julie to believe everything you write so be it.

      It can then be only Julie to blame how she is treated within her own church.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Julie,

      THANK YOU for paying the insurance company premiums.

    • Delphin says:

      How many female victims of rape are compensated financially? Not many. The majority of these real victims only want their offender/ predator permanently neutralized, but they almost never want his, or anybody else money, except for the notorious frauds – like Tawana Brawley, and a few other notable cases that were clearly just looking get some easy bucks.  As soon as you introduce a pay-off into the mix, you must scrutinize every claim for motive. Bucks are a big motive. All we hear about here is give me money/bucks, isnt that true?

      Do you own research, lazy, I'm not your gopher.

  17. Delphin says:

    Interesting info at this link:

    http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/legal-resources/compensation-for-rape-survivors/

    The glorious secular 'state' isn't doing anything even remotely close to needed compensation for real victims (you know, the kind that didn't use the lefts political hammer to have the rule of law suspended in order to pursue their unholy persecution) when compared with our generous Church.

    Those claimants so robustly compensated by our Church should contribute their booty to this organization that provides the essentials for real victims of horrendous crimes.

  18. Delphin says:

    At the risk of losing the interest of the adults here; the affected (or better yet, 'infected') Archdioceses do not use their parishioner's contributions to pay abuse claim settlements. You may find this information 'new' to you (really, what isnt?), but, Churches do have multiple sources of income. And, the insurance coverage they all must carry covers far more than abuse claim settlements.

    But, dont worry, your antiCatholic bigotry isn't showing….really, it isn't, I swear. After all, attempting to dissuade Catholics from supporting their local Church is to be considered just a PSA and nothing more, I am sure.

     

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    Why are you making real victims responsibile. You are using the possibility of fraudulent claims as  the excuse for not paying your truely harmed.  You can't do that and not be seen by the world as irresponsible.

    Your prelates choices caused this mess.

    Real victims aren't at fault for being really raped. Don't blame the victims for what was done to us. We aren't making false claims we were raped.

    It's not OUR problem, that YOU might, MIGHT, have false claims.

    Believe me, we have enough trouble just dealing with our rapes repercussions in our lives.

    • Delphin says:

      You mean 'Church Money' doesn't make all the demons go away?

      You claim that you were compensated, arent you a happier, healthier, healed,  normal person for it? If it doesn't solve your problems, why promote it as a panacea for all other victim-claimants?

      What kind of sick scam is this, anyway?

  20. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~While the bulk of the settlement will be funded by insurance carriers, $2.5 million will be required from the diocese of Helena, Patterson said, adding that pulling together that amount is already being addressed by the diocese and could include existing funds combined with the sale of non-essential real estate.

    Oh Delphin,

    The above statement was updated TODAY on 2/1/14 on the NCR web site regarding the archdioceses of Helena. This is small town Montana. Another diocese filing for bankruptcy protection.

    You may look at this money going into the pockets of survivors because they are being greedy, but I don't look at it that way. I look at it as a means for victims to put joy back into their life and PUNISHMENT handed down to your church. Your church OWES each victim and family member of that victim at least that, and like Jim I could care less about the numbers of false claims against your church. Your holy then thou church has created everything that happens to them. Now and in the future.

    If you wish to continue to be jealous of those who have more then you, who can live off the interest alone of a awarded settlement that is something you need to deal with.

     

    • Delphin says:

      You made my point with the Helena reference, parishioner contributions typically do not go to abuse settlements. Apparently, you're the only one here that was in the dark – as usual.

      But, you also showed your bigotry again- what's with the 'holy [sic] than thou Church' comment and the gloating about living off the interest of usually ill-gotten settlements?  You manage to prove my point quite ineloquently when all you continue to do is attack the Catholic faith while simultaneously idolizing money. We get it, you're a bigot that idolizes money as your god. Those two reasons, in addition to numerous other statements you've made, is why the majority of TMR commenters find your claims of abuse by Catholic clergy highly dubious- any rational mind would.

      I don't see any of these compensated victims expressing much joy around here – I wonder if ripping off the Church isn't as rewarding as some here would have us believe?

      Ignorant statements like 'punishment being handed down to our Church' would imply that man, especially particularly sinful men, could possibly judge or punish the church that Jesus established. I think not, lost sheep. Our Church will survive to outlive her persecutors, she always has and always will.

    • Julie says:

      Dennis, We already know you don't care if the church has to pay settlements for false claims. Just as we know you actually don't care one bit about victims of child abuse.

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    This is so phoney and funny. The persons shouting bigotry all the time; continue to show the most bigotry here.

    Thanks for linking me to Mr Wilde, Malcom, I have nothing but his genius to declare.

    Why is it you never answer my questions about why you hide your identity or any of my questions D? Is it to protect your own bigotry.

    That is, if you were found out as an anti gay bigot ( which you and Malcom obviously are). Some of the gay people at your work place may see you in a different light if you were known to be so hostile to gay people?

    P.S. Harry Hay was a friend of mine D.

    Do you have any gay friends at Jollity Farm? Have you ever had any gay friends or family members you liked let alone loved?

    • Delphin says:

      It isn't antigay for a faithful Catholic to adhere to Christian doctrine that the act of homosexuality is sinful. All fornication outside of marriage, which is a lifetime contract between a mutually consenting adult man and a woman, is sinful. The sin of fornication is no worse if it occurs between those of opposite sex or those within the same sex – it's all behavior that is mortal sin.

      Catholics never hate the sinner, they must love the sinner, but, reject the sinful act. I reject the sin, never the sinner.

      That isnt bigotry, no matter how you spin it to support you own antiCatholic bigotry. You are on the record here and elsewhere spewing true hate and bigotry towards Catholics because of their beliefs and for no other reason.

      The fact is that it is sinful behavior by practicing homosexuals in the Catholic Church, and outside of it, that is perpetrating the great majority of sexual abuse crimes against minors. It is dishonest (another sin) to ignore that fact, and it is more harmful to victims everywhere to cover up that fact by forcing the focus to be on Catholic priests, rather than on practicing deviant (those in particular that target minors) homosexuals.

      The distortion of the truth that calls faithful Catholic "bigots" is politically motivated by leftist politics, which also promotes all forms of fornication, abortion, euthanasia,  materialism,  false gods, atheism, inebriation, gluttony, envy, slothfulness and female priests – and, which is, therefore, the natural enemy of the Catholic Church. Leftist are quite simply, as documented, antiCatholic bigots.

      So, your claim of antigay bigotry falls flat on its face when challenged by the truth.

      Not sure I'd be bragging about being old Harry's buddy given his ardent support for NAMBLA. Are you really that tone deaf?

       

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    Delphin, On Feb 1 at 9:02 p.m., You mock settlements because the money compensation hasn't made all my "demons" go away. (Well it hasn't made you go away for one that's for sure) And for two it was never supposed to make my demons go away. It can not. It was supposed to compensate me for A) the fact I have demons in the first place  thanks to my rape and B) That they NEVER go away EVER. That's the damage. That's why i've been compensated.

    [edited by moderator]

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    If there is anyone "idolizing" money around here it's not us. It's you who are horrified that we expect any compensation at all. While you fork out retirement deals to our rapists.

  24. Delphin says:

    Let us pray for Pope Francis and our Lord's Church as all Her faithful begin the 'temple cleansing' so required since the 1960s when the doors to our seminaries were opened to evil-

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/24/vatican-urges-ex-swiss-guard-commander-to-detail-allegations-security-threat/?intcmp=obnetwork

     

     

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Delphin,

      I said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have more then a simple dislike for gays.

      Tell us all how much they truly effect your manhood or womanhood. Do you have a relative who has gone to the other "team" ? Did you loose someone you cared about very deeply to the other :team" or are you yourself a homosexual dealing with who you are and the beliefs of your church ?

      You should be careful of what you say, one day that pint of blood you receive that saves your life or the person who gives you CPR could be gay and you would never know it.

      Oh no, are you afraid you might turn into a homosexual ? It would be an improvement to who you are now.( I should not have said that because I really don't know you. It may open your eyes though)

      p.s. keep this hush hush, but I heard of cases who received blood from a gay individual all of a sudden got the urge to sing the song YMCA non-stop, and a urge to place a rainbow flag on their front yard.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Gays in the church aren't your problem some are good and sexual; some are bad and not active sexually. The problem with purges is they always hurt the innocent and hardly ever get the guilty. How do you solve that? You don't have purges.. Gay clergy is the clergy. Is the pope catholic? Why is sexuality however it comes, (excuse the pun) so important to you? Mind your own bees wax. If someone behaves criminally. Well, call him or her on it. Call the police. But a purge.( I don't think that will never happen by the way).

      Just think If you are just finding out what's going on the inside of clergyville,( land; holler). All the bosses in there have known this stuff their entire careers as clerics. Yet you trust them and never ask when they will honor their victims by compensating them for their injuries.

  25. Dennis Ecker says:

    Delphin,

    I like how you throw in the word typically when referring to who pays the awarded settlements.

    A complete different comment then the one you made on 1/31 at 9:30. So are YOU NOW A CLUELESS BIGOT ?

    This is the problem with the catholic church. Its people like you who know nothing. The Monday morning quarterbacks who think because they go to church every Sunday it makes them an expert of what is truly happening.

    Read the Philadelphia Grand Jury reports to see how your church operates, if your not satisfied with those because you feel those reports are tainted read the recently released 6000 pages from Chicago, and if your not satisfied with those I am sure St. Paul will be forced to release all their documents soon. They all show one thing your church who you so much want to protect is corrupt and criminally minded. (being polite)

    Yes, do I hate people like you. Sure do. Because you the parishioner if you are one fails to see the church belongs to you, not some priest, bishop or cardinal but you, and you are so  afraid to stand up and say enough is enough.

    I don't understand it, it truly is not my problem. Maybe its because of your teachings that if question your church you will go straight to hell.

    Well my friend,  I have a strong belief when its my time and I am met at those gates the same God we both believe in will look at me and say THANK YOU. Thank you for trying to see the wrongs righted.

    • Delphin says:

      Absolutely no conflict in what I said on the 31st or today- you simply can't read nor comprehend words of concepts that disagree with your hate-based bigotry – the truth on this matter is simply foreign to you. You think because many [most] victim-claimants lie with every breath they draw, so must all others - which is a sad result of your distorted world view.  You're on your own to sort it out, Junior.

      But, please do keep spewing your hatred for faithful Catholics with whom you disagree and for the Catholic Church's teaching, the same Church that Jesus founded, while in the same dishonest breath assuming you will be judged more favorably than others before God – the same God whose Church you disparage here on a regular basis.

      Also, your protestant-ism is showing, again, you poor, confused thing – stop comparing your heavily secularized 'reformed' church off-shoots (how many thousands are we up to now?)with the one true holy and apostolic Catholic Church as started under the authority of Jesus Christ. You might want to think about your explanation for that one when you're 'bumping the line of faithful Catholics' on judgement day-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Amen to that Dennis.

    • Delphin says:

      All Catholic priests are required to be celibate, I dont care what their sexuality is so long as they abide by their ordination vows of celibacy, in addition to all other vows. Therefore, there is no such thing as a good sexually active priest. You want action in that department, go become clergy at one of the multitudes of 'refomed' churches and enjoy yourself, legally and morally - of course.

      Gays don't comprise the majority of Catholic clergy – that is another gay urban legend. They're 2-3% of the population on their best day, stop ascribing everything wonderful on the planet to homosexuals and everything horrendous to heterosexuals – it's a juvenile perspective, at best. The facts aren't going to change- the minor abuse matter in the Catholic Church is driven by the immoral and illegal acts of homosexual men.

      So, I guess the victim-claimants and other antiCatholic bigots are against purges that might expel some of their own protected classes. But, apparently, purges are ok if you're strictly targeting Catholic priests or purging faithful Catholics from the ranks of politics, SCOTUS, society/culture, or around the world, as many leftists demand?

    • malcolm harris says:

      Dennis Ecker says he is confident that when he arrives at the gates of heaven, God will thank him for trying to right the wrongs of this world. Wish I was so confident. However whilst he is still amongst us I would like to ask him a question.  Was watching T.V. today and a journalist said, ( re an unrelated matter), "some have suggested that the accused has been so demonized that it might well prejudice a fair trial"

      My question to Dennis is this…does he think that Catholic priests have been so demonized, in the public mind, that they can no longer receive a fair trial?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      My "amen to that Dennis" post on the 2nd Feb. was in response to Dennis's post on the 2nd at 10:52 am.

      On an other subject: Heaven. Heaven was invented that you as an earth animal might be controlled while you are alive. That is the sole purpose of "heaven" being placed as real in your thinking.

      Suffer now. Paradise latter. It's a scam. Heaven is the excuse they give, they being the owners of this planet, FOR all your unneccessary suffering, here and now.  A suffering that brings them gold and you nothing. IMHO.

  26. Julie says:

    Dennis: You're welcome.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Delphin,

      You clearly have NO knowledge or understand what its all about. You have been confronted and you make up lies to explain it away or some other excuse. I have a reason for my hate towards your church and its clergy, What is your reason for your hate towards me and gay people ?

      Do you hate me because I want to see your abusive priests behind bars, or is it because I want to see every victim like Jim receive compensation for what not only clergy have done to innocent children but the continued cover-up your church continues to do today ?

      I am sitting here watching the Super Bowel and I am seeing alot of men grabbing the buttocks of their teammates, I am seeing alot of men hugging other men, and I see men even kissing each other.

      I guess sir by your reasoning and what your church is teaching you all these men are sinners ? Use caution when answering because you can't have it both ways.

      Delphin, you are down on the mat and I suggest you stay there, because when you attempt to get up with your words I will be there with the truth to knock you back down again.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      ~~Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical law and not a doctrine, it can, in principle, be changed at any time by the Pope.

      Delphin,

      If your fellow catholics are to believe what you say and the Pope changes the law regarding celibacy a hour from now or a hundred years from now "there is no such thing as a good sexually active priest" ?

      Hypocrit or bigot ???

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin, dear, take a breath. Now sit down, the studies done of catholic priests say 50% are active sexually. Be it gay or straight sex. 50%. Granted the study was headed by Richard Sipe someone you have all ready demonized. But his study didn't fall from the sky.

      And when did I ascribe all goodness, i.e. all things wonderful on the planet to gay people? I've never said that.  we are as varried as straight people. you big dope. WILL YOU STOP INVENTING THINGS? PLEASE.

  27. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~God of endless love,
     ever caring, ever strong,
     always present, always just:
     You gave your only Son
     to save us by the blood of his cross.

     Gentle Jesus, shepherd of peace,
     join to your own suffering
     the pain of all who have been hurt
     in body, mind, and spirit
     by those who betrayed the trust placed in them.

     Hear our cries as we agonize
     over the harm done to our brothers and sisters.
     Breathe wisdom into our prayers,
     soothe restless hearts with hope,
     steady shaken spirits with faith:
     Show us the way to justice and wholeness,
     enlightened by truth and enfolded in your mercy.

     Holy Spirit, comforter of hearts,
     heal your people’s wounds
     and transform our brokenness.
     Grant us courage and wisdom, humility and grace,
     so that we may act with justice
     and find peace in you.
     We ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen

    What YOU are trying to preach to me is called the Nicene Creed (did I spell that right ?) You must have forgot I went to catholic school. But I then refer you to another catholic prayer I entered above into my comment.

    I draw your attention to the line that says " show us the way to justice and wholeness." Jim and I are here to make sure your church finds the road to justice and wholeness since you are blinded and cannot find it yourself

    • Delphin says:

      I can't seem to find anything in your 'prayer' that demands that justice is always and only dispensed monetarily, and into your bank account – did I misread it?

      Your aim is not for 'justice or wholeness'; it is for revenge and personal financial gain.

      Somehow, I am convinced that 'my church' will survive you and your partners' repeated aggression. Compared with others of malevolent intent, you two are amateurs in the pip squeak squad -

       

    • Delphin says:

      If football players expressing typical male bonding and celebratory touching, grabbing, slapping, hugging, etc. is to be considered either fornication or an expression of homosexuality, as is clearly implied on 2/2 @9:25pm, as a lawful society we are compelled to explore and analyze of what, exactly, these accused priests, many of whom were likely doing no more than typical male rough-housing with adolescent males, were guilty.

      Publion has delved into this area several times. Not once did s/he ever receive a declaratory statement of exactly what it was or is that is being claimed as  "abuse". We do know that the plaintiffs attorneys never asked ('don't ask, don't tell' = plausible deniability).

      I'm going to do us a favor here and not even touch the 'Super Bowel' misspelling- ok?  Suffice it to say, I dont think it's me who has the latent sexuality confusion issues.

      But, it is clear that I have 'no knowledge or understand what it's all about'  …yep.

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Nice prayer Dennis.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      There she blows. It's always been about protecting the money on your part. Always has been. Not religion. Not morality. Money! Money!

  28. Publion says:

    When the same stuff is repeatedly thrown up, then comments in response have to be repetitive.

     

    On the 1st at 803PM JR once again simply puts up his old talking-points which – it would appear – are his only talking-points: a) we don’t really know that we are in the (virtual) presence of genuine victims and b) therefore what they can “enlighten” us about remains an open question.

     

    But it’s nice that he puts it on the table: “You owe us the money.pay up decently, fairly” [sic].

     

    Ditto that “most of the other victims who post here, haven’t” been compensated. Thus too his assertion that that failure to compensate creates “a real moral failure on your part” also remains merely an unsupported assertion by an interested Party. Thus too his order to “Fix it”.

     

    Then he gets down to explaining his “proof”. And his “proof” is that SNAP must be “working for” the Church because it is “never demanding compensation for victims”. If my theory of SNAP is correct – meaning its role in the Anderson Strategies (as D’Antonio revealed in his book) then SNAP’s primary role in the Stampede isn’t to demand-compensation because the torties will do that by putting together the bundled-lawsuits that are compiled from the allegants whom SNAP steers toward the torties. SNAP is a feeder-organization that does the allegant ‘grooming’ that the torties are barred (by professional standards and regulations) from ‘grooming’ on their own.

     

    Thus SNAP – as I have said several times before – may indeed be a “false flag fraud”, but only because it is working-for the torties (and not primarily for ‘the victims’). But we still have seen no “proof” or even a credibly coherent and rational hypothesis as to how SNAP is a tool of the Church (rather than a tool of the torties).

     

    Then he asks why it is that “since SNAP has been in charge of the victim’s movement for 24 years” yet “victims are getting less not more, individual compensation world wide? Why?” [sic].

     

    If we work around the conceptual problem with the formulation of JR’s question (it’s expression here would indicate that before SNAP, victims were being better compensated fiscally, and since SNAP has – to the extent that it has – taken charge of things those amounts have been decreasing), we are left with a) the question as to where JR has gotten information to the effect that victim-compensation amounts are decreasing, and are doing so around the world. No supportive source-information is given so this remains a mere assertion.

     

    But then b) a perfectly rational alternative explanation for this phenomenon (presuming it actually exists) is that the Stampede is running out of steam. Meaning that the public and the courts ‘worldwide’ are not as supportive of the claims so as to lubricate lavish pay-outs for the stories, claims and allegations. And perhaps the torties themselves are starting to back-off a bonanza that has – their twitchy whiskers tell them – seen its best times and no longer promises such easy pickings as it once did.

     

    Then more figures – their source not revealed – to the effect that “child rape” is so variously compensated. And apparently Los Angeles “got the biggest amount”. I would say first that there may have been very variant definitions of “child rape” in the various claims and jurisdictions. It is hardly impossible – and is actually rather probable – that some of those “child rape” stories actually legally qualified as ‘statutory rape’  and perhaps down on the misdemeanor end of that technical legal term (which, as readers may recall from previous comments on this site, that the perhaps inaccurately-named ‘statutory rape’ charge can be a misdemeanor-level offense or a lower-level felony offense, depending on the allegation and need not involve actual sexual penetration – such as the word ‘rape’ might lead a layperson to presume).

     

    And second, that the 2006 Los Angeles case got the largest payouts because that was the site of the largest bundled-lawsuit (550 or so Plaintiffs, if I recall correctly) and the AOLA was one of the most deep-pockets targets.

     

    And those factors may well have something to do with the fact that one “rape” might appear to be “less horrific and less debilitating” than another “rape”. (We recall, once again, that i) “rape” as it is deployed here is a very elastic term, perhaps to the point where it loses all substance and correspondence to objective reality; and ii) as the Dutch Abuse Report committee acknowledged, there is no way to scientifically establish specific causality between a claimed experience and the consequences which are claimed to have been created by the claimed experience.)

     

    And again, the past several decades have seen the rise of the theory of ‘subjective reality’ as opposed to ‘objective reality’. This distinction might be exemplified by a Holocaust survivor (such as Primo Levi, who wrote about it) pointing out that there is no way that s/he can communicate the personal interior subjective experience of the Holocaust that /she underwent – which is true indeed, as far as it goes.

     

    But for the legal forum, it is necessary to remain in the realm of objective reality, since there is no way that third-parties (i.e. other than the person who experienced his/her own personal experience) can grasp that ‘subjective reality’ or ‘subjective truth’ about the claimant’s personal experience. But for the purposes of formal legal adjudication (or even the less-formal adjudication in the public or personal forums) it is only necessary to establish that a) there objectively and demonstrably was a Holocaust in which such things took place and b) this particular individual can be demonstrated to have objectively undergone the  particular experience(s) that s/he claims.

     

    Thus: third-parties may not or even cannot ever fully share the personal experience created in the claimant by the experience s/he underwent, but so long as third-parties (including judges and jurors in the legal forum or persons in the public or individual forums) can reasonably and sufficiently establish the fact that the claimant had indeed been objectively subjected to some provable assaultive experience, then that’s sufficient for assigning blame (on the perpetrator) and compensation (for the claimant).

     

    But in the Anderson Strategies and the Stampede that they have fueled, third-parties can’t even get that much basic proof – and the whole business remains suspended in the air, with no evidence under any specific story (let alone any clear chain of causality linking the claimed experience to the claimed consequences and tortious damages).

     

    Thus, Anderson – in his darkly marvelous way – managed to re-introduce the old pre-modern idea of ‘spectral evidence’ (i.e. that the ‘victim’ is possessed of definitive evidence and proof which is, however, only accessible to the ‘victim’ and is inaccessible to any other human being).

     

    In doing this, Anderson surfed the opportunities opened-up by the concept of ‘subjective truth’ (accessible only to the claimant) as opposed to ‘objective truth’ (accessible to other persons through analysis, examination, and so forth).

     

    And we see, consequently, the echoes of all this in the demands that we must credit the ‘personal truth’ of this or that claimant or allegant in regard to his/her story. And that somebody’s ‘personal truth’ (a variant term for that ‘subjective truth’) is as ‘real’ as any ‘objective truth’. Which isn’t exactly the case – since there is no way for anybody else other than the claimant to evaluate this ‘personal truth’ or ‘subjective truth’ as it is supposed to exist in the story of the tort and the claims of the tortious damages caused by the tort.

     

    (The Anderson Strategies’ solution to this abyssal problem was – of course – to get the media to so inflame public opinion that many people simply presumed that the tort and the tortious sequelae most likely (or most definitely) can be presumed to have taken place.)

     

    I would also say that while a) the Stampede has certainly catalyzed some very worthwhile changes in the Church (e.g. the Church taking a far more professional and demanding stance toward priestly preparation and performance of ministry), yet that fact – and I would say that it is indeed a fact – does not in any way automatically demonstrate that b) all the claims, allegations and stories were objectively true.

     

    And – again – if JR is waiting on his putatively moral hilltop upon the day when SNAP is “busted” (meaning, I gather, that SNAP is revealed to be and to have always been a tool of the Church) then I would advise him to pack a big lunch because that day may be very long in coming. There is a much better chance that at some point SNAP will be revealed as having been the tool of the Anderson Strategies, at least since that day in the 1980s when Anderson met Barbara Blaine and they had a long and serious chat.

     

    Then on the 2nd at 1052AM “Dennis” delivers his assessment that the “problem with the catholic church” (we note that ‘Catholic’ is not capitalized for this performance) is – waitttt for ittttt – “people like you who know nothing” about “what is truly happening”. Readers may consider for themselves if “Dennis” is a reliable source for “what is truly happening”.

     

    The Philly Grand Jury Reports are already cast in a dubious light. If “Dennis” has read and has some specifics from the 6000-page Chicago cache he can put his thoughts and references up here on this or that document that has caught his attention. As for the “St. Paul” reference: on January 30th the AP ran a story entitled “Minnesota archdiocese won’t face charges in abuse case” by one Amy Forliti. Thus the brouhaha (readers may recall recent discussion of its oddities in recent comments on this site) over a cache of computer porn (and all the rest) has turned out to have dissolved. (Although now Jeff Anderson is trying to depose the Archbishop about some other allegations from an era before he took over the Archdiocese in regard to some other priest from the long-ago – 1976 and 1977.)

     

    Thus I can’t see how “Dennis” can indulge himself in “hate” for persons here who still doubt this or that assertion from the Stampede vision. There seems to be more than enough room for legitimate skepticism such that nobody should rationally and legitimately incur his “hate” for still questioning what’s going on in all of this business.

     

    If – as he then says – “Dennis” just doesn’t “understand it”, then that raises questions that might certainly indicate a “problem” that he does need to look at.

     

    Perhaps it has to do with the presumption that if anybody questions Abusenik claims or the shock-vision of the Stampede then they are going to be roundly and loudly abused themselves for having such sociopathic and un-empathetic temerity.

     

    Then – with a queasy and sudden change of Wig – “Dennis” addresses ‘Delphin’ (the likes of whom he has just admitted to ‘hating’) as “my friend”. You have to work hard to follow the bouncing Wigs in his comments.

     

    How God views “Dennis” is between God and “Dennis” and let’s leave it at that.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      To the readership. I'm so sorry you have to read P's endless posts. I don't read them usually Dennis doesn't read them. That just leaves you. My sympathies to you all. Courage!

  29. Delphin says:

    Good grief, you antiCatholic bigots are clueless about the religion you despise – the Church permits divorce (as in the case of Donohue), it will not permit a sacramental remarriage unless you can legally obtain an annulment of the forme marriage from the Church.

    Before you make complete asses of yourselves here, why not go do some homework (which you apparently did not do during your school years) on the institution you regularly assail.

    And, we're to believe you have anymore of a clue about the inner workings or intentions of our Church when it comes to the minor abuse matter? Why in the world would we trust anything you say? What is it, exactly, that makes you think you're experts in anything regarding ou Church?

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      ~~Nearly every married couple at one point or another faces deep disappointment. But unless there is abuse, Catholic couples have very few options when things get really, really tough.

      They can either struggle to get their love back or struggle to live without it. What they can't do is divorce.

      "Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law," according to the Catechism (2384). "Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign."

      The grave sin of divorce infects everybody around it. It wrecks families and convinces society that Catholic teaching about marriage just isn't practical.

      Delphin,

      You are a disgrace to the catholic faith.

      "Church permits divorce"

      Does a self-excommunicated catholic have to teach you about your own faith

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      ~~2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.174
       Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."175

       

      Delphin

      Do you still want to tell me I did not do my homework ?

      You need to give every Roman Catholic who maybe reading this blog an apology for the lies you tell. 

      I told you before stop trying to be the Monday morning quarterback. Stay down on the mat or I will once again put you down with the truth.

    • Delphin says:

      You probably didn't mean to include this piece in your own cut-paste diatribe about Catholics and divorce:

      The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

      But, I'll maintain my recent hard definition repositioning on divorce vs. annulment to demonstrate good faith, just the same.

      Are we done with that tangent?

  30. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~The Teaching of the Catholic Church on Divorce

    What I think is funny, here is a self-excommunicated catholic who has more respect and more knowledge of YOUR own faith.

    BAM, I told you to stay down on that mat. You are making a fool of yourself.

     

    Among Catholics, one of the most sensitive and often-avoided topics is the stinging reality of divorce and its consequences. While there must be a pastoral response to assist those parties who seek counseling when their failed marriage ends in divorce, one must never compromise the truth of Christ’s teachings for the sake of the pastoral response. The words and teachings of Jesus Christ on divorce are clear, and it is the responsibility of the Church and its pastors to safeguard, proclaim, and defend them. Let us, therefore, turn our attention to the words of Christ Himself recorded in the Gospel of Matthew:

     

    “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one”? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.’"[1]

     

    These words sound like a great judgment upon a civilization such as ours, where there is one divorce for every two marriages and many consequent re-marriages after such divorces. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, in his radio series “Life Is Worth Living,” eloquently shows how this teaching is not just for Catholics and other Christians. Divorces, he says, go against everything man and woman were created to be. 

     

    “They are, indeed, especially wrong for Catholics,” he said. “But they are a violation of the law of God, the Natural Law of God, for everyone, whether he be Tibetan or Moslem, or a so-called Christian. Original Sin and the Deluge did not block out the divinely established order of man and woman. Conjugal love conquered both the deluge and Original Sin and survived both.”

     

    In our article on the theology of the sacrament of marriage, we saw how humanity is part of both a natural order and a supernatural order. Because marriage is a union made by God, it is unbreakable. The Church teaches that the man and woman, who commit the rest of their lives to each other, truly become one. This is the way God intended marriage, and it is important to remember that marriage was instituted by God, not by man. When reflecting on divorce, you must ask yourself whose rules you are playing by when you agree to marry. “Certainly there are judges who will grant divorces, but how does God look upon them?” Archbishop Sheen says. “After the divorce, they are not two separate individuals as they are before the marriage. They are fragments of a joint personality, like a babe who has been cut in two. That is the way God looks upon any divorce, regardless of who the person be.”

     

    One of the great tragedies in our modern culture is that the family is under attack from all sides. Countless movies, television shows and song lyrics depict single-parent families or do not include the parents at all. Commitment is replaced by a distorted notion of love where it is seen as OK to leave a relationship if it’s “not working out.” After all, they say, you only live once and you deserve to be happy. But the true fallout is rarely shown. Despite the reason for any divorce, the impact is almost always traumatic on all parties involved, especially children. In his concluding catechetical talk on the theology of the body on April 8, 1981, Pope John Paul II did not hesitate to use the phrase “plague of divorce” to emphasize the gravity of such an attack on the dignity of marriage.

     

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church Defines Divorce

     

    Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other until death. Sacramental marriage is the sign of the covenant of salvation, to which divorce does incredible injury. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery. If a husband, separated from his wife, becomes involved with another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.[2]

     

    Furthermore, the Catechism states that divorce is immoral because “it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.”[3]

     

    But do we really believe that? Do we believe instead that the Church is “out of touch” with relationships and needs to “get with it?” The mentality of civil society challenges the divinely revealed truth that a valid marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. The Church responds by saying: “The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, ‘a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.’”[4]

     

    Innocent Parties

     

    The Church is also fully aware that there are innocent parties who may be “the victim” of divorce by their spouse. Such spouses are unjustly abandoned and suffer the consequences of a civil divorce and the spiritual and psychological consequences accompanying a failed marriage. Many are concerned in their consciences whether their divorces which have been forced unjustly upon them constitute a gravely sinful act. The Church responds:

     

    “…This spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.”[5]

     

    All Decisions Have Consequences

     

    All decisions have consequences, and divorce is no exception. Divorce is not wrong for Catholics only, but Catholics who are divorced have deeper spiritual consequences surpassing the civil responsibilities following civil divorce. It is critical for all who have undergone a civil divorce to understand that the Church still recognizes the validity of a marriage, even if it is a dissolved union at the civil level; for marriage is first and foremost a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman. The words of Jesus Christ, echoed in the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, remain unambiguous:

     

    “Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’[6]–the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.[7]

     

    “The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith .”[8]

     

    The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

    • Delphin says:

      There is a language application problem in my submittal – divorce (no fault) is the legal civil dissolution of the marriage, while annulment (with cause) is the Church's findings that rejects of the validity of the Sacrament of Marriage.

      Those two terms, while having the same result (permanent and formal seperation of the couple) are not the same, technically.  I used them interchangebly since they had the same result, but, technically, they are different.

      There are many, many (perhaps too many) annulments granted and many seperated ('divorced'/annulled) and remarried Catholics in the population as a result. The actual Point was that Donahue could be 'permanently separated' from his wife via civil divorce and annulment (which is why I referenced annulment in my response) and still be a good Catholic in standing. I actually have no idea what his status is, nor do I care, since it isn't relevent to the debate here. So far as I know, he hasn't sexually abused any minors nor has he unfairly targeted or persecuted the Church.

      I will actually give partial credit for this one. I'd would rather be totally honest, than totally right.  Wish we could say the same for some others here.

  31. Jim Robertson says:

    I have a child. Dennis has children I have grandchildren. Do you have any children D?

    • Delphin says:

      I won't be revealing any personal info regarding family.

      I've seen what is done with wild imaginations, speculation, extrapolations, accusations, disparaging remarks and not-so-veiled threats with the improper use of personal information that was shared simply to illustrate a point on the subject matter.

      Suffice it to say, I have experience with children (to answer your question).

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    By the way abortions are down to 1973 levels. 16.3 per 1000 women. L.A. Times today. FYI

    • Delphin says:

      It is good news that abortions are down, how an admitted racist like Sanger ever sold her murder and mayhem to the minority community- the biggest vicitms in this holocaust, is a mystery. Zero Tolerance would be a good application here, too.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin do you have any children?

  33. Dennis Ecker says:

    BREAKING NEWS OUT OF CALIFORNIA.

    The teacher of the young lady who confronted her abuser a week ago who filmed and placed their conversation on YOU TUBE  with more then 1 million hits, I am happy to report the teacher has been arrested and charged with 16 counts of sexual abuse and is being held on 5 million dollar bail. If convicted of all charges the teacher could spend the rest of her natural life behind bars.

    The more information I get regarding this case and the two hero's who have come forward I will post here.

  34. Dennis Ecker says:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54264067#.UvBYXfvpjKc

    California YOUTUBE teacher arrested on 16 counts of sexual abuse, held on 5 million dollars, could face life behind bars.

  35. sue says:

    OT a bit, but why isn't more attention being paid to the fact that most of these sexual assaults – those that are actually true, I mean – concern an attack of an older man on a young boy or adolescent. Everyone keeps referring to sexual abuse, but what is strking about these cases is that  – unlike sexual abuse which occurs within families or in the community where the victim is a young girl and the perpetrator an adult male – clergy abuse largely involves male victims and perps. Very few cases concern girls – sure, there are some, but for the most part they are males. So, seeing that all this attention is being focused on Catholic Church abuse – (although here in Australia there is a lot of focus on The Salvation Army, the Anglicans, Government institutions as well) – why isn't it really spelled out that it seems to have been clergy with homosexual tendencies who have been unable to maintain their vows of celibacy and that very rarely heterosexual clergy have been the offenders? I mean, i know why - It does not suit the gay lobby's agenda to have the actual statistics being focussed upon. and people are too scared to be accused of conflating pedophilia with homosexuality. Indeed, in the wider community there does not seem to be any correlation between the two; however, in the specific and particular case of clergy sexual abuse there does indeed seem to have been a connection. And in some cases one would be hard pressed to term the offence pedophilia as the victims have been adolescent males. Anyone else have any views on this? One just cannot ignore the facts – over 75% of cases have involved adult males and young boys or older adolescents.

    • Delphin says:

      Sue- you are singing to the choir for most TMR commenters. Problem is, when you call them as you see them, and as they are, as in the case of the Catholic Church abuse matter, you will be called a bigot.  You're no longer permitted to point out the spots on the leopard in America.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Sue, priests had easier access to boys than to girls. I believe both my perps were heterosexual.They acted out homosexually but that's who they had access to in an all boys school.

  36. sue says:

    In my post above I should have said that sexual abuse which occurs in the wider community  or within famiies MOSTOFTEN concerns an adult male and a young female. 

  37. Publion says:

    Well, it’s certainly a Wigfest out on the ice, sportsfans. “Dennis” has been trying out several not-often seen models and JR is positively glowing with possibilities.

    Readers are welcome to contemplate which is more thought-provoking about these two queasy gender-benders: that they might have no children at all and are just playing the usual ‘pretend’ game that the internet so greatly enables, or that they have had the offspring they claim.

    But as a particularly vivid illustration of the phenomenon among our resurgent fashionistas, on the 3rd at 1113PM we get a chance to see JR now modeling a whole bunch of hum-dingers all in one head-squashing comment.

    There is i) the Wig of Moral High-ground posturing of being on “the provictims band wagon” [sic]. Then ii) the Wig of Diagnosis and Therapeutic Instruction: ‘Delphin’ is hereby formally diagnoses as “hysterical” and is forthwith therapeutically instructed to “calm down”. Because otherwise iii) the Wig of Big Brothering, JR won’t talk to her (delivered apparently on the presumption that such a putative pearl is of great price indeed). Then iv) the Wig of Epithet: ‘Delphin’s “name calling victim hating is malevolent” – which neatly nests v) the Wig of Indignant Righteousness and vi) the Wig of Outraged Victim-y Virtue all in a pile at once. Then back to the Wig of Diagnosis and Therapeutic Instruction (“stop being so poisoness” [sic], which also then adds vii) the Wig of Honest Worker Inability To Spell for good effect and crests that with viii) the Wig of Myah-Myah Name-calling (which actually may be part of JR’s actual organic equipment and not a Wig at all). Then ix) the Wig of Pained Befuddlement (in which x) the Teeth of Nastiness are chattering away): “Please. What the hell is wrong with you.” [sic] And did I mention the xi) Wig of Manly-Man-ness (that “hell”, on top of the “f” earlier in the paragraph)? Then – but again and again as always – the xii) Wig of Truthtelling Victim-y Stuff: that all he has been trying to do all along here is to tell the truth (or some truth, or a truth, or a possible truth, or his personal version of the truth, or his personal truth, or some conceivable truth that nobody can prove isn’t true anyway).

    And then, from him who just recently bleated about ‘victims’ not being well-compensated, we get a strutty assertion about “juries” handing down three-million dollar awards. No actual court case mentioned or named, so this may be just another bit of internet dreck JR again mistook for lunch and is trying to force-feed to us. Of course, JR already knows that “verdicts” don’t come in monetary terms but in Guilty or Innocent terms, so we can also toss in xiii) the Judge Wig, even if he put it on backwards.

    I’d recommend fresh popcorn for this recent surge of Wiggery. The spoken lines are all the same so the sound of crunching won’t really interfere with the show, which – anyway – is all in the Wigs and masks and posturing, like any good Kabuki.

  38. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~ Stop being so poisoness. Please. What the hell is wrong with you. You are screaming names at victims who've done nothing but tell you we are victims. That's why you are foaming at the mouth? Because we told? Or because we demand compensation because your church hierarchy's policy was to pass abusers around.  It was policy .

    They all did it and not only was it criminal it was and sometimes still is, actionable.  Juries aren't handing down $3,000,000 verdicts + because they don't like what you believe. They are passing verdicts like that because they don't like what you've done.

    PLEASE, read it, study it, memorize this comment by Mr. James Robertson. It cannot be put any clearly.

    If any positive came out of my abuse at the hands of father hermley (not caped on purpose) was getting to know this man, who I am so proud to call my friend.

    I hope one day we will meet sir, but until then I can only thank the Lord above for placing someone like you of such a high caliber on this earth. May men and women follow your example.

    I am so sorry for what my ex-church did to you Sir, and maybe one day we both will find peace.

    Dennis Ecker

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I have some peace of mind now. It's not about money worries, money worries change from not having money to how to keep the money you have. I think you are too generous with the compliments but I am grateful.

      The bottom line for me is telling the truth to liars. I think that's your bottom line too, Dennis.

      We were raped. We were deeply harmed and I'm the only victim here who's been compensated for those injuries.

      That recognition (of the harm done to me) through the civil court system has been healing.

      But What keeps me awake at night is the victims who haven't been compensated and, on some real level worse, the victims who have been compensated on the cheap.  The church is running around settling for pennies on the dollar because their is no really activist victims' representation. That's a crime on top of crimes against us.  The people treated badly keep me awake. It's for them I fight and for the kids we all were before we were injured.

      I am thrilled to tell the truth here. It's so relaxing telling the truth. I am also honored to tell the truth with other victims here. In a place where so little truth is ever posed. They make it all worth while.

      When will the church compensate it's victims?

    • Delphin says:

      We don't believe it was Church 'policy'  to  'pass predators around', plain and simple. And, to date, there is no evidence to support that claim, therefore, it is our informed opinion that the extortion and attempted prosecution of the Church is driven by antiCatholic bigotry, which is also persecution.

      Individuals, who also happen to be clergymen, are responsible for their own behavior and decisions in those matters. But, you can't get blood from a stone, so, the persecutors mantra is to make it a conspiracy theory that turns the problem of individuals into 'Church policy'- then, you can sue.  Voila, just like magic!

       

  39. Jim Robertson says:

    Off we go into the wild blue yonder. You speak god talk. I speak no god talk. I don't change who I am and what I believe in, to talk to you. I just talk to you, just like i talk to everybody else. the fact that you are god centric, according to you, shouldn't change my behavior. That's if you are somehow outraged by my atheism. I'm not an athiest because I hate catholics. I don't. I'm an athiest because I'm an athiest.
    Can you please tell me what any of that has to do with, Why your church is not compensating all it's victims? It's real for sure victims? You get fakers, no offense, that's your problem not ours.

    You say you give charitably more than anyone else in the world. I believe you. But before you give to others don't you think you should be giving your own injured what is their due?

    I profile none of the people or institutions you say I do. All I I ask is: When will you compensate your victims? And you never answer.

    I did not tell my parents that I was being abused They were pushing 60 and ill. I felt they had enough on their plate to deal with. I wanted no one to know. I was ashamed that it had happened to me. But I did tell a friend who told for me. Grown up authority figures at my school knew. They knew because i told them in detail at the time what was happening to me. They didn't tell my parents. Don't blame my parents for what the church didn't tell them.

    You blame everyone but those who should be blamed. That's why I call your morality into question.

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      This post above should have appeared below Delphin's Feb 4 !2:28 pm post. That's what I'm replying to in my post.

    • Delphin says:

      I blame everyone, from the adolescent 'victim' who more than likely was a cooperating homosexual 'victim' of statutory rape, to the families of 'victims' who assisted/enabled the predators by doing and knowing nothing (neglect), to the community that all-too-conveniently 'knew nothing', to the individual priest who committed these crimes against minors. The individual priest has primary responsibility.

      You blame the Church because it's only the Church that can be persecuted, and sued, in our current secularized political climate by antiCatholic bigots and other scam artists looking for a quick buck.

      Fear not - my morality, as guided by my belief and trust in God, it is intact.

      Who is it in which you believe and trust that you feel qualified to call other persons morality into question?

       

  40. Julie says:

    Jim says he's the voice of reason and on the provictim bandwagon. Hardly. Delphin, you have the patience of a saint if you read Jim and Dennis's posts anymore. I scan some of them and scroll over most of them. It's all blather, insults and lies. Ad nauseum.

  41. Julie says:

    Jim and Dennis simply don't have the stones to get out there and see where abuse is really happening, and help do anything about it. They don't want reality to intrude on their fantasy worlds, sitting in front of a computer being internet bullies and throwing out insults, hate and lies is as far as they will go to do any type of effort, and that is only to satisfy themselves. Meanwhile we Catholics will keep feeding the hungry, saving the lost, clothing the poor, giving shelter, praying for sinners and actually helping abuse victims. And of course, being with Jesus at the Mass.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      May I finish your catholic litinay of what you do by saying this. Here's what you don't do. You don't compensate your victims. You do ignore them or even abuse them more. That's the truth Julie. Try being with Jesus outside of mass. Try treating your victims like Jesus would instead of supporting the very money changers who he booted from the temple.

      What" fantasy world"? My rape? Your shitty treatment? Those are both very real and very true.

      Every one pretending to support the church here is really only interested in supporting the money the church has.

  42. Publion says:

    In the most recent episode “Dennis” is so verklempt that he odes to JR as “Sir” and “Mr. James Robertson” (the 4th, 233PM).

     

    The “3 million” jury award is repeated, but no identifier as to the case or cases.

     

    “Dennis” then refers to his alleged (and conveniently out-of-the-picture) abuser as “father hermley” and informs us that he has not “caped” the name on purpose – which appears to have some significance for him.

     

    “Dennis” acknowledges ‘proudly’ that he has made an internet “friend” in JR, and indeed a “friend” who is “of such a high caliber” – and let’s just let that judgment stay up there just where it was put.

     

    He then apologizes for “my ex-church” – which actually implies that the Roman Catholic Church has dissolved itself or disbanded itself and is an ‘ex-church’. He no doubt meant to riff on his personal ‘truth’ to the effect that he has spoken from his Wiggy Cathedra and excommunicated himself.

     

    He formally signs his comment – although merely with his conventional moniker. It seems to me that so richly-laden a missive should be signed with something possessing more éclat: perhaps an all-capped first name and title or even some special identifying insignia, like we see in old aristocratic missives: ‘Doris, Countess of Bonkadonk’ or some bit of the family crest (although this is admittedly hard to do online – one of the few instances when the internet does not easily lubricate Abusenik agendas).

     

    This whole encomium does, however, serve to get JR’s juices flowing and on the 4th at 631PM he dons the Wig of Benevolent But Wise Recollection in mollified response.

     

    He allows as how “it’s not about money worries” and demurely blushes that “Dennis” is being simply too generous with the compliments. (Personally, I think JR is being too generous in his characterization of the “Dennis” material here as simple “compliments”.)

     

    But then to business and the game’s afoot.

     

    JR’s “bottom line” is not money but rather “telling the truth to liars” (Dr. Freud to Examining One with your Projection Kit, stat!)

     

    Then, of course, the simple repetition of the usual unsupported talking-points as to ‘rape’ and ‘harm’ and – if he does say so himself – being “the only victim here who’s been compensated for those injuries”. (Personally, I think most surely that JR is being too generous here in his characterization of his own material, but be that as it may.)

     

    “Recognition” (of what has not actually been demonstrated to have happened as we are supposed to think it happened) has been “healing” for him. Which covers some of the classic and usual Victimist and Abusenik tropes. The money wasn’t involved in that, except in some vaguely abstract way as a signifier or symbol of the healing – otherwise, apparently, it’s just a whole lotta stuff that happened to come along with the recognition.

     

    But then the orchestra is cued and we get the lead-in to an aria: JR is kept up at night thinking of all “the victims who haven’t been compensated” or – a new twist – what is “on some real level worse”, which are “the victims who have been compensated on the cheap” (so the actual amount of money does play some substantive and significant role in the Abusenik calculations after all). And this rumination is, we must recall, prompted by night-time phantasms of persons whom we do not know to exist, about which phantasms even JR himself claims to know little if anything at all (and, but of course, cannot or will not provide any evidence of their existing in any universe except his own personal one).

     

    And again with the revealingly grubby fiscal calculations: “the church is running around settling for pennies on the dollar” – which is a bottom-line for which I’d very much like to see the actual calculations, mental and arithmetical.

     

    But to bring it all to a wrap on a high-note (for himself) JR gushes that he is simply “thrilled to tell the truth here”. So there is clearly some sort of frisson for him here (although I think he is again being overly generous in the characterization of his material).

     

    Then, instantly thereafter, the illogical follow-on claim that he finds such thrilling truth-telling “so relaxing” – the two descriptors are, in terms of definition, rather mutually-exclusive. But for Abuseniks it’s not about a) actually telling the truth about what’s going on, nor b) about paying attention to mere ‘words’ and their meanings. Rather,  they are going for effect here, both i) the effect on themselves as they paint their preferred word-pictures and ii) the manipulative effect on us (who are supposed to just take all this in and offer empathetic or awed oooohs and ahhhhhs and clucks).

     

    He brings the whole show home with a repetition of his current Question of the Day: “When will the church compensate it’s victims?” [sic]. Although he has made numerous non-responses to the question as to his own role in hastening that day (by demonstrating how any rational person might accurately determine the genuine from the otherwise in this (phantasmagoric) myriad of possible payees.

     

    But the idea here is simply to keep one’s preferred stuff in front of the readers, and avoid any real assessment of that material. Apparently on the presumption that if you keep saying something, then sooner or later some or enough people will simply accept it as true. And thus will further ‘thrill’ the self-styled truth-tellers by going-along with the whole Thing.

     

    Then on that same 4th day of February JR takes up his quill yet again at 656PM.

     

    And with most of the material in the comment we need not detain ourselves further, it being mostly further riffs on the usual themes.

     

    But I will add the observation that we are once again bethump’t with JR’s repetition of the when-compensate question, and this time with the accusatory declamation that we “never answer”. And yet the follow-on question to JR’s question has been put to him several times here, and – waitttt for itttt – he doth truly “never answer”. (Second call for Dr. Freud to Examining One with his Projection Kit.)

     

    However, there is one freshly interesting bit: we are now informed that JR did not tell his parents about his experiences back in the way-back because of their age and the fact that they were “ill”. So the previously vital “shame” bit had nothing to do with it – in this current telling of the saga – and the not-telling of his personal ‘truth’ to his parents was merely a tactical decision made by JR, for such reasons as he claims here.

     

    Some here may give thanks for word-processors: if one is keeping a file in order to keep the material straight, one need not go back and cross-out or insert a messy note-slip into the file; one need only go back and make an insertion in the now-no-longer-operational bits of the text.

     

    But it gets even more interesting: While JR made the decision to preserve his parents peace-of-mind, especially in light of their age and illness, by not-telling his truth to them, yet he “asked a friend” (adult or another kid?) “who told for me”. So – if this bit of material is true as written – then he didn’t want to upset his parents who were too old and “ill” … so he had somebody else tell them?

     

    But then – to the utter confoundment of any sense to be made from his immediately preceding statements – he then immediately goes on to say that he “wanted no one to know”.

     

    But then – ditto – that “grown up authority figures at my school knew”. But how did they know, then? (Let’s not, for purposes of this present discussion, get into the question of just what it was that they were supposed to have ‘known’.)

     

    And the answer to that question – to the utter confoundment of any sense to be made from his immediately preceding statements – is that he himself had told them. (And did he also tell them that he didn’t want his parents to be told?)

     

    And then wraps this séance up by demanding that nobody “blame my parents” that the school authorities didn’t tell  them … ? But if the reason he didn’t tell them was that they were old and ill, then what difference would it have made if anybody else (the school authorities, another kid) told them this potentially upsetting news?

     

    But nobody has blamed his parents here. Although the material certainly leads one to ask why, if they were supposed to have been told, he didn’t tell them himself. And why he told anybody at all if he wanted nobody to know in the first place.

     

    The script as written cannot be filmed because the script as (now) written clearly reveals its incoherences when you try to imagine it working out in actuality and in action.

     

    I don’t go into all this for the purpose of getting into anybody’s personal business. But if we (and the Church) are to be bethump’t with accusations then we have a right to understand (or try to comprehend) the story on which the accusations are based. This is – we see it here in front of us – the Stampede in action in a specific case that illustrates so vividly the problem with so many of the claims, stories, accusations, allegations, and assertions that have fueled the Stampede.

     

    I won’t go into perfectly plausible alternative explanations for some of JR’s actions or non-actions in this matter. But with just the material we have been given here, we find ourselves with dots that won’t connect and a script that certainly seems impossible to actually film.

     

    And that is surely a significant bottom-line.  And I won’t go into the “morality” aspect of it, although that point was also raised in the comment and clearly involves a wider area of assessment than JR had imagined when he wrote what he did.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If the school authorities had told my parents. My parents would have known what to do for me. The authorities did know. I told them. They chose not to tell my parents. The adults, the school, fouled out. Not me, the child, tramatized by my rape.

      My description of my parents is from a 16 year old's point of view. Why was I making wrong choices for me? When the adults, who knew, should have been making good choices for me and didn't?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Yes I did tell them i didn't want my parents to be told. So then they obeyed a 16 year old high school kid; because I said i didn't want my parents told? Grown ups are supposed to know better than kids particularly fresly raped kids as to what the right thing to do is.

      Now you will say. They and you knew you were lying about the rape because you were failing the perps class. And the kindly school authorities didn't want to shame the liar in front of his parents. THAT"S AN F'ING LIE. I was raped. the whole rest of my life shows the damage done to me.

  43. Jim Robertson says:

    Delphin so again you "hint" it was my failure to be manly enough to stop my abuser. It's my fault my abuser raped me. It's my parents fault my abuser raped me. It seems it's everybodies fault but my abuser and the people who hired him that I was raped. You are wonderful.

    • Delphin says:

      Reread my comment today at 8:14am; I clearly, in writing, share blame among most participants, but, primarily weight it toward the offending individual priest.  Your typical attempts at distortions of others words, concepts and intentions (mine, others here, or Catholic Church records) won't work.

      I will assign no blame to a child, but I will assign some blame to an adolescent, especially a 16 year old male.  But, even assuming a 16 year old male could not stop an assault against him by a lone assailant at that time, there is nothing preventing that same 16 year old man (as defined in most cultures and in some legal settings) from undertaking the legally, morally and ethically required response and action to file charges against his assailant in order to secure his own justice, as well as prevent the perpetration of more crimes by that individual against others.

      You claim you were an activist since you were 16 years old, where was your activism against your own assailant, when it mattered most?

  44. Jim Robertson says:

    When will you compensate your own catholic children who were raped?

    You can say we weren't raped and that we are lying, till the sun melts; but we were raped. we just were. No need to invent on our part. We remember the rape very well. At least I do.I didn't bury it that I might survive like other victims did. I remember all too well.

    • Delphin says:

      Why didn't you remember your rape well enough to formally report it before 50 years passed?

      Was it more desirable to be compensated than to get seek and get justice at the time of the event?

      Would you have been satisfied if your assailant was imprisoned for his crime rather than you receive compensation?

      Would you be satisfied if the Church agreed to offer psychological counseling, housing, and spiritual care rather than strict monetary compensation to claimed (since there is no existing proof) victims?

    • josie says:

      What great questions to pose, Delphin.

  45. Delphin says:
  46. Delphin says:

    A good article, captures the 'climate'  created by some TMR contributors-

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/what-glaad-and-muslim-extremists-have-in-common

  47. Jim Robertson says:

    I knew at the time of my rape that I could sue and get money. I didn't .I wanted to bury my rape. I wanted to forget about it. I was ashamed. Me not the perp, me. I was ashamed. The problem is after such a trauma everything changes. You can bury nothing. You may think you can but consequences come out.

  48. Jim Robertson says:

    Dennis, it's time to completely ignore D's vicious unsubstantiated libels. It has no sense of decency what so ever. None.

  49. TheMediaReport.com says:

    Thank you, everyone.

    The comments for this story are now closed.

  50. Delphin says:

    Actually, I am tall, and being a faithful Catholic, I also advocate the antithesis of NAZI pagan-atheist philosophy.

    Wrong again- you're nothing else, if not consistent!

    But, in the spirit of continuing dialogue, in response to your ever-so-redundant query;  when you answer a few too many unanswered questions about your claimed role in the Church abuse matter.

    You wanted the comments on this site to revolve around You and Your issues (God knows, you've attempted to hijack every TMR article's comments and analyses), well, you got your wish, Cinderfella-

  51. Jim Robertson says:

    Why are you so afraid of paying your own raped compensation? Are we to pretend the corporate church can't afford it? This is the same corprate church that was second in command of how many empires from the Roman empire on? And didn't the largest christian religion recieve the moneys in large part from the pagan religions as they went "away"? 2000 years of compound interest from "holy money" taken from 7 or more empires, is pretended to be not enough to compensate your own raped children?

    If that lie would prove to be true, then there are many more raped than you admit. Multitudes more.If your institution could be made bankrupt by reimbursing your own still living victims.

    Josie, D never asked a great question in it's life.  Nor ever answered one. IMO