***TheMediaReport.com SPECIAL REPORT *** Lawsuit by Ex-SNAP Insider Exposes Lawyer Kickback Schemes, Exploitation of Victims, and Corruption of SNAP [w/ Court Docs]

Barbara Blaine : SNAP lawsuit : David Clohessy

Exposed in the courts: SNAP president Barbara Blaine (l) and SNAP director David Clohessy (r)

A callous disregard for victims. Financial kickbacks from Church-suing tort lawyers. Retaliation.

A stunning new civil lawsuit filed in Illinois by a former insider at SNAP confirms what many of us have known all along: SNAP is not an organization designed to help victims of clergy sex abuse but a gang hellbent on shaking down the Catholic Church through a seedy web of lawyer kickback schemes, lawsuits, and bigotry.

Dennis Coday at the National Catholic Reporter was the first to report the news of this stunning lawsuit.

[**Click to read the actual must-see lawsuit filed against SNAP (pdf)**]

Gretchen Hammond was hired by SNAP in 2011 as director of development to oversee the group's fundraising operations and to boost cash inflow to the group. Ms. Hammond did so with great success, but the more she learned about the inner workings of SNAP, the more she came to learn that SNAP was not simply an innocent "victim advocacy group." Hammond began "collecting documents in preparation of exposing SNAP's acceptance of kickbacks from attorneys."

And as the lawsuit asserts, when Ms. Hammond confronted SNAP president Barbara Blaine about her concerns about SNAP's dealings with attorneys, "the atmosphere changed at SNAP for [Hammond]," "SNAP began taking retaliatory actions against [Hammond]," and the group soon fired her. Indeed, the lawsuit is a must-read. Among the eye-openers in the suit:

  • "SNAP does not focus on protecting or helping victims – it exploits them."
  • "SNAP routinely accepts financial kickbacks in the form of donations. In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church."
  • "SNAP is a commercial operation motivated by its directors' and officers' personal animus against the Catholic Church."
  • "SNAP's commercial operation is premised upon farming out abuse survivors as clients for attorneys."
  • "SNAP callously disregards the real interests of victims, using them instead as props and tools as furtherance of their commercial fundraising goals."
  • "SNAP would even ignore survivors that reached out to SNAP in search of assistance and counseling."
  • "81.5% of SNAP's 2007 donations were donations by attorneys."

Indeed, regarding SNAP's slippery dealings with attorneys, the lawsuit highlights a November 2012 email in which, according to the lawsuit, SNAP National Director David Clohessy "provided information regarding a survivor to the attorney for the purposes of filing a lawsuit on behalf of the survivor … [and then] asked the attorney when SNAP could expect a donation." Of course.

The email that says it all

For many years, we at TheMediaReport.com have asserted that SNAP's activities have had almost nothing to do with the protection of children and everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for.

Well, Hammond's lawsuit showcases an actual email message composed by Clohessy that clearly proves our claim once again. In a 2011 email exchange, Clohessy wrote:

"i sure hope you DO pursue the WI [Wisconsin] bankruptcy … Every nickle (sic) they don't have is a nickle (sic) that they can't spend on defense lawyers, PR staff, gay-bashing, women-hating, contraceptive-battling, etc."

This lawsuit is the single largest revelation in the Catholic Church sex abuse story in years. We highly urge readers to read the actual lawsuit for themselves and spread the word.

We also wish Ms. Hammond all the best with her courageous lawsuit.

Developing …

Comments

  1. Ned K. P. says:

    Hmmm…SNAP is a fraud filled with Catholic haters who earn their living from lawyer kickbacks.  

    Is this really a surprise to anyone?

  2. KenW says:

    I think what is really significant about this story is noting who broke the story…..NCR has often rightly been accused of being overtly liberal and had often provided SNAP a free platform unchecked. But to NCR's credit, they've shown signs of very fair reporting. 

  3. Carol Sophia says:

    I never understood where they got their money from but this makes sense.  And I always suspected that they had some hatred of Catholics and that that was behind why they did their noisy protests.

    • Dan says:

      Why do catholics think that anyone who comes against catholic crimes is some sort of catholic hater? Any true christian won't hate the sinner, but will despise hypocrite sinners. Your religion is rampant with a hierarchy of lying hypocrites. If they had never committed some of the most disgusting sexual crimes against young children, then there would be nothing to criticize them for. But not only did they perform despicable perversions against minors, but also went out of there way to cover them up, all for the good of an apostate cult.

  4. KenW says:

    One must understand that a lower 6 figure salary goes a long way in Missouri. One must also understand that Clohessy doesn't have the credentials to manage a Cinnabon without SNAP. 

  5. Kick it down the road says:

    This news is such a welcomed surprise.  I can't wait for SNAP to depose all civil and criminal authorities.  Let the process begin!  What will we find?  Congratulations SNAP!

  6. malcolm harris says:

    The new guy in the White House said something about "draining the swamp" in Washington, D.C.   Well, in a similar vein, I hope that Gretchen Hammond's testimony will help to drain a different swamp, known as SNAP. Of course the swamp in Washington is largely due to lobbyists who representt special interests, But SNAP is also a lobby group…. for contingency lawyers. Because SNAP, with the help of an enthusiastic media, creates moral panic against our priests. For this service SNAP expects a reward.

    It comes in the form of generous 'donations' from the lawyers. But in this cosy arrangement no thought at all is given to the falsely accused priest who refused to plead guilty.

    He is just left to rot in an overcrowded prison cell.

  7. Dan says:

    Speaking of "draining the swamp", how about your church try that themselves, although I doubt any hierarchy would be left. Maybe you guys could start from scratch and truly make it the One True Church. You could start by tossing your false catechism and all the lies of your apostate cult.

  8. Dan says:

    Dear Carol, Thank you, coming from another possibly lying bigot of the catholic cult of excusers. Totally on point and simple truth, you hypocrites are most unwilling to admit to.

  9. Dan says:

    Add. for Carol, If your not calling people haters then your calling them bigots. Research the past history of your corrupt church and if you don't find it disgusting, then your eyes just refuse to see.

  10. Dan says:

    Dear Mark Taylor, If you're not calling those who challenge your false cult, haters, then your labeling them bigots, and when that doesn't suffice you're telling them to shut up. You catholic hypocrites are laughable.     servant of the Almighty

    • Catholic1 says:

      Dan is right on the money! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. SNAP wouldn't exist if the church didn't hide and then lie about the priests, bishops and cardinals that have allowed peodophilia to run rampant in the Catholic Church. 

       

    • Mark Taylor says:

       "If you're not calling those who challenge your false cult, haters, then your (sic) labeling them bigots, and when that doesn't suffice you're telling them to shut up."

      Dan, how dare you bare false witness against me like that?! Surely you know the 9th commandment?!

      Seriously, you are not being any better than the pedophile priests by carrying on like that. It is very wrong to label all Catholics "hypocrites". You call yourself a Christian but behave nothing like Jesus. 

      As for Catholic 1, sadly what you say about SNAP not existing if the Church hadn't behaved unChristlike itself is true, but you must realize that SNAP themselves have a lot to answer for because they don't give falsely accused priests the benefit of the doubt.

  11. James Robertson says:

    I just spent an hour writing a response to this and it's evaporated. I loathe this fucking site, I'm in Galway Ireland, hiding from Trump world. though I do praise him for ending the TPP.

    All Ms. Hammonds points in her suit are a false flag to end a false flag and have been designed to harm victims again . SNAP's a false flag. our lawyers were picked for us by the church through SNAP. and SNAP is the church and Ms. Hammond's the church or is just too dumb to notice who SNAP has always worked for the church and against victims.

    Mark Taylor you shut up. How dare you tell a victim of your rapists to shut up?

     

    • Mark Taylor says:

      I don't care if Dan is a victim or not. He has no right to be condisending towards us Catholics.

      I don't care what terrible things the Church has done. They do not justify the equally terrible things he says.

  12. Publion says:

    Well, after all these years of Stampede, a significant milestone indeed.

    If you read this TMR article and the text of the lawsuit to which it hyperlinks, and then go to BigTrial and read Ralph Cipriano’s article of the 20th and the NCReporter article to which it hyperlinks, you will glean quite a picture of what has been going on.

    As if the behavior of various of the Philly judges and the DA in the Lynn case weren’t enough, there is the fact that the then-ADA Marian Sorenson in Philly was also once on the Board of SNAP. And that SNAP was pulling in hefty ‘donations’ of up to 80 percent of its annual take from the torties, including, for the 2007 reporting year, quite a chunk from a tortie in California (where the 500-plaintiff lawsuit in Los Angeles was settled in 2006) and 161K that year from “a Minnesota lawyer” (Jeff Anderson is based in the Twin Cities).

     It was a racket, for sure, conducted under not only under color of law but also under the mantle (or Wig) of righteous Victimist Virtue.

  13. Publion says:

    One also wonders if Bishop-Accountability didn’t benefit as well, in recognition of its compiling a handy internet list of news stories and claims and so forth as a useful reference source for enterprising allegants.

    And we can see how that ‘Spotlight’ movie slyly jiggered reality in its portrayal of the Boston tortie, as if he were only a dedicated bit-player (playing second fiddle to the ‘heroic reporters’, of course) who just wanted to see ‘justice’ done in his own simple way.

    I agree with Ralph Cipriano’s concern that the exposure of all this harms the credibility of any genuine victims. But I would also say that given all the elements of the Stampede now coming to light, there has to be some significant and substantial skepticism about the dynamics and operations of this whole Stampede from the get-go.

    But the Stampede surely succeeded in opening a public space for a queasy congeries of types, as is evidenced by the ‘Dan’ stuff here, which will no doubt continue for as long as his bathroom mirror (housing that assembly of fax-happy deities who continually assure him of his role and status as God’s deputy-dawg) doesn’t crack.

  14. Publion says:

    And on the 24th at 838AM JR posts. How will he handle this grossly inconvenient development contained in the lawsuit?

    Why, with an assortment of the usual bits from his trusty grab-bag of gambits, of course.

    First, he informs one and all that he had actually written an hour’s worth of response but – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – it suddenly “evaporated”. Perhaps it’s the moist climate over there in Ireland.

    Oh – second – did he not inform us that he, in his capacity as knowledgeable world traveler, is in Ireland? That should surely enhance his status, in the absence of any substantive material to put forward. Charmingly, he either presumes the geographical ignorance of the readership or seeks to hammer home his globe-trotter creds by reminding one and all that “Galway” is in “Ireland” (not the town and village in upstate New York).

    And – third – that he, in his capacity as knowledgeable man of national affairs, is over there because he is “hiding from Trump world”. Yes, this is all Trump’s fault: the Stampede, the lawsuit, everything. We can take JR’s knowledgeable word for it all.

    Fourth – in his capacity as knowledgeable man of international affairs – that JR doth “praise” the President for “ending the TPP”, a distraction apropos of nothing on the table here except JR’s own imagined status and creds.

    • Dan says:

      PeeWee, I hadn't read this one until now, and I don't necessarily like to comment on posts directed to someone else, unless as you often do, take some cheap shot at me, thinking you're so cute. Reread your comment to Jim. You don't find these four facts you brought forth to be childish and insignificant. You need to get a life. Little, insignificant creep.  servant

  15. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 838AM:

    As to the specifics of the lawsuit, laid out in such inconvenient and organized clarity in the text of the lawsuit, JR simply tosses up his usual bit that it is all “false flag” since – as his cartoon has it – it has always been the Church that ran SNAP (and the torties and the police and DA’s and judges and the media and – why not? – the Easter Bunny too).

    The Plaintiff in the lawsuit, therefore of course, is either also a tool of the Church or else is “just too dumb” to recognize the truth and wisdom of JR’s long-cherished and carefully constructed cartoon.

    That as an attorney the Plaintiff would recognize the profound professional danger of being exposed as having filed a thoroughly untruthful lawsuit, and under pains and penalties of perjury to boot and all the rest of the lethal consequences of such a filing … such a question as to why anyone would take such a risk doesn’t interfere with his cartoon in the least. And who at this point can be surprised at that?

    The documentary evidence referenced in the lawsuit? Also not a problem for the cartoon.

  16. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 838AM:

    And in conclusion, in his imagined capacity as Victimized Tribune of the Victimry, JR doth puff up his pinfeathers, don the appropriate Wig, and doth waddle (the Wig is a heavy and ungainly one) up to the high-ground, and doth denounce with pearl-clutching outrage ‘Mark Taylor’ for daring to “tell a victim of your rapists to shut up”.

    Yet, in all of his many many many bits, ‘Dan’ has never – to my recollection – claimed to have been a victim of rape, by clerics or anyone else.  (Yes, ‘Dan’ has claimed to have been ‘victimized’ by the many “lies” of those “hundreds” who considered him not at all well, and dangerously so, but no actual rape.)

    That it is certainly possible and indeed probable that there are those who would wish ‘Dan’ would shut up, but on the basis of his whackery and not any status as having been raped … this does not appear on JR’s radar at all, perhaps since he himself is rather incapable of discerning the dissemination of outright whackery, having for so long indulged in the practice himself.

    • Dan says:

      Well, I've been mentioning the lying hypocrites of your cult and the whackjob of all catholic lying hypocrites pops up like jacked up in the box. I'd like to start by pointing out to Mr. Research, that your comprehension skills are really tanking. Case in point, 12/14/16 @ 3:33 & 3:34pm in the previous "Time to pay up" article, your criticizing 'Dan's 13th @ 2:50pm, adding more lies and mockery to your stupidity, when the comment noted was from Jim and not mine. In the comment Jim even said "I and Dan" and that didn't even tip you off to your ignorant mistake. Then you compare me to Jim with, "similar to JR's oft-used gambit", and that still doesn't tip off your peewee brain that this just might be Jim talking and not 'Dan'. Which leads me to say, "You have quite the nerve to be criticizing anyone, dummy."

    • Dan says:

      In regards to your childish, immature mocking of God's Holy Spirit and other nonsense today, I reserve the right to comment when I can respond to an adult, and not my two year old niece.

  17. James Robertson says:

    Point by point Ms. Hammond's case?

  18. James Robertson says:

    First: Yes SNAP exploits victims, but for the church, not for lawyers. The lawyers were picked by SNAP for the best interests of church, not for the best of victims. Victims have been only allowed to sue in very few states due to statutes of limitations.

    Second: Animus towards the church? Victims should be affable towards a church that abused them and protected; aided and transferred our abusers (to abuse again at will) while denying any help for victims? SNAP's animus exists to upset church members while never helping any victims by it's never mentioning our needs or injuries? Rather odd for a real victims group wouldn't you say?

    Third: Again only certain states or governments have allowed victims to sue for compensation. So why wouldn't SNAP, if it were a true victims group, be pushing for more suspensions of those statutes rather than doing nothing along those lines for victims. Strange doings if they were really nothing but a lawyer's front group? You'd think SNAP's lawyer bosses would be pushing for more opportunities to sue. Do you see that happening? I haven't.

    Fourth, I take it Ms. Hammond is suing for being fired for mentioning that SNAP is a false flag for lawyers. How old is Ms Hammond? How did she come to our cause? What were her qualifications and what was her job? Is she a victim? Is she an active Catholic? Why are you pretending to care for victims and our needs now? You never have before?  The "real scam" is supposedly having lawyers hand picked by SNAP because of donations from said lawyers? So It is, according to you and the "virtuous" Ms Hammond, reasonable for SNAP to be a lawyers front but absolutely impossible for SNAP to be a church front group created to control victims by gaining our names and picking our lawyers accordingly. Again strange lack of action if suing were the ultimate goal and not protecting the church by choosing our lawyers and speaking for us sans consent from us.

     

  19. James Robertson says:

    Publiar,  I mention Galway, Ireland because Americans are so ill educated many wouldn't know where Galway was or couldn't pick out Ireland on a map.

  20. KenW says:

    Ralph is reporting that Clohessy has resigned his position at SNAP!

  21. malcolm harris says:

    Assuming KenW, on the 24th,  is correct about SNAP Director David Clohessy resigning…… then I hope it is like the proverbial rats deserting the sinking ship. Although the explanation could be that they needed to throw a body from the ramparts…to appease the enemy now beseiging SNAP's vulnerable castle.

    We sure are living in very interesting times.

     

     

    • Dan says:

      "We sure are living in very interesting times." The exposing of your cult of hypocrites, pedophiles, blatant liars and excusers, is certainly proof of that. Remember as PeeWee states, these charges against SNAP are only allegations, and your cult should spend more energy cleaning up their own backyard.   servant

  22. Dan says:

    Hey Jim, Isn't it just like a cult of hypocrites to now act so concerned for the victims, when they demonstrated little or should I say absolutely no concern for victims, as they shipped pedophile creeps from churches to orphanages or schools or boy's choir positions. And I'm waiting for the results of their investigation into the Belgian boy's choir and the abuse of over 230 young boys, overseen by pope Ratzinger's brother. There was "A 1987 investigation of reported abuse [that] did not prompt the choir's leaders to remove Mr. Meier or take action, the [churches appointed] lawyer said." Ratzinger's brother, Georg, conducted the Regensburg choir from 1964 to 1994. Georg claims he knows nothing about the sexual abuse, when the choir was under his care in 1987. Lying, hypocrite creeps from top to bottom. Now there can be no charges or victim compensation because the Statute of Limitations has expired. How do you evil, lying, pedophile creeps live with your filthy, disgusting consciences? Or do they even possess a conscience at all? DESPICABLE!! Do they think, "If we don't mention it, possibly our dumb sheep will forget about it?" I believe this is the premiss their pope's have been depending on for centuries, including Francis. Do you hear him mention for the past year anything in regards to their abuses. Don't bring it up unless they expose or corner us. WE WILL NEVER FORGET OR ALLOW YOU TO SWEEP THESE TERRIBLE CRIMES UNDER THE RUG. Wake Up Catholics!! Come to the Light!!

  23. James Robertson says:

    Yes Dan, The fakers.

  24. Kick it down the road says:

    The mediareport says, "[w/ EXCLUSIVE Court Docs]"  Really? Like that is a "news flash." Did the court send them to you first? Isn't that public information already?  Isn't it true that for decades there have been countless court documents filed that the media chose and choses to ignore?

  25. Publion says:

    As for ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 528PM, it’s hard to tell them apart since they are both peas from the same pod:  JR holds himself to be Victimized Tribune of the Victimry; ‘Dan’ considers himself to be the oh-so-speshull deputy-dawg of God. If you don’t go along with either of their fantasy-impersonations, then they aren’t happy at all.

    Then on the 24th at 535PM he tries the now-familiar gambit of I’m Not/You Are and something about his two year old niece. The whole bit requires that we presume ‘Dan’ and God are so close as to be inseparable and that it would be “nonsense” to imagine otherwise. Ovvvvvv coursssssse.

  26. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:

    Here, JR will toss up some of his old stuff and hopes it will resemble a coherent comment.

    The first paragraph is merely his assertion – yet again – that whatever SNAP does is “for the church”. No evidence is presented to support that assertion. And some stuff about the Statute of Limitation (SOL) that doesn’t connect with the prior point at all.

    The second apparently tries to conflate the SNAP leadership’s “animus towards the church” – as evidenced by documents  quoted in the Complaint – with animus on the part of the allegants, which is not a point raised in the Complaint at all. But the conflation thus enables JR to don the old Wig and declaim his usual declamations.

    Further, JR’s effort to make some use of the “animus” fails: the SNAP leadership’s animus was expressed in documents that weren’t meant to be shared with the public, so it makes no sense to claim that such animus “exists to upset church members”.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:

    His third point is – again – more on the SOL bit; here JR once again tries to make a point that nobody on this site has ever denied: SNAP doesn’t work for victims and never has (which is precisely the point made in the Complaint). But as usual he can’t logically or with evidence get from that point to his cartoon point about the Church running the whole SNAP show (and the Stampede as well).

    SNAP’s “lawyer bosses” would surely be shrewd enough to realize that it would run an unnecessary risk to have their front-organization (fueled by kickbacks from those same “lawyer bosses”) take too high-profile a position on issues that might draw too much public scrutiny of that front organization (and given what we see quoted from Clohessy’s material in the text of the Complaint, he certainly isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier).

    The torties – themselves a rather influential interest group in Democratic circles – had less risky means of influencing legislation. They didn’t need to drag SNAP into the limelight to achieve that element in their agenda.

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:

    His fourth point tries to toss some red herrings into the mix, going on about the Plaintiff’s age and so forth.  He might want to consult the text of the Complaint, where his questions would find their answers in the history of the Plaintiff’s connection to SNAP.

    He then loses track of his presentation and starts addressing – apparently – the Plaintiff directly.

    And – yet again – SNAP didn’t pick the torties; rather – as Michael D’Amato revealed in his book – it was Jeff Anderson who picked SNAP, making Blaine that offer in 1988 to become a front-organization for torties. Once Blaine accepted the offer, then SNAP had entrée to local torties in any venue where allegants could be found. Nor does JR present either evidence or rational explanation of how the Church somehow controlled the torties.

    Any reader who can suss out the meaning or logic in the concluding bit about “strange lack of action” is welcome to share it.

    The Plaintiff, as is clear in the Complaint, was hired as a fund-raiser and not as a litigating tortie.

  29. Publion says:

    And finally to JR’s of the 24th at 511PM: here he chooses to go with the “ill-educated” option: he mentioned that Galway is in Ireland because – doncha know? – he considers readers to be so ignorant of geography that he could not be sure they would know where Galway is.

    I would say the more relevant question is whether JR is actually in Galway at all in the first place. Not that it is a question that changes much one way or the other.

    • James Robertson says:

      F U You low life scum! WW2 happened. If I repeat WW2 happened should we call the facts of it happening "tossed up old stuff"? (or perhaps we should call it an alternative fact?)

      You never saw one of SNAP's internal papers before this suit but you for 3 years have talked about nothing BUT SNAP's animus towards the church

      . What do you think we're dumb? That we have no memory. You fixed that with your endless rants right here. SNAP's animus towards the church was a real limp dick. It showed hostility towards the clergy yet never mention victims real injuries or real needs? Amazing work for a money grubbing lawyers' front. I think I'd mention such things if I was a lawyer. But as always according to you P head you know best. (You even know I'm not where I am).

      If SNAP's not for the victims and the lawyers aren't for the victims by never mentioning our injuries in order to get more compensation for us, who, then, are they for if not for the church?

      You keep saying Anderson picked SNAP first. Who cares if both were for the church. Who introduced who to whom?

      Who's Mr D"Amato when he's home. Is he pals with Mr Cipriano and the Philly mob? Is he an active Catholic. Who financed his book? Funny how all the major book writers on the subject, or reporters on the subject, are Catholic (Jason Berry and, or Italian (Cipriano and D'Amato). Just like all the SNAP leaders are active Catholics. Gee! I'm so surprised.

      And you would believe that the one and only major voice for victims has been holding back in it's not mentioning our injuries at our lawyers behest? Yet still show enough animus to bother you. You're an idiot or worse. You believe SNAP brought victims to the lawyers who paid SNAP but it was impossible that they were doing said for the church because the church wanted Jeff Anderson in charge? If you can pick the lawyer and pick the victim's public response by writing it yourself. The church would never do something as immoral as that. they'd only hide and protect child molesters that was the limit of their evil? Allegants have been found where ever there's been a church Catholic or no. Why? Because where there's power, there's abuse.

      The strange lack of action refers to the fact that only a very few states have been pressed by our money grubbing lawyers to extend the statutes of limitation. The only way for them to get more of the money you say they are singularly after.

      You are such an ass. You, who offers kudos to Ken W for re-posting Clohessy's resignation from Cipriano's blog. Wow!

       

  30. Publion says:

    Kudos to ‘Ken W’ who notes (the 24th at 855PM) that Ralph Cipriano has reported Clohessy’s resignation from SNAP (see RC’s “update” comment towards the bottom of the comment section of his January 20th article on BigTrial entitled “SNAP lawsuit alleges kickbacks”; the update is dated the 24th at 945AM).

    RC is on top of it quickly since the SNAP press release came out at 900AM on the 24th.

    Curiously, the SNAP announcement of Clohessy’s resignation claims that he resigned “effective Dec. 31, 2016” – yet they waited almost a month to make the announcement. Now that is odd.

    Are they trying to somehow save themselves by imagining that Clohessy is thus not a Defendant in the lawsuit that was filed on January 17th, 2017, and thus any evidentiary material in the lawsuit pertaining to him is no longer in play? Or is it Clohessy himself who is trying to somehow imagine that if he ‘resigns’ then he can dodge the lawsuit?

    Stay tuned; this can only get better.

    • malcolm harris says:

      It sure is interesting that his boss praised David Clohessy when she announced his voluntary resignation from SNAP,  effective from December 31, 2016.  She pointed to his 30 years of dedicated service, and how much it was appreciated by all concerned.  So I am puzzled, that his dedication to SNAP, did not extend to giving them ample notice of his departure..  So they could advertise for his replacement?. His job being so important to the effective running of the whole operation?. 

      It seems that his decision to leave was at best rushed, or at worst….. actually back-dated. The sort of thing a clever  lawyer might suggest…. to remove him from the focus of the lawsuit,  which was filed on January 17.

       

       

       

  31. Publion says:

    And on the 24th at 1138AM we are yet again treated to one of those catty little just-entre-nous shout-outs between the two peas in the same pod. Here, ‘Dan’ will now try to shoehorn in his usual eructations by limning his favorite “cult of hypocrites” as now acting “so concerned for victims”. Just where that characterization comes from is anybody’s guess.

    But it’s all he’s got in order to riff on with his usual stuff. Although – again – his own ever-febrile concern for “pedophile creeps” continues to seem rather self-revealing. One is reminded of that marvelous scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” where, on a line of short pillars along an ancient city street, all manner of whackos and loonies declaim their favorite fever-visions, seeking to inveigle passers-by (or in ‘Dan’s case, schoolchildren in a schoolyard).

    ‘Dan’ can keep “waiting for results” of this or that investigation for as long as he wants. We aren’t going to be getting much because – much like the once-touted Dutch Abuse Report of half a decade ago and the Magdalene Laundries investigation of a few years back – there isn’t much there and never was.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1138AM:

    And that point is further driven home by the fact that while ‘Dan’ predictably tries to blame the Church for the lack of investigation, it was a public issue brought to the attention of public authorities and despite the claims of the Austrian tortie mouth-piecing the whole thing, there appears to have been nothing actionable in the sexual-molestation line that could be found by the public authorities.

    And the whole thing is wrapped up here with ‘Dan’ trying on his own version of JR’s Tribune of the Victimry Wig with the “we will never forget” bit (scream-caps omitted). Perhaps it sounded more impressive to ‘Dan’ when he first practiced declaiming it to his bathroom mirror … by the muzzy denizens of which he was no doubt encouraged in his new role/Wig.

    As the Stampede begins to come apart, revealing its inner-workings, the cartoons will just have to keep getting more outlandish and scream-cappy.

    • Dan says:

      I'm not sure why you think the Stampede, as you rudely consider it, has come apart, and I don't know why you think I'm a part of it. I've just begun to expose the creeps of your cult, pedophiles, perverts, hypocrites, liars, mockers, excusers and enablers, of which you qualify for over half of these descriptions. I repeat, scream caps accentuated, "WE WILL NEVER FORGET OR ALLOW YOU TO SWEEP THESE TERRIBLE CRIMES UNDER THE RUG. WAKE UP CATHOLICS!! COME TO THE LIGHT!!" Here's the pericope to verify what I've been called to do:

      "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead EXPOSE THEM. For it is shameful to even speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is EXPOSED by the LIGHT, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is LIGHT." Eph. 5:11-13

      Now go ahead and think you can change the meaning of God's word or claim it doesn't apply, but you can rest assured that I'll be pursuing you and your fellow perverted creeps until everyone knows of your perversions and cover-ups.    servant called to duty

      P.S. The absolutely only reason why "there appears to have been nothing actionable in the sexual-molestation line that could be found by the public authorities", is totally based on the fact that it is past the Statute of Limitations. That does not negate the fact that your fellow pedophile creeps committed horrible sexual offenses against minors, it only means, like usual, they again got away with it. Absolutely Despicable. The whole bunch of you.  servant

  33. James Robertson says:

    I've contacted the office, located in Chicago of Mr Howard who reps Ms Hammond in her suit. I expect him to be part of the church controlled loop of "usual suspects" in all this. Everyone you are allowed to see and take "seriously" in all this have been "approved" shall we say? I haven't given up. But this suit has been brought to,as per usual, slur victims by sluring people we have never asked to represent us. Finis SNAP. Finis Victims. Finis problems for the church. You are so so obvious and so so consistent in your lies and so so evil.

     

  34. Publion says:

    I’ll be going down the list of comments as they appear chronologically.

    First is ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1234AM (commenting on mine of the 24th at 1136AM):

    Here he tries to make the case that attention to smaller details is “some cheap shot” and “childish” and “insignificant”.

    Anyone who has watched a detective show knows that smaller details can actually reveal quite a bit, and in forensic document examination such details can reveal a great deal that the writer did not even intend to reveal.

    This was certainly demonstrated in the matter of getting to the bottom of JR’s long-held bit about his ‘rape’ and also in assessing ‘Dan’s assorted stories about his many misadventures with people, the police, the courts, and mandatory psychiatric observations.

    What tees off the storyteller in these instances is that while he has constructed a story with his attention fixed and focused on only the bits that he has selected for his own (manipulative) purposes, yet those purposes are undermined by the little details to which he paid little if any attention.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! Now we can add forensic investigator to all your other dreamed up qualities. You're an absolute joke, publyin'. You insist on nauseatingly, repeating about my indiscretions as if they were true accusations, and then adding your stupid lies to the mix (i.e. dangerous, accosting or harassing children), thinking your so cute with your allegations. Cheap shots, childish, insignificant and don't forget, petty.  And then you have the nerve to claim I'm manipulative, you with all your excuses and lies, enabling your hierarchy to continue to deceive and cover-up their terrible crimes, attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of their dumb sheep. You are one class act.   servant

  35. Publion says:

    On the 25th at 1116AM ‘Dan’ tries to pooh-pooh the Chicago Complaint by reminding one and all that the charges made “are only allegations”. That is very true, and at no point did I refer to the material presented in the Complaint as demonstrated facts (although there is a great deal of documentary material proffered, which is harder to create out of nothing, and then there is the interesting fact that Clohessy has suddenly resigned with that back-dated resignation).

    So then: allegations in lawsuit Complaints are only allegations until demonstrated in open court. Fine and dandy.

    And how many, then, of ‘Dan’s eructations against the Church are based largely or even solely on allegations that weren’t even made in formal court processes but instead were just newsy bits culled from assorted media reports and claims and stories? If he were to treat them with the caution and prudence due to ‘allegations’ then he’d be hard up for the type of junk he regularly stuffs into the muzzle of his blunderbuss to fire at the Church and so forth.

    • Dan says:

      OK! Trump the second. It's all the media's fault. You'd like everyone believe that your cult is totally innocent of all allegations, while insisting on accusing innocent people. You're a perfect fit for your lying church of hypocrites. And just as despicable.  

    • Dan says:

      Oh! And let's not forget, as I expose your lies and garbage, that I'm just some "blunderbuss to fire at the church." You are one annoying, little dweeb twit.   servant

  36. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    He opens – as usual – with mere epithet.

    He then tries to equate what appears to be Abusenik stuff with the fact that “WW2 happened”.

    Sly but rather grossly insufficient: we have a great deal of reliable evidence that WW2 actually did happen; with Abusenik stuff we have very little such reliable evidence (and great possibility or probability that the claims, allegations, and stories are indeed made-up for the occasion and purposes of the Abusenik and the story-teller).

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    In the second paragraph he tries for the point that I have never seen even “one of SNAP’s internal papers before this suit” and yet I have for years “talked about nothing but SNAP’s animus toward the Church”.

    I have talked about quite a number of things for “3 years” here.

    And specifically in regard to SNAP I have made assessments based on a logical analysis of what material (events and connections more than documentary evidence) was available, the accuracy of which is now simply being demonstrated by the documentary evidence presented in the present Complaint.

    • James Robertson says:

      I have a great deal of reliable evidence that SNAP's the church. You deny everything victims write. You are so fair. We're not victims. SNAP's not the church. Jesus rose from the dead. You have no evidence for any of your premises.

       

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    In his third paragraph JR once again tries the old red-herring distraction of assuming the pose of the victimized: is he supposed to be “dumb” or “have no memory”? Readers can consider that as they may, as they also may about who best qualifies here for the “endless rants” classification.

    SNAP’s behavior was perfectly in keeping with being a front-organization: it focused on a) feeding allegants to the torties and with b) spouting from time to time the pious mush-mouthy bits delivered to keep fanning the flames of the Stampede and puff up the credibility of the whole scam.

    He then tries to insinuate that so “limp dick” a performance by SNAP demonstrates that SNAP was a Church-run front, but – as ever – with nothing to support that insinuation.

    The post-1988 behavior of SNAP can be pretty much completely explained by its being a front-organization for the torties, following the 1988 offer Anderson made to Blaine. The only way to shoehorn the Church into it is to presume that all the players (torties, SNAP-pers, judges, police, and even the media) were all tools of the Church as well.

    Before that meeting SNAP might have been merely a small-potatoes dissident organization of assorted Catholics but not after that.

    • James Robertson says:

      "pretty much" does not equate to the truth that SNAP is merely a front for the "torties" I say SNAP was created by Church chosen"torties"

      How else can you explain the lack of a national front for victims? You can not, particularly if you claim the "torties" are only after money. That's the hole your arguments fall in. Where's the national greed? How many victims in how many states have been helped? SNAPas THE victims' group should be underlining where compensation has not been attained. They don't. There in lays the hole into which your fake assumptions fall .

       

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    In his fourth paragraph, JR simply tosses up again the bit about SNAP and the torties not being “for the victims” and nobody here has ever denied that. SNAP was for the torties and for the kickbacks (donations, if you wish) from the torties.

    But – yet again (and does JR not imagine that readers here are so “dumb” and have no “memory”?) – the fact that SNAP was not for the victims does not at all establish that SNAP was a tool of the Church (rather than of the torties).

    Thus to answer his paragraph’s concluding question: SNAP was for the torties, certainly since the 1988 meeting.

    • James Robertson says:

      See who sponsored SNAP's non profit status. It was the Dominican nuns of Siniswa, not a lawyer not a group of lawyers but a group of nuns. 

      Who allowed Blaine and SNAP access to church owned property, a former convent in Chicago, whih was SNAP's initial office? Who had that power? Jeffy Anderson THE lead lawyer "for" victims in America? Try answering those questions rather than ignoring them per usual.

    • James Robertson says:

      See who sponsored SNAP's non profit status. It was the Dominican nuns of Siniswa, not a lawyer, not a group of lawyers, but a group of nuns. 

      Who allowed Blaine and SNAP access to church owned property, a former convent in Chicago, which was SNAP's initial office? It's address was on SNAP's "leadership packets" Who had that power? Jeffy Anderson THE lead lawyer "for" victims in America? Try answering those questions rather than ignoring them per usual.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    In his fifth paragraph – going back again to his “dumb” and no “memory” bits – JR riffs further on about the 1988 Anderson-Blaine meeting, so often discussed here and at length when it was discovered as a revelation in Michael D’Amato’s book a few years ago.

    JR apparently wants to insinuate that the Church introduced Anderson and Blaine.

    To what purpose? To create a kickback scheme that would cost the Church so much money over the next 3 decades?

    Rather, Anderson, the shrewd tortie and – according to the material proffered in the Complaint, major SNAP ‘contributor’ and funds-provider – saw the lucrative possibilities in having a front-organization that would attract, collect and channel allegants to the torties (a step forbidden by professional regulations and law to the torties themselves).

    • James Robertson says:

      Who made Michael D' Amato's book the alpha and omega on the history of SNAP? You?

      You had to pay the few you've paid because of the truth of our abuse. not because of Jeff Anderson. Ya big dummy.

      Anderson and Blaine teamed up to SAVE the church money. Which they have. Name how many states could sue?

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    In his sixth paragraph JR will try to run his old insinuation gambit yet again, this time trying to rouse up some red herrings about D’Amato himself. The best that can be said about this bit is that JR now has to scoop up D’Amato in his net of Church tools. Readers may consider it as they may.

    And in support of that phantasmagoric bit, JR will proffer the further clincher that all or most of everybody who has written-about or participated-in the SNAP thing are either Italian or Catholic. That’s the level of mentation we are dealing with here (and, if one consults assorted precincts of the Web, the level of mentation displayed and demonstrated in a lot of Stampede comments).

    It is, however, no surprise that JR doth profess himself “so surprised”; given the limitations imposed by his cartoon mentation, a whole lot of the world’s reality must be surprising to him.

    • James Robertson says:

      My net of church tools are less than 10 people. Not an impossible number of tools to direct  victims exactly where the church wanted "survivors" to go.

      You think SNAP was run by fewer than that and according to SNAP that enabled them to become universally the voice of the abused.

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    In his seventh paragraph, JR gets even more iffy: SNAP, apparently, hasn’t really done much of a job and has been pulling its punches in the task of “mentioning [allegants’] injuries at our lawyers behest”.

    SNAP did its work, and given the avid support of the media in fanning the flames of insinuation and allegation and unsupported-conclusions, SNAP didn’t have to do too much at all. (One might enter ‘Catholic abuse claims’ or any similar entry into a search-engine to see how much the media helped out here.)

    And since the general public atmosphere had been largely poisoned by the sensationalist media early on, and given the Victimist-influenced behavior of legislators and courts, then the Stampede horror-stories could provide quite a bit of fuel to keep the fire going. The Thing became almost self-sustaining, simply because of all the elements working to keep it going.

    The “animus” doesn’t “bother” me; it was clearly in operation from the get-go and that was always clear to me.

    And the paragraph trails off with more now-familiar insinuating riffs.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:

    In his eighth paragraph JR tries to justify his “strange lack of action” comment. Since he appears to have no “memory”, let me repeat points I have covered before on this site:

    As of 2013, only eight States have not passed some form of Statute-of-Limitation (SOL) extension for sex crimes, according to the Victims-of-Crime website (http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/sak-backlog-laws/exceptions-to-sol.pdf).

    Especially if the SOLs apply to civil process (i.e. lawsuits, rather than criminal prosecution) then torties benefit greatly from such legislation. And given the way lawsuits are handled in a Stampede atmosphere (i.e. the Defendant or its Counsel realize that the skewing of evidentiary principles and a generally Victimist public atmosphere will militate against trial and for settlement) then the torties’ path is even more substantially smoothed.

    Thus JR’s attempted point that “only a very few states” have yielded to the torties clearly fails.

    In his ninth and concluding paragraph, apparently on the presumption that he has made some significant and valid points in the prior paragraphs, JR allows himself his usual indulgence and takes an epithetical victory-lap for himself. Wow.

  44. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 534PM:

    In his first paragraph, ‘Dan’ doth profess that he cawn’t think why I think the Stampede “has come apart”. I didn’t say that I did. But I do think that the process is now speeding up. If the points made in the Complaint are true then the revelations can only make no salutary impression only upon such types who have never been rationally pro-SNAP but instead piggy-backed their own agendas – not often rational or evidence-based – on the wave created by SNAP and the Stampede.

    He also throws in an advertisement for himself that also – alas – reveals his whackness: he himself, he doth proclaim, has “just begun to expose” the Church and so forth. Readers may consider the validity and viability of his self-consoling advertisement as they may.

    • Dan says:

      In your small, insignificant mind, you actually think your ignorance and garbage is "rational and evidence based?" Boy are you ever delusional. Time to crawl back under the Sunporch, Whacko.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 534PM:

    And then – quickly moving on from any demonstration of his claim(s) – he doth deliver a Scriptural pericope that he has been “called” to deliver (by, we recall, the committee of those denizens resident in his bathroom mirror).

    Thus the second paragraph.

    The whole pericope depends on how one characterizes or defines “the unfruitful works of darkness”, which – for ‘Dan’s cartoon agenda, as we know so well – pretty much covers the entirely of the Catholic Church and ethos and so on and so forth.

    It also would require the presumption that all or most of the Stampede claims over the years have been accurate and veracious. Which is increasingly coming to be a difficult presumption to justify.

    He concludes in his final paragraph with an assurance that he will continue what he has been “called” to do (by that committee in his bathroom mirror). So there it is. The prognosis would not be positive for this patient. He has ‘reported for duty’ to his bathroom mirror and that’s that.

    • Dan says:

      And you think all you spew is "accurate and veracious." News flash- Lies are neither accurate or veracious, of which you've become a pro. And what's with your obsession with bathroom mirrors, pervert creep?

    • Dan says:

      You're absolutely right. You and your cronies are "the unfruitful works of darkness." You don't count for all "the unfruitful works of darkness," but you sure do account for the majority of them. There are plenty of other pagan religions that have followed and learned your disgusting ways of idol worship, greed and perversions, but you clowns are a couple of layers and the icing on the cake. Can't wait until the Lord comes to crush that cake. How's that for the blunderbuster, peewee pooh-bear.   servant

    • Dan says:

      If these explanations of "the unfruitful works of darkness" don't suffice, then maybe you can put on your proverbial "Cartoon Thinking Cap" to help you figure it out. Let's see, UMMDUHH !?!,  "unfruitful works of darkness?" Obvious ones – a) What do you think might go on down in the creepy dungeons of your cult's Skeleton Rooms and Skeleton churches? b) Do you think the pedophile creeps who raped little boys, committed their crimes in the Light and not in the darkness? You all think you got away with the majority of your crimes, because no one saw. You have yet to understand that "the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun?" Your day will come, signed Blunderbuster c) What do you think goes on when hundreds of priests or cloistered nuns are alone together for dozens of years, with little exposure to the outside world? Answer d) All of the above "the unfruitful works of darkness"  Still trying to confuse, dispute and misinterpret the Word, little peewee? The very Rock His children will build upon, will be the very Rock that causes your fall, and that will not be very pretty.   Servant "Deputy Dawg"  Here to chew and spit you out!!

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 534PM:

    Oh, and there’s a ‘P.S.’.

    He now claims – with no evidence – that the only reason that there has been no outcome from the Austrian investigations is “totally based” on the problem of the SOLs. I would find that very hard to credit unless there was substantive reliable evidence proffered to support it.

    Surely the media would have glommed onto the fact – for lack of anything better – that there were horrific cases of sexual abuse but the SOLs don’t permit criminal (and civil?) process to be pursued.  Entering ‘Austrian Catholic choir abuse case’ into a search engine yields the most recent story as coming from January, 2016, which is when the whole thing was first taken up by the media. Nothing since then.

    As was the case with the Dutch Abuse brouhaha, the Magdalene Laundries brouhaha, and the apparently still-active Australian Royal Commission investigation (whose website is now imploring anybody to come forward with a “story”, and – after three years of investigation – has got one claim involving one priest as of last month).

    • Dan says:

      Oh yeah! All these cases keep popping up against your cult and it's all just some coincidence or it's the media's fault or it's 'Dan's manipulating blunderbuss against your pure, innocent cult. You are one disgusting piece of work. I urge any catholic to research these news stories and the internet. Don't allow these phony, lying hypocrites to blindfold and keep you from the truth. They laugh behind your back and think your stupid for believing all their garbage. Keep donating your hard earned funds, so they can keep sending their lawyers to lie and dispute every valid accusation that comes against them. Be ye not fooled. They are without doubt what Christ described as the wolves in sheep's clothing, deceiving hypocrites. servant

  47. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 25th at 553PM:

    He has – he says – “contacted the office of” the attorney who represents the Plaintiff in the Chicago suit. It’s in – he reveals to buff his creds – Chicago (the one in Illinois, we presume).

    To what possible end? What will or can anybody in that office tell him, given his lack of legal standing in the matter? Or will he volunteer himself as a witness? To what? (And – really, given his performances on this site – has he fully thought-through the dangers to himself of actually being adversarially examined in open court under oath? For that matter, is he aware that his entire performance on this site may become subject to such examination, if for no other purpose than to cast credible doubt on his veracity, if not worse?)

    Or – as he seems to imply in his comment here – is JR going to reveal to the attorney in question that JR considers him to be a tool of the Church (which will lead to JR’s proffering his tool-of-the-Church theory and so on and so forth, with uncongenial results for himself)?

    And again with the bit that anything that makes “victims” look bad is ipso facto a Church plot. As if his own performance couldn’t easily make JR’s performances look bad all on their own.

    And the whole thing concludes with both a declamation (“Finis” … and so on) and an epithet.

    • James Robertson says:

      LOL! I will testify anywhere about SNAP and the facts I have that you continue to never mention.  Fact: ANSWER ME, How did SNAP get a church building to use as it's headquarters?  How did SNAP meetings in Michigan happen in other church owned property?Jeffy Anderson never had the power to give SNAP that. Nor did any lawyer have the power to have a Dominican order of nuns sponser SNAP's non profit papers.

       

  48. James Robertson says:

    "Some form of statutes of limitations extension" equates to zero compensation in the vast majority of U.S. states. otherwise, you'd have heard about it in the media. You ,like the church you represent so poorly, pretend that the abuse cases have been settled when they've never even been allowed to be filed.

    What is my agenda P? Other than to allow those who haven't been able to sue (due to SOL) to sue.

    This suit of Ms Hammond is there to end SNAP in a blaze of shit PR for victims. The final shovel of dirt on the graves of victims. Who, because of SNAP's interference and lack of action, are dead when it comes to compensation.

    Only 6 or 7 people, Doyle, the leader, Blain, Jason Berry a few others who when placed correctly have managed to limit the extent of those compensated.

    Since I was one of the few who were compensated. It's my duty to fight on for those who were not.

  49. James Robertson says:

    I suspect Mr Howard of Chicago is in on the deal or is so needy he won't look deeper. Lawyers usually don't "go" after other lawyers and certainly not for one fired employee. (the rumor is that Bill Donhue's crowd is paying for this suit.) This dynamite was planted 25 + years ago. if things got rough for SNAP, boom! detonate the pre placed bomb and no one will ever know what really went down thanks to SNAP.

    The fraud that is SNAP has a very thin veneer to scratch through. ( contrary to what Pliar would have the readership here believe.) But one most go deeper than just a lawyers front.

    • KenW says:

      I don't deal in rumors, Jim. Present your facts, or STFU. 

      There is no reason for Donahue to back a transgender. None. 

       

  50. James Robertson says:

    "a transgender"? You mean a human being? Is Ms Hammond a transgendered person? I don't know anything about Ms. Hammond other than what's in the suit. Has she a history of suing employers?

    My facts are around SNAP not Ms. Hammond. You ignore my facts. I reported to you a rumor from someone still "friendly" to SNAP. I just know it costs money to have lawyers suing anyone about anything. Kenny boy now u put up or STFU.

    • KenW says:

      Contingency……pretty much all reputable law firms take these cases on contingency, and pretty much all reputable law firms will not take a case unless the prospect of a decent settlement is very high. 

  51. James Robertson says:

    I see Ms. Hammond may be transgendered, Kenny.

    But why wouldn't Billie Donahue use a Trans person to end SNAP? You thing Blowhard Bill wouldn't "stoop" that far? You obviously know nothing about Catholic church history. It could be just one puppet fighting another puppet both on the two hands of the same manipulator.

    The more important issue is is Ms. Hammond a catholic?

    Why does your crowd stop investigating people or things when the "investigation" reaches the conclusions that reinforces your own? your prejudices?

    I.E. if SNAP hired a trans-person. She can't possibly be an active Catholic or anything but a liberal? She couldn't possibly be a plant. Why? cuz she's trans of course. Au contrere!  Lmao!

  52. James Robertson says:

    Bill Donahue would back the devil if it benefited the right wing of the church.

  53. Publion says:

    I had noted in a comment on the top-most article here what I will also note on this article’s thread: ‘Dan’ is increasingly reduced to epithetical vitriol. Or maybe he is spewing it at the direction of the bathroom-mirror committee.

    That being said, on to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 201PM:

    Prescinding from the above-noted epitheticals, there isn’t too much.

    But his effort to minimize his many problems as being mere “indiscretions” is clear. As is his non-sequitur that follows immediately upon that bit: apparently he’s trying to simultaneously a) pooh-pooh his misadventures as being mere “indiscretions” and b) wave-away the consequences of those “indiscretions” as being untrue “accusations”.

    • Dan says:

      The "indiscretions" I had alluded to were the false accusations and outright lies, laid upon myself by you and your wicked deceiving cronies. You claim that " 'Dan' is increasingly reduced to epithetical vitriol", when you're just getting back exactly what you deserve for the garbage that spews from your forked tongue. You're one big baby and don't like it when you get back precisely what's due you. This is why you have an obsession with childish cartoons and sitting all day long "pooh-pooh"ing on your potty, staring in your bathroom mirror, little peewee.

  54. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 214PM:

    At no time and in no way have I ever insisted that the Church is “totally innocent of all allegations”. But if ‘Dan’ didn’t have stuff that he’s made up, what would he have?

    My position is that a) we haven’t seen any claims proffered on this site that stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and that b) given the many factors in play, there exists no small possibility and even an ever-increasing probability that the extent of clerical abuse has been very greatly exaggerated.

    And I’ve gone over those factors-in-play at length many times here.

    Just what “innocent people” have I been “accusing”?

    • Dan says:

      The quote was, "You'd like everyone [to] believe that your cult is 'totally innocent of all accusations', while insisting on accusing innocent people." So don't think you can take the quote out of context to suit your own deceiving agenda. You even go so far in the next paragraph to inform us of your position with more excuses and lies and claiming that there is "even an ever-incresing probability that the extent of clerical abuse has been greatly exaggerated." You are such an evil, lying creep, when you know darn well that much of your cult's crimes have been kept secret and the Vatican does all it can to fight releasing the files. The pedophilia and perversions of you and your creeps is so much worse than the public will ever know. Every time I research one incident, it leads me to more information of priests and bishop perverts and cover-ups, in just about every city across the globe. You think you can fool your dumb sheep or man, but God has seen it all and is waiting in anticipation for your Judgment Day. There will be no year of mercy for any of you lying, sick creeps.   servant

    • Dan says:

      Oh! And act dumb like I'm not one of the "innocent people" you've been falsely accusing. You are one disgusting habitual liar and whackjob, and I think you actually know it and are proud of it. Good luck, come Judgment Day.

  55. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 26th at 120PM:

    He now claims that he doth “have a great deal of reliable evidence that SNAP’s the church”.

    Does he now? And yet he hasn’t presented any such “reliable evidence” over the course of his years on this site.

    Or perhaps – yet again – he presumes that his suspicions, insinuations, fever-visions, and such ‘logical’ deductions as he has made somehow constitutes “reliable evidence” and “facts”.

    At any rate, he then quickly tries to change the subject (without, of course, presenting his “reliable evidence”) by claiming that I have no evidence for any of my premises. I have explained my theories about the Stampede and its dynamics at great length; JR has presented his assorted cartoon elements (i.e. everybody involved is a tool of the Church unless they agree with him). Readers may judge as they will.

    • James Robertson says:

      I could provide truth of the transubstantiation and because I'm a victim, P4brains wouldn't believe it. He's a set piece. Victims no. priests yes. He still hasn't offered answers to 2 simple questions. TWO. Ream after ream of words but can't answer 2 questions. You're a flaming fake. HOW CAN SNAP BE SPONSERED BY DOMINICAN NUNS IF SNAP'S NOT THE CHURCH?  HOW DID SNAP USE CHURCH PROPERTY AS IT"S HEADQUARTERS WITHOUT CHURCH BACKING?  You damned eejit!

  56. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 26th at 128PM:

    I had used the term “pretty much” simply to recognize the fact that blanket and totalizing conclusions are not justified in the absence of clear and decisive evidence. But beyond that reservation, I will say that we have utterly nothing on the table that demonstrates SNAP’s being a tool of the Church, let alone that everyone else involved is also a tool of the Church. And if the documentary material referenced in the Complaint is veracious, then we have a lot to demonstrate conclusively that SNAP was a well-remunerated front for the torties.

    JR can go on about what he doth “say” til the cows come home; he just likes to listen to himself spew. There’s nothing but his cartoon to back it up.

    His second paragraph becomes incoherent, starting with the “national front for the victims” (a “front” as it is being used to describe SNAP would mean that such a national organization as JR imagines would be a fake).

    The rest of the paragraph makes no sense, which with JR is a sure sign that he hasn’t got anything and is starting to just toss up bits from his 3×5 collection.

    Needless to say then, his ‘conclusion’ as to the “hole” in which my “fake assumptions” do fall is left hanging on nothing but the incoherent rant that precedes it.

  57. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 26th at 134PM:

    Here he simply repeats more bits from his 3×5 collection, all of which have been dealt with before a number of times over the years.

    Thus to repeat: SNAP in its earliest form may indeed have been started under the auspices of some group of nuns and perhaps with the best of intentions on their part. But then came the 1988 meeting between Anderson and Blaine – before which SNAP was not doing well at all – and everything changed.

    And for that matter, the nuns may not have had the approval of the local Ordinary to do so. But in any case, it is a cartoonish stretch to claim that ‘the Church’ started SNAP and even more of a stretch to claim that ‘the Church’ controlled Blaine and – good grief – Anderson.

    And further, if the local Ordinary allowed SNAP to be formed under his auspices in order to do something for ‘victims’, then after Blaine threw in her lot with Anderson the entire purpose of SNAP changed.

    I have never ‘ignored’ those questions; I have pointed out how JR’s ‘answer’ to those questions is, at the very best , cartoonish.

  58. Publion says:

    And on the 26th at 141PM JR will try another tack: he casts doubt on the D’Amato book. It is the only history of SNAP that has been written, and was clearly aimed at trying to make Anderson and SNAP look good. It is certainly not pro-Church.

    In his second paragraph he tries to run another of his favorite gambits: that the allegants “paid” were paid “because of the truth of our abuse”. (Surely, after all we’ve discovered about his own story, he doesn’t mean to include himself in that bit.)

    As I have often pointed out here, once the media and torties and ‘victim-friendly jurists had done their job and a Stampede mentality was engendered in the public mind and clear evidence was no longer required, then – as any tortie would have hoped – defense and insurer counsel would have advised settlement rather than the expense of trying each of the allegations in court. Given that classic tortie strategy, then there exists no small probability that any allegation pushed its way would have been “paid” by the defendant organization.

    Make it so that the defendant will find it more expensive to defend than to settle, and settlement will surely come. That’s how the tortie game is played.  And the allegations, of course, are thus freed from the risk of having to be adversarially examined in open court. Neato.

    The final sentence of his comment makes no sense as it stands.

  59. Publion says:

    Back, then, to ‘Dan’ on the 26th at 605PM:

    Prescinding again from the increasingly agitated epitheticals, we get nothing but a series of “what do you think” bits. Is this supposed to be evidence?

    “Skeleton rooms”? “Skeleton churches”? And, as always, he presumes precisely what hasn’t been proven: that there were legions of “pedophile creeps who raped little boys”. The unreliability of which bit he then himself reinforces by describing “crimes that “no one saw”.

    And on the basis of all that phantasmagoria, he riffs on about what God’s gonna do – ooooh yeah.

    This is the level of mentation that the Stampede happily lured up to the surface.

    • James Robertson says:

      Most sex abuse cases are crimes no one but the perp and victim personally saw. You damned moron!

    • Dan says:

      Nothing proven? Several hundreds laicized. Thousands of admitted, sexually perverted priests and bishop enablers and excusers. When cornered, playing dumb and claiming they don't recall admissions and statements that were in evidence. A system of popes who insisted on secrecy when it came to settling cases. A cardinal Rat-zinger who ignored bishop pleas to help dealing with disgusting, repeat pedophiles. A worldwide modus operandi of shuffling perverted priests and pedophiles to other churches or giving bishops protection in Vatican City. A constant insisting of improvement in the Catholic Abuse Matters, when doing little or nothing until trapped or discovered. Refusing to open files so the truth could be known. Shuffling moneys and claiming bankruptcy, in order to avoid paying proven and deserving victims. NOTHING PROVEN? Stop your nonsense and deception.

      "Rather, we have renounced SECRET and SHAMEFUL ways; we do not use DECEPTION, nor do we DISTORT THE WORD OF GOD.  On the contrary, by setting forth the TRUTH PLAINLY we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is VEILED to those who are PERISHING."  2 Cor 2-3  

    • Dan says:

      You think if you use these big words like "phantasmagoria", everyone will think you demonstrate some brilliant "mentation", so others will believe in your ignorance and lies. I said, "You all THINK you got away with the majority of your crimes, because 'no one saw'." Try not taking what I say out of context, so you can push your untruths. Believe I said God SAW your perverts nasty crimes against children and sees your manipulating garbage, with the words, "the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun." And unlike "phantasmagoria", imaginary images like those seen in a dream, God will be your worst nightmare.  servant of the Lord God Almighty

  60. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 322PM:

    As so often in the Stampede hall of mirrors, ‘Dan’ will now try to use the fever-vision stories nurtured by the Stampede’s various elements as themselves ‘evidence’ that the fever-vision stories were real to begin with.

    He then tries to strike the pose of the truthy researcher by urging readers to “research these news stories and the internet”. No doubt what passes for “research” in the Dan-verse is simply looking up the stories and reading them. Why would he question or assess them, if that assessment is going to interfere with ‘Dan’s already scheduled cartoons?

    • Dan says:

      I question and assess everything I read, and when thousands of stories and articles line up with the modus operandi of a religious cult that has been corrupt, greedy, perverted and evil for centuries, well it doesn't take a genious to figure out that the shoe fits. Catholics read Revelations chapter 17 verses 1-9 and see the description of your church, all the way down to it's seven hills of Rome(verse 9). As the verse says, "This calls for a mind with wisdom", so expect publyin' to misinterpret it and get it wrong. Don't allow liars and deceivers to blind you from the truth. "You shall know the truth and it shall set you free." Free from all the corrupt false cults of this world, every last one of them. Check out also Matthew 24:2, where Jesus describes what he's got in store for the manmade temples of the world. "Not one stone shall be left upon another; every one will be thrown down."    servant of the Lord

    • Dan says:

      When publyin' tries to convince all of you catholics that Revelations 17:1-9 doesn't apply to the condemnation of your church, go over to Revelations 18 and check out how "Every merchant on earth will mourn, because there is no one to BUY their goods. Thieir won't be anyone to buy their gold, silver, jewels, pearls, fine linen, purple cloth, silk, scarlet cloth, sweet-smelling wood, fancy carvings of ivory and wood, as well as thingsmade of bronze, iron, or marble. No one will buy their cinnamon, spices, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, chariots,slaves, and souls of men." Rev 18:11-13

      Rest assured that this describes the wealth of your greedy church and it's ultimate destruction. Read all of Rev 17-18 and know I'm not taking anything out of context. I hate to see 1.1 billion followers of an apostate church, go to their destruction believing liars and deceivers, some in this forum. I have no hate for the majority of followers that have been fooled by the evil deeds of your hierarchy. I was born into the church and was one of the first few public school kids to become an altar boy. I have many friends and family that consider themselves catholics. Read the Bible and find the truth.

    • Dan says:

      Was tired and didn't proof read, so misspelled There and things made should be spaced.

  61. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 26th at 353PM:

    He slyly skips over the fact that his assertion about how many states haven’t changed their SOLs failed.

    Instead, he start blathering about “zero compensation”.

    And he tries now to claim that there would have been lots more cases if the SOLs hadn’t prevented them. Who knows? Not JR, certainly.

    But in any case, we have the cases that were filed, and how they were handled (i.e. mostly by the tortie settlement strategy).

    And yet again he dons the Wig of Hurt Integrity and doth intone “What is my agenda?”.  To repeat: he’s not altogether well and he’s looking to brighten his days with some sort of (imagined) status as (self-appointed) Tribune of a Victimry that is becoming increasingly dubious.

    He has to do this, he neatly and slyly now proclaims, because the evil SOLs have prevented others from following his path to the swag through the torties’ time-tested settlement strategy.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 353PM:

    He then doth declaim that the Chicago lawsuit is merely an effort to “end SNAP in a blaze of sxxt for victims”. Thus, that the Church has directed the Plaintiff to file the lawsuit to end SNAP. And the cartoon goes on.

    Oh, and that “only 6 or 7 people … have managed to limit the extent of those compensated”. Just how those few managed to do it, JR doesn’t say, of course. But the cartoon assures us that they did so as tools of the Church.

    • James Robertson says:

      1. Fr. Thomas Doyle O.P. The brains behind the SNAP scam for the church.

      2. Jason Berry reporter and author

      3. Barbra Blaine,  Mistress of SNAP

      4. David Clohessy, minion. He probably made enough money and fearful that his cover could be blown bailed.

      5. Barbra Dorris, minion

      6. Jeff Anderson, lead lawyer throughout the U.S. "for" "survivors".

      By cross authenticating each other as being virtuous, as being who they claim to be, they have woven a net that has trapped both victims and the mass media. ( including Phil Donahue and Oprah Winfrey. 2 major, major authenticators of SNAP, as being pro victims, and both broadcast from Chicago. the center of SNAP's fraud.)

      These few have saved the church billions of dollars by not pushing for victims compensation. Which if they were FOR victims they would have done. Even if they were only after money for themselves they would have done. Not doing much to extend compensation says exactly who these people work for, the church.

      I put D'Amato and Cipriano as enablers. Why they are so and how much they know. I've no idea but their authentication has only supported the fraud called SNAP.

       

  63. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 26th at 406PM:

    Here we get merely a mélange of insinuations and further cartoonish bits:

    JR doth “suspect” that the attorney representing the Plaintiff is “in on the deal” (meaning the one run for decades by the Church). Or maybe he’s just so “needy” that he “won’t look deeper” (meaning: looking to find evidence of JR’s cartoon). And in what way would this attorney be “needy”?  What could this bit possibly mean?

    And then the truly ridiculous assertion that the whole thing must be a put-up job because “lawyers don’t go after other lawyers”. Lawyers are constantly going after other lawyers; that’s how they system works: plaintiff attorneys and defense attorneys. And they do it “for one fired employee”, whether in labor-law cases or outright civil lawsuits.

  64. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 26th at 406PM:

    And then JR tries to bolster his cartoon with the idea that the Church planted “this dynamite” a quarter-century or more ago in case “things got rough for SNAP”. But things weren’t going rough for SNAP, so why set off the dynamite?

    And even if things were going rough for SNAP, the “dynamite” is SNAP’s own arrangement with the torties. And what set it off was an employee finally deciding to whistle-blow the whole scam.

    The cartoon vision continues to the effect that “no one will ever know what really went down”. But the trial of this lawsuit is going to let everyone know what went down and what has been going on for decades.

    And JR then concludes by trying to rewrite history such that I have somehow been trying to convince readers that the “veneer” of SNAP was legitimate and the actual SNAP. It’s been a front for the torties for 30 years, a whole lot of torties and allegants made quite a bundle, and JR’s only real status in this whole Thing is that he is a poster-child for just what the scam could accomplish.

    • James Robertson says:

      Not the bundle that they could have; would have, and should have made, had SNAP not existed and had Jeff Anderson not been the lawyer in charge. In this case follow not the money gained but the money left on the church's table.

  65. Publion says:

    On the 27th at 1020AM we once again see – with a nice clarity – the rather serious problems with JR’s whole approach: he seems to confuse “facts” with questions and insinuations and thus considers himself entitled to the status of being a member of the fact-based community.

    When actually he simply declares to be his “facts” what are really just his own favorite personal presumptions and insinuations.

    Even grammatically this point is borne out: “Fact”, he declares (and demands an answer in scream-caps) and then follows that “fact” with nothing but several questions. Questions – it apparently has to be explained to him – are not “facts”.

    But, like ‘Dan’ – that other pea in the pod – if he had to rely on actual facts, then he’d have nothing.

    • Dan says:

      No one declares facts besides you and your cronies? Your consistent twisting of facts to back your weak, deceiving agenda, is no proof of any facts or truth. An obvious fact, you're totally wrong about is Jim and myself as peas in the same pod. We are total opposites, which lends proof of your ignorance and lack of recognizing even simple facts.  servant

  66. Publion says:

    On the 27th at 1026AM JR will now claim that SNAP was run by just a cabal of “less than 10 people”.

    Perhaps it was; it would make more sense for a front-organization to be tightly controlled at the top in order to make it a more reliable instrument for its purpose.

    What “enabled” SNAP “to become universally the voice of the [allegedly] abused” was that the torties and the mainstream media both found the organization useful to their own agendas and purposes: the torties because they needed the cover of a front and a feeder organization for what looked to be a lucrative new lawsuit field and the media for both the soap-opera stories and the general liberal effort to show the Church that there was ‘a new marshal in town’ (as Mr. Baron, the then-new editor of the Boston Globe, nicely put it).

    Clearly the cabal running SNAP was not of the caliber to do any of that, and surely not Clohessy. Nor did they need to; the torties and media would do the heavy-thinking and heavy-lifting; the SNAP squad would simply feed in allegants and potential plaintiffs and the media would amplify the stories without performing or permitting any serious analysis. And SNAP would be fed in great part by ‘donations’ from the lucrative bundles made through the time-honored tortie strategy inducing settlements of the lawsuits.

  67. James Robertson says:

    Lol! Yes a Marxist atheist and a Born again Christian are so well known for being peas in the same pod. You gormless ninny. You do seem to have a need to lump Dan and I together. I wonder why? Dan never says what I do about who is SNAP's real master.

  68. James Robertson says:

    No answers still? The FACTS are: SNAP was sponsored by the church to gain nonprofit status and SNAP's headquarters was originally on church-owned property. HOW DID THOSE 2 THINGS COME TO BE?

  69. Publion says:

    Well, we have quite a bit of stuff to get through. I’ll go through them in the order they appear on the site.

    On the 27th at 956PM we have another chance to see how ‘Dan’ will twist anything around to make it look like he hasn’t put up another whopper.

    Here, he tries to define his “indiscretions” not as actions committed by him – which is what the word would require – but rather somehow he tries to make them into the “false accusations and outright lies laid upon” himself … by those hundreds of citizens, police, and judges who are my “cronies”.

    As to whether those accusations were indeed “outright lies” and “false” … we have only ‘Dan’s word and given what ‘Dan’ has revealed of himself on this site, readers are welcome to judge as they may.

    And – yet again – he attempts to run the gambit that his “epithetical vitriol” is what I “deserve”, slyly evading the fact of his being reduced to that “epithetical vitriol” in the first place, as I had said. He isn’t by nature a ranting vitriolic – doncha see? – it’s just that people who don’t buy his stuff deserve it.

    And then he wraps up the comment with more epitheticals.

    Consolation might be taken from the realization that if he is being kept so busy on this site, then he is no longer prowling around the vicinity of schoolyards.

  70. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1030PM:

    ‘Dan’ here tries to claim that I took his quote “out of context”, though in what way he – but of course – doesn’t say.

    Does he proffer any demonstration as to how my statement as to that “ever-increasing probability” as to the “extent of clerical abuse” can be characterized as “excuses and lies”? He does not.

    Instead he proffers the hoary Abusenik excuse: since (the Abuseniks presume) the Church has kept it all secret, then of course “the files” that would prove their fever-visions aren’t available (but – we are meant to infer – if those “files” were available, then they would prove everything). In other words, there’ s no proof, but that must not be taken as somehow being grounds for doubting the fever-visions.

    This is a hall of mirrors that can go on and on and on.

    The bit about “in every city around the globe” simply demonstrates just how fact-free ‘Dan’s mind is.

    And he concludes – no surprise – with a threat about what God’s gonna do. Or at least, what his bathroom mirror says about that.

  71. Publion says:

    And on the 27th at 1035PM he once again tries to include himself as being “innocent” and “falsely” accused, and readers may consult the record of his own material on this site and judge as they may.

  72. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 28th at 442AM:

    Slyly, JR seeks to evade his “fact” problems by heading for the Victim-y high ground with the Wig of Victimhood perched shakily on his head: I’d never believe any of his “facts” – doncha see? – because he’s a “victim”.

    But a) we really have never established his ‘victimhood’ and neither has he, except through his own assertions.

    And b) one doesn’t “believe” “facts”; facts, rather, present themselves as indisputable demonstrations of something. One “believes” claims that don’t actually have sufficient facts to demonstrate their veracity. Which is precisely what JR wants us to do, and which is not something I think it prudent to do at all.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 442AM:

    And then – yet and yet again – JR tries to push his “questions” as if they have never been raised and I had never answered them before over the years (and even on this thread).

    So again:

    The SNAP of its earliest years may have been sponsored by some nuns; but the Anderson-Blaine alliance 29 years ago changed SNAP fundamentally (and saved it from obscurity). And in the process that early or first incarnation of SNAP may have had the use of some building controlled by either those nuns or owned by a diocese.

  74. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 28th at 609AM:

    And again, as if this point hasn’t already been dealt with a number of times before on this site: if nobody “personally saw” the alleged crime, and there is no corroborating evidence, then it cannot be sufficiently established that the alleged crime happened. It may then become merely a matter of “belief”, but it can in no way be said to have been proven.

    That’s been the abyssal problem with so many sex-crime allegations not only in the Catholic Abuse Matter but in sex-crime allegations generally for the past several decades.

  75. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1003AM:

    A number of priests have been laicized – yes. For just what transgressions we don’t know, and given that Church parameters have been so widely drawn in this time of Stampede (to use an old example used here before: if a priest lived in the same geographical area as an allegant in the era when the alleged transgression is claimed to have taken place, then that is to be considered sufficient to establish the potential credibility of the allegation) then the laicizations may well have been made for any number of reasons short of fever-envisioned ‘rape’.

    Or a priest once accused may simply feel that in a time of Stampede there would be no future in remaining in the clergy, since the allegation alone made him ‘damaged goods, so to speak. On that basis, the priest could accept or even request laicization.

    I certainly do not doubt the conceptual possibility that some priests were guilty of grave transgressions, and I believe that the wave of laicizations removed some persons who were not suitable for the priesthood. But neither do I rule out that priests who hadn’t transgressed to the level where laicization is required have been lost to the Church.

    • Dan says:

      And once again, we see demonstrated by the great manipulator and excuser extraodinaire, the one and only, marvelous catholic apologist of modern times, The Great Publyin's of All Lyin' Liars. Here on center stage, as the smoke dissipates, to make every excuse possible to cover for all the perverts and pedophiles that have ever been laicized from his cult. Maybe if he ever had the guts to step up into reality, he'd realize, all of his garbage is nothing but ignorance and nonsense. You are one, big, excusing creep of the church.   servant

  76. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1003AM:

    And it is surely obvious that it is the Church itself that is conducting this process. Which is not the type of behavior we would expect from utterly damnable or damned organizations.

    And – once again – I don’t think there remain many hidden “files”, and from the ones we saw here a few years ago when a major Los Angeles paper put its cache online, there wasn’t much there to back up that paper’s typical Stampede fever-visions.

    And once again, ‘Dan’s ‘research’ to establish ‘facts’ extends no further than trawling and reading media stories and claims and pronouncing them ‘facts’, and then claiming that those ‘facts’ have been ignored.

    Oh, and there’s a Scriptural pericope.

    • Dan says:

      And – once again – he doth don't think there remain many hidden "files". Problem is, if he ever started thinking, just think of all the trouble and twisted 'facts' he'd start deploying then. Thanks be to my God, He didn't give a brain to everyone.  

      And answer me this one – How does one go about finding "facts" about a cult full of liars and deceivers that have a history of keeping their perversions and perverts secret? When that fails, they give them asylum in Vatican City. Time to come clean, catholic church, or will we have to wait for your Judgment Day. May be beneficial to clean house before that great day.

      You've got to be pretty dumb if you think I've gained all my wisdom from "reading media stories and claims" or in believing everything on the internet. But I do believe you could be that ignorant. And where do you find all your twisted "facts", deceiver?     servant

  77. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 431PM:

    Here he simply vents his umbrage at my use of “big words”, from which point he then does some tea-leaf reading as to what I think everyone will think and so on. Does his bathroom mirror provide tea-leaves as well as faxes from the Beyond?

    And for lack of anything better, he reverts again to channeling threats from the Beyond (or at least from his bathroom mirror).

  78. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1108PM:

    Here we have two nicely demonstrative bits:

    First, ‘Dan’ seeks to wave-away his credibility problem by insisting and declaring that he doth most surely indeed “question and assess everything” that he reads. The record of his capacities or incapacities in that regard are available here.

    Which is more plausible, given what we have seen of ‘Dan’ in his material: a) that he was an open-minded individual who was suddenly shocked by the results of his careful examination and assessment of the stories put forward in the media during the Stampede or b) a ranting and not-altogether-well anti-Catholic with a compensatory personal ‘God’ complex who took the opportunity provided by the Stampede to piggy-back his own whackeries upon it, insisting that his was God’s Word and Will and he God’s speshull deputy-dawg … ?

    The “thousands of stories and articles” do not by their quantity indicate anything decisively, but rather demonstrate the role of the mainstream media in fomenting the Stampede. There were hundreds if not thousands of articles on the Dutch Abuse crisis and its Report more than half a decade ago, but no text of the Report and 109 claimed cases of some form of abuse over the prior 50 years, which works out to about two alleged instances of abuse each year among the entire Dutch Catholic clergy. And then there was nothing. Ditto the Magdalene laundries, and so far ditto the fading Australian investigation and ditto the German choir investigation.

    • Dan says:

      I was shocked by the number of admitted pedophile creeps in the priesthood of my own church. In talking to others who had similar problems in their church, and upon hearing the news of culpable crimes happening within your church worldwide, I began to realize that this was an infestation and not some figment of the imagination, as you would prefer us to believe. I know nothing of some Stampede, but came to this forum and saw the BS you were giving to others, and it was nothing short of sickening. I joined in to have you turn around and add your disgusting lies to what I divulged voluntarily. You are one truly nasty, lying creep who deserves all the 'epithets' that come your way. And that's how I became involved in all this nonsense. Why? I've asked myself this so many times. My hope is that some catholics reading my Bible quotes and material, will wake up to reality and take a fresh look at a catholic cult that is far from what they claim to be. Other than that, I find commenting anything to you to be a royal waste of my time.   servant

  79. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27tha t 1108PM:

    Then more Scripture bits, The only relevant upshot of which is that ‘Dan’ considers himself to be possessed of the Scriptural “mind with wisdom”.

    Readers may consider and judge as they will.

  80. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 109AM:

    Here he lards on more bits from the Book of Revelation, the relevance of which we must take on merely ‘Dan’s ‘assurance’. Readers may do what they will with that.

    And as if on some level he knows what he’s doing, he preemptively doth ‘assure’ one and all, instructing us to “know” that he is not at all “taking anything out of context”. Really?

    The early Church’s primary opponent and oppressor – its “Babylon”, if you will – was Rome, as city and empire, with its riches and its evils. This was the “context” of the Book.

    To insist that the Book’s “Babylon” and so on refers to the Church would require explaining how the Church – which determined which documents would become the canonical Books of the New Testament – would select a Book that – if ‘Dan’s stuff be accepted – indicted and undermined the Church before it had even managed to securely establish itself.

    • Dan says:

      If you represent one of the members of your cult, then I would think it would be very possible for them to be ignorant enough to produce a book that "indicted and undermined the Church." After all, I've presented several quotes from your own Bible, that your cult refuses to follow, and you and your cult members dispute these "facts", as if your above God. Second commandment – Jerimiah 44 – Matthew 23 - Revelations 17-18 Just to name a few. Don't act so blind and stupid, unles that's your only excuse.     servant

  81. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 28th at 512AM:

    Here he gives us his hit-list of those whom he thinks ran SNAP, for whatever it’s worth. (And he includes the author Jason Berry, whose 1992 book “Lead Us Not Into Temptation” was, among other things, definitely not friendly to the Church; and Jeff Anderson who led the way in applying the old tortie-settlement strategy against the Church and got SNAP to front for the torties and their strategy.)

    JR’s theory – apparently – is that by attesting (“cross-authenticating”, says JR rather uncharacteristically) to each other’s virtuousness” the named persons hath “woven a net” and that net “has trapped both victims and [prepare yourself] the mass media”. The mass media – doncha see? – was taken in as to the virtuousness of these persons just because they all said each other were indeed virtuous. The media – doncha see? – was thereby hoodwinked into thinking that it was dealing with virtuous people.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 512AM:

    But wait – there’s more.

    The success of SNAP (and no doubt ‘proof’ that it is and always has been a tool of the Church) is that “these few” individuals have “saved the church billions of dollars”. Given that the Stampede has cost the Church billions, how – one might ask – can this be?

    Well – doncha see? – by not demanding “victims compensation” then SNAP has saved the Church billions because … well, then it all gets kinda very fuzzy.

    Apparently the three-plus billion the Church paid out wasn’t “compensation”. Because – doncha see? – there are so many many very many more ‘victims’ … they just haven’t come forward … after 30 years of Stampede, and the last 15 or so the most intense and ‘victim-friendly’ of the whole era.

    How do we know there are so many more? We have JR’s assurance.

    It’s a hall of mirrors.

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 512AM:

    And then – marvelously – JR demonstrates the lengths to which his mind will go to preserve the cartoon: he classifies Michael D’Amato – author of the book “Mortal Sins” that was not at all friendly to the Church and quite a puff-piece for SNAP and Jeff Anderson – with Ralph Cipriano whose reporting on the Stampede through the lens of the Philadelphia trials shines a penetrating  and deeply revealing light on the various aspects of the Doe case(s) and the role of the prosecutors, the DA, the trial courts, and the media.

    But in JR’s cartoon they are both “enablers” … somehow.

    Yet they have “both exposed the fraud called SNAP”. Yes, although the former most likely did so unintentionally; that’s the trouble with puffy how-they-did-it books: they tend to reveal stuff that actually undermines the puffery.

    And neither at any time has in any way demonstrated or even opined that the Church was the puppet-master behind SNAP and the Stampede.

  84. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 28th at 515AM:

    Here he simply declares that I don’t know anything “about lawyers”. Readers may take that declamation as they may.

    And then – in yet another sublime demonstration of the wonders of clinical projection – JR doth epithetically denounce me for “not knowing things [I] pretend to know”. No examples in support of his claim and accusation are provided, but that’s been his M.O. all along.

  85. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 29th at 537AM:

    Here he simply tries to push once again his cartoon bit about the Church actually having saved money through the efforts of Anderson and SNAP (its alleged tools).

    To accept his cartoon, one would have to know how much (if any) money was “left on the table”, But to do that, one would have to know – at the very least – how many more ‘victims’ there are.

    Thus the money “left on the table” is unknowable until we know how many more ‘victims’ there are and at this point that group is for all practical purposes invisible, if indeed it exists at all.

    So JR”s ‘fact’ and ‘proof’ here is based on a phantasm or sequence of phantasms. And we are to take those phantasms as factual and evidentiary on his word and assurance.

    The hall of mirrors once again.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1010AM:

      I never asserted or implied that I am the only one who “declares facts”. I have not ‘declared’ many things, if any, to be facts at all. I have simply pointed out – with explication – that ‘Dan’ and JR haven’t put forward many actual facts, but instead rely on our accepting their phantasms and presumptions and insinuations and fever-visions as facts. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1010AM:

      But wait. There’s one “fact” that ‘Dan’ doth proffer, and an “obvious” one at that: contrary to what I have said, ‘Dan’ and “Jim” are “total opposites” and my thinking otherwise is merely “proof” of my “ignorance”.

      As I said in an earlier comment on this thread, story-tellers often become so focused on the bits that they want to put forward that they fail to take into accounts the bits they would prefer to hide (even from themselves).

      In this case – to repeat what I have said on more than one prior occasion here – they are both two peas in a pod in that they have both created imaginary heroic roles for themselves (JR the Victimized Tribune of the Victimry and ‘Dan’ the oh-so-speshull depute-dawg of the Divine) and will a) twist any inconvenient or incongenial reality in order to preserve that phantasm and will then b) insist on the basis of that phantasm that their stuff must be accepted as true and factual no matter what.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 28th at 524AM:

      Here, JR simply runs the same gambit that ‘Dan’ tries to run on the 28th at 1010AM and that bit has been dealt with immediately above.

      JR, of course, adds some epithet to make up for the fact that his bit doesn’t hold much water.

    • Publion says:

      And on the 28th at 529AM JR will try – phantasmagorically – to keep the status of he-whose-questions-are-unanswered: I haven’t answered his questions. I have, in comments immediately above.

      And I point out yet again that his “facts” (scream-caps omitted) have not been demonstrated by anything he has put up. All he has put up are questions and insinuations.

      But – when you come right down to it – that’s all he’s got. 

  86. Dan says:

    "FACTS" – a) Marcial Maciel – repeated sex offender – Legion and Vatican admitted – pedophile too old to prosecute – what a beautiful justice system they have – Bible justice – GUILTY

    b) Fr. Oliver O'Grady – admitted pedophile creep many times over – Bible justice – GUILTY

    c) I wish I had the energy to go back over all the previously mentioned creeps of your cult or the desire to go out and investigate all the cases of pedophile, perverts, and the other sick disgusting crimes of your cult. Proven "fact." There are far too many cases for your cult to make any claims of being God's True Church. The Word is proof. All over the Bible, it describes the hypocrisy of an apostate church, for which your cult fits the mold, absolutely.

    d) publyin' - FACT – You are a blatant liar. A deceiver. An insistant mocker of God, His Holy Spirit and all that is good. You can deny that all you want. Your repetitive garbage and mocking is proof, so why not come out of the closet and admit it.

    • Dan says:

      Yes, And let us not forget Fr. Lawrence C. Murphy, molester of over 200 deaf boys and the documents the church fought hard to keep secret. Cardinal RAT-zinger protected him from prosecution, though Bishops asked something be done. After all, Fr. Murphy wrote Cardinal RAT that he had already repented and was in poor health and "I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood." Maybe he should have tried repenting after his 1st or 10th or maybe 50th RAPE, you think. NO, but he was sent afterwards to parishes, schools and a juvenile detention center. Died, still a priest. You must be so proud, defending and making excuses for all these creeps. The cult should give you sainthood, or at the least a KKK hood. CREEP. You never tire of the need to come up with more excuses?

      P.S. Convicted and known U.S. pedophiles were even sent to schools or orphanages in Mexico and South America. Is that how pope francis earned his wings? Satan's Raven in dove's feathers.

  87. James Robertson says:

    You know asshole, If all my arguments,( I won't speak for Dan) have been so "dealt with" by you. Why won't I go away? I'm just a moron trying to end SNAP by telling the truth to jerks like you who'd rather believe in fairy tales than believe in the simple, if not easily apparent, truth.

  88. Publion says:

    In today’s episode:

    On the 30th at 807PM ‘Dan’s performance begins with a characteristic sleight-of-thought: in his cartoon mentality I can only be a “great manipulator and excuser” and not only a “catholic apologist” but also “the one and only, marvelous” one “of modern times”. He has a mind that is only capable of working in extremes, whether epithetically characterizing others or self-servingly describing himself (or Himself).

    I simply assess material that is proffered and point out the difficulties with the claims or assertions or allegations or accusations or fore-tellings. Given that in the matter of the Stampede this is not often done, then that’s what I do here.

    And – but of course – ‘Dan’ also has an epithetical predisposition, that sort of myah-myah type that one offers encounters in grade-school and even high-school but which nowadays passes for serious adult discourse.

    • Dan says:

      You "assess material," not by "point[ing] out the difficulties", but instead adding your own lying "allegations or accusations," in the hopes that if you repeat your lies often enough, then that will make them God's honest truth. Problem being that 95% of your trash is stuff directly up from the depths of hell, and all you know of the God of Truth is all the ridiculous ways you mock Him and His servant. You think you're cute, while God just laughs at your ignorance, waiting for your Judgment Day.

      "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes at him with his teeth. The Lord laughs at him, for He sees his day is coming."  Psalm 37:12-13

      "You belong to your father, the devil, and want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him." John 8:44

      And you'll bleat, "Now he's claiming I'm a murderer." And that you absolutely are. You're a murderer of all things honest, truthful and right. Better known as I previously said, "One balatant, habitual liar." Own it, for the shoe fits you perfectly. I'll be looking forward to a good laugh at your destruction, Mocker of all that is good.    servant

  89. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 807PM:

    But he’s sly and manipulative. As is demonstrated by the effort to slide-in a quickie presumption about “all the perverts and pedophiles that have ever been laicized”.

    That presumption is precisely what one has to question in light of the Stampede: just how many actual “perverts and pedophiles” were there? Once again we see the result of ‘Dan’s preferred method of simply trawling around for stories congenial to his own preoccupations and cartoons and agitated eructations.

    As I said in a prior comment above, there are – especially in a time such as the Stampede – any number of reasons why a priest might be laicized or even ask for laicization. Just as there were any number of reasons why Church or Insurer defense-counsel would advise strongly that cases be settled rather than fought out one by one at trial – precisely as the tortie strategy envisioned.

    And his comment concludes with more epitheticals, just to spackle up the otherwise iffy material and – I would say – to satisfy ‘Dan’s basic tendencies and temperament.

  90. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 829PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ has almost nothing of substance so – but of course – he goes for the epithetical, dragging God into it (as – he (or He) would claim is his (or His) right as God’s speshull deputy-dawg).

    In just what way I might start to “think” about the (alleged) “many hidden ‘files’” and just what amount or type of ‘thinking’ might somehow reveal the existence of such files … ‘Dan’ – but of course – doesn’t bother to say. What, really, could he say?

    What ‘thinking’ or thoughts did ‘Dan’ have in mind here? He of course doesn’t say.

  91. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 829PM:

    But he then proffers a question for which he would like an answer: just how would one go about “finding ‘facts’ about a cult full of liars and deceivers”?

    First, one would not make the presumption that Catholicism is “a cult full of liars and deceivers” for the mere satisfaction of one’s own personal agenda and agitations. At least not if one wished to be taken seriously as either a competent thinker or a reliable source of information or insight.

    Second – which may well be news to him – if one doesn’t have evidence sufficient to draw desired conclusions, then one refrains from drawing the desired conclusions and claiming that they are factual. Perhaps he was out delivering “beautiful prophecy” the day they covered Scientific Method in class.

    But then, in the whacky-cartoon business the Scientific Method is only going to get in the way. You’d want insinuation and presumption and lots of epitheticals and scream-caps to make the cartoon work.

    • Dan says:

      I've made NO "quickie presumption about 'all the perverts and pedophiles that have been laicized'." There are facts, backed by the creeps own admissions, those backed by several bishops and admitted to by pope RAT himself. Now you can play dumb and keep your head in the sand, but don't think the public and those catholics who left the church, because of all of their crimes, are stupid enough to buy into all your excuses and lies regarding these issues.

      Second, I make NO "presumption that [c]atholicism is 'a cult full of liars and deceivers' for the mere satisfaction of [my] own personal agenda and agitations." I base my accusations on putting up with all your lies, added to the blatant, numerous lies that caused my legal troubles. You can criticize me as much as you feel necessary, but it will not subtract from the "facts" that both you and your cult is full of liars. Proven also by all the lies, excuses and cover-ups regarding Catholic Abuse Matters. No presumptions necessary. True facts!!

       

    • Dan says:

      And I guess it's apparent that you consider yourself "a competent thinker or a reliable souce of information or insight." Habitual liars would not qualify for any of these attributes. And once again we witness the perfect example of the false pride of one ignorant fool. No proof needed. You've proven it yourself, time and again.  served courtesy of God's chosen

  92. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 829PM:

    I don’t know of any “they” who have been given “asylum in Vatican City” except for Cardinal Law 15 or so years ago. Whether that prelate realized the impossibilities of defending in a time of Stampede or just chickened-out I don’t know, but he is an individual and there is no “they”, certainly not in any large numbers, of such persons.

    And as always ‘Dan’ consoles himself (or Himself) with yet another threat about “Judgment Day”.

    But then adds that bit about ‘cleaning house’, although he has just recently trumpeted the number of laicizations that – one would rationally and logically think – was precisely what the Church had done through those laicizations. But rationality and logic won’t keep ‘Dan’s personal cartoon going, will they?

    ‘Dan’ concludes with the queasily charming assumption that he (or He) doth indeed possess “wisdom”. And doth assure one and all that all that such “wisdom” wasn’t amassed simply by “reading media stories and claims”. Sorta true: we have had numerous demonstrations of his theological and Scriptural capacities and those too speak for themselves (and whatever faxes came in from the Bathroom-Mirror-Beyond).

  93. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 856PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will once again try to use as fact what precisely remains to be demonstrated: Just how many “admitted pedophile creeps” were “in the priesthood”? (The “priesthood” bit neatly excludes any possible consideration of Catholics generally, among whom at this point in the story he numbers himself.)

    If he didn’t get this bit from all that voracious reading of media stories, then on what grounds does he make the characterization in the first place?

    That “worldwide” bit now wobbles as we consider the many fizzled alarums and excitations of the past years and decades, discussed in a prior comment of mine on this thread.

  94. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 856PM:

    The actual and demonstrated instances of clerical abuse are one thing; the effort to conclude as factual that it was of epidemic proportions is something else altogether and surely a conveniently-embraced figment of ‘Dan’s imagination.

    And the rest of the comment trails off in a familiar self-serving riff on how shocked and sickened he was and so on.

    Oh, and that he considers himself victimized by how I went and looked at the material he himself put up and pointed out the problems (which, as usual, he dismisses as “disgusting lies” – when perhaps he might more fruitfully consider his own record as being “disgusting actions”, which then prompted his many claimed oppressions and misadventures with the police, the courts, and psychiatry).

    • Dan says:

      And again we are treated to another of his legion of excuses, excuse the pun. There is no way that there could be "epidemic proportions" of "clerical abuse," just because there was obviously "epidemic proportions" of "clerical abuse." There's all kinds of news about it, several books written about it, more than a few movies and documentaries, admissions by priests, popes and bishops in regards to their countless crimes (not including all those hidden), but these must be the figments of our imagination. How long are you catholics going to buy into these blatant lies and excuses from the biggest liars to walk earth?

  95. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 856PM:

    And in a concluding bit of pearl-clutching, ‘Dan’ allows as how he cawnt’ think why he got involved on this site at all in the first place.

    I think the answer to that is rather clear: he has – for reasons best known to himself – tried to build a self on the fantasized image of victimized but heroic and truthy truth-exposer specially designated and continuously updated and informed by God, and has constructed a neat two-fer by a) thus evasively plumping up himself while b) using Catholicism as his convenient demonized target (especially on the subject of “pedophile creeps”, notably), for which purpose he has zealously piggy-backed his stuff on the Stampede.

    And in that crucial and fundamental regard he is indeed the pea-pod mate of JR, who has merely chosen a more this-worldly version of the costume and Wigs to be worn for the show’s performances.

    • Dan says:

      Can't decide what's worse – "pedophile creeps" or liars trying to dilute and excuse the actions of "pedophile creeps." Are you possibly a bishop or the popes mini RAT.

  96. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 908PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try to deal with the seriously inconvenient issue of why the Church would include in the canon of the New Testament a Book such as Revelation.

    His answer: Easy-peasy, the early Church was “ignorant” and thus too stupid to realize that it was indicting and undermining itself. Yup – that’s it: the early Church was just too “ignorant” and stupid to realize what it was doing. Thus ‘Dan’s “wisdom”.

    My position: the context of the Book was the persecution of the early Church by Imperial Rome and all its pomps and works, by a Christian community that also imagined that the End Time and Parousia would arrive shortly, which would demonstrate the validity and necessity of eschewing all the things of this world and embrace the white-hot way of Christ’s focus on God and His Kingdom rather than any Empire and its ‘kingdom’.

    The wisdom of the Church in including the Book of Revelation, I would say, was that the Book so vividly insists upon the tension between ‘the world’ and God’s Kingdom. But it would take a great deal of “wisdom” in succeeding generations and millennia to work out a balance of that tension, as the End Time continued not to arrive.

  97. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 908PM:

    As to whether the Church – if we consider ‘Dan’s efforts to equate the Church with the “Babylon” of Imperial Rome – has more failed than succeeded in maintaining the balance in that fundamental tension is a matter many wiser and more educated and informed heads than ‘Dan’s have argued over the following centuries and millennia.

    But there’s nothing open-and-shut about it all, except to a cartoon mentality with its own agenda.

    • Dan says:

      " 'Dan's efforts to equate the church with the "Babylon" of Imperial Rome – has more failed than succeeded….blah, blah, blah.

      Your own words – "My position: the context of the book was the persecution of the early Church by Imperial Rome and all its pomps and works" – Now what could better describe an equal to Imperial Rome than a perverted and unbiblical church, chock full of "pomp" and circumstance. One who through blatant lies persecutes true Christians to this day, including me, and just so happens to have it's head in Rome. One who fits perfectly to every line in Revelations 17:1-9 ; 17:1) great prostitute – your cults deceptive worship and prayers to goddess Mary "Queen of Heaven" 2) the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth became drunk 3) Woman sitting on a scarlet, [favorite color of drapes and rugs], beast that was full of blasphemous names [mockery]. 4a) woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet red – just so happens to be the colors of cardinals and bishops 4b) adorned with gold and jewels and pearls – riches of a greedy cult 4c) in her hand a golden cup [chalice], full of abominations and the impurities of her immorality [pedophiles and perverts]. 5) "Babylon the great, mother [Mary] of prostitutes and of earth's abominations." 6) And I saw a woman, [goddess worshippers], drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus- Why do you think their churches are built on the bones of Peter and Paul? They've killed more Bible believing Christians than any other cult. 9) This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mtns. on which the woman is seated – seven hills of Rome (Babylon)

      Now catholics – feel free to listen to a habitual liar dispute these facts or listen to a Christian who has no alterior motive than to see you come to the Lord God, follow His Word and possibly save your soul. If that's what this creep P calls a "cartoon mentality with it's own agenda", then so be it. I wouldn't be too quick to listen to any of his ignorance and lies. 

  98. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1023PM:

    Here he will give examples of abusive clerics.

    He gives two examples. And as far as I can tell, those two examples are accurate.

    But there are only those two. Are there not more in his files to justify his rather expansive accusations and condemnations of the clergy, the Church and Catholicism generally and totally?

    ‘Dan’ takes the easy way out of that problem, and who can be surprised? He doth surely “wish he had the energy” to give more but … well, but nothing.

    And yet he considers his two to be “proven ‘fact’” for everything, even claiming further that there are “far too many cases” to justify the Church being “God’s Church” (as opposed to, say, the Church of ‘Dan’ in the Bathroom Mirror).

  99. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1023PM:

    As I have often said, there were no doubt unsuitable members of the priesthood. Whether the priesthood was riddled with unsuitable members to the extent ‘Dan’ would imagine is certainly another matter, especially in light of the derangements and deformations introduced and amplified by the Stampede.

    And whether the mere existence of some unsuitable priests excludes the Church as being “God’s Church” is another matter altogether, and certainly one that calls for more discerning assessment than ‘Dan’ brings to the table with his assorted rants and oh-so-speshull excitations and agitations.

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1023PM:

    But ‘Dan’ then tries to bring it home with a razzle-dazzle finish by piggy-backing another of his claims onto what little he has already proffered: It is a “fact” (giveaway scream-caps omitted)that I am “a blatant liar” and so on and so forth.

    Especially since – yet again – in exposing ‘Dan’s various whackeries I am an “insistent mocker of God”. Readers may consider as they will.

    • Dan says:

      Publyin' thinks "exposing 'Dan's various whackeries" means to toss lie after lie and call that assessing, so you can demean and label one as whacked. Read the Bible to find God's opinion of someone truly whacked and evil to be a liar, listed along with the cowardly, the faithless, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers and idolators. Actually you fit well to more than half of these descriptions. You are one evil creep.    servant

  101. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1121PM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ – perhaps having found the energy to further consult his clippings – adds the Murphy case.

    He neglects a few points: when the allegations of his molesting were made in 1974 (Murphy had served at a school for the deaf for almost 25 years) he was taken out of the ministry and allowed to go live with his mother in another Diocese; the public authorities investigated and declined to prosecute; he served in other capacities later but no allegations arose from that period to which I can find reference; in the 1990s he was ordered to undergo psychological assessment by Cardinal Weakland; in the assessment Murphy admitted to molestation connected to the administration of the Sacrament of Penance – which is a grave canonical offense; on that basis Rome ordered a canonical trial; there was a question of his declining health at that point; on that basis Murphy or Cardinal Weakland requested Rome to forego the trial; but as it turned out Murphy died just a few months later.

    There have been a few civil lawsuits filed but there was never a criminal trial to establish the validity of the allegations; certainly ‘Dan’s use of “rape” (scream-caps omitted), especially after he had already used the term ‘molester” (whatever that ever-elastic term might mean in the first place) is mere manipulative ranting.

    Jeff Anderson was one of the two attorneys who brought civil lawsuits in the case.

    So that’s ‘Dan’s third example.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! Yeah! It's all "mere manipulative ranting," coming from the biggest, manipulating, lying excuser I've ever run across. "Murphy admitted to molestation", and yet this is just a witch hunt by anti-catholics and all their imagination. And another raping, molesting pedophile pervert is able to die before your corrupt church can do anything to prosecute his heinous crimes against deaf boys. Oh! The horror of it all and such a shame, the cult is able to conceal the truth about another of it's creeps. Hypocrites and deceivers.

  102. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 31st at 924AM:

    He opens with a pre-emptive epithet – so often a sign that he won’t be having much of substance to say.

    Self-servingly he rather generously characterizes his material as “arguments”, but then gets to his primary bit: Why won’t he “go away”?

    As if he hadn’t tried this gambit before on the site.

    My answer to his question: Because – just like ‘Dan’ – JR has developed a role for himself and if he hasn’t got that, he’s got nothing.

  103. Dan says:

    Publyin's 1/30 @ 6:34pm – "story-tellers, [more like liars and deceivers], often become so focused on the bits that they want to put forward that they fail to take into accounts the bits they would prefer to hide (even from themselves)."

    Directly from the donkey's mouth, a perfect description of the deception of his cult, him, and all cases in the Catholic Abuse Matters, that they would prefer to keep secret and silent, in order to try to blindfold the masses. The blind making excuses for the terribly blind.

    • Publion says:

      ‘Dan’ has a bunch of new comments up; some of them are nothing but myah-myah and needn’t detain us. I’ll deal with the one that provide something. I’ll take them in the order they appear on the site.

      On the 31st at 1036PM ‘Dan’ deploys what is one of his trademark bits: what he doesn’t want to hear must be “lies” on my part (although – no surprise – he never does give any specific example).

      I “repeat” my points merely because ‘Dan’ keeps trying to do exactly what he claims I am doing: repeating the same stuff (and its underlying presumptions and assumptions) a) as if it were fact and b) in the hope that if it is repeated often enough readers might just assume it must be factual.

      His refutation of my material never rises above the merely epithetical (e.g. my material “is stuff directly up from the depths of hell”). And once again he repeats the bit that requires readers to presume that ‘Dan’s stuff is God’s stuff.

      And he backs it up with more pericopes.

      As to who might be a “murderer of all things honest, truthful and right” (we are to presume ‘Dan’ refers to his own stuff as such “things” here) … readers are welcome to judge as they will.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1124PM:

      The point I had raised – and which ‘Dan’ by remarkable coincidence evades – is that there remains no reliable demonstration as to the extent of the abusive dysfunction among the Catholic clergy. That there have been some I – certainly – have never denied; but that it is of epidemic proportions, sufficient to cast profound doubt on the Church’s utter unsuitability to shepherd God’s people on earth, is a conclusion unsupported by anything ‘Dan’ has put up, in spite of all his extensive and wide-ranging claims, accusations, and denunciations.

      As to ‘Dan’s second point – i.e. that he doth make “no presumptions” about the Church “for the satisfaction of [his] own personal agenda and agitations” – readers may consider ‘Dan’s material and the points I have raised in regard to ‘Dan’s material and judge as they will.

      But as we see, his basis for ‘refuting’ my points is merely that he considers all of them “lies”, and then – pitch-perfectly – adds that it was “blatant,, numerous lies that caused [his] legal troubles”. Thus neatly – of course – he need not give them any thought since – conveniently – he has waved them all away as mere “lies” that do not neutralize the “facts” that anyone making such points (myself and the Church) is “full of liars”. So he claims, self-servingly and self-preservingly.

      And he concludes that none of his stuff contains “presumptions” but rather is all “true facts” (screamy double exclamation points omitted).

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:

      Here he tries to paraphrase my position for his own convenience: to buy his bit here one must presume that it is demonstrated that there were indeed (and “obviously”) “epidemic proportions of clerical abuse”.

      That of course is precisely the presumption and point that has not at all been demonstrated.

      Are there many many news ‘reports’ and even books and “more than a few movies”? Yes, there are. And we have on this site looked at some of the books and also the most well-known of the movies, “Spotlight”. We have considered some of the articles, including material from Sabrina Erdeley. We have looked at specific clerical abuse cases and we have looked at other similar instances of ‘stampede’, such as the McMartin Pre-School Satanic Day-Care Ritual Abuse case and cases similar to it, and the Philadelphia case(s) so well analyzed by Ralph Cipriano, and the assorted university ‘rape’ cases that have come to light in the past decade. And that is not a complete listing of what we have looked at.

      And we have considered the odd dynamics and outcomes of sensationally-reported investigations that suddenly went nowhere, such as the Dutch Abuse Report, the Magdalene Laundries, the German choir case, and the Australian Commission.

      All of which certainly raise more than a little doubt as to the validity of the Stampede and raise more than a small probability as to the plausibility of the Stampede’s ‘constructed’ nature.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:

      And at this juncture I would also invite interested readers’ attention to a just-released book entitled The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, by Johnson and Taylor (the former a professor specializing in U.S. political, diplomatic and legal matters; the latter a contributing editor at the National Journal). They had previously teamed up to write the 2007 book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

      The book considers in great and factual detail (with comprehensive documentary references) the type of ‘stampede’ (to use my term) that has been engendered at American universities in the matter of allegations of rape’ of one student by another.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:

      Many ploys and elements they discuss will be thoroughly familiar to regular readers of this site: the presumption of guilt (because – doncha see – ‘all males are rapists’ and ‘all sex is rape’); the sensationalist and equally presumptive “news” reporting before any guilt or even facts have been established;  the insistence that since i) the crime is so heinous and wide-spread and ii) the natural rapacity of all males, then due-process and a concern for fundamental Western legal principles is simply ‘enabling rapists’ and further victimizing ‘victims’; the insistence that persons making allegations must be called ‘victims’ or ‘survivors’ and never merely called ‘accusers’ even though their claims have not been demonstrated to be veracious; the insistence that accusers must not be questioned because that would only re-victimize them (even though their accusation has not been demonstrated to be credible and veracious);the insistence that although (as has happened in some cases) municipal authorities refuse to bring charges or even though an actual court trial has exonerated the accused, yet the accused must still be found guilty in a university ‘tribunal’ regardless of those realities; and even the insistence by university sex-crime prosecution advocates and bureaucrats that it is essential to find more accused guilty in order to encourage more ‘raped’ victims to come forward (because – of course – everybody knows, or at least must accept the presumption, that there must be many many more such ‘victims’ out there).

      I’d only say that the authors don’t go back far enough in considering the causes for this “frenzy”: what I have called the “Stampede” is comprised of precisely such elements.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1158PM:

      The only major element in the Stampede that is not operative in the campus rape crisis is the torties. But that’s not so surprising, since the torties – a powerful interest group, especially for Democrats – would have to be suing universities, which are themselves a powerful interest-group and element of Democratic demographics and a major source of ‘elite’ secularizing influence. And to have one powerful interest group going after another powerful interest group in such a fashion simply wouldn’t do at all.

      The Church was not such a powerful element in the calculations that led to the Stampede 30 and more years ago. And was taken for billions.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 120AM:

      Here ‘Dan’ will use a quotation of mine for his own purposes … by slyly inserting one of his own cherished presumptions: that the Church is “an equal” to Imperial Rome. That’s a mighty big presumption. And ‘Dan’ has proffered here nothing but his own presumption as to its validity in support of it.

      And in a further riff, even doth characterize himself as being one of those “true Christians” persecuted by the Church (as equated to Imperial Rome). That “persecution”, regular readers will recall, consists of the staffers who tried to get ‘Dan’ away from the school-children and the “hundreds” (by his own report) who supported his being taken by police before a judge six times (and the police and judges too).

      And with absolutely no credible demonstration of the fundamental accuracy of his equation, ‘Dan’ then indulges himself by tossing up a bunch of his well-thumbed pericopes and nothing new there.

      I am reminded of Churchill’s remark after the fall of Singapore about a battleship being launched “without a bottom”. Presumptions are to explication what the “bottom” is to a ship, unseen deep below the waterline but utterly indispensable to the usefulness and reliability of the ship. If your presumption is unsupported, then you can toss all the stuff you want onto the hull above the waterline but as soon as the ship is set afloat in the water, it will … not work well at all. A lesson ‘Dan’ hasn’t learned, and – let’s face it – dare not learn, if his cartoon shows are to continue.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 159AM:

      Again, ‘Dan’ – by amazing coincidence – fails to note my point: Murphy never admitted to “rape” (with or without scream-caps) and “molestation” can mean anything; the term has never been carefully defined. But then, the careful definition of terms is one of those things that don’t help cartoons or Stampedes.

      And we see clearly that the only way ‘Dan’ can keep his show going here in this comment is to presume that Murphy was “another raping, molesting pedophile pervert”, which has never been demonstrated to be accurate. But for ‘Dan’s game, what’s a lack of factuality when your presumptions can make for such good copy?

      In the 1930s the Nazis tried to convict an entire community of Catholic Brothers in Bavaria who ran a hospital for children. The idea was: if you touched a child in any way – since you are a pervert by definition – then every time you washed a patient then it was a sexual crime. The Reich was not successful in this gambit and the prosecution was cancelled. (The Reich later found more direct ways to get rid of priests and nuns.)

    • Publion says:

      And on the 1st at 150AM ‘Dan’ will simply try to run – as so often – just another try at the I’m Not/You Are gambit, trying to evade the implications for himself of focusing only on his preferred cartoon bits and instead trying to apply that problem to the Church.

      But, of course, if he applied the critique to himself, then he runs the danger of realizing that so many of the revealing bits in his material are not “lies and more lies, on top of lies,  from liars” but rather actually indicate the true state of his condition.

  104. Catholic1 says:

     

    We all wouldn't be in this mess if the Catholic Church did what they were supposed to do. And that was to call the police once pedophilia concerns were raised. SNAP receives contributions from the lawyers working on the cases so they can keep being the group that forces the church hierarchy to change their position and root out the evil that's in OUR church so children do not get hurt. 

    Bottom line~ we are all sinners. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

     

     

     

    • Dan says:

      Agreed, we are all sinners. We are not all pedophiles, harming children repeatedly, without remorse or utter shame. And that includes those who enabled, excused and hid the creeps and shipped them around without warning other churches, schools or orphanages of their crimes. Christ had no problem exposing hypocrisy, nor should we. Ephesians 5:8-14

  105. Catholic1 says:

    How about we start forgiving others on this thread. We may have differing opinions but why not let it go. Nobody like their church being attacked but realize, the people doing so are trying to bring positive change that sadly, many in the church so not want to deal with. The survivors are the prodigal sons. We should all rally behind the ones being abused and try to help them, not hurt them. After reading these comments I wonder what Jesus would say to you all? It's time for forgiveness you tough keyboard warriors.Love the lord your God with your heart and soul and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Let's get back to the reason we attend church. Just my humble opinion here.

     

    • Dan says:

      I liked some of what you said, especially, "Love the Lord your God with your heart and soul and love your neighbor as you love yourself." You "wonder what would Jesus say to you all?" Do you ever question what Jesus would think of a church of many liars, deceivers and perverts, especially among it's clergy? Church religion is totally false and the work of evil. I've experienced first hand the wickedness of both the catholic church and many so-called cristian ones. I surely wouldn't attend either, if I was to search for the true God. Read the Bible and use your own brain to find the Lord's truth. Try Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 23, Ephesians 2:19-22  

      "However the Most High does not live in temples made by human hands."  Acts 7:48   Let alone live in temples full of idolatry and greed, let alone sexual immorality.

      "And you are living stones that God is building into His spiritual temple."   1 Peter 2:5

      Forgiveness is one thing, but those who refuse to come out into the light, is something else altogether. Jesus asks, "Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing." If you come to know His truth, and refuse to share that with others, then you will be held responsible for their souls. Jesus was here to open the eyes of the blind. So shall be the mission of His servants.

  106. Dan says:

    PeeWee, I would assume everyone on this forum to be adults. Why must you insist on these repetitive accusations against opponents with such childish and immature terms like myah-myah, cartoons, cartoon bits, etc. I don't care to comment on alot of your garbage today, but would like to straighten out a few of your misconceptions. First, it's ridiculous to try to claim that I have any mental incapacities, especially since you claim it's based on the fact that I quote the Bible or have any spiritual gifts. This is utter ignorance.

    You claim that, "what I don't want to hear must be 'lies' on [your] part." No! I don't care to hear the 'lies' you insist on repeating. Your material is not the "stuff directly up from the depths of hell." It's the 'lies' in your material that is. Also the twisting of truths, excusing and the enabling, along with your church, that has allowed the Catholic Abuse Matters to spiral out of control. Meanwhile, you think you can demonstrate analogies to try to make a deceptive claim, that likewise, not many cases of priest abuse was "credible and veracious." Most disingenuous, and you know it. And my statement that you and your cult is "full of liars" is just plain "fact", based on my experiences that led to my legal problems. Truth that is neither self-serving or self-preserving. Just the plain truth. Again, you were not there to witness these lies, and for you to add yours to the mix, shows both your ignorance and stupidity.

    And this is why you deserve all that comes back at you. You state, "My refutation of your material never rises above merely epithetical", because you are dishonest and think you can treat others with disdain and get away with it. No. You shall reap what you sow.     servant

  107. Dan says:

    I would like to share this with any True Christians checking out this forum – The Lord is the light in the world. The Lord is our friend in the world. a friendship that will last until eternity. The Lord is the sun in the world, it's there to make our day brighter and happier. The Lord is the faith in the world, it will never leave our side and we can always move forward. The Lord is the hope in the world, He shares his courage with us, so we'll be able to encounter anything in the world. The Lord is the love in the world, it always stays in our heart and lasts until eternity, and makes us strong enough to take on anything.       Praise be to His name.

  108. James Robertson says:

    Victims are not prodigal sons or daughters. we did not willfully spend our patrimony. We are more like the man waylaid on the road but with no Good Samaritan to come to our aid.

    • Dan says:

      Absolutely agree, Jim. Prodigal sons are terrible sinners, who humble themselves and are sorry for their own mistakes. But that would never include pedophile, repeat offenders, who have committed terrible destruction to the minds of young, innocent children or minors.

  109. Publion says:

    The comments by ‘Catholic1’ on the 2nd at 1213AM and 1219AM offer a chance to clarify what – to my mind – this site is doing.

    First, I would point out that C1’s opening assertion isn’t quite up to the task: in the Murphy case just above, the authorities were notified.

    But it seems to me that this opening assertion is part of a valid strategy familiar from  eiher family or group therapy: try to establish some common-ground among the feuding parties by trying to place the ‘blame’ elsewhere and thus neutralize what appears to be the immediate source of contention (and familial or group dysfunction).

    Which is all well and good in the family or group realms and for those therapeutic purposes.

  110. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.

    But I would say that what we have here on this site is more akin – at least in purpose – to an academic pr scientific discussion or ‘argumentation’ (strictly defined not as primarily an emotional encounter but rather as a conceptual consideration of material proffered for and against).

    Of course, when there is a strategy (such as the Stampede strategy) that precisely seeks to avoid and evade conceptual consideration (analysis, critique and so forth) and to anchor itself primarily in the emotional, then it is not difficult to slide into the position of seeing the exchanges here as primarily an emotion-based, ‘familial’ or group exchange and even as a religious-community-based contretemps that would also benefit from the family or group therapy model.

  111. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.

    In the family/group therapy model, the objective is to restore or achieve harmony by getting around or getting over the contentious point or points; whereas in the conceptual or scientific exchange model one precisely seeks to delve deeper into the subject of contention in order to further explore and – one hopes – clarify and expand comprehension of the subject of contention.

    There was such a confusion of approaches in Church venues as far back as the end of Vatican 2 (which coincided – as things turned out – with major efforts to change American and Western culture in the political realm): some readers may recall ‘we agree’ parish workshops (I sat through more than a few) and ‘can’t we all get to Yes’ and ‘can’t we all just agree to disagree’ type of approaches.

    • Dan says:

      Man, are you ever full of it. You have absolutely no right to question anyone's mentation, when you have the nerve to again try to push your own deceptive agenda, in some twisted attempt to make others think you know what your talking about. Would be wise for you to admit yourself to a mental facility, before you hurt yourself or someone else. For you to answer catholic1 with all this nonsense is crazy. You are clinically insane and quite a joke.

  112. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.

    As I said, such approaches are relevant for trying to re-establish a certain level of comity; but they are notably counterproductive if the objective is to enhance conceptual grasp of an issue or proposal or policy or dynamic or any such subject of consideration.

    It all depends, really, on what one’s objective or “bottom line” is in conducting exchanges, whether a) to restore some level of harmonious comity or b) to achieve clearer comprehension.

    Further, the adoption of the family/group therapy model pretty much requires that one reduce (perhaps to insignificance or “opinions”) the actual contentious topic. Thus: let’s just stop thinking and talking about it and be nice because the topic or problem isn’t that important anyway.

    This model, therefore, is profoundly inadequate in the face of a concerted and strategized effort to play on emotions and shield its core objectives behind the guise of merely emotional dynamics. The model lends itself almost helplessly to being manipulated by any who seek to get their way not by rational analysis but rather by emotional manipulation.

  113. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Catholic1’ comments.

    And, lastly, I would point out that we are already off the rails by presumptively awarding allegants the status of “survivors” or ‘victims’ before having established the validity and veracity of such a status in any specific instance.

    I noted in a recent comment on this thread that campus-rape advocacy dogma requires that i) nobody bringing an accusation can be called an ‘accuser’ but rather must immediately be labeled a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’; and that ii) bureaucrats ‘trained’ to preside over university sex-charge hearings are ‘trained’ to presume that any male is by essence and nature a ‘rapist’ and – nicely – that  iii) any such person will often rely on ‘rationality’ while the ‘victim’ will be emotional and perhaps incoherent in the story proffered … but that incoherence should merely be taken as further evidence and proof of the allegation.

    It is my position in regard to the Stampede – and it has been my position all along – that if one refuses to grant such prior presumptions about Stampede cases, and instead looks at each case without the bias of such presumptions, then many of these Stampede cases don’t hold up anywhere near as well as they appear to hold up when the Stampede presumptions are gratuitously left intact at the outset.

    • Dan says:

      Publyin', I'm going to help you out and explain why you have to field epithetical's from others. First, you come on like you're one of great intellegence, using your million dollar words and what you think is a plethera of knowledge, and yet you haven't learned some of the simplest facts of life. Most people don't care for liars, and yet with all your imagined wisdom, you're still not smart enough to have figured that out. Secondly, the Spiritual gifts of God are something one should be proud to have possessed. Apparently your false religion has taught you to think that these gifts are something to be ashamed of. I kind of feel sorry for both you and your religion, because you have a problem accepting the precious gifts that God has promised to those who love and follow Him. Why does your cult refuse the things of God. Utter ignorance. Hope that was of some help. It would be wise of you to stop your mocking and lying. It's just not smart.   servant

    • Dan says:

      You may want to read 1 Corinthians chapter 13 and 14, in order to learn about the Lord's gifts and how we should be seeking such.    servant, glad to be of help

  114. Dan says:

    You were "off the rails" a long time ago, but finally realizing your mental state, could be the first step to seeking the help needed to get your life back on track. Maybe they can help you with your mocking things that fall beyond your understanding.   servant, glad to be of help.

  115. Donald Link says:

    Speaking stricly from a legal point of view, I have always wondered why the Church did not make a greater effort to separate the valid cases from those who were simply cashing in on an easy payday.  By giving in on most cases, the abuse was made to look much worse in terms of numbers than it actually was causing considerable needless turmoil and scadal.  Challanging SNAP on a few of the obviously phoney cases would have done everyone a favor including those who were genuinely abused.

  116. Dan says:

    Donald, I'm not sure you can easily state, "by giving in on most cases, the abuse was made to look much worse in terms of numbers than it actually was…" The abuse was much worse than we'll ever know. The crimes committed by priests and bishops were ridiculous in  number and the many that still remain hidden has to be exorbidant. The percentage of fraudulant cases, from what I've seen out there, would be pretty low in comparison. And publyin', we don't care about your ridiculous claims questioning how many were truly "accurate or veracious." There were far too many to be considered an acceptable amount       from any cult.