Publicity Trumps Kids’ Safety: SNAP Knew About Abuse Claim Against Chicago Priest ‘For Several Weeks’ But Did Not Call Police; Instead It Held a Press Conference

Barbara Blaine : SNAP

Microphones before victims: SNAP founder and president Barbara Blaine

The anti-Catholic pressure group SNAP sets the bar very high in its purported quest to protect children from abuse – or it least when it comes to the Catholic Church.

In the past, SNAP's hysterical founder and president, Barbara Blaine, has said that it is "reckless" and "irresponsible" for Church officials to fail to call law enforcement and keep an accused cleric in ministry "even for one day" before calling police and yanking an accused cleric out of ministry.

But if nothing else, SNAP is rich in hypocrisy. So it should come as no surprise that, according to an Archdiocese of Chicago press release, SNAP did not call police or alert Church officials even though it knew "for several weeks" about a shocking sex abuse allegation against a Chicago priest.

Rather than acting according to its purported mission to protect children, the group instead held a press conference, strategically timed for a slow news day on the Monday after Easter. The conference was led by Blaine herself, who in the past has personally written a letter of support on behalf of a man arrested with over 100 images of kiddie porn on his computer.

Publicity first, safety of kids last

Blaine's latest publicity stunt only adds more evidence to the fact that SNAP is not really about protecting children but actually about pummeling the Catholic Church in order to advance its own political agenda.

Here we have Blaine not only not calling the police about an abuse allegation against a priest – and thereby "endangering children" by her own standards – but instead withholding information until she felt it was an opportune time to hold a press conference and generate some more free publicity for SNAP.

What's more: This is not the first time SNAP has pulled a stunt just like this. As we reported back in 2011, SNAP knew about a Los Angeles priest still in ministry who had been accused of an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl back in the 1960s. But rather than immediately calling law enforcement or alerting the Church, it took its information to the New York Times, who then dutifully trumpeted a big story that was embarrassing to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

The time is long overdue for the media to reveal the truth about SNAP and its hypocrisy when it comes to reporting abuse. We especially call on Manya Brachear Pashman, religion reporter from the Chicago Tribune, who has regularly enabled SNAP by giving them free publicity.


  1. Paul Kendrick says:

    Why do you always describe SNAP as anti-Catholic?

    • Oumou says:

      Did you read the post?  Because it is.

    • Linda L. says:

      SNAP is anti-Catholic.  The Cathoic church is the only organization these people attack and it's with a vengeance.  Do some research on these people.  It's disgusting what they do and perhaps you should question whether or not any of the money they've raped from the church goes to actual victims.  Ever thought of that?  The answer is no.  Barbara Blaine, David Clohessey and Barbara Doris are millionaires from this.  David Clohessey's brother who is a priest was accused of sexual misconduct.  Not a word out of these people's mouths.  Research them deeply and you'll see the agenda.

    • Delphin says:

      What/all we need to know about 'Paul Kendrick'-

    • Delphin says:

      Will "Paul Kendrick' sue the UN for killing thousands (sickened hundreds of thousands) of Haitians via transmission of cholera?

      Or, will the Immunity the UN enjoys, with US support, as they point their crooked fingers at the Catholic Church, protect them from such litigation?

      What do you think, Paul?

  2. josie says:

    Sir, is the sky blue and the grass green? You look above and below and call it as we see that it is as named. For starters, go to the last paragraph of this current piece, click on the red phrase "the truth about SNAP". Maybe, you jest.

  3. verdun arnaud says:

    These are catholic people who have been raped or abused.As you go through life you have to put your self in the other persons position than you will understand.Please try.Fortunately Ihave never been abused nor have any of my children or grand children.Please try….                    Verdun Arnaud

    • Delphin says:

      There are people, sadly, who have been raped and abused around the world, the great majority of who were victimized by non-Catholics and secularists

      Most of this brutal behavior, largely targeted toward women and children, is institutionalized by either the secular state (socialist-communist oppression) or religion (ex. Islam).

      The problem in the Church, which was/is miniscule compared with the other cited examples, was not one of institutionalization or doctrine, but one of abject disobedience against the very doctrines that define and guide this institution – it always was and still is perceived as wrong and criminal behavior and was treated, thusly, in the majority of proven cases.

      Therefore, there is no justification for "catholic people who hve been raped or abused' to focus their vengeance on the institution in which the crimes were committed anymore than they should focus their vengeance on the affected church/parish/archdiocese's host nation, state or municipality. There never was and never will be proof of the Catholic Church condoning the criminal and immoral actions that individuals in the institution committed.

      So, why do you distinguish these false witnesses according to their religion (even though all of SNAPs adherents are known dissident Catholics) when the Catholic religion or structure had absolutely nothing to do with the acts claimed to have been committed against them?

      So, why do you intentionally ignore the elephant in the room on the Catholic Church minor (not child) abuse matter that is, factually as well-documented, a problem of individual homosexual male clergy (clearly not abiding by the Church's celibacy mandate) preying on adolescent homosexual males?

      Now, please try to understand faithful Catholics opposition to the well-documented persecution, lead by SNAP et al, the mainstream media and leftist politicians for ideological reasons, only, of our Church, and please recognize our obligation and committment to defend our faith and our Church.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Mr Arnaud, Sociopaths (like Delphin) cannot put themselves in another persons shoes. They have no ability to empathize with their fellow humans. You are asking the impossible. They are very damaged goods and because they can not empathize; they can not be followers of Jesus. Jesus is all about empathy. You can't empathize, you have no hope of following your lord.

  4. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment by ‘Verdun Arnaud’ (the 29th, 1149PM) I would offer these thoughts:

    There is still some very substantial question as to the extent of actual persons “raped or abused”; VA has quite possibly not read back in comments on this site to grasp the extent to which this point has been discussed.

    It is precisely this simple presumption that if a person claims to have been abused (relatively few of the several thousand actual formally-recorded allegants have claimed ‘rape’) then s/he is telling the unvarnished truth which has fueled the sense of a vast crisis encompassing not only thousands (eleven or twelve thousand formally-lodged claims) of formally-recorded allegants but also untold myriads of ‘victims’ who are ‘out there’ but who have not, after all these decades, ‘come forward’.

    This simple (or simplistic, if you wish) presumption is the equivalent of starting the play at first base or second base rather than with an at-bat at home-plate, where everybody can see that the batter has indeed hit the ball and is justified in moving along the bases.

    In regard to the comment by ‘Paul Kendrick’ (the 29th at 815PM): a great deal of discussion on this site has gone into the question of SNAP’s role as i) a necessary  front-organization for the tort-attorneys and ii) a reliable counterpoint and counter-Church source of catchy sound-bites for the mainstream media (who are eager to keep up the appearance of a deep, wide, sustained and very-real difference of opinion as a Good-Evil narrative framing device for their ‘stories’). He is welcome to look back over the accumulated commentary.

    Further, SNAP has demonstrated (and if it is a front-organization, then hardly surprisingly) a sustained and focused tendency to ignore any actual progress made by the Church in structuring ever-more child-safe protocols and instead SNAP continually injects negative ‘takes’ on any actual Church achievements. Nor does SNAP allow itself to be drawn into any discussion of the validity of its (invariably anti-Church) positions, and instead issues its press-statements and avoids any further discussion of the issues it has raised.

    Consequently, one can form the clear and distinct impression that SNAP is not interested in improving the Church but rather is only concerned to ensure as best can be managed that the Church always appears in the most negative possible light, despite any achievements and avoiding any potentially complicating counter-information that SNAP does not want to hear and does not seem to want anyone else to hear either.

    • Diogenes71 says:

      Well said, Publion.  SNAP has admitted, under oath I beleive, that it lied on previous ocassions when giving "testmony against an allegedly abusivce preist. SNAP's hatred blinds it to the whole truth. As a result of its blind anger SNAP has lost any credeibility it one had. I understand its donations are at a long time low so its needs soem sensational "cases" to keep its name in froint of the public. It usually presents a "factoid," a small fact, as the whole truth and does not publish the results of the investigations into the allegations. Thta is another reason not to put credibility in SNAPs charges.  

      One either tells the truth, the whole truth or presents half-truths as the whole, which is basically a lie.  Ther eis no middle ground.  Blind hatred exhibited by SNAP has run its course. It presume the leaders were well compensated for what they did, now they are desperate to hold on to their income earned by their blind hatred for the Church. 

      If SNAP was truly interested in stoppping the abuse of children, it would go after public schools, and other state institutions, but it does not.  This further erodes its credibility. 

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    [edited by moderator]

    D, Uganda isn't a socialist or communist nation. It's a majority Catholic nation; and it ; and It's catholic arch bishop want their own gay people killed by the state. The pope has said diddily about this wilfully un christ-like act. So explain that; if you will.

    • Delphin says:

      If Uganda was following Catholic theology/philosophy, they would not harm a hair on the head of any homosexual.

      Uganda is a predominantly Christian nation, divided almost equally between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

      The Vatican has condemned Uganda's antiCatholic policy against homsexuals, accordingly, and quite correctly.

      President Museveni is Anglican.

      The Church of Uganda is Anglican, as is its Archbishop.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your news link is 5+ years old. The pope should demand Uganda change it's obcene laws. He hasn't and he won't. he could be offering sanctuary in Rome for the gays in Uganda ask other countries to open their doors to them. But no the vatican's reserved for pedophiles under warrent in their own countries. There is no room at the inn for the truely persecuted.

      Maybe the good bishop could empty one of his swimming pools and make it a shelter.

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    SNAP's leadership are not dissident Catholics at all. They are faithful Catholics working for the church and against their fellow victims.

    If what Dave says is true here, (He has to be right some time) SNAP once again is making itself and therefor the "survivors" look bad AGAIN.

      SNAP must appear hypocritical so that the church won't. That's part of SNAP/Church's mission.

    Who are the real hypocrites here? The followers of the super empathetic Jesus or those who call themselves Jesus' faithful as they blame the raped for our rapes and/ or just call us criminal fraudsters because we tell we were raped..

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    Linda L.,

    Clohessy and Blaine were, after all, Catholic children raped by Catholic priests. Why wouldn't the Catholic church be their focus? The other institutions victims can defend themselves much better than SNAP's defending us.

    SNAP's never talking about compensating the church's victims which is rather odd since they claim themselves to be " THE oldest and largest" victims organization. They do not claim themselves to be the "oldest and largest" protector of the uninjured Catholic children; yet the uninjured are all they talk about.

    This is a ruse to focus on the Church being a NOW "safe" place to send the kids. The church is losing in the collection plates where it really matters to them.

    SNAP only talks about "protecting the children" so much so that the church can then wave it's "How we protect the children program". SNAP never mentions victims save to authenticate itself as our "leader' Get it?

    The Catholic children raped THEN did not matter to the church and we still don't. Otherwise they'd have compensated all of us. they'd have done the right thing in the first place.

    What matters to them most is the money coming in from parents now; because it isn't rolling in like it used too..

    In the long run this behavior will cost the Church more money than if it had compensated all of us justly in the begining.

  8. Jim Robertson says:
  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Wow I really seem to be your focus. Ignore me postulate something.

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    How did all the evil gay people who did all the molesting get into your wonderfully magic church? How did that happen?

    • Delphin says:

      I never said gay people were evil, I said homosexuals that prey on adolescents are evil.

      How did these abusers get in the Church- see my former post here regarding corrupted seminaries-

      The leftists who infiltrated the Church simply invited them in, just as they are being invited into our schools (via communist curriculum, teachers/professors and application of other propoganda tools), government, media and entertainment industry. In effect, corrupting the culture.

      You should be very 'proud', your side 'appears' to be winning [for now].

      Aren't you enjoying the spoils of your victory/conquest?


  11. Another Mark says:

    Several of the posters here MUST be paid apologists for the church.  The amount of ignorance is astounding OR you know the truth and are attemting to continue to keep the faithful in the dark. 

    As a member of SNAP, my children go to catholic school and we continue to support our faith (not our bishops and NOT financially) if that makes me a bad catholic so be it.  As a survivor of abuse as a child the local bishop was informed many, many years ago.  I was lied to and the priest WAS NOT removed from ministry as promised.  Yes he went on to abuse at least one other child.  Guess what, he is still a priest today, and collects his church pension paid for by YOU.  Yes the diocese, many years after they learned of his abuse of at least 2 children, restricted his ministry in 2003 because the state stepped in, so what, he is still free of any criminal prosecution because the BISHOPS who knew what he had done, failed to report him to the police as required under state law.  These are the truths SNAP exposes time and time again, and the only way you can discredit SNAP is by calling us anti catholic dissedents.  Why don't you ask the people in my parish if  my family is ANTI-Catholic.  I ask you then, why did the bishops invite this group to speak to the bishops in Dallas in 2002?  It was the same people leading this organization then.  [edited by moderator] just don't want you to lnow the true extrent of crimes committed against children by clergy, but the real problem was and continues to be why BISHOPS fail to take swift and appropriate action when they learn what these men have done.  This is the crux of the crisis that continues yes, unfortunately even today.  [edited by moderator]   Just shear ignorance or woeful deception, the Media Report is one or the other…you decide.

    • Delphin says:

      This poster is not a paid or unpaid apologist for anybody- including the Church; but, according to your revelation, you are a SNAP apologist (are you paid by them or are you a contributor to them?).

      All you can attest to (likely without evidence) is your own experience (you claim to be a victim of abuse by a priest), and nothing more (not what is claimed to have happened to any others, not what any Bishop did or didn't do in response to you or others claims, unless there is evidence of your claims)..

      It is interesting, given your claims of abuse, that you chose to put your own children into the same 'lions den', even after claiming that your claims of abuse went unaddressed, and you claim that this problem continues to today. Are you not concerned for your children?

      It is interesting that you claim not to contribute financially to the Church, but, you must pay tuition at any Catholic school. That is financially contributing to the Church.

      What exactly is it we are 'ignorant' of? That there was minor abuse in the Church committed by clergy? No one ever denied that fact. That some Bishops covered up some of these crimes? No one ever denied that. That there is a global Church conspiracy, including the Vatican, to compel and enable the abuse of minors? Of course, that is where the line is drawn (and maintained, not as it is in Obama-land) between reasonable and rational analyses and unreasonable, irrational persecution. You and SNAP stand on the wrong side of that line.

      What exactly are you 'ignorant' of? You are ignorant of the contradictions in your own statements here that prove that you are just another seduced or willing tool of SNAP, and that SNAPs sole goal/mission is to bankrupt and disempower the Church because SNAPs leftist ideology is incompatible with the Catholic Church's traditional theology/philosophy/ideology.

      You are about as "catholic' as were the "Judas Jews" (NAZI collaborators) who led their own lambs to the slaughter in Germany-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      On and on you lie. How is SNAP leftist? You have proof to back up what you said?

    • Delphin says:

      Barbara Blaine=Catholic Worker = Socialist = 'leftist'

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    If the left invited them in; what was Maciel? He was a facist and a heroin addicted child rapist beloved and embraced by your brand new saint, jp2. Explain Maciel with your doctrine of "the left let the rapists in".

    • Jim Robertson says:

      D, Why draw the line at the church behaving horrificly internationally from the top? It did. It does. Under your other new saint, john23, anyone who brought scandal to the church was excomunicated automatically. That included us victims and our families for reporting our rapes to the police or speaking of it in the media. That rule was invoked by many bishops; cardinals and monsignors and only used against your victims and our families.


    • Delphin says:

      Do you think we're obligated to respond to every insane and inane claim you make about the Church?

      No, we're not.

      Try answering a few of your own questions- who knows where such an exercise may lead you (I predict, to the Truth).


    • Delphin says:

      SNAP = Jeff Anderson =  leftist political campaign donor.


      You decide-


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Oh i can answer the vast majority of my questions. That's why I ask them of you. To see if you get it; or if, by my asking the questions I ask, you might yourself begin to ask a few questions of your leadership. You won't but someone else might. So i continue to ask my questions.

    • Delphin says:
  13. Publion says:

    In regard to the most recent comments I can see here:

    As to the 30th at 1045AM: The key question underlying this point is whether the SNAP leadership are “dissident Catholics” or “faithful Catholics” (the JR position).

    I am not sure I would even limit the former characterization to “dissident” rather than “anti-“, but for the purposes of this discussion let’s stay with “dissident” as the bipole to “faithful”.

    We have SNAP’s demonstrated comments and actions, and there has been much discussion here of the strategy behind SNAP’s leadership very reliably and predictably conducting itself in a way i) completely supportive of the Anderson Strategies and the Stampede and ii) a counterpoint to the Church (or ‘anti-Church’) source of sound-bites (but never any extended discussion or analysis) for the media. And we have D’Antonio’s extended revelations in his book, which is a book that is hardly pro-Church in its approach to the Catholic Abuse Matter. That goes robustly toward the theory that SNAP is both a front-organization for the Anderson Strategies and a reliable panderer of ‘stories’ to the media.

    (And thus, while SNAP may very well indeed not have ‘victims’ as its primary concern, this lack of primary concern reflects its being a front-organization and tool for elements of the Stampede.)

    On the other hand, we have assertions by the Abuseniks that insist that SNAP is a tool of the Church (run by “faithful Catholics”). In support of which theory we have … what? Nothing but assertions with no evidence and assertions that can otherwise explain the D’Antonio revelations except to further claim that a) Anderson and the torties and D’Antonio himself are also tools of the Church, and that b) the mainstream media coverage of the Church in the Abuse Matter has either been i) balanced or ii) un-balanced merely because all of the “rapes” (formally allegated and otherwise, genuine and otherwise-classifiable) are true and thus that the un-balanced coverage is justified as reflecting that (claimed, asserted, and presumed) ‘reality’ of all the “rapes” (and we have already been around the track many times here about the problems with the elastic and play-dough defining of ‘rape’ and ‘rapes’).

    And then we get the bit that it is SNAP that is “making … the ‘survivors’ look bad again” [giveaway exaggerated formatting omitted] and that (we are apparently to infer) therefore if SNAP is “making … the ‘survivors’ look bad again” then it must clearly be a tool of the Church. Whereas I have been saying that while SNAP is indeed “making … the ‘survivors’ look bad again”, this is simply the inevitable result of the exposure of the fundamental flaws that have existed in the entire strategy of the Stampede from Day One (i.e. create a situation; w) where the Church and the clerics are presumptively guilty; x) because any and all of the allegations and claims must be presumed true and accurate; and yet y) the various claims and allegations cannot be questioned or doubted no matter how dubious they may appear; and z) much much money is therefore ‘deserved’ by such claimants and their lawsuits are necessary and “justified” because the Church did not simply cave to their claims and stories and give them the cash in the first place.

    Readers are welcome to consider the possibilities for themselves.

    And also that – in the JR theory – “SNAP must appear hypocritical” [italics mine] simply because it is (somehow, although never rationally and coherently explained) a tool and cat’s-paw of the Church. Thus then that SNAP has been a ‘successful’ tool and cat’s-paw of the Church (since it has theoretically served the Church well in the Church’s apparent plan to cost itself almost 3 billion dollars). Readers are welcome to go figure.

    Then – in best Playbook style – the torturous complications and incoherences created by this theorizing of SNAP as a tool of the Church is side-tracked by the distracting and tendentious effort to claim that persons who doubt or don’t believe all this are “real hypocrites” because – waittttt forrrr ittttttttt – they are not following Jesus (Who apparently would buy all the claims and stories of “the raped for our rapes” and wouldn’t call such allegants and claimants “criminal fraudsters” – even though, as I have said, the dynamics of the Anderson Strategies so very strongly and closely resemble the long-established dynamics of the general strategy of disability-fraud claims).

    Readers are invited to consider all this as they will.

    Then (the 30th at 1112AM) we are informed that “Clohessy and Blaine were, after all, Catholic children raped by Catholic priests” – which instantly puts these two individuals into the category of the very allegants and claimants whose un-demonstrated claims cannot in any way be distinguished by any rational observer as being deliberate and gratutitous and self-serving and strategic phantasms rather than being demonstrably honest and accurate and true reports of actual events.

    And thus once again – as in so very much of the Abuse Matter claims – we find ourselves as if in a carnival midway hall of mirrors: surrounded by all sorts of weird images yet not having moved forward in any real way.

    And if their claimed ‘rape’ experiences might possibly explain why “the Catholic church [would] be their focus”, then why would they not also be as negatively focused against the Church as are so many other Abusenik commenters who have claimed the same type of (alleged) ‘rape’ experience at the hands of the Church and its clerics? Does a claimed ‘rape experience’ not rather uniformly pre-dispose a person to be negatively focused on the Church rather than to work continuously in the Church’s service? That would certainly appear to be the case with the various Abusenik commenters we have seen here.

    SNAP’s purpose as a front-organization for the torties is precisely n-o-t to ‘talk’ “about compensating the church’s victims” (note the odd back and forth on capitalization of ‘church’ and ‘Church’ here). The torties, deploying the Anderson Strategies, will handle the “compensation”; SNAP’s job is precisely not to emphasize the monetary gains to allegants, but rather to make allegants appear to be presumptively honest and accurate ‘victims’ (bethumped so cruelly by the Evil Church and Clerics, bwa-ha-haaaa!). The money matters are handled off-stage by the torties (who then, as we know, demand secrecy clauses in the almost-invariable out-of-court settlements so as to prevent any further examination whatsoever of the ‘compensation’ claims).

    And that’s how the Game has been played all along.

    And all of this is nothing more than “a ruse” to make SNAP merely look-like it is not a tool of the Church?

    And then – and yet again, as with just about all of the material in this current crop of comments – we merely get the same-old, same-old repetition of the mantra of utterly circular logic to the effect that in doubting the allegations and claims then the Church has proven itself deserving of the lawsuits because it did not simply believe the allegations and claims in the first place and fork over cash forthwith.

    And then and then – and yet again – we get the proffered idea (the 1st at 604AM) that “several of the posters here MUST be paid apologists for the Church” [giveaway exaggerated formatting retained].

    And why “must” that be? Because – it is merely asserted – “The amount of ignorance is astounding OR you know the truth and are attempting to continue to keep the faithful in the dark” [giveaway exaggerated formatting retained; correction supplied to spelling].

    We apparently need not any explanation of that mere assertion because the commenter reports himself to be “a member of SNAP”. Who – the commenter also says – has children who “go to a catholic school” [sic] and “we continue to support our faith” but “not our bishops and NOT financially” [giveaway exaggerated formatting retained]. That’s quite an attenuated form of ‘supporting’ one’s ‘faith’, but the commenter’s position on that problematic bit is “so be it”.

    We then get a truncated but predictably convenient ‘story’ to the effect that the commenter was/is also a “survivor of abuse as a child” (presumably by a cleric), and that “the local bishop was informed many, many years ago” (but not the police apparently), and that the commenter “was lied to and the priest WAS NOT removed from the ministry’ as – the commenter also says – “was promised” [giveaway exaggerated formatting retained]. In all of this we have nothing more – yet again and as so very often in this sort of thing – than a story (whose weaknesses are supposedly to be overcome by those giveaway all-caps scream-y bits).

    And then the almost-obligatory bits about the priest then going on to abuse again, etc.

    But – as so often in this sort of thing – we see a careful attention to certain specific (and conveniently self-serving) details: although this was “many, many years ago” the Church is blamed for failing its legal responsibilities to report to the police (which is a rather recent legal development). Which, neatly, distracts from the fact that although a crime was apparently committed in this story of “many, many years ago” yet nobody among the commenter’s immediate (and adult) circle thought to call the police.

    And these – tah dahhhhh! – are “the truths SNAP exposes time and time again”. But I would say that if they are “truths”, they are not demonstrably proven truths; they are merely alleged truths contained in stories told long after the (alleged) fact.  And that’s quite a substantive distinction (and one which Abuseniks and the Stampede and SNAP have done and continue to do their best to distract-from).

    We are then – in a nice rhetorical flourish – referred to “the people in my parish”. And what parish might that be, pray, if we are supposed to go out and “ask”?

    And all of this misch is what this commenter apparently uses as the basis for his initial global assertion that any who doubt SNAP “MUST be paid apologists for the church”. Using this commenter’s ‘logic’, then is it not equally possible that this commenter here and perhaps many of the Abuseniks are “paid apologists” for SNAP? Or the torties? And if the latter, then might the ‘payment’ be the ‘compensation’ provided through the out-of-court settlements engineered by the torties deploying the Anderson Strategies (in which SNAP is cast in the role of front-organization)?

    That’s the hall of mirrors to which this Abusenik and Stampede ‘logic’ inevitably leads.

    And in the final analysis we actually and still do not know “the true extent” [correction supplied] of the Catholic Abuse Matter. We have scads of stories and allegations, backed up in supposed ‘evidence’ by yet more stories and claims, but when you look carefully – what else do get?

    Ditto the point about the Bishops failing to take action: if there was no way to actually ascertain which claims were genuine and which were otherwise-classifiable (and that problem only became more acute as the Stampede got rolling and – with the possibility of big-bucks payouts – more and more allegations began to roll in), then what were Bishops supposed to do? (Short Stampede doctrine answer: presume they were all true and accurate and start writing checks to anybody who showed up at the door of the Chancery.)

    And it is all of this, I am saying, that is most certainly indeed “the crux of the crisis” – which, yes, doth continue (although not with the oomph it once enjoyed; as JR and the Songster saith: “the times they are a’changin’”).

    So –and  in this I completely agree – let the readership “decide” where there is “sheer ignorance” here [correction supplied] or – oh very much yes I do so agree – “woeful deception”.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your church has ALL the information on our cases against it. Ask THEM to tell you what's going on. You pay them, Don't you? You pay for their multi-million dollar houses. Don't you? He who pays the piper should call the tune. Don't you think?

      Make them tell you. They know it all.

  14. Delphin says:

    Perhaps SNAP can adopt for itself, and then cite for others, as the self-proclaimed 'experts' in this field, the example of the Catholic Church's successful 'fix' to the predator problem, as correctly suggested by Dr. Donahue, for the nations failing (morally, academically, financially) school system.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You see how SNAP does it's dirty work? You ask it to comment on your unraped children NOW. That's a dead end for victims. When did we victims get so "well" that we could focus for 30 years on, not what your church did to us; but on what it's not doing to children now and how well it's not doing it? Never ever help the already injured.

      I just got back from personaly f[edited by moderator]ing up a Clohessy SNAP press conference in L.A.

      I called SNAP out as a false flag operation. David was not pleased. They'll not be having press conferences in L.A. anymore. The press interviewed me and took my photo.

      I doubt my actions will do any good b ut I'm still in there swinging For all the uncompensated raped catholics you and SNAP ignore. Another perfect day in paradise.

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    David Clohessy and Joelle Castix held out their hands for me to shake. I told them to go f[edited by moderator] themselves and told the press that SNAP is a fake. I know this will go nowhere; but one day, if I'm dilligent, the truth will come out.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    It's amazing how people take you seriously if you wear the right clothes. I wore a camel hair Brooks Bros. coat It's perfect. I bought at a yard sale for $1. Hey, I was there to do business.The commie in the Brooks Bros coat. Lol!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      To the readership it was 97 degrees here today there's a few sentences that i wrote above that I can't even figure out. Please forgive me. I'll try to do better. You deserve that.

    • Delphin says:

      A camel-hair coat in 97degree heat? There are times when function trumps (or, is that 'humps') fashion.

      Did it come with the hump(s) in which to store the fluids, at least?

      I give you credit, you may not be right about whatever SNAP is (for we all know what it isn't), but, at least you are willing to get out there and do something about it.

      We'll dispatch with the 'drama' this one time, Master 'Droma'dary-


  17. kay ebeling says:

    Hi, I don't comment these days but Jim Robertson asked me to post links to some information about SNAP.  The documents in question can be seen here 

    You can find a few docs here click on the image and it enlarges

    CofA8: 2010 (PippiLeaks): Docs in SNAP Group Leaders Packet 1997 scanned here 


    Also I wrote about how SNAP tried to stop me from doing a blog and how I ended up realizing they were really from the church here.  


    AND Here:

    Where I call it "The Story that Won't Go Away" bk that's what it is.  Believe me, I did not want the story to go this way, I wanted there to really be a support network, all of us did. There never was one, there was the opposite, they worked to keep us from even finding each other in our own towns.  


    PS I don't comment anymore as it always sounds so much more snarky than anyone really means to sound, I hope…


    -kay ebeling

    • Delphin says:

      No, actually, you didn't care if there was a support network for anybody- all most of you ever cared about was exercising your antiCatholic hatred in the public square and exploiting a bad situation (rampant homosexuality, not pedophilia) in the Church for your own ideological and financial gains. You cared neither for innocent children or priests.

      And the proof is that fact that none of you victim-claimant whiners ever does a damned thing for victims anywhere, you've done nothing more than try to set up your own SNAP-like enterprises to facilitate your own dirty dealings or get your own distasteful mugs out in the media, "…because, you know, we really, really will be stars one day….".  Norma Desmond would laugh at you.

      The only difference between either/any of you and SNAP is that SNAP actually pulled off their heist (thanks to an equally unsavory and bigoted barrister-schyster) and you bigots are just a couple of jealous, dishonest and destructive wannabe's.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Norma Desmond was a murderess and she really had been a "star". Your quote: " really, really will be stars someday" Is not something I've ever said? Nor Kay nor Miss Desmond either.

      Any more words you want to put in our mouths? (At least words are a step up from what some of your clergy put in our mouths.)

  18. kay ebeling says:

    Oh, one more, the SNAP story also is dominating my blog at CofA 12

    It's inevitable, it dominates the whole thing, it's the reason people in the pews have not gotten the whole story of how bad the priests and bishops were, it's the reason the truth never got out. 

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    To the readership. Look who keeps arguing for SNAP. P and D the two most conservative voices here. What about SNAP appeals to those 2?  Love of dictatorships perhaps. A fear of democracy? Elections are for sissies?

    But I'm the red (and your former sissy), and if I'm telling you SNAP's bullshit, as far as working for victims. the majority of victims who are uncompensated. Then I have to ask you to simply trust me on this.

    And P. and D say SNAP is working for victims because of Jeff Anderson. The circut is of "logic" is complete. All doors closed. an empty circular hallway.

    Let's step out of that logic circut and ask this question: Why never ask for victims to be compensated after 30 years (or a little less)?

    How have they worked for us if they've never mentioned that?


    • Delphin says:

      Nowhere will you find "D" arguing for/on behalf of SNAP – I am on record as calling them antiCatholic leftists bigots -for which there are mounds of evidence, such as their own actions, words and deeds.

      As for the conspiracy theory that they are a front organization set up by the Church – let's see some evidence (which is really not just another e-yacker blowing unholy smoke)-

    • Delphin says:

      An interesting read from another perspective, hardly a fan of abusive priests.

      The "Circuit" is SNAP><Jeff Anderson<>Mainstream Media. Huge money-making ventures for each [corrupt] participant.

      Nothing for the victims on either side of the issue.

      Wise up, you're being 'had'-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your link above supports my theory more than yours. It makes victims look bad. Unneccessarily so. Blaine; Dorris and SNAP did that not us victims. Offering to pay reporters travel expenses! Extraordinary!

        On the other hand: Jeff Anderson is, in no way, " the richest lawyer in America". There's a lie and prejudice in that reporter's opening lines.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      D you argue for SNAP everytime you say it is; what it says it is. You authenticate it as valid. You don't agree with what SNAP says or does, obviously, but you continually authenticate SNAP as it being what it purports itself to be: The representative for victims and that it has  our complete approval.  Those last two "assertions" granted as truth by your validation; isn't the truth at all. Why not? Because we've never voted for SNAP and it's policies ever. SNAP never wants debate inside itself only obedience and therfore tacit approval of it's policies by us.

      How does that behavior "represent" our views if our views are never asked for by SNAP?

    • Delphin says:

      You are so confused; SNAP is a fraud. It doesn't work for victims and it doesn't work for the Church- how many different way must this be said before you grasp the reality of the scam and scandal that they are?

      They and Anderson (one in the same) are frauds- they lie, cheat and steal to make themselves rich- not to help real victims. That is why they need fake victims, not real ones like you. There aren't enough real victims to keep them in the money, so you threaten their gravy train. It's fake and frauds all the way- the self-proclaimed activists, the lawyers and the victims- all frauds. You didn't fit in, you were the real deal, they needed the slime that would go along with their scam.

      Is that plain enough English for you?

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    [edited by moderator]

    Look at the SNAP leaders packet Kay recieved in the "90's.

    If you have any ability to reason at all

    . Ask why SNAP has never demanded that victims be compensated.

    Add the two together and SNAP = FRAUD.

    Add you and P together D you get: Dumb and Dumber. You pick which of you is which.

    I'm going to my reunion. Where I was raped. I'll be conducting a tour of the crime scene.

    Care to join me?

    • Delphin says:

      Anyone acquainted with victims of violent crimes knows that the last thing they want to do is revisit the crime scene or relive the details of the crime- never mind would they ever refer to the entirety of such a traumatic event as a reunion where they would offer to conduct a tour.

      And, this is the lifelong trauma that was worth a cool million?

      Something is very, very off-kilter with this particular story, and storyteller-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      For what possible reason would the press or public be interested in Doyle's "attempt to oversee" the church's response? Why would such "oversight" cause a greater scandal to the church than the rape of it's own children? Doyle said that would happen. I didn't.

  21. Publion says:

    By amazing coincidence – if readers have been keeping up with comments on the three most recent TMR articles – we are now informed that – by yet another amazing coincidence – JR has been to Ephesus (yes, the St. Paul Ephesus) where – we are to believe – he visited the ancient Forum there, and then also sang to the crowd (the song about a comedy tonight, from A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To the Forum) and that his singing was well-received by the crowd. Wow.

    Moving beyond the usual questions that might be prompted by yet another amazing coincidence, I would point out that we are getting here some variant of the Argument From Locality: JR has (we are to believe) been to the one of the geographic areas historically associated with St. Paul and therefore … what? He is therefore a reliable and credible source of insight into the thought and visions of St. Paul? From what we have been told here (which, but of course, is a problem all in itself) the best that might be said is that JR has a passport and can sing and was allowed to perform. For whatever all that’s worth to any matters relevant to this site and the discussions here.

    Ditto – by yet another amazing coincidence – JR has done whatever he has (he says) recently been doing to SNAP. And he (says he) got his picture taken … and are we then to infer that having one’s picture taken makes on a reliable and credible source of insights on any given matter? But to some types of mentality the answer to these questions is apparently Yes. Thus the ketchup-stained emanations from the sun-porch are paraded in full view. And they either demonstrate a) a profound lack of self-awareness or a b) profound lack of interest and concern as to whether one is putting forward credible material or not.

    And on the 2nd at 1213PM we are yet again sleazily distracted by the assertion that “your church has all the information on our cases against it” [giveaway exaggerated formatting omitted]. But of course, i) the Church would only have the stories and claims and allegations as they were constructed and burnished and sworn-to and submitted under oath, and thus we are back to square-one yet again. And ii) the material has now been safely hidden away by the torties’ demands for post-settlement secrecy, so the information can’t be divulged.

    Neat. With the checks already cashed, the Abuseniks can now simply point to ‘evidence’ that their own attorneys have ensured is unavailable for examination and assessment. So very neat.

    Then (the 2nd, 614PM) it is now asserted that I and ‘Delphin’ are a) “conservative” (with no explanation as to how that conclusion has been reached) and b) I and ‘Delphin’ “keep[s] arguing for SNAP”. There would need to be an accurate quotation to justify that claim (but of course, no such quotation will be forthcoming because none exists and JR just made this up to have something other than the actual issues under consideration to toss up on the screen).

    Thus the rhetorical question as to what I find ‘appealing’ about SNAP fails completely. I find nothing “appealing” about SNAP, although – like Hitler’s (or more accurately Manstein’s) Sichelschnitt strategy of 1940 that conquered France in six weeks – it is an interesting example of technical strategizing.

    Then the further bit about there being no ‘democracy’ and ‘elections’ in SNAP – the relevance of which plaint has yet to be demonstrated.

    We can take what JR claims to be “telling” us and file it with the Ephesus karaoke story and all the rest of the amazing coincidences, and once again give some thought as to how credible any material coming from this source can possibly or probably be.

    I have never said that “SNAP is working for victims”. It is working for Jeff Anderson’s Strategies as both a) a front-organization and b) a reliable go-to media source for counter-Church sound-bites. Is there not a reading comprehension problem here? Or a deliberate effort to avoid uncongenial input from other commenters?

    In response – yet again – to the question as to why SNAP doesn’t ask for victim-compensation I respond yet again: if my theory of the Anderson Strategies is correct, then SNAP need not demand or ask-for any compensation because the torties can do that; SNAP’s role is precisely to distract from the meat-and-potatoes cash-grabbing by i) trying to keep up the impression that the Church is merely keeping legitimately-deserved money from allegants by ii) making sure that the allegants remain in the script only as (presumed) genuine victims of the evil Church.

    And of course, there remains as always the question as to how to determine a genuine victim from an otherwise-classifiable allegant. Which was, yet again, a problem faced from Day One by each and every Bishop when trying to assess the ‘stories’ and claims and so on.

    Therefore also, finally, the question as to how SNAP has “worked for” the allegants fails because I have never said that SNAP does work-for them. SNAP works for the torties, and ‘victims’ count only as pawns in the great deep-pockets piñata game that is the functional core of the Abuse Matter as it has evolved.

    In regard to the comment of the 2nd at 859PM: kewt, but what I am still waiting-for is the documentary evidence that the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa were somehow involved in the formal erection of SNAP as a tax-exempt organization of some-sort. Which evidence – if it exists – would then have to be assessed in terms of the further problem of establishing that the Church therefore created SNAP.

     (Readers will recall that my theory is that Doyle, at the very best, used the Sisters’ tax-exempt status to set up an organization for himself (which became SNAP), and that such an organization still achieved little until – as D’Antonio has discussed at length – Anderson reached out to Blaine, made her an offer she chose not to refuse, and both she and Doyle have done rather well by that Anderson-phase incarnation of SNAP.)

    That’s what “P” is still waiting-for.

    Lastly, if some readers have noticed a certain repetitiveness in JR’s comments, I would say we have finally exhausted the 3×5 talking-points file in the shoebox, and thus now – no matter where the discussion on this site might go – we are merely going to get those same talking-points from those same mental 3×5 cards, gussied up as any particular occasion might demand by the various types of diversion from the Playbook.

    But that was the brilliance of the Anderson Strategy in terms of the nature of internet commenting: all manner of types can be reliably expected to come up to the surface and squirt their anti-Church, pro-Abusenik and pro-Stampede ink (or pixels), and Anderson and the other torties don’t have to risk being actually associated with them and their eructations at all.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    There was a victim He was/is one of the SNAP players, (his name will come to me. It was his roommate in college who was the former San Diego Padres chicken, who was Snap's first motivational speaker at SNAP's first conference), who told the story of his settleing in the '80's or 90's and how he was given a catholic lawyer. Who told him to settle etc. He said he later felt he'd been surrounde by catholics, his parents; the lawyer; himself .

    Well how do we know Jeff Anderson isn't just another catholic lawyer like that? All he would need do is find a Barbra who was set up by the Dominicans, fr. Tom Doyle's a Dominican, start funding SNAP and have access to many many victims.

    All of the people I just mentioned could be absolutely ignorant of how they were set up. All but Tom Doyle had their own career needs. they Blaine and Clohessy are  both younger  than your average victims by 15 + years. Clohessy has a young family to raise;Terry McKiernan also had a young family to support. It's all possible. The big issue is how and why; who sets SNAP's policies PR wise. How does SNAP conclude that what it does is the best for victims? Who influences and sets those policies? If we are back at Jeff Andeson and Tom Doyle again; why should victims believe those 2 people? Doyle inparticular, We know Anderson's a tort attorney his job is getting max for his clients, he has no interest in the church but Tom Doyle does.

    And since he refers to the creation of the "Project' ( secret committees to manipulate victims and our families) in his paper to the American bishops; fr. Tom Doyle's the lynch pin. Anderson Blain Clohessy could all be ignorant pawns in Tom Doyle's schemes. And since Doyle himself writes that if the Project is "discovered" the church would have a bigger scandal than it already has, says it all. Particularly when it was just at this time. Doyle who'd been in charge of victims cases for many years at the vatican embassy in D.C., gets "religion" and decides to start working "for survivors". Instead of against us? Which is what he infers by his big "conversion" to help us. Add to that the fact there is no democracy inside or around SNAP and you have the black opp, false flagged, successful counter intelligence effort that it is today and has been for the past 30 years.

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    Victims have no need to attack your church. the very fact we were raped as children in your church and we speak out about it publicly is to be construed as an attack on catholicism? Maybe to you on the right that's an "attack' but to us who the rapes happened to it's a telling of the truth. SNAP's the one whose policies underline conflict. Victims just want their due. And if SNAP has had only the same couple of political policies for 30 years with no victims input. Why would they do that? Jeff Andeson's our hired hand, easily replaced yet SNAP treated us like we were their hired hands. Just the way the church has always treated the people of god.IMO

  24. Publion says:

    What useful can be gleaned from the comment of the 3rd at 1208PM?

    We can note yet again the manipulative Playbook scam of only pointing out the conclusion we are expected to reach (“Look at” that packet and you will realize that “Snap = Fraud”), without any effort to explain any of the reasoning (such as it may have been) as to how such a conclusion might justifiably be reached and asserted.

    And is this not typical SNAP-style manipulation? The talking-points are not designed to invite analysis but rather are merely tailored to manipulate readers/hearers to the single SNAP-desired conclusion.

    Which fundamental weakness is only rendered more vivid by the realization that the problem under discussion on this site is not a) that Snap is not-fraudulent but rather the issue under discussion here is b) that SNAP is a fraudulent front for the torties and the Stampede, and not a tool of the Church.

    Thus we are simply getting yet and yet again the same-old talking-points off the same-old 3×5 card.

    But the whole set-up (seeking to mimic intelligently logical thought process) then serves rhetorically to introduce the ketchup-stained “dumb and dumber” bit.

    Followed by yet another attempt to mimic intelligent conclusions by offering readers the (fake) choice to which JR’s ‘logic’ has manipulated them.

    Then the queasily histrionic concluding flourish: JR is (yet again) “off to [his] reunion” (apparently the high-school one, and not the reunion of the Ephesus ‘happening’ bunch). And then the waving of the rape-shirt.

    But at this point I would certainly agree with JR that whatever he might point out on his “tour” is indeed somehow connected to an actual crime scene. We only differ on what the crime was and who committed it.

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    Somewhere [Delphin - ed.] mocks my ability to return to the scene of the crimes commited against me in high school.

    I went to show I'm alive.

    I went to show that the shame of those crimes of rape did not belong to me. Shame belongs to the perpetrators of rape never to the victims.

    I went to see old friends. I didn't choose the location of the reunion. Buildings don't scare me. People do.

    Particularly religious fanatics who are so blind that they deny truth so that they might maintain mystical fantasy.

    It scares me that you maintain year after year your love of god or your church to be more important than your own raped children. That's not love that's being an accomplice to rape and the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.  J.C. should come back and kick you lot out of the temple.


  26. Publion says:

    And now what do we get?

    On the 4th at 1051AM we simply get another story.

    And what is the story? That somebody settled at some point, and was advised on how to do it by a “catholic lawyer” [sic] and he did settle (meaning: he got a check) and then he went to a SNAP get-together and said “he felt he’d been surrounded by catholics” … including “his parents; the lawyer” and – waitttt forrrr ittttt – “himself”. Surrounded by himself … there’s one to ponder.

    Apparently we are to infer that anybody advised to settle before the Anderson Strategies took their intended effect was somehow bamboozled (since once the Anderson Strategies took effect, then – say – a 12 thousand-dollar claim suddenly became a million-dollar claim).

    And then we are proffered the idea that Jeff Anderson is “just another catholic lawyer like that”. Like what? And of what significance is Anderson’s baptismal status? Are we to presume that simply because he was baptized into the Church then Anderson is an agent of the Church?

    But then JR simply points out in a general sort of way precisely the basic dynamics of the Anderson/SNAP axis according to my theory, i.e. that Anderson made SNAP an offer it chose not to refuse, and thus SNAP became the front organization for the torties. The (still-undemonstrated) Sinsinawa connection, and the Doyle connection, are purely secondary and irrelevant to the basic dynamics of SNAP making itself into i) a front for the torties and ii) a reliable media source for the Stampede.

    But surely, Blaine could not have been “absolutely ignorant of how they were set up”; D’Antonio’s book (hardly, we recall, friendly to the Church and also very SNAP-friendly) describes the meeting between Blaine and Anderson and the plans that evolved out of that meeting. And if Doyle (who, we recall, authored the hardly un-insightful 1985 paper submitted to the Bishops) was “absolutely ignorant” then he cannot also be considered to be as crafty and shrewd as some have tried to characterize him.

    As for the “it’s all possible” bit: just about anything is possible, but the key question is whether it is probable. It’s hardly sufficient theorizing to simply come up with a possible sequence and then call it a good day’s work.

    And as for the question “why should victims believe those 2 people?” (i.e. Doyle and Anderson): one hardly improbable reason for allegants engaging their services (we can leave the distracting and irrelevant ‘belief’ bit out of it) is that the allegants knew exactly what they were looking for and what the Anderson/SNAP axis might well provide for them … i.e. cash.

    Which also explains why almost without exception  there are no paid-allegants who then took to the hustings on behalf of ‘victims’: they had gotten what they had set out to get and once the checks were cashed they really weren’t interested in drawing any more attention to their material and stories and claims. (All of which has been discussed on this site before.)

    And how corroborate the assertion that Doyle is “interested in the Church” at this point? Or is this just a necessary bit of fantasy that JR has to insert here in order to make the particular pile of blocks he has in mind?

    And as was demonstrated clearly in comments on this site at the time we considered it, we saw from the text of the 1985 Report itself that “the Project” was Doyle’s short-hand for having his team assigned as a master steering-committee to organize the Bishops’ approach to the problems Doyle and his collaborators outlined. “Secret” and “manipulate” do not appear in the text nor is Doyle’s vision as outlined in his paper in any way characterizable as such.

    But perhaps JR would care to quote from the text of the Report in order to support his assertions here. Then we could go on from there. The Sinsinawa ‘evidence’ might also be provided.

    As for the rest of JR’s arranging his little blocks just so, and you have here something far less than a coherently-reasoned theory of the subject, and instead have some stitched-together Frankenstein sort of theory comprised of whatever odd bits and pieces necessary to make the ‘logic’ come out just the way the Abuseniks want it to come out.

    As for the comment of the 4th at 1100AM: by claiming that they were “raped” (genuine or otherwise; and however the word is defined) then Abuseniks willy-nilly wind up ‘attacking’ the Church since it is the Church that (allegedly) enabled and covered-up the perpetrations of its ‘rapist’ priests.

    To which with a number of Abusenik commenters on this site we can add the voluminously verified additional forays into the various allegedly fundamental problems with Catholic theology, organization, philosophy, morality, and fill-in-the-blank. So the Goody-Two-Shoes claim in this comment fails on its face.

    And once again we are bethumped with the attempt to characterize non-Abuseniks as somehow being “on the right” (as if Abuseniks were merely some variant of ‘liberal Catholics’ or ‘lefty Catholics’).

    And as for – yet again – the same 3×5 bit about “Victims just want their due”: we clearly have to first establish the validity of their claimed ‘victimhood’ and then figure what indeed they are “due”. Or is there some problem with this approach?

    And yet again: b) what “input” is there and a) from what ‘victims’? Because we have heard time and again a) that ‘victims’ have not come forward in any forum (including the promiscuously receptive internet) to explain any “input” they might have and b) that not even JR knows what they might want. So this whole bit demonstrates itself to be nothing more than JR having a pillow-fight with his own phantasms and imaginings and then expecting us to feel responsible for this spectacle.

    Anderson’s Strategies cannot be “easily replaced” – they were the core enabling dynamics that drove the mechanics of the Stampede that netted so very few so much money, and with just about zero risk of being deeply analyzed and assessed.

    Among which bits of that strategic package we must include this marvelously sleazy bit: if a Bishop paid, then that was to be construed as outright admission of guilt and of the utter veracity of the allegations; if a Bishop did not immediately fork over cash, then that was to be construed as prima facie evidence of criminal cover-up and grossly immoral refusal to give “victims” their “due”. So very very neat.

    And also among those bits of that strategic package we must include the creation or harnessing of an atmosphere or milieu in which the old ‘dog ate my homework’ excuse – known from time immemorial to teachers as one of the oldest excuses in the book – went a) from being an obviously laughable fabrication to cover the lack of an actual homework assignment to turn in to b) being a presumptively veracious report on the actual events leading up to not-having a homework assignment to turn-in, and further that c) any attempt by the teacher to inquire if the student actually owned a dog was considered criminally insensitive and an outrageous violation of charity and morality and ethics and fill-in-the-blank.

    And here we are.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why if Doyle is so anticlerical has he not resigned from the priesthood?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      For what possible reason would the public and the press be interested in Doyle's attempt to oversee the crises for the bishops, according to you?

      Doyle wrote that if the Project were known to the outside; it would cause a bigger scandal than the child rapes. Ambition to "oversee" something resulting in a bigger scandal than child rape? That makes no sense. Explain please.

    • Delphin says:

      It appears as though we're approaching the event horizon of the black hole of logic here now…

  27. LDB says:

    Casey Egan @irishcentral May 05,2014 wrote:

    Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, who is heading the Vatican’s newly formed commission for the protection of minors, has said the church itself must take responsibility for fostering a safe environment for children around the world.

    "Many don’t see it as a problem of the universal church," he said at a press conference following the commission’s inaugural meeting in Vatican City over the weekend.

    "In many people’s minds it is an American problem, an Irish problem or a German problem,” he said.

    "The church has to face it is everywhere in the world. There is so much denial. The church has to respond to make the church safe for children."

          Notice O'Malley's use the present tense. The church higher-ups will admit much more than those in this discussion forum ever will. That is amazing to say. That such a world-wide problem, so uniformly dealt with, was brought about by the strategies of one scheming MN lawyer, Mr. Anderson. Neat.

    • Delphin says:

      Because, Egan continues (with a link, because, you know, context matters):

      "One of the long-term aims is to advise Pope Francis on “clear and effective” protocols for holding church officials who failed to report confirmed or suspected cases of abuse accountable for their silence.

      “The protocols will address everyone [in the church] and will provide clear ways of dealing with those who perpetrate the abuse, and those who were negligent in protecting children,” O’Malley announced, adding that “Accountability should not be dependent on the legal obligations of a country, but upon moral considerations.”

      “The commission wants to make sure that in the future, the issue of child abuse will be addressed worldwide, not patchily, and adhering to the highest standards,” Collins said.

      "It is only the very beginning but the way we started out is very hopeful for the future and for the sort of change I and others have also called for in the past," she told the Irish Independent.

      Even Neater.

      Read more:
      Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

    • malcolm harris says:

      Responding on LDB's comment of the 8th May. He quotes Cardinal Sean O'Malley, re the Vatican's newly formed commission for the protection of minors. LDB artfully uses the Cardinal's words to try to prove two things. Firstly that it is admission of guilt, and secondly an admission that it is still going on. Very clever. But then the entire Abuse Matter has been grotesquely exagerated with such tactics. And facilitated by a complicit mainstream media.

      Personally have long been concerned that the hierachy have not chosen their words more carefully when making public pronouncements. They seem to be apologizing all the time?. That's the take I personally get… and imagine that the secular world also takes it that way. So in the context of the Abuseniks making horrific accusations, of widespread abuse, the official response of concern and deep sympathy is interpreted as an admission of guilt. People like Barbara Blaine would simply trumpet … 'there you are…they are admitting it" This is a no-win situation for the hierachy. Because if they  simply said what I personally would say.."Anybody who alleges criminal behavior should go straight to the  police…. that's how our justice system works"  The detractors would accuse the Church of callous insensitivity and covering up for child abusers… know the usual playbook pattern.

      So I really do appreciate how difficult it is for the hierachy to make a public announcement, knowing whatever is said will be twisted into something negative, and used against them.


  28. Publion says:

    On the 4th at 1125AM we once again see the bit that if some X is ‘making victims look bad’ then that outcome constitutes some sort of indubitable evidence that the Church must somehow be behind X. But if some X results in victims (however defined) looking bad, then – as I have said – there remains the hardly improbable explanation that they wind up looking bad because the problems inherent in victim-y positions or stories or allegations or claims would of themselves result in the victims (however defined) looking bad.

    We are then informed that it is “a lie” (and – somehow – “prejudice”) to say that Jeff Anderson is the wealthiest lawyer in the country. That statement implies rather clearly that JR knows who “the richest lawyer in America” actually is. And who might that be?

    Then (the 6th, 1259PM) the many-named and many-Wigged ‘LDB’ drives-by.

    Quoting several press-conference statements by Cardinal O’Malley (the head of the new Vatican Commission on sexual abuse of minors), LDB is apparently happy to the point of giggles that O’Malley uses the present tense to describe the Church’s taking responsibility for what is “a problem of the universal Church” [the text as given or the text as quoted uses a small-c].

    But the same material LDB quotes also notes that what O’Malley actually said was that “the Church itself must take responsibility for fostering a safe environment for children around the world”. [italics mine] Thus what the Church is taking responsibility for, now and – as they like to say nowadays – ‘going forward’, is the Church taking responsibility for – not to put too fine a point on it – “fostering a safe environment for children around the world”. [italics mine]

    Which statement by the Cardinal does not at all merely constitute a cave-in to the panoply of Abusenik Stampede fever-visions. As one reads the phrasing, one may realize that what the Pope – as O’Malley implies – envisions goes far beyond anything in the churn-y fever-swamp we know as Abusenik-land.

    And I have no doubt that there are many Catholics – lay and hierarchs – who might not imagine so vast a task being part of the Church’s policy portfolio, but the Pope is now letting everybody know that it is.

    Within that portfolio, “making the Church safe for children” is a part – and it is hardly a part in which the Church has achieved nothing, especially in the past dozen years.

    (In this regard I myself wonder if O’Malley isn’t giving too much away – as the hierarchy has so often done during the decades of the Stampede. One of the members of his Commission said that she “found difficulty” with the Pope’s March statement that the Church had done “perhaps more than anyone” to “solve the problem of sex abuse”. If she, or anybody else, can name another organization on the planet that has done more in recent years or at any time, then let them identify that organization specifically and demonstrate how they’ve reached their conclusion. )

    Readers can have a look at the following link for further

    The Pope is taking the Church squarely into the world-wide problem of sex-abuse of children, where it has existed for time immemorial. This is indeed major news and we can thank LDB for raising the point.

    In fact, I think that the Pope might be going further than O’Malley himself might grasp or wish to more explicitly state, although it is also possible that he has been selectively quoted and I haven’t seen a verified and full transcript of his remarks. And if O’Malley has so far got a Commission membership that is Western-heavy (he himself is from Boston, ground-zero of the 2002 phase of the Stampede), then it is going to be Stampede-focused, since the combined strategies and synergistic elements of the Stampede really have only gained traction in Western or Western-influenced countries (which is probably a very interesting research topic itself).

    Thus then – and deliciously – we now have LDB praising the Roman Catholic hierarchy. But as always, never trust Abuseniks bearing gifts: LDB is simply using the hierarchy as a set-up foil against “those in this discussion forum”. And, clearly, he misread the actual meaning of that “world-wide problem”, even from the material he himself selected for quotation here. Nothing new there though.

    Nor is there anything new with the not-quite-sensical (but signature) Parthian shot so favored by this commenter: somehow he is trying to set up his blocks so that they will support the zinger that somehow connects all of this to the Anderson Strategies.

    What to say?

    First, Anderson has proven himself a tremendously adept opportunist, having put together a dynamic and synergistic strategic package that took advantage of numerous developments and elements – legal, legislative, pop-psychological, media, among others – in American society in that era. He shrewdly saw what Doyle’s team had also seen in 1985 – especially the tort aspects – and figured out a comprehensive approach that could combine elements and then surf the ‘waves’ those combinations created. He is to torties what Manstein was to strategists (and he fails – as did Manstein – through the cause in the service of which he deployed his gifts). And I have said all this before in comments here.

    Second, the “problem” is not only “world-wide” but also non-specific to the Church, so the entire Anderson gambit is not so much derailed here as it is placed on the wrong track to begin-with.

    Third, to the extent (and I would say that such an extent is not small) that the Catholic Abuse ‘problem’ is one of propagandistic manipulation of spin and appearances in the service of the trusty old disability-claim strategy (wherein Anderson has excelled), then Anderson’s Strategies have indeed created the ‘Problem’ and constitute the (or ‘a’) Problem in and of themselves, distinct from whatever individual-cleric sex-abuse problem the Church might have (which I say would be far far smaller a problem than the Problem created by Anderson’s Strategies).

    And so – and once again – we see this commenter’s remarkably sustained tendency to shoot his own horse out from under himself in the effort to deliver a really zingy parting shot. I hope Cardinal O’Malley doesn’t fall into such bad habits.

  29. Publion says:

    On the 7th at 1047AM JR asks me why the still-Father Doyle hasn’t yet resigned from the priesthood. From what we have seen in prior comments from JR, one would think he knew a great deal about Doyle’s thoughts and plans. But apparently not.

    I have no special information as to why the still-Father is still a priest. My own surmise would be that there is some advantage in it for him: perhaps he figures that it will better serve his purposes if he can somehow goad the Vatican to take punitive action against him rather than simply seeking laicization himself; perhaps the fact that he is still a priest serves his status in the Stampede; perhaps there is some financial angle for him.

    I don’t know so I won’t make assertions.

    But I can easily see where his refusing to voluntarily remove himself from the priesthood would serve any “anticlerical” attitude he might have: he’s going to make the Church do any heavy-lifting involved.

    And in regard to the comment of the 7th at 1102AM: where did I ever discuss or raise the topic of “the public and the press [being] interested in Doyle’s attempt to oversee the crises for the bishops”? Doyle began in 1985 hoping to secure a role for himself and his co-authors; he was playing-to the Bishops, not “the public and the press”. It was only after that avenue to his ambitions was closed, I would say, that he took himself elsewhere and pursued other avenues toward his objective.

    Could we get an accurate quote as to what Doyle “wrote” about the Project? Perhaps that will save time and keep things from getting too far from actuality.

    But if Doyle and his tortie associate and the psychologist associate all saw that the makings were in place for starting a very negative and well-managed negative PR campaign, and if Doyle knew how few genuine “rapes” there actually were, then any purported comment by him to the effect that the potential negative PR campaign could cause more damage than the (few genuine) “child rapes” would surely make sense. And if that was indeed his thinking, then I think it is clear by this point that he was accurate in his assessment of how things could go: a very-few actual “rapes” yet resulted in the Stampede as it has expanded and mutated over the years.

    As to the question of Doyle’s “ambition”: clearly his “ambition”  at the outset in 1985 would have been to help prevent such a PR bubble from gaining traction and expanding and  thus he would have been interested in preventing what I have called the Stampede. It was only after he was refused the chance to fulfill that ambition that he turned from the Bishops and the Church and took himself elsewhere.

    And that would make a great deal of sense.

  30. Jim Robertson says:

    I ask the readership to note. P has answered none of my questions regarding Doyle's demand for secrecy around his "Project" from the bishops. P can not explain why supposedly the major canonical lawyer in the U.S. vatican embassy would be frightened about the public or media finding out about his plans. his personal ambition wouldn't explain a "bigger scandal than the church already had". Answer me, P.

    • Delphin says:

      What 'the readership notes' is that Publion goes thru e-reams of e-paper attempting to first, unravel your convoluted queries and theories, restate them in English, and then respond to them, logically and honestly. Your 'contributions' get far, far more respect than is deserved, or that you give to others' comments.

      What else 'the readership notes' is that you and others just like you never, ever answer anyone's questions and only use any of our comments as a springboard from which to launch your never-ending attacks on Catholics.

      In response to your request, so far as this particular member of 'the readership' is concerned, your exchanges with most commenters here, and Publion, specifically, are duly noted.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! LMFAO! E paper? 

      Respect? That's what you call your response to my posts? Respect!!!! Just answer the questions posed. Can you? What question haven't I answered?

      Here's one i did forget to answer: I had two perps, one brother who when I was 13 rubbed our laps with his forearm over our clothes but also over our genitals in front of the entifre class.; when he wasn't hurling erasers and pieces of chalk at our heads. Or throwing us and our desks over or throwing people and their desks into the hall. The other abuser was my chem teacher. Who I've told you about. That was at 16.

  31. Publion says:

    And now for something completely different (as Monty Python used to intone, when rolling up the sleeves to delve into some fresh new whackery): On the 8th at 1217PM JR tries on a new Wig altogether: the frustrated, competent, and inquiring intellectual intelligence just trying to get some honest answers to his competently-formulated and competently-expressed questions.

    And he appeals to “the readership” to boot – this readership that is comprised mostly of “immoral” types, in his own words. That rattle you hear is not in your front-end shock-absorbers; it’s an Abusenik approaching you with a respectful tug of the forelock with his left hand while his right is behind is back.

    First, I asked JR to provide the actual quotations from Doyle having to do with the “secrecy” bit so that we can see what we are actually working-with here, and avoid simply pillow-wrestling with somebody’s phantasms. So far (and this is something  I also asked-for quite a while ago when we were discussing the Doyle Report and related issues at length here) there has been no production of the actual material JR is working-from, and that has been holding things up. Still waiting, then.

    Second, and consequently, all the rest of this remarkably grammatical comment of 1217PM also fails, since it too is based on material the actual text of which we are still awaiting in order to conduct a proper analysis. Still waiting, then.

    And now – as the clinicians say – for a moment on ‘process’: readers may have noticed recently the rather wide and specific range of JR’s comments in terms of style and level of conceptualization. From a) the primitive and adolescent cognitive processing and grammatical difficulties  which have pretty much come to define him here to b) the (often multi-paragraphed) conceptually more evolved and certainly grammatically less fraught bits such as this one of 1217PM.

    This is an odd spectrum for an individual. If one is capable of the far less fraught performance we see in type (b), then why waste any time at all with the embarrassingly fraught style of type (a)? And if one doesn’t see the difference between (a) and (b), then how account for such a discrepancy as exists between them, such that the same mind can unconsciously at one time produce an (a) type comment and at another time a (b) type comment? And if one does see the difference between them, then – as I said – why deliberately embarrass oneself and abuse readers with the level of material in (a)?

    The only solution I can see is that there is not one individual mind behind the different types of comment, (a) and (b). If you get my drift.

    Not that it makes any difference to matters here on this site. Abusenik mentation – at any level – is always interesting to examine. It is the stuff, after all, upon which Anderson’s Strategies count to keep up the fogbank of victim-y mist behind which the machinery of cash-getting is industriously clanking and chomping away.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If you can't bother to do any work AT ALL on this, then don't pretend I haven't told you where to look. It's on page 91 or 93 of Doyle, Sipes and Wall's book.  Priests; Sex and Secrets or some such title. If there's any fog bank here it's you and your imaginary everything.

      [edited by moderator]

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    I don't have to proove anything to [edited by moderator]. Read Doyle's entire report to the American Catholic Bishops. It's all in black and white. [edited by moderator]

  33. Publion says:

    What I want to do here is point out how the proffering of substantiating or corroborating material works, since I get the impression that concept is not quite clear.

    First, one makes an assertion or claim. Second, one then provides a clearly identifiable source (by link, by quotation, or – best – by both) for the material upon which one relied in making the assertion. Then third,  one explains how one sees the assertion i) being connected to the material and ii) sufficiently demonstrative of the assertion one has made.

    Then one waits for responses or comments or questions or objections from others and things proceed in a back-and-forth from there.

    One does not simply a) make an assertion without corroboration or b) offer only vaguely described supportive material and then expect that one has done the job.

    This is how sustained dialog is done among persons trying to examine an issue.

    This is not what one sees in many areas of the internet where some people simply toss off immediate feelings and/or assertions and leave it at that. One does see efforts to manipulate people’s responses by simply putting out one’s assertions and trying to somehow either induce people to think that there is no other position to be held on the matter, or trying to distract people from actually conducting any systematic questioning or analysis at all.

    Now, then, to the comments of the 8th at 730PM and 732PM.

    First, no reference to any book authored by Doyle and Sipe and Wall was initially made.

    Second, there is no title and I am not even sure that all three corroborated on one single book (but knowing the title would solve that problem).

    Third, until the title of the book is clear, then the page-references are not going to be useful.

    Fourth, none of the follow-on work I outlined above has been done: there is no explanation – with accurate quotations from the proffered source book – as to just how one sees the material in the book supporting the original assertion.

    Fifth, we then see the added distraction of insinuating that readers who demand that much ‘work’ from a commenter or assertion-maker are actually only trying to avoid doing any work themselves. The readers’ work begins when the asserter has done all the work above, and the readers then have to consider and reflect on what has been presented to them. But the readers’ work cannot properly begin until the assertion-maker has done his/her work first.

    I would also add that since in this case the assertion-maker has such a vague knowledge of even the title of the book which is supposed to be the definitive source and support for his original assertion, then it doesn’t lead one to have a lot of confidence in the basic credibility of the assertion-maker.

    But then (the 8th at 732PM) we are informed by the assertion-maker that he doesn’t “have to prove anything”. To which I would say: a) he does have to provide what he thinks is the reasoning by which he came to make the assertion from the material to which he (vaguely) referred and b) if he can’t or doesn’t feel he has-to do such explanatory work, then why bother to bother anybody with the original assertion in the first place? (There are several possible answers but no need to speculate at this point.)

    Then we are simply advised to “read Doyle’s entire report to the American Catholic Bishops” (uncharacteristically capitalized here). That is not a reference in any usable sense. There is a lot of “black and white” there but what is required here is reference to the actual and specific bits of “black and white” that are relevant to the original assertion. And that is precisely what I had previously asked JR to provide.

    “It’s all in black and white” doesn’t really do much for the process at all here. It is the equivalent of turning in a book report consisting merely of the text ‘Dostoevsky was a jerk and you can read his book about Brothers-something and it’s all in there in black and white and it’s not my job to do any more of your work for you’.

    And pages 91 and 93 of Sipe’s 1995 book Sex, Priests and Power deal with psychology, sexuality and celibacy and say nothing whatsoever about “secrecy” and the Doyle Report.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator] Did I say it was Sipes book? No.

      It's Doyle's Sipes and Walls book. Or if you bother to get Doyle's report it's there.

      I'll stand on my word.

      I'm not going to bother to provide info for you to mock. It's there you find it. Teach. what did the dog eat your homework?

    • josie says:

      The book is titled "Sex, Priests and Secret Codes" and lists Doyle, Sipe and Wall as authors-it contains the Doyle-Mouton-Peterson 100 page 1985 report/ "project". I do not have the book-  but did view some of the pages. Pg 93 just says that copies were sent to the bishops and that there was no significant response from them. Pg 91 is not shown on

  34. Delphin says:
    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm not going to do your work for you period. it's your resposibility as a catholic apologist to examine any criticism a victim has to offer you. particularly me. And in this case to believe me just because I say so.  That's exactly correct: Just Because I Say So.

      Do you actually "think' I'd waste 2 years here for a fantasy. I've read it. It exists. I gave you the info before. You didn't bother to look then.  Why do anything to help you now. [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You usually see crowds that large at football games or larger ones in Hindu ceremonies in india. Does that mean Shiva and Vishnu are real?

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    Thank you Josie. That's the book. I may have the page wrong. I suggest you ask your library to get it for you. I have no interest in making the not so good father more dough. I and another SNAP non fan, had the info up at a site that no longer exists. Not an excuse just a fact. But Josie can did a little work.Again thank you Josie. P can not or will not. Do I think  he'd admit it if he was wrong about anything? Never.

    I know i got some info from old Link Up News Letters put out by, the now dead, Fr. Tom Econimus. Available at Kay Eblings site.

  36. Jim Robertson says:

    SNAP's "leftist agenda"????  What leftist agenda?  Maybe SNAP has a "gay agenda" I've missed as well. You have some proof or is this just a another matter of "faith" ?

  37. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's the info It was page 80 Mea culpa y'all. :^)

  38. Publion says:

    ~And so somebody else here has had to do the work of finding the title of the book JR seems to think proves everything he says it does, although even he can’t remember its title or the specific material  and – reaching for the sublime – doesn’t seem to think he needs to.

    And – achieving the sublime – cawn’t think why anybody else would think he needed to.
    And even then, the pages mentioned in the now-identified book don’t actually work to support any assertion under discussion here.

    But we do get an excuse, and neatly wrapped up in an epithet: since the questioners are “apologists” for the Church then JR feels under no obligation to support or explain whatever assertions he chooses to make.

    Neat. It occurs to me that if he had ever spent half the time on acquiring cognitive skills that he spent (and spends) on making excuses, then things might have turned out differently. But I doubt this is an observation that has never been made before.

    As for the Argument-from-Why-Else: the possibilities for why someone would do so are hardly exhausted by the ‘heroic’ possibility.

    More relevant to our purposes here however is the clear demonstration of a) the absolute necessity for the Playbook to avoid, by hook or by crook (as used to be said)  any actual analysis and discussion of the stories and claims and assertions and allegations that constitute the non-substantive and gaseous core of the Stampede and the Catholic Abuse Matter.

    And b) the brilliance of the Anderson Strategies in luring to the surface the type of bottom-dwelling types who can put forward the type of stuff we have just seen and feel like they’ve done a good day’s work for the Cause.

    And for somebody who has made such cocksure assertions, not one single suggestion for relevant material from the text of the Doyle report is made. Or perhaps can be made.

    Has JR actually read the Doyle report (about which he can’t seem to recall any specific parts or arguments)? I don’t think he has. But then – when you come right down to it – why should he care?
    And more to the point: why should we?

  39. Publion says:

    And – but yet once again – it's not about anybody's "word", let alone trying to stand on it. This is not a belief-bout but rather – again – an effort to examine information and material in the physical realm (rather than positing belief in the non-physical or the metaphysical realm).

    Thus nobody's "word" is at issue; rather, what is at issue is the material they put forward and the evidence or corroborative information and their own explanation as how they see all that hanging together.

    Further, reducing all of this to nothing but 'belief' simply provides anybody making the belief claim a sempiternal opportunity to claim victimhood: I put myself out there to be believed; I was not believed; therefore I am a victim.

    Rather than: I put assertions up without corroborative sourcing, without explication of my thinking, and even without being able to recall the putatively vital sourcing for my assertion; people raised questions; therefore I have to improve my skills in this area before I do more of this stuff.


  40. Jim Robertson says:

    May i say, It isn't what's said it's what's inferred in the report. Any fool knows You report a suspected felony to the police. particularly if you are a mandated reporter. Cops; Teachers; Shrinks etc. You do not write a paper as to how to "handle' circumstances or what would be the best thing to do for the church and the perps. The victims are given very short shrift in deed. Why it's almost like we are not even there (SOS)

    . And this is the priest who had a conversion to work for victims? The same guy who writes a paper which is all and 99% only about protecting the church. And obviously keeping things secret. Because 4 bishops would be in charge on the down low on the q.t. and they would not have to report to the other bishops on what they were "up" to unless they wanted to obtain more funding for secret committees. Where is "open and transparent" in any of this? American bishops can dial a phone and let the cops in on the claimed crimes but no they should be busy establishing committees according to Doyle. Those committees and funds aren't for the protection of victims are they? Oh hell no! Per usual the church protects it self first formost and always. Screw the victims. Oh you can say the bishops did not implement Doyle's plan. That's what they "say" but why believe them. They can lie, under god's protection, to save the church from scandal. They claimed the church to be"open and transparent". I believe my eyes not my ears.

    And then Doyle is purportedly "punished' for this paper!!!! For what possible reason would this paen to [edited by moderator] demand punishment for it's author?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But I had and have corroborative sources for my own rape and for the SNAP false flag black opp.

      Dave you edit out the word I invented in my last paragraph May 11 at 12:54 am? The word "[edited by moderator]"? How about "brown noseing"?

  41. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment of the 11th at 1254PM:

    Alas, it is what is said in any document (Doyle’s report, in this case) and not “what’s inferred”.

    Because a) unless one has an actual (and accurately-quoted) statement then one has no corroborative support for one’s assertion(s) and indeed one has no way of demonstrating that the issue prompted by the (accurately) quoted statement actually exists.

    And because b) inferring is not something that the text does; rather, inferring is something the reader does. It is the reader who infers something from a text that is not actually clearly obvious from the text itself. Which brings us right back to the analysis and assessment tasks. Especially: does the asserter rationally and logically infer something from the text upon which s/he bases the assertion(s)?

    Yes, one reports a suspected felony to the police (although how very very very often that was not done by persons allegedly victimized in the Catholic Abuse stories; the neat Stampede sleight-of-hand is that it was the Bishops’ job to report to the police, but that isn’t – as JR notes – how it works in reporting alleged felonies). But then it is the job of the police to analyze and assess (in the police forum the term would be ‘investigate’) the alleged claim of a felony to see if it is a valid report (i.e. of an felony that actually occurred) and not just a story.

    It is only recently that ‘mandated reporters’ have been legislatively constructed in sexual-abuse matters, upon whom formal legal responsibility is imposed to ‘report’ or at least pass on their suspicions to the police.

    And if Doyle did not ‘report’ any such allegations to the police, it may also be that Doyle had no direct knowledge of any such alleged events. As I have said, while it is certainly possible to accept in a general and abstract way that some X-crime exists somewhere out there in the world (and particular instances of just about any crime-X probably exist somewhere out there in the world), it is another thing entirely to establish (through proper analysis and assessment and investigation) if any particular person ‘A’ is actually legally guilty of crime-X.

    So then – in this scenario in the above paragraph – Doyle would have nothing to actually report to the police; he would merely have a general concept that crime-X probably exists out there somewhere. And to which specific police department would he then make such a ‘report’?

    And what would – especially decades ago – any such specific police department then do? It is only in the post-1980s period that victimist changes to law and law enforcement practices established the policy that W-said/Y-said crimes, and the more incredible the more presumptively accurate, could still be investigated (as we saw in the Michigan protocols discussed here on a previous thread).

    And Doyle was not a “mandated reporter” in 1985 and so “writing a paper” was not an evasion or failure-to-perform some legal responsibility. This is the logical-and-historical-methodology problem of presuming to assess actions from a prior historical era by the standards of a later historical era.

    Thus it is not that “the victims” (however defined) “are not even there”; it is rather that there was no legal way for third-parties (with perhaps only hearsay ‘evidence’) to make an effective intervention (upon which a police agency could/would then act).

    Indeed, from so much of what we have seen in the Catholic Abuse stories, the really interesting aspect is that for so many of these ‘victims’ it is as if the crime weren’t actually there, since they did so little – if anything at all – to report the (alleged) crime to the police.

    And if one wished to make the assertion that there was back in the day no use for putative victims to report to the police since the police wouldn’t have – for whatever reason – done much with such a ‘report’, then we see instantly the same problem facing a Bishop in those days.

    So in regard to this paragraph of the comment under analysis here we see yet again the SOS of insufficient and inaccurate application of assessment principles.

    Doyle did not, I would say, have a ‘conversion’. From what I can see of all of D’Antonio’s material (discussed at length here on a previous thread) and Doyle’s own track-record, he simply realized that his ambitions for a special position in the organization of the American Church were not going to be realized, and so he took another route to realize those ambitions. And then Anderson met Blaine and things were taken to a whole new level.

    If he were going to ‘sell’ his plan to the Bishops, then by the operation of the methods as to how one goes about getting a ‘grant’ and funding and status and authority, one emphasizes the aspects of one’s proposal that might best engage the interests of the parties to whom one is applying for the funding and status and authority. Thus his 1985 Report is not accurately seen as a final, comprehensive assessment of the entire issue, but rather as a ‘grant application’ submitted (he had hoped) to the Bishops in order to get funding and status and authority.

    And perhaps the staffers for the Bishops who rejected putting the Report on the agenda realized that they were dealing with a ‘grant proposal’ and didn’t want to go that route. And in that era sex-abuse crimes – for a number of reasons – were seen pretty much the same way drunk-driving was seen by the public and the legal community before MADD began its work: something that shouldn’t be, but really wasn’t a front-burner issue.

    But again: to judge the decisions made in that era by the standards of a later era so as to make the prior-era’s actors look as if they were deliberately and comprehensively ‘evil’ is simply manipulative and inaccurate. But it works rhetorical wonders if you are in the business of manipulating public opinion (which was a key element in the Anderson Strategies).

    As for JR’s further speculations about “secrecy” and all the rest, let’s see some (accurate) quotations from the Doyle Report and let’s also see some analysis of what JR claims to see in those (accurate) quotations.

    And “open and transparent” is a post-1985 ‘principle’, and not one that was established in that era decades ago. (Although it was to be seen in the then-intensifying media narratives and scripts in which ‘corporations’ were coming under fire legally for not being ‘open and transparent’, as we also saw in many of that genre of Hollywood films in that era).

    And if “American bishops” could “dial a phone and let the cops in on the claimed crimes”, then how much more could alleged victims have done so – and why did that not very often happen? Perhaps because until the Anderson Strategies were up and running, there was no payoff for claiming such an evidence-challenged ‘report’ of a crime. (And again: the result of the Anderson Strategies’ brilliance was that a 12-thousand dollar story told before they gained traction became a million-dollar story after they gained traction.)

    To the extent that Doyle might have wanted to effect change in the Church’s handling of an issue, then “committee”-work was and is the methodology to employ when you are working in a large organization. Especially when you are dealing with a problem which – in light of the legal and investigative policies and procedures then in general effect – you had an issue which was rather light on substantial or corroborating evidence. Otherwise, you would wind up with just about anybody being able to simply come up with a story and make allegations that must be taken as true or presumptively-true, with all sorts of organizational and legal and fiscal consequences (that we have since seen come into existence).

    Thus the rodomontade about “victims” in the following sentences merely – and yet again – tries to start the play at first-base  or second-base rather than with an actual at-bat at the plate.

    And if “the bishops” “can lie”, so can the allegants … can they not?

    And who says Doyle was “punished for this paper”? His grant-application was rejected. I would say it is the case that he ‘punished’ himself by then setting himself up as an independent operator, allied to a coterie of others similarly minded. And if that gambit resulted in his not working within the organization any longer, and indeed vociferously working against the organization, then that is hardly ‘punishment’; that is simply the utterly predictable consequence of the gambit he embraced after his ‘grant application’ was rejected. “Punishment” might have been de-frocking or laicization, which is a power that the Church has over priests, but that has never been deployed against him.

    And I further think that he hasn’t yet resigned his priesthood after all these decades because he is still waiting to be ‘victimized’ by the Church, seeking to have the Church – he might hope – laicize him. We recall “Dennis” here finally having to declare ‘excommunication’ upon himself since the Church wasn’t going to do it for him. After all, what is one to do if one seeks to be ‘victimized’ and ‘punished’ by a putatively victimizing and punitive Church and yet that victimization and punishment isn’t forthcoming?

    Lastly, the paper (or ‘grant application’) was rejected, but that hardly constitutes “punishment”. The ‘punishment’ was Doyle’s to inflict upon himself: he chose to work outside-of and against the Church, and greatly publicized that choice. Thus, having put himself outside ‘in the cold’, as it were, he then publicizes himself as being left out in the cold and thus as being victimized. Which, again, is not so very different from the son who kills his parents and then claims interminably and publicly that he is now victimized by being an orphan.

    I am still working on getting a copy of Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes and we shall see what we have there on the referenced page.

  42. Jim Robertson says:

    Oh yes, anyone can lie. But only in the church can people lie with immunity to "protect' the church. That's a big difference.

    I have never lied about my rape. 12,000 dollars was the church's idea of a fair settlement for my rape. The millon dollar reality of my rapes "value" came when MamaRoma had to face the realities of the market place. Juries set much higher awards than a millon bucks.

    Doyle was very concerned that the bishops return his report to him. Why the need for secrecy from the press and from victims and our families?

    Doyle says to victims he was punished for making the report period. Why?  Because he "says" his job at the vatican embassy was taken from him. Or more likely he went out on a "special" assignment that he's been doing ever since.

    One more thing, If I or Kay or other victims are so deeply wrong about SNAP and Doyle. Why has there never been an email or a phone call from SNAP or Doyle explaining how wrong we've got it?. Not one call to any of us ever. EVER!

    If you had so many victims doubting you in that position wouldn't you want to set them straight? Wouldn't that be the first thing you'd do? Not the "never" thing they've done?

    You are so used to Byzantine structures and "logic" in the church that you simply don't know what the simple, right thing to do is? Call the police.

    • Publion says:

      Well, I have had a look at the book Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes with particular attention to page 80. 
      But first the new crop of comments. 

      On the 12th at 1107AM JR plaints that he did and does “have corroborative sources for my own rape and for the SNAP false-flag black opp” [sic]. 

      If memory serves, JR’s ‘corroboration’ – dealt with at length in comments on this site quite some time ago – was simply to produce some classmate who said JR told him that JR had been (fill in the blank here). That is not corroborative evidence of the (fill in the blank); that is hearsay; unless the student were present for the (fill in the blank – and can we save time and call it ‘FITB’?) then the student has no eyewitness corroborative evidence to present. 

      We can only thank DP for editing out whatever scatological dreck JR had come up with as a juvenile diversion, but from that “brown noseing” [sic] it is clear that the deleted bit wasn’t going to be making much sense anyway in terms of the present discussion. 

      Then on the 12th at 415PM JR tries to say that while “anyone can lie”, yet “only in the church can people lie with immunity to ‘protect’ the church”. Let’s just leave that bit up there for readers to consider. But it is also accurate to say that only in the sex-abuse victimist ‘reform’ milieu can one lie with both impunity and immunity in order to get a big payday. And that has been precisely the brilliance of the Anderson Strategies: they not only came up with legal variations on the well-established disability-claim scam, but they also worked to help vitiate the public atmosphere such that public opinion would presumptively assume that clerics were most likely guilty in the first place. 

      Because we have seen very little actual evidence in any of the material we have reviewed here. Instead, when looking at the ‘outrage’ at the Catholic Abuse Matter, what we see is the same dynamic field-officers know from a certain type of whackness that breaks out in combat situations from time to time: firing breaks out suddenly all along the line, you have no indication of actual enemy action, and when you ask individual troops what they are firing-at, they simply respond to the effect that ‘I’m firing at what they’re firing at’. 

      So allegants in the Stampede have as much if not more motivation and “immunity” for whatever stories they choose to tell. And as I said here quite a while ago, part of the irritation and confoundment and so on that we see from Abuseniks here stems from the fact that they had been assured by torties or by the Playbook that whatever assertions, claims, and stories they proffered would never be questioned. They had been assured, to use my image, that when they claimed the dog ate their homework, nobody would actually check to see if they actually owned a dog. 

      Thus the various whackeries we have seen in the scramble – under such questioning – to come up with ways to try to fill in the conceptual pot-holes in stories and claims and assertions that they had presumed would never be questioned or examined. 

      Then the 415PM comment continues with – yet again – the claim that there has never been any lying about JR’s FITB. Readers may consider the credibility of that assertion as they will. But what JR then slyly does is to avoid the uncongenial reality of how he benefitted from the Anderson Strategies by merely trying to characterize it as the Church having “had to face the realities of the market place” (it was about the money, no?). 
      But precisely what I have been saying is that the Anderson Strategies neatly worked to strengthen the public-opinion that so very greatly influences that “market place”. So then we are left with JR getting a million instead of 12K because of Anderson’s Strategies and their vital role in the Stampede. 

      If JR then wants us to believe that Doyle actually imagined he could get the original text or copy of his Report “returned to him” without it’s ever being copied, then that is a stretch indeed. But perhaps he already had made up his mind (as soon as his ‘grant proposal’ was rejected) that he would have to take his wares elsewhere and he had proprietary-rights concerns. That’s not “secrecy” – that’s simply Doyle wanting to get copyright protection for what would be his primary vehicle (at that time) for setting himself up as an independent player. 

      Then a bunch of stuff on whatever JR claims Doyle had said to “victims” about being ‘punished’. For our present discussion it seem to me that to wade into this wad of JR’s assertions is a needless diversion from the road into the swamp. 

      And then the argument from What Does Not Exist: neither JR nor Ms. Ebeling have ever gotten a denial of all their assertions from SNAP. Might that be because SNAP figures they are something akin to irrelevant whackjobs and aren’t worth the time or the risk of publicity involved in responding to them? Are we seriously to presume that JR and Ebeling consider themselves equal players on the board with the likes of Anderson and the now PR-savvy SNAP bunch? 

      Thus too the bit about “so many victims doubting you”: by my count we have JR and Ebeling. That’s two, and presumes that they are genuine victims. Once again we see Abuseniks mistaking their own ‘personal reality’ for the actual realities out in the wide world. 

      Then a riff on “Byzantine structures and ‘logic’ in the church”. But at the bottom of the laundry pile here is simply the smelly reality that you can’t figure out “the right thing to do” about X until you establish that X was actually done. Which is always the profound and indeed abyssal problem and disconnect at the core of the Stampede and has been from Day One. 

      And again: “call the police” is very sound advice. And thus JR now has to explain why that was so rarely done by allegants or anyone they chose to tell back when their alleged victimizations were (putatively) fresh. 

      Then on the 12th at 421PM we get an apology wrapped up in an excuse: JR should have used “implied” rather than “inferred”. But – doncha see? – it’s been so long since “school”. Ah yes. And so one gets an education merely to forget it later? Had he not been using the English language in the meantime? (Well, OK, there is legitimate ground for some doubt about that.)

      But in any case, you run into the same problem with ‘implied’ that you do with ‘inferred’: both terms indicate something that is not actually and clearly visible in the text but that instead is ‘seen’ by the reader making the ‘inference’ about the ‘implication’. 

      And now for Sex, Priests and Secret Codes, with specific attention to page 80. The book was indeed authored by Doyle, Sipe, and Patrick Wall and published in 2006 by the not-quite top-rank publisher Volt Press. 
      Wall, some readers may recall, had his claims (pretensions, more properly) of canon-law expertise rather significantly demolished by an actual canonist in court documents reviewed on this site a while back. That canonist reviewed both Wall’s claimed credentials and the content of some of his claims. 

      The book joins a passel of such works churned out in the aftermath of the 2002 sue-the-bishops phase of the Stampede. 

      And on to page 80 itself. 

      The page begins with the historical claim that Doyle and his associates “prepared an extensive report on the civil, canonical and psychological aspects of the sexual involvement of priests with children” and refers the reader to the book’s Chapter Four (and that Chapter begins on page 99). 

      A moment on Chapter Four, which on page 99 begins the actual text of the May 15, 1985 Report. It is noteworthy – especially in light of my earlier comments on this thread about Doyle filing something akin to a ‘grant application’ or ‘grant proposal’ – that the text of the Report itself (page 99, page 101) contains a sub-section entitled “History of the Proposal”, precisely the format for a grant-application or grant-proposal. 

      Further, the Chapter itself is entitled “The Doyle-Mouton-Peterson Manual” (dated May 15, 1985) and thus reinforces my thought that Doyle’s concerns for getting all copies returned to him were proprietary in nature. He was looking to publish this thing, if the Bishops did not buy it. 

      Sub-section ‘B’ (page 99, page 102) refers to the “Confidentiality of This Document”. Here (page 102) the text explains that it seeks to have itself considered a legally-protected “confidential communication” because it was prepared in great part by an attorney for the interests of (but – note – not actually employed-by or engaged-by) the Bishops. Thus this Report or “Manual” seeks to “confidential” merely in the same way that all ‘privileged communications’ between an attorney and client are “confidential” – thus not “secret” in some sense of hiding things, and certainly not on the part of the Bishops, who at this point aren’t even aware that this Doyle thing exists. 

      And – in tantalizing tones of ominous possibilities – it is the Doyle text itself that states that it may suffer from a bit of vagueness but only because it seeks to avoid imparting to any “reader” specific information that would willy-nilly implicate the reader as having specific information of an alleged crime that might raise questions of reporting to the police. (But – of course – if Doyle and his team had such specific information then they themselves should have reported it; and if they didn’t, then upon what actualities is this “Manual” based in the first place?)

      The text then asks any reader not to make copies and also to return the document to whomever had given them the document. As I said, this may well reflect a slyly-camouflaged concern to maintain proprietary rights more than any “secrecy” concerns. And – again – at this point this is all Doyle and his team and the Bishops aren’t involved at all. 

      Thus page 102 in Chapter Four and back now to page 80 itself. 

      And on page 80 we get a recitation of various psychological authorities (such as David Finkelhor and Angela Brown) who “found that there could be no doubt about the potential for long-term harm to child sex-abuse victims”. And this raises a point we have discussed in comments on this site several times: while there is a “potential” [italics mine] for certain types of harm, yet that is in itself no guarantee that such ‘potentials’ will be fully or partially realized in any particular case or instance. There is – not to put too fine a point on it – a ‘potential’ for almost anything to result from anything else; it all depends on how closely or distantly you focus the analysis. 

      But we also realize from our own discussions on this site that the actual problem is establishing if any instance of actual abuse actually took place to begin-with. And it is only after somehow coming to grips with that abyssal problem that one can then proceed to the equally complicated issue of determining what ‘harm’ was caused to any specific individual in any specific instance. (We recall that victimist advocacy-psychology or pop-psychology has tried to solve this problem by declaring that just about any X or any anti-X consequence may be a symptom and consequence: thus a ‘victim’ may suddenly (or slowly) evince an aversion-to (or attraction-for) some declared symptomatic behavior.) 

      The ‘science’ here is – as you see – not exactly pristine and clear. 

      The Stampede gambit has been to focus on the awfulness of the (potential) consequences without actually establishing either b) that the consequences apply to any particular instance or case or a) that the actual abuse can be demonstrated to have happened in the first place. 

      And one again you hear the plaint of the busily trigger-pulling front-line soldier: I’m firing at what they’re firing at. 

      Then on the bottom fifth of page 80 is a sub-section entitled “A Conspiracy of Silence”. And while this section opens with the point that “Certainly …” 90 or 95 percent of Catholic priests “do not sexually abuse minors”, yet – the text quickly goes on – the “consequences” of any such abuse “are so dire”. But we have already seen in the immediately preceding paragraphs of my comment here that it actually hasn’t been established either i) how certain it might be that some (if any) potential consequences might ensue from any specific instance of abuse or ii) whether or how-many actual instances of such abuse have or had actually and demonstrably occurred. 

      Now the text proceeds onto page 81 where material relevant to 1985 (but not to 2006, when this book was published, or to any time after 2004 when the Dallas Charter reforms began) is introduced. 

      Perhaps JR can share just what he sees as significant and relevant in terms of the state of affairs in 2014. As it stands here, this is all just a re-hash of (selectively characterized) matters from 1985, a year short of 30 years ago. 

    • Delphin says:

      "Call the Police"- you mean, like you DIDN'T CALL the POLICE?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I was 16 years old. I told the adults at my school 2 of them. They didn't call the police. They were the grown ups. You are an idiot.

  43. Jim Robertson says:

    Sorry about the "inferred" I meant implied. It's been a long time since school. My error.

    • Delphin says:

      I'm the idiot, sure.

      Yet, this same claimant states that he was a good student and a savvy political activist since he was a mere lad – too bad someone couldn't show him how to use a phone.

      Handcuffs don't seem to be too much of a problem, though?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator]

      I just said I DID REPORT my abuse to TWO, count them, TWO ADULTS in charge at my school. I was the one in trauma for christ's sake! I loved the church more than me. They, the grown ups, most certainly loved the facade of the innocent church over the raped, 16 year old me.

  44. Jim Robertson says:

    If you had been raped 30 years ago P wouldn't that seem dire to you? Even today?

    Why are you stuck on page 80?

    [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But Doyle did have access to lots of crimes he never reported. That was his job at the vatican's U.S. embassy to "handle" those crimes. Both the reported and the not police reported rapes.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Just because he wasn't a mandated reporter then; doesn't mean he shouldn't have reported these crimes to the police. He knew about them. He was accessory after the fact.

      You act like these are above board people. They were the very top of your church. THE canon lawyer for the vatican embassy? This guy was your creme de la creme.

    • josie says:

      No offense intended, Jim, but I honestly don't think that there is an interest in Thomas Doyle here. In my opinion, we have moved way beyond what he found to be important 30 years ago Lessons have been learned.

      Also, I always thought that SNAP distanced themselves from you when you chained yourself to the LA Cardinal's chair many years ago. And seriously, when I checked out a Kay Eberling years , I was spooked by her eerie voice and poetry. I don't think ( as "P" states) that would be too attractive to the SNAP group. Why don't you just let it go

    • Jim Robertson says:

      One thing more both Kay and I were viciously attacked by Bob Schwiderski, Minnesota's SNAP "leader". (He was recently photographed by the media embracing a priest inside a church. I swear it looked like the priest was forgiving Bob, the leader of the victims. The Victims need to be forgiven by a priest in church for what? Being cute kids?)

        Kay was attacked  with cartoons; smears and insults on her blog long, long before she came to the reality of what SNAP is. This same alcholic bung hole. posted a picture of me with "Does this guy have AIDS?" scrawled under my picture. That's both of us attacked personally with never an attempt to communicate and reason and settle things out from SNAP.or Schwiderski.

      Bob is physically a big man. Kay is 5ft. tall and frail, Ill really. She often describes herself a little old lady. Yet this "loving; supportive, survivors' group and one of it's major male leaders" has behaved like this towards her. With never a confab. Sound reasonable to you? Me neither.

  45. notagoodwriter says:

    This does not have to do with Catholic Priests, but on Mother's Day The Boston GlobeDecided to humiliate a Rabbi. They could have waited for another day.  Here is the simple truth:  Some people are mean, probably in their minds it was a balance.   In some bizarre way, maybe they thought they were correcting an imbalance.  They just don't get it. A serious newspaper is not one that takes delight in targeting and humiliated and individual and/or an man and his family.  The priests did not sell a house and move, and, maybe the Rabbi should just stand up to them.  Take a retreat.

    Start over.

    Do not let the bullies win.

    We had a pastor at a church in California that had some people collect and gather complaints for a year or two….of course chit-chatting behind his back.  Anyway he and his wife handle it with such grace and maturity.  They left for a year, did some praying and sould searching and returned.  They are retired from that particular location, but there is a lot to be said for returning and writing the final chapter, versus letting the newspaper write the final chapter of a man's career.

    So, if I were in that position.  I would not let them bully me out of town.  He is probably stressed out.  His followers would be a lot more forgiving.  This man needs to decide: Who is going to have the last word on 28 years of success, my congregants or some idiot reporter that does not even know or care about all of these people?

    P.S. Hi Publion—I had to detox from my computer addiction.  The good news is that it has not affected my heart and unique writing skills!!



  46. Publion says:

    In regard to the 13th at 1050AM: we simply see the rape-shirt waved in front of us again. And who really knows whether the rape-shirt is legitimately worn here to begin with? And even the researchers said that there was only a “potential”, and not a guaranteed effect.

    But then – in what has to be either a lame attempt at self-parody or an indication of rather substantive deficiency in the cognitive department – I am asked why I am “stuck on page 80”. To which I can only respond: I focused on page 80 because that was the page to which JR specifically directed our attention on this very thread. Or has he forgotten that already?

    In regard to the 13th at 1105AM: It is certainly possible that Doyle may indeed have had access to sufficient specific information that he should have notified the relevant police agency. Whether the failure to do that makes him an “accessory after the fact” is another question.

    But the interesting bit is in the next paragraph: apparently JR thinks that since I don’t agree with his material then I must be a Doyle supporter. I most certainly am not. If either JR or Doyle told me it was raining, I would look out the window first. If JR can provide any – accurate, of course – quote of mine that indicates my support for Doyle or for SNAP then he can put that quote up here. If it were to exist.

    The “very top” of the Catholic church is the Pope and the Bishops,  and Doyle is neither. Surely the fact that Doyle  is neither Pope nor a Bishop should have been a clear even to JR. And who has ever here characterized Doyle as a Catholic “crème de la crème”? I think this is just a JR phantasm rhetorically necessary to make his cartoon seem a bit more plausible.

    • Jim Robertson says:

       P,Really? You don't see the job of THE canon lawyer at the vatican's U.S. embassy as being a creme de la creme position? he helped pick people to be named bishop.

      You support Doyle and SNAP everytime you defend them as being who they say they are, P.

      Josie, I had separated myself from SNAP, 2 years before I handcuffed myself at the cathedral. I left SNAP after attending their first annual conference in St. Louis. It was total bullshit. I did not know SNAP was the church then. I just found them tasteless; controlling; stupid; bad p.r. ists. incompetent; distant; arrogant; nasty and boring and very anti gay victims. All their decisions for "actions" came from elsewhere and always at the very last minute. L.A. is a world class city for PR. We needed some hick from St. Louis telling us what was important TO US?

      Do I like Kay's poetry and some of her choices? Not particularly. Do they represent me? No. Would I have done things differently if her's was my blog. Yes.

      But do I support Kay and her right to be who she wants to be? Yes. Her choices are her's. When you have so few activist victims who get the SNAP fraud and try to do ANYTHING about ending SNAP's control of victims? You face that reality and move forward as best you can. I don't like magic talk about angels and demons etc. I think any victims' real experiences with SNAP, speak for themselves. No magic needed.

      As far as what is attractive to SNAP? Kay's blog was cheered by victims and our supporters here.  I went to hear Bishop Robinson from Australia speak in L.A. and when the audience was told Kay could not be there that night? The crowd audibly were very disappointed. SNAP hated that Kay had created that big an affectionate audience.  Tom Doyle really hated it.

      Kay was going through court records giving victims far more accurate info than SNAP was; and the audience lauded her for that. She has a degree in journalism and had worked in the press dept. for NASA. (That's a bigger press job than Clohessy or Blaine ever had)

      SNAP told Kay that victims were furious that she was reporting on our cases. She was told one victim in particular was furious at her. One small problem though. Kay had been in daily contact with said victim. Who loved what K was doing. He'd told her so and thanked her. SNAP had no need to lie to her. But it did. It always lied to all of us about our issues. I was told over and over by  SNAP my act at the cathedral had hurt victims. That victims were very angry about what I had done. I've never met one victim who didn't praise me for that act. All but David; Barbra and co.: SNAP.

      Josie, if you were in my position would you let such a fraud against all victims( by the very church that had already harmed us)  "just go"?

      If I knew about a fire and just let innocents burn? Would that be o.k.?

      That's not the person I was taught to be both at home and at church. If I can do the right thing I do it; and that's why I'm here.

      Remember there has never been one, not a single communication  between SNAP and Kay and i and other, hip to SNAP's crap, victims. Saying how we are wrong about our analysis EVER! Not even one call to any of us explaining SNAP's POV as being other than what we claim. And explaining as to where we are wrong.  Does that make any sense to you? Does that seem normal human behavior to you?

    • Delphin says:

      The fact that SNAP is a fraud, to which all observers agree, is not correlated in any way to 'SNAP is the Church'. The battle between fraudsters/scammers to lock on to the billions being strong-armed out of the Church is not proof of anything more than a pack of hyena's fighting over their prey.

      Your conspiracy theory has no legs. Dissident Catholic priests, nuns and laity, slimey (corrupt, unethical, immoral) lawyers [pardon that redundancy] and a bigoted secular/progressive media are all the ingredients you need to brew up the perfect witch-hunt, one which was/is designed to damage the Church's moral authority (sorry, didn't work) and personally enrich every participant in this unholy coven. And, that, and nothing more, is the sum of your parts.

      That is the conspiracy- a conspiracy of leftist progressives to take the Church's voice out of the public moral debate- just as you have crowed about here (can't shove that cat back into the bag). You are of the same ilk as those you feign to abhor – except in this case, the bigger kids threw you out of the sandbox because you threatened their 'income' (scam). And, this whole battle you've got going on here is all about forcing yourself back into the game (your Church booty dwindling by now?). You strong-armed a settlement out of the Church, maybe you can weasle some bucks out of the scammers still strong-arming the Church by deploying the same tactics – hyena on hyena.  Beats working for a living.

      And, your red herrings, designed to intentionally move the focus from the dishonest intentions of you and your cohorts attacks against the Church, are not working. Most of us can walk and chew gum (i.e. handle your insane conspiracy musings with one hand while debating the larger issue of real, measurable and observable, bigotry with the other), unlike you limited single-minded antiCatholic bigots.

      You fool no one with your antics.

  47. Delphin says:

    How interesting- it was all about leniency and lack of will to prosecute abuse cases 'back then'.

    Unless you are a Catholic priest.

  48. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment of the 15th at 1039AM: No, “really”, I don’t see the position of canon-lawyer (if they only had the one canonist, then “THE” is nothing but hyperbole) at the Vatican’s embassy to the US being either “the top of the church” or of Doyle being – by virtue of that office – “the crème de la crème”, which is a JR styling anyway. Nor do I see the relevance of the point to anything significant at issue here: Doyle had a position, he tried to go for a more ambitious position, his grant-application or grant-proposal failed, and he took his wares elsewhere, and in turning to Anderson when the opportunity presented itself Doyle went to – as it were – the other side.

    And if anything in my assessment appears complimentary to Doyle, then somebody’s going to have to explain rationally and coherently how such an inference can possibly be legitimate and accurate.

    And at the very best Doyle might have made some input on episcopal candidates (probably only as to their eligibility in light of canon law) but the recommendations on candidates were sent to the Nuncio, who then made his own recommendations to Rome and it was the Pope how actually would “pick the people to be made bishop”. In that chain of causality, Doyle was far down the line.

    As for the cartoon thought that I “support Doyle and SNAP every time you defend them as being who they say they are”, I say again – and for the umpteenth time – that I have never supported SNAP, but simply pointed out that SNAP is a front for the torties and not for the Church. We have seen no quotations of mine – accurate or otherwise – from JR demonstrating anything to the contrary. So what we are actually seeing here is JR’s attempt to put a fig-leaf on his real operational maxim: whoever doesn’t agree with him must therefore be in favor of everything he is against. Which is as clear an example of cartoon-thinking as one could ever expect to come across.

    As far as JR ‘knowing’ that SNAP “was the church”, we still haven’t seen any rational and coherent explanation from JR that would help us ‘know’ that, and indeed nothing he has put forward here has ever dealt with the numerous problems with his characterization of SNAP as some sort of tool of the Church.

    Whether SNAP is correct in figuring – as I have surmised – that certain “activist victims” are not worth the time and effort to engage … is a judgment call made by SNAP and readers can consider it as they will.

    As for JR’s recollections of this, that, and the other thing: they can of course be filed with the rest of his reminiscences for further contemplation or amusement.

    And when JR had his very own “fire” that required prompt official reporting, he did not ‘pull the hook’.

    Thus then the concluding effort to wrap himself up in the rape-flag and rape-shirt and – on top of that – the claim of moral high-ground … doesn’t work. Certainly nothing we have seen here over time qualifies as doing “the right thing” in any rational or coherent or credible way.

    And as for the final paragraph in the comment: if SNAP indeed has decided that it doesn’t need to get down into the mud with this or that particular comment-maker, then that does not of itself constitute SNAP’s admission of being a tool of the Church any more than settlements made for legal-strategy reasons constitute an admission of guilt by the Church.

    Does SNAP fear being exposed as a tool of the torties and thus totally avoids any open and public give-and-take discussions? I would say Yes, very much so. Thus all we ever get from SNAP are press-releases, which can be controlled – rather than open debates or discussions, which might get out of hand and cannot so easily be controlled.

    But as for the differences between SNAP and this or that self-styled “activist victim”, I would only think of what Kissinger said of the war between Iran and Iraq decades ago: “It’s a war you’d like to see both sides lose”.

    Does SNAP’s avoidance (similar to many other organizations’ avoidance) of this or that self-styled “activist victim” and keeping such persons at a long arm’s length constitute “normal human behavior”? It does if an organization decides that such self-styled “activist victims” are really nothing more than unhinged types who aren’t worth the time and effort. That would make a great deal of “sense” indeed.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      How much "imput" have you; I; or any other catholic ever had, regarding the creation of a bishop? But Doyle was no big deal? Oh o.k..

    • Delphin says:

      How did this one ever get by Laurie GOODstein, the Slimes religion sleuth? Don't little child victim Brits matter to herself? Oh, maybe not, they are probably not Catholics. She must not care much for the little Jewish child victims of her peeps rabbi's, either.

    • Delphin says:

      Why should 'you or I or any other Catholic' have input to the ordination of Catholic bishops?

      What an odd statement from an Atheist-Communist.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why? I was catholic for 20 years of my life? Just because I'm a communist and atheist now hasn't erased the catholic I was then from my memory. I recieved all but 2 of the sacraments. I was raped at catholic school. I have more than earned the right to say anything I want about the virtues and non virtues of that faith. I was never asked to vet any canditate for bishop and neither was any average catholic.

      You changed the sense of my statement by using "why" when I never said why?  I'm saying vetting canditates for bishoprhics wasn't a part of catholicism for the masses. You had to be special.

      I think  average catholics should vote for who becomes a bishop.But your religion is controlled by an absolute monarch, the pope. The last of the "divine right " emperors.

  49. Jim Robertson says:

    P if telling the Dean Of Students at Serra, bro Da Silva and the one priest at Serra, fr. Clemmens, isn't "official reporting"; what is? I was 16 they were in their 40's. I did everything right, even as a 16 year old. They did nothing right as the officials of my school.

  50. Jim Robertson says:

    LMFAO! SNAP finds me an "unhinged type (s)"; do they? "not worth (SNAP's sic) time and effort." Thank you.You are a closet comedian. And then you quote a war criminal and murderer, Kissinger, who dare not go to Europe because he'd be arrested for crimes against humanity himself. You are batting 1000.

    According to you SNAP doesn't need to get "down in the mud" with me or anyother victim questioning the validity of SNAP's self appointed representation of our needs. "Down in the mud" again, thank you. Jesus must be smiling.

    • Delphin says:

      One world order, trilateral commissions, CFR and our resident Communist-Atheist: perfect together.

      Kissinger has nothing to worry about from this band of tinfoil hat 'elites'.

      I 'feel' a new conspiracy theory coming on…..the Catholic Church is behind the whole tamale.


  1. [...] priests before removing them permanently from ministry—was “totally false.” Publicity Trumps Kids’ Safety: SNAP Knew About Abuse Claim Against Chicago Priest ‘For S… Archdiocese of Chicago Response to SNAP Press Statements April 21, 2014 __________________ Your [...]

  2. [...] The Media Report has noted, SNAP’s true agenda was showing recently when it was discovered the organization [...]

  3. [...] The Media Report has noted, SNAP’s true agenda was showing recently when it was discovered the organization did [...]

  4. [...] The Media Report has noted, SNAP’s true agenda was showing recently when it was discovered the organization did [...]