Blockbuster: Veteran Journalist Wypijewski Slams ‘Spotlight’ As Factually Inaccurate, Born of Shoddy Journalism and Witch Hunt Mentality Against the Church

JoAnn Wypijewski : Spotlight

Shining the truth on the corrupt Spotlight: JoAnn Wypijewski from CounterPunch

We at are not the only ones angered that Hollywood awarded the factually challenged movie Spotlight its Best Picture prize at the Oscars Sunday night.

Veteran left-wing journalist JoAnn Wypijewski – who herself was in Boston during the spring of 2002 reporting on the Catholic sex abuse story – has just unleashed a stinging attack on the Boston Globe, the makers of Spotlight, the media, Church-suing contingency lawyers, and so-called "survivors" in a new piece in the left-wing blog, CounterPunch. This is truly a must-read piece:

"Oscar Hangover Special: Why 'Spotlight' Is a Terrible Film"
by JoAnn Wypijewski at CounterPunch

Among Wypijewski's many notable passages:

  • "[B]ecause I know some of what is untrue, I don't believe the personal injury lawyers or the Boston Globe's 'Spotlight' team or the Catholic 'faithful' who became harpies outside Boston churches, carrying signs with images of Satan, hurling invective at congregants who'd just attended Mass, and at least once – this in my presence – spitting in the face of a person who dared dispute them."
  • "The Globe did not so much practice journalism as it constructed a courtroom of panic, one that reversed the presumption of innocence and spilled over into real courtrooms where real defendants didn't stand a chance."
  • "I don't believe the claims of all who say they are victims – or who prefer the more tough-minded label 'survivor' – because ready belief is not part of a journalist's mental kit, but also because what happened in 2002 makes it difficult to distinguish real claims from fraudulent or opportunistic ones without independent research."

We highly recommend this article in its entirety if you want a true story of the Church abuse crisis bereft of all the hyperbole, hysteria, and bias.

Take the time. Read it.


  1. malcolm harris says:

    There is much informative reading  in the article by veteran jounalist JoAnn Wypijeswki. It is great to know  that there are real journalists… in this mad world.. 

    To maintain my sanity, I sometimes stand back and do a reality check. For example….. what exactly is Hollywood?.

    Well… Hollywood is actually a fantasy factory….they manufacture fantasies

    O.K….. but what's the Oscars?  The Oscars are the annual orgy of self-congratulations for the people working in the fantasy factory.

  2. Mark says:

    Hi David. I watched the end of the Oscars the other day and as soon as it was announced that Spotlight had won for best picture I thought of you and Fr. Gordon. As you can guess, he is not happy about the win either and also linked to the same article you did. One lady named Mary Fran has read the article and was upset by the comments on it.

    Also, it is funny how Spotlight should win best picture while at the same time, Australian Cardinal George Pell is being questioned about the sex scandal dogging the Aussie Catholic Church. On Facebook, he is really being thrown under the bus, mostly (I estimate) by people who are not Christians. George certainly deserves to go to Hell but sadly a lot of his critics are also on the way there. Like that disgusting Tim Minchin. (I used to like him until I heard him singing a very vile song about Pope Benedict.)

    I wonder if any of those critics are as worried about falsely accused priests? Somehow I doubt it.

  3. Dennis Ecker says:

    Oh boy, TMR once again scrapping the bottom of the barrel with that large putty knife that can be named envy or jealousy by now climbing into bed with the likes of Joann Wypijeswki the female version of a Ralph Cipriano. If there is any two people who must compare notes its these two. "The judges are corrupt, the juries are corrupt" and so on and so on. But you do have to give Ralph an "atta boy" at least he made it into main stream media at the L.A. Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer before being tossed on his ear. Though Joann does list one of her many skills as being a "storyteller" (no doubt there) that is one thing Ralph has left out. But I do like a good story so that is why I"m still waiting for Ralph's story of some 20 factual errors to hold some water. (Glad I'm not holding my breath)

    ​Now Dave wants us to read the words Joann wrote for Counter Punch (cute name for a publication) about the Oscar winning movie SPOTLIGHT and her non approval of the win and I would assume the Pulitzer prize awarded as well. But when the first sentence starts out " I don't believe the victims" I stop right there. It is one thing to say you don't believe someone that's her opinion but to say I don't believe the victims. Is she not contradicting herself with her own words ? I'm sure she is the owner of a dictionary and should look up the word victim for its meaning.

    • chris palmer says:

      She did not write, "I don't believe the victims", she wrote the following:

      I don't "believe the victims".

      I'll won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you can't tell the difference.

      Punctuation is so important. The quote marks in what she actually wrote make it clear that she is referring to the popular injunction to assume that any person who speaks of any kind of sexual violation against themselves must be telling the absolute truth, cannot possibly be lying or confused, cannot have any other motive for saying what they are saying. It follows from this injunction that the accused is to be assumed guilty until proven innocent. Witch hunt anyone? I won't bother with the usual disclaimers, they are unnecessary if what Wypijewsky (or I) am writing is evaluated for it's actual content.

    • Dennis, I'm writing for Newsweek these days. They might be considered the mainstream media. 

  4. LDB says:

    Gordon McRae is mentally ill and if he deserves any sympathy, it would only be for that affliction. His pathetic life was a total mess before and during his priesthood. Everywhere he went he got into conflict and trouble so that he was constantly on the move. Read his biography. He is such a sketchy loser. Why believe anything he says? And his defense is only his repeated assertion that everyone involved was out to get him. A conspiracy or 'synergy', if you will.

    When a person expresses belief in the innocence of this pudgy, little, demented and deranged mammal, that person immediately demonstrates that they are totally deluded, which is to say that they are devoutly religious/catholic. JoAnn Wypijewski is reckless and crazy (read some of her other writing) and like everyone else she goes to the example of Gordon McRae because there are almost no other priests in prision. Considering the scope of the rape and sex abuse of children and young people by priests, it is amazing that there have been only a few criminal trials and that so very few priests are in prision. Thus, the necessary and continued rush to Gordon McRae as evidence of catholic/clerical persecution.

    • Dorothy R. Stein says:

      I think you just demonstrated some of Ms. Wypijewski's points in that article.  The availability bias has really taken over.  MacRae had two parish assignments in the Diocese of Manchester.  He was at one for a year, then another for 6 years, and then he was in ministry with the Servants of the Paraclete order for six years.  How does that translate into "always moving around"?  There are two common denominators in the claims against him:  money and a zealot police detective who appears to have bribed some of his accusers. But alas, that has been covered up. By the way I write using my own name. Who the hell are you?

    • Mary Fran says:

      I don't know what YOUR problem is (and, you DEFINITELY have one) that you would spew such vitriol about a person you don't even know. This "little" man, as you call him, stands head and shoulders over someone like you who can only lower himself to attacking and name calling. At the very least, you owe Father MacRae an apology for your libel. But, I'm not holding my breath. Pity on you for your anger and hatred which binds you so firmly.

    • Phil Steinacker says:

      Only someone too cowardly to sign his real name would dare post such a pack of lies about Fr. MacRae, who had no reason to turn down the plea "deal" offered by the DA which would have meant serving a couple years instead of one extending well past his natural lifetime. You're just another anti-Catholic bigot, and ignorance is your primary feature.

  5. Rory Connor says:


    Actually Forbes magazine made simiar points to Joann Wypijeswki in an article by Daniel Lyons published in 2003 . The following is an extract that focuses on Shanley’s ORIGINAL accuser Greg Ford

    ….As his parents tell it, in years of therapy Greg had tried, unsuccessfully, to recall being molested by anyone. When his parents showed him the Globe article, he didn’t remember Shanley or recognize his photograph. The Fords persisted, showing Greg a snapshot from his First Communion with Shanley. At last Greg collapsed, sobbing, and said that from age 6 to 11 he had been raped by the priest.

    Later he estimated this happened 80 times. He alleged that Shanley took him from his one-hour Sunday school class, raped him, then returned him to his classmates. Verona Mazzei, who was director of the Sunday school program, says she never saw Shanley take any kids from class. The Fords say Greg never exhibited any unusual behavior during these years. “As soon as it happened, each time he left that room, he forgot about it,” Rodney Ford says. “The specialists he sees now are amazed that he could block this out, that he had such control.” … [My emphasis]

    The prosecutors dropped this man from the case – for OBVIOUS reasons you would think but you would be wrong! The accuser who actually made it to court (also mentioned in the Forbes article) was a friend of the first accuser who “recovered his memory” at the same time and told the same story of weekly rapes each forgotten after it occurred and then all forgotten for 20 years until suddenly the memories were “recovered”. 

    So why did the rich man’s magazine Forbes take an interest in this case? Probably because of its likely effect on the American insurance industry i.e. people claiming huge “compensation” on the basis of insurance policies written before “Recovered Memory” was ever heard of. The Forbes article is entitled “Sex, God & Greed” with subheading “Pedophile priests have sparked a litigation gold rush. The Boy Scouts, day care firms and Hollywood may be next.

    What a pity that The Boston Globe or the Spotlight movie didn’t go into THAT aspect of the story! And what a pity Dennis Ecker is too busy sneering to even mention the "evidence" presented in the case. Does he find the evidence convincing – or just too embarrassing to write about?

  6. Publion says:

    Readers who have gone over the JW article from the Counterpunch site have perhaps noticed that it is chock full of factual reporting and clearly-stated conclusions drawn from the facts presented.

    What has ‘Dennis Ecker’ got to say about it (the 2nd at 816AM)?

    He opens with epithet, and seeks merely to compare JW to Ecker’s personal bugbear, Ralph Cipriano.

    There is much to be said for comparing JW and RC, since they are both competent reporters who both a) rely on demonstrable facts and b) follow those facts to (some hard-hitting) legitimately and rationally derived conclusions.

    It is indicative of how far from reality Ecker has to position himself in order to Keep The Ball Rolling that he tries to mock the ‘corruption’ (I would say ‘derangement’) of the judicial system even though we continue to watch the ongoing court saga of the Billy-Doe-based cases in Ecker’s own town of Philadelphia. Nor can he be ignorant of all the problems with those cases, since he puts up quite a few comments on RC’s BigTrial site.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 2nd at 816AM:

    And his first paragraph then peters out with a riffy assortment of old bits he has hanging around the desk.

    And – being somewhat hard-up for some plop to toss while ( of course) avoiding any substantive engagement with the JW material – he will then even work in a juvenile whack at the name of the “Counter Punch” site.

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 2nd at 816AM:

    Whether through ignorance or design, he doesn’t quite quote JW’s opening statement accurately: she wrote “I don’t ‘believe the victims’”, with the phrase “believe the victims” in quotation marks.

    Readers familiar and conversant with the decades-long long history of Victimism (which apparently doesn’t include Ecker) will instantly recognize that phrase as the old Victimist mantra: ‘Believe the victims!’ (A variant of which, during the McMartin Pre-School Ritual Satanic Day-Care Child Abuse scare 30 and more years ago was ‘Believe the children!’.)

    At the outset of her article, JW puts forth the conclusion that she reached after conducting her in-depth examination (the results and conclusions of which she then puts forward at length in the rest of the article): based on what she is now reporting, she is not going to be taken-in by the old mantra).

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 2nd at 816AM:

    Having – intentionally or otherwise – bungled that bit, he will then proceed to build on that bungling by riffing on ‘victim’.

    But – as so very very often with Abuseniks when they really haven’t got anything substantive to say but feel they must toss some plop – descends into conceptual confusion: He opens what would appear to be the sentence presenting the core of his point here with “It’s one thing to say …”; and of course the reader will expect then a following clause beginning ‘It’s another thing to say …’ in which his own point is put forward.

    But Ecker has no second, follow-on clause expressing his own point/position. It’s not there.

    Instead, he leaves his “It’s one thing to say” clause hanging in the air, and immediately moves on to something else.

    And that something else is – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – insinuation: he asks the question as to whether “she is not contradicting herself with her own words?”. That seems to be a question that doesn’t arise from the material, and the reader awaits his answer in the next sentence.

    But there is no answer; he leaves his insinuating (if also befogged) question hanging there.

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 2nd at 816AM:

    And then immediately moves on to something else, which – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttt? – turns out to be another bit of epithet: she “should look up the word victim for its meaning”.

    Again the reader – presuming rationally enough that JW is familiar with the meaning of the word – waits to see just where Ecker is going with this bit.

    But he’s going nowhere with it, at least not that he’s going to explain. He leaves this bit of his hanging in the air as well.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 2nd at 816AM:

    But, anyway, the definition of ‘victim’ wouldn’t really address the core problem we have been dealing with on this site: distinguishing a genuine victim from … someone otherwise classifiable.

    JW has clearly familiarized herself with the stories, claims, allegations and assertions of a number of ‘victims’ and the cases resulting from them, and she concludes that after all that she doesn’t “believe the victim” in that knee-jerk, automatic, pre-rational and emotive sense that Victimism would have everyone ‘believing’.

    And on some level, ‘Dennis Ecker’ just knew he had to toss some plop at that.

    And avoid going near the powerful content of her article.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Powerful content" to who? Not to any of us who were raped. We got all the "powerful content" we needed the day we were raped.

      If these cases are frauds yet they are the only cases where priests are jailed? I say why?

      How did that happen when 99% of the criminal Catholic rapists and their enablers are not jailed. Out of all the cases, the 2 where priests are in prison, just happen to be so obviously (to you) unjust?  Oh tell me please the odds for that? More miracles than at Lourdes.

      Tommy Doyle keeps doubling down on the lies. Praying one will stick.

      And now we will hear from the dog posse as usual. Yawn!

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 2nd at 816AM:

    He also seeks to ‘minimize’ her piece as merely being her “non approval” of ‘Spotlight’s award. Has he not read her article? (No, he claims he stopped reading after she said she didn’t “believe the victim”.)

    Thus that her piece is merely sour-grapes because she didn’t like the movie and she didn’t like it getting an award. Her piece, as anyone who has read it may soon realize, is much more than that.

    And thus too that her piece is merely her “opinion”. And it’s much more than that too, since she goes into great factual detail and analysis in order to explain just why she doesn’t “believe the victim”.

    Readers may also enter either JW’s name or CounterPunch into a search engine and quickly realize that both she and that site are well-established and experienced.

  13. Dennis Ecker says:

    The stink of jealousy lingers over TMR like a big black cloud.

  14. true catholic says:

    It was, and still is, a lieing, "Brotherhood Of Silence." Are you saying Law didn't lie, cover up for dozens, and intimidate ? And you blame the Boston Globe, for exposing it. That;s why things wil never change in the Catholic Church. You need to blame the child raping priests. Not the children, or the reporters.

    • malcolm harris says:

      "True Catholic" on March 2, hides behind his mask of anonymity, and pours vilification on all priests… with his phrase "child raping priests". His words alone tells me that he is not a Catholic. Because if he was he would know that such a  sweeping generalization is intended to destroy the reputation of all priests, whether guilty or not guilty.

      In thirty years living in one parish, I never heard any accusation that a priest had ever molested anybody. What puzzles me about this witch -hunt is that everybody seems to be forgetting the police. Every parent I know would have gone straight to the cops… if their kid came home distressed, and cried that they had been sexually interfered with. Yes, even as far back as forty years ago. How fortunate for the torties and their dubious clients that mainstream media never ask questions, like real journalist are supposed to, 

      Future generations will come to understand that this was one of the most successful extortion rackets ever devised.  What will shock them is the media's role. Indeed it would never have been possible without the enthusiastic assistance of many journalists.


  15. Rory Connor says:

    Apart from the 2003 article in Forbes magazine, I recently re-discovered an article by JoAnn Wypijewski dated March 2009 in "The Nation" about the Father Paul Shanley case. This was after his conviction (in 2005) and the following extract refers to the accuser on whose evidence the entire case was based.

     The accuser asserted that from the age of 6, in 1983, he had been raped and otherwise indecently assaulted by the defendant for three years in a busy church on Sunday mornings. Each assault, it was alleged, instantly erased his memory of what had just happened, so that the boy re-approached the defendant in a state of innocent unknowing, to be assaulted again, to forget everything again and again, and then move on in life without the slightest inkling of the experience until twenty years later, when it all came back to him.

    Note the similarity between this and the allegations of the original accuser Greg Ford quoted in Forbes. The original guy was dropped from the case because of entirely separate issues which are also referenced in the Forbes article! However the ludicrous "Recovered Memory" evidence was accepted as proof of Paul Shanley's guilt.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    Oh now I see how it is. Cipriano And Wypijewski saving the priests by pretending real victims aren't. Don't you think more than 2 reporters would be on this if there were proof of what these 2 hired hands say? The church pays these clowns whether the clowns know who's paying them is another issue but the drift is clear. The church needs to buy more reporters. 2 won't cut it.

    You know I'd just love them to prove what they say to be true. They won't ;but the pack of running dogs stationed around poisoned wells like TMR are barking their master's voice already. Stationed to do so.

    You're all fakes. Every last one of you. Prayers won't make you anything else but fakes. You are a kennel full of frauds.

    Bark away you hounds from hell. No one gives a shit.

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    P will now start yapping on cue….take it away P.       I'll have a nap. Thank god for ear plugs.

  18. Phil Steinacker says:

    Recovered memory is a HUGE fraud, just like therapy based on memory "recovered" from dreams which was finally thrown out by the Royal Society of Medicine after a 10-15 year stint at legitimization produced nothing but false accusations unable to survive scrutiny.

    I pray eventually we will wise up here and toss out this money-making fraud on its ass. I fear the only ones mentally ill are the phony accusers who lined up for the gravy train with stories that don't add up or hold water – if only anyone would apply strict standards to them

    Worse still is the damage down to actual victims who are, in fact, far fewer in number than we've been brainwashed into believing. We've seen how many decades of hyper-ventilating and over-stated accusations of racism eventually led to a "so what" response to even legitimate instances of racism, and a real blurring of the line between reality and self-serving falsehoods. Now we're beginning to see more and more that we have hung out to dry many innocent priests and that this problem is not nearly as big in the Catholic Church is it has been for 50 years in the nation's public school systems.

    The Church is a bigger fatter, juicier target, and it stands in the way of the monster Left's long-term goals. The teachers' unions and so-called establishment "educators"… ah, now that's another story altogether. They're all part of the movement to change the world, and anyway, a little sex never hurt anyone, ya know? Especially if you're a progressive invested in the development of a world in which you can "do" whomever you want, whenever you want it, wherever you want it , and in any way you want it.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Jealous Phil? It sure sounds like it.

      Doing "whomever, whenever, wherever and in any way" As long as no laws are broken nor children involved seems just swell to me; but then my sexuality was fucked up by an adult cleric who thought it was perfectly fine to try to fuck a 16  year old child.

      Hey but you want to change the world too. Make your child victims out to be the real oppressors while you white wash your own sepulchers. That's what got you into all this trouble in the first place. Not the fact you have molestors every business does but the fact that you covered up these abuses knowingly and transferred these perps to fresh fields of innocent Catholic children and our unknowing families. And you refuse to accept any responsibility for any of these crimes pretending all, most of our claims, as fraud. With no proof of such, as such.

  19. dennis ecker says:

    Vatican owned newspaper commends the movie Spotlight

    .Interested to know what the Vatican thinks of the book Sins of the Press ?

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    Malcolm's lying again. If he's typing he's lying.  Just because you have no experience with child raping priests Malcolm; doesn't mean we haven't.

    We were Catholic kids. remember that fact. Who'd been told if the priest is mad at you. You are in big trouble at home. Who would believe me over a priest. In the sexually repressive church to mention sex with children by priests was outlandish for children to think about. Even us children who knew we were being raped; thought that way. I remember quite clearly my wanting to protect the church even as I was trying to protect myself. I held the church and it's reputation more important than myself. That takes years of self internalized propaganda to occures.  I wanted to forget all about what was happening to me and never think about it again. A scared kid thinks that will work; but it never does. I wanted to go on loving my church but I just couldn't do it. The scales had fallen from my eyes and heart.

    So you all pretend we are the oppressors while you defend the criminals as victims. You are so ill. All you'd have to do is accept what's been done and help the injure but that repells you. Money is more sacred to you than your own children. And why are we to think you follow the teachings of Jesus exactly?


    • malcolm harris says:

      Responding to JR's latest comments. Someone once told me that if you are going to fabricate stories, you had better have a good memory. Alas poor JR?. It seems he has forgotten telling us that a teaching brother took him into his office and groped his groin area. Full stop! Yet now, for dramatic effect, he tells us he was fucked?.  And that 'fucked' his future life, he says?  Gee!  Well, if  true, the guy was a sicko….will grant you that. Can recall a teenage boy at my school who would grope girls, between their legs, at every opportunity. They all called him a 'sicko' …. but never reported him.  The fifties and the sixties were a different world.

      But JR says he was a 16 year old child. Really? When I was that age I never considered myself a child. So JR's  attacker took a big risk of actually being in a fight. Surprising too that this particular 'sicko' left his own religious order, went to another state, and rose to the rank of Principal.

      It all seems so unlikely, doesn't it? But if you have taken a million bucks in compensaton, then 'fucked' has much more emotive impact than 'groped'.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 729PM:

      Among which ‘come-backs’ we also now see JR’s familiar ‘the reporters are bought tools of the Church’ bit. And they are “clowns” too, as JR deploys again this juvenile epithet with no thought that it could so easily recoil upon him.

      But that’s the wonder of clinical projection. Which JR then demonstrates with even more clarity as he puffs up his feathers to deliver – yet again – one of his favorite prounciamentos or denunciamentos: “You’re all fakes”.

      Another Abusenik bit that revealingly works better in the recoil than the projectile.

      But the uncharacteristically elaborate extended bit about “kennel” and “hounds from hell” is too much of a muchness here, coming (as if) from JR.

      And in conclusion, the characteristic adolescent scatology deployed to justify the Abuseniks’ failure to deal with the material in these articles: why bother to respond when “No one gives a sxxt”?

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 1255AM ‘Dennis Ecker’ gives us another unsupported drive-by.

      As you can see, he – among other Abuseniks – doesn’t like to proffer links or any identifying material for his material. He would rather just toss up his own take and  - without the actual original reference material – then readers are more likely to buy his ‘take’ on it than actually see the material.

      Thus whether and how the “Vatican owned newspaper” “commended” the ‘Spotlight’ movie remains – as so very often – up in the air. 

      And this is followed by an insinuation – and nothing more – about the Sins of the Press book. 

      And it’s more than an insinuation. It’s a juvenile bit of plop-tossing and the manner of it is on this wise: that is the book DP wrote. Here, Ecker snidely implies that since the Vatican didn’t comment-upon, or “commend” it, then DP … what? What is the conclusion Ecker draws from his own point here?

      There isn’t one, at least that he is willing to express. 

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 1143AM JR comments on a ‘Malcolm Harris’ comment. 

      He opens, as so very often, with an epithet – again oblivious to the dangers of using epithets that can so obviously recoil back upon him. 

      And – as so very often – he slides in a point which has yet to actually be demonstrated: he waves the ‘rape shirt’ by claiming that “we” (in JR-speak meaning ‘we victims’, to which I would add ‘genuine or otherwise classifiable’) have had experience with “child raping priests”. 

      And on that basis he launches into one of his favorite recitations, i.e. the now-familiar Stampede scripting of large-futured youths who were believing Catholics (to the very ultimate max) and respected and obeyed their priests (whom they confused with God Himself). 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 1143AM:

      Readers – especially those who were or were familiar with young Catholic males – may consider the validity of this Stampede scripting to begin with. 

      Readers so inclined may then also consider whether the personality they know as JR from his material here was ever so cherubic and loyal and obedient and ‘classic’ a Catholic youth. (Or whether a single instance as he alleges could have totally and utterly reversed all that with effects that clearly have lasted into his late-60s.)

      And if we accept all of his proffers in his second paragraph, then who, really, would be ‘pretending’?

      He’s right – I would say – that he “just couldn’t do it” (i.e. being an obedient and respectful and loyal son of the Church), but I would propose that this was characteristic of him from the get-go, and not as the anti-miraculous result of the single instance of being grabbed in his high-school years that he alleges. 

      Which is necessary to point out since he accuses ‘Malcolm Harris’ and “you all” of ‘pretending’. I would say that ‘doubting’ his material is not the same as ‘pretending’ that it didn’t happen as he wants us all to believe it happened. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 1143AM:

      And to back up all that, then, he delivers yet another pronunciamento or denunciamento: “You are so ill”. And again with no apparent awareness of the recoil dangers of such a statement. 

      Nor is anyone I can think of on this site ‘repelled’ by ‘helping the injured’. But I think there is sufficient sense that we do not actually know who was genuinely “injured” in the first place. So his effort at spinning things to his advantage here fails. 

      Ditto his concluding effort to drag “the teachings of Jesus” into things, in an effort to take a swipe at the moral integrity of one and all.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on the ‘A Henneberry’ comment of the 3rd at 536PM:

      I refer readers to this article

      It states that in the period 2004-20011 there were 3400 allegation-cases “reported to Rome”, and in regard to the accused the Vatican laicized 848 priests and removed 2,572 from ministry.

      And I would wonder if – in light of the stringency of the prevention protocols – some of those priests were thus dealt-with not so much because of demonstrable proof of what was alleged but simply– as they say nowadays generally – “out of an abundance of caution”. 

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 1133PM ‘Dennis Ecker’ – as usual – tosses up another one-liner with no reference and thus no opportunity for readers to consider the situation about which he is merely attempting to insinuate his preferred spin.

      There was a Grand Jury report – which tosses us right back to the same questions arising from the Grand Jury report(s) involved in the Philadelphia cases.

      And the allegations deal with the way-back, not involving the present Bishop but instead going back to the tenure of two Bishops from decades ago. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 3rd at 1133PM:

      Readers may consider the article entitled “Grand jury: Altoona diocese concealed sex abuse of hundreds of children by priests” by Peter Smith of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

      The State Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, made the announcement issuing the 147-page Report on the 1st of March, using the number of 50 priests “and others associated with the Church” over the course of “half a century” (but neglects to say that this time-period antedated the tenure of the present Bishop).

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 3rd at 1133PM:

      Many of the now-classic scripting elements of the Stampede are deployed in the article:

      Kane provides an 800-number for anyone wishing to make allegations;

      The offenses are a misch of “molested” and “raped”;

      They resulted (stated as a matter of demonstrated causation and fact) in “lasting psychological trauma”;

      There was a “conspiracy” and a “cover-up”;

      It amounted to “soul murder”; 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 3rd at 1133PM:

      Neatly, Kane simultaneously called for “a day of reckoning” but lamented that the (alleged) cases could not be prosecuted;

      They could not be prosecuted because either “the abuse happened” (thus presuming the “abuse” actually did happen) far too long ago or because the child-victims themselves had now aged and died or because “the victims were too traumatized to testify” (after all this time, and to no small extent this reduces the matter simply to ‘spectral evidence’ and the claims of the allegants);

       The “findings” are “both staggering and sobering”, as characterized by Kane;

      The allegations cover a period from the 1940s to the 1980s;

      Although “many” of the allegations were just recently lodged;

      The two Bishops named were in office over a period from 1966 to 2011.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 3rd at 1133PM:

      My own thoughts are these:

      I don’t doubt that some cases of some sort of “abuse” happened, although I am not inclined to infer “rape” (as classically defined) in the majority of them.

      The timing of this document’s release – immediately after the ‘rape-heavy’ Oscars ceremony – is certainly curious.

      Which also raises the question of the ‘politics’ that might be involved in all of this (and for those unsure of any connection there, one need only consider that a Vice-President of the United States appeared at the Oscar ceremony to make a ‘rape’ pitch).

      And the more localized considerations of ‘politics’ as the Lynn case continues to bounce back and forth between the State Superior and the State Supreme courts as well as the original trial court.

      From what we have seen of the two Grand Jury Reports involved in the still-current cases in Philadelphia itself, then Grand Jury Reports need to be looked at more closely and need to receive “heightened scrutiny” from the public.

      And I would recall to readers the many problems I have pointed out over time here with allegations in the era of Stampede, especially with cases dating back over half a century.

      Considering the old observation that ‘a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich’ then I would also have to consider the possibility that the only part of that dynamic not active here is that indictments – neatly, as I have said above – are not going to be forthcoming.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Malcolm I was forced to grope him, my abusor. When an adult sexually touches an under age child (or, as in my case, forces the child to touch him) that is STATUATORY RAPE. I got FUCKED all right. You are so full of hate. What you thought about yourself at 16 has nothing to do with what was true for me at 16. Maybe if you'd been abused by a religious at 16 you'd have found out what a child you truly were at that age.

      Frankly I don't give a flying shit what any of you Nazi apologists "think" about me or my abuse.

      Yap on!

  21. Publion says:

    My thanks to those commenters who put up links and quotes in regard to those articles by Daniel Lyons and JW.

    And we now have a nice variety of displays from some of the sites’ more notable Abuseniks. Faced with the material in the recent JW article and the others added by commenters, what do we get?

  22. Publion says:

    On the 2nd at 1034AM ‘LDB’ weighs in; he – regular readers may recall – claims to be i) a graduate of Harvard with a Major in Philosophy and ii) a practicing attorney.

    In his first paragraph he proffers quite an indictment, making a number of assertions about Fr. MacRae. Surely it would occur to so allegedly well-trained a mind to provide some evidence or at least how he arrived at his characterizations here. Otherwise his entire first paragraph would appear to be merely unsupported  assertions. But neither his claimed philosophical nor legal training is in evidence here, as is almost always the case with his material.

    Then – reverting to what appears to be his actual level of operating – he proffers his second paragraph, which turns out to be – unsurprisingly – a collection of modestly histrionic epithetical bits, tossing his stuff at both Fr. MacRae and JW.

    And as a result I can only put ‘LDB’s own question back to him: why believe anything he says?

  23. Publion says:

    Then comes JR (the 2nd at 742PM) who tries to avoid the powerful content of all the articles on the table by – had you been waittttingggg forrrr ittttt? – waving his ‘rape’ shirt. And thus – to his mind at least – he has resolved the problems posed to his position by the articles.

    But ideas and concepts do to tend to bore him – as he has so often proclaimed with a “Yawn!” – and when coupled with the fact that he doesn’t like to read what he doesn’t like, then there’s no surprise here.

    As a substitute, then, he will toss up some of his 3×5 bits:

    He tries to make a plop-tossy point about the cases and the priests jailed, but then – as so often – limits himself to simply posing an insinuating question (to which, as always, he prefers not to proffer an answer, even his own proposed answer to his own question – but quite possibly he has no answer).

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 742PM:

    He then tries another question, this time by presuming what has not been demonstrated: that “99% of the criminal Catholic rapists and their enablers are not jailed”. (And there’s that most curious – for his material – capitalization of “Catholic”.)

    Nor does he appear to recall that the Philadelphia and MacRae cases, as they continue to wend their tortured way through the legal system, are both legally dubious, for reasons that have been noted and discussed at length here.

    The “odds” for all that – when we factor in elements of the Stampede and the additional factor that once cases are decided at trial, the legal system is greatly hesitant to reverse its lower-lower level courts or embarrass prosecutors – then the “odds” are rather good that efforts to redress the problems with the trials are going to be often frustrated (the current status of the Philadelphia Lynn case being an outstanding exception, although the State Supreme Court remains hesitant).

    And he files a preemptive excuse for himself not to have to deal with my material, nicely capped by that “Yawn!”.

    I would deploy again the ‘LDB’ question: why believe anything he says at all?

  25. Publion says:

    Then ‘Dennis Ecker’ weighs in on the 2nd at 340PM with a one-liner that is apparently trying to go for the juvenile insinuation that TMR is ‘jealous’ … but of what? As usual, Ecker doesn’t care to (or can’t) say.

  26. Publion says:

    And on the 2nd at 729PM JR announces that he now doth “see how it is”. And what might it be that he doth “see”?

    He claims that both RC and JW are engaged in “saving priests by pretending real victims aren’t”.

    He proffers no accurate quotation from any material that RC and JW have written; he deals not at all with the substantial amount of evidence – drawn from extant sources – that they have presented concerning the cases they discuss.

    In short, he has nothing on which to base is assertion and accusation except that the results of RC’s and JW’s analysis of abuse cases don’t make ‘victims’ look too good. So – in the workings of JR’s mind or, at least, agenda – their results cannot be ‘good’.

    After all – he would have us pretend – if a demonstrable and demonstrated actuality makes ‘victims’ look bad, then it can have that effect only because of … well, something besides the fact that there are abyssal problems with the whole Victimist/Stampede thing to begin with.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 729PM:

    Then, suddenly, the Folksy Wig is on, and we get that chummy “You know …” which provides the lead-in for him to try running his old “proof” bit again: there’s no proof, he wants us to think.

    Proof of what? RC and JW have provided information from extant sources – including what the victims themselves claimed (under oath). Do those claims improve any sense of their veracity?

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 729PM:

    But as I said in a comment on a recent thread, this is a conceptual scam JR is running (and his own ‘proof’ issues are already well-known); he is running the scam that was inherent in the Victimist strategy from the beginning: since there are not-often any witnesses to the types of situations upon which they base their allegations, then allegants don’t actually have any “proof” themselves.

    The Stampede solved that problem through the synergy with the sensation-hungry media: souse the public with as many ‘stories’ as you can, to the point where the public simply passes-over the Problem of Proof by merely presuming that since a current allegation is ‘just another Catholic priest case’ then the priest must indubitably be guilty. Once that dynamic is in place, then allegants don’t have to ‘prove’ anything but can instead appeal to a general public sense that any allegation is – or at least ‘must be’ – true.

    And the game can continue from there, with enterprising DA’s (think of Philadelphia in the present Doe cases) and even more strategically-minded tort attorneys (for the past few decades) making such hay as they can (a lot of hay, as it has turned out).

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 729PM:

    And this “proof” (or, actually, the lack of it), upon which the Stampede was built, can now be put to work in the reverse, as well: if the “believe-the-victim” aura starts to wear off, and now it is the allegants who are questioned, then they can simply say ‘there is no proof that I lied and you can’t find any’ (add in an in-your-face ‘Myah, myah’ if you like, just to capture the mood).

    Which is true: there is no proof they lied about their original alleged victimization-event because there is no proof that their original victimization-event ever took place to begin with.

    We wind up trying to find some ‘proof’ about whether somebody lied in regard to some ‘X’, when actually we still don’t (and never did) have proof that ‘X’ ever took place to begin with.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 729PM:

    Thus the hall of mirrors which the Stampede has been from the get-go.

    I don’t deny, nor do I doubt, that some cases of genuine clerical abuse took place, even – in some few cases – rising to the level of ‘rape’ (meaning the charge as classically defined).

    But what we have from the articles under consideration here is clear and demonstrated evidence that there was a great deal of highly (if not also utterly) dubious material in allegations that – slyly surfing the wave of media-induced public presumption – furthered the Stampede and resulted in priests being jailed for years and decades.

    And what we have from the Abuseniks here is clear and demonstrated evidence from their own proffered material that they haven’t got any substantive response. And of course they don’t; they were never supposed to have to make a response, if the Stampede dynamics had rolled on an on. But they haven’t. And so, all we get is not ‘responses’ but ‘come-backs’, in best distracting and juvenile fashion.

  31. A Henneberry says:

    Why must these anus-lickers cling to their intrinsically evil practices? Even though church leaders didn't realize the harm caused to the victims, they knew it was mortally sinful and should have tossed them into a penitential facility.Today they do know the harm and continue to wink at these scum. As Our Lady of Fatima predicted, the smoke of satan is in the Vatican.

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 536PM ‘A Hennebery’ (‘AH’) uses the present tense to describe what – at the very best – appear to be events from the way-back. We see here simply the tendency of some who – for whatever reasons or purposes – still consider that way-back to be the ‘present’ (and thus The Ball Can Be Kept Rolling).

      AH continues that present-tense with the accusation the Church doth “continue to wink at these scum”.

      Then – perhaps a bit oddly – AH invokes Our Lady of Fatima to make the accusation that “the smoke of satan is in the Vatican”.

      The Vatican has introduced protocols that are now some of the most – if not actually the most – comprehensive abuse-prevention protocols of any large institution on the planet.

      And, indeed, from the numbers I have seen of priests either laicized or removed from ministry, there are more priests thus dealt-with than there were allegations formally referred to the Vatican.

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Quite everybody!  P's trying to fool people.

  33. dennis ecker says:

    Pennsylvania Attorney General releases findings catholic bishops covered up hundreds of cases of clergy sexual abuse of children.

  34. malcolm harris says:

    The article by JoAnn  Wypijewski in 'CounterPunch' is a light being shone into dark corners. That other "Spotlight", now holding centre stage, is the proverbial "blind leading the blind".

    JoAnn sums it all up by comparing the Catholic Church to a ATM, for which the password is VICTIM. How very true, there is always a herd of opportunists lining up to make a withdrawal.

    There is much to ponder in this gem of investigative journalism. Personally the part that stunned me was the success of a guy called Gregory Ford.   Much publicized case… in Boston, 2002, he and three others accused a Fr. Shanley. During this criminal trial three of the accusers withdrew from proceedings, and that left only one accuser, a guy called Buto    ( or some name like that). The priest was convicted. But later it was revealed that Ford had also accused his own father, his neighbout and a relative, of sexual abuse???. Hence the prosecutor pulling him out of the criminal case.

    Incredibly, Ford still lined up for a cash settlement, together with Buto and the others. Ford walked away with 1.4 million dollars. So a serial accuser and proven liar was paid a truckload of cash.

    Go figure??? As I previously said….I smell a whole nest of rats.


  35. Dennis Ecker says:

    To be fair why are we only hearing one side of the story ?

    CNN is reporting " the new best picture Oscar Winner  SPOTLIGHT has earned a stamp of approval from an unlikely source: L' Osservatore Romano A VATICAN-owned newspaper. Calling it NOT ANTI – CATHOLIC. In addition the newspaper states the film "manages to voice the shock and profound pain of the faithful confronting the discovery of these horrendous realities". The New York Daily News reports the Vatican's official newspaper is preaching the praises of SPOTLIGHT, and other publications such as UPI, reuters, The Guardian and the Vatican radio use such words as The Osservatore Romano said the film " did not take a hostile position against the church."        

    I think if we are going to read one woman's dislike for a movie TMR should be fair in publishing these accounts and feelings of those who like the movie and feel it has told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


  36. Jim Robertson says:

    Not TMR's purpose Dennis. It has other fish to fry.

  37. Publion says:

    On the 4th at 955PM ‘Dennis Ecker’ finally gets around to putting up some references for his material. Good for him.

    The Vatican has indeed made some nice, if carefully limited and guarded, comments about the film.

    As is often the case with official statements, readers may consider the quoted comment “shock and profound pain of the faithful confronting the discovery of these horrendous realities” not only for what it does say but for what it doesn’t say.

    It acknowledges the reaction of the faithful; it acknowledges “these horrendous realities”.

    It does not at all comment on the extent (or lack of it) of “these realities”.

    Surely nobody on this site has ever denied the fact of some such instances happening, as they have happened in other large human institutions (such as universities, public schools, assorted youth groups, the military, and other religious polities).

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      I think a reported 5 million dollar award to one victim and another 3 Billion dollars in awards to other victims and a reported 2.3 Billion dollars in lost income per year to the church clearly shows the extent of these "realities".

      You and other catholics should consider yourselves lucky sol's are in place and every victim has not been able to collect for the torture they endured or you would be celebrating your catholic rituals in your basement.

      P.S. The money numbers come from your friends Ralph Cipriano and two reporters over at NCR. You have a problem with the accuracy take it up with them.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 4th at 955PM:

    But there is nothing as to a) the specific focus on the Church; b) the dynamics of the Stampede; or c) the credibility or probable credibility of many of the allegations.

    These remain the major matters that have certainly been aired on this site.

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 4th at 955PM:

    It can hardly be surprising that the Vatican chose the response it did to the film.

    Under the conditions of Stampede and Victimism, to deny abuse is to admit abuse; defending oneself under these circumstances becomes next to impossible in the public forum. Thus to take a more critical stance to the film would be to pick a fight that surely could not be won in the public forum, given the state of public opinion in this era in these matters.

    And since the actions of the Globe and even the Stampede itself (comprised as it is of its many interests and elements) have prompted the Church to institute some of the best abuse-prevention protocols of any large organization on the planet, then a pleasant and low-key Vatican response would be far more advisable than any other route.

    But this is hardly to assert that the Vatican’s comments on the film also constitute i) an approval of the Globe’s various actions or ii) a general admission as to the validity of the Stampede as it has evolved (especially in its post-2002 sue-the-Church phase).

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 4th at 955PM:

    Thus – using the Ecker formulation here – what we get in the Vatican statement(s) is not in any sense and surely not completely “the other side of the story”.

    And for that we can to some extent turn to the Wypijewski piece or for that matter any of the Cipriano pieces on the Doe cases in Philadelphia.

    And in that regard I would also point out that neither the JW nor RC pieces are accurately characterizable as mere opinion: both authors present an assessment and reach conclusions that are based on material that is set forth in their pieces, researchable by others in extant public records, and the conclusions drawn are consistent with the actualities in the material they present.

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 4th at 955PM:

    In his effort to characterize the JW piece as merely expressing her “dislike” of the film, Ecker here reflects the familiar Abusenik confusion of ‘opinion’ and the far more strenuous ‘competent assessment’. And the two approaches are hardly the same.

    What we so often get from the Abuseniks is indeed ‘opinion’ and nothing more, whether attempting to mimic competent assessment or merely tossing up opinion frosted with assorted distracting bits such as epithet and unsupported claims, assertions, stories, and accusations or even claiming that such ‘opinion’ is the Word, Will and Thought of God.

    Ditto his concluding use of “feel”. That is a term congruent with mere opinion. What JW and RC provide is competent assessment, which – as I said – is something else altogether and not something Abuseniks of any level of competence seem to prefer.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

       I "feel" your an ass. There maybe someone out there who may "feel" your a bigger ass then I do. I believe that maybe congruent with many who post here. But again that is only our opinion. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I feel you are right Dennis about P being an ass. You are also right about him being felt a bigger ass in other victims' views.

      I also feel he's a plant. A smoke blowing piece of vegitation. Stationed here to obliterate truth.

      A marvel of modern "gardening".

  42. Mrpkguy says:

    It would appear that "Pubilon says" has taken over this forum and we would think someoneone would have cut off his posts about 20 or so back……oh well, I truthfully could not bother to read to read any of them after the first few. Shame "Pubilon says" is so fascinated by his/her own rehetoric.

  43. Publion says:

    In regard to the Ecker comment of the 5th at 658PM:

    The doubt as to the amount paid out by the Church is pretty much JR’s. Ecker will have to take the matter up with him the next time they confer.

    The income lost to the Church through pay-outs and lost contributions (however that might be calculated accurately) would be attributable perhaps as much if not more to the “realities” of the Stampede and the Anderson Strategies, employing the tried and true tactics of the “strike suit” and the long-established dynamics of disability lawsuits (or – if one prefers – scams).

    But I note again Ecker’s interest in the “sol’s” (i.e. Statutes of Limitation). They are currently in force in Pennsylvania, although there is some agitation to have them removed or weakened. Since he has claimed at some point to have been abused in the way-back by a Catholic cleric, then his interest here might seem more than academic.

    The “torture” trope would certainly help that along.

  44. Publion says:

    On then to the Ecker comment of the 5th at 709PM:

    As so often with Abuseniks, you sooner or later come to a queasily adolescent core as the lava erupts and sweeps away the carefully contrived appearance of mature concern and the scatological epithets are ejected into the atmosphere.

    Just how the dynamics operate here that lead him from “I” to “our” is for any reader so inclined to consider.

  45. Jim Robertson says:

     The real issue: Only 15% of the church's victims compensated so far.

  46. malcolm harris says:

    Consider these words from JoAnn Wypijewski, in "Counterpunch'…. a  very perceptive insight into the problem. 

    "Moral panics are by their nature hysterical. They jettison reason for emotion, transfer accusations into proof, spur more accusations, and create a climate that demands not deliberation or evidence……"

    Gee….almost as though she was describing JR…. and also some of his pitch-fork carrying friends.

  47. Jim Robertson says:

    Was it "moral panic" that caused cardinal Law to transfer known perp clerics to supervise new Catholic children?

    • malcolm harris says:

      JR on the 7th asks whether it was moral panic that caused Cardinal Law to transfer "perp clerics to supervise new Catholic children."

      This is exactly what JoAnn Wyijewski was referring to when she said of moral panic…. "jettisons reason for emotion….transfers accusations into proof"

      He jettisons reason when he tells you that priests supervise children…they don't and never have. It used to be nuns and brothers who taught and supervised. Today I think they are mostly lay teachers. Even back in my time most kids only saw and heard a priest at mass. 

      As for… "transfering accusation into proof". Yes, JR has also done that. Because he takes  unsupported allegations and says that it is proof that the guy was a perpetrator. So on his reasoning the Cardinal should have reported it to the police??? Well the parents didn't report to the police? Why? Perhaps they were unsure…. like the Cardinal.

      Anyway government schools were doing the same with accused teachers. Transfering them… and giving them another chance.. But JR is hoping you all have short memories.


  48. Jim Robertson says:

    Bugger off Malcolm Harris! Your own Australian cardinal Pell did exactly the same thing and he too like Law is hiding out in the Vatican to avoid jail time.

    The Vatican seems to be the last refuge of child RAPISTS and their ENABLERS in fsact.

    Oh sure Frank the talking mule says one thin;g but what he does for victims is ZERO.

  49. Publion says:

    On the 5th at 559PM a ‘Mrpkguy’ tries to run the old no-word-in-edgewise play so beloved of the Abuseniks: to him “it would appear” that I have “taken over this forum”.

    Nope. I just put up a lot of thoughts. ‘Mrpkguy’ or anybody else is also welcome to put up as many thoughts as they wish.

    Has ‘Mrpkguy’ put up many thoughts? For that matter, once you have filtered out the epithets and assorted distractions, have any of the Abuseniks put up any actual thoughts?

    No. ‘Feelings’, yes; and feelings masked to mimic thoughts, yes. But otherwise … readers may consider as they will. And readers may also take into account the further riffings on ‘feel’ and ‘feelings’ by other Abuseniks recently as well.

  50. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 6th at 233PM:

    The only useful potential in his comment is that it might prompt consideration as to the mind of a person who would not only put up this assertion of his once, but then continue to put it up – even after it has been demonstrated that the assertion is based on a near-decade-old listing that was admittedly partial even when it was compiled back then.

  51. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1146AM:

    Here he comments upon the comment of ‘Malcolm Harris’ (the 6th at 829PM). MH has quoted the Wypijewski piece’s discussion of “moral panic”, a term that is also the subject of the 1998 book Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in America by Philip Jenkins.

    While the reality that the term “moral panic” seeks to describe is very real, I’ve never really liked the term itself. While it seeks to ‘go deep’ into the examination of an actual public phenomenon, exploring its originating dynamics in psychology, especially group-psychology, yet it goes so deep it doesn’t capture the actual consequences as they played out in this country over the decades since the 1970s (and also in the post-2002 phase of the Stampede, although that phase hadn’t yet taken place when the book was written).

    It seems clear to me that the Doyle proposal to the American Bishops in 1985 – composed by a psychologist and an attorney and Doyle when the McMartin Pre-School Satanic Ritual Day Care Abuse phenomenon (itself certainly a form of a stampede) was still not only fresh but on-going – not only i) sensed the group-psychological ‘deep’ dimensions but also – more practically – ii) sensed how this ‘deep’ element could fuel something particularly dangerous to the Church as it synergized with legal, political, media and other developments also waxing at that time.

  52. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1146AM:

    On page 6 of his book, Jenkins refers to the theory of “moral panic” conceived by two British sociologists in the 1970s: that “a wave of irrational public fear can be said to exist ‘when the official reaction to a person, group of persons or series of events is out of all proportion to the actual threat offered’”.

    It has been my thought that the 1970s in this country saw the waxing of a number of varied elements that synergized to create the perfect-storm that I would call the Stampede: the political rise of feminisim /combined with the postwar theory and doctrine and mantras of ‘victimism’ / with a hefty dollop of Soviet thought as formulated by Gramsci and translated here by academic feminists (who substituted ‘victims’ and especially female ‘victims’ for the Soviet ‘proletariat’ in their effort to attack ‘patriarchal oppression’) and practical agitprop masters like Alinsky (capitalizing on the then-fresh trend of ‘empowerment’ of the ‘oppressed’)/ and all of it dogmatically secularist /

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1146AM:

    created both the demographic and conceptual momentum which induced ‘liberals’ and especially the Democrats to embrace the whole thing with “official” policies and legislation / while ‘conservative’ pols responded to concerns about rising crime and the decline of law-and-order / and while the media leaned now to ‘soft news’ and ‘soft reporting’ and ‘advocacy journalism’ (i.e. you don’t even try to report objectively; rather you decide which side you support and then a) tell ‘stories’ provided by ‘victims’ to support the side you have chosen and b) select-out any material that would make your chosen side ‘look bad’) / and tort-attorneys ( a powerful political lobbying interest in their own right) began to realize that it just now might be possible to surf this complex synergistic wave and actually go after the ‘mother of all deep pockets defendants’, the Church, with ‘strike suits’ and make a mountainous bundle for themselves.

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1146AM:

    In such a developing situation, a number of prelates found themselves in a difficult position. One of the earliest and most prestigious was Cardinal Law – who chose to decamp rather than try to swim through the storm. An astute political player, he can certainly be judged by anyone as to whether or not he chose the best course.

    And although I have no sufficient familiarity with Australian Cardinal Pell, I can certainly see where he too may have realized that in a game as ‘loaded’ as the Stampede, anyone standing in its path and attempting either to stop it or to merely defend themselves (denying is admitting, we recall, is Victimist dogma) might as well go down to the beach in the face of an approaching tsunami wave and deliver rational statements to try and stop it.

  55. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1146AM:

    And as for the so-called shifting-around of priests: if we include in the assessment a) initial efforts to psychologically rehabilitate alleged offenders and b) an awareness – however inchoate – of the type of ‘tsunami’ situation they faced (as Doyle’s 1985 proposal had intimated) and thus c) an abiding concern for the larger impact of these matters and allegations on the Church … if we include all those factors then I think that the actions of Bishops are not utterly exonerated but they are certainly rendered more understandable, especially – to make the point again – when we realize that in the dynamics of the Stampede, an ‘allegation’ is an ‘accusation’ is a ‘report’ is a ‘fact’ and that’s all there is to it.

  56. Publion says:

    And on the ‘Spotlight’ topic, I would note again that there is a remarkable instance of the ‘dog that didn’t bark’ in this whole thing: Michael D’Antonio, author of the 2013 book Mortal Sins, which in its efforts to report on the Globe and its machinations leading up to the 2002 phase of the Stampede actually let some uncongenial cats out of the bag in regard to that paper and SNAP and noted Stampede tortie Jeff Anderson and the Boston tortie so nicely treated in the script of ‘Spotlight’ … that Michael D’Antonio has received little if any exposure by the studio-media publicity machine that embraced the film’s carefully-scripted story of heroic and truthy-truthtellers versus the Monster Church.

  57. Dennis Ecker says:

    After the attorney general released his findings about two catholic bishops covering up the abuse of hundreds of children we have another incident come to close out of catholic affiliated institution in the Keystone State. This time it was Malvern prep involving a school teacher trying to force herself upon a 16 year old. What the hell is the catholic church teaching employees "confuse and abuse" and how stupid are those who work for catholic church's, like priests and school teachers not to learn from their colleagues mistakes. Sadly though this teacher won't see any lengthy prison sentence but for the next 15 years she has to register as a sexual predator. I guess if your catholic this is something that would want you to cheer"I standby my catholic church" Idiots.

  58. Jim Robertson says:

    Jeff Anderson was hand picked by the church through SNAP or other resources.

    The idea of one lawyer being THE go to guy for sex abuse in the Catholic church for 25 years plus in the U.S., is ridiculous. Just like Jason Berry being the only reporter to have covered the scandal over all since the 1980's is unbelievable.


    When newer figures are KNOWN. I'll change my figures.

    Till then Dennis I wouldn't be passing on the church's propaganda about what IT says it's paid out to it's injured. Your doing their dirty work when you report their lies.

    And it's not the victims problem that the church has raped so many. What the church has to pay is their problem. You don't want to pay damages don't fuck your kids. It's that simple.

  59. Publion says:

    On the 7th at 725PM ‘Dennis Ecker’ will perform for us again.

    We don’t know to which Attorney-General he is referring; is it that federal or the State AG? (In either case, it would be a ‘her’.)

    If it’s the State (PA) AG then there is already quite a bit in comments on this thread.

    But Ecker will ignore all that and get on with his scheduled plop-tossing here.

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 7th at 725PM:

    It turns out merely to be some of the bits that were apparently included in that PA Grand Jury Report recently released by the PA AG.

    He can quote all the bits out of it that he wants. The problem remains: Grand Jury Reports (as we have seen and still see with the ‘Doe’ case and the other Philadelphia cases) are questionable for all the reasons previously discussed on this thread.

    Thus his effort to – had you been waittttingggg forrrr ittttt? – insinuate that the Church ‘teaches’ its employees (a female, in this case) to – what? abuse? – also fails.

    Nor do we even know the date and era of this alleged abuse.

    But what the hey? For Ecker, it provides more than enough lead-in for his concluding epithet and that’s really what counts with him.

  61. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 8th at 1253PM:

    He repeats his patently cartoonish claim that noted and very successful Stampede tortie Jeff Anderson was “hand picked by the Church through SNAP and other resources” (whatever that final odd phrase might mean).

    Regular readers of this site will recognize this hugely problematic cartoon bit as having been dealt with at great length and many times on this site, but for new readers: JR has a theory that the Church runs and always has run SNAP (and the other victim-representative organizations) and that thus the Church also picked Jeff Anderson (to create the Anderson Strategy, as I call it, of creating ‘strike suits’ against the Church and cost it around three billion dollars). They are all tools of the Church – doncha see? – and that leaves just JR to actually speak for victims. Readers may consider it as they will.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 1253PM:

    But his gambit here thus opens the way for him to unload – yet again – his handy pile of 3x5s.

    Jeff Anderson has not been “THE” go-to guy; he put the Strategy together and many torties simply took their cue from him (and he took it from disability scam lawsuits and the “strike suit” strategy, as it is known in the tortie trade). So JR’s bit fails here through being inaccurate.

    He then – yet again – tosses up that partial and decade-old Wiki-derived number that has often been debunked here simply because it is partial and almost a decade old. He insists that he will use it until “newer figures are known”, which is no way to conduct competent research and simply works to further undermine whatever credibility as a competently-informed commenter he might still retain.

    I think that he will “change” nothing, even if more recent figures are found. He has his plop-tossy agenda and nothing is going to interfere with his tossing.

    He then takes ace-bud (and – I have surmised – ghost comment adviser) Ecker to task for accepting the ‘3 billion dollar’ figure as representing the cost to the Church. I would apply here Henry Kissinger’s comment about the Iran-Iraq war: ‘It’s a war you’d like to see both sides lose’. They can go at it all they want, here or in off-site consultations.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 1253PM:

      He then comes up with a suitably epithetical exit line, buttressed – as so often – by adolescent scatology.

      But nothing is ever “that simple”, except to the cartoon-formed mind. But JR would like everyone to think that his take on it all is indeed “that simple”. Then there wouldn’t be any need to do any thinking at all – just take JR’s advice and go from there. Readers may gauge the worth of his invitation here as they may. 

  63. Dennis Ecker says:

    Jim I agree the percentage of survivors receiving monetary damages is low. But its not what all survivors want is only a fatter wallet. Some want nothing from an Archdiocese. Others like a person who I recently help find an attorney want nothing more then his mental health sessions paid for by his archdiocese who wrongfully stopped payments to his therapist saying he no longer needs treatment. Something totally against that diocese policy.

  64. Jim Robertson says:

    Dennis you say things like "fatter wallet" as if we demand compensation for o reason? What the fuck?!

    This money that the church ISN'T paying victims is for damages done.

    If your car was hit by another driver would you say things like "fatter wallet"? No you'd want reparation. An attempt to ameliorate the damages done.

    That fat wallet you talk about isn't held by the church's victims. Your using such terms in referring to victims' suing is total bullshit and only serves the P's of this world.

    if that's how you really feel? Please don't "defend" victims anymore. You're only helping the church and our detractors in their continuing vicious attacks against the already harmed.

    We have every human right to demand compensation. You don't want to sue? Swell! But the victims who do want compensation are completely justified in their/our doing so.

    Why wouldn't you? And If you don't want money. What else do you think you will get from these assholes? Respect?  Kindness ? When?

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Where and when do I say if a abuse survivor sues for a monetary award its bullshit ? Those are your words. I think its a great additional punishment to those who abuse or those who failed to protect those who were abused. I just don't think it should be at the top of the list. Physical and mental health should come first with an equal priority going to the arrest, conviction and sentencing of the abuser. Everything else after that is icing on the cake. Damn, when I hear or read about large monetary settlements awarded I'm the first to jump up and down. I think instead of telling me to no longer defend victims you should start. You come to TMR and bitch that victims have not received the compensation they deserve and I would agree they are not but I read no words from you what YOU are doing about it ? There are hurdles to jump, laws that have to be changed to give victims the right to sue years later, its not as simple as telling a survivor go find a lawyer and file suit against the catholic church and you will win and if you wish to tell survivors that is how easy it is you go ahead but its wrong. I will not give any victim false hope that makes them feel they are being raped all over again. Its ashame two survivors are having such a disagreement but I can put my head down at night that everyday I am doing my best to help those who have suffered the same horror as I have and if calling me Publion or putting me on that list with everyone else who you disagree with then so be it.

  65. Jim Robertson says:

    They don't believe either of us. Nor have they believed any victims who've posted here. Ever. Even after we willing answered all questions they asked about what had happened to us.

    We answered them. Not good enough to suit these fools.  So O.K. I get it, defenders of the fake. You'll never believe us. But your lying about us doesn't make one second of our rapes any less real. They still happened.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Why do you care so much about what they think ??? In a small way you are reliving that initial abuse all over again. Proving and fighting to be believed about your abuse. I BELIEVE YOU. Stop letting them push your buttons.

  66. malcolm harris says:

    Being a Catholic myself, I cannot but feel that my Church is under orchestrated attack. The following might be helpful. 

    Most would have heard of Stalin's famous quip…"How many divisions has the Pope?" His comrades dutifully laughed…as they knew the answer. Having no divisions the guy was powerless. So the Pope was a joke….hehehe.

    Yet the ideology, that Stalin presided over, did not even survive the twentieth century. The Russian people, when finally given the vote, consigned communism into the rubbish bin of history. But the Church the Popes have presided over has survived for two thousand years. So what's my point?

    I'm saying that our Church will survive the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Jeff Anderson, even the illusionists in Hollywood. How do I know that?. Well because Jesus promised the first Pope, St. Peter, at the kickoff…"and the gates of hell will not prevail against you"   


    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Orchestrated attack"? Who's Lawrence Welk after? There's some plot?

       Who's leading it the sinners of Hollywood?

      You fucked the kids you helped the perpetrators rape more kids. What the fuck don't you get about that? It aint brain surgery. Denying it happened is idiocy.

      Dennis asked why I care about what you think? I don't. I do care that the ignorant will swallow your bullshit (and I'm sure you think the same of me.) The difference is in which of us is lying and which of us is telling the truth. I'll leave it up to the readers to decide.

  67. Publion says:

    On the 8th at 334PM, as part of a just-entre–nous exchange between ‘Dennis’ and JR, JR takes the opportunity to deliver a self-serving bleat: “They don’t believe either of us” nor “any victims who’ve posted here”.

     Alas. But we’ve seen this gambit before.

    Such ‘victims’ are now re-victimized by not being believed. They are victims all over again, doncha see?

    But I would say that a more accurate characterization would be – certainly speaking for myself – that they have not persuaded.

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR”s comment of the 8th at 354PM:

    That’s the key here. It should never be about ‘belief’; if they have claims that they present to others about events at which those others were not present, then they have the responsibility to persuade those others of the veracity of their claims.

    But – of course – it has been a core gambit of the Stampede and of the Victimism that spawned it that their claims and stories and accusations and allegations are precisely not subjects that require persuasion; rather, their claims and stories and accusations and allegations must simply be ‘believed’.

    This, as I have noted before, is the key sociopathy at the heart of the Stampede: people’s natural tendency to want to believe a sad story is directly played-upon in order to manipulate ‘belief’ in the absence of any persuasive evidence or at least any persuasive presentation establishing probability.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR”s comment of the 8th at 354PM:

    Their recited (one might almost say ‘potted’) claims and stories and accusations and allegations, masquerading as “answers” to “questions” do not persuade; indeed, if such ‘responses’ are subjected to sustained analysis, then those ‘responses’ simply raise more questions – and the cycle begins all over again.

    And his bits here then lead into – had you been waittttingggg forrrr ittttt? – more epithet.

    Nor is there any justification for JR’s further epithetical allegation that it is readers here – and myself, no doubt – who are “lying”. Whereas, this epithet in the recoil … does shed some possible light indeed.

  70. Jim Robertson says:

    I type I don't "bleet". I'm not a sheep. FYI. You're so fucking mean spirited and evil. You probably don't see the difference between a person and an animal. we are all types of a certain level to you, lower. Right Nazi boy?

    You are deeply mentally ill. The fact that you aren't limited in your nonsense posts here. Amazes me. You make this site a Republican debate. Stupid; insulting and mean spoirited. That's what you've brought to this meeting place. That's all you do. Where's the morality? It's not here.

    What are you gonna do attack Hollywood? You can't get one other national news source to back your anti John Doe narrative after the fizzle that was Cipriano's Newsweek fiasco.. Nobody believes you. You did that. Blame the victims if you must but no one but you is seeing this the way you do. Nobody's rallying.

  71. Publion says:

    On the 7th at 1137, JR will again raise a point that is apparently crucial to his entire self-conception, but – alas – isn’t what it seems.

    As I have recently discussed on the “Mostly Positive Response to ‘Spotlight” thread (the 9th at 1246PM) the careful use of terms is vital in this area. There is wide variation among States as to their rape laws (the actual term “statutory rape” is not often used in the wording of State laws since it is insufficiently clear and specific).

    Readers so inclined might want to start with a look at the Wiki entry for “statutory rape” to get an idea of the variations and distinctions among jurisdictions. Charges involving a minor might require sexual intercourse or might simply require the broader ‘sexual activity’; the age of the minor party varies; the charge can be brought as a misdemeanor or as a felony; charges within this type can include (using the Wiki listing here) ‘sexual assault’, ‘rape of a child’, ‘corruption of a minor’, ‘unlawful sex with a minor’, ‘carnal knowledge of a minor’, ‘unlawful carnal knowledge’, ‘sexual battery’, or ‘carnal knowledge’.

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1137AM:

    Readers may also want to consult the listing of statutory rape laws by State (compiled in 2003):

    Readers may note that California laws (as of 2003) require “sexual intercourse”, and the age of the minor party and the perpetrator affects the severity of the charge and the punishment.

    Of course, for the JR instance, one would have to know the applicable California laws for that era (sometime in the early 1960s) and the specific age of JR at the time, since those elements are essential in determining the charge.

    Would the California laws of over half a century ago not required “sexual intercourse”? Or would – at the very most – the action as JR claims it to have been qualified as something akin to ‘corruption of a minor’, perhaps even chargeable only as a misdemeanor? These are questions that require answers and thus specific legal knowledge of the applicable law in that time and place.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      We talk about the reality of our being raped in Catholic schools and we are an attack against the Catholic church?

      Your church is perfect even when it rapes it's young? That's what you are really saying.

      You are so, so sick. You are beyond description.

      Instead of reaching out to ask questions of us as to what happened and being empathetic to what our answers are; you pretend it's us lying and that none of our answers are true.

      So according to what's being presented here: We are either lying fraudsters out for extortion or you are the liars in all this. One of us is lying in all this. That's seems very clear. You can't have it both ways.

      Since I know what happened to me; Happened to me. 

      I can only assume, you are all lying to gain money by not helping victims at all, ever. Unless you are forced to.

      Where's your morality if you lie about us being liars?

      This is how truly little you care about real morality. It's not important to you in the least.

      I can see the storm clouds are being gathered by you for a big offensive. There has to be some new "evidence" you intend to produce. It wasn't in the Newsweek story; but I can feel it coming. You aren't attempting to rally the troops for nothing.


  73. LDB says:

    Yea! Our priests are not all legally defined rapists . . .  in every state. Sometimes they are just sexual abusers of minors, 'child molesters' if you will, and/or mere corrupters of young! Show some shame, catholics.

    So please join our church. We have salvation on offer! You'll probably burn in hell if you don't. What an offer!

    Priests are just religious businessmen who lie to children for a living. Believing/practicing catholic adults keep on lying to themselves. You know how I know? Because they won't be happy until you and I believe as they do.

  74. Publion says:

    Continuing my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 1137AM:

    But in any case, mere word-play (i.e. there is the word ‘rape’ in ‘statutory rape’ so it’s rape) cannot be sufficient, even presuming the veracity and accuracy of his description of the encounter.

    Why go into this? Because the Stampede has always relied on broad terms as well as allegations without evidence and – as I sought to demonstrate with the comments on the Chicago documents on the ‘Spotlight’ thread – tossing around vivid and inciting but not necessarily accurate terms can only lead to misconceptions and further mischief.

  75. Jim Robertson says:


    Who talks like that? "Alas". Oh Alack and "Alas"!

    Only a priest would write such condesending crap.


  76. Publion says:

    And what do we get in today’s episode?

    On the 10th at 116PM JR has a problem. How’s he going to solve it?

    First, he will try to impose his preferred spin on it all: “we” (meaning ‘we victims’ – genuine or otherwise classifiable) “talk about the reality of our being raped”.

    But that sly bit requires acceptance of two presumptions that have not at all been demonstrated: a) that whatever happened to them is “reality” and b) that whatever happened to JR was ‘rape’.

    As for (a): we’ve been over this many times.

    As for (b): although JR has constructed his entire script around it, there remains some real question if under applicable law he was actually (even if only perhaps statutorily) ‘raped’.

    Perhaps – especially since it is so vital a piece in his personal construction – he has long-ago looked up the applicable California statute from that era, has it practically memorized, and can give us a reference.

  77. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 116PM:

    How JR gets to “Your church is perfect even when it rapes it’s young” (sic) and “That’s what you are really saying” is anybody’s guess. This is simply an effort to avoid the actual issue at hand by exaggerating and then focusing on his own exaggeration.

    And readers may consider the sum of JR’s accumulated material in the record on this site and consider whether he does or does not “attack” the Church.

    And the third paragraph deploys – had you been waittttingggg forrrr ittttt? – mere epithets, again oblivious to the danger of recoil when viewed through the lens of projection.

  78. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 116PM:

    And then he tries to create more stuff that would give him the victim-y high ground: nobody “reached out” in order “to ask questions of us as to what happened and being empathetic to what our answers were”. Thus he is – had you been waittttingggggg forrrrr itttttt? – re-victimized all over again (as if we had established his original victimization).

    But of course this is a loaded bit indeed: in the Abuse-verse, the only “questions” one can acceptably ask are the ones that already presume the veracity of the claimed victimization; and “being empathetic” means mouthing appropriate ‘Awwwws” and “empathetic” clucks on cue.

    Actual questions, of course, are nothing but “attacks” and examples of the ever-possible ‘re-victimizing’.

    Then a further exaggeration for the sake of his own convenience: we “pretend” that “us” victims “are lying”. No, no pretending is involved here. Rather, from the material they/he presented, sufficient questions have arisen to justify some significant doubt. And when that is pointed out, whatever is further proffered turns out to raise even more questions.

  79. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 116PM:

    Then a further attempt to create a convenient distraction from the issues actually on the table at this point: JR sets up an either/or situation: either he/they are “lying fraudsters out for extortion” or “you are the liars in all this”.

    But the terms of his little construction don’t work: nobody here asserts and insists that he/they are “lying fraudsters out for extortion”. Rather, there have arisen many question, leading to a sense of the probability that what we are getting is surely not the case or all of the case, and that the possibility – or even probability – of there being more to be discovered in all of this from him/them is strong.

    I – certainly – am not a “liar” because I have made no assertions; I have only asked questions. It is the Abuseniks who have made the assertions and claims and allegations and accusations and characterizations that aren’t demonstrated and backed-up with some form of credible and persuasive material.

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 116PM:

    Thus his little either/or bit fails here.

    As for his assertion that he knows a) “what happened to [him]” so therefore b) “it happened to [him]”:

    In regard to (a):  he doesn’t seem to know what happened to him in light of the fact that he claims he was “fxxked” (scream-caps omitted) when the physical acts he described do not indicate that at all and the statutory definition remains – at very best – unclear at this point.

    And in regard to (b): his own unsupported assertion in (a) does not and cannot definitively establish that “it happened” in the first place.

    But he refuses to see the problems facing anybody who was not present at the alleged incident. Or – deploying the clever Victimist/Stampede mantra designed precisely to get around this very problem – he simply demands that readers “believe” and be “empathetic” and so on.

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 116PM:

    And in light of his grossly faulty logic as demonstrated above, then his attempted mimicry of serious thinking (“I can only assume …”) fails here, since his conclusion is based on faulty premises in the first place.

    And again, he throws out yet another bit while remaining oblivious to its potential for recoil: it is readers who “are not helping victims” (another convenient construction) who “are all lying to gain money” … and readers may consider this bit of his as they will.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 116PM:

    But there’s a method to the madness here: having constructed his little blocks to his own satisfaction, he can then launch into yet another epithetical deployment: if readers consider him/them (‘victims’) to be “liars” then “where’s your morality”?

    Again, the question can recoil rather dangerously. Where is the morality in preying upon people’s belief in order to distract them from the weakness of your claims? (I imagine the tortie-inspired pep talk to cover this point would be: ‘We all know the Church did this, don’t we? So it’s not really so important what happened  or didn’t happen in your particular case so long as you are trying to do a good thing here by signing-on to our lawsuit and putting up a good story’.)

    The rest of the comment trails off into some sort of quasi-military imagery, the relevance of which any readers so inclined may try to suss out.

  83. Publion says:

    On the 10th at 121PM JR will take my “Alas” and see what he might do with it in his plop-tossy way:

    “Who talks like that?” he bleats. Anyone who has read nineteenth century literature might be familiar with the phrase, especially if they were deploying it a tad sardonically.

    But his question was merely rhetorical; he isn’t interested in the question itself, but only in the plop he’s about to toss: I must “be a priest” – doncha see? – because “only a priest would write such condescending crap” (correction supplied). Well, since he previously claimed that I was a “nun”, then this characterization here might perhaps be taken as progress. But he’s got a long way to go.

  84. Publion says:

    Now comes self-declared Harvard Philosophy major and practicing attorney ‘LDB’ (the 10th at 1003AM) and proffers the closest thing to some relevant thought in the legal line that he has ever put up here.

    His initial statement is both accurate and an accurate characterization of one of my points made on this thread: “our priests are not all legally defined rapists”.

    He fails, however, to consider that that point is just the beginning: we then have to consider the probability of the veracity of the allegations i) against each of them so accused and ii) against the type of presumptive stereotype (convenient to the purposes of various types) that “all” priests are.

    I have no doubt, personally, that there are some few who have actually raped (in the classically defined sense of the term). I have no doubt, personally, that some others have done things characterizable as ‘child molesting’ and ‘corrupting the young’. In any large human organization it would be fatuous to assume that there weren’t some sexual offenders, and a few of them seriously so.

  85. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘LDB’s of the 10th at 1003AM:

    But upon what does he base his inference that Catholics, in questioning what clearly needs to be questioned in the Stampede, show no “shame”? If, indeed, there are instances – and I personally think there are many – where the allegations and accusations lodged through the Stampede fail to persuade in terms of veracity and accuracy – then what is ‘shameful’ about questioning? Would it not be more shameful not to question and to allow the lack of veracity to continue and even be rewarded and acclaimed?

    But the whole bit was just a lead-in to his scheduled plop-tossing and he riffs on with those bits.

    Nor does this former seminarian – if I rightly recall from some years ago on this site – seem to have the Catholic theology right: only if you are given the grace to know through belief that the Church is The Way, The Truth, and The Life and then deliberately reject that grace do you face damnation.

    And he then lodges an assertion characterizing priests as “just religious businessmen” “who lie to children” (but not, in his view, to adults?).

    How does he “know” this? He proffers not a demonstrable (or falsifiable) answer, but simply a bit from his personal collection of tea-leaves about what will and will not make them “happy” in some nebulous “until”-time.

  86. Publion says:

    As I had mentioned previously on this and the succeeding thread, assessing the JR claim would require knowledge of the definition of ‘statutory rape’ in CA law of that era. I have not been able to obtain a copy of the applicable CA ‘statutory rape’ law of that era (currently the offense is covered in CA Penal Code Chapter 261.5(a)).

    But in the 1981 case Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, CA (450 US 464 (1981)) the statement is made that “in the 1980s California statutory-rape law mirrored the centuries old common law” and it goes on to define statutory rape as “an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator where the female is under the age of 18 years”.

    Since that era of 1981 changes have been made as in regard to gender-neutrality but not – as best can be determined and as best one can reasonably deduce – the requirement for “sexual intercourse”.

    Anything other than actual “sexual intercourse” would more likely fall under the ‘Lewd Acts with a Child’ statutes (currently addressed in Chap. 288 of the CA Penal Code).

    Perhaps, then, it is more accurate to characterize the JR allegation as his having been ‘lewdly acted upon’.

    • Publion says:

      I had missed JR’s of the 9th at 1022PM.

      Epithet, larded with – but of course – juvenile scatology. And something about my being a “Nazi”.

      Then he dons the Wig of Diagnosis to issue what appears to be one of his favorite denunciamentos: I am “deeply mentally ill”. And again, utterly oblivious to the dangers of the recoil in his making such an assertion.

      And then – in that same paragraph – he starts to lose control of his material and his grammar (even more than usual). And riffs further afield to use current political events as more plop for his pile.

      But then a new Wig: I have “brought” all sorts of “Republican” stuff to …“this meeting place”. This is Goody Robertson rising to deliver a J’Accuse in the meeting-house.  (Perhaps JR could appropriately deliver an ‘Alas!’ at this point.)

      And then we get another familiar treasure from the Abusenik hope-chest: Nobody’s listening / the Church is on the way out / Nobody sees things the way you do …

      If JR says it enough then it’s true … for him. Goody for him. 

  87. Jim Robertson says:

    "We" you write as if people are on your side P..

    Where are they?

    I mean more than the few stooges that post here who think you're so swell.( I notice that you never correct their misspelled words; or bad grammar)


  88. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 1216PM, with everything that is on the table (and there is quite a bit, and quite significant, especially in regard to JR’s claims) … what do we get?

    Not a thing about any of it.

    Just distraction.  Just “blowing smoke”, as JR so likes to put it.

    I write “we” merely in the sense of “readers”. I make no claim as to who does and doesn’t support me.

    But the Abuseniks have to somehow distract, and here we see the effort to conflate ‘readers’ with ‘those who agree’, in order to have a more convenient something with which to distract everyone.

    There are some who have posted in agreement with me, but – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – they are merely “the few stooges”. Ovvvvvv courssssse.

    Misspelled words and bad grammar are only the surface problems, beyond which are unsupported assertions, inaccurate claims and characterizations, and they then lead to the question as to the credibility of the Abusenik position and the reliability of the Stampede’s results.

    • Dan says:

      Talk about "clinical projection"?!? Your claims about others "unsupported assertions, inaccurate claims and characterizations" along with questioning their "credibility and integrity", couldn't better describe your own shortcomings and deficiencies. Maybe it's time you focus on your own faults and stop making your poor assumptions and judgments of others.

  89. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 152PM – wisely avoiding his usual performance using Scripture as the prime prop for the show – ‘Dan’ will now try his hand at some good old-fashioned critique.

    How nice. This must be a new adventure for him.

    But alas. He simply gives a shot at deploying – yet again – the old Abusenik I’m Not/You Are bit.

    What to say in response?

    First, I don’t make many assertions but rather raise questions or lines of inquiry arising from the material provided.

    Second, when I put up thoughts or possibilities I demonstrate the thinking I used and/or put up examples.

    Third, I don’t put up “inaccurate claims” (unless my rather serious doubts as to Dan’s bits as being directly and therefore indubitably and unquestionably directed by God are “inaccurate” and my characterizations as to his sanity and integrity, explicated with copious examples from his own material, are “inaccurate” – and of course, subject to credible refutation, not yet seen here).

    But – “talk about ‘clinical projection” – ‘Dan’ then provides precisely the conceptually therapeutic regimen I have often suggested he take to the bathroom mirror.

    • Dan says:

      P says, "Third, I don't put up 'inaccurate claims'. " So you're admitting that they're simply flat out, blatant lies. That's the first step to realizing your faults, is finally admitting to them. I think we've made some progress. I'll see you for next week's session. We'll be working on your problems with mocking God's Word and the power of His Holy Spirit. Bring your purse, 'cause I'll be asking for a second collection for that teaching.        servant Dan

  90. Publion says:

    On the 14th at 815PM, we get a clear demonstration of the type of whackery that we are facing with ‘Dan’ and his stuff: the juvenile attempt to claim that since I have denied the inaccurate claim, then that – his mind now grasps for – can only mean that I have admitted his even more exaggerated form of the claim.

    But, really, what else has he got?

    Yet it is this type of mentality for which the Stampede has provided a platform and upon which, in no small part, it relies.