Second Newsweek Blockbuster: Philly Abuse Accuser Who Sent Three Priests and Teacher To Prison Admits To False Abuse Claims and Making Up Stories

Ralph Cipriano : Philadelphia Catholic cases

Journalist Ralph Cipriano continues the fight for justice and the falsely accused

During a confidential deposition over two full days in May and June 2014, Dan Gallagher – the Philadelphia native whose varying and preposterous tales of abuse as an altar boy in the late 1990s landed three Catholic priests and a school teacher in prison – stated more than 130 times that he could not remember some very basic facts about his claims.

That is just one of the many eye-popping new details appearing in this week's issue of Newsweek uncovered by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano, who continues to doggedly pursue the cause for justice for the wrongfully incarcerated men. (For those who are new to the Philly story, we suggest background here and here.)

Simply unreal

According to Cipriano, Gallagher stated in his deposition that he could not remember telling his doctors and drug counselors in the past that he had been:

  • sexually abused by a friend at age 6;
  • sexually abused by a neighbor at 6;
  • sexually abused by a teacher at age 7;
  • sexually molested at 6 (or 8) by an unknown assailant;
  • sexually molested at 8 (or 9) by a friend; and
  • sexually abused at 9 by a 14-year-old boy.

And Gallagher admitted at the deposition that none of these prior allegations were true.

[Note: Graphic descriptions of abuse accusations follow]

Dan Gallagher : Philadelphia priest accuser

Dan Gallagher celebrating
with a stogie

If all that were not enough, according to Cipriano, Gallagher also admitted that he somehow "didn't remember telling two archdiocese social workers wild stories about being anally raped by a priest for five hours in the church sacristy; being tied up naked with altar boy sashes by another priest; and being forced to suck blood off of the other priest's penis."

In addition, when Gallagher was asked about whether he remembered telling a drug counselor that his hands were tied during an alleged sexual assault by a priest, Gallagher simply replied, "I really don't remember what I told him."

"Were your hands ever tied up during any of the sexual assaults?" the questioner asked.

"No," Gallagher replied.

Remember that these admissions are in addition to many other facts that Cipriano has already uncovered, which call into question Gallagher's claims, such as:

  • Gallagher has admitted that he lied when he said he worked as a paramedic and a "professional surfer" (yes, a professional surfer from Philadelphia);
  • Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even move forward with the case;
  • An alternate juror even came forward after the trial in which Gallagher put two priests and a teacher in prison with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."

Scientific evidence

Yet in his deposition, the one story that Gallagher did obstinately stick to was his wild drama of being raped by two priests and a schoolteacher.

Oh, and Gallagher did admit to being a drug dealer and being arrested a half dozen times for drugs and retail theft. [Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record.]

And as far as the oft-heard claim from victim advocates and Church-suing lawyers that "memory lapses" from Gallagher stem from the trauma of his sexual abuse, Cipriano quotes Dr. James I. Hudson, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the director of the biological psychiatry laboratory at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, who declares:

"There is no legitimate scientific evidence that psychological trauma can cause the massive amount of inconsistencies and contradictions that is exhibited by Mr. Gallagher's reports of the allegations of sexual abuse."


And the Philly Inky remains silent

After Cipriano's second article about the case appeared last week in Newsweek – his first article was in January – wrote to Philadelphia Inquirer Editor-in-chief Bill Marimow and other editors at the Inky to ask if there were any plans to finally expose this fraud to its readers in Philadelphia.

It would seem to be the least they could do after running scores and scores of front-page articles promoting Gallagher's dubious claims and giving free publicity to publicity-hound D.A. Seth Williams, who organized the witch hunt against the three priests and Catholic school teacher.

Not surprisingly, we have received no response.


  1. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1051PM:

    He is partly right in his next sentence: my material is indeed prompted (or “spawned”, if you wish) by “some dark … mind”. But it is ‘Dan’s material from ‘Dan’s mind (and – we are supposed to presume – from the Mind of God as well).

    And for the recoil to his further claim: ‘Dan’ is clearly “willing to say absolutely anything to demean and destroy” the “reputation” of the Church and Catholicism and Catholics.

    But as for ‘Dan’s “reputation”: it is his own material, and the actions and words that have led to his numerous misadventures with police and courts and psychiatry, that constitute the abyssal problem for his “reputation”.

    Then a string of epitheticals that includes myself and the devil and so on and so forth.

    And the whole thing concludes with his favorite daydream: that one day all who “mock” him (or Him) will face God and – as Maude used to say – “God’ll getcha for that”. The sitcom continues.

    • Dan says:

      Get it straight – It's the actions and inaction "of the church and catholicism and catholics" that has "destroy"ed the "reputation" of your cult, if there was any good "reputation" to begin with. Any words or quotes I have used to describe your cult, are only based on the truth regarding what you and others have done in destroying the church. May there soon come an end to their greed, idolatry, sexual lusts and lies.

  2. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:

    JR doesn’t go much for qualified surmises; he’s a ‘simple assertion’ kinda guy. That has worked so well for him, as, for example, in his own claims of ‘child-rape’.

    Underlying this bit of his is this cartoonish script-dynamic: simple and honest and plain-spoken and liberal truth-teller vs. complex and (therefore) un-truthy and ‘conservative’ thinker and questioner.

    And then a repetition of his insinuation that the Stampede doesn’t exist (rather, I ‘invented’ it) – and yet in all the instances where I have explained at length and in detail the Stampede’s dynamics on this site, JR has never proffered any rebuttal that would establish his insinuation as probable, let alone as indubitably accurate.

  3. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:

    He then – as so often – tosses up his SNAP theory, only this time he slyly edits it: he merely describes what I have held all along: that SNAP indentured itself to Anderson and the torties as a front-organization.

    He then tries to insinuate that I “recommend” Anderson. (No accurate quotation of mine establishing that is provided, but of course.)

    And then quickly moves on to more of his ‘investigative logic’ chops with a series of questions. But these questions leave untouched my theorization (based on Michael D’Amato’s revelations) that Anderson saw the vital value of having a ‘victims’ front-organization as a feeder route, approached the failing SNAP in that coffee klatsch with Barbara Blaine, and made her that offer she chose not to refuse.

  4. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:

    His series of “would have” presumptions remain merely that: presumptions.

    I don’t know – and who does, really? – if ‘victims’ “love SNAP” and so forth. But if ‘victims’ (or, rather, allegants and prospective plaintiffs) sensed the possibilities of getting hooked-up with some torties who could parlay their allegations into a pile of cash (say, a million dollars instead of 12 or 17 thousand), then their attraction to SNAP – or rather to the torties to whom SNAP could provide access in a tasteful way – is clear.

    And then he appears to verify the idea that the front-organization receives ‘donations’ (or, if you wish, kick-backs) from the torties whose purposes it serves. As for how much such allegant/plaintiffs donate to SNAP from their own swag, there is no evidence I can find. Leaving us with JR’s mere assertion, which hardly rises at this point to the level of persuasive and credible evidence at all.

  5. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:

    He then declares the SNAP-tortie collusion to be “a façade; a fraud; a fake” and that has been my point all along.

    But he then has to somehow try to continue taking a whack at his other target, the Church, and thus we are back to the non-existent “secret committees” … of which, we are now informed, “SNAP is first and foremost”. SNAP is a “secret”? And nothing from JR as to why SNAP, if it were indeed a vital cats’ paw of the Church, would be so financially strapped that Anderson could see his way to making his offer to Blaine and Blaine would accept.

    Nor – to repeat yet again – have I ever suggested or ‘pretended’ that “SNAP works for victims”; it is a front for the torties, and has been since Blaine indentured SNAP to Anderson and the torties.

    But JR has to keep ludicrously objecting to something I never said or propounded, in order to keep his personal Cartoon going.

  6. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 946AM:

    The comment then descends into a rant comprised of familiar JR bits that has nothing to do with my actual position and readers may consider it all as they will.

    Nor will I “defend that odd behavior” since I do not take and never have taken SNAP “at face value”.

    JR’s real irritation here is that I have never taken his stuff “at face value” either, for reasons I have long and at length explained in detail.

  7. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 4th at 953AM:

    Here he tries to somehow head for the Victim-y high-ground and don the Wig of Outraged Victimhood:

    He hides himself behind all “people who are victims of sex abuse as children” as if I had indicted all of them as being “at the bottom of a barrel”. I referred to JR’s material with that “bottom of a barrel” comment.

    And it is also to be noted that he slyly refrains from his once-usual ‘child-rape’ trope and simply and slyly limits himself to “sex abuse as children”.

    However, somehow he can’t refrain, even when the recoil – in light of the parsing of his own claimed ‘child rape’ – is so powerful: he then refers to “our rapists”. Readers can consider the veracity of that rhetorical gambit as they may.

    And the tries to bring it all home with an “If I were you” threat. Again, oblivious to what “ideas” readers may form about him from his material and his performances here.

  8. Publion says:

    Then he circles back on the 4th at 1003AM:

    I “debate Dan over religion”. No, I don’t. I am pointing out from ‘Dan’s own material just how little actual “religion” is in it, and just how much ‘Dan’s assorted and demonstrated infelicities govern his material and his performances here (and, from his own reports, elsewhere).

    As to JR’s pious bleat about “compensating victims who deserve compensation”: once again, how determine if we are dealing with such persons as opposed to persons … otherwise classifiable? JR has proffered no way of making that determination. Rather, we are merely supposed to ‘believe’ the allegations and let the Ball Roll On from there.

    So I am not trying to “distract” from the “compensation” issue. I am pointing out that there is no way anyone has come up with to legitimately demonstrate who deserves “compensation”.

    It is JR who is always trying to “distract” and “blow smoke” in order to avoid and evade that abyssal and “real” problem at the heart of the Stampede. He would urge us just to “pretend” that all allegations are veracious and just let the Ball Roll On from there.

  9. Publion says:

    On the 3rd of April, on page 14 of its print edition, the Boston Herald ran an editorial entitled “A non-victim as ‘victim’”. (Which is especially significant since Boston was the font-site of the 2002 phase of the Stampede.)

    The editorial deals with one “Jackie”, who – some readers may recall – was the U/VA student whose claim of being multiply-raped two year ago in a frat house “turned out to be a complete fabrication”.

    She had told her story to both Rolling Stone and the Washington Post (that paper now presided over by that same Boston Globe editor who started the 2002 Phase of the Stampede to demonstrate he was “the new gunslinger on Main Street”).

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of the 4th at   PM:

    Now Rolling Stone (which eventually retracted its article) is being sued by a U/VA dean who was cast as the evil and insensitive and cover-up enabler in Jackie’s story. That dean’s attorneys now want a deposition of Jackie as part of their lawsuit against Rolling Stone. Think of it! A chance to tell the story of one’s victimization on the record.

    And under oath, this time.

    And what do the ‘victim’s attorneys say? No way. Why? Because “Forcing her to revisit her sexual assault, and then the revictimization that took place after the Rolling Stone article  came out, will inevitably lead to a worsening of her symptoms and current mental health”. (Had she herself not told her story to Rolling Stone and WaPo?)

    As the editorial drily observes: Jackie’s attorneys “say that medical research confirmed that”.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of the 4th at 1251AM:

    Apparently, Jackie’s attorneys had proposed that Jackie might “skip the deposition” and/or perhaps “’streamline’ her testimony” (meaning that she might leave out a whole lot of the allegation she had originally proffered as veracious). The dean’s attorneys have refused.

    The issue is now before a judge in Virginia.

    It is a sign of just how far Victimism has infiltrated the legal system that the judge has a range of legal options: requiring Jackie’s attorneys to engage experts “to testify on the chances of ‘revictimization’”; placing her deposition testimony “under seal”; and even requiring judicial permission before anything from the deposition can be introduced or even repeated in trial proceedings.

    The editorial concludes that “allegations of campus sexual offenses need the most careful scrutiny”, that the dean deserves her day in court, and that the allegant (ex-‘victim’) here “should not be permitted to deny it to her” (the dean is a female).

  12. Publion says:

    We have now reached the point toward the bottom of his barrel where ‘Dan’ will deploy the most juvenile of gambits in order to have something to say (while, of course, evading any of the real issues on the table).

    So on the 4th at 608PM he tries yet again to make it seem as if a characterization of his own material equals an approval of his own material.

    I want to address the modicum of useful content without feeding the juvenile myah-myah dynamic.

    In response to his question at the end of the first paragraph: I will continue to point out the problems with his material; the fact that his desperately clung-to Cartoon requires that anything he doesn’t want to hear is “lies” remains his problem and not mine.

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 608PM:

    In his second paragraph, he seeks to whistle-away the glaring truth-problems in his material by the further juvenile myah-myah bit that since I am a “blatant, habitual liar” (a comment which he deploys utterly oblivious to its recoil as a self-revelation through projection) then I couldn’t recognize truth anyway.

    And he attempts – unsurprisingly, to anyone who has now realized the depth of his mental infelicities – to bolster that through a Scriptural quote that refers to “unbelievers”: the pericope refers to those who don’t believe in Christ, not those who don’t believe ‘Dan’s whackeries. But, of course, in the ‘Dan’-verse, ‘Dan’ and Christ are … (fill in the blank).

    And I would say that some of his (carefully selected) quotes are indeed relevant … as revelatory of his (or His) own issues.

    And he concludes, yet again, with his “ignorance” bit: in the ‘Dan’-verse, if you don’t believe his own non-veracious whackeries, which whackeries he presumes to be ‘truth’, then you are clearly “ignorant”. A neat little construction, designed to Keep The Cartoon Going, but built on the bed of sand that is his own web of infelicities.

  14. Dan says:

    This response is so full of misquotes and ridiculous statements, that I don't even feel a need to respond. Between you and Publiar, I don't know who's worse. My guess is Publiar, only because he spouts more ignorance and stupidity, and yet has this grand illusion of his own brilliance.

  15. Dan says:

    This previous comment was directed to Malcolm and at the same time is about all I have to respond to Publiar's nonsense, also. Nothing, just a waste of my time.

  16. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:

    Here he simply tries to run another version of the I’m Not/You Are gambit: it is I who am “unable to comprehend anything that doesn’t line up with your illusion of your pure infallible church of hypocrites”, rather than – as I have been saying – he who is unable to handle anything he doesn’t want to hear and anything that threatens the personal Cartoon he has constructed for himself (or Himself).

    But to do so he has to imagine that I have claimed that the Church is “pure” and “infallible”. He produces no accurate quotation from my material, and he cannot, since such a quotation does not exist in my material.

    Rather, it is he who raised the point of infallibility in his comment of the 3rd at 542PM. And moreover, in that comment he specifically connected infallibility to what he characterizes as “harboring, hiding or excusing pedophile priests”.

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:

    When I pointed out in my comment of the 4th at 404AM that no Pope has ever made an infallible declaration in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter then that point created a serious problem for his assertion.

    So what does he do? He quickly tries to change the subject with his bit about “So no harm, no foul”, which bit makes no sense at all in regard to the point at issue and the comment I made.

    That’s the nub of it here: he made an assertion, I pointed out that his assertion was not accurate, and all he did then was to try to change the subject.

    And the remainder of his comment of the 4th at 1256PM is simply further evasive riffing, tossing in some of his predictable epithetical bits similar to what you can find on many a fundie website or similar precincts.

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:

    The mistake in ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ here is that he has – for his own rhetorical and epithetical and Cartoon purposes – set up the Church as a strawman that claims to be “pure” and “infallible” in all things.

    Which is not anything that the Church has ever proclaimed about herself; all human beings (perhaps excepting ‘Dan’, in his own Cartoon) are liable to sin and all human beings can fail in living out their ideals and no human being lives a life in perfect conformity to his/her ideals and no human being perfectly ‘practices what s/he preaches’.

    A doctor, for example, may fail in his/her Hippocratic Oath. Does that erase the validity of the ideals enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath? Does that undermine the validity of the practice and profession of medicine? Does that failure even necessarily utterly disqualify the errant doctor him/herself?

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256PM:

    Again, and similar to the dynamics of the Stampede, ‘Dan’ is using the Church here as his personal piñata. Only his purpose is not to score some money and/or victim-y status but rather to project his own myriad personal issues onto the Church and thus preserve his personal Cartoon that it is not he with serious issues but rather the Church.

    The Church certainly has issues. But – alas – so does ‘Dan’. And while the Church has taken serious and public steps to correct herself, ‘Dan’ remains tootling the same old tune: he is without error and anyone who points out otherwise simply “lies” and is “ignorant” of his (or His) marvelous stuff.

    Readers may consider that as they will.

    • Dan says:

      Truth and fact is the only thing of any importance-

      1) The church should never claim, but still does, that they are the "moral authority" of the world. They are so plagued with immoral followers, but most especially among it's hierarchy.

      2) For this very reason they should never claim "infallibility" in any thing they have to say.

      3) You're under the impression that your church is filled with "believers in Christ". Idolaters, statue makers and worshippers- goddess worshippers burning incense to the "Queen of Heaven"- The greedy (wealthiest org. in the world)- deceivers and habitual liars- and mockers of God and His Holy Spirit- They can make claims that they are "believers in Christ", when truly they believe only in the one brutally crucified and mutilated, displayed as trophies in their temples. They make sure you know every step of how they punished Him, with the stations of the cross. "Belief in Christ" is just another of their lies.

      4) I have never claimed to be without error, and have made every attempt to correct mistakes I've made, only for you to add more lies to my corrections.

      5) "the church has taken serious and public steps to correct herself"- Are you kidding? First off, these horrific sins should never have been committed, by those leaders parading themselves as God's only true church. The church has done everything in it's power to conceal it's crimes, deceive, excuse and enable their criminals. All done, so they can protect their beautiful "reputation", and continues on this platform until today, fooling only themselves.

      6) The Bible is full of scripture that your church disobeys, ignores or feels there is no need to follow, so long as you obey them, join in their pomp and circumstance, and feed their greed to pay for elaborate costumes and ceremonies, while they make ridiculous claims of being the church for the poor. Poor, dumb sheep followers. Need I say more?

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    Same old shit. New day. The smoke continues to blow.

    Your popes; cardinals; and bishops all covered up sexual abuse of children and supported the abusers while at the same time they denigrated and automatically excommunicated any victims or our family members who told. You are still doing it. Right here. Blow your smoke. You fool no one.

  21. Lou says:

    **No you moron.  Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people. **

    You mean the catechism that teaches "THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON" and the Virtue of "CHARITY"?  The same Catechism that probably forbids calling people "morons"?

    **Fidelity to Rome is fidelity to the deposit of faith in the catechism. Not the people.  Fidelity to the Chair of Peter. Not a person enthroned who attempts to steer his people away from it.**

    The call to "Fidelity"!  It started with a few kook priests and Carol McKinley telling people not to follow them, but to follow the local ordinary (Cardinal Law) who carries the authority of Rome here in Boston.

    Then they took away Cardinal Law..and replaced him with Bishop O'Malley.  Carol Mckinley had high hopes, but soon found out that O'Malley wasn't to Carol's liking.  Carol told people, he's only a Bishop…makes sure you are following a Price of the Church…a Cardinal!  They are the only ones that carry the authority from Rome….not just any "Bishop".

    Then, guess what?  They made O'Malley a CARDINAL!  (Just like CARDINAL Law! SO he must carry the authority of Rome to Boston, no?)  

    But…we quickly found out that even a Cardinal Archbishop….a "Prince of the Church" didn't have enough authority for Carol.  Now, she claimed "Fidelity" to the Pope…not Bishops, not priests, not Pastors, not Cardinals.  

    THEN..The pope retires…and is replaced by another Pope.  And quickly Carol McKinley finds out that possibly she has been wrong all along…and her claim of "Fidelity" as just a "cover" to follow only her own desires and really not submit to any authority.  So much for "Fidelity", eh?  

    All this talk of "Fidelity"…had to change, because it became clear that she was only Faithful to her own thoughts and ideas.  She had "Fidelity" to anyone that agreed with her.  With all her blogging and busybody work, she realized onething…that, in effect…SHE wanted to be a pastor, a bishop, a cardinal…SHE wants to be the Pope!  The arbiter of what is allowed, what isn't.  Carol wants to be the disciplinarian!  All this is at odds with someone who claims to follow Spiritual Authority and has "Fidelity".  

    So we have seen through the veneer of, so called, "Fidelity.  (Notice the old "Magisterial Fidelity" blog has gone fallow.)  We have already pointed out that this claim of fidelity to the Catechism is flawed as well, calling people names, etc., no talk of charity, respect or the worth of the individual  The fidelity to the Catechism is only in effect when she agrees with it.

    I don't see any indication that the Catechisms teaching of humility and pride are being adhered to.  Do you?

    I Think we've pointed out the fallacy of Carol McKinley's "Fidelity".  

    As far as Magisterial or the Magisterium, Carol here is a refresher course:

    "In Catholicism, the Magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested UNIQUELY in the POPE and the BISHOPS who are in communion with him."

    Sorry Charlie….err…Carol.

    Get on thy knees and meditate of the teachings of Humility and Pride.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    Billowing clouds of smoke.

  23. malcolm harris says:

    The following comment concerning Daniel Gallagher may sound cynical. But I hope I will be forgiven… because have just been thinking about Fr. Engelhardt. The wrongfully convicted priest who died whilst handcuffed to a hospital bed.                                                                In a deposition that Daniel Gallagher made, in May and June 2014, he was asked about notes in the medical record of a drug clinic he had been admitted to.   In particular that the notes said he had been employed as "a surf lifesaver". Danny could not remember saying that at all?.                                                                                                                                 However he added that he would like  to have been a surfer, but his drug addiction "sort of got in the way"                                                                                                                      Well I conclude that he has been a remarkable and exceptional surfer….because he has surfed the dark waves of bigotry, with such skill, that he collected prize-money of five million dollars. I doubt that any professional surfer in the world could boast that he earned so much money from just one event.  I can only hope that one day Danny Gallagher is dumped by a really big wave.


  24. Publion says:

    On the 5th at 1153PM ‘Dan’ will attempt to wave away both my own (of the 5th at 1255AM) and ‘Malcolm Harris’s comments with the mere assertion that those comments are “so full of misquotes and ridiculous statements” that – alas and alack – poor ‘Dan’ just doesn’t “know who’s worse”.

    No demonstrations of where I have made “misquotes” of any ‘Dan’ material, nor of just which comments of mine are “ridiculous”. But of course this is just smoke-blowing (as JR would say) which in old (pre-electronic era) naval tactics is what warships do when they are trying to retreat.

    And – as usual – marvelously oblivious to the recoil, ‘Dan’ will try to toss as epithet the bit about “the grand illusion”, as if his personal Cartoon of himself (or Himself) and the Divine is something other than that.

  25. Publion says:

    And on the 5th at 1159PM ‘Dan’ further tries evasive tactics by simply sniffing that he need not respond to my “nonsense” since – doncha see? – it would be nothing but a “waste of [his] time”.

  26. Publion says:

    Which assertion he himself (or Himself) then undermines by putting up another comment ( the 6th at 237PM):

    He opens with the solemn and sober Wig of Truthy Competence: “Truth and fact is the only thing of any importance” (sic).

    Readers who have been keeping a chart of his zigs and zags might find themselves bemused.

    What has he got to say? Let’s see.

    • Publion says:

      His first point is neither a fact nor truthy. It is a “should” statement of ‘Dan’s own opinion. 

      And the Church does not claim herself to be “the ‘moral authority’ of the world” (italics mine; and perhaps ‘in’ the world is what he meant). The Church claims to be the divinely-instituted and Spirit-guided community of human beings who seek to follow the Gospel ideals (which, readers might quickly notice, immediately makes the Church a rival to ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself)). 

      Such “moral authority” as the Church might exert flows from the Spirit and Scripture as the Church tries to keep that flame alive (and again, one quickly sees how ‘Dan’ is going after what is clearly a ‘rival’ to his (or His) own personal Cartoon). 

      But the Church herself is composed of human beings and immersed in a human history and reality that is shot-through with imperfection and failure. As William of Ockham realized, salvation comes through intention – because no human being and no human institution could meet the standard of perfection-in-action. As Peter also understood when, reflecting on the enormity of Christ’s injunction, he asked Christ “who then can be saved?”.  (In the ‘Dan’-verse, it is, rather, a matter of status: ‘Dan’ declares himself (or Himself) “Chosen” and that’s all there is to it.)



    • Publion says:

      His second point is also not a “fact” but another of ‘Dan’s “should” assertions. And there are very few matters on which the Church has formally pronounced under the rare and special rubric of infallibility. Perhaps ‘Dan’ left the Church before reaching that point in catechism class. His own material, of course, is “without error” in matters of Scripture and what he likes to call his “prophecy”.

    • Publion says:

      His third point, again, is neither truth nor fact. 

      He asserts that I am “under the impression that the Church is “filled with ‘believers in Christ’ when actually, according to Dan’s unsubstantiated assertion here, it is actually filled with “idolaters, statue-makers, and … goddess-worshippers” (referring to Mary). You can find this stuff in any fundie tract or on any fundie site, and ‘Dan’ is particularly fond of the Mary-as-goddess bit, which he has used here many times. That Mary is not held to be divine in Catholic teaching deflects ‘Dan’ not a bit here; and his scheduled plop-tossing continues. 

      But as usual, what he’s really on about is that the Church is filled with believers who – alas and alack – don’t believe in ‘Dan’s being “Chosen” as – to borrow from Tolkien – the Mouth of God (and a zestfully vituperative potty mouth it is, at that). 

      Whether his (or His) riffy characterization of Christ Crucified rises to genuine “mockery” is for readers to consider as they may. The Passion and Crucifixion vitally remind one and all just how dangerous humans can make their world, even when they might think they are doing something pretty good.  Curiously, for someone who has tried on this site to wrap himself in the mantle of “suffering servant”, this profound reality seems to escape ‘Dan’ here. 


    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:

      As to his fourth point, it is surely neither fact nor truth: he now claims that he has “never claimed to be without error”, although he has on this thread claimed that in matters of Scripture and (his) “prophecy” he is “without error”. 

      But since he’s raised the point: what might be – for him (or Him) some of his larger errors? Or error; even one might do. (Time-saver: no deployment, please, of any juvenile come-back bit such as ‘My biggest error was paying attention to this site’ or some such.) 

      And such “corrections” as he has tried to make to his reports of his various and numerous stories as to his misadventures with police, courts, and psychiatry merely a) raise more questions than they purport to answer and b) merely  cast more doubt on his credibility, veracity, and – I would say – sanity. 


    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:

      His fifth point is also not fact. He seeks to change the subject from my point that “the Church has taken serious and public steps to correct herself” to a backward-looking fixation on actions “that should never have been committed”. 

      As is true of any human failure and sin, such should never have been committed. But – in some cases (the extent of which we are still not actually certain) – failure and sin were committed. And the Church has corrected herself in that regard (with far more care and credibility than any ‘correction’ of himself (or Himself) that ‘Dan’ has come up with here). 

      As to the reading from ‘Dan’s personal tea-leaves as to the state of the Church’s “reputation”, and whether the Church is fooling itself, readers may consider as they will. But as for ‘Dan’s reputation, and the effect on it of his (or His) own stories and claims and words and actions … I would not say the Church compares unfavorably to ‘Dan’s performance to date. 

      And he may well reveal more than he cares to with the bit about “fooling only themselves” the next time he looks in the mirror (where, however, he pronounces himself (or Himself) quite pleased – and no surprise there). 


    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:

      His sixth point is simply more of the fundie-type ranting we have seen from him so often before. And it drags in “the poor”, suggesting rather strongly that he is simply riffling through his 3×5 pile for more stuff. 

      “The poor you will always have with you”, Christ said, with something of a gravid ambivalence. On the one hand, there will always be poor (was He referring to materially poor or spiritually poor?) present in human history; on the other hand, what is to be done in regard to poverty (material and/or spiritual)? 

      He seems to answer that (in that same pericope, in the 26th chapter of Matthew) by then saying that humans would not always have Him with them (physically alive in this world). So Christ Himself is somehow the ‘response’ to the poor (whether in the material or the spiritual sense). 

      Thus while He doesn’t reject the classical Jewish theological concern for the poor and for justice, yet He adds to that the very reality of Himself, by which (or, actually, Whom) even poverty and justice are to be assessed. If one – through belief – becomes ‘rich in Christ’, then how ‘poor’ is one, in the deepest sense? 


    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 237PM:

      The Christian community from the earliest times lived this bi-valent vision, seeking to foster belief while also distributing alms in charity. 

      But – in much the same way as ‘taxing the rich’ functions in contemporary American political discourse these days – the Church could sell all the art treasures and close down the whole shebang and give the proceeds of the sales to  … whom? And would that much money eradicate poverty in the world? It would not. So the answer must lie in some other direction or path, and that is the ongoing challenge: what path to take? Somehow the original path of the early Christian communities – belief and alms – seems the most promising, while not in any way a complete and total ‘solution’. 

      ‘Dan’ needn’t – as he himself (or Himself) implies – “say more”. He should think more. Even if it means – the horror! – reading a few books as well. 


    • Publion says:

      From JR on the 6th at 1107AM we get more of the usual and same. 

      However he once again – no doubt drawing on his own dated pile of 3x5s – refers to that grossly inaccurate reading of the 1962 Instruction of John XXIII (discussed at length several times on this site):  only official clerical members of a tribunal judging a case of alleged Solicitation During A Sacrament, and persons involved in such a case as formal participants, are enjoined to silence under pain of excommunication, and for the non-clerical participants that stricture lasts only until the tribunal concludes; nor does it prohibit accusers from other legal recourse.

      I don’t recall any allegant in the Stampede era ever being excommunicated on the authority of that Instruction or its successor-documents. 

      And – as ever utterly oblivious to the danger of its recoil upon him – JR then puffs up his pinfeathers and declaims “Blow your smoke. You fool no one”.  Just so. 


    • Dan says:

      "But evil people and imposters will go from bad to worse as they deceive others and are themselves deceived." 2 Tim 3:13

      On April 7 @ 5:24 pm, p states, "The [c]hurch claims to be the divinely-instituted and Spirit-guided community of human beings who seek to follow the Gospel ideals". Can one be that ignorant, that blind or that deceived. I have exhaustingly quoted Scripture passages of Christ's Words, that the church ignores and refuses to follow. The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5 thru 7 and Matthew chapter 23, exposing many of the churches failures. I personally and in my research, have never experienced a bigger group of unkind, selfish, mean and cruel, merciless, deceiving, lying, pretentious, egotistical and perverted bunch of hypocrites, ever in my life. You can childishly call me "potty mouth", when this is just the truth, something you find hard to grasp. This is why your false cult is my "rival", because almost everything they're about is full of deception and lies, and in conflict with God's Word and Truth. You are a perfect fit, mocker of truth.

  27. Dan says:

    Get this straight- God's Word, Scripture and His Prophetic Word is "without error". I am human and servant to the Perfect One. I never claimed to be perfect or "without error". Stop twisting everything to your liking. And to constantly rehash the false accusations of your lying cult of thug hypocrites and phony priests and nuns, is absolutely childish and cowardly. And your insinuations, as to my sanity, you can also add to your portfolio of lies. You are truly a lowlife. I bet your proud of that.

  28. Dan says:

    Your cult of death worships Jesus Christ crucified. True Christians recognize His sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but believe and trust in the risen Christ, the living One. Your cult is by no means, "Christian". They claim that they are, but just one more of their many lies.

    In regards to my "unsubstantiated assertion" that your cult "is actually filled with 'idolaters, statue-makers, and … goddess worshippers' (referring to mary), [Queen of Heaven]", your cult's prayers and actions substantiate my assertions. Temples filled with your statues and museums boasting pagan examples, while still producing statuary as we speak, under the approval and watch of your so-called poor and humble fraud, pope francis.

    You claim, "Mary is not held to be divine in catholic teaching." Are you that dumb or do you just believe your cult's sheep will buy into your stupidity. The pope at just about every mass goes over to burn incense to the Ever Virgin Mary, "Queen of Heaven", as I've pointed out that false worship in Jeremiah 44, several times. You pray, "Hail Mary- Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, sweetness and hope- Holy Mary, Mother of God". There are pictures of every pope for the last century bowing down to her statue, blatantly against the 2nd commandment and some putting a gold crown on her head ( against God's Word in Baruch 6:9 ).

    Catholics- How much longer are you going to listen to the lies of these hypocrites, who tell these made up fairy tales, make all these excuses of why they don't obey the things of God, and keep you living in darkness, while they rob you blind, both Spiritually and physically.

  29. Publion says:

    And now to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:

    With a truly marvelous obliviousness  – especially in light of everything that has arisen from ‘Dan’s material and performances here – ‘Dan’ selects a pericope from 2 Timothy that pretty much describes himself (or Himself). ‘Dan’ left “deceived” in the rear-view mirror a long way back.

    The only thing new here is the pose: deploying now such a term as “exhaustingly” (no doubt he meant “exhaustively”) and such a phrase as “I personally and in my research”, ‘Dan’ will don the Wig of Sober Competence to mimic – not to put too fine a point on it – sober competence.

    But as I have often said, these Wigs can only provide the appearance, but not the substance, of whatever it is they are trying to mimic.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:

    Thus he commits the now-familiar mimicry-mistake of simply referring to an entire book or chapter, rather than explicating precisely what points in his references he considers relevant and why he finds them relevant. (And this, we recall, from so sterling an intellectual talent as to have written a 50-page term paper on evolution in the eighth grade – or so he claimed a while back here.)

    And on top of that he delivers conclusions (as to which of “Christ’s Words” the Church “ignores and refuses to follow”) for which he has not provided a) the reasoning by which such conclusions have been reached and b) on what basis the assertion/accusation against the Church has been made.

    Either he hasn’t really read many books or he has been reading too many god-grams that also don’t appear to have revealed to him how to proceed rationally.

    But then, if ‘Dan’ were to proceed rationally, his entire personal Cartoon would collapse.

    • Dan says:

      Greetings to all my fellow catholics. This is Mr. p for pretentious, here, claiming I'm so well read and intellegent, yet not capable of reading one chapter in the Bible to find what 'Dan's referring to in regards to the worship of the false goddess they called the "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 44, hundreds of years before Our Ever Virgin Idol ever existed.

      I did not pull out a single verse, because the whole chapter explains how ridiculous and stupid is the worship of false gods and goddesses, of which your church has thousands, (saints and popes). I see that you still feel the need to "childishly" mock God, His Word and the power of His Holy Spirit, and must be so proud of yourself. The "Cartoon" has ended and it's time to run home to mommy, little peewee.

    • Dan says:

      The same goes for the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 23. The full chapters describe the things in which the church fails to follow or obey. Don't repeat your prayers, call no one Father and explaining in detail how the showy hypocrites dress and act, are just a few of the many examples of their failures. Read it and live it or stay away from it completely.

      "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." Rev 3: 15-16

      This describes phonies that profess to be Godly, when truly they are only lying hypocrites.


  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:

    My calling him “potty mouth” flows directly from his numerous scatological epitheticals with which his material is replete. If there’s anything “childish” here, it’s the god-grams that apparently direct him to deploy such queasy bits in the first place. Or are the queasy and non-rational bits not from the god-grams but from ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself)?

    And yet he absolves himself (or Himself) by declaring – as always – that his stuff is “just the truth”.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 654PM:

    I don’t find “truth” hard to grasp; that’s why I find his material so problematic.

    And the conclusion wraps it up nicely: he needs the Church to be “full of deception and lies” precisely so as to be his “rival”, thus providing his personal Cartoon not only with i) the authority of the Divine but also ii) a nicely vivid monster whom only he can destroy. If every self-appointed St. George needs a dragon, then the Church as ‘Dan’ likes to characterize it provides the status to this self-fantasized dragon-slayer.

    But in the end the Church ends up being not the enemy of God but rather the Rock upon which ‘Dan’s personal Cartoon tears itself apart, Wigs, pericopes, accusations, epithets, and all.

  33. Dan says:

    The only "Rock[s]" in your church are the ones in the heads of you, your hierarchy and all the other corrupt liars and phonies of your cult, who again deserve everything they get.

  34. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1143PM:

    Here – and with an imposing mimicry of authority (“Get this straight”)  – he will try to evade by avoiding my point and substituting one of his own: On the 3rd of April at 542PM he wrote “I have never claimed my material to be without error, unless it was a Biblical quote or prophecy”.

    Where to begin?

    I then wrote that I didn’t doubt the general accuracy of his Biblical quotations themselves but rather a) his interpretation and application of them and also b) the fact that since he had not long before in a comment delivered himself of a “prophecy” that turned out to be just his own eructations, which he then claimed were somehow pretty much akin to Scripture in their authority (since they came from his god-gram faxes), then his deployment of the term “prophecy” appeared to indicate that any of ‘Dan’s eructations were “prophecy”, so most of his material would thus qualify as being “without error”.

  35. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1143PM:

    So now what can we rationally make of his present claim in this comment of his here?

    Are we to imagine that since he did not specifically declare this or that bit of his material a “prophecy”, then it is ‘Dan’s own material – and that therefore ‘Dan’s own material is not necessarily “without error”? That would surely open up the situation: ‘Dan’s material would be reduced to just being his own material, and not formally God’s material.

    But if that be the case, then where are the grounds for his claiming that disagreements with his material constitute “lies” and “mocking God” and so on and so forth?

    And if that be not the case, then ‘Dan’s claim in this comment of his here is not true.

    But – and no surprise here – he actually evades further by piously bleating that “I never claimed to be perfect or ‘without error’”. But I had been referring to his material, not actually to him.

    There is so much of the shell-game and the hall-of-mirrors in both Abuseniks’ and fundies’ material and performances.

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1143PM:

    Thus – and to repeat yet again – I am not “twisting” anything he says; I am pointing out logical points that are inherent in what he says that he himself (or Himself) either doesn’t see or doesn’t want anyone else to see. Not my problem if he doesn’t like it. He can consider the realities inherent in his material more carefully and then he won’t be surprised. But, as I have said before, if he were to consider the realities inherent in his material and revealed in his material then his whole personal Cartoon would collapse like a house of cards.

    And while we have been over his favorite “childish” trope before, I haven’t sussed out just how any of my material is “cowardly”; especially in the eyes of some adult who chose to go after school-children in a school-yard to deliver his rants (variant reading from the ‘Dan’-verse: “beautiful prophecy”).

  37. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:

    The Catholic focus on the Crucifixion ‘Dan’ now declares to be an indication that Catholicism is a “cult of death”.

    But if Christ did not die, then He did not rise. And does ‘Dan’ not believe in the Resurrection (which is utterly of a piece with the Crucifixion, as is also indicated by the fact that Good Friday is inevitably followed by the Church’s most important focus, Easter Sunday and the Church’s utterly foundational and primary event, the Resurrection)?

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:

    And there can be no Resurrection without death – which Catholic theology holds to mean that in this broken world, one must never lose sight of the fact that sin and Sin will exact their toll and must always be taken into account as Christians encounter the world and human history and their own fallen nature, which is the fallen nature of all human beings.

    ‘Dan’s attempt here to stop the music at Good Friday so that his personal Cartoon will have a chair is typical of a self-serving selectivity often seen among both atheist and fundie criticisms of Catholicism.

    And thus we get his frankly ridiculous conclusion, asserted as if it could ever be demonstrated to be logically derived fact or truth, that Catholicism “is by no means ‘Christian’”. Which is also typical of what is often seen among both atheist and fundie criticisms of Catholicism.

    And since this blather is also then asserted to be yet another example of Catholic “lies”, then we can consider to just what extent ‘Dan’ is a reliable guide to what is and what is not “lies”.

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:

    In regard to the problem with ‘Dan’s take on Mary’s position in Catholic thought and theology, he merely offers a repetition of his claim, with no further explication or demonstration of how he reached this conclusion or on what (possible) material his conclusion could be accurately based.

    And he tosses  in such bits as “temple” (for church) and “pagan” for good rhetorical measure, although such deployments here do nothing to actually demonstrate or ground his claim.

    And the rest of the paragraph trails off in further riffing on that theme.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:

    He then again tries his usual no-demonstration assertion tactic by asking if I am “that dumb” as to imagine that “your cult’s sheep” (i.e. Catholics) “will buy into your stupidity?”. Thus merely an epithet trying to mimic rational demonstration that Mary is actually a “goddess” in Catholic thought. Has he any demonstrable proof – from the entire body of Catholic doctrine – that Mary is held to be a “goddess” and is divine? He has not.

    Indeed, if he tried to comb Catholic doctrine for demonstration of his assertion he would find precisely the opposite: Mary is not divine. (Which is a good reason why he has slyly decided that he shouldn’t be reading books: his Cartoon could never survive if he did.)

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 110AM:

    As to his claim of there being “pictures of every pope for the last century bowing down to her statue”: he’d have to provide the “pictures” of a pope “bowing down to her statue”, and then establish that bowing is not simply a gesture of reverence but is rather an affirmation of divinity.

    And why but why limit his rant here to Popes “of the last century”, when Mary has held her place in Christian and Catholic theology and iconography since earliest Christian times?

    Would it be because of the doctrine of the Assumption? That doctrine clearly indicates that Mary is not divine.

    And the whole bit concludes with an exhortation by ‘Dan’ to all Catholics and readers may judge it as they will.

  42. Publion says:

    And now a new twist: ‘Dan’ (the 8th at 1004AM) issues a pronouncement of “Greetings to all my fellow catholics”. Readers may consider, if somewhat bemusedly, the veracity and validity of that bit.

    Where can this performance possibly go? Let’s tune in and see.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1004AM:

    Alas, the remainder of the first paragraph doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. I, surely, didn’t claim that he’s “so well read and intellegent”. (sic)

    And in what way does calling Mary “the Queen of Heaven” constitute proof of her divinity, especially in light of the formal Catholic doctrine on the point?

    And we call the President’s wife the First Lady without in any way imagining that she has any Constitutional authority as an elected official.

    And how does he establish that Jeremiah’s “queen of heaven” (referring, as it does in Jer 44: 16-7, which repeats Jer 7: 16-20, to the Mesopotamian and Canaanite fertility cult of Astarte) is not simply part of his indictment of Israelite infidelity in Egypt (where Jeremiah’s speech of chapter 44 takes place, addressed to the Israelites there)? She, along with other gods, had been popular among Israelites under the reign of Manasseh, as indicated in 2 Kgs 21 and 2 Kgs 23: 4-14.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1004AM:

    And does it make any sense at all that the Church specifically chose the title “Queen of Heaven” for Mary, knowing of the term “queen of heaven” in Jer 7 and Jer 44, as some sort of code for a goddess?

    Rather, what we see here in this bit is another instance of that type of word-play popular among certain fundie elements: they find something in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and then presume some sort of magic whereby the Old Testament speaker foresaw the particular bugbear the current-day fundies have glommed onto as a way of weaponizing the Bible against the Church.

    So we what we have here is merely an interesting combination of a) the fundie need to somehow trawl the Bible for bits that will satisfy their current antagonisms and excitements and b) ‘Dan’s need to somehow find stuff with which he can build his own personal Cartoon.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1004AM:

    He then tries to evade his incompetent and incomplete Scriptural explications by now claiming that he “did not pull out a single verse because” – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “the whole chapter explains” – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “how ridiculous and stupid is the worship” (i.e. instituted by the Church and practiced by Catholics).

    And here we see clearly that ‘Dan’ really isn’t interested in understanding Scripture, let alone in explicating and explaining it so that others can better understand it. Rather he simply uses this and that pericope to lubricate his vituperative epitheticals against Catholicism and the Church.

    And the comment ends with a further familiar riff on some of his favorite epithetical themes, including again the queasy use of “peewee” so often noted before.

  46. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1010AM where he merely tries to word-play epithetically on “Rock”. More juvenile word games, for lack of anything better.

  47. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1143AM:

    Once again he evades any serious explanation of explication of his chosen pericopes by simply declaring that “the full chapters” of Matthew 23 and the Sermon on the Mount (that would be the 5th, 6th, and 7th Chapters of Matthew) “describe the things in which the church fails to follow or obey”.

    In other words, ‘Dan’ is saying that you just have to read what Jesus said, and then presume that the Church doesn’t “follow or obey” any of what Jesus said – and there’s your Biblical lesson for today. See? It’s all reeely reely simple!

    We are deep into the shallow but fetid fever-swamps here.

    And the whole bit riffs to its conclusion with a bit from the Book of Revelation.

    • Dan says:

      You claim, "he evades any serious explanation of explication of his chosen pericopes". For those who have the Lord's Spirit the Bible is self-explanatory. I have given you simple verses to explain my points, but you seem to prefer something "reeely reely" difficult, as you try to make things. So you want things explained more clearly, and is that so you can claim they're "irrelevant, incoherent, inappropriate, incompetent and incomplete", as you have already done. As told you before, Old Testament prophecy often predicts New Testament future things. Jesus and the Messiah's coming was predicted verbatim in the Psalms and among the prophets. That's how to tell the difference between true and false prophecy, true will actually come to pass.

      The "Queen of Heaven" of Jeremiah 7+44 and your idolatry of false goddesses absolutely lines up in several ways. Jer 7:8 "You put your trust in worthless lies. You steal and murder; you lie in court and are unfaithful in marriage". Sound familiar? Instead of unfaithful in marriage, your cult doesn't allow marriage, and goes further in raping little boys. I've witnessed your personal lies and priests flat out lie in court. Now Mary (goddess Astarte), same title, Queen of Heaven. Same worship, Jeremiah 44: 17-19 — You burn incense to her and I've seen it done in churches and by the popes. You hold up the special loaves of bread shaped like her, in the form of the moon (large host). Followed by the wine offering, which you claim is Christ's blood. So in other words your offering a blood sacrifice, much like pagans or satanists. Your image of Guadalupe resembles the horns or black moon on Astarte's head, but your church slyly moves it to her feet, to be less noticeable or obvious.

      "Astarte's most common symbol was the crescent moon (or horns), according to religious study scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell, in his book, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity." (from 'Astarte' in Wiki)

      I stated, plain as day, the passages your church refuses to "follow or obey: Don't repeat your prayers, call no one Father and explaining in detail how hypocrites dress and act are just a few of the many examples of their failures". I want people to read and study the Word for themselves and wrongly assumed you were capable. I'll help get you started. "And when you pray, do not keep babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Matthew 6:7 This most definitely describes anyone one babbling "Hail Mary", 50 times, let alone those who must do it 150 times, while praying to a false goddess. It also fits you and all your longwinded nonsense, thinking you'll be heard. Now I think you might be capable of looking up Matthew 23 and read verse 9, pertaining to titles your cult has adopted, and all the other descriptions of false leaders and hypocrites. You can do it ?!?!

      If you can't trust Jesus' Words then that would explain your not understanding His prophets or servants words. I'm surely not presuming your "[c]hurch doesn't 'follow or obey' any of what Jesus said, it's absolutely obvious they don't "follow or obey" much of anything he said, unless it's His instruction of what not to do.

      And if I've gone "deep into the shallow but fetid fever-swamps", it would only be to find where you and your unbiblical cult has been hiding. Wake up and read the Book, catholics. Don't allow hypocrites and liars to keep you from knowing the truth.



    • Dan says:

      P, I have a great study assignment for you to look up in the Bible. Find out how many times the Lord had said, He sent His servants the prophets, again and again, but they would not listen. I found 8 times in the Book of Jeremiah, alone.

      "And though the LORD has sent all His servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention." Jeremiah 25:4

      You can keep believing and trying to make others believe the same, that I am not sent by the Lord Himself, but it will definitely be to your detriment and hopefully not to others. I say that as a warning and not a threat.

  48. Jim Robertson says:

    Yawn. Isn't religion boring? Or, at least, the versions 

  49. Jim Robertson says:

    Yawn. Isn't religion boring? Or, at least, the versions that these hustlers of faith sell as Gospel.

    Two bozos on a bus; never asking: "What if God was one of us? (all of us?)"

  50. Jim Robertson says:

    Every critic who posts here is defamed by the misnomer: "juvenile". that P liar might pretend to have gravitas. A propaganda tactic the church has used for eons. We, humans, are lost children lest we follow religions lead to the sheep fleecing, and that's according to the fleecers.

  51. Publion says:

    It cannot be surprising that JR finally had to somehow remind everyone he’s still around (and should be getting some attention), without – of course –actually addressing any of the material on the table.

    For this task, the role of rodeo-clown appears best to him.

    But – since the material has taken something of a theological/Scriptural turn – then it would have to be a rodeo-clown with a (mimicry of a) theological bent, but also epithetical, of course.

    And that’s what we get in this short sequence of comments.

  52. Publion says:

    Thus on the 10th at 1237PM we get the “juvenile” bit “Yawn. Isn’t religion boring?”. Perhaps – getting ahead of myself in the comment-material in this sequence – that comment, coming as it does from a man just south of 70, doesn’t appear to him to be “juvenile”. We are once again regressed to the tables at the back of the cafeteria or the trees at the far end of the school recess lot.

    But he is genuinely irritated: he has no 3x5s to match ‘Dan’s Bible-games collection and no doubt anything that doesn’t focus on him and his card-collection would be “boring” to him in any event.

    However – doncha see? – he really finds it all “boring” simply because he is in possession of the genuine theological key to it all and the “bozos” who don’t get it are no doubt just “ignorant”, to use one of ‘Dan’s favorite terms.

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1237PM:

    And what might that key be?

    Why that key is (in quotation marks, although without identification of the reference): “What if God was one of us? (all of us?)”.  (The grammatical misuse here is perhaps intended to mimic deeply complex thought.)

    If God were one of us, then that would sound rather Christian. If so, then that bit is just a point that Christianity has been on about for millennia.

    If God were “all of us” … well, what exactly is he going for here? That we are all gods? That we are all God (and not ourselves)? That God is somehow “in” each of us like a divine spark; that starts to sound like something from the Kabbalah or even Sufism, and certainly Gnosticism. Is that what he’s going for?

    Or does he mean something like: God is in each of us through the soul, which reflects God’s presence in us as His creations, toward the fulfillment of which presence the Holy Spirit constantly prompts us …?

    Or does he know what he means at all here? Or, really, does he care?

    • Publion says:

      On, then, to JR’s of the 10th at 1242PM:

      Here he has apparently decided he has delivered enough of a vatic utterance so as to impress the impressionable and now reverts to something far more congenial: painting himself as ‘victimized’. 

      “Every critic who posts here”, he bleats, “is defamed by the misnomer ‘juvenile’”. 

      Alas, his own material indicates that neither is he “defamed” nor is “juvenile” in any way a “misnomer”.  If his voluminous record of scatology and epithets, buttressed by the “Yawn” and “boring” bits, doesn’t – to his mind – prompt thoughts of juvenilia, then one might well wonder what on earth would finally jolt his awareness in that regard. 

      And has he some particular “critic who posts here” in mind, whose material reflects sustained adult reflection and explication? If so, might he name that paragon whose material has thus far remained undeservedly un-noticed as such?


    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1242PM:

      I’m going to imagine that he has no particular such “critic who posts here” in mind. 

      Rather, the whole bit is designed to a) enable him to assume the mantle of victimization yet again, while also b) provide the basis – such as it is – for his scheduled epithet. 
      And that epithet is: I “pretend” that some material is “juvenile” simply so that I can – by implied contrast – appear to have “gravitas”. 

      This is a sly and nuanced bit; too much so – I would say – for JR’s demonstrated chops or the lack of them. 


    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1242PM:

      As to whether, instead, we have seen on this site more than one “propaganda tactic” deployed by the various Abuseniks in their efforts to burnish the Stampede (and their own status) … readers may also judge as they will. 


    • Jim Robertson says:

      When, a near, 70 year old can reference a pop song by Joan Osborne called "What if God was one of us?", and Mr. Punctuation doesn't know the reference? Who's the cultural back water.?

      As far as juvenile goes: Who's more juvenile? The person always be called such or the person doing the calling?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P-rincess Religiosity, If God is everywhere "he" is most definitely in us. If he doesn't exist "he " is nowhere, man. So very like you.

  54. Jim Robertson says:

    I wish some real Catholics would post here. Just to see if they are insulted as regularly as your victims are here.

    Who, the fuck, could admire a religion that creates a P? All he does is insult people like a schoolyard punk. This is how you entice fools to believe you follow a god of lov

  55. Jim Robertson says:

    a god of love?

  56. Jim Robertson says:

    For P and Dan, Your faith was created the same way as these symbols were; for somebody else's profit.

  57. Publion says:

    Our case study continues with ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    For ‘Dan’ there is no need of explanation or explication because – doncha see? – “for those who have the Lord’s Spirit the Bible is self-explanatory”. This bit, of course, brings us right back to square one of ‘Dan’s personal Cartoon: that he is somehow in possession of “the Lord’s Spirit” (whatever that may mean in his Cartoon-verse).

    Nor has he “given [us] simple verses to explain [his] points”. Rather, he has merely followed the usual fundie tactic of the ‘proof text’: he has an agenda / he has found some Bible quotes that have sufficient similar words or terms such that they might seem applicable to his present agenda / and thus he simply i) makes his (otherwise un-grounded) assertions, accusations and claims and ii) tosses in the quoted Scripture bit as his (Cartoon-version of) ‘evidence’ and explication and explanation.

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    As may have occurred to readers, this tactic is designed not to enlighten those who – in the Cartoon’s terms – do not “have the Lord’s Spirit”. Rather, it is designed to a) enable the asserter to make his/her claims and b) shroud the oddities or weaknesses or problems with those claims under the mantle of Scripture through the deployment of the selected pericope.

    Thus, the performance is already rigged by its own scripted-dynamics to be a consoling ego trip for the asserter: s/he is already presumptively in possession of “the Lord’s Spirit” (that 007 warrant) and is merely announcing the results to the unenlightened.

  59. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    And we see this again when he continues the game by claiming that he has “told” us “before”, again (and manipulatively) presuming that his material is for ‘telling’ (as if it were indubitable and factually demonstrated) and therefore is not open to doubt, question, or contradiction of any sort.

    And this bit is deployed in the service of his presumption that “Old Testament prophecy often predicts New Testament future things”.

    The problem is in the “predicts” or prediction bit: there is more than the whiff of the magical in it, as if the OT writer could foresee specific later (even current times) events.

    The Church uses the concept of ‘foreshadowing’, in the sense that God’s plan and Spirit provided in the writings of the Spirit-inspired OT writers templates or images that would find their fulfillment in Christ (thus, for example, Isaiah’s ‘Suffering Servant’). But there is nothing of the fortune-teller or the tea-leaves in any of it.

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    Also, much of what the OT writers (such as Jeremiah in the passages under consideration here) ‘saw’ was simply a general human dynamic (falling away from Yahweh into idolatry, for example, or theft or murder or sin) that any observant human of any era could reasonably understand to be a deep-seated and thus recurring human characteristic.

    Thus from looking at the human situation of his own era a writer might predict further human idolatry or unfaithfulness or even wars in future human eras, without at all having specific later events in mind.

    This is the great mistake that fuels – as we have so often seen – frenzied efforts to apply the Book of Revelation, for example, to any era’s current events to ‘prove’ that this or that current situation in any era was or is indubitably a sign of some Biblical ‘end –time’ or ‘final days’ that was or is just about to break through into history.

  61. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    One can certainly see in OT passages where references to Christ’s coming could be seen as ‘foreshadowed’ or even ‘foretold’, according to God’s plan.

    But once you move beyond that into an attempt to use the Bible as a specific map or menu of current events that were ‘prophesied’, then you wind up on mushy ground indeed, since the general forms of human unfaithfulness and failure are endemic to the species and could be ‘true’ in any era.

    But some mentalities need such magic and the certainty it seems to bring, and some personalities also  – in so many cases – crave or need the status that derives from claiming to be a ‘successful’ fortune-teller or – if you wish – divinely-inspired or divinely-authorized ‘prophet’.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    And ‘Dan’s conclusion in that first paragraph is purely circular: the ‘prophet’ claims that some present entity or event X was foretold in this or that Bible passage, but the only ‘proof’ is the ‘prophet’s own claim that he has seen the present X in the past statements and thus the ‘prophecy’ must be true. Others may not see it so (and raise substantial objections) – but then that simply means that they reject the ‘prophet’ and the (or his) ‘truth’.

    What was “true” in the Scriptural writer was his accurate insight into human nature, which he saw playing itself out in the events of his time and place. That such elements of human nature would then also play out in other (future) times and places is no proof of tea-leaf, fortune-telling ‘prophecy’ as the fundies (and ‘Dan’) like to use the term.

    Rather, it is simply a perfectly expectable playing-out of the weaknesses of human nature in other (future) times and places.

  63. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    One thinks of somebody claiming that he will keep elephants off the streets of Manhattan by snapping his fingers, and then claiming the status of such insight and power by pointing out that there are no elephants in Manhattan, so clearly his efforts are vital to the continued safety and security of Manhattan.

    And – if you like – you can factor God into this mix: one might claim that one is directed and authorized by God to keep elephants off the streets of Manhattan by snapping one’s fingers / there are no elephants on the streets of Manhattan / ergo one is ‘proven’ to be God’s instrument for saving Manhattan from rampaging rogue elephants.

  64. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    Nor can one demonstrate that the weaknesses and failures in human nature that a Biblical writer accurately perceived can be uniquely and specifically and totally to any and just one future entity or event.

    Rather, those weaknesses and failures – since they are grounded in human nature itself – will manifest in many times and places, entities and events, in the future that followed the writer’s own era.

  65. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    Then ‘Dan’ – in his second paragraph – turns his attention (not to say skills) on the “queen of heaven” (not capitalized in Jeremiah; this is an addition by ‘Dan’ to create a conveniently more vivid illusion of a connection between the worship of Astarte and the Mary’s role in the Church).

    But to support this bit, ‘Dan’ merely – and as so often – tosses up some pericopes, while merely presuming that the Church is specifically and uniquely and totally characterizable as what ‘Dan’ wants the Church to be: “worthless lies”, “steal and murder” and so forth.

    But are these imprecations from Jeremiah uniquely and totally specific to the Church or to any other human institution? Would they not, rather, be applicable to a wide range of human institutions over the course of the ensuing millennia?

    Thus his giveaway “sound familiar?” bit also simply reveals clearly the usual magical approach to Scripture. It would indeed “sound familiar”. But not because Jeremiah foresaw or predicted the Church; rather, because Jeremiah realized how human nature could and probably often would play out.

    • Dan says:

      Are you convinced that you can deceive others so well as to keep them from reading or listening to God's Word, or is it just that your so deceived, you don't even realize what a lying, manipulating, word-twisting pawn of Satan you are. "Deceiving others, but being themselves deceived."

      First off, regarding your 1st accusation that I capitalized "QUEEN OF HEAVEN", "to create a more vivid illusion of a connection between the worship of Astarte and the Mary's role in the church)". Some versions of Jeremiah 44:19 capitalize "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" and as I shall prove, so does your heathen cult. And also your "worthless lies" help cement what a lying group of hypocrites you hang with. No pun intended.

      Your ridiculous statement and claim: "Mary is most certainly not seen as any sort of queen of all the gods in catholic theology." Now we'll see who truly "fails" with his lame excuses. I've already given, "Hail Holy Queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope, Hail Mary, Holy Mary, Mother of God." The brainiac doesn't know the meaning of "Hail".


      Holy Mary, Holy Mother of God, Most honored of virgins, Mother of Christ, the church, divine grace, most pure, chaste love, Mother and virgin, Sinless Mother, Dearest of Mothers, Model of motherhood, Mother of good counsel, Mother of our Creator, Mother of our Savior.

      Virgin most wise, Virgin rightly praised, Virgin rightly renowned, Virgin most powerful, Virgin gentle in mercy, Faithful Virgin.

      Mirror of justice, Throne of wisdom, Cause of our joy, Shrine of the Spirit, Glory of Israel, Vessel of selfless devotion, Mystical Rose, Tower of David, Tower of ivory, Ark of the covenant, Gate of heaven, Morning star, Health of the sick, Refuge of sinners, Comfort of the troubled, Help of Christians.

      Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs and prophets, Queen of apostles and martyrs, Queen of confessors and virgins, Queen of ALL saints, Queen conceived without sin, Queen assumed into heaven, Queen of the rosary, Queen of families, Queen of peace. Blessed be the name of the Virgin Mary, Now and Forever. (Notice Queen capitalized and worshipped.)

      This prayer is so plaqued with blasphemy, idolatry and unbiblical statements, that even you, as the Publiar, should be ashamed of your blatant ignorance. I'll explain just a few terrible lies. a) Christ said, "All have sinned and fallen short" b) "All who came before me are theives and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them." John 10:8 c) "While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Jesus spoke to his disciples, Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:46-50 So it's possble that your "Queen of Heaven" you worship, wasn't even saved, and left out in the cold. d) I do agree with one title, "Refuge of sinners". What could more perfectly describe your cult of liars, hypocrites, pedophiles and perverts, thinking you can hide under Mary's dress to find forgiveness for your crimes against humanity and God. Maybe better than under your priests and hierarchy's dresses, which your known for.

      Your cult "most certainly" does honor, revere, idolize and absolutely worship Mary, "Queen of Heaven", even above God, the Creator. It is the most disgusting, despicable bunch of lying hypocrites, including yourself, to ever exist on earth. Look up the meaning of honor, revere and idolize and find the synonym "worship".    servant and friend of the Almighty

      P.S. I believe you're confused, it's your cult that worships images. So maybe you're seeing "illusions" of a "tuna- [fish-head]- sandwich" on the crown of pope francis. Be nice and maybe he'll let you nibble at his delicacies, Perverter of Truth.



    • Dan says:

      Yeah. I see I misspelled thieves. By the way, you need a thorough lesson on prophets, prophecy and prophesying in the Spirit, because you haven't got a clue of the meaning or how it works. I think you've been to too many psychics for your readings. Good luck with that.

    • Dan says:

      Addendum: Mary the Gate of heaven, Morning star. These terms are definitely statements defining Christ and to substitute Mary in Christ's place is utter blasphemy, goddess worship and idolatry.

      " Jesus says, "All who came before me [Mary] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved"

      Catholics- Don't allow hypocrites and liars to substitute Mary for Christ and make excuses that she's a mediatrix, another Gate to enter heaven or worship as another Morning Star. Lies, lies and more lies. Something your cult has the market cornered on, besides it's pedophilia and perversions with little boys. Read the Lord's Word and find true freedom from false cults.

    • Dan says:

      Addendum 2- Other "human institutions over the course of the ensuing millennia", don't have a duplicate of Astarte named Mary, a)"Queen of Heaven", b) burn incense to her, c) make cakes in the form of the moon (host), and d) have images of her with a similar crescent moon or bull's horns. Wrong once again, mocker.     servant of the Lord

    • Dan says:

      Addendum 3- I forgot, e) Raise the chalice to her, full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immoralities" , as a blood sacrifice to their "Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World", also known as the catholic, "Queen of Heaven". Revelations 17: 1-9  For the complete description. This describes your church, and let no lying deceiver tell you different. Later, mocker!

  66. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    And of course he gives more of his own game away as he slyly tosses in his usual bits about how he has “witnessed your [referring to whom or what?] personal lies” in his multi-variant stories about his assorted misadventures with the police, the courts, and psychiatry. (And since he has personally witnessed “priests flat out lie in court”, then clearly he has been in court before.

    And again with the sly if simplistic attempt to equate the Biblical “queen of heaven” (referring to Astarte) with the Church’s reverential title for Mary, “Queen of Heaven”. But while Astarte may have been seen as the queen among the gods of heaven to her adherents, Mary is most certainly not seen as any sort of queen of all the gods in Catholic theology. And thus one of his favorite 3x5s fails here.

  67. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    His further efforts in this paragraph to grasp for assorted equivalences are just that: efforts to try to connect dots that are not connectable in any rational way. (But of course in a Cartoon-verse, anything can happen and thus ‘Dan’ preference for operating in a Cartoon-verse.)

    I would classify these efforts of ‘Dan’ here with those of people who claim to see the image of Jesus in a tuna-sandwich or in the moisture patch on a refrigerator door.

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    In his next paragraph ‘Dan’ will attempt to improve his mimicry-performance of a competent assessor by quoting a bit about Astarte and the crescent moon symbol. But the key issue is – rather – whether Mary is considered a goddess or queen of the gods in Catholic doctrine, and she is not. Nor has ‘Dan’ proffered any substantive evidence to the contrary; instead, he plays his word-games and tries to connect dots in visions that he claims to see – and that’s a game that can go on and on and no doubt has for quite some time.

    • Dan says:

      "Substantive evidence to the contrary" on April 12 @ 11:48 pm. And by the way, your obsession with "Cartoons", most likely manifested itself from being so deeply immersed in the Cartoon fastasy called the catholic cult. When you come from the day-room after you've enjoyed your playtime with Napoleon, you might want to mention that to your psychic. Maybe she can read your tea leaves and afterwards make some of your favorite kool-aid, catholic apologetic ale. It might help with your sleep and you wont be so irritable and nonsensical in the morning. Maybe you'll stop your ignorant mocking.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    What ‘Dan’ has “stated plain as day” are merely his own eructations, which in his Cartoon-verse he considers to be “plain as day”. All that’s “plain as day” is that he has some whacky personal visions and eructations and that’s all there is to it.

    Nor will anybody’s undertaking to “read and study the Word for themselves” necessarily lead to any such “plain as day” conclusions as have fixated ‘Dan’. You have to hold your head at a very odd angle indeed to see ‘Dan’s stuff as being on the level “plain as day”.

  70. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1150PM:

    And again: the problem is not that we don’t “trust Jesus’ Words”; it is that Jesus’ Words don’t clearly indicate what ‘Dan’ is convinced they indicate as “plain as day”, i.e. that the Church is an almost anti-Jesus organization.

    As many who have fashioned Napoleon hats for themselves cawn’t see why they aren’t accorded the respect and status due so accomplished an imperial historical figure.

    But ‘Dan’ – with the god-hat he has fashioned for himself (or Himself) – has an explanation for that: it’s all because of “ignorance” and “lies”. Thus both his (or His) Scriptural fever-visions and the testimony lodged against him about his own acts and words in court are all due to “ignorance” and “lies”.

    And thus we get this stupefying hash that we see here.

  71. Publion says:

    On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1223AM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ will toss in a further advertisement for himself (or Himself) by attempting to include himself (or Himself) among all of the servants and prophets, among the ranks of whom he (or He) has awarded himself (or Himself) a membership card.

    And he does so in a typically evasive and manipulative fundie way: he contents himself (or Himself) with toting up the number of times his advertisement occurs in the text of Scripture. And doesn’t that look imposing?

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1223AM:

    But the real question is not how many times the Bible makes reference to servants and prophets. Rather, the key question is whether ‘Dan’ is genuinely to be numbered among them or whether he is simply really off the rails.

    Again: the stereotypical inmate in the self-fashioned Napoleon hat doesn’t actually get at the nub of the (or his) problem by demonstrating the historical reality of the person known as Napoleon. The real problem is whether this person in the day-room is now actually and genuinely Napoleon-returned.

    • Dan says:

      Off the Rails? Your rusted out, delapidated train of lies and excuses has been waiting decades to be thrown into the fire pit of hell and melted down through eternity! How's that for an "eructation" you can stick in your mocking pipes and belch out more of your nonsensical garbage.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1223AM:

    And the whole bit concludes – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – with a threat (or “warning”, if you prefer) that God’ll getcha for not believing that ‘Dan’ is “sent by the Lord Himself”.

    In the sense that all human beings are “sent” into this world by virtue of their creation by God, then ‘Dan’ may rightly consider himself thus “sent”.

    But as a 007, super-specially informed and guided Mouth of God … ‘Dan’s performances and whatever fuels and drives them are something else rather entirely.

  74. Publion says:

    On the 11th at 1108AM JR demonstrates one of his life accomplishments: he is familiar with a range of pop singers. I haven’t kept up with pop-singers.

    Did she ‘sing’ the grammar? Or has he actually – could it be? – consulted the text of the song? If he has consulted the text, then that’s a good habit; he should use it when considering his assertions as to texts (such as the 1985 Doyle proposal or the 1962 Instruction) here.

    As to his juvenile attempt to evade and deflect the juvenility of so many Abusenik comments: readers may consult the record here and consider as they will.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "One of my life accomplishments".

      What are your life accomplishments, Sunshine?  Lying about people who were raped as children? 

      What have you "kept up on"? Life after death? Now there's the penultimu

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The rest of my above statement vanished. I can not bother to type it again. FYI

  75. Publion says:

    As to JR’s comment of the 11th at 1112AM:

    Not much indication of any reflection on the rather significant theological points as issue. But he does manage to conclude with an epithet, and that’s about the best he ever does.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Says you! A lying protector of rapists and their enablers.

      Who would believe you about anything?

    • Publion says:

      On the 11th at 1117AM JR bleats the wish that “some real Catholics would post here”. 

      I have often wished that some genuine victims would post here; and perhaps some competent pro-Stampede types. But as I have said, after all these years and all the comments amassed, that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Perhaps because there are so few of either. 

      And then some scatological epithetical stuff. 

      But – marvelously oblivious to the recoil – JR then deploys “insult people like a schoolyard punk”. 

      If you don’t give JR what he wants, then you “attack” and “insult” him (for his epithets, scatology, un-grounded assertions and false claims) and don’t Christian-ly “love” him. And maybe he’ll try to get back at you by making false claims. That doesn’t seem to be an impossible scenario at all, come to think of it. 


    • Jim Robertson says:

      BAAAAAAAAAAAAA! You are a humbug.

  76. Dan says:

    Jim, You make a big mistake when you equate God with all the false religions of the world. I want you to know that my beliefs have nothing to sell, no temples, no crosses to wear and no fleecing whatsoever. The God I know is far from "imaginary" and my walk with Him has been anything but "boring", yet maybe so to the unbeliever. Maybe you think David was a fool, but history says different. This is his Psalm 14:1-4

    The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

    The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.

    They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.

    Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up My people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?

    All God asks is that we seek Him out and believe in him, make an effort to change our ways and He'll help us through our struggles in this world. Is that too much for a perfect Creator to ask from sinful man. He is under no obligation to love us, yet He not only loves immensely, but also sacrificed His son to show how great His love and forgiveness reaches. I feel sorry for your not realizing that. I'd appreciate your not grouping me with p. We are polar opposites.

  77. Jim Robertson says:

    God and life after death are inventions of man. Created to control and enslave their fellow humans. All without a smidgen of truth or proof to back up such a gigantically silly scam.

    Do you still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy? (You know Santa's how they got you to believe in a "God' in the first place. He knew who was naughty or nice too.)

    I would guess your answer to be: No.

    But God and Jesus and Original Sin and heaven and hell. That nonsense not only do you believe but you spend huge parts of your one life trying to convince other people that your brand of stupid is smarter than P's brand of dumb. A waste of everybody's time.

    If there is a god; He; She; It ;They are silent. Mum's the word according to "God".So really "God" asks for nothing from us nor does she offer anything to us but silence.

    Other animals don't pray; nor do they proselytize. Follow their lead.

    The Taoists don't believe in a "God" they just stand in awe of the Universe. Good enough for moi.

    If there were a "God" who created a Hell?  He's a psychopath.

    You want to worship a mass murderer? 6 million children, under the age of 4, starve to death every year or die of some horrible diseases created by this "Big Daddy". Some God O' Love! No wonder fools worship "Satan". He has to be better than a "God" who burns people forever.

    Of course, I'm kidding about the "devil". "He" doesn't exist either.

    Please! Could you all just go and sin no more and shut up about "God"? He ain't saying bugger all. Why should you?

    • Dan says:

      Tell me, what have I said or done, so bad to you, to deserve this. First, I'm a bozo on the bus with p and now you've found some excuse to blast God. Blaming God for the evil actions of man's greed, wickedness and falsehoods, not to mention Satan's role in this world's evilness, is totally asinine. You are not aware that much of starvation and disease is caused from man's wicked behavior. You are definitely a very confused person, and from your material, I fail to see you coming up with any better choices, unless they're selfish and greedy. God didn't rape you, nor has he yet sent you to Satan's hellfire. I think you might want to rethink who's to blame in Jim's madeup "Universe". Are you aware that Taoists have manmade temples and worship false gods and goddesses. Sounds to me like, out of the frying pan and into the fire. And good luck to you with all that.

  78. Jim Robertson says:

    "Change my ways"? "Change my ways"?

    Let your mass murdering firebug change "His" ways.

    "He" gets a big fat F as far as compassion and justice goes.

    • Dan says:

      I'm sure God is very concerned on how you grade him when it comes to "compassion or justice". I'm sure you'd give yourself a big fat A, because you're really the true creator of everything and have done such a good job of it. Let me know where I can go to bow down to Jim.

    • Dan says:

      One might claim he's an atheist and I can accept his opinion, but blame God for everything bad in the world, call Him names along with illusions that He is a She or an It, thinking Satan is a better choice, well go ahead, cause apparently you've made yours. I had some respect for you and some of the things done to you, but you surely won't get any more respect from me.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If your "God" is everywhere and is the creator of and owner of the universe and created a hell where humans who don't "love him" enough burn forever and ever; who else is there to blame for such a system's failures. You give him all credit but none of the blame for its' failures. No! it's little old us that's the problem? If the product doesn't work "correctly" I blame the maker.

      Dan, you've, at worst, only bored me with your "God" stuff; and allowed the dialog here to become a rehash of the Reformation.

      Bozo on the bus" is a lyric from the Joan Osborne song. "What if God was one of us? Just some bozo on the bus". I'm a bozo; you're a bozo; God's a bozo. You are in good company.

      If God chooses to remain silent why d

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If your "God" is everywhere and is the creator of and owner of the universe and created a hell where humans who don't "love him" enough burn forever and ever; who else is there to blame for such a system's failures. You give him all credit but none of the blame for its' failures. No! it's little old us that's the problem? If the product doesn't work "correctly" I blame the maker.

      Dan, you've, at worst, only bored me with your "God" stuff; and allowed the dialog here to become a rehash of the Reformation.

      Bozo on the bus" is a lyric from the Joan Osborne song. "What if God was one of us? Just some bozo on the bus". I'm a bozo; you're a bozo; God's a bozo. You are in good company.

      If God chooses to remain silent why don't you?

  79. Publion says:

    As I said, the “Queen of Heaven” bit was one of ‘Dan’s favorite and perhaps core 3x5s and he is not at all happy to have it exposed.

    For readers who have never run into a fundamentalist-type mentality, both ‘Dan’ (as a religious type of the fundamentalist) and JR (as a Stampede/Abuse type of fundamentalist) serve as usefully informative and demonstrative types for consideration and so I continue with their material.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      As a liar, you are fundamentally abusive ,P.

      Listen we all know you're a priest.(Only a priest would wax on, so boringly, about religion. Shouldn't you be out playing gol ; or haunting the boys shower room?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      golf. Sheeeesh!

  80. Publion says:

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:

    As usual, he opens by trying to spin his following material just to make sure he’s made a hefty effort to manipulate any reader’s response. And don’t forget the numerous epitheticals (“pawn of Satan” is nicely vivid, although a bit predictable).

    He claims that “some versions” of the Bible will capitalize Jeremiah’s “queen of heaven” phrase. He proffers no actual examples. But there is every chance that fundie Bibles may well so do, precisely to achieve the same agenda that ‘Dan’ is trying to push here.

    He then dons the Wig of Competence with his insistence that he will prove it (“ as I shall prove”). Oh goody; let’s see how he does it.

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:

    A handy bit of advice: excise all of the a) epithets and b) mere undemonstrated claims for which mere repetition of his usual bits are proffered … and see what ‘substance’ is left in ‘Dan’s material here.

    He then tries to base his position on the use of “Hail” in the prayer “Hail, Holy Queen”. He apparently presumes (or needs to presume, anyway) that “Hail” is a greeting only reserved to royalty or divinity. No demonstration of that, and readers may consider as they will.

    Nor has he in any way addressed the vital and glaring and massive problem for his ‘theory’: Mary is not in any place in Catholic theology proclaimed to be a goddess, nor a queen of all the gods. So all he’s got here is the usual fundie word-game and word-play gambit.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:

    And then we just get the prayer itself, quoted.

    At the end of which, ‘Dan’ will then deliver a whole passel of his usual bits (i.e. epithets and irrelevant Scriptural pericopes).

    Although the rhetorical word-play with “Refuge of sinners” is a nifty one, the way he tries to weaponize it against – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – the Church and Catholicism.

    And is ‘Dan’ actually now trying to say that in calling Mary “my mother” then Jesus Himself was proclaiming her ‘queen’? But then “my brothers” would also be proclaimed gods of some sort.

    Although how, then, ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ gets to the possibility that Mary “wasn’t even saved, and left out in the cold” does stretch things. Is it possible that Jesus wouldn’t ‘save’ Mary, His mother, along with the rest of humanity?

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:

    And none – absolutely none – of what ‘Dan’ has tossed up here even begins to justify his assertion that Catholicism “does honor, revere, idolize and absolutely worship Mary” as a queen-goddess among the many gods of heaven.

    The words “honor” and “revere” (accurately enough deployed here) are not synonymous with “idolize” and “absolutely worship”. This is simply another of ‘Dan’s efforts to scoop in anything he can to push his agenda on this point of Mary-as-Queen of Heaven.

    And – for the cherry on top of this sundae – ‘Dan’ will then proclaim that the Church doth “worship” Mary “even above God, the Creator”. And how he reached that stupefying claim is anybody’s guess; it’s not in any of the material he has proffered here, nor in any Catholic doctrine, dogma, or theology.

  84. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:

    And he concludes that penultimate paragraph with another demonstration of fundie, ‘Dan’-verse word-play: the words are in a thesaurus as being synonymous. It may very well not occur to persons unfamiliar with books and language that a thesaurus is not in any way a precise instrument, but only a general sort of ‘help’ or ‘prompt’ resource.

    Thus, for example, in Roget’s 2nd edition of its “Super-Thesaurus” the term “embellish” is proffered as a synonym for “emblazon”. But that isn’t quite accurate since there are many usages (such as, say, to “embellish” a story or claim) where the purported synonym (“emblazon” in this case) won’t work at all.

    So ‘Dan’ – now sitting surrounded by both Bible and a thesaurus – may seem to himself to be doing ‘research’ in order to ‘prove’ stuff, but it’s all just a mimicry.

  85. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1148PM:

    And at this point, I permit myself a “P.S” along the lines of ‘Dan’s oft-preferred style: I believe ‘Dan’ is neither altogether well nor competent in the skills necessary to demonstrate, to prove, or to establish. He has, rather, all of his little 3x5s on the basis of which he makes assertions that he cannot demonstrate or prove or establish.

    And – marvelously – he introduces “Perverter” into the epithetical mix, with – as always – utterly no awareness of its potential for recoil.

  86. Publion says:

    On the 13th at midnight he then opines that I “need a thorough lesson on prophets, prophecy and prophesying in the Spirit” since I “don’t have a clue of the meaning or how it works”.

    I will let the record here provide readers with the material to consider and judge ‘Dan’s assertion as to my capacities as to “prophets” and “prophecy”.

    But his “prophesying in the Spirit” bit is useful: it is a fundie theory wherein anyone who feels so moved can declare that “the Spirit” is upon him/her and s/he has a “prophecy” to deliver and that “prophecy” must be taken as God’s Word.

    This remarkable bit was inherent in Luther’s first foray into sola scriptura, the theory that Christians need no Church, but instead can and must wade into the Bible for themselves and see what they find for themselves there. Of course, Luther never imagined that when they did so, anybody might claim to find anything at all in the text.

    And – sure enough – within a short time Luther’s movement was riven to its core by numerous persons who claimed not only not to find Catholicism in the Bible but also not to find Luther in there either. And thus the orchestra, shorn of its conductor, simply dissolved into a cacophony where each instrument played its own tune at its own tempo. And thus we get ‘Dan’.

  87. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 217AM ‘Dan’ will note my point about “substantive evidence to the contrary” but doesn’t actually address it.

    Instead, he goes into an epithetical riff about “Cartoons”, essentially doing the old I’m Not/You Are softshoe.

  88. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 249AM ‘Dan’ will toss in more terms of reverence as if they somehow established that they demonstrate irrefutably that in Catholic theology Mary is a queen of all the gods in heaven.

    They don’t, as I have explicated above.

    And then – again utterly oblivious to the dangers of its recoil – he again wades into another epithetical riff about “lies”. Because if ‘Dan’ doesn’t want to hear it – either about Mary or about his own hugely questionable proclivities as demonstrated in his words and actions around children – then it can and must be only “lies, lies and more lies”. (Stage directions here: center stage, spotlight on ‘Dan’, back of one hand to forehead, other hand clutched over heart, music swelling to crescendo; use caution so back of hand to forehead doesn’t knock Wig askew or completely off.)

  89. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 3AM ‘Dan’ will then try to introduce as evidence what hasn’t been demonstrated and what is precisely in question: Has he indeed demonstrated that Mary is “a duplicate of Astarte”? He has not. Except in his own mind / which is to say, the ‘Dan’-verse / where he (or He) is pope and king of the ‘verse.

  90. Publion says:

    And then at 318AM on the 13th ‘Dan’ will merely pump in some more effluvium: here he simply deploys some of the characteristics of the worship of Astarte as if he has already demonstrated that Astarte = Mary.

    • Dan says:

      I'm perplexed, Are you really that dense, stupid or ignorant, or is it just about disputing anything I put out there, in hopes that your cult will not listen to my advice and will remain brain-dead and brainwashed goats, bleating as the pied-piper leads them to destruction. I have not only demonstrated, but I have proven and established that your cult worship of Mary, "Queen of Heaven", is worse and deeper than the pagan worship of Astarte. How do I claim that? Your slew of prayers and statements (i.e. Mother of God), your proliferation of statues and temples dedicated in her name and honor, and your popes crowning and bowing to her image. You need more proof? I've watched programing on your catholic channel, EWTN for years and it's splattered with images of Guadalupe and statues of Mary, and consistently pushing the praying of the rosary. Not enough? Then check out these statements from your catechism.

      963- "The Virgin Mary…is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer."  You clowns labeled her "Queen of Heaven."

      971- "From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs." I don't know about you catholics but I go to God and to my Savior in all dangers and needs. To do otherwise would be to put Mary before God and Christ, which they do. They only give lip service to God and Christ, while worshipping the works of their hands, statues, images temples, stained glass, mosaics and all the other garbage they sell to the lost, while they claim their idolatry will bring you closer to god. Blatant liars, telling blatant lies.  servant

      P.S. In regards to my "fundie" Bibles capitalizing "Queen of Heaven". I read and love a Catholic Bible and Good News Bible with the catholic imprimatur, and both versions capitalize "Queen of Heaven". And again, Publiar, wrong again. Boy am I getting used to saying that, often.

  91. Publion says:

    As for the most recent JR crop: readers may consider it all as they will in terms of “juvenile”.

    And have we not discovered at least one person “lying” about being “raped as children”?

  92. Jim Robertson says:

    Let's see I'm attacked sexually at school by my teacher; yet I'm the one lying? I'm lying because I use the word, rape to describe an adult religious forcing a child to touch his (the abuser's) genitals?

    And the defender of rapists, P, thinks he's made a major point? Well! that's sure caught me out as a liar! If I wasn't penetrated I wasn't harmed? Fuck you!

  93. Publion says:

    On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    In a fresh attempt at mixing-and-matching, ‘Dan’ now dons the Wig of Sober Bemusement (he’s “perplexed”) while also playing the same one-note tune on his kazoo (am I “really that dense, stupid or ignorant …?”).

    Because – doncha see? – once ‘Dan’ has put up his god-gram inspired stuff, then it only remains to agree with him or to “mock God”. There can be no other alternative. This presumption of his derives from that fundie ‘prophesying in the Spirit’ bit discussed yesterday. ‘Dan’ has declared himself (or Himself) possessed of a “prophecy” / it has to be accepted as such / therefore it is God’s Word and ‘Dan’ is God’s Mouth.

    Then an epithetical riff on Catholics and the Church (so much for the Wig of Sober Bemusement).

  94. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    Then – in just another deployment of the I’m Not/You Are softshoe, he doth declare and proclaim that he has indeed “not only demonstrated, but I have proven and established” that Catholics consider Mary a goddess and indeed queen-goddess of Heaven.

    He has, alas, done no such thing(s).

    He asserted his claim / he accepted that Astarte is the subject of Jeremiah’s indictment / he pointed out some of the characteristics of Astarte-worship / he quoted a bunch of reverential prayers addressed to Mary as the Mother of God.

    But he hasn’t demonstrated a) that Jeremiah was ‘prophesying’ the Catholic worship of Mary as a goddess and queen of all the gods of Heaven; nor b) that Catholics actually worship Mary as a divinity.

  95. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    And, indeed, ‘Dan’s ‘theological’ foray to the effect that by naming Mary as His “mother” He may be considered to have acknowledged her own god-hood fails:

    If Mary is a goddess, then she did not need to be “saved” in the first place;

    If, by the terms of ‘Dan’s interpretation of Jesus’s statement, Mary is a goddess, then His “brothers” are also divinities;

    There is absolutely no Catholic doctrine or dogma – past or present – proclaiming Mary to be divine.

  96. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    And, instead, all that ‘Dan’ has tossed up has been fundie word-play and word-games, accompanied by assorted pericopes that either don’t clearly establish ‘Dan’s assertions or else create even more theological problems than they purport to solve.

    It would certainly appear that the ‘Dan’-verse definitions of “prove” and “demonstrate” and “establish” mean nothing more than a) making your assertions (or – if you wish – “prophecy”) and then b) larding on whatever pericopes might be shoe-horned into a simulacrum of evidence, either by word-play or by simply accepting the presumptive and irrefutable accuracy of ‘Dan’s “prophecy”.

    This is a script and performance that will only work in front of a certain kind of audience, i.e. one that already agrees with the presumptions underlying it.

  97. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    Thus, to cap it here, the “slew of prayers and statements” (and does ‘Dan’ deny Mary’s maternity of Jesus here?), the “proliferation of statues and temples dedicated in her name and honor” (the Church has no “temples”; this is just another slyly deceptive rhetorical effort by ‘Dan’ to establish the appearance of the Church as “pagan”), and various Popes “crowning and bowing to her image” (as reverence, not as worship – there is a distinct difference) … all of these favorite preferred bits from ‘Dan’s pile of 3x5s do not actually establish or prove his original assertion at all.

    But, sunk in his “ignorance” (driven by whatever personal dynamics are on the boil within him), ‘Dan’ can on this basis assume the Wig of Outraged Knowledge and denounce any doubters and questioners as full of “ignorance” and “lies” and so on and so forth.

  98. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    ‘Dan’ will then try his hand at quoting from “your catechism”. He refers to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (For whatever editorial purposes, pronouns referring to God and Christ are not capitalized, and I will follow that protocol here in quoting from the Catechism.)

    But, as usual with fundies merely looking for weapon-izable ‘proof texts’ for their own agenda and eructations, ‘Dan’ has simply picked a paragraph (963) that doesn’t actually reach the key point.

    That key point would be in paragraph 488: “’God sent forth his Son’, but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free cooperation of a creature.” (Italics mine.) Mary is neither a goddess nor a divinity but rather “a creature”, i.e. a human being.

  99. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    And having quoted paragraph 963 the only thing ‘Dan’ can then do is to huff and sniff that he personally prefers to go to “God and Christ”. That’s as may be; but some human beings – and not a few – have chosen over the ages to deal with a human intermediary, and Mary is that human intermediary.

    And – let’s face it – if ‘Dan’ has made a habit of going to “God and Christ in all dangers and needs” then that doesn’t seem to have been working for him.

    And that paragraph then trundles on in a further ‘Dan’-riff presuming to know the mind of all those who call on Mary for help (“they only give lip service to God”, doncha see?) and we need go no further into ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse about it.

    And he concludes with the histrionic but worthless “blatant liars, telling blatant lies” bit.

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 241AM:

    On, then, to his “P.S.”:

    The Good News Bible is put out by the American Bible Society and is not a translation officially embraced by the Church.

    There are a number of translations authorized by the Church but there is no single translation that would be characterizable as “a Catholic Bible” so ‘Dan’ would have to be more specific here as to the particular translation to which he refers.

    Readers so inclined may want to review the Cathechism, both paragraphs 488 and 963. They may also want to consider Pius XII’s encyclical  Ad Coeli Reginam issued on October 11, 1954, which deals very specifically and at length with the topic of Mary as “Queen”.

    In the encyclical, Pius XII notes that since Christ is King, then (if you follow the royalty-protocols) Mary can be considered and has always been considered “Queen”; I would say that perhaps Queen-Mother (i.e. Mother of the King) would be more precise but she remains, as paragraph 488 of the Catechism clearly states, “a creature”.

  101. Publion says:

    On, then, to JR’s of the 14th at 1118AM, referring to my comment of the 13th at 251PM.

    Let’s see.

    The first thing to note is that he no longer deploys his ‘child rape’ description. Instead we get “attacked sexually” – which reflects recent discoveries here, but still leaves us with the credibility of JR as an allegant for the ‘sexual attack’.

    And then he tries to steer for the ever-congenial high-ground of victimization: when he claimed that he was “raped”, then is he – poor little he? – to be held responsible for using that term and thus consequently now suffering the implication that he was “lying”?

    Well – not to put too fine a point on it – Yes. The term ‘rape’, especially used in a legal context but also in a moral context, has a very very definite denotation. And that term – as was established here on a recent thread – is not in any way applicable to the case (no sexual penetration, over the age of 16 at the time) here.

  102. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1118AM:

    Had he said that he ‘preferred’ to think he was child-raped, then it might have been a more justifiable deployment of the term. But then, you don’t build a Stampede on careful distinctions.

    Having thus made his stab at the victim-y high-ground, JR will then immediately doff the Wig of Outraged Innocence and settle down for something in the distracting-epithet line, ever more congenial to him: I am “the defender of rapists”, of course, and – with a repellent slyness – I only ‘think’ that I’ve “made a major point” about the non-veracity of his claim.

    He was not raped nor quite possibly a child. That does quite a bit to a claim of ‘child rape’.

  103. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1118AM:

    And he then deploys another repellently sly bit: he creates something I never said in order to justify putting his Wig of Victimization back on: “If I wasn’t penetrated I wasn’t harmed”. I never said that (but accuracy that doesn’t serve his purposes doesn’t seem to appeal to JR).

    To recap my basic position: first, we have to establish that a certain act X happened; then we have to establish that the harms claimed (or derangements presently exhibited) by the allegant were a direct and specific result of the claimed act X (and not, say, characteristics that had been there before the alleged act X was committed). And we have to consider if it is considered actually possible by relevant science that such characteristics or harms could be caused by the alleged act X.

    But, with the Wig back on, he still can’t avoid stepping out of character (or, rather, into his basic one) to deliver his concluding epithet.


  1. [...] Philly Abuse Accuser Who Sent Three Priests and Teacher To Prison Admits To False Abuse Claims and M… [...]