Scandal? What Scandal? Philadelphia Inquirer Ignores Blockbuster Story of Bogus Accusations Against Priests In Its Own Backyard

Philadelphia Inquirer : Bill Marimow

See no evil: Philadelphia Inquirer editor-in-chief Bill Marimow

One would think that the scandal of a drug-addled Philadelphia man making false abuse accusations against multiple Catholic priests – all of whom were convicted and landed in prison, where one has already died – would merit at least a tiny mention in Philly's newspaper of record, the Philadelphia Inquirer. Heck, it was noteworthy enough to merit a huge cover story in Newsweek magazine only a couple weeks ago.

And indeed during the trials against these priests, the Inquirer gave wall-to-wall coverage with countless stories and hysterical headlines.

But the Inky's editor-in-chief, Bill Marimow, has made it clear that he has no interest in informing his readers about a fraud being perpetrated right in his own backyard against the Catholic Church.

[For readers unaware of the shocking story of the accuser's fraud against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, here is one place to start.]

Handing the Inky a story

Ralph Cipriano

Journalist Ralph Cipriano

In a recent post over at the blog, veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano – who has doggedly pursued and unraveled the swindling against the Church – reveals that this not the first time that Marimow has ignored this important story.

"[Marimow and the Inquirer] are staunchly in the pocket of the prosecution, serving as the D.A.'s press office," says Cipriano.

Cipriano reports that back in October 2014, he emailed Marimow with a "no strings attached" offer to give the Inquirer all of the grand jury transcripts and police files from the Philadelphia Church sex abuse cases that he had in his possession.

He even added that the Inquirer "could conduct their own investigation of the investigation of the church, and that grand jury report, and come to their own conclusions. It would have been a public service for the region, and for justice."

But Marimow had no interest in the story, showing a commitment to his own biases rather than the truth.

So while Marimow and the Inky fall over themselves to loudly trumpet each and every accusation against Catholic priests in Philadelphia from Church-suing contingency lawyers and careerist politicians – no matter how suspicious or flimsy – they staunchly refuse to acknowledge a false accusation even when they themselves have been party to promoting the fraud upon the public.

At the Inky, it seems, the truth is always second to its hatred of the Catholic Church.


  1. Trew says:

    Cipriano is a hero for what he has done–without thanks from anyone.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      They are some nice words about Ralph Cipriano Trew. How come we never seen you over at Bigtrial ? Or have we and you are just one of the many who post under Anonymous

  2. malcolm harris says:

    Upon reading Dave Pierre's report about Bill Marimow, at the 'Inky', I found myself remembering a quote.. ….."Power currupts, and absolute power currupts absolutely'"

    Do not underestimate the heady sense of power, that flows from the ability to influence the thoughts and attitudes of large numbers of people. It would feel masterful to control the flow of news and ideas to a receptive audience. Perhaps, in a sense, even a captive audience if they are habitualized into reading the newspaper every day

    How very sad that this corrupting power has corroded away his professional ethics, which call on all journalists to be impartial and objective. And not to take sides …something that he is now clearly doing…. in his personal vendetta against the Catholic Church.

    • Mark says:

      That's intresting Malcolm. Someone told me just the other day that Lord Acton made that remark about Pope Pius IX.

    • Dan says:

      "Power c[o]rrupts, and absolute power c[o]rrupts absolutely."

      Malcolm, Your mispelling of "currupts" in the quote works perfectly, because it is you (u) and your church that would be the ideal definition of corrupt. And you forgot the second half of the quote, "Great men are almost always bad men." Men who adorn themselves with satiny robes of pretentiousness, having others bowing and kissing their ring finger, in no way prove to be examples of the humility God asks of us. "Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence." MT 23:25  Great temples, elaborate statues and artwork, and exquisite garments on the outside, but ultimate greed and despicable acts of lust, done in darkness, under the guise of Godliness, love, faith and false humility on the inside.

      "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."  John 3:20-21  So come out from the darkness. Stop defending and excusing the wickedness of your church's hypocrisy, and God may shine his light down upon you and heal your blindness.

    • Publion says:

      On the 10th at 406AM ‘Mark’ raises an interesting point: Lord Acton, a Catholic, did make his comment in connection with the Papacy, in a letter written in 1887 looking back on the doctrine of papal infallibility (established at the First Vatican Council in 1870 and which Acton had opposed at that time). 

      Acton was much concerned for liberty and the dangers government posed to liberty, and this led him not only to a) esteem the United States for its federal system that (in the period before the American Civil War) prevented the development of a centralized government but also to b) then support the Confederacy for its emphasis on states-rights. 

      Acton as thinker and historian was consistently opposed to the Ultramontanist school of thought, which supported the Papacy’s authority – at least in matters connected to religion – over civil governments. The Ultramontane view developed in the era of nascent national governments/monarchies, and then in response to Henry VIII’s self-declaration of sovereignty over church as well as state; and in vivid contrast to the Eastern Orthodox Church’s subservience to the Imperial (later the Czarist)Throne. 

      But he remained a Catholic, receiving the Last Sacraments on his deathbed.

      In 1874 in his pamphlet The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance and then in several letters to the Times of London, Acton outlined a number of “inconsistencies” in papal policies or pronouncements, but then disagreeing with Gladstone’s conclusion as to the illegitimacy of the Church. He considered “communion with Rome as dearer than life”. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Mark’s of the 10th at 402AM:

      It is also relevant that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not accurately characterized as “absolute power” (although the rhetorical balance of the play on “absolute” did and does make for a nifty quote): a Pope cannot on his own make an infallible statement on just any subject. 

      Rather, i) the subject has to be a matter of faith/doctrine or morals, and ii) the Pope’s statement must be in communion with the consensus of the Bishops, especially as that consensus might be expressed in an Ecumenical Council. 

      Nor does the doctrine in any way involve any presumption of the personal moral perfection of any individual pope (or any other cleric or hierarch)nor does it in any way involve the presumption of any sort of general omni-competent omniscience on any and all topics. The Holy Spirit is seen as working through what Kant called “the crooked timber of humanity” to sustain the edifice of the Faith embodied by the Church. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Mark’s of the 10th at 402AM:

      As a reader might realize, the primary focus here is on how the Holy Spirit works in and through the Church.

      It might be said that Acton – contrary to his well-established historical and political concerns – overrode those in order to embrace the Church as being “better than its premises”. 

      I personally would reach that embrace of the Church in somewhat the opposite way: the “premises” of the Church – in both its doctrine and the hierarchy that works under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (while still comprised of that “crooked timber of humanity” that Kant so acutely described) – are vital to the consistency and sustained identity of the Church over millennia. 

      I have several times here referred to the “vertebracy” of the Church, as opposed to the invertebracy of many other major religious systems, and including among those systems the assorted Protestant illuminations. Taoism is more of a philosophy, as is much of Buddhism, and thus merely a personally-selected and chosen way-of-life; others are more a collection of rituals requiring piety in the performance of those rituals required by any number of various gods. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Mark’s of the 10th at 402AM:

      Protestantism, as I have several times said, insured its own invertebracy when Luther finally broke with the Church claiming he was merely ‘reforming’ the Church (according to his own illuminations) – but Luther then was almost instantly confronted with numerous other illuminated religious figures who disagreed with him and put forward their own illuminations as decisive. 

      The result being – through the doctrines of sola scriptura and ‘the priesthood of all believers’ – that the conceptual basis was laid for any individual to come up with his/her own version of the Christian Faith, built perhaps – like a beaver’s dam or magpie’s nest – by whatever Scriptural or doctrinal snippets caught the fancy of that individual. 

      We see that dynamic playing out to its (inevitable) end today in the gross doctrinal disarray among assorted Protestant polities and even more vividly on this site with ‘Dan’, who has (for whatever misch of psychological and theological or religious purposes) developed his own ‘religion’, while claiming (for all practical purposes) absolute or unassailable legitimacy by asserting the (for all practical purposes) ‘infallible’ illuminations provided rather directly to ‘Dan’ in what I call his god-grams. He may prefer to coyly name himself ‘Prophet’ or ‘Servant’ but he is for all practical purposes the Pope of his own ‘religion’.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Mark’s of the 10th at 402AM:

      I think that Acton’s hardly-unjustified mistrust of centralized government (which is not to say that he was altogether comfortable with ‘democracy’) was and remains a primary and primarily political illumination and a vitally valuable one. 

      That is one reason that I have never been comfortable with the belief in the possibility of a Medieval vision of ‘Christendom’. That vision – of spiritually-formed pious governments (monarchs and princes, at that time) acting in the political realm according to the overriding spiritual guidance of the Church – was always at risk of the “crooked timber of humanity”: governments operating under such a belief would have sovereign and coercive power over every aspect of their citizens’ lives (as we so quickly saw in Calvin’s Geneva and other such places) and – mutatis mutandis – in the Soviet vision. Christian theocracy has its undeniable charms as a concept, but it cannot ever work in practice. It remains a theory in search of a fact – and an impossible fact at that, however glorious the (impossible) envisioned end-state. 

      Some might even imagine that the US today and for the past fifty years has gone well along some sort of road similar to Calvin’s, becoming a secularist Geneva and perhaps on the road to something even more intense and worse. 

    • Publion says:

      ‘Dan’ returns on the 9th at 1117PM:

      He opens – as so often – with an epithet. 

      His rhetorical gambit is this: he will exaggerate TMR’s assessment of the mainstream media (hereinafter ‘MSM’) when it suits TMR’s purposes, and on that basis try to indict the integrity and legitimacy of TMR. 
      And he will make sure he has loaded his dice by also tossing in – as if a matter of demonstrated or demonstrable fact – that TMR’s position is “fraudulent” (that position being the one he has already exaggerated for his own purposes). 

      ‘Dan’ complains that TMR does not spend as much time “on the valid cases”. Well, then – might ‘Dan’ proffer some demonstrably “valid cases”? Nobody I have ever read on this site, nor the site itself, have ever denied the possibility of some clerical sexual abuse. The key questions have always been: a) how widespread was/is it and b) what cases brought to us by the MSM are demonstrably “valid”? Until these questions can be sufficiently answered, then discussion cannot legitimately proceed to conclusions (such as that “fraudulent”).

      Nor has anyone claimed here that “since there is some fraud, then it must be all fraud”. 

      However, I – for one – have pointed out a number of elements demonstrably involved in the Stampede that strongly indicate the possibility or even probability of fraud and that probability remains un-refuted except by bald unsupported assertions to the contrary. 

      But probability complicates cartoon-thinking, which much prefers – and must rely on – simplistic but gripping cartoon conceptualizations. Cartoon-thinking must “cloud our senses” if it is to work. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1117PM:

      And then we see the sly bit to the effect that if there are any unjustly accused (slyly exaggerated as “saints”) then “God will give them justice”. Which, when you look at it, is simply a replay of the old saw ‘Kill them all and let God sort them out’; and not far removed from the old witchcraft maxim: if you float you are witch and if you drown then you weren’t a witch. Which – need it be pointed out? – are hardly principles congruent with Western justice or rational assessment generally. 

      (I would also point out that it was precisely because of this homely application of local secular witchcraft jurisprudence that the Church extended the formal canon-law processes of the Roman Inquisition to witchcraft, contrary to the vivid and gripping portrayal given in, say, Eco’s book and the later film The Name of the Rose, which film came out in the early 1980s.)

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1117PM:

      And once again with “lies” which were “laid upon” ‘Dan’ by the Church (that misadventure at the schoolyard fence, where the staffers and police and judge rather concluded that he was somewhat unhinged) and by me (what “lies” might those be?).  

      Thus then on to a Scriptural reference. I would recommend less hyper-ventilating thumbing through his version of the Bible and more contemplation in the mirror. But I doubt I’m the first one ever to suggest that remedy, nor do I entertain any large expectations in that regard. 

      And – as must always be – a warning that when we read ‘Dan’s recommended pericopes we are not to be “twisting the meaning” so as to make them seem to rather nicely demonstrate his lack of Biblical chops and of his general wellness. What else can he say? 

      And he concludes by giving himself (Himself … ?) a Scriptural compliment on his patience. Ovvvvv courssssse. 

    • Publion says:

      And on the 10th at 752AM comes again commenter ‘Michael Skiendzielewski’. Regular readers of this or other abuse-themed sites may recall him as making assertive comments with a patina of competent authority and knowledge/fact-based proffers.

      But here we merely get a vividly adolescent bit. 

      What is it about Abuseniks that causes them to slip gears so often and – even more interestingly – reveal so molten adolescent a core? 

  3. Dan says:

    You guys are hilarious. You love the media when it suits or backs your agenda, but it's the work of the "devil" if you can't manipulate it to back your fraudulent cause. I wish that as much energy was spent on making good on the valid cases, rather than trying to cloud our senses into believing since there is some fraud, then it must be all fraud. Most deceiving and disingenuious. And I aint buying it that these people are saints, but if they are God will give them justice, the same justice I'm waiting on for all the lies the catholic church has laid on me, including those of peewee. You guys might want to read the first Book of Peter. It explains suffering for lies and false accusations in fine detail, if you can read it without twisting the meaning, for the words explain vindication for the wrongly accused. Problem is, like myself, they may have to wait until Judgment Day. And at times that can be quite a lesson in patience.   

    • Chris C. says:

      I take the purpose of the article to be the utter lack of responsibility of the Philadelphia Inquirer in its blanket coverage of false allegations which resulted in convictions, and its refusal to correct the record. I'm not sure what you assume the purpose to be, but you seem to care little that someone may have been unjustly convicted of a crime, and that a major newspaper evidently was content to mislead the public.  

    • Dan says:

      Chris C.- I don't know if you're new to this forum, but I don't think it's fair to label me as one who doesn't care about the falsely convicted, when the wicked, catholic church has, with their vicious lies, falsely and unjustly convicted me of many things. Tell me, do you or any of the other hypocrites on this forum care about that or any of the children's lives your cult has destroyed. Do you only care for yourselves? What Godly compassion and forgiveness you display. You might want to read 1 Peter ch.1-5, like I suggested. Sometimes justice doesn't happen in this unjust world.

  4. Michael Skiendzielewski says:


    • Dennis Ecker says:

      My sentiments exactly ! When people no longer post comments on Cipriano's blog because his writings are boring and repetitive he comes here and HAS his buddy Dave post the same BS here.It has gotten so bad over at Bigtrial Ralph had to put in place the review/cherry pick procedure for comments being posted to his site.

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    Is Publion going to monopolize the discourse AGAIN?

    His is always a fake "authentication". He wraps his poison in words. And kills with boredom not just lies. I'm not waxing poetical here. P kills any hope for victims. He destroys any and all hope for your church to do right in this situation. He's a stone wall of smoke. 

    The reason the Inquirer isn't interested in Ralphs Cipriano's story is that: it's just that, his "story". No new evidence just a rehash of old news.

    Notice how only Newsweak is the only fool to print Ralph's smears as "important"? That's because there's no news there.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      And P take all your opinions about me and every other victim you've never met and shove them so far up your ass.; your mouth jams.

    • Publion says:

      On the 11th at 922AM JR once again plaints that I am going to “monopolize the discourse again”.

      As with so very many Abusenik bits, before you get going on it you have to quickly start scanning the ground for the buried landmine of presumption beneath what looks like normal linguistic terrain.

      In this case, the slyly buried presumption is that one can conduct any sort of normal (adult) “discourse” with Abuseniks. I had mentioned in my comment of the 10th at 933PM that unless you simply went along with whatever they were putting up, Abuseniks rather quickly reverted to a molten adolescent content of epithet and scatology (and on a recent occasion I also noted how shrewd torties were in avoiding having to put such individuals on the stand to face adversarial questioning under oath in open court, in order to prevent just such outbursts as we have so often seen here).

      One might quite reasonably consider an alternative explanation for JR’s irritation: the thread of “discourse” has gotten away from him and his increasingly threadbare 3×5 pile of talking-points, the attention is off him, and he’s not really equipped for saying much worthwhile in regard to the material that irritates him. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 11th at 922AM:

      His second paragraph begins with a grammatically nonsensical assertion – always a warning with his stuff that he’s trying to put over something that he hasn’t quite thought-through:  my material is “always a fake ‘authentication’”.

      In what way is it an “authentication”? In what way is it “fake”? What does his sentence actually mean, if anything at all?

      A commenter’s piece prompted some thoughts that I thought were useful and relevant to readers and I put them up.

      JR then – of course – will try to bolster the nonsensical bit with – had you been waitttttinggggggggg forrrr ittttttttt? – epithet: my material is “poison” ‘wrapped’ “in words”.

      And  – had you been waitttttinggggggggg forrrr ittttttttt? – he finds it all just so very ‘boring’. As I have so often said: i) complex/compound sentences and concepts will have that effect on some types of mind and ii) anything that doesn’t keep the focus on him and his material not only doesn’t interest JR but positively irritates him. Oh well.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 11th at 922AM:

      But JR will then slyly try to bolster his bits here by heading for the Victim-y high-ground: he is not “waxing poetical here” (had anyone imagined he was?). Rather, he – in his self-appointed capacity as Tribune of the Victimry – decries that I ‘kill’ “any hope for victims”.

      Now that’s an interesting giveaway: if questioning (with much explication) the validity of the Stampede has that effect of ‘killing’ “any hope for victims”, then what, exactly, is the game upon which “victims” have built their “hope”?

      But – of course – he then works toward his conclusion by planting another land-mine of a presumption: that the Church can only “do right” in this situation by simply presuming the veracity of Stampede claims and reaching for the checkbook.

      And the paragraph concludes with an image that is either strictly nonsensical or far too clever a rhetorical production to come from JR’s demonstrated capacities: I am “a stone wall of smoke”. Which, of course, is also merely an epithet when you come right down to it. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 11th at 922AM:

      He will then attempt to dispose-of the uncongenial actuality of Ralph Cipriano’s story by claiming that it’s just a “story”. The Cipriano piece is built carefully on actual quotations and extant records of directly relevant and revelatory material; it builds its position logically from point to point and thus reaches conclusions that are clearly justified by the evidence introduced in the piece.

      That – not to put too fine a point on it – is genuine ‘reporting’ and not just a “story” (and we see here the complications introduced by the ambivalent or multivalent use of the word “story” in common usage to denote either a) a fictional relating or b) a news report). Surely the Abuseniks claims and allegations we have seen here on this site and on the BigTrial site are far better candidates for the (a) category.

      And when one considers possible extraneous factors beyond the nature of the Cipriano piece (e.g. the consistent and demonstrated failure of the Inquirer to publish any material uncongenial to the Stampede and the DA’s position; the decision of the State Superior Court to order a new trial and the rejection of the DA’s motion to avoid a new trial) then the credibility of the Cipriano piece is greatly reinforced while the credibility of the Stampede/Abusenik efforts at spin are concomitantly reduced.

      And as for the further effort to dispose of the uncongenial material by pooh-poohing it as “old news”: since the case is still active and the probability of a miscarriage of justice (at the very least) is so clearly high, then this is not “old news” at all; it is very current and I would say vital “news” indeed. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 11th at 922AM:

      And the whole bit concludes with a further effort to wish-it-all-away: only Newsweek has published the Cipriano piece. Since only Newsweek has published it, then … what? Were, say, JR to have a story on him published by that media source … does anyone think JR would simply pooh-pooh its significance because other news magazines or outlets didn’t pick up on it?

      Once again, then, we see JR’s basic operating maxim: if it’s not about him and his little pile of 3x5s then it’s not worth doo-doo and if anything focuses on him and his little pile of 3x5s but disagrees with them, then it surely is doo-doo.

      Readers may consider it all as they will.

      But there’s one more interesting aspect here: the Abuseniks operate on the level of in-your-face back-and-forth and thus if they can come up with any sort of splashy come-back they’re happy to call it a good day’s work. The possibility that large ideas can work their way into public consciousness (through, say, material published in major media outlets) over time and quietly but surely … is completely lost on them. Their operating milieu is, one might say, purely tactical with no capacity for the strategic. 

    • Publion says:

      On the 11th at 924AM JR then tries another tack, the landmine presumption buried beneath it being: I only toss up “opinions” (and thus, but of course, anybody’s ‘opinion’ is as worthwhile as anybody else’s).

      I put up ideas that I have formulated and such conclusions as I have reached only after assessing material provided and explaining my reasoning process at every step.

      So perhaps we can see the difference between a ‘mere opinion’ (thus merely an assertion, larded with epithet perhaps) and an ‘informed opinion’ (which explains itself in a rational and coherent manner as it goes along from step to step).

      And the bit concludes with reference to physical activities about which I have no direct knowledge but which seem to be a regular element in JR’s standard state of mind and imagination.  

    • A blind man speaks.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If Newsweek did a story about me. I'd ask, Why?

      Unlike you P; I wouldn't care. Unless it would be about the Tom Doyle fraud and I'm getting the word out. I have no need to be personally "important". I am important. As I am.  As all people are; including you P.

      You are an important lesson in what not to be.

      The false notion that I wish to be more important than I am. Is your myth. It suits your conspiracy theory.

      FYI those of us who do things well are fullfilled by the good we do. Maybe that's why you post so much here. None of what you write is about anything good being done and thereby you have no fullfillment.

      2000 out of 11,000 victims "compensated' for our child rapes and you P feign the moral high ground? You're an unfullfilled smoke machine.

  6. malcolm harris says:

    On February 10th, 'Chris C'. appears to be asking us for a reality check. Thanks Chris…., because I also  miss what is most important.

    The reality is that four innocent men were sent to prison. Why? Yes we know about the "lying, scheming, altar boy". But the proper administration of justice should be prevent such an outcome. A paranoid and deluded drug addict should never be able to send innocent men to prison. So what went wrong? Where to begin?. But let's just stick to this thread and focus on the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

    This newspaper his consistently shown bias and prejudice against the accused men  It's bias confirmed by now ignoring  revelations about the mental state of  'Billy Doe', the accuser. The Inky has influenced public opinion…. to the point that the four men were virtually convicted before they entered the court.

    What to do? Well remember back about 6 months when the Pope went to Philly?. It was reported that 1.5 million souls attended his mass. We should note carefully when people vote with their feet.That was a lot of feet. Also a lot of heads connected to those feet.

    Heads that can decide to buy this newspaper… or not?, More to the point… whether to buy whatever is advertised in it….or not?

     I would refuse to buy anything from any business that promotes itself in this poisonous paper.


  7. Dan says:

    p- If I'm the "Pope of [my] own 'religion' ", I guess that would make you the dope of yours. I don't believe anyone asked you for the biography of 'Lord Acton'. Mark writes one sentence and you return with 5 pages of nonsense (smokescreen). I refuse to talk about the 'lies' at the schoolyard, because it's been explained to you, (ad nauseum).

    In regards to your criticism of other religions, it's absolutely hilariass that the problems you point out, are actually the very mistakes of yours, which prove your church to be a cult of pagans and witches, right down to the black dress. Ever question the black dresses of nuns, and worse, the black dresses of priests. The nuns habit isn't a far cry from the witches pointed hat. You say, "Taoism and Buddhism is more of a philosophy, others are more a collection of rituals requiring piety in the performance of those rituals required by any number of various gods." Catholic seminaries teach philosophy and the second half of the sentence couldn't better define your cult of impious hypocrits and it's worship of false gods (Mary, popes and saints). Again, described in detail in Jeremiah 44, read it and weep.

    For true Christians- Don't allow the 'lies' of Satan's followers to lead you astray. God says only a remnant will be saved. "One grape in a bunch, one tree in a forest or a drop in a wave." "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it." Matthew 7: 13-14  Do you think the remnant who will make it will be the 1.1 billion catholic idolaters. Don't let the devil's publyin's deceive you. Catholics, leave the church and find life. All you'll find their is the worship of the dead.

  8. Publion says:

    What then do we get from ‘Dan’ on the 11th at 849PM?

    He opens with a childish play on words, epithetical of course.

    He then huffs that nobody asked me for a biography of Acton. So what? I thought it was relevant, given the particular quotation deployed by other commenters and by the context of the material here.

    He then huffs further that I could develop 5 “pages” (comments, perhaps) out of a single quotation. That’s how a rational and well-stocked mind can work – which may be news to him, but no surprise there since we recall that ‘Dan’ has absolved himself of all need to read books since he has those god-grams and his version of the Bible.

    He then doth “refuse to talk about the ‘lies’ at the schoolyard” since he has already “explained” it all. It is apparently not apparent to him that his proffered ‘explanations’ as to what happened at the schoolyard serve only to raise further questions, as has been explained to him at length. Not my problem.

    And the proper Latin here would be ad nauseam. The god-grams apparently are neither spell-checked nor familiar with Latin.

    • Dan says:

      I mispelled "ad nauseam" by one letter, and you're going to insinuate that since I have a minor spelling problem, then God's Word or as you mockingly call them god-grams are  invalid, because they don't have spell-check or familiarity with Latin. You are such a deceiving, manipulating, lying mocker. I sense a god-gram coming your way. God's servant.

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 849PM:

    I didn’t actually ‘criticize’ Taoism and Buddhism so much as point out that they are not, sensu stricto, religions at all, but rather philosophies of life or ways of living.

    The problems inherent in Protestantism are hardly new and not unique nor my own invention; but they are, as far as I can see, quite relevant and they are profound.

    He then tries to turn those difficulties back on the Church and Catholicism, which he can ‘accomplish’ only by engaging in assorted cartoon portrayals of Catholic doctrine and praxis. But while his claims as to the “worship” of such “false gods” as “Mary, popes and saints” are at least within some recognizable  bounds of fundamentalist (mis-)conception, his blathering about “a cult of pagans and witches” and so forth simply reveals how his molten core overflows into his already unripe mentation (and he avoids the substantive conceptual issues inherent in his assertions, and focuses instead on “the nuns habit (sic) as a form of the stereotypical witch’s pointy black hat.

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 849PM:

    He then tries to claim that since Catholic seminaries “teach philosophy” (one of his few accurate assertions here) then that would make Catholicism nothing more than a “philosophy” just like Taoism or Buddhism. And at this point we really are simply reduced to watching his mentation play with words as if they were little toy blocks, to be piled up into whatever shapes a child’s interests might prompt.

    And – as always – he seems to think that one of his Scriptural 3x5s will indubitably demonstrate and establish the accuracy and validity of his eructations.

    One might almost imagine that the judge(s) involved in sending him for psychiatric observation so many times might have considered sending him to some Scripture classes, had there not been (and rightly so) the more urgent need for the psychiatric observation.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 849PM:

    And then – had you been waittttinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ will buckle down to some serious educating in the religion line: he addresses his instructions to “true Christians” and dons the Wig of Genuine Knowledge (and, but of course, Christians can prove that they are “true” only by accepting what he says).

    And his subsequent riff takes him to another play on words: since “only a remnant will be saved” then clearly (to his mind, anyway) “the 1.1 billion Catholics” couldn’t possibly (to his mind, anyway) constitute any such “remnant”.

    ‘Dan’, of course, would include himself (or Himself) among that “remnant” … and what a pretty bit of convenience that illumination provides him.

    And he concludes with another (hardly unfamiliar) cartoonish misconception: that among their other ‘worships’ Catholics also include “the worship of the dead”. That would constitute ‘ancestor worship’, which is actually characteristic of Confucian praxis, not Catholic praxis.

    Thus endeth the lesson and the service; the various Wigs can be returned to their respective boxes until ‘Dan’ needs them again.

    • Dan says:

      Say your rosary, little peewee, confess and say 10 Hail mary's, bow down to the pope, perform your repetitive, ultra-pious mass fraud and then explain to all of us how your cult doesn't repeat it's prayers and aren't a bunch of PIOUS, DECEIVING, LYING, IDOLATROUS, MOCKERS of everything that is Godly, holy, truthful and pure. No wonder they have become perverts, pedophiles, deceivers and everything disgusting in the eyes of the Lord. Catholicism is unbiblical and so are all the false, manmade religions of the world. Read the Bible and find the truth. Nice talking to you, MOCKER of everything Godly and true.                                     Servant of the One and Only True God and Savior

    • Dan says:

      "Catholics also include, 'the worship of the dead'. You think not? Let's examine. You parade the dead around in glass boxes with false claims that the body is incorruptible, when truly this is an absolute lie, because your cult has made a wax mask of the face and hands. They have their little reliquaries with pieces of rotted bones and flesh. Rome's skeleton churches and crypts, Catacombs, All Hallows Eve, Day of the Dead, etc.etc.etc. No! You don't worship the dead. You are the walking dead. Catholics- Don't let the deceivers fool and trick you.

  12. Dan says:

    Catholics, do not be deceived into thinking that I hate you. I'm against a brainwashing, unbiblical, hierarchy of liars, sexually immoral and greedy leaders, bringing many down into the pit. Don't let them fool or deceive you.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    Obviously Public Lying is going to continue with the smoke. He simply can not refrain from monopolizing the conversation. He ends conversation. He bombs conversation. He acts like Israel with the Palestinians.

    There's only one way to look at this (even for blind men Ralph) and that's the Public Lying way. Insult; dismissal and snobbery that and smoke is all the asshole knows.

    If i speak in the language of the streets; it's because you are what's in the gutter and I want you to clearly understand that you are a piece of shit. Got that?

    Ralph ,if I'm so blind, can you tell me one thing new , evidence wise, you've shown in your Newsweek story? SOS as far as this "blind" man can see.

    You may be absolutely correct about all of it; but where's the evidence that a judge or jury hasn't seen?


      I must be a glutton for punishment. What's new in the Newsweek story is the forensic pscyhiatrist's report, and Detective Walsh's deposition, both of which chip away at what's left of Billy/Danny's credibility. Any fair-minded person would say those documents, on top of all the other known contradictions in the case, would strongly indicate that Billy/Danny is a fraud. Especially when viewed in light of the machinations and lying on the part of the DA in this case from day one of the investigation until the present. Anyone can see the truth here except the most dedicated victims advocates like yourself and Dennis.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I don't know what you're a glutton for, Ralph.   Drama?

      "Indicate" means nothing; proof all.

      A report and a deposition by a church hired shrink and a detective means diddly squat and you know it.

      I wish you had the proof you need to do right by the people who are in jail, Ralph (if they are innocent); but as of now you don't. 

      I know you see a horrific injustice being done here and if you are right and injustice has been done?. I can only say I'm sorry.

      But as of this moment; I have to go with the justice system that has made it's decisions. That's why we have a system.

      I'm not dedicated to liars or thieves. I'm dedicated to people who were raped as children by their church. If it had happened to you; wouldn't you be?

      I wish you luck, if you are right; and wisdom, if you are wrong. I'm not your enemy nor is any victim, if you are telling the truth. We seek truth.

  14. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 1216PM ‘Dan’ will eagerly plop the Wig of Victimization on his head, and who can be surprised? It’s that or else deal with the issues, which he cannot do.

    He whines that since he misspelled a Latin phrase “by one letter” then I will “insinuate” that since he has “a minor spelling problem, then God’s Word [which I call his god-grams} is “invalid” because … it doesn’t “have spell-check familiarity with Latin”.

    Where oh were to begin?

    • Dan says:

      Who's whining, you have the market cornered on that one, peewee. You didn't correct my misspelling of 'mispelling', Mr. Persnickety. Did see your spelling of where as 'were' [sic]. So that must mean all the crap you dish out is worthless since you don't know how to use spell-check. God's Word is just that, and to mock His Word by calling it 'god-grams' is just plain stupid. Why should that surprise me, coming from you.            Servant Dan

    • Dan says:

      And as far as dealing with all your issues, I wouldn't know where to begin.

  15. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1216PM:

    First, I didn’t insinuate anything. I merely pointed out (in my comment of the 12th at 359AM) that the Latin was spelled incorrectly, which- when one thinks about it for a moment – seems rather odd for a divinely-Sourced missive from a Divinity Who might reasonably be expected to have some seriously competent familiarity with Latin.

    So then, second:  what might rationally and actually be inferred from my comment is the gentle thought that there is at the very least some notable difference and gap between i) the material produced by ‘Dan’ and ii) the actual and genuine Word and Will of God.

    Thus third: which possibility (to put it politely) is further supported by the rather vivid mood swings visible in the god-gram proffers and also by the fact that the ‘source’ of these proffers seems possessed of a queasily unripe and molten (and epithetically-inclined) psychic core.

    And fourth: in their effort to amp-up their mimicry of competence in order to simultaneously a) keep up their credibility (such as it may be) and b) yet avoid having to come to serious grips with the problematic aspects of their material, Abuseniks will try from time to time to polish their pile with quotes from languages in which they are demonstrably not competent. Not a good idea, I would say.

    • Dan says:

      To your last paragraph, I would have to reply that since you're unable to spell correctly the simple english word "where", maybe you should do us all a favor and stop attempting to speak a language in which you're not competent. You'll spare us the agony of having to hear all your long-winded nonsense.                Back atcha, mocker

  16. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1216PM:

    And the comment concludes – as it pretty much had to conclude – with nothing more than a string of epithetical bits that are slyly and manipulatively built on the buried land-mine of a presumption that ‘Dan’s piles are God’s Word and Will and anyone who doubts that fantastical presumption is a ‘mocker’ and so on and so forth and “Judgment Day” will be coming and so on and so forth.

    Readers of this site are blessed in a way: most people don’t get a chance to see these types of dysfunctions reveal themselves over an extended period of time, such as we have been able to observe on this site.

    And given the queasy sense that often prompts many people to unobtrusively remove themselves from the presence of such types if they are actually encountered, then readers are further blessed because in the internet modality readers are relieved of the anxious distraction of worrying that at some point the molten-core might suddenly erupt into some sort of violent outburst, which – as I said in a recent comment on this thread – was quite possibly what the school staffers and the police feared when dealing with him that unhappy day of his misadventure at the schoolyard fence (and the other five instances to which ‘Dan’ referred).

  17. Publion says:

    And – in a marvelously timely way – ‘Dan’ (the 12th at 912AM) will demonstrate precisely what I have been saying: threats and epithets galore.

    But again, and as we have also seen with other Abuseniks here, in the internet modality the violence of the molten core is restricted to merely words (although buttressed by scream-caps and assorted vivid imagery).

    And – again – one can read this 912-AM comment from ‘Dan’ and wonder just how much of ‘God’ is really in it at all.

    And in fact, one might proceed further with that thought: if one were to imagine any of a baker’s-dozen of horror-movie scenes where a demon is confronted with holy-water and/or the ritual of exorcism, would not the entire text of ‘Dan’s comment here not work quite acceptably as the demon’s enraged come-back?

    Except that the demon would have the professional decency not to actually try to pass itself off as “Servant of the One and Only True God and Savior”.

    • Dan says:

      p- Oh! I'm not the demon, your the demon. "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time". but Publyin' thinks he can fool most catholics all the time. Problem is he won't fool a true Christian, because the Creator will not let him. As is written.

  18. Publion says:

    And a few minutes later, on the 12th at 929AM, after recovering a moiety of self-control, the demon (continuing with my imagery) suddenly turns into a smarmy and cloying beseecher, soothingly purring that it is not “Catholics” who are hated at all and that this presence in front of us is only here to help rescue one and all from those who would ‘deceive’ and so on.

    We may rest assured that that purring presentation will swiftly revert to its essential molten and assaultive ferocity if we don’t buy it and instead continue to shpritz the holy water.

  19. Publion says:

    And on the 12th at 1115AM JR returns, having apparently decided to keep up the riffing on one of his more recent epithetical constructions involving a play on words of my screen-name. This tactic wasn’t very impressive when he tried it on Newsweek (“Newsweak”) but it’s about all he’s got at this point.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 12th at 1115AM:

    He then tries a now old and familiar whine that I “monopolize the conversation” here. But the presumption slyly and manipulatively buried beneath this gambit is that ‘conversation’ in the internet modality is the same as conversation among persons directly present to each other – and that is not accurate at all.

    In an actual physical conversation, only one person can speak at a time. In the internet modality of ‘comments’, anyone can put up as many comments as s/he likes and they all become candidates for others’ assessment.

    Thus JR is welcome to put up any material he chooses in order to participate. And the results of his choices are now in the record on this site.

    And has he not also recently tried the gambit that nobody reads my material anyway? So what’s the problem?

    The problem, of course, is that JR’s chosen stuff doesn’t really seem to win even his own attention.

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 12th at 1115AM:

    And JR will then try to bolster his shaky bits here with more epithetical tosses, this time dragging in “Israel and the Palestinians” (he’s quite au courant with international affairs, doncha know?).

    But then a genuinely notable gambit of sly manipulation: since all I know is “insult, dismissal and snobbery and smoke”, then – tah-dahhhhhhhhhhhhh! – a)  that’s all JR will deploy in response and b) JR doesn’t have to try to proffer any rational or coherent or persuasive or veracious material of his own.

    Which – in a truly marvelous demonstration of ‘psychic economy’ –i)  justifies JR doing exactly what JR always does anyway and ii) removes any need for JR to improve the quality of his plop-tossy proffers here.

    As I have often said, sustained contact with such types – for all its unpleasantness – can be quite illuminating. We are blessed.

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 12th at 1115AM:

    But wait – there’s more!

    In a rhetorical gambit curiously reminiscent of Paul (“If I speak the language of men and of angels …” 1 Cor 13:1) JR will now declaim his own slyly manipulative apologia: if he doth “speak in the language of the streets” that’s just because – doncha see? – I am “in the gutter” and he doth most clearly seek to impress upon me the (or his, anyway) impression that I am “a piece of sxxt”.

    In other words, in this most convenient and self-serving gambit here: JR only speaks the language of the gutter because … I only understand and only deserve the language of the gutter.

    The gutter – you are meant to infer – is not in JR, but in me. Poor JR is simply contorting himself into such queasy and repellent material as he has consistently put up here because I make him do it.

    In short: JR is a victim … of me being a creature of the gutter. Otherwise, readers would see a non-queasy, non-repellent, mature, rational, coherent, sober, serious, knowledgeable, competently-informed and altogether impressive adult.

    Thus the gutter is not in JR. The poor noble thing is simply forcing himself to mimic a creature of the gutter in order to impress upon me that it is I who am a creature of the gutter.

    And thus the gutter-persona we have seen here so vividly and consistently sustained over so long a period … is just a Wig, one of the many in the collection.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Finally you got something right P: I am a noble thing. As are the vast majority of human beings of all "types".

      Sorry sociopaths like you don't get that. Jesus got it; but not you. Awww!

      I wish there was a cure for your sociopathy but so far…….no.

      We wait in hope.

      Dan, wouldn't it be nice if P liked his fellow humans?  If he treated them with respect? Maybe you could pray for that Dan. P needs a miracle.

  23. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 1131AM JR dons the Wig of Goody Two-Shoes and thus accoutered would have us believe that he cawn’t think why Newsweek would want to do a story about little old him. This from someone who has disparaged just about every notable pro-Stampede personality in the database (but not, of course, because they are getting the attention and he’s not; rather, because only he has the true scoop but it’s their false-flagged posturing that gets the media coverage).

    In his second paragraph he then works in some gleanings from his pot of personal tea-leaves: in not caring for publicity he would be “unlike me” – the epithetical load here being that it is I – and not him – for whom publicity is a desiderandum.

    And yet he continues to visit himself upon us here. Granted this site isn’t Newsweek, why stay public at all? Not because he wants the attention – doncha see? – , no. Rather: the poor noble thing drags himself into the limelight so frequently simply because it is his duty as Tribune of the Victimry. (Cue both violins and trumpets.)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The truth is still the truth whether any attention is paid to it or not.

      I'm telling the truth and you aren't, P.

      I'll bet everything I own on my truth as being all the truth in this.

      If I were lying fr. Tom Doyle O.P.; SNAP; VOTF could and should sue me for libel.

      They can not because everything I've said about them is true.

      I've asked Ralph again and again to look into what i say and see for himself.. It's a bigger story, press wise and a far more provable position than his Billy Doe story is, so far.

      Ralph why do you think no other major news source besides Newsweek has taken up your story?

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1131AM:

    Then a riff on “important” that essentially factors out to being a truism.

    Until the method in the madness is revealed: I am “important” as an example of what not to be. (Really, one has to wonder at the dynamics of clinical projection: these types can put up this revealing stuff and then go shave and apparently look into the mirror and no connection dawns on them at all.)

    As to whether JR’s being driven by a hefty resentment at not getting attention is a “false notion” … readers may consider it as they will, adding it – if they are so inclined – to the list of all of JR’s other unsupported assertions.

    But a) I don’t have a “conspiracy theory” (I do have a “synergy theory” but the difference in words escapes JR) and b) even if I had a “conspiracy theory” JR’s resentment at not getting attention wouldn’t factor largely into it, if at all.

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1131AM:

    And then we get another “FYI”-gram from JR, which so often indicates that what we are about to read isn’t going to actually be very informative at all.

    It turns out to be a self-compliment (“those of us who do things well”) and ranks only a little below the self-aggrandizing and self-consoling compliments and authority ‘Dan’ assigns to himself (or Himself).

    His effort at ‘logic’ then fails him utterly: he posts here because he is “fulfilled” by “the good” he does; but I “post so much here” because I am not ‘fulfilled’ because nothing I write “is about anything good being done” … and any reader who cares to follow that bouncing ball to the conclusion of its trajectory is advised not to follow it over the edge into the abyss of jabberwocky.

    And – as if somehow aware on some level that his performance has gotten a bit away from him – JR will quickly clap onto his head the Wig of Fact and Science, which – however – only produces that already-discredited 3×5 about ‘only 2000 out of 11,000’ “compensated for our child rapes” and so on.

    On which basis he then dons the Wig of Moral Outrage and wants to know how – in the face of such ‘facts’ – I do “feign the moral high ground”. Since those ‘facts’ are incomplete and out of date by a decade, then both his question and his pose fail, having followed the bouncing ball all the way over into the realm of jabberwocky.

  26. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 1009PM ‘Dan’ will insist that he doesn’t ‘whine’. Well, ‘scream’ then, if that’s preferable; all those scream-caps and so forth would also ground that characterization.

    I certainly make typos, but then I don’t claim – and overtly and formally – to be transmitting the Word and Will of God in a way so direct that to find problems with ‘Dan’s stuff is to ‘mock God’.

    But this simply indicates that ‘Dan’ himself is somehow not the Voice of God and that his god-grams apparently aren’t to be taken as totally and completely the Word and Will of God but rather … there’s some serious amount of room for ‘Dan’ … which opens it all up to the possibility of ‘Dan’s ‘interpretation’ of what he thinks he is getting from ‘God’ and thus that noting the conceptual difficulties with ‘Dan’s stuff isn’t quite immediately and clearly an instance of ‘mocking God’ at all.

    ‘Dan’s core gambit of identifying himself (Himself … ?) with the Word and Will of God thus reveals here its fundamental flaw: since ‘Dan’ isn’t actually the mere amplifier of a script written by God, then there’s room (perhaps plenty of room) for pointing out the problems with his stuff.

  27. Publion says:

    And as for ‘Dan’s whine in his comment of the 12th at 1018PM:

    He could ‘begin’ with any of the issues on the table. He can take his pick.

    But he’s already absolved himself not only of reading books but also of responding to the problems in his material: he cawn’t possibly engage in Scriptural discussions with those who don’t know Scripture and he needn’t engage ‘mockers’ at all.

    Which pretty much makes this site a playpen for him, as it functions for so many other Abuseniks.

    • Dan says:

      P's- 2/13 @ 12:20+12:22pm

      Blah! Blah! Blah! For one who trys to parade himself off as some intellect, you sure show a fondness for baby things. Cartoons, baby building blocks, schoolyard fables and now playpens. My hope is that you may have grandchildren, because you're starting to scare me, that you may be a pedophile and that would explain all your lies and excuses for your church's malfeasance.              Sifting through the smoke, Dan, servant of the Almighty.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dan, Why would his being a grandfather exclude him from being a pedophile?

      He's a priest, Dan.

      He has no children or grandchildren (At least I hope he doesn't; for their sakes).

  28. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 957AM ‘Dan’ – for lack of anything better – will repeat his bit about my at some point spelling ‘where’ as ‘were’ (or vice versa) as evidence that my material is no more reliable than his (or his is no less reliable than mine).

    Let’s cut to the chase here: who made the mistake in spelling the Latin … Dan or God? If the Servant can answer that question, then things will become more clear on their own.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      God can spell and write Latin?  Wow! I did not know that.  Where does he buy his pens? Is there a Staples in heaven?

  29. Publion says:

    Passing over ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 459PM (do Abuseniks ever try reading their one-liners out loud to see how they really sound?):

    On the 13th at 704PM we now see ‘Dan’ (or his-the-some-any-a) god buckling down to something in the insidious line: he uses my imagery of “baby things” (i.e. “cartoons, baby building blocks, schoolyard fables, now playpens”) as possible evidence  – he is seized with righteous worry and concern – that I might be a pedophile.

    That such imagery of childish things is legitimately prompted by the quality of his material is not something that ‘Dan’ would care to consider, although it has been demonstrated to him on numerous occasions and at great length and in detail.

    Except for the “schoolyard fables”, which is actually not a fable at all, but the actuality as presented by ‘Dan’ himself (although he had never imagined that his preferred spin would get away from him here, and on the basis of his own scenario).

    Surely it is not I who has been arrested and sent for psychiatric examination six times, and one can only wonder about the circumstances of the other five instances: did they also involve ‘Dan’ and – not to put too fine a point on it – children?

  30. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 520PM ‘Dan’ will now revert to the old JR dodge: I’m Not/You Are.

    Specifically, that he is not the ‘demon’, referring to my comment of the 12th at 926PM where I wrote

    “And in fact, one might proceed further with that thought: if one were to imagine any of a baker’s-dozen of horror-movie scenes where a demon is confronted with holy-water and/or the ritual of exorcism, would not the entire text of ‘Dan’s comment here not work quite acceptably as the demon’s enraged come-back? “.

    Again, I would suggest to ‘Dan’ – and to any reader interested in this little experiment – to read ‘Dan’s comment (of the 12th at 912AM) out loud while imagining that scenario from the horror-movie as I proposed it.

    As to who is fooling whom or trying to do so, I would say that ‘Dan’ is the one trying that gambit here, and he has succeeded only in fooling himself (or Himself).

  31. malcolm harris says:

    Saw an interesting report on the Big Trial site, dated 13th February. Regarding a girl called Kathryn Knott, of Bucks County. She was described as a "gay-basher", and convicted on a misdemeanor charge. Got a prison sentence of a few months. The relevant thing about her is her father is Police Chief, Karl Knott. They said she had the attitude of "my dad is a cop, and I can get away with anything". Sound familiar at all?

    Wonder if that lying, scheming altar boy, 'Billy Doe' had a similar attitude?. His father also being a  police officer. Billy can now  boast the following track record. Arrested six times for drug trafficking….but no convictions on his record…a clean sheet. He also sent four innocent men to prison…on his testimony alone. There being no other evidence against them. But his crowning achievment was to extract milllions in a settlement from the Church. For 'abuse' that never happened. So Billy got away with plenty.

    Perhaps Kathryn should now communicate with Billy. So she can learn from a real expert.

  32. Hey Jim, facts matter. It doesn't matter who hired the forensic psychiatrist quoted in Newsweek.  If he can go through Billy Doe's medical records, and refute all his allegations of physical and pscyhic injuries, that matters. If Detective Walsh, who led the DA's investigation, questions Billy about nine factual discrepancies in his stories, and he has no answers, that matters. Facts matter to the rest of us. You and Dennis are a couple of roving idealogues who show up at the scene of every abuse story, and immediately take the side of the victim. You have a rooting interest. When I showed up to this story, I had no rooting interest. In fact, I believed the defendants were all guilty. It was the facts of the case that convinced me otherwise. The facts matter. Not to you and Dennis. But to the rest of us.




    • Jim Robertson says:

      How dare you say I don't think "facts matter"? What are you a propagandist for the church? (God knows the Catholic church knows nothing about "propaganda. They invented the word itself.)

      The facts are that judges and juries have placed these men in prison. That's the fact.

      That's the fact you want over turned. With that I have zero problem. But where's your proof?

      It's obvious Ralph you are no gentleman nor are you objective in all this. Any sober observor of the debate between Dennis; you; and I ,would see that we are supporting the procedurals that put these men in prison. We and you have literally no new evidence that proves Doe is lying.

      For you to then pretend that we care nothing for fact or truth is more than wrong it's illogical. The facts are these men were found guilty.

      I have said over and over when you show the proof for what you say being true. i'll back you 10000000000% . What else could a decent person do? 

      If that's not enough for you? Why isn't it? We are either on your band wagon or no good as people at all?  I don't get it?

      I want you to be right if you are right. But so far? So what? Innuendo and hired hands and you, Ralph, have offered nothing that would demand a new trial be granted these convicted criminals.

  33. Jim Robertson says:

    Why must Pliar attempt to make the opposition not only wrong but the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth? My god is no one right or good on our side? Only on P's.? What the fuck?

    Don't you see how decent you aren't?

    If you cannot treat people who disagree with you with respect or decency? Why should I believe your "faith", which allows you that kind of ill mannered behavior, is the faith of love?

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      ​Ralph being objective ? That word is not even in his vocabulary.

      ​Now if you would have used the word biased. You would have hit the nail right on the head. A word he uses proudly and publicly on his own blog to describe himself.

  34. You certainly are quite the drama queen, getting all hysterical and turning a factual argument into an emotional one. I've exposed plenty of problems with the DA's investigation, 20 mistakes in the grand jury report, and lots of facts that disprove Gallagher's story. Plus some expert witnesses that doubt he's telling the truth. You keep ignoring all of it and keep saying I haven't proven it to your satistfaction yet. The stuff that I've printed should disturb any rational reader. So should the disturbing fact that the DA has no answers for any of the questions I've raised. But you're a blind idealogue hiding behind the concept of whatever has been written hasn't proven anything to you yet. Your position is obvious; you're a blind idealogue trying to pretend you're being rational. It's not working. 

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      "20 Factual Errors". You let us know when these claims actually do any good for the convicted or are used in a argument for release or new trial.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dennis, you are so right.

      Now I'm the "drama queen"according to Ralph. What's to be said?

      One thing: It isn't  "to my satisfaction" that counts. It's too the judicial system's "satisfaction" that counts.

      Ralph I guess you are trying to rally supporters to create public outrage against the injustice you see being done but the just like P-Liar with his synergetic/conspiracy crap (Anderson Doyle and SNAP all colluding with a fraudulent mass of victims = conspiracy not synergy. Victims who are never seen nor are they compensated [strangely enough] given the whole thing is, according to P,  a fraud to get money.,)

      Sorry but the crowds are'nt rallying for either of you.

      And neither are the press. (You never answered my "irrational" question as to what other reportage has backed your POV Ralph?)

      I don't think I'm alone in my "seeing" no new evidence but if you say I am a "blind idealogue" "trying to pretend I'm being rational;" and too, that I'm a hysterical drama queen. Swell. Let's agree that just sums me up.

      Has anyone seen me behave the way Ralph describes me here? I don't mind his personal attacks, after all they are hitting pretty far afield in my "blind" view

      I just question his observational skills as a reporter.

      We are either with you on what you see, according to you; or are blind idealogues?.

      Isn't there a third path here? a more objective one?

      I want you to be right, Ralph, if all you say is true.

      Why would I as a victim want other victims' possible compensation monies stolen by a fraudster? And more importantly why would victims want innocent men jailed?

      Fraud by a fake victim hurts all victims and only victims never the church. Hence my suspicions as to why wouldn't it be likely the church might create some false claims, have those claims exposed as lies; and appear to be the poor innocent victim in all this?

      Which, it seems to me, is exactly what TMR and you Ralph are doing. imho

      God knows the church and earth bound truth have rarely been friends. (Am I trying too hard to appear "rational " here?)  or is history to be ignored?

      Look, I just need you to have enough proof that you're right; to get these innocent men out of jail. So far; so what?



  35. Publion says:

    Not much out of the ordinary to see in the recent crop as the two peas from the same pod rehash their assorted standard talking points yet again, with this and that minor variation.

    However, there is something of use in JR’s of the 14th at 1132AM, although to get to it you have to wade through JR’s standard response to all the problems with his material, i.e. the mere assertion that he is telling the truth and nobody else – myself most of all – is telling the truth. And he’ll “bet everything” on it. Had he ever been able to provide any coherent and persuasive presentation of this ‘truth’ of his, then nobody would have to ‘bet’ on him and nothing but him and his assertions and stories and claims.

    And we would have to wade through his ‘logic’ in support of his assertion: if it weren’t all true, then the still-Father Doyle and the assorted organizations “could and should” sue him for libel. (So – doncha see? – since they haven’t, then that means he’s telling the truth).

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1132AM:

    Or it might mean none of them consider him worth the time and effort.

    Or it might mean that they all realize that to sue him – whatever the outcome – would simply expose the Stampede scam even more vividly and definitively than all of JR’s eructations have already done.

    They’ve all done pretty well off the Stampede, one way or another, and JR not least of all. Why run the risk at this point of exposing the whole thing’s deeper and darker workings as a long-running variant of the classic disability scam?

  37. Publion says:

    I would say there are only two useful bits to be gleaned from JR’s of the 15th at 1157AM and 1210PM.

    He first dons the Wig of Factual Competence, the presumption buried under the surface being that he has based his position and assertions on all the available demonstrated facts.

    But he hasn’t – and indeed couldn’t if he wanted to keep his Cartoon going.

    It is a fact indeed that Lynn was convicted. But it is also a fact that the very conviction itself has been given substantive rough-handling by higher courts of review, to the point that now the case has been sent back for retrial.

    Which also bears on the effort to somehow stop the action decisively (and conveniently) with the mantra of “juries”: a jury misled or a jury required to come to a verdict under the cloud of trial-mismanagement by the trial judge has not produced a reliable and legitimate verdict. Ditto a sentence passed by that same errant trial judge.

    He then asks “where’s your proof?”. Proof of what? That the case has been sent back for retrial? That the case was wrongly handled or prosecuted and that the conviction may be tainted or illegitimate? That is precisely why the reviewing higher court sent the case back: to re-try the case, presumably in a legally more legitimate manner than when the case was first tried.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 15th at 1157AM and 1210PM:

    Thus then – having (to his own satisfaction, at least, such as that may be) laid the ‘logical’ and ‘factual’ groundwork – JR will then indulge in his usual and preferred histrionics, declaiming and denouncing Ralph Cipriano for – had you been waitttttingggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – a) not being a “gentleman” because b) RC is not “objective”.

    And readers may consider this bit of mimicry of Outraged Decency coming from the mind that has produced so many “gutter” type comments here.

    But it is precisely the “procedurals” that ‘Dennis’ and ‘JR’ are “supporting” that have now been rejected (again) by the higher reviewing court when they sent the case back for retrial (with some rather sharp and acute criticisms of the trial judge’s handling of the original trial).

    We now have reliable indication that the original trial “procedurals” have now been criticized and rejected upon higher review.

    We also have substantial amounts of material provided under oath that strongly supports the high probability that Billy Doe’s many stories cannot all be true, which then itself raises the hardly-small probability that none of the variant stories are true (if a presumptively veracious allegant told a true story, why would he then lard on a number of conflicting and indeed mutually-exclusive stories?).

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 15th at 1157AM and 1210PM:

    And on the basis of his performance so far (such as it is) JR, the Wig of Outraged Decency wagging precariously upon his head, huffs and puffs that RC doth “pretend” that JR and ‘Dennis’ “care nothing for fact and truth”. Readers may consider the reliability of this histrionic performance as they may.

    And they may also consider the value of any support of JR’s multi-zeroed support and backing.

    And they may also consider the worth and value of JR’s animadversions as to what “a decent person” could do.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 15th at 1157AM and 1210PM:

    Second: we see JR’s focus on what RC doth “say” and what he doth “pretend” and then (in the 1210PM comment) that Abuseniks are ‘made’ to appear “not only wrong but the stupidest people ever to walk the face of the earth”.

    Readers will first note the manipulative exaggeration as to “the stupidest people ever to walk the face of the earth”. It is not veracious; nobody here has ever made such an assertion.

    That the material tossed up by the Abuseniks is shot-through with inaccuracies, illogicalities, incoherences and other elements of conceptual weakness … that has been pointed-out and explicated at length many times here. They don’t like where that all leads? That’s nobody’s problem but their own. Let them put up better quality material.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 15th at 1157AM and 1210PM:

      Which bit is then followed by the pose of the Wig of Bemused and Outraged Veracity, even to the point of (merely rhetorically, no doubt) calling upon “god”. But as so very very often, the Wig’s effect is undermined by JR’s visceral reversion to adolescent scatology in order to bolster yet another weak bit.

      In the process, he raises an interesting question: “Is no one right or good on our [i.e. the Abusenik] side?”. I have often asked myself the same question. From the material they have proffered here, readers may form their own answer.

      Then the whine as to whether “you” (whoever that may be) can’t “see how decent you aren’t” – and readers may once again marvel at the dynamics of clinical projection.

      But the method in the madness is – not surprisingly, given this now-familiar gambit – revealed: all the Abuseniks are doing is ‘disagreeing’ and yet they are not treated with “respect or decency”. Readers may consider – taking into account the sum of Abusenik material now in the record here – just how much “respect and decency” that material warrants. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 15th at 1157AM and 1210PM:

      And the whole bit works up to its histrionic conclusion, this time drawing in – had you been waittttinggg forrrrrr itttttttt? – the whine that the Abuseniks are not being treated by presumptively faithful Christians with “love”.

      As I have written several times on this site, the genuine sociopathic gambit becomes clear: play upon the decency and “charity” (as Abuseniks conveniently define it for themselves) of others in order to manipulate them in regard to the Abusenik agenda with all its ploys and gambits and epithetical bits (such as, readers may recall, JR’s recent demonstration on this thread in regard to my being a creature of the “gutter” and thus deserving of nothing from JR but gutter-treatment, although he is otherwise a fine and decent and capable adult indeed).

      A shrewd bit of ‘psychic economy’ but clear now and obvious. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      One would have to be pretty stupid to plan a fraud that brings no payoff.

      With only 2000 out of 11,000 victims "compensated" with ranges of settlements , depending in the U.S. on and state between $12,000 and $1.3 million (only 600 victims in California got the highest). I would say the payoff is pretty low for the majority 1400 of the 2000 victims helped. To say nothing of the 9000 victims completely unhelped.

      So we would have to be pretty damned dumb fraudsters to think we'd get anything; when even the vast majority of real victims are getting nothing.

  41. I see the tag team of Dennis and Jim are back in action. Dennis you really have zero to contribute except to attack the messenger. I was known as an outspoken critic of the archdiocese from 1993 to 2012, with multiple critical stories published in the Philadelphia Inquirer and National Catholic Reporter to back me up; one of those stories cost me my job with the Inquirer. Those stories exposed the archdiocese and their hierarchy for lavish spending, callous decisions in closing churches and schools in poor urban neighborhoods, hypocrisy, and a history of decades of sex abuse and decades of official top-down cover-ups, as revealed in the 2005 grand jury report. While I was writing those stories, I was denounced from the pulpit by Archbishop Bevilacqua, and singled out for professional destruction by Bevilacqua's paid mouthpiece, Brian Tierney. All of that is a matter of public record, in the press and in the courts.

    If I had a bias, it was against the archdiocese. For me to suddenly reverse course and start reporting on the problems with this prosecution, grand jury report and "lying, scheming" star witness would only serve to enhance my credibility for objectivity. Any rational person can see that, which is why National Catholic Reporter and Newsweek have printed my work. 

    Instead, both Dennis and Jim are trying to paint me as some kind of "church apologist" biased against victims. It's nonsense but that's what blind idealogues have to do when they realize they are losing the argument based on the facts with somebody who was formerly on their side, but has since come to see the light, at least in this case. Very upsetting, isn't it boys, when the facts contradict your preconceived world views? So Jim, continue to stake out the high moral ground while getting hysterical. And Dennis, keep up the personal attacks. It's all you've got.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      I must retire to my fainting couch, I've got the vapors. Living with hysteria ain't easy for a 69 year old drama queen.

      Lordy! Lordy! Such a fuss!  I feel weak. Jeeves bear me to the sofa.

      You know how us gay gals get so dizzy with irrationality just like real women do.

      My hysteria is causing me nose bleeds. Get me my salts.

      Oh deary dear! I faint….! I swooooooon!

      But, you know what? Mostly, I laugh.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I have been banned by the National Catholic Reporter from sharing my experience as a victim in the fake victims organization SNAP in all comments at the NCR's site.

      Free speech( and I'm not talking trolling here)  and free exchange of information and questioning don't seem very important to the church appointed "liberal" element in the Catholic dialog.,NCR. Therefor they are not liberal but conservative.

      So I post the truth here on the church "dedicated" conservative (reactionary) TMR. Where the intellectual level is more attuned to obedience than to questions. I stake my claim here in Obeysville. I'm the crazy gay neighbor.

      I don't even know how many people read what is said here. TMR won't say. Dave has the numbers.

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      Ralph its not personal attacks but facts.

      Who was the big dummy that came out and proclaimed his bias towards one victim known as Billy Doe ? It was not me or Jim but you Ralph. So I guess now you would like to retract or deny you ever made such comments ?

      Moving on, who was the individual who has already made comments regarding another victim calling him a drug addict and liar, and the retrial for his possible abuser has not even started yet. Your definition Ralph of being objective somehow differs from everyone else. What is funny I have not even thrown a guilty verdict around Brennan's neck but you seem capable of being judge and jury once again.

  42. Publion says:

    And about JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    Pre-note: As I have noted before on this site, it’s always ‘today’ with the Abuseniks; the material that has been dealt with before (and to the problems with which they have never made reply, but only – if anything at all – ‘comeback’) is ignored and they just toss up the same 3x5s with this or that variation. They don’t – and probably can’t – realize that ongoing discussion is cumulative, i.e. that each bit adds its weight and remains in play even if it isn’t directly discussed in a particular set of comments.)

    Thus on to this comment of JR’s with its curious format, as if he had a pile of his 3x5s in front of him and is just going down the pile.

    JR – reaching out to ‘Dennis’ – cawn’t at all think why anyone would consider him a “drama queen”. “What’s to be said”? Again, we are not supposed to recall the cumulative weight of his many histrionic comments here.

    He then continues with is tactical word-play, this time on “satisfaction”: it’s not JR’s satisfaction at issue here, it’s “the judicial system’s”. Fine and dandy, but that judicial system just sent the case back for retrial with some acute criticism’s of the trial judge’s performance. Are we supposed to have forgotten that?

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    He then uses a “guess” (the value of which readers may judge for themselves) about Ralph Cipriano (hereinafter: ‘RC’) which actually serves merely to re-present his ‘theory’ as to how synergy is the same as conspiracy; he can look up a list of criminal statutes to discover that while there are a number of crimes of ‘conspiracy’, there are none of ‘synergy’.

    Followed by another demonstration of his ‘logic’: if the Stampede is a “fraud to get money” then why is it that a) so many “victims are never seen” and b) they are not “compensated”?

    I answer (a): i) the payees are never seen because they don’t want to endanger their takings with any further assessment and ii) there is no way of knowing if the payees were genuine ‘victims’ in the first place.

    I answer (b): since we don’t know (ii) above, then can’t be sure who was ‘compensated’ in the first place. Also, there is no evidence – certainly not from the number of cases that has fallen off so drastically in the past decade – that there are many – if any – genuine victims left out there.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    Then an effort to reduce the whole matter to a popularity contest measured by nothing more than who does and doesn’t comment: since there are no comments supporting RC and myself (which is a dubious proposition in itself) then nobody is “rallying for either of you” (as opposed, apparently, to JR and ‘Dennis’ and other Abuseniks who put up mutual plop-tosses in support of each other). They really have no idea of the strategic value of a site like this, as I said before on this thread.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    What is percolating through the mainstream media at this time is an interesting point for consideration. And if we haven’t seen any MSM support yet for RC’s pieces, we also haven’t seen any MSM rejection or objection either. (I refer here to major MSM articles; one might, if one were so inclined, tote up the number of ‘comments’ for or against on various MSM sites – but even there, it’s not strategically a matter of toting up comments in the first place.)

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    JR – now donning the Wig of Sober Circumspection – allows as how he doesn’t “think [he’s] alone” in “seeing no new evidence”. Does the formally-delivered Decision of the higher review court not constitute evidence of problems with the Lynn case? Has any Abusenik actually even read it? (Their short answer: since it doesn’t conform to their Cartoon then why should they read it since it is not, in their ideologically-driven opinion, evidence at all.)

  47. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    JR then – and this is truly a doozy – dons the Wig of Perplexed and Outraged Innocence to inquire if “anyone” (on this site, I presume) “seen” him “behave the way Ralph describes [him] here?”. (JR’s game here: if nobody comments to agree with RC, then JR will consider that ‘evidence’ that RC’s (and my) characterizations of his behavior here are not veracious and accurate.)

    And the Wig of Outraged Decency then goes on about “personal attacks” – this from the author of the recent “gutter” riffs.

    JR then dons the Wig of Goody-Two-Shoes and bleats that he doth merely “question [RC’s] observational skills as a reporter”. And readers may judge the value of JR’s capacity to judge “observational skills” as they will.

    And then – in another fine example of the old I’m Not/You Are comeback dodge – JR will assert that it is not the Abuseniks but RC who is setting up the either-with-us-or-against-us dynamic. And readers may judge that bit as they will.

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    JR then dons the Wig of Circumspect Maturity and purrs “Isn’t there a third path here … a more objective one?”. But he has yet to demonstrate where RC’s “path” is not “objective” (nor has he actually established that the Abusenik path is indeed “objective” rather than “ideological”).

    And JR then dons the Wig of Mature Cooperative Benevolence to assure RC that he doth “want you to be right, Ralph” – which is a humdinger all on its own since if RC is “right” then the Abusenik Cartoon is ipso facto revealed as being seriously and profoundly flawed (unless, of course, you buy the Abusenik comeback that the Billy Doe case isn’t a useful example of Stampede ‘victim’ dynamics since Billy and all his relations and most of the Philadephia legal system are all nothing but tools of the Archdiocese and/or the Church).

  49. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    JR then – as if the point has never been dealt with before here – bleats: Why would JR “as a victim want other victims’ possible compensation monies stolen by a fraudster?”. Passing over in polite silence the question of the genuineness of JR’s own claimed victimization, I would say that the Abusenik position would want – and need – the Lynn conviction to stand in order to bolster their Cartoon of the Church. And if the Lynn conviction is allowed to stand then they can also claim that Billy was a genuine and veracious ‘victim’ after all, which would make all the piñata-whackers look better.

    (Of course, if that’s how things play out in the end, then the Abuseniks will assume the Wig of Roseanne Rosannadanna and insist upon a great big “Nevvvvvvver Minnnnnnnnd” about their claim that Billy was a tool of the Church all along.)

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:

    And as for the pious bleat that “fraud by a fake victim hurts all victims” … that hasn’t actually been demonstrated to be true at this point, since one of the key elements of the Stampede synergy is that ‘victims’ in an era of Victimism are never to be held responsible for their gambits.

    And for the Church to – as JR cartoonishly puts it – “create some false claims” … that would require the suborning of the entire police, DA, and judicial apparatus of Philadelphia. And if the Archdiocese can – per impossibile – at this late date pull that off, then clearly the element of the Abusenik Cartoon that claims the Church is ‘done for’ is most certainly and at the very least premature and inaccurate.

    Would Ockham’s Razor (var: Occam’s) not indicate the explanation that the Doe matter is an instance of an attempt to run the old Stampede play gone wrong?


  1. [...] Phil. Inquirer Ignores Big Story of Bogus Accusations of Priests In Own Backyard – D.F. Pierre Jr. Pope Francis’ Moment to Teach, Or Not – Filip Mazurczak, The Catholic Thing You Have to See the Newest Website in Catholic Publishing – Shaun McAfee, Epic Pew Bart Ehrman’s Botched Source – Jimmy Akin, Strange Notions Pro-Life or Social Justice: a False Catholic Dichotomy – Fr. Matthew Schneider L.C., Cth Std Purdue Pro-Lifers Apologize. They Shouldn’t Have – Matthew Archbold, Creative Mnrty Rprt Cabbie Finds Radiant Hearts During March for Life Week in New York City – Jamey Brown, C.S. Council of Cardinals Finish Proposals for Two New Vatican Departments – Ntnl Cthlc Register Fact-Checking God & Gov’t: President Obama & N.A.S.A. – Kathy Schiffer, Seasons of Grace A Decentralized Church: What Would Be Acceptable? – Edward Pentin, Ntnl Catholic Register N.A.R.A.L. Pro-Choice America’s Doritos Debacle – Trent Horn, Catholic Answers For the MONDAY BYZANTINE EDITION (February 8, 2016) click here. [...]