**TheMediaReport.com SPECIAL REPORT** The Definitive ‘Spotlight’ Movie Review

Spotlight movie review

Shining the light on 'Spotlight'

Fabricated episodes. Character defamation. Devious storytelling. This is the definitive review of the Hollywood movie Spotlight, which purports to chronicle the Boston Globe's 2001-2002 investigation of the Catholic Church sex abuse story.

The heavily hyped Hollywood production – starring A-list actors Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo – professes to dramatize the paper's pursuit of the troubling crimes committed by abusive priests in the Archdiocese of Boston.

However, after thoroughly studying the film, TheMediaReport.com's Dave Pierre reports:

"Spotlight claims to be 'based on actual events,' but it does not bode well when the very first scene of the film is a complete fabrication.

"It also does not bode well for the film's authenticity that a possible lawsuit looms as at least four individuals have now stepped forward to say they have been falsely portrayed in the film.

"And the film grossly misrepresents the way that Church officials responded to cases of abusive priests years ago and essentially ignores the role that secular psychologists played in the crisis.

"The film also conveniently ignores the Globe's long history of hypocrisy when it comes to reporting the issue of child sex abuse. While Spotlight kindly refers to Church officials as 'scumbags' and 'good Germans,' the Globe never applied any of those pleasant labels to others who committed child sex crimes and whom the Globe often celebrated in its pages."

Our detailed review of 'Spotlight':

Real-Life Characters Portrayed in 'Spotlight' Threaten Lawsuit Claiming Fabricated Depictions (November 2015, w/Addendum, 3/16/16)

'Based on Actual Events'? Except the Very First Scene From 'Spotlight' Is Completely Bogus (November 2015)

'Cardinal Law Knew of Abuse and Did Nothing'? Actually, Cardinal Law Did Exactly As He Was Told To Do By Psychologists (November 2015)

'Spotlight' Neglects to Mention the Boston Globe's Own Long History of Rank Hypocrisy on the Issue of the Sexual Abuse of Minors (November 2015)

No, Cardinal Law Did Not 'Call Down the Wrath of God' To Punish the Boston Globe (November 2015)

Fact Checker: More Ways That 'Spotlight' Got It Wrong (November 2015, w/ Addendum, 12/5/15)


[See also the new book: Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com)]


  1. Rafael García Zuazua says:

    Please tell me: how come many priests from the same diócesis of Card. Bernardo Law said out loud to expel him from the Church?

    Very convinient for Bernard Law to follow the advice from the Psicologists that were under the diócesis payroll.

    Don't you see it? The Catholic Church reeks of hipocrecy it's been like that since the early times.

    Thank you for letting me writte this comment.


    Rafael Garcia Zuazua.


  2. dave carlin says:

    Hollywood, probably out of malice, is using a sword against the Church, true.  But it was priests and bishops who fashioned the sword and handed it to Hollywood.  Let's not forget that the fundamental fault lies with priests and bishops, not with Hollywood.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

     Only 2000 out of 11,000 of your child victims given any compensation at all*.

    That's the real scandal going on today. Again a scandal created by your church. The church is waiting for all it's uncompensated victims to die without help.

    Meanwhile i wonder who's paid for the mother Teresa** movie to be made?  I don't think there's been a reel (pun intended) need  for such a film in the market place. i think the church needs such propaganda but few others.

    And just think of all the money the church has paid pr firms to refashion their "image". (Could the m.Teresa show be part of that tailoring?) Millions upon millions of $. While it hides the fact it's paid nothing for the vast majority of it's crimes against children to it's victims.

    * John Jay report.

    ** Read the real story of Teresa called The Missionary Position, by Christopher Hitchens.

  4. 1993 Victim says:

    You're not serious, right?  This must be a joke.  Am I supposed to take this seriously?  Or is it just a way for David Pierre to use the victims’ pain to sell copies of his book?

    1. When the movie shows Globe reporters making comments about the Church leaders, they are not statements that were printed in the paper.  They were comments made in private.  You have no way of knowing that reporters did not make those same comments in private when researching other stories.  I challenge you to prove that no Globe reporter ever referred to a child abuser by a derogatory name in the office when talking with colleagues.    

    2. The fact that four people have complained about their treatment means nothing.  Almost anybody negatively portrayed in a film will complain about it regardless of whether it's true.  You seem to suggest that if people file lawsuits then the allegations are true.  Well, thousands of people, including myself, have filed lawsuits declaring that church leaders were grossly negligent.  Therefore, by your reasoning, it must be true.  Case closed. 

    3.  Your claim about ignoring the role of private psychologists would be valid if Spotlight were a documentary about clergy sex abuse.  It's not.  It's a dramatic portrayal of the investigative journalism process in uncovering the scandal.  It doesn't claim to be exhaustive.  It leaves out many details, most of which would make the Church look even worse.  I haven't researched the issue enough to know for sure, but many people involved in the scandal believed that some the Church's claims in this area were very weak.  Nothing about the involvement of psychologist absolves the Church.

    The bottom line is that even if the globe were as evil as you suggest, it doesn’t matter.  The documents and depositions prove the truth.  This happened.  Accept it.

    When an institution does something so bad for so many decades/centuries with such little regard for innocent children, the reaction will be inevitably fierce.  There will be inaccuracies, and some people will be so angry that they won't want to look at the whole picture.  It doesn't matter.  The Church erred gravely and admits it.  I'm sorry that the reaction offends you and that the Church gets 100% of the blame when it should only get maybe 98% of the blame, but it doesn't matter.  You need to accept this and move on.

    This whole website is an egregious offense to be people impacted by this tragedy and is shameful.  It's almost as bad as being complicit in the scandal.  

  5. Dennis Ecker says:

    ​In my opinion David Pierre can continue his pathetic attempt to try and disgrace the movie Spotlight it keeps him safe and off the streets. I will continue to watch it win awards and national praise like Time magazine calling it the # 1 movie of the year.

    The truth does hurt sometimes.

  6. Mark says:

    Oh I just can't take anymore! You know why Dave Pierre and the Church behave badly don't you? Because they are sinners, just like everyone who goes crook at them. If you don't believe me, look up Romans 3:23 in the Bible, which I do believe is the inspired and infallable word of God.

    Look, I don't know what to believe anymore. Anyhow, I stopped caring about a lot of things when my dear cousin, who was the closet I had to a real friend, moved away to live with her boyfriend and instead of feeling sorry for me, like any good father would have done, mine told me off for being selfish. Then one year later, he did it again and also had the audicity to take the Lord's name in vain, which really removed the scales from my eyes.

    Then some time later, Mum told me how one sex abuse victim commited suicede. That made me see how serious this problem is. But Mum told me that story to justifiy her decent from Church teachings on things like abortion. Which makes her a stupid bitch and a hypocrite because disobey your church leaders – however un-Christ like they may be –  is just the same as disobeying your parents and teachers, which Mum never wanted me to do. Never mind that as far as God is concerened, my dad and the headmaster of my first school deserve to go to Hell just as much as the John Groghans of this world do.

  7. Publion says:

    In regard to the ‘Rafael’ comment of the 1st at 1043AM:

    Does the gentleman himself have any information as to how many priests from the Archdiocese of Boston “said out loud”  that Cardinal Law should be ‘expelled’ “from the Church”?

    And does the gentleman have any alternative for the Church retaining the services of a psychologist other than paying that psychologist for his/her services?

    And the concluding comment – “it’s been like that since the early times” – standing alone without any demonstration, and merely on the basis of the rather dubious bits the gentleman put up in his prior paragraphs, remains merely a convenient and epithetical assertion and nothing more.

  8. Publion says:

    On the 3rd at 1140AM we are now treated to a modestly encouraging bit: JR actually footnotes his references, or tries to – at least.

    Was he referring to the first or the second John Jay Report? (There are – to remind him yet again on this site – two of them, separated by a period of years.)

    And in regard to the point of compensation: we see – as almost always – the conflation of ‘allegant’ and ‘victim’ as if they were synonymous terms (and realities) and that is most surely not the case.

    And would the figure of 2,000 receiving pay-outs have any alternative possible cause – such as, say, their allegations not being found credible? (My point here presumes, for purposes of this discussion only, the accuracy of his claim of 2,000.)

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing in regard to JR’s of the 3rd at 1140AM:

    There is – I will say – a very real “scandal” involved in all of this, and that is the scandal of the Stampede, whereby so many presumptions and assorted misuses of language have been drummed-up and drummed-into the public mind, that public opinion comes to presume the veracity of those presumptions (much as, for a while back there in 2002-3, public opinion, initially skeptical, came to accept as veracious that Saddam actually had WMD and was trying to buy yellow-cake from Niger and therefore the invasive war on Iraq was justified).

    JR will then try his hand at insinuation, wondering “who’s paid for the mother Teresa movie” (referring, I presume, either to a 1997 film or a 2003 film – there have been at least two of them on this subject). To what end? Are we supposed to start wondering who might have “paid for” the ‘Spotlight’ film? Once again, he rummaged through his pile of 3x5s, found one on a ‘movie’, and since ‘Spotlight’ is a movie then … that was enough relevance to satisfy his mind.

    Which then gives, however, gives him a convenient opening into speculative insinuations or assertions  – entirely un-supported – as to how much money the Church “has paid pr firms to refashion their ‘image’” (sic). Does he have a reliable figure – or source?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What a vicious ol' queen you are. Bitter! Just plain bitter!

      A new MT flik is at the market door. Selling catholic "groveiness" and white wash one more time. It's called Letters.

      The more they yammer nonsense; and safety in a not so safe world the more likely the dumb will believe them. Pr. wise: your religion is making a Hail Mary pass. The church bears the responsibility of aiding it's victims; but that's the last thing it intends to do. Here we go talking about the church again and never it's harmed. Once again focus on the unchangeable. The church. Not on it's injured.

      This isn't about your faith but your deeds and responsibility.


  10. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment by ‘Dave Carlin’ of the 2nd at 1244PM:

    I will certainly agree with him that if anybody “fashioned” the sword and “handed it” to Hollywood, then the Church bears some real responsibility.

    But we still really don’t have a clear idea as to just how extensive and substantive the “sword” actually was.

    We have a given number of formally lodged allegations and claims; we have payouts made through settlements; we have all manner of media ‘reports’. But there are hardly impossible (and perhaps hardly improbable) alternative explanations for them. Yet whether we have actual and demonstrable evidence as to the real and actual extent of genuine victimization and cover-up … we don’t actually have that. All we have is a great deal of noise and sound and fury, but when we stop the spinning wheel or reel to look at a specific frame or claim or instance, then things don’t always appear so demonstrable at all. As we have seen on this site when examining this or that proffered story or even cached-and-released document.

  11. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:

    He touches the nub of the matter with his reference to “victims’ pain”: we still don’t really and actually know just how many genuine such types we are dealing-with in all of this. That there were some such genuine victims I personally have no doubt. But that the myriad claims and stories and allegations can be or should be presumptively assumed is something else altogether and it always has been.

    Yet such a presumption has always been a mainstay of Victimist dogma and of the Stampede (to use my term) which derives from it. We have seen precisely the same dynamic in play (and at play) in the recent and ongoing brouhaha over collegiate ‘rape’ in the US – which actually extends back at least as far as the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case if not also to the late-1980s Tawana Brawley case and the early-1980s McMartin Pre-School Satanic Ritual Child Abuse case(s) and similar cases.

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:

    His point about ‘Spotlight’ being a movie primarily designed to showcase a “dramatic portrayal” of the journalists involved is surely accurate. Whether the movie – or the sum total of the ‘Globe’s efforts as time went on – are shining examples of “investigative journalism” is another question altogether. And surely there are a number of other examples of such “investigative journalism” as this site has examined here, and far more recently, wherein “shining” would better be replaced with “glaring”, and not in a positive sense of that term.

    Thus his rather too-simple conclusion (that “the documents and depositions prove the truth … this happened” is rather too-simple by half. We are precisely left wondering as to the veracity of the claims and we certainly have seen on this site (in, for example, the release by the LA ‘Times’ of its document cache) that even the revealed Church documents do not fully support assertions made about them.

    That, I would say again, is the trouble with ginning up a Stampede that runs roughshod over evidentiary integrity and journalistic caution and completeness in order to achieve a desired grand-effect: one later finds that the credibility has somehow disappeared – if not dissolved – under all the ‘dust’ that has been raised.

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:

    It is relevant that in today’s  Wall Street Journal (page A-13 of the print edition; the piece is entitled “The Injustice of the Plea-Bargain System”, by Lucian E. Dervan, identified as an associate professor at the Southern Illinois University School of Law) that gentleman makes precisely the same point as made by Federal Appeals Court Judge Alex Kosinski of the 9th Circuit: plea-bargains are now coming to be seen, as the Supreme Court had warned when it initially supported them in 1970, as providing pressure on defendants in such a situation to “falsely condemn themselves”. So, then, even the existence of plea-bargains hardly constitutes irrefutable proof of guilt. This goes precisely to my points and is relevant to such (few) cases as there have been of defendant-priests striking a plea-deal with prosecutors.

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with the comment of ‘1993 Victim’ on the 3rd at 158PM:

    Lastly, ‘1993 Victim’s very sensible point is useful here: i.e. that a “reaction” might indeed be “inevitably fierce” and that “there will be inaccuracies”. Very true, I would say.

    But when media and court-process and the powerfully politically-connected ‘plaintiffs’ bar’ and a media looking to make a splash as a “new gunslinger in town” are all toted up into the equation (supported by so-called ‘advocacy science’), then there cannot but exist some very real possibility – and I would go so far as to say probability – that so much pressure and so many pressures will work to create a structural distortion that far outpaces any merely ‘natural’ elements of an “inevitably fierce” public “reaction”.

    And that’s what this site – as I understand it – has been trying to work on, and that’s why I would very much dispute his final assertion that “this whole website is an egregious offense” to anybody.

    And I would say that “the scandal” will prove to be – as I believe it always has been – the Stampeding of public opinion by the pressures and derangements introduced and deployed in the consideration of the Catholic Abuse Matter.

    • Dan says:

      Response to Spin Doctor Mocker Publion,

      They will slander My word. They will curse My name. They even stop and change My word. They try and translate the word in order to make money off of Me. They are always there with their riches, with no concern for the poor. As we say, the world has the hatred, but these people think they have the world by the tail. They don't have My faith, hope, or love.  THEY HAVE NOTHING IN LIFE. 

      Keep preaching your propaganda and thinking you can bend someone's mind. You're the perfect member for your deceiving church of hypocrisy. You think you can fool others and probably believe, in you own mind, that you've even fooled God. Good luck with that!

  15. Jim Robertson says:


  16. Jim Robertson says:

    To again, prove my point about the church manipulating compensation follow this.http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/catholic-church-saves-62-million-on-sexual-abuse-claims-20151205-glgavf.html

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    The church like any other corporation bases promotions on moneies brought in and or saved. Your church doesn't give a damn about it's own catholic children. It only pretends to care about  it's kids now.

    Money Money Money is what really matters to you and all of it coming in; and the barely minimal going out. The cardinals and bishops never see jail and cheat victims while all along pretending to be just. Shame and guilt belong at your church doors forever.

    I and every other decent person curse you.

  18. Publion says:

    Readers may consider the comment of ‘Dan’ on the 7th at 1054AM.

    By his own admission (on a recent thread) having been jailed and sent for mental hospital stays multiple times (all based on “lies” or ‘lies, lies, and more lies’ – as he has assured us) ‘Dan’ considers himself a particularly favored receiver of Divine guidance.

    Which – conveniently and probably as no surprise to those readers clinically-experienced or inclined – means that one cannot disagree with his Scriptural quotations, excurses, and Woes (and he does like to pronounce his Scriptural Woes, larded with epithets the tone of which is rather substantially at odds with the demeanor and tone of a Favored Mouthpiece of the or a or some or any Divinity) without disagreeing with God.

    They are what they are, he is what he is, and readers may consider it all as they will.

    But it raises the question as to just how the internet has helped fuel the Stampede by providing a forum where – under the mantle of either a claimed victimization or a claimed Divine Authority – various types have been given a forum for glomming onto something by which they can go on with their assorted bits against the Church, religion, or whatever floats the boat of their personal psychic economy and makes their day seem (to them, anyway) worthwhile.

  19. Publion says:

    Then – nicely – comes JR (the 6th at 246PM) with a link to an Australian media article. The significance (to his mind, anyway) of which – as always – he fails to explain.

    Looking at the article, several points seem clear:

    The Church in Australia was clear-eyed enough to realize rather quickly the implications of what the (American) Doyle proposal of 1985 recognized as a clear and distinct possibility: that legal and cultural trends were making it far easier for a classic tort-strategy of suing the Church for large sums on the basis of allegations which would – by the workings of the developing Victimist Zeitgeist – be largely presumed to be veracious and accurate.

    Thus the Church in Australia developed its internal “Melbourne Policy”, by which all Bishops were to take the bull by the horns and contest any lawsuits and were, in cases where private settlements were dealt with, not to exceed payouts of fifty thousand dollars.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with the JR comment of the 6th at 246PM:

    This, of course, was a far different policy from that into which the US Bishops – whose approach was far more disparate and lackadaisical and far less proactive – found themselves drawn.

    Which is not to make the error of presuming that the hierarchies of the US and Australia were confronted by completely similar situations.

    In the US, certainly, there was a synergy (I have called it the Stampede, for short-hand purposes) among sensationalist media; a politically-connected tort-attorney or ‘plaintiff’s bar’ element; a decades-long political and cultural Zeitgeist that opposed the Church’s stance on a number of major politically-charged cultural issues; a consequent intensification of public focus on sex-‘abuse’ (however defined) and child abuse; a general increase in the litigiousness in American society; an established basic ‘script’ whereby truthy whistle-blowing truth-tellers would take on large corporate entities (and for big bucks, when done in the civil-action ‘lawsuit’ forum); a ‘culture war’ that pitted American secularist political and cultural and media ‘elites’ against ‘religion’; a largely ‘victim-friendly’ (I would call it Victimist) sensibility diffused throughout society and public opinion; numerous consequent instances of official legal weakening of evidentiary and jurisprudential processes to make them more ‘victim-friendly’; a profound division within the American Catholic polity itself as to the proper course to be taken in light of either the actual demands of the Second Vatican Council or at least the ‘spirit of Vatican Two’; which itself led to a subsequent disparate approach to the functions and disciplines required of priests.

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with the JR comment of the 6th at 246PM:

    To which I would also add a certain – not entirely misplaced – complacent presumption among the American hierarchy in regard to their religious polity which had come from ‘outsider’ status in the preceding two centuries to a 20th-century efflorescence that saw major Church growth in Catholic stature through the success of the Great Immigration generations (so very many of which immigrants were Catholics), vigorous participation in both World Wars, the election of a Catholic President, and the successes of the pontificate of John Paul II that reached even to the Church’s role in the dissolution – amazing to behold at the time – of the Soviet system and of the USSR itself.

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with the JR comment of the 6th at 246PM:

    The Australian hierarchy’s plan greatly reduced the pay-outs for settlements based on the assorted allegations and claims. But once one withholds a knee-jerk (Stampede) presumption that all allegations and claims were demonstrably veracious, then this success appears far less sinister and far more effective than what developed in the US.

    I do not know whether the Australian government analysis itself realizes this and the media reporting (such as we see in this link) is skewed and selective, or whether the Australian government ‘study’ is itself attempting to set the stage for a replay of the American experience as to the Catholic Abuse Matter.

    But in any case, the bare fact that a) Australian allegants did not make as much money as they might have in the US setting, and that – hardly unexpectedly, given any Australian societal similarity to the larger societal elements to which I referred in my immediately prior comment in regard to the synergy of elements I term the Stampede in the US – b) allegants who made their efforts in the civil-lawsuit forum made more money … does not in and of itself demonstrate any injustice.

    So – as always – JR’s “point” remains to be ‘proved’.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      2000 compensated out of 11,000 victims. 9000 uncompensated victims (at least) in the U.S. alone. You are shameless.

  23. Dan says:

    NIV  "Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing?  Job16:3

    New Living Translation  "Won't you ever stop blowing hot air? What makes you keep on talking? Job 16:3

    All your long windedness and arguments substantiate, is the fact that the "catholic child abuse matters" range long and wide, around the world. United States, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, etc. etc. etc.. Need I list more? In other words, every location where the catholic church established themselves and brainwashed the population, sooner more than later began to molest children. It just may be beyond time you wake up to reality.

    Dion, a roamin' catholic singer, sang a song that sounds perfect to describe the church heirarchy and priests. Take his song, The Wanderer, and substitute, little boys, for 'pretty girls', and you've just about got the catholic church pegged to the tee.

    Keep on mocking God and think your just mocking me and see where that leads you, blasphemer. You think your years spent on the porch of Napa State Hospital qualifies you to be "clinically-experienced", but all it proves is that you're legally and clinically insane. Join with all the rest of the catholic liars, and further prove that birds of the feather flock together. 


    • Publion says:

      As if on cue, ‘Dan’ returns (the 8th at 505PM) with more Scriptural bits, epithetically deployed against my “long-winded speeches”; his own performance on recent threads, with extended Scriptural excurses, also epithetically deployed, seem not to strike him as eligible for Job’s denunciations – and no surprise there. But rational discussion and compound/complex sentences do tend to be off-putting for certain mentalities.

      As to the recitation of other countries in which the Catholic Child Abuse Matter has also now popped up: if my theory of the Stampede is correct, and since these other countries’ efforts post-date the Stampede in the US, then it is quite possible – as I have said on this site before – that we are largely seeing imitations, nurtured by media or other interests in those countries for their own local purposes.

      Readers will recall that the Dutch Abuse Report – as it is colloquially known – from almost half a decade ago has actually never been published in English in its full text, and that – when you actually tote up the figures – that document found 109 cases (however defined) in the preceding half century. Which would work out to two cases (however defined and if veracious) per year.  There are many links to media ‘reports’, but there is no actual document; and we have heard nothing else from that country since.

      Ditto the Irish ‘Magdalene’ cases, about which nothing further has been heard since the initial splash, although the author of a best-selling book on her own victimization experiences was later exposed as a mentally-ill confabulator (perhaps with an eye for the main chance) who was never a resident in any such facility. The fact that the book yet remained for some time longer a best-seller in that country may well indicate some local predilections, which contributed to such a Stampede as may have been sparked in that country, although the spark did not result in the type of major fire we saw in the US.

      The Australian variant is still in the process and whether it proves itself any more reliable in its ‘discoveries’ than the Dutch remains to be seen.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 505PM:

      And none of the other countries mentioned seem to have developed much ‘newsworthy’, again supporting my theory that efforts at imitation have not been successful.

      ‘Dan’s suggestion that I “wake up to reality” will be given every bit of the consideration it deserves, coming from the source it does.

      I am not familiar with contemporary rock or folk songs – even from a “roamin’ catholic singer” but if that’s the basis for ‘Dan’s material here, and the level on which he operates, then it is what it is.

      And the whole bit concludes – as almost always – with a reminder that “mocking” ‘Dan’ is tantamount to “mocking God” (or at least the entity sending ‘Dan’ those spiritual telegrams or emails); and that anyone who takes issue with ‘Dan’s bits is thus a “blasphemer”. I don’t know where he gets his Napa State Hospital reference, though perhaps it is a reflection of his own admitted misadventures with the mental health system.

      And his further assertion that my material only “proves … that [I am] legally and clinically insane” – simply provides a sterling example of the familiar Abusenik dodge of I’m Not/You Are, while also demonstrating his substantial lack of legal and clinical chops and yet also his readiness to weave anything he can find ready-to-hand in order to construct an epithet.

      Which then conveniently enables him to claim that he thereby “proves” this, that, and the other thing.

      A nice enough demonstration, all told, of the psychic economy constructed by certain types in order to feel like they’ve done a good day’s work and must surely go on since “God” (however the term may be defined in ‘Dan’s hyperventilating usage) wills it.

  24. Dan says:

    Dear Mr. Legend, in your own little mind,

    More excuses, on top of previous excuses, backed up by more excuses, followed by a few more excuses, etc.etc.etc.. Time you realized, that all your deceptions and lies have only come to fool yourself. I'm surely not impressed by any of your propaganda, and since according to your assessment of my mental incapabilities, I would infer that no one else is either.

    Got a nice one that suits you perfectly- "But evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving others and being themselves deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13

    Birds of a feather, should be all caged together. – Dan

    P.S. I'll be waiting for your nauseating, long-winded return.


  25. Dan says:

    Publion, I'm trying to understand the motives to all your excuses and insistance on being the catholic church apologist, in ad nauseum. All of us can easily access the net, to find it plastered with cases where priests and bishops admitted guilt to their heinous crimes of child molestation. Do you need help finding them; Try to google 'catholic child molesting' and you'll find several websites, wiki, bishopaccountability.org, etc., where these cases were tried with the consequence of some penalties. In several of these, the settlement included hush money, bankruptcies, threats of lawsuits, or just refusal of the church to accept culpability and pay off victims. So out of all the countries I mentioned, you've cherry picked a meager two examples("Dutch Abuse Report" and "Irish 'Magdalene' cases"), where you can raise some infinitesimal doubt to suit your agenda(whatever that may be?). With this you expect us to ignore all the thousands of cases where the church or perpetrator admitted guilt, of which the majority were settled in silence to protect the 'catholic churches high moral standards'. Are you that dense, to think were all as blind and stupid as you? I would have to say, "Your ignorance is beginning to annoy me.", but it's way passed that.    

                                         Servant of TheTruth, waiting for some form of truth from you.

  26. Publion says:

    On the 9th at 937PM, and from the self-styled “Servant of the Truth” I am epithetically referred-to as “Mr. Legend in your own little mind”.

    But I say that this should not be held against the Napa State Hospital; I doubt they would have had enough time to resolve the issues in ‘Dan’s mind.

    When problems are pointed out with their preferred and carefully-constructed little piles of blocks, then to certain types of minds that simply constitutes “excuses, on top of previous excuses, backed up by more excuses, followed by a few more excuses” – which bit does nothing but remind us of his own excuses to the effect that his multiple arrests and stays in mental facilities were based – but of course – on nothing but ‘lies, lies, and more lies’ and so on.

    Thus the Abusenik mind seeks to preserve its preferred illusions and scare-visions.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 937PM:

    ‘Dan’ reports himself “not impressed” and who could be surprised? He apparently (and rightly) realizes – on some level, at least – that there is no way he can deal with the points I raised, and so – in a hardly unfamiliar gambit – he reverts to epithets: the “excuses” – doncha see? – are also “propaganda” and, of course, “long-winded”.

    But now, in addition to his dwelling in the sure and certain ‘knowledge’ that (his, a, some, any, the) ‘God’ is also not impressed, he will also “infer” that “no one else is [impressed] either”. Thus, to bolster his own mush he will try to speak for everyone else as well, in addition to speaking for (his, a, some, any, the) Divinity. And who – he would have us think – would dare presume to question creds like that? (Short answer: ‘Blasphemers’.)

    He then tosses in another (epithetically-deployed) Scripture text, perhaps hot off the wire from Dan-God Central.

    But his conclusion – in that marvelous way that appears invisible to the rather unwell – gives him away: certain types of “birds” – doncha see? – “should be all caged together”. The authorities have tried that on several occasions (as he has admitted) but it didn’t seem to work.

  28. Publion says:

    But again, instead of “waiting for my long-winded reply”, “The Servant of the Truth” (with ‘servant’ capitalized, thank ya vurrry mutch) returns on the 10th at 934AM.

    For those keeping a notebook on the Abusenik Playbook we get another interesting dodge: rather than deal with the points I raised (which, as I said, he cannot really do) he will now ‘try’ “to understand the motives” of all my points.

    To do this, of course, he has to make a number of presumptions:

    First, that I am indeed ‘insisting’ on “being the catholic church apologist”: I am not; I am simply raising questions that arise from the material Abuseniks such as himself proffer.

    Second, that on various sites on the Web one can find (sure and certain?) evidence “plastered” there to the effect that “priests and bishops admitted guilt”: he is welcome to deal with the points I raised here recently about the substantial dubiousness of even plea-bargains and the uncongenial (to his position) reality that Stampede-type ‘victim-friendly’ jurisprudence has now largely been jiggered to the advantage of the allegant and against the presumed innocence of the accused. When even a Federal Appellate judge writing  at length in a prestigious legal journal raises formal and well-explicated doubts, and when the possibility of self-condemnation such as the Supreme Court noted in 1970 now appear to have come to pass, then what does one make of such few criminal cases as there have been?

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 934AM:

    Third, he then appears to confuse civil-action lawsuit settlements and criminal cases – and who can be surprised? And the probabilities arising from the civil-lawsuit tort-attorney gambit have been identified and explicated at length on this site, and recently.

    Fourth, he then claims that I merely “cherry-picked” the examples of the Netherlands and Ireland. Those were the two on his list that received the widest media play, and even those two  – as I pointed out – have fallen far short of establishing the Abusenik/Stampede claims and assertions. Nor are the problems and doubts arising from those two instances “infinitesimal” nor “meager”. If he has found far more decisive and convincing evidence in any of the other national venues he mentioned, he can put them up here.

    And where he gets his “thousands of cases” is anybody’s guess, but who can be surprised? As always, the Stampede has been fueled by a circular house-of-mirrors approach whereby various types simply presume and repeat until the mere fact of the repetitious presumptions can slide by as if it were demonstrated actuality.

    And with that (rather weak and obvious) gambit tossed-up here, he then resorts – as so very often – to epithets in order to try and do the job that his ‘facts’ are incapable of doing.

    And the self-devised signature, demonstrating his own legendary status (in his own mind, at least) as the “Servant of The Truth” – and who can be surprised?

    As I have said, when you filter out their whackeries and their epithets, and look more carefully at what they proffer, then Abuseniks have very very little to bring to the table.

  30. Dan says:

    Blah Blah Blah: What To Do When Word's Don't Work by Dan Roam

    Thought this book might help you. I can't open the eyes or ears of the deaf, dumb and blind. Maybe God would, if you ever stop mocking Him and thinking you're awful cute with your nasty sarcasm. I am through wasting my valuable time with your ignorance.

                                                                  Dan, Servant of the Almighty

    • Publion says:

      If I had wanted to devise a more revealing bit from ‘Dan’ to demonstrate my points, I could not have done a much better job than his of the 11th at 1259AM: “Blah Blah Blah” indeed.

      The question is only secondarily about “words”; it is primarily about concepts and their relationship to demonstrated actuality. “Words” unanchored from concepts and demonstrated actuality become nothing more than distractions.

      And we see yet another dodge: ‘Dan’s “time” – doncha see? – is far too “valuable” to be “wasting” here. I have no doubt that he has received this advice before from various professionals encountered in his assorted misadventures; but it seems rather clear that he has been unable or unwilling (or both) to take that advice to heart and spend his energies on more urgent problems that require his full attention.

      And at the end of it all, a reader might suddenly realize that ‘Dan’ has proffered nothing to resolve the issues that were on the table, i.e. the problems with his material.

  31. Mark says:

    Hey Dave, I know I have taken exception with some of the things you have written, but this link should leave you feeling vindicated: 


    (I bet Dennis Ecker and Dan won't be impressed, though.)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Crisis" Mark?

      What's the "Crisis"? Getting one's knickers in a twist over a movie? Living for an imaginary diety? Anybody who isn't a catholic?

      JP2 absoutely ruined your church. It's been in the dark ages for a very long time.

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    2000 compensated out of 11,000 victims. 9000 uncompensated victims (at least) in the U.S. alone. You are shameless.

  33. Dan says:

    Mark 12/11 5:20am    If the thousands of priests, nuns, catholic teachers and laity kept their filthy little hands off of children(minors) of any age, there would be no need to cover for their crimes or transfer them to other locations to continue the nastiness. Popes, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, pastors and monsignors would not have had to lie, deceive, hide and secretly settle with victims, the perversions that I would suppose they are also guilty of. If all these crimes against underage children never happened, there would be no need for the Boston Globe story, the Hollywood movie, the Media Report.com and no other deceivers, liars or hypocrites(like Publion) to skew the truth in an attempt to take the public eye off of who really is the guilty party here; All the sick perverts and anyone one who excuses and tries to cover up their nasty deeds. Keep your dresses(gowns or vestments) on, your zippers up and your mouths closed and we would all be able to experience a safer world for our children and our children's children. Please stop all the smokescreens, they will only fool the ignorant and no one else.

    I'm against anyone who slanders, lies or persecutes those who seek and speak the truth. I have suffered personally from malicious catholic liars and could care less what other catholic slanderers(i.e. Publion) have to add to their vicious, disgusting lies.      Dan

    P.S. Don't forget Mark, "It's only a movie!" and that's Hollywood for you and the reason I'm not interested in seeing it. Much more interested in reality and truth, something hard to come by these days.

  34. Dan says:

    Took a look at the John Jay Report this evening- Starts out and I quote, "ALL researchers acknowledge that those who are arrested represent only a FRACTION of all sexual offenders. Sexual crimes have the lowest rates of reporting for all crimes." Chapter 2.1

    Catholic priests preferred sexual encounters with young boys(81% of the time) compared to young girls(19%), very different than that of the general population.

    We've been led to believe that most priest sexual abuse occured among children between ages 14-17 years old. Not true. Just over 50% of allegations were from children ages 11-14 and over 70% ages 10-15. Page 70

    They would have us believe that many offenses were minor(i.e. hugs, kisses, touching). False, the truth- "Very few priests have allegations of only the least severe of the abuses." Page 72 – "If incidents that include acts of oral sex or sexual penetration are counted alone, they total 3,280, or 34%." Also page 72. My addition among boys alone totaled closer to 40% and that excluded masturbation which also registered higher marks. Check out the chart for yourself on page 73.

    So if we add to these facts that very few violations were reported to the authorities, leading to even fewer convictions, settlements(hush money) made in secrecy, threats so priests remain anonymous(i.e. excommunication), and this represents only a fraction of offenses and many more go unreported(see quote in paragraph 1), yikes to say the least!

    And is it any wonder that the number of cases declined as pope john paul II took the reigns, along with the RATSzinger by his side, telling the bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug, in regards to priestly homosexual acts or "any gravely sinful external obscene act with prepubescent children of either sex or with animals". I'm glad they were able to describe it as the disgusting vile sinful act it was, but too bad they didn't handle it as such and report the violators to the proper authorities. I haven't seen francis make any significant changes to policy, and anyone with the least bit of intellegence isn't fooled by his Kangaroo court tribunal. Is it possible that he was elected pope because he's done such a good job hiding child molesting priests down in remote parts of South America, where they can continue raping children. This isn't past history folks. This is happening throughout the past ten years and probably continuing as we speak. Time to wake up, all you catholic ostriches.   


  35. Publion says:

    Nothing too useful from JR on the 11th at 1159AM; and on the 11th at 1201PM we simply get a repetition of his un-supported 3×5 about only 2000 “victims” being “compensated” out of 11,000 “in the US alone”.

    We have been around the garden about this claim before. Where does he get these figures or how has he reached them?

  36. Publion says:

    And on the 12th at 358AM ‘Dan’ will now demonstrate his fact-and-research chops, which he has – we are to imagine – been holding back all this time.

    He says he “took a look at the John Jay Report”. Before we go any further, which Report would that be? There were – it apparently escaped his researches – two.

  37. Mark says:

    I just want to say that I have no time for atheists (such as Jim Robertson) or anti Catholic fundementalists (such as Dan). As a Catholic Christian, I don't consider them to be any better than pedophile priests or bishops who protect them at the expense of the victims.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Mark dear you are an ahole. But that can't be news to you. How about us athiests not having time for you? And your tax free church? How bout that?

  38. Dan says:

    Mark, I am not anti-catholic. I am anti-pervert, anti-pedophile, anti-child molester, anti-hypocrites, anti-liars and anti-excuse makers for all of the above. If they happen to be catholics then I am anti or against those catholics. Please get that straight. Later hater.

  39. Dan says:

    And by the way. Most catholics are not christians and those two words should never be linked together. Try reading and following a bible and then you might be able to call yourselves christians. Also, saying that someone trying to lead you to the truth of Almighty God is no better than a pedophile priest or bishop who protected them is absolutely asinine.

  40. Dan says:

    And no Mark. I was never blaming you for the scandal, but I do wish all catholics will come to recognize it as such and leave the cult, to find the one and only true God and quit thinking He dwells or lives among the false, manmade religious institutions of the world. All they really love is money and disobeying God and thinking they've pulled the wool over His eyes. What nerve they have to think they can harm His children and get away with it. They will and are going to pay a mighty high price, if not now, then through all eternity. Sorry you misunderstood.                                                                              Dan

  41. Publion says:

    Well, the ‘Dan’ comments of the 13th at 1109AM, 1120AM, and 330PM certainly provide a couple of footnotes for those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook. Readers may consider it all as they will.

    And since ‘Dan’ doesn’t appear to recall which of the two Jay Reports he had ‘looked at’, then I’ll go with the first one, covering the period 1950=2002, published in June of 2004, and now thus more than a decade ago.

    That being decided, then the actual text (almost 300 pages) of the document can be accessed here


    Let’s go over the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    First, I’ll clarify a basic reference point: there is a 6-page difference between the pagination of the original document and the pagination imposed by the PDF format; thus, for example, a page of the original document numbered 23 would appear in the format-counter as 29. I will refer to a page with both numbers, thus, for example ‘page 23/29’. A reader can then either scroll down to the original document page-number (23) or use the formatter’s page-finder number (29).

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    The report doesn’t ‘start out’ with the material he quoted; that material comes – as he himself should have realized – in Chapter 2. Clearly the ‘look’ that he ‘took’ was rather cursory.

    Actually, the Report starts out with an Executive Summary (p.3/9), in which it explains the “mandate of the study”, which was to “examine the number and nature of the allegations of sexual abuse of minors under the age of 18 by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2002. In that section on that page, it refers to “alleged victims” and “alleged abusers” and “allegations of abuse”.

    So from the get-go we are already into the fraught but (to regular readers of this site, certainly) hardly unfamiliar Problem of Veracity: how can we be certain of the veracity of the myriad “allegations”? To some extent – it has to be admitted – the Report begins the game on first base rather than with an at-bat at home plate. (Although it does try to restrain itself by its continued use of the assorted variants of ‘allege’ as verb or adjective or noun.)

    Further, this section of the Report then goes on to describe its core research methodology, which was the ‘survey’ method: you send out questionnaires, take the ones that are returned, and use whatever you have gotten in those returns as your basic database (upon which you will focus your analysis and from which you will derive your conclusions).

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    To no small extent, the questionnaires that were sent to the chanceries would contain the allegations made by the allegants or “alleged victims”; so there is a bit of the hall-of-mirrors effect in this.

    And as the Report acknowledges on page 5/11, “it is impossible to determine from our surveys” just what percentage of “all actual abuse cases” for the period 1950-2002 were reported; as matters stood in 2004, fewer than 13pct of allegations were made in the actual year of the claimed abuse, while a full 25pct of allegations were made in regard to some point in time extending back beyond 30 years.

    Reflecting the sense of its times, the Report surmises that many more allegations would surface in the future, since – as was thought – it takes a long time for allegations to be made by ‘victims’. (The second Report –published in 2011 – will note with some bemusement that the presumed or anticipated surge of allegations (beyond the original 10,667 allegants the first Report tallies) not only did not materialize, but actually fell off with increasing precipitousness.)

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    On then, to ‘Dan’s first quoted material, from Chapter 2.1 (beginning on page 23/29).

    Chapter 2 begins with a curiously shaky title: “The Prevalence of Sexual Abuse of Youths Under 18 Children in the United States” (sic). I would imagine that the authors of the Report were torn between trying to accurately describe the “alleged victim” pool while also not appearing so scientifically detached as to overlook the dramatic impact of the term “children”.

    The first paragraph – where the text “starts out” – actually begins with a clear disclaimer that “the estimation of any form of deviance in the general population is a very difficult task” and “it is impossible to assess the extent of sexual offending”.

    Only then does the text approach the bit ‘Dan’ quoted: the only available method of trying to assess the extent of such offenses (against adults or children) is “forensic”, i.e. using those arrested or convicted as samples. I would point out here that if my theory of Stampede is correct, then this basis is already somewhat dubiously reliable (for reasons rather carefully explicated most recently by Federal judge Kosinski and discussed at length recently in comments on this site).

    And it is then only at this point that the text states – as ‘Dan’ quoted – that “all researchers acknowledge that those who are arrested represent only a fraction of all sexual offenders”. In its most basic sense, this is something of a truism: for any crime, the chances are that those arrested for that crime represent only a fraction of those who have committed a crime (the number of speeding tickets issued, for example, represents only a fraction of those who actually ‘speed’ when driving).

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    But just how large or small a “fraction” we are dealing with remains so very difficult to determine. We can think, in contemporary events, of the ‘campus rape’ or ‘campus date-rape’ brouhaha.

    But – again, I would say, reflecting its time – the Report goes on to state that “sexual crimes have the lowest rates of reporting for all crimes”. This is a gratuitous presumption, for which there is little if any solidly reliable evidence; what most ‘researchers’ presume is that the claims of sexual-abuse are presumptively veracious reports of sexual-abuse. And as we have nowadays seen with the ‘campus date rape’ brouhaha, such a presumption is no longer so easily made or tenable.

    The text (again on page 23/29) admits that the “prevalence of victimization”, as determined by “several studies” yet “vary somewhat” – which is in any scientific research a warning-flag indicating that reliability is dubious. And I would say that surely the ‘survey’ methodology, in which a) answers to questionnaires are taken as presumptively veracious, and in which b) questions are carefully formulated by different research teams for their own purposes … would surely contribute to this variance.

    Indeed, on page 24/30 the Report acknowledges that the best that can be done is an “estimate”; and further that while such claims of sexual-abuse “peaked” in 1992 and declined annually through the year 2000 (the last year for which data might have been available to the authors here), yet nobody among the experts can quite understand or explain why (“professional opinion is divided” as to how and why the decline happened).

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    We then get what appear to be a random collection of points that ‘Dan’ has assembled.

    As opposed to the general population, “priests preferred … young boys”. That may be an accurate factoid, but its significance remains unclear since is at least one large possibility that would affect what ‘Dan’ rather gratuitously terms a ‘preference’; that in the course and scope of his activities, a priest so inclined might have far more access to boys than to girls. And thus it would take quite a bit more careful research to establish the accuracy and veracity of that “preferred”.

    We then get this trope: “we’ve been led to believe”. And more specifically: “we’ve been led to believe” that the largest amount of (alleged) priestly sex-abuse occurred against victims in the 14-17 age range, whereas actually it was in the 10-15 age range.

    I don’t recall such specific discussions, and certainly not that “we” were “led to believe”. The distinction that I recall is that between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent (from which in a general way the distinction between ‘pedophilia’ and not-pedophilia arises). And that discussion would hinge upon the age of male pubescence, and even that ‘fact’ is debated among experts: some authorities consider that age to be 10 for white and Hispanic boys and 9 for blacks, and some hold that puberty can take place in individual boys anywhere between 9 and 14 (readers so inclined can enter a term such as ‘age of male puberty’ into their search engine).

  47. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    Thus from this deeply unpromising base, ‘Dan’ will continue that “they would have us believe” to the effect that “many offenses were minor”. He claims this is “false”, but the very figures he quotes (from page 72/78, a chart entitled “Alleged Acts of Abuse, by Gender”) indicates that just over one-third – of, we recall and the Report here specifically reminds us, “allegations” –involved “oral sex or penile penetration”. That leaves about two-thirds of allegations that do not rise to that level.

    And certainly one axis or area that the team did not consider sufficiently was: how many allegants had consulted a tort attorney before they presented their claims or ‘reports’ to the Church? Because it is in the very nature of the tort enterprise to burnish (some might say embellish) a claimed tortious act in order to achieve the maximum possible leverage in negotiating for money.

    None of my above observations are meant to imply that no genuine victimization might have taken place in this or that specific case or instance. But – as always – I am concerned to keep ‘conclusions’ within the justifiable limits and boundaries set by the demonstrated facts and actualities that are purported to ground those ‘conclusions’.

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    In his stab at summation ‘Dan’ then tries to pile all of his blocks into a workable structure: i) if one takes all of “these facts” of his, and adds to that ii) the presumption that “very few violations were reported to authorities” (which as we have seen above is dubious in itself and is surely implausible in the post-1990 ‘victim-friendly’ era and the post-2002 ‘Spotlight’ era) which thus iii) disposes of the inconvenient problem of few trials, while iv) presuming that secrecy stipulations in settlements were demanded by the Church rather than the allegants’ attorneys, while also building on v) the already-discredited-above JR claim about “excommunication” wrongly claimed to be embedded in the 1962 Instruction from John XXIII then … if you take all of those blocks and put them in a pile in just the right way then ‘Dan’ is clearly justified in his histrionic “yikes to say the least”. And if not, not.

    And he then takes the train even further off the rails by then adverting to the alleged ‘fact’ that “the number of cases declined” as John Paul II “took the reins” – and tosses in, apparently, Benedict XVI as well (referred to in snide bit of juvenilia). But “the number of cases” increased during the pontificate of John Paul II (1978-2005). Thus some other explanation will have to be put forward for the inconvenient fact that “the number of cases” has declined (and dramatically so, as the second, 2011 Jay Report notes); and the quotation beginning “any gravely sinful …” is from the pontificate of John XXIII and the 1962 Instruction, which further derails this choo-choo ‘Dan’ is trying to drive.

    And ‘Dan’s further effort to cast his pall over the current Pope has to ignore the protocols developed under John Paul II, refined under Benedict XVI, and amplified by Francis I who has actually raised up a papal Commission (including victim-advocates) with jurisdiction in these matters.

  49. Publion says:

    Continuing with the ‘Dan’ comment of the 12th at 358AM:

    As to ‘Dan’s reliability and credibility in determining who does and does not possess “the least bit of intellegence” … readers may consider it as they will.

    But he quickly tries to move us beyond any such considerations by tossing up that trusty Abusenik gambit of innuendo and insinuation: perhaps Francis “was elected pope” precisely because of his (alleged) success in hiding abusive priests in (all of or at least “the remote parts of”) South America (which bit might be imagined to conveniently dispose of the inconvenient reality that there have been so few successful efforts at igniting the Stampede on that continent).

    And in a rather uncharacteristically chummy final rhetorical flourish, ‘Dan’ exhorts all of us “folks” (aka “catholic ostriches” with heads in the sand) that “this isn’t past history”. Whether it is ‘Dan’s grasp of “past history” or of current-events that is more in need of major re-work … is a question for readers to consider as they may.

  50. Dan says:

    Clarification: I stated, "the number of cases declined as pope john paul II took the reigns, along with the RATSzinger by his side, telling the bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug" when I should have said, "the number of incidents of sexual abuse declined as pope john paul II took the reigns, along with the RATSzinger by his side, telling bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug".

    Thanks for pointing that out P, cause it much better proves my point that pope john paul II and RATSzinger were complicit in the coverup of abuse of young children and did everything in their power to hide and deceive the church and society at large. In regards to my "snide bit of juvenilia" you claimed, it's not my fault that God gave "RATSzinger" the name that was so befitting his collusion in the scandal. You think not? He named one of the greediest TV ministers, Creflo DOLLAR (the one demanding a 47 million dollar plane from his sheep).

    I'm going to try this one more time and see if you can understand. I used an easy version because I know you have problems understanding complex sentences and explanations. "They claim to be wise, but they are fools. They don't worship the glorious and eternal God. Instead, they worship IDOLS(statues or paintings) that are made to look like humans who cannot live forever, and like birds, animals, and reptiles. So God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do, and their filthy thoughts made them do shameful things with their bodies. They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshipped God's creation instead of God." Romans chapter 1: 22-25 Another example of idolatry, the monstrance is the pagan worship of the sun(host), moon(luna), and surrounded by a sunburst. It is so revered (worshipped), that the priest will not touch the vessel with his hands. And what could be a more shameful thing to do with your body than to molest a child of God. Their are no excuses or rationale for a supposed man of God to commit such horrible sins. Please stop the nonsense!!

  51. Jim Robertson says:


    There. I'm better now. He, P, thinks he's dueling or something. He never wants peace. No who what kind of person never wants to be peaceable? He weaves a blanket of words that puts it's readers to sleep. Have you ever seen read one kind thing written by the man in all his manipulative spew? Me either.

  52. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’ returns on the 15th at 1207AM.

    He now proffers a “clarification”, although the “clarification” doesn’t do much of anything except – as so often with Abuseniks – raise more questions than it tries to appear to answer.

    Specifically, he now wants to say that “the number of incidents of sexual abuse declined” … and how in any universe would he actually know that? Does anybody actually and really know “the number of incidents of sexual abuse” (within a range from zero to infinity)?

    And his ‘clarified’ proffer still retains the assertion that John Paul 2 and Benedict XVI both were “telling bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug”. Where is the evidence for that assertion? (And if ‘Dan’ is going to try to proffer the 1962 Instruction of John XXIII as his ‘proof’ here, then that gambit has already been demolished in prior comments on this thread and the text of that Instruction is also available for any readers so inclined to consult for themselves.)

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1207AM:

    Thus his effort at snark that begins his second paragraph fails. Which means that pretty much the entire second paragraph fails.

    However he then demonstrates a marvelous bit of juvenilia: he will attempt to excuse his reference to Benedict XVI as “RATSzinger” by claiming that it “not my fault” that “God gave” Benedict XVI that family name. But “God gave” Benedict XVI the family name of ‘Ratzinger’ and there is no ‘s’ in there. And he tosses in a further epithetical trying to tie Benedict XVI into Creflo Dollar.

    So …. juvenilia, ignorance, epithet, and a queasy effort to avoid his own screw-ups … and ‘Dan’ economically delivers them all in one single bit here. Thanks for revealing yourself, O great Servant of Truth.

    And this bit of his also serves to remind one and all that there are precincts of the Web where this sort of stuff is considered valid and viable.

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1207AM:

    The third paragraph sees a Wiggy effort at posturing as the exasperated Servant of Truth: he’s “going to try this one more time and see if [I] can understand”. Actually, I think I understand his shtick rather well and have explicated it at length; it is he who appears to harbor quite a few mistaken conceptions of his material and his stature (as one-half of the Dan-God Central dynamic duo).

    Because – he now tells us, doncha see? – up to now he has been using “an easy version” of his material (so … to further his claimed effort at inducing ‘understanding’, he is now going to use a more complicated version …?); he is doing this because he “doth know that [I] have problems understanding complex sentences and explanation” – which bit a) digs him in even deeper into the hole he has just dug for himself and b) demonstrates nicely the old Abusenik dodge of I’m Not/You Are.

    And his more complex and not-so-easy version is – had you been waitttttting forrrrr itttt? – a Scriptural pericope. Ovvvvvv courssssssssse. That clarifies a great deal – although not in the way ‘Dan’ no doubt hoped it would.

  55. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1207AM:

    After which he then attempts to avoid the precise problem at issue in all of this: he will presume the accuracy and veracity of the allegations (whether all of them, or most of them, or some other fraction enroute to zero … he doesn’t care to say).

    So I would respond: it is indeed a grievous sin to “molest a child of God”. But that isn’t actually the problem with the Stampede. The problem with the Stampede is to determine how many actual instances of such a sin, perpetrated by a priest, actually took place. The Abuseniks would tend to imagine that answer to be somewhere well along toward ‘infinity’ and I would say that the probability is much much less than that (but not zero).

    And who but who could disagree with ‘Dan’s plaintive plaint to “Please stop the nonsense!”? But alas, I don’t think ‘Dan’ is going to be able to achieve that.

  56. Publion says:

    Then JR weighs in on the 15th at 146AM:

    There’s not much to it, but there is something.

    After relieving himself with his opening screams, he then reports himself thus: “There. I’m better now.”

    No, alas, that’s not quite accurate at all. He may ‘feel’ better, but that’s not at all the same thing as actually being or having-become “better”.

    And “peace” with Abuseniks is only to be achieved by agreeing with their stuff. But they don’t think they are “dueling”; rather, like ‘Dan’, they imagine themselves as fearless and truthy truth-warriors who only speak truth. Again, as Dame Margaret would have said politely: “That must console you.”

    “Words” put JR “to sleep”. They will have that effect … on certain minds.

    And the bit concludes with a now too-obvious manipulative epithet that readers can enjoy for themselves.

  57. TruCatholic says:

    That's just like the Catholic Church. Taking up for the lawers, and child-raping priests. And attacking the messengers. So we need to attack the Boston Globe, and the movie ? If it wasn't for the Boston Globe, this problem wouldn't even exist. This article is proof. The Catolic Church still sees no problem, in child rape, by priests. The only "problem", according to the Catholic Church, is the fact that it's being exposed.

  58. Jim Robertson says:

    "No who" makes no sense in my last post. Sorry.

  59. Dan says:

    Publion, and I quote, "The report doesn't 'start out' with the material he quoted: that material comes- as he himself should have realized- in Chapter 2. Clearly the 'look' that he 'took' was rather cursory."

    I've realized by now, that you go out of your way to make others look like were stupid and don't know what were talking about. Funny how it backfires on you, by your own nonsensical, longwinded explanations. Let me explain for the slow minded- Chapter 1 of the report is the intro, background of the study, and brief studies of sexual abuse in other organizations and religious institutions. I know you excusers would like to point the finger at everyone else, to try to rationalize how everybody else was doing it (molesting little children), so it made it alright that you were. But I was under the impression that we were discussing 'catholic abuse matters' and the damage your church has caused. Also, I question the collusion of the USCCB in providing the funding and material for the Report, which should have been an unbiased, impartial and neutral party doing the study.

    Back to your poor analysis of myself in above quote-  The meat of the study doesn't get started until Chapter 2. I believe I realized that since I referenced the quote, Chapter 2.1, and know that meant it wasn't the very first chapter of the report, as any simple mind would figure out, Mr. Persnickety. Maybe your 'look' at other's comments is 'rather cursory', and you may want to read their material closer, before giving your nasty retorts. You may have the time to read every little line of the Report and make a longwinded analysis of it, but some of us actually have a life, and enjoy living it.

                                                                 Dan, servant to the simpleminded



  60. Publion says:

    On the 15th at 1045AM ‘True Catholic’ deploys two familiar bits.

    First: the problem is simply that some somebodies on this site are “taking up for the lawyers, and child-raping priests”.

    If ‘True Catholic’ can demonstrate (with an accurate quote) where I have “taken up for the lawyers” then that would be interesting indeed, since the tort-attorneys are – in my theorization of the Matter – major players in fomenting the Stampede.

    And as for the second bit – about “attacking the messengers”: my entire point has been that we aren’t really certain as to just what the ‘message’ is. My position is that the ‘message’ of the Stampede vision is not supported either by demonstrated facts or by any rational probability, but instead is a scare-vision designed to further the assorted purposes and agendas of the various ‘interests’ participating in the Stampede.

    But, of course, for the Abusenik/Stampede cartoon, questioning the ‘message’ equals “attacking the messengers”. But are the messengers actually delivering an accurate message?

    And that question cannot simply be presumed-away with the various bits we have seen Abuseniks deploy here on this site.

  61. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’ returns on the 15th at 115PM.

    For those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook, we get an infrequently-deployed but not unfamiliar Abusenik gambit: I “go out of [my] way to make others look like were stupid and don’t know what were talking about” (sic).

    So thus, it’s not about their “intellegence” at all, is it? It’s about me doing  … what? Pointing out the problems with their material? Was I the one who put up incoherent or factually-inaccurate material?

    And if somebody puts up material that reflects a lack of attention to detail in any way (i.e. in the content or expression of their material), then that raises the question: if they haven’t paid attention to accuracy or factuality or detail in this instance, are they presumptively reliable in other instances?

    Does that seem strange to ‘Dan’? Apparently so. And readers may consider as they will.

    ‘Dan’ quickly then tries to bolster his bit with epithet (my “nonsensical, longwinded [sic] explanations”).

    And how that is supposed to ‘backfire’ on me is not something ‘Dan’ cares to explain, once he has tossed his plop up onto the screen. Once again, Abuseniks are undone by their inability to see the problems in their own material and presentation, and then have to come up instead with some other excuse that might lay the blame on somebody else.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 115PM:

    He will then add a bit more excursus on the (first) Jay Report. But only to somehow try to make it seem as if the Jay Report team (whose material he himself introduced here in support of his presentation) are now part of the “excusers” who “would like to point the finger at everyone else” (which is a neat bit of clinical projection here all on its own).

    The Jay Report team here is simply providing the introductory background information as to the ‘state of the question’, which is a standard – and necessary – step in conducting a scientific examination. This may not be familiar to ‘Dan’ since he is clearly not in the habit of conducting such examinations, nor even thinking along the lines of a mind trained to think in such a fashion. But that’s how objective analytic examinations are carried out.

    Thus too, we see his effort to burnish his (otherwise weak) presentation here by tossing in a gratuitous epithet: “Let me explain for the slow-minded”.

    And what ‘Dan’ doth claim to “know” (“I know you excusers” and so on) is an assertion for readers to consider as they will. I would say that ‘Dan’ only ‘knows’ what he wants to ‘know’, and that’s all he wants others to ‘know’ too.

  63. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 115PM:

    He is quite correct in being “under the impression” that “we were discussing ‘catholic abuse matters’ and the damage your church has caused”.

    The problem – which appears to continually escape his notice – is that we aren’t really sure a) how the Catholic Abuse Matter has been handled in terms of exaggeration and presumption and manipulation and b) we thus aren’t really sure how much “damage” the Church has “caused” (since we haven’t actually been able to determine the veracity and accuracy of the allegations).

    Are we supposed to simply presume those points according to the script ‘Dan’ appears to favor? If so, then I would point out to him that that’s not how it works.

    Then more epithet: I am “Persnickety”. Which in Abusenik-speak means: you are focusing on facts and rationality and coherence when we want you to presume the veracity of what we want you to believe even if our stuff isn’t actually factual or rational or coherent.

    But this is precisely how the Stampede managed to take root and sustain itself for so long.

    The only “simple mind” at work here is his own. If he hasn’t taken the time and trouble and effort to express his thoughts clearly (or even to work out his thoughts coherently) then that’s his problem, not every other reader’s.

    And while it clearly not a consolation for him to imagine that his own mental machinery needs some time in the shop, that doesn’t mean that everyone or anyone else is required to accept the more consoling phantasms he has developed in order to avoid the problems with his mental machinery.

  64. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 115PM:

    I do not treat any comments in a “cursory” manner; surely that is what irritates him (and other Abuseniks here): I precisely do read their comments, closely and carefully, and comment on the material they have thus provided.

    And does he have any accurately-quoted instances in which I have failed to read their material “closer”? (Hint: “closer” in the Abusenik dictionary here means that readers must read their minds and not their material as they present it – thus, if there’s a problem, it’s not in their material or their mind but rather it’s in the failure of the reader to suss out their actual meaning from the words that the Abuseniks themselves have provided.)

    Thus, he is upset that his material is indeed being read ‘closely’. It’s just that his material gives rise to objections and problems that he doesn’t want to deal with. Not my problem.

    And the whole bit concludes with yet another familiar gambit: he ‘has’ “a life” – doncha see? – and he doth “enjoy living it”, and so … what? He therefore doesn’t have the time to compose and express his material carefully? He therefore doesn’t have the time to read carefully the Report material that he himself has introduced in support of his assertions and visions?

    And the corollary implication is that I must have no life if I take the time to carefully examine his material and carefully explicate my responses to it? This is a sly juvenile bit indeed.

  65. Dan says:

    P- If as you say, "I precisely do read their comments, closely and carefully, and comment on the material they have thus provided." Then how is it that you have such a hard time understanding plain english and 'proffer' to offer your lame excuses and challenge common sense and truth. I know. It's the gambit abuseniks stampedes fault. Oh yeah! We're onto you.

    In regards to the "1962 Instruction of John XXIII as his 'proof' here, then that gambit has already been demolished in prior comments on this thread". Are you trying to tell me that you've already established as many excuses as you could concoct in regards to the document. Maybe you should hone your research skills to find that cardinal RATSzinger declared, "Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16,1962, (3) in force until now", on May 2001. It reads:

    CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER- "To Bishops of the entire Catholic Church REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith  (Dan says, "I was not aware that child molestation was specially 'reserved' for the catholic church.)

    - "A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years."

    "Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." "All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties. Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical SECRET."

    So taking into account the "CONFIDENTIAL 1962 Instruction of John XXIII" and the number of times he mentioned keeping things secret and oaths of secrecy, and the RATSzinger's reiteration with his CONFIDENTIAL secret document, maybe you might understand why I believe "the number of incidents of sexual abuse declined" only because pope john paul II and RATS were "telling bishops to keep everything hidden under the rug." Why do you think they're rugs are preferably bloody red?

    Also, someone might want to let your false cult know that the sixth commandment is really the seventh, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. They can't conveniently remove the 2nd commandment in their teaching because it condemned their worship of false gods (idols) and bowing down to them. Catholics beware. The punishment by God for this will be given from generation to generation.

    P, you agree, "It is a grievous sin to 'molest a child of God'." Why then do you attempt to dispute most claims, questioning "how many instances actually took place?" and trying to make us believe through your nauseous repetition that numbers are closer to zero. If the proven cases and those admitted to by clergy, according to all experts represent only a fraction of violations, then that would suggest you stop spewing your propaganda and twisting the truth.

    Knowing you are troubled by my use of RATSzinger, you might want to do one of your in depth scientific research studies and contact an exterminator. I'll start you off by informing you that where you find one RAT, you'll usually find several RATS, and they can be zingers (Devil's food). They tend to multiply almost as fast as the perverts and pedophiles in your church. When you complete your in depth comprehensive study, we will reward you officially the title, PUBLION-EXTERMINATOR OF TRUTH.            Dan, servant of Truth and God


  66. Jim Robertson says:

    Only 2000 out of 11,000 of your own Catholic victims compensated. Tsk Tsk Tsk!

  67. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's the latest from Australia's hearings. I share these to counter act the dis- information offered at this site. Especially by P.


  68. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’ returns on the 16th at 656PM.

    What will the dynamic duo of Dan-God Central produce for us today? Will the ‘God’ part be able to make itself clear through the ‘Dan’ part? Let’s stay tuned and see.

    In the first paragraph, ‘Dan’ will try a familiar gambit: starting the play on first rather than having to actually wield a bat and hit the ball.

    Specifically: he cannot square my claim to read comments closely and carefully (though he himself has already called me “Persnickety” for doing just that) with his presumption that he speaks in “plain english” (that should be a capital ‘E’, shouldn’t it?) and his stuff is “common sense and truth” – so he has convinced himself.

    The problem is not only easily addressed but has already been addressed with extended explication in prior comments: he doesn’t and it isn’t.

    That pretty much deflates his point, and with it the whole of the first paragraph.

    But – to repeat – if the Abuseniks really want to spend their precious we’ve-got-a- life time getting “onto” something, they should postpone their usual recreations and get “onto” the quality of their own stuff.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:

    He will then turn his attention to the 1962 Instruction of John XXIII.

    Here he will simply deploy – had you been waitinggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – epithet. Specifically: my explications were merely “excuses”.

    He then continues with his juvenile “Ratszinger” bit (hysterical scream-caps omitted).

     The 1962 Instruction was issued over the signature of Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the particular office in the Vatican organization responsible for formally issuing such documents; the pontificate and ultimate authority was the Pope’s, John XXIII.

    When Cardinal Ratzinger held that position under John Paul II, the 1962 Instruction was replaced (April 30, 2001) by a new document (the motu proprio entitled Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela), which built upon the new Code of Canon Law of 1983, which itself was followed in 1994 by a special Indult to the US Bishops that raised the age of the minor from 16 to 18 and allowed for a 10-year period of “prescription” (i.e. what we call the Statute of Limitations was canonically raised to 10 years from the 18th birthday of the allegant). Local hierarchs retained responsibility for conducting canonical process.

    In 2001 John Paul II decided that cases involving certain types of allegations were so serious in their import that direct Vatican involvement would be required (thus removing certain types of allegations/cases from the tribunal jurisdiction of local hierarchs).

    Readers may consult the link below, and the section entitled “Delicts against morality” is the one specifically relevant to matters under consideration here.


    It is clear that from 1962 onward to 2001 the Vatican was intensifying its disciplinary grasp of various types of priestly mis- or mal-feasance, and that in removing certain types of cases to a more direct Vatican jurisdiction the intention was to sidestep any hesitations or prejudices that might induce a local hierarch to handle such cases too lightly.

  70. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:

    Which also raises an interesting ‘timeline’ issue: it was in 2001 that the Boston Globe (preceded, actually, by the reporting of the now-defunct Boston Phoenix), under the leadership of a new editor who “needed to make a splash” as “the new gunslinger in town”, began what would become the Stampede that we now know, in conjunction with local tort-attorney interests.

    I don’t think that even the Vatican had imagined that such a blatant agitprop ploy as the Stampede became could be run and amplified and sustained in a modern Western nation, especially after the examples of Nazi and Soviet and Maoist propaganda stampedes, and especially the US. That is regrettable, because the Doyle proposal of 1985, submitted to the US Bishops and incorporating input from a US legal professional and a psychological professional, had surmised just such a possibility.

    But in any case, ‘Dan’s sophomoric effort to claim that it was the work of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger that led to a “decline” in reported abuse claims fails rather spectacularly here. And in the ensuing  almost decade-and-a-half since 2001 we saw an initial efflorescence of such claims.

    Although the “decline” that has happened since that efflorescence (noted in the second Jay Report of 2011) is far more rationally ascribable to the Stampede running out of steam (for whatever reasons) rather than – in ‘Dan’s vision – a Vatican-controlled clamp-down on the ecclesiastical processing of such allegations.

    He then tries to make a point about “reserved”: what is “reserved” to that particular Congregation is the handling and treatment of the listed phenomena within the Church, not the phenomena themselves as they exist in the world generally. (Although, soliciting certain crimes within the sacramental boundaries of confession is specific to the Church; and that’s the gravamen of all but four of the Instruction’s 74 paragraphs.) Now if there is a ‘persnickety’ aspect to all this, it is ‘Dan’s effort to somehow imply he has made a significant and relevant point here.

  71. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:

    He then proceeds onto the matter of a “Pontifical secret”. The “Pontifical secret” here indicates that more-than-usual confidentiality is required and it is a grave offense to violate that confidentiality.

    And, as a reading of the document would reveal, the “Pontifical secret” applies in this matter to any Church officials formally conducting a tribunal on any of the offenses noted in the Instruction. Thus the grave responsibility of confidentiality here is imposed on those formal tribunal officials who are conducting canonical process in such a matter.

    As I noted in prior comments here: the purpose was to protect all of those involved (thus allegants as well as accused) in such a claim until such time as the formal tribunal decision is reached and that formal canonical process is concluded. This much was realized even by the somewhat ‘liberal’ Catholic commentator, John L. Allen, Jr.

    This perfectly rational and prudent practice is hell-and-gone from the type of trial-by-media dynamic that has become so widespread on the American scene if the past decades of ‘advocacy journalism’, a practice that also creates innumerable soap-opera opportunities for a sensationalist media. It’s not un-related to, say, the confidential nature of Grand Jury proceedings.

    And – as I also pointed out in prior comments – this requirement does not preclude allegants from consulting civil counsel nor does it bind allegants after any formal canonical process is concluded.

    Thus ‘Dan’s effort here has simply been to glom onto the word “secret” and try to spin the entire Abusenik ‘secrecy’ scare-vision on the basis of the mere appearance of that word or terms of similar meaning in the document.

    And thus his effort fails. And its failure should have been obvious almost immediately after a careful reading of the document.

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:

    But his selective and insufficient piling up of his little blocks here then enables ‘Dan’ to try yet again one of his little toy-block constructions: the Instruction was designated “Confidential”, there’s a whole lot of use of the terms “secret” and “oaths of secrecy”, and – again with this error – he refers to Cardinal Ratzinger’s “reiteration” of the document (which his Office actually only issued on the authority of the Pope).

    And again with the juvenile “Ratszinger” bit (hysterical scream-caps omitted), which merely indicates the level on which ‘Dan’s mind most congenially operates (and, as we will see later in his comment here, continues to operate and cannot seem to operate without).

    But he will then try to bolster his bits here by tossing in the juvenile “hidden under the rug” riff.

    But what had Bishops been told to do? Ensure the confidentiality of all (allegants and accused) during formal canonical process and – later – to refer such allegations/cases to Rome (which is the Church equivalent of ‘making a federal case out of it’).

    How ‘Dan’ can then claim to proclaim the rationality of his ‘belief’ as to the hiding-under-the-rug bit … simply says more about the quality/credibility of ‘Dan’s belief capacities than it does about anything else.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 656PM:

    And we are then given further elements of ‘Dan’s chops as a Scripture reader or scholar: he raises an almost-sophomoric point about the numbering of the commandments, which is an old chestnut that goes back at least to the era of the Septuagint and received new life during the Reformation. All ‘Dan’ has demonstrated here is that he is rather selective (and limited) in his Scriptural ‘knowledge’ – and hence rather largely uninformed as to actual state of the question.

    His bits here indicate that he has allowed himself only one version of the explanation for the difference in numbering.

    He then – rather illogically – wonders why, since I agree that “it is a grievous sin to ‘molest a child of God’”, I then and yet “attempt to dispute most claims”. I do so because it is a) one thing to agree that “it is a grievous sin to ‘molest a child of God’” and it is b) a completely different and other thing to determine whether indeed such a molestation took place. Is that English not sufficiently clear and plain? Is that difference not sufficiently clear and plain?

    There is a further difference between i) “proven cases” (such few as there may be) and ii) cases where priests have “admitted to by clergy” (and Judge Kosinski’s observations are rather crucial here) and iii) what “all experts” (which – as I have said in prior comments – is not and was not the case, even as stated by the first Jay Report a dozen years ago) claim as to the number of actual violations (in the general populace, it has to be recalled).

    So there is nothing dispositive here either; all we have is ‘Dan’s effort to pile up his preferred and selected blocks in his preferred way to reach his preferred conclusion.

    But to repeat: Yes, between ‘zero’ and ‘infinity’, I will say that the numbers are closer to zero than to infinity.

    And as to who is “twisting the truth” here, readers may consider as they will.

    And – as so very very often – the Abusenik mind will attempt to wrap up its lucubrations with epithet, in this case an extended riff on ‘rats’. Readers may consider it as they will.

  74. Publion says:

    On the 16th at 1123PM JR – apparently for lack of anything better – will simply repeat his dubious numbers (the source of which was a partial and half-decade old compilation on Wiki and which only tallies settlements – leaving untouched the profound question of the veracity of the allegations on which the settlements were based); which serves merely to provide a chance for some juvenile snark.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey A hole 5 years is nothing and when did the last settlements occur in the U.S.?  California in 2007? Nothing's changed as to the amount of compensated people in the U.S. for 8 years.

      So where is the "Stampede"? 18% of the injured compensated is no "Stampede". it's a trickle.

      So your "Stampede" premise is moot. Now if you could be mute on your fantasy of a "Stampede". Real actual problems could be dealt with here. But as long as you throw out your smoke screen of non issues and falsehoods. Nothing positive for catholics or their victimized children can be resolved here. So shut up.

  75. Publion says:

    On the 17th at 1147AM JR – as always – tosses up a link without any discussion.

    It would appear that the Australian Royal Commission is based rather largely – if not entirely – on the case of one serially-abusive priest. The Commission says that both the Church and the police covered up this man’s activities for a number of years.

    I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable as to this particular case; I certainly don’t deny the possibility that it is true. (Thus, on a scale of ‘zero to infinity’ this case might with some reasonable probability indeed move the number to ‘one’.)

    Be that as it may, we see here a long-standing national commission of inquiry that appears to have based its results on one man’s possible misdeeds. It certainly seems possible to me – and I will go so far as to say probable – that there is in any diocese in the world at least one priest who is, or at least was in some prior era, capable of such (alleged) acts. That would only be expectable, given human weaknesses and assorted distorted proclivities.

    Is that the sum total of the results obtained by the commission’s inquiries? If so, then it remains well short of ‘infinity’ or even of the type of Stampede scare-visions that are the core phenomena that I have been working-on these past years here. Even the Dutch commission – from what little we know of its claimed findings – could claim only 109 (allegated) instances among priests in that country in the prior half-century.

  76. Jim Robertson says:

    2000 out of 11,000 victims compensated and that's a "stampede"? It's more like a walk around.

  77. Jim Robertson says:

    I believe P is here to make ignorant catholics believe there's been a race for the church's money when only 2000 have been helped out of 11,000. He's also here to make non catholics believe that masses of people are making false claims against the church and either winning these fake claims or are being helped by a good hearted chrch when they don't deserve help. Neither of which are true.The false flagged church owned and run SNAP and church lawyers headed by Jeff Anderson have kept the actually "helped" to 2000. Meanwhile 9000 get zip but more pain. I wish there were a Hell for all of you and them. You've so richly earned it.

    • malcolm harris says:

      Jim Robertson says, on the 18th, that he believes Publion is here to make those ignorant Catholics think there has been "a race for the Church's money".

      Shucks….surely not?.  Who could believe that?. How could anybody imagine such a thing? All we have to do is close our minds to the 3.5 billion dollars already paid out, in the U.S. alone. Not to mentiion that cool million JR himself eagerly accepted. Nope, it's not about the money….it's about justice…isn't it?. Yep… justice is the noble lie under which this dubious industry has been operating… virtually from day one.

      Well…how is it that there is so little effort by the alleged victims (and their lawyers) to put the alleged perpetrators into prison. The name of the game is clearly to extract large sums of money from the Church, negotiated behind closed doors, then the accused man just walks away??? Funny that…if I really thought the guy did all those alleged horrible things….then would want to see him brought to trial. Now that would be justice….surely?

      Nope, I'm getting it wrong.. Because this is just a game, in which the object is money. Who cares if the accused priest walks….the poor sucker is only a fall guy anyway.

      No real danger to anybody, he just made the mistake of joining the wrong profession. A profession that has made itself into a soft target… for hordes of faceless liars and their rapacious lawyers.


  78. Dan says:

    I challenge any and all catholics to google and watch PBS's FRONTLINE – Secrets of the Vatican on the internet. Witness what is obviously the tip of the iceberg, for it only covers a few stories, with comments from priests and seminarians and victims. Then have the gaul to come back on this forum and defend their heinous crimes and actions.

    And at this moment I have no comment for you, Publion. However I notice you insist on mocking God, "the dynamic duo Dan-God Central". What does that make you? The dynamic duo Devil-Publion of perverts and pedophile demons of the world. God has a comment for you, one you apparently have a serious problem understanding.

    "They claim to be wise, but they are fools." Romans 1: 22   Also, pay special attention to Romans 1 verse 24-25.  "So God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do, and their filthy thoughts made them do shameful things with their bodies. They gave up the truth about God for a LIE." This covers all the secrecy and liars of the church, defending and excusing the perverts and pedophiles and their DESPICABLE DEEDS ( not simply stated 'misdeeds'P). Wouldn't be a bad idea to take a look at all of Romans Chapter 1 and follow it up with Revelations Chapter 17, to really understand what the future holds for your church.

    Calling on any and all catholics who have an ear to hear. I am a friend and not an enemy. I believe all souls are precious in the eyes of the Almighty, One True God. Don't let them fool you and keep you from the truth and your eternal reward.           With Love, Dan


  79. Publion says:

    And from the studios of JR we get a triad of charming tosses.

    On then to the 18th at 1106AM:

    To solve the problem of his out-dated and partial Wiki source, JR simply declares (bolstered, but of course, by juvenile epithet) that “5 years is nothing” and “nothing’s changed”. Naturally, he has no support for those assertions.

    Leaving us with the fact that we don’t actually have a count of settlements (as opposed to allegations – tallied in the first Jay Report of 2004, and noted in the second that the number of allegations had largely fallen off by 2011). We do have estimates of payouts, ranging from two to three billion dollars; does JR want to do the math and divide that sum by his 2,000?

    We then encounter today’s trope, riffed-upon like a mantra throughout the triad of comments: “where is the Stampede”, he asks, since – and he has done the math here, doncha see? – only “18% of the injured [were] compensated”.

    Where to begin?

    First, there’s no basis for claiming that those who collected monies were genuine ‘victims’ or genuinely “injured” and thus also no basis for claiming that the monies they scored were ‘compensation’.

    Second, the Stampede deals not with the number of settlements but rather with the number of formally-lodged allegations (tallied in the first Jay Report as somewhere around 11,000).

    Thus the current “trickle” of settlements (compared to the hey-day years of the Stampede) may well have something to do with the current “trickle” of fresh allegations (compared to the hey-day years of the Stampede).

    Thus his stab at drawing a ‘logical’ conclusion fails since his establishing steps are – to put it politely – insufficient. My “’Stampede’ premise” remains quite viable if not indeed rather greatly probable.

    And let us not be deceived: the only “real actual problems” the Abuseniks want dealt with here are their assorted plaints, distractions, scare-visions and stories which – so problematically, for them – are not getting the stampeded-herd response they so insistently and consistently desire.

  80. Publion says:

    JR’s of the 18th at 1109AM simply continues his own “walk around”.

    On then to the 18th at 1118AM:

    Here JR will attempt to spin the matter further, but it all relies upon the failed material he has already put up in the prior two comments of this triad.

    I am not “out” to “make non catholics believe that masses of people are making false claims against the church and either winning these fake claims or are being helped by a good-hearted church” (some corrections supplied).

    Rather, I have pointed out problematic points with the material the various Abuseniks have proffered. Do those problems then indicate the possibility or probability that the allegations cannot be taken as presumptively accurate and veracious? Does my (extensive and frequent) explication of an alternative explanatory hypothesis increase such a possibility or probability?

    If so, the only Abusenik response is to keep repeating their initial talking-points, salted by the usual juvenile distractions and epithetical bits.

    And to keep up mere assertions (based on their own presumed veracity) that my hypothesis is not “true”.

    I’d say it’s mighty probable, and far more probable than the Abusenik vision to the effect that a) all or almost all of the allegations were accurate and veracious, were not motivated by pecuniary gain for little risk of exposure, were not the fruit of a well-established tort-strategy that induces settlements rather than trials, and b) that there remain myriads of un-lodged allegations still ‘out there’ to be lodged.

    And as for the so-familiar repetition here of JR’s favorite bit about the Church running SNAP (and the other front organizations for the torties) as a “false flagged church owned and run” operation, joined by “church lawyers headed by Jeff Anderson” (thus: the most notable practitioner of such lawsuit-settlement tactics and strategy is himself merely a tool of the Church): readers may (yet again) consider this whole bit as they will.

  81. Publion says:

    And now comes ‘Dan’ (the 18th at 601PM).

    We had discussed the PBS Frontline episode entitled “Secrets of the Vatican” quite a while ago here.

    A substantial chunk of the show does not deal with the Catholic Abuse Matter at all, but goes on about other aspects the show wanted to play-with. It provides, I repeat, a rather clear example of the type of ‘reporting’ you get in matters Catholic from mainstream media in the Stampede era.

    So I will have the “gaul” (surely the Servant means ‘gall’) to come back on this forum and say so. Since I don’t “defend” but rather question and try to establish closer approximations to the actuality (‘probability’ for short) in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter, then I will stand behind all my material on this site.

    But the show certainly would appeal to the favorite concerns of not only secularist types but also more fundamentalist, Bible-thumping types … as is clearly evidenced by ‘Dan’s eager embrace of it here.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 601PM:

    And we then get his admission that “at this moment” Dan has “no comment” on all the other material that actually is on the table on this thread (i.e. his assorted forays into Vatican documents and problems with his Scriptural proffers). What else could he say?

    However he will quickly try to distract from that hugely uncongenial actuality by tossing up yet again his “mocking God” bit (pointing out the problems with ‘Dan’s material and noting his fixed presumption that he is an especial “Servant” of (fill in the blank) is tantamount to “mocking God”, doncha see?).

    And he will riff on that bit for a bit.

    I can only suggest that ‘Dan’ apparently has “a serious problem” in the “understanding” department, namely he seems to have a rather fixed and grandiose mis-understanding of himself. And enough said about that.

    More Scriptural pericopes are then tossed up. With the conclusion that – prima facie and ipso facto – this misch “covers all the secrecy and liars of the church” who are “defending and excusing the perverts and pedophiles”. Because – doncha see? – to question the Abuseniks’ proffers, especially those of Abuseniks who are also of a fundamentalist bent and also not perhaps altogether well, is tantamount to “defending” etc etc.

    And he will wrap up the show by issuing an exhortation and a declaration: he is “a friend and not an enemy” to “any and all catholics who have an ear to hear” and they absolutely need to listen to his stuff. (Otherwise they can read Revelation 17 to see what’s in the future for them and their Church.)

  83. Dan says:


    Enjoyed hearing the vatican has the "Queen of Heaven Prison".  Would be the perfect name for your religious cult organization.                               Servant of the Almighty

  84. Dan says:

    Thanks Publion for suggesting that catholics should "read Revelations 17 to see what's in the future for them and their church." May I suggest they pay special attention to the description of the "shameless prostitute who sits on the red beast", "dressed in PURPLE and SCARLET ROBES, adorned with JEWELRY MADE OF GOLD, PRECIOUS STONES, AND PEARLS. In her hand she held a GOLD CUP (CHALICE) filled with the FILTHY AND NASTY THINGS SHE HAD DONE." Rev. 17: 7-8  "Anyone with wisdom can figure this out. [so we'll exclude Publion]  The seven heads that the woman sits on stand for seven hills." Rev. 17: 9  If there is still a problem realizing how these words pertain to and describe in detail, Rome (vatican city), I ask that you might continue to read all of Revelations ch. 18. God describes through prophecy, the destruction of Babylon (Rome) and in finer detail all the riches and greediness of the vatican. He lists GOLD, silver, jewels, PEARLS, fine linen, PURPLE CLOTH, silk, SCARLET CLOTH, frankINCENSE, and WINE, just to mention a few. Rev.18:12-13  He continues in verse 16, "She [the whore who sits on the beast], dressed in fine linen and WORE PURPLE AND SCARLET CLOTH." So do you think it's only a coincidence that the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and curia dress in these colors. During lent and advent, purple cloth adorns statues, alters and vestments, along with purple candles. Vatican churches, special occasions and rooms filled with scarlet red rugs and purple draperies.

    "Deep in her heart Babylon said, I am a queen!" Rev. 18: 7 As in "Queen of Heaven". " But now, you shall see in Babylon gods[idols] of gold, and of silver, and of stone, and of wood borne upon shoulders, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware therefore that you imitate not the doings of others." Baruch 6:3-4  "Their gods[idols] have golden crowns upon their heads." v.6

    Don't allow Publion to try to deceive you, that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to scripture. I'm only quoting it the way it is written, but Satan's angels will do everything in their power to try to trick and lie to you. Thank God that He has already won the victory through His son Jesus Christ. Be not deceived and allow them to steal your prize.                                                                                            

  85. Dan says:

    Dan 12/19 @ 6:54 alters should be altars- I like to leave a misspelling now and then, so P feels he has some purpose for living and taking up too much oxygen on this planet.

  86. Dan says:

    Also, "Their gods[idols] have golden crowns upon their heads." v.6 Should be Baruch 6 v. 9. Sorry P for taking away some of your enjoyment you receive correcting and criticizing others.

  87. Publion says:

    As might have been expected, when ‘Dan’ got around to making more comments, he yet had no comments to make about the material on the table.

    Instead, he went rummaging in his 3×5 file card collection.

    And what do we get?

    On the 19th at 203PM, a scream-capped Scriptural pericope. One wonders if ‘Dan’ had not heard something similar – though perhaps not with its Scriptural trappings – from any of the staff during his various stays in those institutions he mentioned.

    And that bit is followed by an epithet the snark of which is surpassed only by the ignorance that produced it.

    Specifically, the Regina Coeli was a convent begun in 1642. It was taken from the nuns by Napoleon and turned into a prison by French Imperial forces for the duration of their hegemony in the area, from 1810-1814. It was then returned to the nuns, who abandoned it in 1873. It was then taken over by the Kingdom of Italy and turned into a prison by the Italian royal government in 1881. It currently serves the Italian State as a prison and police academy and school for forensic and criminological studies.

    So ‘Dan’ would be well-advised not to ‘enjoy’ what he hears and rather concentrate more on establishing the veracity and accuracy of what he hears.

  88. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 654PM:

    He opens with a weak effort to build on his Revelation-17 bit.

    And that gives him an opening to – had you been waitinggggg for itttttt? – riff on the specifics of some of his favorite bits in that Chapter.

    You can get much the same type of presentation from any number of fundamentalist-type sources, if you’ve a mind to go trolling in those precincts.

    And he exhorts the readership not to be deceived by me to the effect that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Readers may consider it as they will.

    And he concludes by apparently trying to channel St. Paul or one of the other Epistolary writers. ‘God’ apparently isn’t sufficient to ‘Dan’s purposes here.

  89. Publion says:

    On then to the 19th at 703PM and at 721PM:

    ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – doth “like to leave a misspelling now and then”; he doth do it on purpose – doncha see? – because he consoles and sustains himself with the thought that otherwise I wouldn’t feel I had “some purpose for living”.

    He was also working on an epithet (i.e. that I take up “too much oxygen on this planet”) but his grammar wasn’t quite up to the job.

    And ditto at 721PM, where he apparently has checked his 3x5s.

    For all anyone knows, he set this little scene up for himself, merely to pretext his epithetical bit to the effect that I enjoy “correcting and criticizing others”.

    But as so often, the Abusenik mind (or, as we have here, a vivid amalgam of the Abusenik and the fundamentalist mind) – in its eagerness to deliver a zingy epithet – reveals for all what it would rather not see about itself. Specifically, we have here ‘Dan’ whose “correcting and criticizing of the Church” knows almost no bounds and is based on few if any rationally accurate grounds.

    But if you point out the problems in the Abusenik-fundy material, then you are “mocking God” and so on and so forth.

    And they do like to make excuses for themselves. And make themselves out to be the victim.

  90. Dan says:

    P- Don't forget to go to your "Queen of Heaven Prison" to celebrate the winter solstice on friday. Have a very Mary xmas, and don't leave out Satan's Claws pulling you down into the depths, with the perverts, pedophiles and materialistically greedy priests and hierarchy of your klan. Any catholics who think I'm being mean, just google "pope santa claus" and check out the images, especially RATZINGER. P-Too bad you can't go to vatican city, so you can bend over and kiss his…. waaaiitttt foorr iiitt…………ring finger.  Dan, fighting the good fight.

  91. Dan says:

    P says, "he yet had no comments to make about the material on the table". Are you trying to understand why I'm not buying into the trash your trying to serve. Time to wake up sleeper, and realize no one's buying into your excuses and garbage except the rare catholic who jumps into the conversation, with a hit-and-run, and then disappears. My bible quotes, which you apparently don't understand, prove beyond doubt that your cult fits every deceiving, lying, filthy, disgusting, greedy and perverted description in the Word. If you've yet to figure out how this answers to your excuses and garbage in regards to the catholic abuse crimes, then that would be a testament to your intellegence, which I am surely not terribly impressed with. I hate being repetitive, but sometimes that's the only way to approach a foolish mind. You are truly a "Legend in Your Own Mind". You make the drugged out zombies I ran into at your mental ward look pretty smart. At least they didn't talk much, so they had less chance of getting their foot stuck in their mouth. I know, you're going to ask me for examples, but some things are best figured out for yourself, ostrich.               Dan, servant of truth

  92. Dan says:

    Publion, You become more irritating and irrational by the minute. You claim, "Dan would be well-advised not to 'enjoy' what he hears and rather concentrate more on establishing the veracity and accuracy of what he hears." First off, apparently you have a problem with others enjoying anything. So sad. You say, I should "concentrate more on establishing the veracity and accuracy of what he hears". Aside from your being redundant, tell me how the "Queen of Heaven Prison" is inaccurate when it's the translation of the Latin "Regina Coeli". I know you go out of your way to display your great intelligence, but your history lesson on the "Queen of Heaven Prison" did absolutely nothing to prove what I said to be inaccurate.

    Moving on to a similar accusation, "Dan whose 'correcting and criticizing of the church' knows almost no bounds and is based on few if any rationally accurate grounds." Most of my criticism is based on fact and information available to the public. Many times I've backed up my argument with scripture, which has only given you an opportunity to mock and blaspheme God or myself. You ask others to give examples or proof to you, and yet you've never disputed or come close to challenge my interpretation of scripture other than your false claims that I'm wrong. And as far as anyone gathering evidence in proving all the facts in the catholic abuse of children, it's fairly difficult, when as you know, the church did everything in it's power to keep crimes secretive and is most unwilling to open the abuse files for all to see. It's laughable that your cult calls itself the moral authority of the world, when with what information we do have, makes them absolutely the immoral authority on earth.

    No one is making themselves out to be a victim, when they have truly been victimized by your wicked, lying, evil cult, of which you have found a perfect fit.

  93. Publion says:

    As if to provide even more vivid evidence of his juvenile – and at this point clearly childish – level of mental operation, ‘Dan’ (the 20th at 106PM) will now take the following tack in regard to his egregious “Queen of Heaven” howler: he will simply repeat it (can you hear a whiny falsetto going ‘myah, myah’?).

    The meaning of the reference to the winter solstice is anybody’s guess to make.

    And then he riffs on for the rest of the comment, simultaneously achieving (with a marvelous economy that is no doubt the fruit of long practice) both juvenility and irrationality. And had we noticed that the Wig of the Servant has come off and we are into that queasily repellent adolescent territory (familiar from other Abusenik material on this site) of scatological epithet?

    But – for the clinically inclined – we see, and yet again from an Abusenik commenter, the indications of the phantasm constructed to make the whole unripe mess seem like a good thing: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is now “fighting the good fight”, so anything he writes is ipso facto and prima facie ‘good’ and justifiable and – but of course – the voice of (fill in the blank: a, some, the, any, Dan’s) god and therefore shame on those who think ill of it.

    One also begins to see a bit more clearly why he chose to engage children (through the fence of that schoolyard or playground, presumably) and not adults with his assorted eructations: that’s fundamentally the level on which he operates. That the authorities took so dim an official view of his behaviors is – of course – merely another instance of ‘lies, lies, and more lies’ and constitutes merely the trials and tribulations of the heroic and truthy truth-teller.

    Ovvvvvvv courssssssssssssse.

  94. Publion says:

    On then to several hours later (the 20th at 545PM). Having had further time to apply his capabilities, ‘Dan’ proffers … what?

    He doesn’t have to deal with “the material on the table” – doncha see? – because it’s all just “trash” and he – the canny shopper – therefore doesn’t need to consider it.

    On with more Scripturally-cast epithets (“wake up, sleeper”) and then the effort to burnish the presumptive validity of his gambit here by swathing it in the voice of Everybody (i.e. we have his word for it that “no one’s buying” the “excuses and garbage”). So ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – speaks not only for (a, some, any, the, his) deity but also for Everybody.

    That must sustain him.

    Alas, I understand both ‘Dan’ and his “bible quotes” (no capital ‘B’ here?) and – to repeat: the quotes are irrelevant until it has been established that they are being applied to a demonstrably evident phenomenon, which remains – to put it nicely – not the case at all.

    This bit is followed by a string of descriptive epithets that – in that ever-revelatory dynamic of clinical projection – tells us more about the level and quality of ‘Dan’s mentation than it does about anything else.

    And on and on it goes, for the rest of the comment, revealing as well the level of his “intellegence” even as he tries to land an epithetical whack by proclaiming himself “sure not terribly impressed” with mine. It escapes his notice, clearly, that his whack is far more dangerous in the recoil than in the projectile.

    He doth “hate to be repetitive” … and yet repeating his well-worn 3×5 collection of pericopes and epithets is pretty much all he’s got, unless we count his occasional howler-forays into the historical, the theological, and other such areas which are, clearly, for him terra incognita.

  95. Publion says:

    On then to several hours later (the 20th at 1119PM). Having had further time to apply his capabilities, ‘Dan’ proffers … what?

    More epithet, this time putatively grounded in his creds as generally-knowledgeable prophet, denouncer, and all-around mouthpiece of (fill in the blank: a, some, the, any, his) deity.

    Then he will specifically turn his skills to the “Queen of Heaven” prison howler.

    First, he will simply try a distracting riff on “enjoy”, seeking to land an epithetical whack.

    He then ignores the gravamen of his historical reference, focusing merely on the fact that his translation of Regina Coeli as “Queen of Heaven” is accurate. So it is, but that wasn’t at all the point. It is not a Vatican prison – which was the primary point of his assertion. Thus his translation was accurate, but his core assertion that it was/is a Vatican prison is and remains an egregious howler.

    And thus his effort here to make excuses for himself and avoid the consequences of what he asserted in the first place … does “absolutely nothing” except to demonstrate the quality (or lack of it) in his mentation and his character.

  96. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:

    He will then address himself to the larger issue of his “correcting and criticizing” of the Church.

    Most of his stuff – alas – is based on presumptions and misinformation, little if any of which is accurate, although – thanks to media complicity in the Stampede – is widely amplified among the public.

     And since his presumptions are inaccurate, then his application of his favorite Scriptural bits remains ungrounded and hangs in the already-toxic air of his own predilections. (Nor can it be realistically presumed that he might come to grasp this, since his entire ‘purpose and mission’ is precisely constructed upon the self-serving presumption that he is not only right and very clever, but is also the mouthpiece of (a, some, any, the, his) deity.

    Thus – to repeat yet again – I don’t engage his assorted Scriptural eructations since it has not at all been established that they are accurately applied in the first place. The play has to start with an at-bat on home plate, not on (his preferred) first or second base (which is a major sleight-of-hand in the Abusenik/Stampede trickery generally).

  97. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:

    And anyway – doncha know? – it’s “fairly difficult” (as we “know”, he adds in a slyly manipulative aside) to have any “evidence” of abuse since “the church did everything in it’s [sic] power to “keep crimes secretive”.

    Now this last phrase is grammatically and conceptually odd – and when dealing with Abuseniks, even when you factor in their lack of capacity of competent expression, such oddity is usually a sign of some conceptual legerdemain.

    What he is trying to do here is to get some mileage out of that 1962 Instruction while not having to repeat the mistakes he made (that I have already pointed out on this thread) in his prior effort to deploy it.

    I will simply point out a) my analysis of the 1962 Instruction and subsequent Vatican efforts on this thread; b) the statement long-ago discussed on this site from Federal judge Schiltz as to the role of tort-attorneys  in getting secrecy established in the settlements; c) the quite rational defensive tactic by Church attorneys of going-along with secrecy to prevent a further expanded run on the Church as a pinata; and d) the extended and acute analysis of Federal judge Kosinski considered at length on a recent prior thread here.

    Thus his sly and manipulative “to keep crimes secretive” says both too much and too little, when more carefully examined.

    And I would further add (e): the insinuation that there are yet innumerable “abuse files” yet to be disclosed (which joins its sibling phantasm that there are yet innumerable ‘victims’ out there somewhere) is a scare-vision from decades ago that retains very little (if any)rational traction in the present.

  98. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:

    But we see here as well the basic objective of so very much of this synergy among secularist and Victimist and fundamentalist agendas in regard to the Church: if the Church can be demonstrated to have failed morally in the Abuse Matter generally, then the Church cannot retain any stature as a moral authority in the world.

    And that’s the nub and the rub here: these synergistic interests very much want to reduce – if not obliterate – the Church as being the largest remaining institutional obstacle to their assorted dubiously-moral agendas.

    Do any of these synergistic interests have any other institutional alternative to replace the Church? They would each perhaps consider themselves as being such an alternative (although if the Church suddenly disappeared their own respective interests would no doubt clash among themselves).

    But the even more sinister and ominous possibility is that the secularist interest (which, with its government backing, is the most organizationally influential of the three) would actually rather reduce all human existence to the Monoplane, i.e. that there is no objective ‘morality’ or Source of morality at all – which is the old Materialist agenda tricked-out in contemporary rags.

    Readers might well consider the screeching irony of fundamentalist mindsets trying to ride the back of the secularist tiger in the Catholic Abuse Matter, getting their digs in at the Church while remaining stupefyingly oblivious to the fact that if objective-morality (grounded in the Metaplane or the Beyond or ‘God’) goes, then they themselves will be next on the secularist target-list. Or rather: they will resume their place on the secularist target-list.

    In any case, whatever failures the Church exhibited in the Catholic Abuse Matter (and such failures, I say again, do not demonstrably reach the precincts of infinity) yet a) the Church as a human institution is subject to all of the deranging pressures of human nature and human history (as are, it must be recalled, secularism, Victimism, and fundamentalism).

    And b) the Church at this point has implemented the most comprehensive abuse-prevention protocols of any large (or small) organization on the planet.

  99. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1119PM:

    And lastly, we see once again the slyly manipulative effort to start the play on a base and not with an at-bat at home plate: we are to presume that “no one is making themselves out to be a victim” because “they have truly been victimized” … which – to repeat yet again – is a characterization has not at all been demonstrated to be largely veracious and accurate and which, indeed, under even modest examination appears to be far more unsupportable a vision than the Stampede would want us to believe.

  100. LDB says:

    'Synergy' is code for conspiracy and there is a theorist afoot.

    'Interests' want to 'reduce' the church and they have 'agendas'. Spooky. Church as victim. Say it, until it is true, Publion.

    Say, let's have a take on the NY embezzlement/sex scandal and Mr. Dolan's supervisory dealings with the matter.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      The smoke blowing is as thick as pea soup here. It's degenerated into a debate between P an evil paid for idiot and Dan who's going after catholics' relationship to Mary and obviously the protestant reformation. So it's a bible quoter versus a lying apologist for child rapers. This is religious thought? (There's an oxymoron.)

      Still, through all this fog like bullshit, only 2000 out of over 11,000 victims compensated. The insurors have paid half of the $3 billion you rave on about. So the church paid 1.5 billion; and we all know how "poor" the richest organization on the planet is. Poor in spirit, perhaps, but loaded with gold.

  101. Dan says:

    Tell me P- Does it give a demonic some sick pleasure to mock the Almighty God. Keep bowing down and worshipping the "Queen of Heaven". Is it any wonder, that you have a problem with scriptural passages and fail to understand their application, those that expose the horrible action and inaction of your wicked cult.

    Catholics- I ask that you might research the history of 3 men(if they can be called men), (1) Father Lawrence C. Murphy (2) Father Marcial Maciel (3) Ex- Father Oliver O'Grady. I prefer not to mention them again by name, because the stories of these creeps are disgusting.

    (1) Priest who molested up to 200 deaf boys, appealed to then Cardinal RAT-zinger who refused to defrock the pervert. In his(1) personal letter he claims repeatedly, only accusations and allegations, but ends with, " I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably. I simply want to live out the time I have left in the dignity of my priesthood." Like the peace and dignity you left the children you raped? Several letters written by Archbishops with no response from Card RAT or the vatican. (1) never tried or disciplined by your cult and also got a free pass from police and prosecutors who ignored victims.

    (2) Molested teenage seminarians, children and even his own children. Letters sent throughout career by priests and respected adults to vatican, pope john paul and card RAT with consistent unresponsiveness, overlooking charges and ignoring allegations. PJP II publicly congratulating him(2), for he was a great fundraiser for the vatican and curia. Pope RATzinger finally condemns his(2) actions after he's long dead and gone. Notice yet the MO(mode of operation) of coverup and secrecy.

    (3) Ohhh! Father O'Pedophile- So proud of his nasty indiscretions that he agreed to make a movie, enjoying the stage and exposing the world to the mind of a proud, sick and perverted catholic priest, more the norm and majority than the rarity they try to convince us of.

    So I can continue to name more, both bishops and priests, who not only molested one minor but did it also in multiples. Take these three instances and mutiply by thousands of hierarchy, clergy, nuns, coaches and laity of the cult, with an uncountable, closer to infinity, amount of victims and one has to ask a very serious question. What type of creep (i.e. Publion) would lie for, make numerous excuses and defend the actions and inaction of such a filthy, despicable organization(cult) of creeps? Maybe, even moreover, what kind of disgusting, deceiving, filthy and despicable creep are you, Publion? And NO P. They have absolutely NO right to claim themselves as the moral authority, when they amount to some of the most disgusting hypocrites walking and free on this planet. This world would be much better off without all of the hierarchy of your cult, their lies and deceptions.  

    All catholics should read 2 Peter 2 and the rest of the bible for yourselves. Don't let anyone brainwash you with their ignorance. Since you enjoy scripture so much P, I'll give a sample.

    "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying [or mocking] the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their DEPRAVED CONDUCT and will bring the way of TRUTH into disrepute. In their GREED these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping." 2 Peter 2:1-3

    If this doesn't end your blindness and stupidity, then I guess nothing will. Period!


  102. malcolm harris says:

    'Dan', on the 22nd, appears to be directing his harsh invective at 'P'… and sort of challenging him… with what we are expected to accept are established facts.

    But I have real doubts about his 'facts'. Based upon my paradoxical experience of having actually seen a boy who had been raped. But 'Dan' informs us that a Father Lawrence Murphy molested 200 deaf boys, and he uses yet stronger words when he  says "like the peace and dignity he left the children he raped". 

    Well having actually seen a traumatized victim of sodomy, a 12 year old boy, I can say without doubt it would be impossible for any man to do that to 200 victims… without being detected. Yes,… impossible… because even an orphanage has a house mother or a visiting nurse.  Dan didn't say if the boys had parents, but if they did,  then what he has described is utterly impossible

    Dan also says that "our cult got a free pass from police and prosecutors who ignored victims". Well Dan… perhaps you should name those police and prosecutors because their offence would be the greatest of all. A sex offender is usually a sick person…..but what excuse could the police and prosecutors make, if they failed to enforce the law,

    I'm beginning to think that 'Dan' is one of those people who has convinced himself that he is a hero on a great mission. And the truth can be sacrificed… for the sake of slaying his imaginary fire-breathing dragon.. 

  103. Publion says:

    On the 22nd at 1055AM ‘LDB’ tries to run a play that we saw quite a while ago here: rather than try to deal with the (inconvenient) complications and nuance of the term “synergy” he will – now, as he did then – try to reduce the term “synergy”  to the more cartoon-friendly “conspiracy”. This gambit would make then make it easier for him to go the cartoon-route of ‘conspiracy theory] and ‘conspiracy theorists’ and so on.

    Thus his claim quickly follows  – supported by nothing in his comment nor by the meaning of the two different terms – that “’synergy’ is code for conspiracy”. Which – right on schedule – instantly gives him the opening he was seeking then and is seeking now: “and there is a theorist afoot”.

    Alas, no. If he doesn’t recall what I wrote quite some time ago in regard to an earlier effort of his to run this play, then I will say it again: ‘synergy’ is not synonymous with ‘conspiracy’: two separate entities can work synergistically without working conspiratorially.

    He then – as best as can be sussed out – tries to use some form of sarcasm as an epithetical whack at a conceptualization I made against which he has nothing better than epithet and sarcasm: There are “interests” and they have “agendas” – to ‘LDB’ this is all kinda “spooky”; the childish mind is so easily frightened, is it not?

    And then, lastly, we see yet another gambit often deployed by Abuseniks with nothing else to bring to the table: they try to change the subject. In this case, ‘LDB’ will try to bring in some topic that has nothing to do with the Catholic Abuse Matter we are working with on this site.

    And this is from someone (longtime readers may recall) who claims to have an advanced and elite education and also to be  – in some form – an attorney.

  104. Publion says:

    And ‘Dan’ returns on the 22nd at 303PM.

    He opens with a plaintive type of epithet: am I “a demonic” who derives “some sick pleasure to mock the Almighty God” … ? Alas, I am not mocking God, Whose presence in all of this remains rather conjectural at best (except in ‘Dan’s personal cartoon). I am doing what I can with ‘Dan’s material, not God’s.

    Then more bits about “worshipping ‘the Queen of Heaven’”, which bit can be found in any number of fundy tracts and pamphlets.

    From that he will swing – somewhat histrionically – into a reference to three priests or former priests.

    As to the first: it apparently escaped ‘Dan’s notice that the Pope was faced with an elderly man against whom not even “police and prosecutors” had (or perhaps could have) built a demonstrable case. ‘Dan’ deals with this uncongenial actuality by simply presuming that the “police and prosecutors” had simply given him “a free pass” because – ‘Dan’ apparently has been informed by ‘god-gram’ – they “ignored victims”. An equally if not more plausible possibility is that the allegations could not be proven or demonstrated.

    We also see how easily ‘Dan’ uses “molested” and “raped” interchangeably. He surely cannot be considered to be “persnickety”.

  105. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 303PM:

    As to the second: the Maciel case is certainly one of the failures of John Paul II’s pontificate. I note that Maciel’s appetites were of such a nature as to confound any usual categories: he abused male seminarians and children (female as well as male) and married and sired his own children. He appears to have been a remarkably talented and twisted human being.

    But I would also note that while in 1998, with JP2 still in firm control, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not able to proceed against Maciel, yet in 2004 – the year before JP2’s death – the case was re-opened by Ratzinger’s office and shortly thereafter Maciel relinquished his role (I don’t imagine he did that voluntarily).

    In 2006 Maciel was required to retire to a life of “prayer and penitence” and he died in 2008.

    Maciel had managed to achieve a position, I imagine, where it was possible that more damage would be caused to those who built their lives on his apostolate than on the victims he created. A judgment call and not an easy one.

    There are no doubt those who, from the point of view of Victimist dogma and for those who find it – for whatever reason(s), not necessarily invalid  – convenient and/or preferable to disagree with the decision. And that’s as may be. It was hardly an easy decision and the problem was not resolvable by simplistic cartoon thinking.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 303PM:

      Warming – still somewhat histrionically – to his little project here, ‘Dan’ will then bring up a third case: the Oliver O’Grady case.

      It is notable that for all the claims about him, he was convicted of only four counts of “lewd and lascivious acts” with a minor. According to noted Stampede tortie Jeff Anderson he had done much much more, but that remains only what Jeff Anderson – hardly a sterling source – says. Anderson also noted that the police refused to file charges in connection with earlier allegations.

      He had been sent by the cognizant Ordinary for psychiatric evaluation and a second opinion and neither of them recommended removal from ministry nor did they conclude that a diagnosis of pedophilia was justified. Curiously, although sentenced to 14 years for the four lewd-and-lascivious convictions, prison authorities paroled him after only half the time was served. He was subsequently deported back to Ireland.

      He became the subject of a documentary (he did not “make a movie”). And at this point I think that he decided that his best opportunities lay in the direction of playing the unmasked (but presently repentant) abuser for all the role was worth: he reports that he himself was a childhood victim of abuse; that his Ordinary knew of his actions and moved him to another parish (in light of the psychiatric evaluations and the refusal of the police to bring charges, a single transfer would have been understandable, but I do not know the number of his transfers); and seems generally to tell a story that conforms nicely to all of the major plot-points of the Stampede ‘script’.

      But several years later, in late 2010, he was found with child-pornography and in early 2012 he was sentenced in Ireland to three years imprisonment on the charge.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 303PM:

      The cases ‘Dan’ has put up here do not, upon examination, fulfill his hopes for them. The cases certainly deal with persons who should never – I would say – have been in the priesthood to begin with; and surely in hindsight they should have been handled more forcefully than they were by all authorities involved.

      But a) they do not in themselves measure up to his characterizations of them and b) they do not demonstrate that the Church is and/or always has been an organization organized around abuse. 

      ‘Dan’ will preemptively try to spin his recitation here as demonstrating that such cases are not a “rarity” but rather are “more the norm” (note the curiously cautious “more” here). If that were the case, we should have seen far more such cases.

      He then assures us that he “can continue to name more”. Perhaps he can put forward more names. But the problem then remains as to demonstrating – by more than (burnished) allegations and media amplification – that each ‘name’ did what he was accused of doing. There aren’t that many convictions in the criminal forum (a forum itself rendered questionable because of my own assessment of the criminal justice system in a time of Stampede, and because of Judge Kosinski’s assessment of the contemporary criminal justice system generally). And the settlements achieved by torties in the civil system have their own profound evidentiary problems, as I have explicated often and at length here.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 303PM:

      But on the basis of the three cases he discussed here ‘Dan’ will then try the following sleight of hand: just “multiply” these three cases by the number (“thousands”) of “hierarchy, clergy, nuns” and – he will toss in – “coaches and laity of the cult”. This is cartoon ‘thinking’. One might as easily take the Billy Doe case in Philadelphia and multiply it by the number of allegations ever made or even by the still-undetermined number of still ‘un-reported’ cases (a number which would surely more closely approach ‘infinity’).

      But with this cartooneryin place, ‘Dan’ will then be able to create a convenient little pile of blocks leading to this: his “very serious question” as to why any “creep” (such as myself, as he takes care to name) would “lie” (he will have to provide an accurately-quoted instance of this) and “make numerous excuses” (actual assessment is – in the Abusenik Playbook – merely ‘making excuses’, doncha see?) and “defend the actions and inaction” of – had you been waitttting forrr ittttttttt? – “such a filthy, despicable organization (cult) of creeps”.

      He will then indulge his predilections to riff on that “creep” bit a bit further.

      All of which leads – had you been waittttting forrrrrrr itttttttt? – to his summation declamation (Abuseniks and ‘Servants’ do like to declaim) as to the lack of moral authority of the Church, without which the “world would be much better off”.

      Whether the “world would be much better off” without the Church is a question any reader is welcome to consider. Whether the world would be much better off simply relying on types such as ‘Dan’ with their god-grams as sufficient substitutes for the Church is another question readers may consider as they will. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 303PM:

       “All catholics” are then advised to read the second chapter of the Second Letter of Peter and also while they’re at it “the rest of the bible” (sic) too. Presumably, I would say, many of those Catholics would bring much more capacity to the project than ‘Dan’ (whose god-grams don’t seem a sufficient substitute for serious and careful and prayerful study).

      But this bit then gives him an opening to take us through one of his preferred Scriptural 3x5s, in regard to “false prophets” and so on. (The reverse of this bit: ‘Dan’ is precisely not a false prophet – and how could he be, with his stored collection of god-grams?)

      And having put all of his blocks into the pile he has constructed for himself here, ‘Dan’ will try to end matters with that nifty declamatory “Period!”.

      As with all cartoons, it all seems so simple and clear. 

  106. Dan says:

    True 'facts' for Malcolm Harris,

    1- I've been directing my comments towards Publion, but in the hopes that others might research the bible and learn the difference between right and wrong, to realize that catholicism and also others religions have been fooling you, with out and out lies. Strange that you mention my 'harsh invective' towards P, without any acknowledgement of the slander, lies and stupidity he directs at me.

    2- I wrote Fr. Murphy "molested 'up to' 200 boys". Very different from "Father Lawrence Murphy molested 200 boys". Notice the 'up to'.

    3- You claim, "without doubt it would be impossible for any man to do that to 200 victims…without being detected." You do realize that rape is not just sodomy, but also oral sex and any sexual contact without the other party's consent. This happened over a 25 year period with deaf and mute boys, up to half who lived in the orphanage, 24 hours a day. I'd say that would make it very possible, considering all the other filthy malfeasance attributed to your clergy and hierarchy.

    4- You claim, "what excuse could police and prosecuters make, if they failed to enfoce the law. Are you kidding me? In my own personal experience I was falsely accused by clergy, catholic thugs, school staff and nuns. Police, prosecuters and judges would never listen to my side of the story(truth), because they totally believed clergy, nuns and catholics would never lie. They are such good christians, hypocrites, perverts, pedophiles, thieves and slanderers, but never liars. Maybe now you can understand why I'm a little harsh with Publion, when he wants to insist on repeating those falsehoods against me, ad nauseum. Absolutely cowardly, to say the least.

    5- I have but one hero, Jesus Christ and God, my only Father, and will defend His truth until the day I die. Would appreciate your not twisting 'facts' and trying to make myself the liar. Please take a closer look at your churches sins, before judging the innocent.

                                                                                                   Thanks Dan


  107. Dan says:

    Another 'fact' to add, 'Fr. Lawrence Murphy had a massive stroke while gambling at a casino and died, several months after he requested that the Vatican halt a canonical trial against him because of his ill health.' (Wiki)   After all the sins of perversion and child molesting, a little gambling and deception shouldn't be so bad. Laughable, if it wasn't so sick and sad.

  108. Dan says:

    "Alas, I am not mocking God" "I am doing what I can with 'Dan's material, not God's." And it doesn't last very long before you've added a new mock to your repertoire, 'god-gram'. Already hear your excuses of that directed towards me, 'not mocking God'. Explain then how two out of four times you used your 'god-grams' sarcasm, when mentioning my suggesting that catholics read "the Second Letter of Peter" and your snide "one of his preferred Scriptural 3x5s, in regard to 'false prophets'." You might be able to fool some of your brain-washed catholics, but you truly mock God and disrespect His power.

    Excuses and more excuses. You even have excuses for your excuses. Now your even making excuses for Cardinal RATzinger- "with JP2 still in firm control, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not able to proceed against Maciel". So in other words, your church is run as a dictatorship. You mean the "Great John Paul II", moral authority of the world doesn't have enough common sense to remove the slime from his church, and that kept pope to be, Card RAT-zinger's hands tied. Catholics, this is where the problem lies. No true followers of the One and Only God, would allow any known perverts or pedophiles to continue on in the church, nor allow leaders to protect, hide and grant safe harbor or asylum to the detestable creeps. Your church has been in need of a thorough house cleaning long ago, and God is in anticipation of that day. Again I ask, read Revelations chapter 17 and 18. That is the absolute description and prediction for your idol worshipping, apostate church. Don't allow false teachers and leaders to deceive you.

    Read the Word, especially the New Testament and use the intellegence God gave you. These are some bible verses that will help you understand God's wonderful promises for you and help you to recognize false churches. Exodus ch. 20, Jeremiah ch. 7 and 44 (Queen of Heaven), Gospels, Matthew (especially chapter 5-7 and 23 and 24), Mark, Luke and John, Romans, 1 Corinthians 13 and my favorite book of Ephesians, 1 and 2 Peter and 1 John ch. 1-5. This will give anyone a good start and beware, Satan is extremely powerful and will do anything to deceive and keep you from learning the truth.


  109. Dan says:

    Hey Jim, I caught your comment 12/23 and apologize, knowing how from your past experience you want nothing to do with God and deny His existence. I can understand how my debating could drive you nuts, discussing things you want nothing to do with. Can't tell you how many times I've wanted to give it up, but got sucked back in. Wish you were able to give God a chance, because I believe He is truly what you really need to heal your hurt and pain. I think you equate false religion with God, and nothing is farther from the truth. Do you really believe that their filthy lucre is going to bring you happiness? God holds out His hand with riches worth more than all the gold in the world, but He won't force you to take it. They are love, faith, hope and probably the the most difficult, forgiveness. You surely won't find this in any of this world's religions. All you'll find is words without action and lies, and that's why I belong to none of them.                      Wish you well, Dan

    P.S. You may not have to hear any more from me, because to quote you, I'm tired of all the 'bullshit'. Actually was tired of it weeks ago, before I even started.

  110. Dan says:

    The Light has come into the world, and people who do evil things are judged guilty because they love darkness more than the light. People who do evil hate the light and won't come to the light, because it clearly exposes what they have done. But everyone who lives by the truth will come to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God. And the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness could not understand it. The world cannot hate you; but it hates me, because I testify of it, that it's works are evil. Book of John

  111. Publion says:

    And from ‘Dan’ on 24th at 109AM: more of the same: it’s all just ‘mocking’ and – but of course – not mocking Dan but mocking – had you been waitttttingggg forrrrrr itttttttttt? – God.

    If there’s a relevant argument to be made from the Second Letter of Peter then ‘Dan’ can put it up here, rather than just reference the Letter; but – of course – ‘Dan’ is so deep into the world of his own personal cartoon that he simply presumes, without even thinking about it, that everyone will ‘see’ what he sees.

    But rest assured: lots of other people might be fooled, but ‘Dan’ is not fooled. He is protected from being fooled – doncha see? – by the power of his magic cartoon god-gram suit.

    And on he goes, then, about “excuses and more excuses”. And indeed, he riffs on that.

  112. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 109AM:

    And in the process reveals the level of his mental functioning: since then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not able to proceed against Maciel while John Paul II was still in effective control of his own Papacy, then – ‘Dan’ concludes confidently – the Church “is run as a dictatorship”.

    This is a) mere playing with words and concepts, as if they were toy blocks with which one might construct whatever little construction one might cartoonishly prefer to see.

    And b) this reflects ‘Dan’s utter unfamiliarity with the concept of working within an organization. Which is not so surprising, really, since I imagine ‘Dan’ has been pretty much of a loner for most of his years. One might speculate – if one were clinically inclined – as to which came first: being a loner or being immured in the whackness of one’s personal cartoon. But that’s an adventure for another forum and not for this one.

  113. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 109AM:

    And in his effort to riff further in that epithetical mode, ‘Dan’ will then go on about John Paul II’s capacities. But – of course – the John Paul II of 2004, wracked with Parkinson’s and the consequences of age – was not the John Paul II of his earlier Pontificate.

    And – as I said in a recent prior comment on this thread – the decision as to what to do about the Maciel case, given the fact that the man had achieved a position of so much stature and influence, was hardly to be resolved by whatever ‘Dan’s concept of “common sense” might be (his concept of “common sense”, we recall, includes his god-grams).

    In that sense, it is true that even the Pope’s “hands were tied”, to some extent. That is the grimy nature of human reality, which is precisely what gives cartoons their alluring charm: they seem to reduce everything to such clear simplicity. Whether Maciel’s case could have been handled differently, while trying to cover all the bases that the case encompassed, is surely open to debate and discussion; but it most surely would not have been well-resolved using the cartoon that ‘Dan’ has created for himself to make his life seem to have a mission and a purpose.

  114. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 109AM:

    But since ‘Dan’ then raises the issue as to just “where the problem lies”, then I would say this: the problem – the primary Problem – is and always has been that of living out one’s ideals and one’s commitment to be faithful to Christ in a world shot through with the effects not just of the cumulative power of innumerable individual sins but in a world so shot through with the effects of Sin within the human heart and soul that one cannot even rely completely on one’s own dedication and loyalty and intelligence and resolve.

    That is the Problem. It always has been and the Church has always proclaimed that while she is commissioned and guided by God, yet she too participates and indeed is comprised-of the same humanity, afflicted by the same effects of sins and Sin, as all human beings and all human historical endeavors.

    Thus, this is a situation – one might say The Situation – that cannot easily be resolved by simplistic and childish cartoonery, the allure of which is itself a temptation to flee from reality and cocoon oneself ever deeper in profound (one might possibly even say ‘fundamental’ or even ‘abyssal’) fantasy.

    And that also goes for the far-too-easy deployment by some of those fantasists of the word “true”. In a world shot through with the effects of sins and Sin, then “true” (as in both i) genuine and ii) accurately comprehending reality) cannot ever presume to have reached utter fulfillment.

    It can only pretend to such fulfillment. Through, as I said, the ever-thicker larding-on of fantasy.

    Which fantasy, as we see here and in many other places, can then be used epithetically, in order to pretend to a this-worldly achievement of a pure high-ground from the heights of which one can play Zeus and toss one’s favorite thunderbolts, as epithetical, irrational, and juvenile as they may be.

  115. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 109AM:

    And I would also note that “thorough house cleaning” is not the same as complete eradication (as in the world being “better off without” the Church). Nor is it at all irrelevant here that on several occasions public authorities decided that ‘Dan’ himself was in need of some significant “house cleaning”.

    God – it will come as no surprise to those familiar with Catholic teaching – is always with His Church, and that includes repairing and restoring His Church. ‘Dan’s effort here to draft God and Scripture into his personal fantasies for his own cartoon purposes (and he is hardly alone in this gambit) reveals itself for what it actually is: a personal fantasy.

    Thus ‘Dan’s larding-on of his favorites from his well-thumbed stack of Scriptural 3x5s can remain right where it was put.

    And he is well-advised to recall that Satan can use even the rather-unwell for his purposes, deluding them that they are actually E-ticket holders in some illusory Disneyworld of self-importance. When actually, their fantasized ‘truth’ and actual truth or Truth remain two separate things.

  116. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 251AM:

    Here he reaches out to ‘Jim’ to do some ‘ministry’.

    That may seem nice, but there was – as so often with Abuseniks – an ulterior motive: the whole bit platforms a lead-in to ‘Dan’s announcement (in that queasy juvenile just-entre-nous way that Abuseniks so often deploy here) that, alas and “P.S.”, we may not be hearing “any more from” ‘Dan’ because (hand to forehead) he is “tired of all the ‘bullshit’”. Thus the Servant and self-declared prophet.  (Who, it is then revealed, was thus “tired” even before he began .)

    Thus another Broadway bit closes, whether before or after its time is for readers to consider.

  117. Publion says:

    But his performance did indicate that I had missed a JR comment (the 23rd at 950AM).

    It is indicative of the extent of ‘Dan’s phantasmagoria that JR – ever the canny showbiz person – saw his opening to don the Wig of Reason: things around here have “degenerated into a debate” (and JR, despite what he likes to remind us, isn’t really into “debate”, or discussion, or exchange, or – let’s face it – just about anything that isn’t basically an approving riff on his own favorite stack of 3x5s).

    He’s also demonstrated himself not really into “thought” either, unless that term includes basically an approving riff on his own favorite stack of 3x5s.

    One might well wonder if the connecting of ‘JR’ and “thought” isn’t itself somewhat oxymoronic.

    And – as if on cue – he nails down that surmise by merely repeating his “2000” bit (the problems with which have already been discussed), adding in the also-familiar factoid that the insurance companies actually paid “half” of the three billion paid out (to those 2000?). Apparently unfamiliar with insurance practice, JR does not mention that if indeed the insurance companies paid a great deal of the settlement money, then the Church’s premiums would increase significantly. But – as so very often – that’s a factoid that is only valuable to JR as a factoid, and not as a prompt for further thought and analysis.

    And he wraps it up with a bit that only serves to remind us of one of the come-ons that no doubt lubricated the Stampede: the Church is “loaded with gold” so it’s not like what we’re doing is really going to bother anybody.

  118. Dan says:


    SATAN'S ATTRIBUTES: "TRUTH" SLAYER, imposter, DECEIVER, slanderer, MOCKER, accuser, LIAR, malicious, perverter, trickster, profane and last but not least, BABBLER.

    Remind you of anyone, or simply defines the attributes of your church's hierarchy.

                                                          GOOD RIDDANCE, PUBLION

    P.S. "BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING." They come to you as Godly, holy, flattering, false prophets, when in reality, they are truly ravenous wolves (HYPOCRITES).

    • Publion says:

      Nothing new from ‘Dan’ on the 25that 1238AM.

      What we see here is simply the darkly marvelous psychic economy that has invested itself in using Scripture in the projectile, but never considering the possibility of its being equally or even more valid in the recoil. In other words, one should always recite one’s favorite Scriptural bits in front of a mirror before one starts launching them like Jovian thunderbolts into the world beyond oneself.

      Although the “good riddance” bit seems ungrounded, unless of course ‘Dan’ is referring to his (yet to be realized) departure.

  119. Dan says:

    Publion says, 12/24 @ 1:23pm, "If there is a relevant argument to be made from the Second Letter of Peter then 'Dan' can put it up here, rather than just reference the Letter; but – of course – 'Dan' is so deep into the world of his own personal cartoon that he simply presumes, without even thinking about it, that everyone will 'see' what he sees."

    Mr. Research, might want to take a look at Dan says 12/22 @ 3:03 and pay special attention to Dan's more than 'relevant argument' pertaining to your's and your church's nastiness in regards to their DEPRAVED CONDUCT, bringing disgrace and extreme shame to the way of TRUTH, and let's not forget their GREED. I even capitalized the words so you could 'see' them and possibly overcome your 'blindness and stupidity'.

    So before you go criticizing others in regards to their intellegence, you may want to be more 'thorough' with your own reading comprehension. And while were mentioning it, 'thorough house cleaning' for your church would need extermination and complete eradication. It's been given way to many chances for repentance, but just doesn't seem to change, other than going from bad to worse.

    Also in your 'juvenile' obsession with 'cartoons', I found your own 'personal cartoon', one that fits you perfectly. Rocky and Bullwinkle Show: A bumbling, dumb moose with a big head, who thinks he's 'Mr. Know It All'. I suggest in the future you might be a bit more careful who you insult, for God has a way of knocking you down a few rungs. I'd definitely exercise more caution in mocking or testing His patience with you.          GOOD RIDDANCE


    • Publion says:

      But by the 26th at 3AM ‘Dan’ has apparently managed to get a grip on himself.

      And that results in his mere repeat reference to his three (favorite?) horror-stories – from the 22nd at 303PM. Which, as we saw, aren’t at all up to the load-bearing tasks he wishes to heap upon them.

      Clearly, also, ‘Dan’ is rather completely convinced that his own performance is a stellar example of what Bible-reading can do for a human being. But I would say – once again – that he needs to put himself in front of a mirror; using the Bible as nothing more than a weapons-cache for one’s assorted favorite forays hardly does justice to the Bible’s possibilities.

      His use of scream-caps simply indicates that abiding Abusenik tendency to substitute screaming for thinking and presuming that one has thus somehow provided a more effective presentation (especially when larded with whatever epithets come to mind).

      Thus my “reading comprehension” is quite sufficient. The real problem is that what I have ‘comprehended’ isn’t what ‘Dan’s cartoon-presumptions want to see. Not my problem.

      And how does his mentation resolve the discrepancy between “house-cleaning” and “extermination and complete eradication”? Simple! He merely equates them. It’s amazing what one can accomplish inside one’s mind, if one has closed it off from any uncongenial external actualities, is it not?

      And he will then try to bring it home with a stab at the (more specifically: his) ‘cartoon problem’: but here he can only come up with an epithet about Rocky and Bullwinkle, upon which he lovingly riffs for a while. That must console him.

      And the obligatory final bit – this time including a threat – that I should be careful about ‘insulting’ God because God (or rather ‘Dan’ with his god-wig on) doesn’t have limitless patience.

      One wonders if his tendency to threaten those children on the other side of the fence who mocked the ravings of the ‘Dan-god’ was what attracted the attention of the authorities so many times.

      Upon such mentation as this the Stampede has fed and engorged.

  120. Dan says:

    I absolutely did not "repeat reference to his three (favorite?) horror-stories" and you know it. You falsely claimed I had no 'relevant argument' from scripture so I pointed it out to you. DEPRAVED CONDUCT is not God's reference to these three horror stories, but rather His two word description to your entire hierarchy, the coverups, secrecy, lies and false catholic teachings. I'll help you define it.

    DEPRAVED (syn.)- corrupt, perverted, degenerate, immoral, sinful, indecent, wicked, vile, sick, twisted, morally polluted, disgusting, debased, despicable, ungodly- need we say more?

    When I use what you call 'scream-caps', it's only to bring emphasis to an important word or phrase in a sentence, that might help the 'blind to see, deaf to hear', or dense to understand.

    Now, as if you were there, I have a "tendency to threaten those children". Your despicable lies and perverting of truth has become complete idiocy, along with your balderdash and stupidity, which tends to make a dumb jackass look pretty smart. So keep on mocking and testing His patience, but you won't stand before Him and claim you weren't warned.

            DAN, SERVANT OF THE ONLY TRUE GOD (Hope that annoys you immensely.)




    • Publion says:

      Apparently ‘Dan’ meant some other part of his comment of the 22nd at 303PM. Sorry, I’m not a mind-reader. Perhaps ‘Dan’ can learn to express himself more carefully.

      And then we see a rather sterling example of the ‘Dan-god’ at work: “depraved conduct” is not ‘Dan’s term but rather is “His two-word description”. And ‘Dan’ knows this is God’s own description … how? By God-gram of course, or else – in his vision of it, anyway – ‘Dan’ and God enjoy the same sort of internal thought-sharing as the Persons of the Trinity. That can’t be ruled out, I suppose.

      A dictionary definition of “depraved” follows that bit. For readers who might not know what it means.

      Then an excuse for his scream-caps: and once again it demonstrates that the only way Abuseniks have of further explicating their 3×5 talking-points is to scream them at readers.

      I specifically used the term “wonders” in regard to his encounter(s) with children. Surely something attracted the attention of somebody who called the police, who then saw fit to arrest him, and a judge then had him committed for – at the very least – psychiatric observation … and all of this multiple times.

      That much, certainly, easily survives his blizzard of epithets.

      His repetition of his favorite, self-awarded title certainly doesn’t annoy me. It’s always better, I would say, to have a point demonstrated vividly rather than simply describing the dynamics involved.

  121. Jim Robertson says:

    COUGH!!!!  COUGH…….!!! Can't SEE FOR THE SMOKE…. SO MUCH SMOKE!  CAN"T BREATHE!!!!!    2000 out of 11,000 "compensated"  VICTIMS NEVER MENTIONED.



    • Dan says:

      I can't agree with you more. The smoke has gotten in your eyes. Good luck with your imaginary money god. I thought I was assisting victims, like yourself, to bring attention to their terrible crimes and coverups. Your anger and blame towards the one who gave you life, rather than laying full blame on the false church, isn't much better than perpetrators blaming victims. Hope that doesn't backfire on you.