Now This: The Media’s Cardinal Pell Disinformation Campaign

Damian Dignan : Cardinal Pell : Lyndon Monument

Really, guys? Criminals Damian Dignan (l) and Lyndon Monument (r) accuse George Cardinal Pell (c)
of touching them in a swimming pool four decades ago.

The media is having a field day reporting that Australia's Cardinal George Pell has been accused of child abuse. From the way the media is telling it, one would think that this abuse was something that happened somewhat recently, and the acts of abuse have been well established.

But here are the facts the media is burying and as we know them so far:

1. The accusations date back four decades ago, to the late 1970s.

2. The alleged "abuse" so far does not maintain any explicit sexual acts. After an investigation that went on for nearly two years, two men so far accuse Cardinal Pell of touching them "inappropriately" while splashing and playing games in a swimming pool 40 years ago.

3. One of the accusers, Lyndon Monument, is an admitted drug addict and has served almost a year in prison for violently assaulting a man and a woman over a drug debt. Monument has also accused a boyhood teacher of forcing him to perform sex acts. What an unlucky guy.

4. The other accuser, Damian Dignan, also has a criminal history for assault and drunk driving. He has also accused a female teacher of beating him during class when he was a youth. He says he lives alone, suffers from leukemia, and has "lost everything" due to alcohol abuse. In other words, this dude has nothing to lose at all.

5. Back in 2002, Cardinal Pell faced an abuse accusation dating back to 1962. The accuser was "a career criminal. He had been convicted of drug dealing and involved in illegal gambling, tax evasion and organized crime in a labor union." He also had an impressive 39 court convictions under his belt at the time. A real winner, indeed. A judge cleared Pell after an inquiry.

It is very likely – in fact, it is almost certain – that other shifty blokes will climb out of the gutter to "substantiate" the ridiculous accusations against Pell and accuse him of other salacious acts.

We're not buying any of this. We pray that justice will be served, but we doubt it. has been observing the climate against the Catholic Church in Australia for some time now, and we have never seen anything like it. Imagine the hatred against the Church of the Boston Globe and the New York Times combined and spread out over an entire country. The climate is truly insane.

Australian law enforcement is claiming that Pell's case is being treated like any other historical offense. No, it isn't. Police do not give a rip about someone coming forward to claim someone touched them over their bathing suit 40 years ago. But this is a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking one at that. This is a big fish in the eyes of law enforcement.

Will another innocent cleric be dragged off to prison for crimes he never committed? We believe so, but we hope we're wrong.

The only thing for certain is that the haters of the Church will enjoy every moment of this.

[HT: Catholic League.]

————————————————————————– STORY UPDATE: We are thrilled to report that St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson has fully reinstated falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang to active ministry. We have received a report that Rev. Jiang is celebrating Mass publicly and is presiding himself. We salute Archbishop Carlson for doing the right thing by restoring an innocent man to the full priesthood and not kowtowing to bullies. We hope other Church leaders take notice.


  1. Jim Robertson says:

    The Catholic League? You mean the Fox News of American Catholicism.


    • malcolm harris says:

      Gee…and there I was thinking that JR had packed his saddlebags and set off on his trusty steed for greener pastures?  But perhaps he heard the distant tom-toms, beating out the news that a paleface had been captured. And that this would mean the captured guy would have to run a gauntlet. So JR  moseyed towards the nearest town for a few celebratory drinks. Well enjoy those drinks JR… cos it will all be short-lived.

      In a few weeks a preliminary hearing will throw the case out. On the gounds that the media frency has prejudiced any possible chance of a fair trial. Everybody must have the basic human right to a fair trial.    So…. case dismissed.

    • David says:


      The rcc has brought this ALL upon themselves.
      …the cHURCH could have avoided ALL of this had they listened and followed what they preach and drained their cesspool-swamp decades ago.

      I liken the church to a drug addict who’s totally out of control, delussional and living a lie.

      Until there’s “OUTSIDE” Intervention, their downward spiral will continue to get WORSE for ALL of us !

      Countries & States NEED to intervene as Australia has, simply because of the Collateral Damage the church has wrought and continues to wrought upon the Most Vulnerable children past, present & future.

      …and what has the church done with it’s OWN Carnage/Victims? The rcc throws them under the bus and we absorb the costs on all levels.

      The COSTS to families, communities, states & countries are Mind Boggling.

      …and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men 
      Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.


      And now we have along with many other catholic sympathizers, Mr. Pierre attacking & throwing Pells victims under the bus.

      What a SAD state of affairs the rcc has created !


    • David says:

      The rcc has brought this ALL upon themselves.
      …the cHURCH could have avoided ALL of this had they listened and followed what they preach and drained their cesspool-swamp decades ago.

      I liken the church to a drug addict who’s totally out of control, delussional and living a lie.

      Until there’s “OUTSIDE” Intervention, their downward spiral will continue to get WORSE for ALL of us !

      Countries & States NEED to intervene as Australia has, simply because of the Collateral Damage the church has wrought and continues to wrought upon the Most Vulnerable children past, present & future.

      …and what has the church done with it’s OWN Carnage/Victims? The rcc throws them under the bus and we absorb the costs on all levels.

      The COSTS to families, communities, states & countries are Mind Boggling.

      …and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men 
      Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.


      And now we have along with many other catholic sympathizers, Mr. Pierre attacking & throwing Pells victims under the bus.

      What a SAD state of affairs the rcc has created !


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Oh Malcolm! Not only am I a cowboy with a trusty steed but I understand Indian drum language and have saddlebags  and I mosey and I celebrate with alcohol when a paleface is captured by some tribe of indians . Though how Pell, an Austrailian cardinal who's hiding in Rome, gets captured by Red Indians in America? where I guess, according to Malcolm  I get my mosey down.) I sound like the Lone Fuckin' Ranger.

      Now to David, You don't know the half of the horror the RCC has caused it's victims. It has created our victms' organizations and chosen our lead lawyers for us. A sweet heart union called SNAP who says some of the right things about our abuse but only as an excuse to pass themselves as virtueous and straightforward when SNAP and Doyle SNAP's founder are the exact opposite of how they are presented in the media. They are present not to suport victims but to control us by being in charge of what we victims say we want.  Only 15% of victims have recieved any compensation what so ever. And that can be as little as a year in therapy or settlements as low as $12,000. This is about money and the church keeping it, per usual.


  2. Publion says:

    Having seen the remarkable non-events of the Dutch Abuse Report, the Magdalene Laundries baby-burial ‘scandal’ and Report, the German choir-boy abuse thing, and the Australian Royal Commission Report dissolve like smoke columns in the wind, we are now introduced to the Aussie police filing charges against Australian Cardinal Pell for “multiple counts of sexual abuse alleged to have occurred decades ago, though they gave few details” (Wall Street Journal article, “Charges Deal Blow to Vatican Finance Overhaul”, print edition of Friday, June 30, page A-7).

    As so often with these sex-abuse charges matters, things just get “curiouser and curiouser”.

    He had been criticized by some for his official handling of sex-abuse cases, but this time around he is actually being charged with molestation (or whatever the formal term is that the police are using for that ever-fungible phenomenon) of a “historical” nature (meaning that these accusations are going into the way-back, as is so often the case).

  3. Publion says:

    As best I can make out from the news articles I have seen, this might involve boys being inappropriately touched in a swimming pool; the dates of 1961 or 1962 (the accusation not made until 2002), and assorted dates within the decades 1978-2001 have been mentioned, and Aussie police in 2016 went to Rome to interview him in regard to a swimming-pool scenario supposed to have taken place at some point in the 1970s.

    Apparently, a writer named Louise Milligan has recently published a book wherein she claimed that she had interviewed some accusers for a year or so – which seems odd on its face, since the way things are now one need merely make an accusation and it’s off to the races; why an investigative reporter needed a year to ‘interview’ the accusers remains curious and unclear.

  4. Publion says:

    Of course, one can and must view this from the perspective of the Stampede; the scripting and scenario for ‘historical’ accusations is rather well-established: accusation is made / there is little evidence / but various advocacies and – for their own purposes – police agencies work to compensate for that lack of evidence as best they can / assisted by the media for their own purposes.

    One might imagine that the current example of the Billy Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia might give police and prosecutors sober pause (especially given the fact that the top prosecutor in that case, the D.A. himself, has within the last day or two been led away in handcuffs from the courtroom in his own trial), but there are many pressures and agendas that may be at work in all of this.

  5. Publion says:

    Cardinal Pell is certainly in a position to be on the hit-list of a number of interests, far beyond the usual Abusenik-Stampede types.

    He is the head of the Vatican office investigating finances; he thinks that the resignation of Benedict XVI “destabilized the Church” and he is no great fan of the current Pontiff; he is characterizable as a conservative in social and cultural ethical matters; he has put himself on record as having some deep concerns about “capitalism”.

    In short, there are a lot of interests across the ideological spectrum, clerical and lay, who might be willing to join the Abuseniks for this barbecue, and that may well include the current Pontiff himself. (Interestingly, one of Pell’s major assistants in the Vatican financial area was fired just last week.)

  6. Publion says:

    This would not be such a leap for the current Pontiff, who earlier this year – since the leader of the Knights of Malta demurred handing out condoms in relief packages sponsored by that Order – forced the leader to resign and then effectively sidelined Cardinal Burke by appointing a papal delegate to perform the duties of Cardinal –Patron of the Order. Cardinal Burke had been an outspoken critic of the Pontiff, for which he had been suddenly ousted from his high-ranking position in the Vatican and had been sent (as if to Siberia) to the Knights in 2014.

    The current Pontiff is not a man who is patient with disagreement.

  7. Publion says:

    One recalls that the Irish government investigation into the Magdalene Laundries ‘scandal’ (‘the nuns were burying children in shoe-boxes’, said one ‘witness’) stopped short when it became clear that the Irish government of the era had not well-funded the facility, which relied on government funds for its operations.

    So there is no small possibility that Aussie government and political interests – domestic and foreign – are also engaged here (the Aussie police say they have a special unit for investigating “both religious and nongovernmental” organizations, recalling the California legislation that exempts public schools from Stampede-type lawsuits).

    Does the new Aussie administration think to curry favor with the country’s much-Westernized liberal and secular ‘progressive’ elites? (This was the game-plan of then-Irish PM Enda Kenny’s effort to reduce the Church’s stature and credibility and role in Irish culture and society, which fueled the Magdalene Laundries brouhaha.)

    Does the new Aussie administration think to curry favor with their vital Western big-brother ally, the USA? Pell, after all, is no total fan of “capitalism”.

  8. Publion says:

    So there’s a lot that may be going on here.

    Fronted, of course, by the handy operational dynamics of the Stampede.

    And even if the Aussie ‘case’ fizzles away and dissolves, it will have neutralized Cardinal Pell (or worse, since he is 76 and has notable cardiac issues).

    But this has been a blessing – one might say – for certain elements. A local paper in Boston – home to the Stampede since January of 2002 – went and dug up the remains of Bishop-Accountability for a comment. Left unspoken in the paper’s article was that SNAP was not asked, given its own current situation. (See the Boston Herald article “O’Malley urged to speak up on abuse”, print edition of June 30, page 6.)

    It seems that Boston’s local media (and no doubt much of the rest of the media) will try to treat all this as merely a rerun of the Stampede’s salad days (and, but of course, further proof of the Church’s problems and lack of credibility – and the media’s own sterling credibility in all things Stampede).

    • Dan says:

      Wow! What a slew of worthless information, needless speculation, poor assessments and lets not forget the fabrications tossed here and there. If it wasn't for all your brilliant ignorance, none of us dumb folk would know nothing. I may not be speaking for brainwashed catholics, but the rest of us are not terribly impressed with all your longwinded nonsense and worthless commentary, which you seem to be so impressed by.  servant

  9. Dan says:

    Why do you insinuate that old crimes equate to innocence? Why do you catholics accuse anyone who exposes the filth and corruption of your church as hatred, bigotry or witch hunts? Next you work on character assassinations of the victims, not realizing that their messed up life could have been caused at the hands of pedophile or perverted creeps from your cult. And I've seen Disrict Attorneys and law enforcement look the other way when it came to prosecuting hierarchy of your cult. The bigger the fish, the more respect and benefit of the doubt they received, and the more disgusting the stench. Don't worry, you can claim the Statute of Limitations or maybe Cardinal Pell can conveniently get sick or die. At least then there will be true justice, and he won't be able to weasel out or deny his sins. God's Justice, True Justice.

    • Amateur Brain Surgeon says:

      Yes, we are the Cult of Christ and those of us who worship Him are angry at the numer of sodomites who have been allowed to enter seminaries and then recieve Holy Orders and then to be sent out into the fiields where innocent lambs can be attacked by these sadistic and spiritually sick sodomites but reputations are what they are and it does not appear that Cardinal Pell has anything other than an orthoodx reputation and given what the establishment has tried to do to him in the past, a healthy suspicion of establishment and his accusers is only a natural response.

    • John the Mad says:


      "Why do you insinuate that old crimes equate to innocence?" Good question. 

      Why do you equate old assertions to certain guilt?


      Cardinal Pell is innocent in law until proven otherwise in court. Even then, courts do convict wrongly. As for Pell's final judgement before Christ, he will indeed have his case placed before a just judge who knows all the facts, never makes mistakes and who will not look at the matter with appears to be a deep, underlying, anti-Catholic animous.

    • Dan says:

      ABS, I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed to enter seminaries", because I believe the problem of pedophile sodomites is systemic in the church. Children are raped in their catholic schools, churches, camps and orphanages and become groomed to be the future pedophile sodomites of the church, all the way up the chain of command. That's why child rapists as bishops, cardinals and popes deny, defend and cover-up for pedophile priests, because they are perverts themselves. This disgust permeates through all stages of the hierarchy. and the church is imploding upon itself. Take a good look at Romans 1:18-28, and understand what becomes of a church of idolatry and how it leads to sexual immorality. They can deny their idolatry all they want, but seeing how they've become some of the worst deceiving, idol-worshippers, it would only make sense that this would lead to gross perversions and pedophilia. This is not just some accident.

    • Dan says:

      John the Mad, I take it that you're insinuating that I'm anti-catholic. I've stated this previously, I am anti-pedophilia, anti-perverts, anti-idolators, anti-liars, anti-mary worship, anti-rosary, anti-cowards and you ought to believe that Christ and our righteous God will judge against these horrible sins. That does not mean that I hate catholics, as I've been accused. I do tend to hate false teachings, because they are leading many down a crooked path with their deceptions and misinterpretations. There is forgiveness for those who turn away from some of these sins. I don't see that for repetitive pedophiles and child rapists, especially those who consistently lie and deny, when it comes to their most disgusting crimes against innocence. I have no confidence in the corrupt justice systems of today. God is the only judge I can really trust to be fair. I wait patiently for His Judgment Day.  servant

      P.S. Before you declare Pell innocent, you may want to take a look at Greg's July 1st comment at 9:36am. I really can't stand the habitual liars of your cult. Deny, deny, lie and deny some more. Until others come forward with obvious proof of their perversions. SICK!!!

  10. Greg says:

    Look up the testimony of Les Tyack.  A man who walked into a life saving club changing room in 1987 and saw Pell perving and exposing himself to three boys aged 8-10.

    Tyack told Pell he knew what he was up to and to piss off and not return.  That is much harder to dismiss, since Tyack has nothing to gain from perjury.  Nobody is going to give him a cent, because Tyack is not a victim.


    • Lynda says:

      That may be so however he can be bought.  Are you aware of the presence of Soros in the Vatican?  He has paid many to move his agneda.  This women here met and saw it with her own eyes.  We have Burke Ipso Facto, Mueller removed and Pell defending his life.  All Conservatives being removed.  Watch this!  Youtube, Faima Center Unholy Alliance.

    • malcolm harris says:

      Greg, on the 1st July, refers to the 'evidence' of Les Tyack. Again we have the situation of a biased media withholding relevant information… with the inevitable result…so  that Greg and others rush to a unfair judgement. Tyack was described as a long time resident of Torquay, who knew everything and everybody in the town. In other words a 'credible witness' . Yet this same 'witness' said that he knew George Pell because he was the Catholic priest in Torquay. Really??? Pell was never the Catholic priest in that town, he was a young priest in Ballarat… in fact there has never been a Catholic priest in Torquay.

      In adddition this 'witness' never mentioned an obvious fact about Pell that would be hard to miss, whether dressed or otherwise. Pell  actually stands 6' 6" andi 40 years ago that was a relative giant compared to the average man.

       In truth this guy Tyack is not credible…. and would be a dubious witness for the prosecution.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, So the resort town of Torquay is less than an hour and a half drive from Ballarat. Seems very plausible that a young priest might visit the resort often, especially knowing where there may be young boys to prey upon. I've heard of cases where pedophiles and perverts will travel much greater distances than that. Why don't you let the courts and the prosecution decide who may be a credible witness or not. All you pedophile protectors and excusers for your cult's malfeasance and your speculation does absolutely nothing to promote a just outcome. It's either unreliable victims, unbelievable witnesses or the biased, catholic haters of the media, and when all else fails, a witch-hunt against the so pure and innocent catholic cult. Funny how compulsive liars and excusers like Trump love that witch-hunt expression. In order to hunt witches, they'd have to exist and apparently your cult is full of them. You've yet to understand that pedophilia and child molestation is systemic among your worldwide church?

  11. andrew says:

    I am an Australian and i have never been so disgusted with what my country has become. We use to give everyone a fair go, now we are hell bent on destroying everything this country was built on and that is chrsitianity, We seek not for what is true justice for the victoms of evil men, we seek to destroy the Catholic Church. How dumb are we, a country thats only a couple of hundred years old thinking for a moment that we have the power to destroy a 2000 year old religion, how embarrassing .. May we reap what we sow, may this once great country fall on her knees and learn to crawl again because she has become a socialistic, comunistic barbaric country, not worth popping on! 

    • Dan says:

      The catholic church should and will be destroyed. It is not a Christian Church. It is a greedy, idol-worshipping, sexually immoral cult plagued with liars and cowards. These are not the attributes of a Christian Church. Maybe this will help some catholics understand? I do not expect publyin' to understand, but you should disregard the lies of a deceiver. Eph. 5:3-7

      "3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5  For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person – such a person is an idolator – has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

  12. Rafael says:

    What you are saying is that there was no abuse from Cardinal Pell because " playing " in a swimming pool you can " accidentally touch " your friends? If Cardinal Pell is innocent why don't he fly to Australia right now and face his accusers? If he is innocent he has nothing to fear don't he? Just to remind you:  Marcial Maciel accusers came forward 35 years ago and EVERYTHING they said was true. Tell Cardinal Pell to face his accusers…..I do not think he has the courage to do so.




    • John the Mad says:


      "If Cardinal Pell is innocent why don't he fly to Australia right now and face his accusers? If he is innocent he has nothing to fear don't he?"


      Actually, Cardinal Pell immediately went to Australia to face his accusers. As for having nothing to fear, you have more faith in civil legal systems than I. How does one defend oneself against forty year old assertions?

  13. Publion says:

    In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 222AM – which has already received the question in reply: why does ‘Dan’ insinuate that old crimes equate to guilt? – I would simply add that at this point we don’t know that a) any actual “filth and corruption” has been ‘exposed’; it may well be something closer to b) some sort of play being made from any number of directions to impugn Cardinal Pell.

    ‘Dan’ then tries to run the standard Abusenik script: large-futured and marvelous waif suddenly turned into (fill in the blank) by (in this case, it seems) … being touched in swimming pool. Readers may consider the probability of that possibility as they may.

    However the alternative is hardly beyond imagination: character-deficient and drug-addicted unripe adult suddenly rises to an opportunity provided whereby for the price of making this or that “historical” claim and telling this or that story he might garner anything from relief from his own legal problems to money or even status (since being a ‘victim’ – even if only through self-declaration- brings a certain cachet these days).

    ‘Dan’ then – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – works in an advertisement for his own many problems with the law and psychiatry, which should come as no surprise to regular readers of this site.

    And then – apparently – the Spirit has prompted ‘Dan’ to gloat over the prospect of Cardinal Pell’s death.

    • Dan says:

      And more speculation and character assassinations. And you really believe that "being a 'victim' – brings a certain cachet these days?" And my statement had nothing to do with the problems I had based on the lies and false accusations of your cult. Still grasping for straws, publiar? The liars I came across were small fries like yourself, not big fish. Furthermore, I wasn't gloating over Pell's death. You excusers are the ones claiming innocence because cases come up against dead priests that can't defend themselves. Any excuse will do, for you perverted and pedophile protectors.  servant looking forward to God's just Judgment Day

  14. Medusa Knows says:

    FYI – George Pell's oft-expressed claim that Justice Alec Southwell's 2002 investigation into alleged abused in 1961 "completely exonerated" him is BS. In fact the verdict was closer to the Scottish "not proven".

  15. Amateur Brain Surgeon says:

    ABS, I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed to enter seminaries", because I believe the problem of pedophile sodomites is systemic in the church.

    It's simple, Dan. During the time when queers were being allowed to enter seminaries, there was a rule forbidding their entry (it was stil in effect in 1960). Your use of pedophile is wrong becuase the vast percentage (80+) of adolescent males suffering the crimes of queer clergy were by, by defintion, adolescents and not children.

    A major problem for the Church in America was that the over-educated "experts' had internalised the philosophy and beliefs of the secual psychiatrists vis a vis sodomites and the Church trusted the advice of the shrinks that the queer cleragy could be treated for that execrable perversion and safely be sent back out into the sheepgate to minister to flocks of lambs.

  16. Amateur Brain Surgeon says:

    Dan. The secular school system (see Shackleford study) employs sodomite teachers who committ sexual crimes agains adolescents at a far higher rate than Catholic Clergy.

    Protestant ministers committ sexua crimes against adolescents at a far higher rate than Catholic clergy do.

    It is quite clear you hate the One True Holy Roman Cathoic and Apostolic Church Jesus establsihed and, like Saul (Acts) ,you are attacking Jesus when you attack it.

    Good luck with that fella

    • Dan says:

      Abs – I wrote detailed explanations to your comments and get the ERROR 43 – so I'll make this short.

      It doesn't matter if it's pedophilia or adolescent child abuse, it's still sick and disgusting. Sodomize consenting adults and leave children alone. Pedophiles are also heterosexual, married, priests, pastors, bishops and cardinals. Can't stand when religious holy people compare themselves to schools, boy scouts or other churches. Pedophilia and child rape is disgusting anywhere, but among so-called holy religious leaders it is most unacceptable and should not even need to be discussed. That's period!! See my comment July 2 @ 1:25am.

      In regard to my hate of the one false unholy catholic cult and the idolators of mary goes, I hate false churches and false pastors of all types, especially those plaqued with liars, deceivers, pedophiles, perverts, cowards and their excusers and brainwashed defenders. Hope that is clear.  servant

  17.  Yesterday I posted a comment on an article by Francis X. Rocca about the charges against Cardinal Pell in the Friday issue of The Wall Street Journal. Here is my comment:
    It is for good reason that Pope Leo XIII, in composing his original prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel after a terrifying vision in 1888, included the line, “When the Pastor is struck, the sheep may be scattered.”The Catholic hierarchy have been slow to understand that decades-old sex abuse claims like those against Cardinal Pell have become a tool of modern terrorism.They need not be true, and in this case they are likely untrue.But the terrorists here are not from the Middle East.They are from the tort bar, and the outspoken reformer Cardinal Pell has long been a target. See my post, "Peter Saunders, Cardinal Pell, and a Trial By Media" here:



    • Dan says:

      "Terrorism"? I'm tired of hearing catholic hierarchy deny, deny, lie and deny some more. Then when more witnesses come forward and they're cornered, finally admit their guilt and then they're coddled and protected for years by the hierarchy, in order not to besmirch the churches spotless reputation. Come clean and into the light and stop playing games with the public. You creeps have not fooled the Almighty and you will pay the price for all your lies and coverups. If you truly are innocent, the God you claim to believe in will give you justice and be fair on Judgment Day. I've suffered from lying creeps of your cult, and maybe innocent members have to pay the price for the terrible sins of your church. Doesn't seem fair, but such is life. Also, I've read some of your stories and it's somewhat comical how you admit to serving with pedophile priests. Apparently pedophiles just pop up everywhere and in just about every catholic church. Six of eight of the priests in the church of my youth were pedophiles, including the school gym teacher. Some also were thieves absconding with the Sunday collections. These surely aren't Christians that I would ever want to make excuses for. Maybe you should wait for the courts before you declare Pell innocent. Rest assured that the One True Almighty God will be just and fair.   servant of the Lord

    • KenW says:

      The Philly courts, based on the lies of their "star witness", found Fr. Englhardt and Bernard Shero guilty. I have no problem whatsoever boldly proclaiming the innocence of Englehardt and Shero in spite of what the court declared. That is one of many cases where the court got it wrong. The same dynamic that existed in Philly exists in Victoria, so with no apologies whatsoever I REJECT the media's sensationalized hyperbole on the Pell case and I condemn the media's deliberate attempt to inflame public emotion in order to manipulate the outcome of this case. 

    • Dan says:

      You excusers and enablers think you can keep repeating the "Billy Doe" case and claim that equates to "many cases where the court got it wrong". You can keep blaming the media for inflaming public emotion, when the truth is that the public is sick of your outright denials, blatant lies and obvious manipulation of facts, in order to sway your brainwashed followers that you truly are the One and only True Church. That's the biggest lie I've ever heard, you disingenous hypocrites!   servant

    • KenW says:

      What? You think Seth Williams and his "star witness" Danny Gallagher got it right? 

    • Dan says:

      KenW, I claimed no such thing. Read a little more carefully, eh?

      I'm saying you keep falling back on the "Billy Doe" case as if that's evidence that the court has gotten it wrong in many other cases. Judgments in many other cases more often fell in favor of the church, judges or juries in disbelief that the so-called holy true catholic church could be so filled with vile priests and hierarchy. Other times DA's refused to prosecute or police officers looked the other way. And then there was several times you could fall back on the Statute of Limitations or the priest or bishop died, as if that equates to innocence. What would it take for all the creeps to come out of their deceitful closet and be truthful, instead of lawyering up and believing you're fooling anyone, let alone the All-Seeing and All-Knowing God.? Yeah! That would include you, publiar.

  18. malcolm harris says:

    Dan, on the 2nd, points out that the resort town of Torquay is only a short distance… one and half hours drive from Ballarat. (a three hour round trip for a busy provincial priest)  But he then overlooks what Tyack has clearly alleged. Namely that he knew everybody and that he identified George Pell because he was the local priest. That sounds plausible… if it was true?…But it wasn't true. In fact George Pell had never been the Torquay priest… and therefore the witness has revealed himself to be either mistaken……. or a fabricator?. Books have been written on the subject of flawed and false memories. Throw in the time elapsed, 40 years, and also the possible sub-conscious influence of a witch-hunt, and this guy is indeed a questionable witness.

    • Dan says:

      Card pell was a card carrying member of the Torquay Surf Club and spent his summers there. Les Tyack was also a member and knew "george" on a first name basis. He may have seen him there so often that he assumed he was a local priest. And where did you get the info that he knew everybody in town, because I haven't found that in any of his accounts? Do we just make up facts to clear our perverted clergy? It's one thing to defend your own and it's quite another to make up facts in order to character assassinate witnesses or victims and clear obvious perverts of your cult. And your little story about your relative proves nothing besides the fact that people don't report things necessarily in a timely fashion, but that doesn't mean they're not credible. What's wrong with you brainwashed catholics that you feel the need to defend sickos? Is the reputation of your church that important to you? The catholic cult's reputation was shattered years ago and has shown no signs of change or improvement. Just a bunch of empty promises.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! And lets not forget that it's got to be a witch-hunt!!

  19. Craig says:

    It's arrogant articles like these that cause so much damage to the church.  What if these accusers are speaking the truth?  What if their lives were so disastrous due to the abuse they have suffered?  What if Pell were indeed a pedophile?  They way you are treating his accusers is EXACTLY the way Pell treated the accusers who came bravely forward so many years ago.  Do you honestly think that demonizing possible victims is going to save the reputation of the Catholic Church?  My God!  What is wrong with you?  He is accused.  That means he is innocent until his guilt is proven (as are the victims).   

    • KenW says:

      Craig, I have no use for your speculations and presumptions. 

      The veracity of the accusations are just as much on trial as the accused is. If Dave, myself, or anyone else see holes in the accusations, we not only have the right to speak to those holes, we have a moral obligation to speak to those holes. That will not change even if Pell is proven guilty. 



    • Dan says:

      KenW, Who says you have a moral obligation to defend the immoral? That's plain sick!!

    • KenW says:

      Dan, I claimed no such thing. Read a little more carefully, eh?

      I.DEFEND.ANYONE'S.RIGHT.TO.DUE.PROCESS.AND.A.FAIR.TRIAL….. which includes their right to NOT be tried by mob mentality before they even get a chance at a fair trial. After all, it WAS mob mentality that got Bernard Shero and Fr. Englhardt falsely imprisoned and ultimately cost Fr. Englhardt his life….all based on the blatant lying of one Daniel Gallagher aka "Billy Doe". 

  20. malcolm harris says:

    Graig, on the 3rd, asks "What is wrong with you?".  So I guess he is saying that we should not defend our own. But those, who are in a position to influence public opinion, have been active against Cardinal Pell for over a decade. But that's okay…is it?. Well let me look at one accuser, the guy in Torquay, Remember his allegation is that he actually witnessed  Fr. George Pell exposing himself, in front of small boys, in the changing rooms at the Life Savng Club. Would I offend Graig if I questioned that allegation?  About 30 years ago a relative told me how she encountered a 'flasher' on a beach. She and her kids were on holidays, in the city, when this guy approached and just stood there .. staring. He then exposed himself, leered at her, and  ran away. I asked her if she went to the cops?. She said she thought about it, but didn't think it was her responsibliity. She didn''t live there, was not part of that community, besides the guy was a complete stranger, and she couldn't identify him. Now contrast her story with the allegations of Les Tyack. Because Les says he did recognize the man and he was the local priest?. So he is claiming he could have identified him. In addition he, unlike my relative, did live in that community. Yet strangely he did not report the guy to the police? Why not?  Journalists don't seem to ask the right questions?. But you can draw your own conclusions about that.







  21. Publion says:

    In addition to the conservative Cardinals I have already mentioned in comments above, it is now reported that Cardinal Gerhard Mueller has also been edged out as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; his term is up this weekend and although the Pontiff could have renewed his tenure for another 5 year term, Muller was instead replaced by his number two, who – like the Pontiff – is a Jesuit (appointed to the Number Two slot by Benedict).

    This indicates an awful lot of activity along what appears to be a clear axis: the most powerful or influential conservative Vatican Cardinals are – one way or another – being removed from their offices and sidelined.

    It recalls for me what I felt when Benedict XVI announced his resignation. That he was the first Pope to do so voluntarily in over 700 years was stupendous enough. That he announced that he was retiring due to declining health and advancing age in two weeks (the announcement on February 11, 2013; the resignation taking effect on February 28, 2013) seemed stupefying.  Clearly his health and age were not creating so urgent a problem as to require so rapid a resignation.

  22. Publion says:

    That being said, on to the comment of ‘Dan’ on the 1st at 1142PM.

    I would first note that readers new to this site might wish to go back a thread or two and review ‘Dan’s many submissions, just to get a sense of his general position.

    In the instant comment, ‘Dan’ merely does what he most likes to do: tosses up a pile of epithetical characterizations with no examples or demonstration or explication in support.

    Whatever “us” he is talking about – slyly appointing himself somehow spokesman of this “us” – readers may consider as they will.

    But there’s a method to his madness here: positing this “us” gives him the appearance of speaking not only as himself but as spokesman of his self-created “us”, the better to mask his own epithetical objective.

    And he further relies on his personal tea-leaves to claim that I appear to be “so impressed” with my material. I just put up what seems relevant and useful; readers may consider and judge as they will.

  23. Publion says:

    On the 2nd at 1230AM ‘Dan’ demonstrates how – being focused purely on epithetically attacking the Church and Catholicism in general – he spouts his stock phrases with no awareness that he is making no sense. Thus: he has a little 3×5 about the “systemic” nature of the problem, but can’t seem to grasp how – if it’s true – “pedophile sodomites” being “allowed to enter seminaries” would itself be a rather systemic issue.

    Then a dollop of his familiar phantasmagoria: “Children are raped … “ and so on. Readers may consider how many children have been shown to have been “raped” (and how many have not); in addition to which is then added the bit that they are – in the phantasm’s script – being raped in order to initiate them into future priesthood and prelacy for the furtherance and maintenance of the whole scheme by prelates – all the way up to the Pope – who are “perverts themselves”.

    That’s pretty much ‘Dan’s favorite vision of the Church and Catholicism.

    Oh, and “idolatry” too (which for newer readers includes Mary being worshipped as a neo-pagan goddess and statues being idols and churches being neo-pagan temples) and – ‘Dan’ will assure you – it’s all prophesied in the Bible. You just gotta read it and it will all be clear as a bell. ‘Dan’ reads the Bible a whole lot and it’s clear as a bell to him … and so on.

  24. Publion says:


    But if you have by unhappy accident consumed all the popcorn you had prepared, then you will be sadly unfortified for the task of considering ‘Dan’s comment of the 2nd at 1256AM:

    ‘Dan’ – he doth here declare, proclaim and pronounce (urbi et orbi, as it were) – is not “anti-catholic” (and he cawn’t think why anyone might “insinuate” that).

    Rather – doncha see? – he is merely “anti-pedophilia, anti-perverts, anti-idolators, anti-liars, anti-mary worship [sic], anti-rosary, anti-cowards” … just that, really, and nothing much else.

    And if you don’t go along with him, why then God’ll getcha, you betcha.

    ‘Dan’ doesn’t “hate Catholics”, either. He just doth “tend to hate false teachings” (of which the Church and Catholicism constitute – in his mind – the sum total of all Biblical and religious horror).

    That’s all, really. He wouldn’t want you to think he’s gone around the bend or anything. To even consider that possibility would be “character assassination” and – if you haven’t yet learned to waitttt forrrr itttttt – “mocking God” … because ‘Dan’ is so very closely united to God – doncha see? – that to disagree with ‘Dan’ is to “mock God”. It’s all really very clear and simple. And right there in the Bible, clear as day. ‘Dan’ knows this – doncha know? – because God has speshully illuminated ‘Dan’.

    You can choose not to believe ‘Dan’, but then God’ll getcha. ‘Dan’s not “SICK!!!” – doncha see? – Catholicism is.

  25. Publion says:

    On the 2nd at 920AM – quite uncharacteristically – ‘Dan’ appears to have actually checked out a fact: it’s less than 70 miles from Ballarat to Torquay.

    He bleats piously about letting “the courts and the prosecution decide” (are there not also juries in the Australian legal system?).

    But we have seen – demonstrated carefully and at length on the BigTrial site – just how a legal system can be skewed, in the Philadelphia Doe/Gallagher case, by the combined agendas of trial judges, prosecutors and media. And even in the Ohio State Sandusky case (also on the BigTrial site) which – curiously – the accusations about the changing room so closely resemble.

  26. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 920AM:

    As might well be inferred from ‘Dan’s further statement, Cardinal Pell’s “malfeasance” is presumed as is ‘Dan’s presumption as to exactly what a “just outcome” is supposed to be.

    “Unreliable victims, unbelievable witnesses” … we’ve seen examples of both over the years on this site, up to and including that Philadelphia case. The possibility of their existence in this case remains quite legitimately possible, if not also probable.

    The phenomenon of “witch-hunt” is also quite familiar and hardly irrelevant.

    And I would also add – on the basis of my thoughts expressed in prior comments on this thread – that if the Australian government and/or prosecutors feel that there will be no push-back from the Vatican (which strongly appears will be the case) then there will be even more confidence that running the old Stampede script in this case might be that much more attractive.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 920AM:

    In that regard I would also note the dynamics in the Julian Assange case: having fallen afoul of the US government by publishing material on his Wikileaks site, Assange was  suddenly accused by two women in Sweden of some form of sexual molestation / the Swedish authorities seemed primarily concerned not so much for interviewing Assange as for getting him back on Swedish soil (where he might be extradited to the US for its own legal purposes) / on and on it went, until – in the last month or so, if I recall correctly – Sweden suddenly dropped the case without further ado and no concern for the ‘victims’ whatsoever.

    Thus, even in the international arena, sex-charges can be put to some iffy uses indeed.

    The whole Pell matter bears close watching and careful consideration.

  28. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 125AM:

    The self-proclaimed not-anti-Catholic ‘Dan’ here declares, declaims, and pronounces that … “the catholic church should and will be destroyed” because – we have ‘Dan’s word for it – the Catholic Church is “not a Christian Church”.

    Yet since any religious polity deploying things not “in the Bible” fall under the Ban of ‘Dan’, then what religious polity or church can possibly be “a Christian Church”? ‘Dan’ himself has already declared that he is no fan of any religious polity.

    Typewriters and indoor toilets are not “in the Bible”. How can any religious polity pass Bible muster with ‘Dan’?

    When did the religious gathering around Peter (who was given by Christ the Great Commission in Matthew’s 16th chapter and “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew’s 18th chapter) cease to be “a Christian Church” and become something else? Which successor to Peter was suddenly a “Pope”? When did that happen?

    ‘Dan’ has no response to those questions.

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 125AM:

    No “foolish talk or coarse joking”? What religious polity, what human gathering of any kind, can pass that test? Is Paul saying here that there can be no religious polity among humans, comprised of humans?

    As Paul enumerates the vices of the pagan “idolaters”, the Greek has it as aischrotes, morologia, and eutrapelia: shamefulness, foolishness, and buffoonery.

    But does Paul really expect that each individual Christian will always and perfectly avoid those vices? It can hardly be so, since he has spent chapters 1 and 2 of Ephesians giving thanks for the Church as the working out of God’s plan. Would he then in the third chapter impose such impossible ideals – to be enforced with such rigor – that the Christian community would have to be utterly shorn of human weakness or else be utterly delegitimized? Does Paul think or does Paul think God expects that the Christian community be composed not of actual human beings but rather of some unearthly form of enfleshed angels?

    And the New American Bible has verse 3 as “Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you” (italics mine). Whatever translation ‘Dan’ is using slyly ignores that phrasing. Because the NAB more accurately conveys Paul’s purpose in the passage: to exhort the Galatians and all Christians to live up to the ideals he advocates for Christ’s community.

  30. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 943AM:

    Once more, merely ‘Dan’s epithetical pronouncements and nothing more.

    “Being a victim” brings a great deal of cachet these days; there is both interior psychological payoff and exterior ‘moral high ground’ (i.e. the more you allegedly suffered, the higher your moral ground). And there is also an insurance against blowback if you are discovered to have been less than truthful in your story or claim or accusation: society must not ‘blame the victim’.

    And for readers new to the site and unfamiliar with ‘Dan’s delusions: anything that in any way implies that his extensive misadventures with people, police, courts and psychiatry are merely the expectable outcomes of his own behavior … must be “lies and false accusations” lodged against him by “compulsive liar” Catholics (he had in one instance – among a number of others – been harassing (or delivering “beautiful prophecy” to) school children from outside the fence of a schoolyard until the Catholic staffers shooed him away).

  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 943AM:

    And we further see just what a Fixed Delusional Syndrome will get you: without batting an eye he can now claim that he was not “gloating” over Cardinal Pell’s death.

    And if accusations are made against priests who are dead and cannot defend themselves, then pointing that out is merely an “excuse”. ‘Dan’ has no need of proof or evidence against any priest – doncha see? – because he already ‘knows’.

    And he brings the performance home as so often with a God’ll-getcha bit … because he’s really “looking forward to God’s just Judgment Day”. As I have said, ‘Dan’s hope must be pinned to the hope that God accepts insanity pleas on that Day.

  32. Publion says:

    We proceed then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:

    For those who don’t know what a “compulsive liar” who doesn’t take responsibility for his actions looks like, ‘Dan’ here gives us a fine example:

    Often taken to task (certainly by me) for not explicating or explaining his many many accusations, denunciations, epithetical tosses and so on, ‘Dan’ here doth bleat that he had indeed written “detailed explanations” to ‘Amateur Brain Surgeon’ but – had you been waitttttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’s stuff got chewed up in an “Error 43” message. This is the internet variant of ‘the dog ate my homework’.

    Thus ‘Dan’ has an excuse for being “brief” in his actual published response, which is code for ‘there won’t be any “detailed explanations”’.

  33. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:

    To ‘Dan’ “it doesn’t matter” whether it’s “pedophilia or adolescent child abuse”. So little doth “matter” to ‘Dan’ if it gets in the way of his preferred narrative and his cartoon scare-visions.

    But clinically, it most surely does matter whether one is a genuine pedophile (for which the prognosis is not good) or what is often called an ephebophiliac – for which the prognosis is much better.

    Legally, the problems are a) that “sexual abuse” is so broad a term that it can cover a multitude of actions, some of which would not appear ‘abusive’ to an observer unless one made presumptions about the motivations of the accused (more on this in a further comment in this sequence).

  34. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:

    And b) that due to the influence of what I call ‘Victimism’ in legal praxis nowadays, there is simply a Stampede-like presumption (abetted and amplified by much of the media) as to the motivation or – even more likely – due to the occupation of the accused (i.e. he’s a priest / ‘everyone knows’ they’re child-abusers / so he must have meant to be abusive).

    I would also add that if you get enough of this type of media hype, then you have effectively ‘tainted the jury pool’, but legally so, since the potential-juror pool, consuming the media stories, isn’t yet formally designated for juror duty. And as this dynamic becomes rooted and widespread, you wind up with what I call a Stampede.

  35. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:

    ‘Dan’ really has this thing for sexual aberrations, and while a general concern about sexual aberrations is not at all outré yet ‘Dan’ has combined it – with no justification except his own obsessions – with his animosity against the Church (it was Catholics, he has often asserted, who have so often called the police on him and then lied about ‘Dan’ to (also Catholic) police and judges).

    And further, he assigns such aberrations to not just this or that individual Catholic cleric but rather to the entire Church, extending in all space and time. Which nicely echoes the old Abusenik saw (bruited from the outset of the Catholic Abuse Stampede) that the entire Church is nothing but, and has been nothing but, a self-perpetuating rape-culture and rape-machine.

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 953PM:

    It is on that basis that ‘Dan’ then continues his riffy epitheticals – wherein he further demonstrates his obsessive and manipulative approach: the matter of “pedophilia and child rape” … “should not even need to be discussed”.

    I would say it most surely needs to be “discussed”, especially if we are dealing with formal accusations of such actions.

    But what ‘Dan’ is really going for here is that his cartoons and any accusations should be simply accepted and not”discussed”’ … because that will interfere with his and the Stampede’s preferred narrative cartoon and perhaps even – the horror! – establish the innocence of the accused individual.

    Thus – bottom line – ‘Dan’s stuff is right and people should just accept that, agree with him, and acknowledge him as being right and very clever (and also, but of course, specially “Chosen” by God).

    And thus if you question or doubt ‘Dan’ then you question or doubt or “mock” God and – but of course – God’ll-getcha for that. ‘Dan’ looks forward to that. Very very much.

  37. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1018PM:

    He’s rather upset at having the Church “deny” accusations. That such denial might well be warranted is not something that “should be discussed” of course, because ‘everybody knows’ and ‘Dan’ has assured everybody through his special ‘knowledge’ of God and Scriptural interpretation.

    He’s rather jealous of the Church’s “spotless reputation”, and given his own situation, that is not hard to grasp.

    Then a truly whackulent bit of ‘theology’: if you are innocent then God will give you justice on Judgment Day … this was the Puritan fallback in witch-burning cases: if we’re wrong in burning you, then rest assured that God will correct our well-intentioned mistakes on the Last Day. (And yes, the heyday of witch-trials was during the post-Reformation era, and lasted – as we saw in Salem in 1692 – well into the early modern era.)

    Then more of an advertisement for his own preferred narrative about his many misadventures with the police and psychiatry: he too is a ‘victim’ – doncha see? – of all the Catholics who, being “compulsive liars” and “lying creeps”, got him in trouble with the authorities so often (when all he was doing – doncha know? – was delivering ‘God’s Word’ to them). He cawn’t think why all that isn’t clear as day.

  38. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1018PM:

    Then – again without demonstration – ‘Dan’ claims he has “read some of your stories” (who is this “your”?) and – it’s as clear as day to ‘Dan’ – “apparently pedophiles just pop up everywhere and in just about every Catholic church”.

    But then – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrr ittttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ does offer some ‘evidence’: his own assertion, claim, story and denunciation that “six of eight of the priests in the church of [his] youth were pedophiles” … readers may consider that as they may, and not least for the thought that at any time in recent memory there has been a parish church with eight priests assigned. What remarkably richly staffed parish was this?

    If there any things in this world about which we might “rest assured”, ‘Dan’s assurances need not be counted among them.

    • Dan says:

      I refuse to answer or waste any of my time giving explanations to a compulsive liar, excuser and enabler of the pedophilia and perversions of your despicable cult. I never harassed children at any time, you lying creep. No one shooed me away, I left on my own accord with no one forcing me to leave. I only returned back towards the church when four thugs were threatening and cursing at me. That is when the cowards hit me from behind in the back and neck. You are the perfect example of one disgusting, lying catholic and much of the reason for many to leave your nasty cult and all its false teachings. Your cult of greedy idolators, liars, cowards and pedophile, perverted creeps, will stand before the Almighty and spend eternity in Hell's Fire and deserve every bit of God's wrath. All of you sickos will have no need to plead insanity, because the Lord God already knows that you're a bunch of unrepentant liars that think you've even fooled Him. He knows every disgusting thought that goes through your mind and is well aware of your repetitive excuses for some of the most despicable crimes against innocence and young children. You and the pervs of your cult will pay a mighty high price.  servant of the Most High

  39. Publion says:

    On the 3rd at 149AM ‘Craig’ asks “what if these accusers are speaking the truth?”.

    Well, that’s why each of these cases most surely need to be “discussed”. What if they are not telling the truth?

    And what are the plausible elements and what are the implausible elements in the accusations and their stories? And what are the probabilities – with all of the foregoing considered – that the accusations and stories are veracious?

    And then he slides in a presumption: that the accusers of Cardinal Pell were indeed ‘victims’ (that hasn’t at all been established). This, once again, is a clear instance and example of the Stampede presumption: if you claim to be a ‘victim’ then you are a ‘victim’ and anybody who questions your story and your ‘bravery’ is not being nice and so on.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Craig’s of the 3rd at 149AM:

    As best I can make out, the ‘swimming pool’ scenario at issue in the Pell matter is actually not quite accurately put. It was a ‘changing room’ where – as should surprise no one – persons take off one set of clothes and put on another (swimming gear to street clothes or vice-versa).

    This scenario does not even rise to the ‘shower room’ scenario presented in the Sandusky case.

    Is it possible that this ‘witness’ simply saw the priest changing in a room where others were doing the same?

    Although the point in the ‘witness’s claim that ‘Malcolm Harris’ raises about the identity of the Ballarat-Torquay parish priest remains also to be plausibly explained. Mistaken identity? Misinterpretation of what was actually seen? Untruthfulness on the part of the ‘witness’?

    Perhaps the local police – if they were actually informed at the time of the event – also considered these questions and came to the conclusions that dictated no further action.

    • Dan says:

      And the perfect example of more excuses, posed as questions, to raise doubt and protect one of far too many to count, pedophiles of your cult.  servant of The Truth

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Craig’s of the 3rd at 149AM:

    I would also note that – surely in this case, as best we know its actual events – a youth seeing an adult changing, whether the sight of his phallus was or was not intended by the adult for ‘abusive’ purposes – can hardly be considered the mechanism for a later life that included significant drug use and/or crime and/or general lack of maturity and/or of character.

    Such deleterious outcomes might well be plausible in actual cases of rape or violent sexual encounters, especially if sustained over some period of time. That point was an early element in sex-abuse matters, and rightly so.

    But that point was then extended – more by public opinion manipulation than by demonstrated research – to include just about any type of ‘sexual abuse’ (as that elastic term might be defined). Thus we see it here introduced as a possible explanation for whatever the youths allegedly saw.

  42. Dan says:

    Is this your diagnosis, Dr. Whackjob? Apparently Mr. So-Well-Informed hasn't a clue that an adult priest (card pell) was playing grab ass and balls with several young boys and putting his nasty, filthy hands down their swim trunks. And then there was the dressing room incident, with him standing naked in front of three boys for somewhere around ten minutes. Like you did to Jim, claiming that doesn't amount to sexual abuse, you creepy liar. And you have the nerve to insinuate that something horrid took place with myself and innocent kids. I'm not one of the fellow sickos of your disgusting cult, which you seem obligated to make excuses for. I wonder what kind of pervert you really are. Lying hypocrite creep.

  43. TrueCatholic says:

    If Pell is so innocent, why did he skip town, in the midnight hour, and pop up in the Vatican, two years ago ? Funny, your article mentions nothing about the documented liar, Pell is, nor the many credible witnesses, who attest to his odd behavior, at the pools, and in the showers. With naked little boys. Smear the victims, all you want. The truth will shine.

  44. Publion says:

    What questions are prompted by ‘Dan’s assertions of the 4th at 1037AM?

    Then-Fr. Pell was a member of the Torquay Surf Club: that sounds plausible.

    And he “spent his summers there” (i.e., in Torquay, at the Surf Club perhaps): a parish priest who gets “summers” off … ?

    If the ‘witness” was a Torquay resident (as it appears he was at the time) and knew “’George’ on a first name basis”, then how did he not know that “George” was not local? How did he not know that there was no “local priest”? Did he report it to local police at the time and if so, what action did they take and why?

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1037AM:

    Being familiar with the sum total of his submissions here, to see ‘Dan’ huffing about ‘making up facts’ is an entertainment that should not be indulged without sufficient popcorn.

    And then another howler: for one who exhibits a knee-jerk reversion to claiming that others are the ones making “excuses” and so on, ‘Dan’ deals with the 40-or-so year delay in ‘reporting’ by merely and blandly tossing off the bit about “the fact that people don’t report things necessarily in a timely fashion”.

    But … “that doesn’t mean they’re not credible”. Who is the “they” here – a) the long-ago events that wasn’t reported or b) the suddenly-appearing present-day ‘reporter’? If (a) then the possibility of retrieving whatever veracity or actuality the events might once have had is profoundly reduced; if (b) then the probability of the ‘reporter’s non-veracity rises significantly.

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1037AM:

    ‘Dan’ also seems on a ‘sick’ romp these past few days, with variations of that term appearing. The term, of course, must – by the laws of construal as they stand in the ‘Dan’-verse – only be applied in the projectile and must not be considered in the recoil; ‘Dan’ sees a lot of “sickos” all around him (Catholics, largely) but none in any mirror he has ever examined.

    ‘Dan’ then – again, marvelously – demonstrates the elasticity of clinical projection: we get an epithet about “reputation” from somebody with a long public police and psychiatric record / who has revealed himself through the many assorted bits he has tossed up here / and who has sought to evade that admittedly unhappy reputation by proclaiming himself the Chosen Servant of God, whose secret and special knowledge of Scripture transcends any actual knowledge of the subject and whose material is so close to God’s Mind and Word that to question it is to question God.

    “Empty” is one way of looking at that. Being “full” of it is another. Both terms seem to capture the reality of ‘Dan’.

    • Dan says:

      So the first paragraph we're falling back on the I'm Not/You Are bit, so the "sicko" term is recoiling and reflecting from the bottom of your toilet bowl, where maybe you're joined by many of the other catholic "sickos" from your cult. Maybe it would help if you flushed the bunch of you.

      Next, you're back at rehashing the compulsive lies of yours and your cults. Followed again by more mockery of my spiritual position with the Almighty. Jealously will get you nowhere, little peewee.

      And ending with more psychological projection, showing your true ignorance and stupidity, claims that I'm "Empty" and full of it. Wow! How clever you are to use a word I used and be able to put it in a full sentence, totally resisting to use any of your annoying vocabulary. Problem with you is your own "reality" is that you're a compulsive liar. Really!!                   Chosen Servant of God, whose material is so close to God's Mind and Word

      P.S. Thank You for suggesting my new title. Shame there's no one in your cult who could truthfully qualify for such. Hypocrite Liars idolizing Mary "Queen of Heaven", may suffice.

  47. Publion says:

    On to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1204PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to tackle the “Billy Doe” case (i.e. the Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia, discussed on this site, and examined extensively on the BigTrial site by Ralph Cipriano).

    The case presents a hefty amount of demonstrated material and facts uncongenial and even antithetical to ‘Dan’s preferred cartoon narrative: the script of the usual ‘large-futured innocent waif (literally) raped many times over as he was passed-around among a coterie of priests and a teacher and thereby  turned now into a drug-addicted and veracity-challenged ambulant wreck of an adult / the collusion between local prosecutors and trial judges in the service of making this case ‘work’ / the amplification by the local mainstream media, skewed invariably toward pushing the script and ignoring the increasing amount of countervailing material.

    Whatever is ‘Dan’ to do?

    • Dan says:

      I never made any attempt to "tackle" the "Billy Doe" case. I took Daves and others in this forums word for it that it was fraud. I tend to take someone's word as being the truth, but from you, your church and this forum, I have surely changed my mind as far as thinking people to be truthful. All I was saying is you "excusers and enablers" sight the fraud that happened in the "Billy Doe" case, as proof that just about all cases are fraud. There is just way too many examples where priests and bishops have admitted to their perversions.

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1204PM:

    Easy-peezy: ‘Dan’ doth simply declare any reference to the case to be merely  the work of “excusers and enablers” (nicely, this is the exact dynamic by which ‘Dan’ uses his speshull status with God and the Bible to excuse and enable his own Fixed Delusional Syndrome’s delusions and rants and so on).

    Thus then ‘Dan’ merely doth riff on that with the “you can keep” stuff.

    Thus doth ‘Dan’ evade and avoid the most vivid example of precisely how the Stampede operates, in order to keep his preferred cartoon narrative going both in regard to the Church and to himself.

    And he seeks to bring the performance home with the pearl-clutching declamation about “the biggest lie [he’s] ever heard … !”. I submit that regular readers of this site have heard a whole lot of even bigger ones.

    • Dan says:

      And more scoffing from the mocker!

      I'm glad to see you admit that you've told some awful big ones, but still disagree that there's any bigger lie than the catholic church being "the One and only True Church". Let's settle that you as a lying catholic from your church of false teachings, could easily qualify as one of the biggest liars in your cult, but still would only place a close second to the lies of your cult.

  49. Publion says:

    Well, my recent comments put a lot of material on the table. How does ‘Dan’ deal with it?

    Why, clutching the pearls and puffing up the pinfeathers he doth (the 4th at 1127PM) merely “refuse to answer or waste any of [his] time giving explanations to a compulsive liar”.

    In other words, ‘Dan’ will evade it all. But he can do that – doncha see? – because he is dealing with “a compulsive liar” (one of his usual epithets for which he has proffered not a scintilla of demonstration).

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1127PM:

    Just who here might be eligible for the Compulsive Liar Cup is for the reader to decide.

    As I have said, for someone even more innocent of psychological knowledge than he is of scriptural knowledge ‘Dan’s selective deployment of the term “compulsive liar” (a necessary concomitant of Fixed Delusional Syndrome since – if questioned – the patient must neutralize any questions or insights or facts that threaten the stability of the core delusion) suggests rather that he picked up the term from one of his psychiatric interviews and now uses it – in a fine example of clinical projection – against others whose material threatens his core delusional matrix.

    One might go further and consider two subtypes of the Syndrome: Grandiose (‘Dan’ insists he is specially “chosen” by God and so perfectly aligned to God that to question ‘Dan’ is to question God) and Persecutory (‘Dan’ insists that all of his misadventures with police and psychiatry are the result of others who – by the “hundreds”, we recall him asserting – do ‘compulsively lie’ about him; he’s persecuted by being so widely ‘lied-about’).

    • Dan says:

      Never been called or considered to be a "compulsive liar". So once again we obviously are dealing with your psychological projection problem and attempting to blame others for your being a "sicko". Don't fret little peewee, nobody can take your Compulsive Liar Sippy Cup away from you. Maybe when you're not sipping the Kool Aid from your cult, your mommy can fill the cup with your favorite source of nourishment, popcorn. Maybe someone should inform you that popcorn really isn't brain food, but that surely does explain an awful lot about you!  servant of The Truth ( As in God, idiota, and that's why it was capitalized)

  51. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1127PM:

    And in what is now the most recent variation on his ‘schoolyard’ misadventure, he now claims that he wasn’t shooed-away, but rather he “left of [his] own accord” … except then “four thugs” (he means the school staffers) “were threatening and cursing at [him]”.

    So … as the school staffers approach ‘Dan’ suddenly decides to leave … but then when he is threatened (with the police, quite possibly) he … doesn’t leave. And then – this scene is growing like kudzu – he is suddenly “hit … from behind in the back and neck”.

    Readers may consider this script proposal from the point of view of a film director: how exactly is this scene playing-out in terms of the actors’ positions and motivations? Who is standing where, facing in what direction, saying and doing what … that sort of thing.

    • Dan says:

      I said the prophecy, which took only a couple of minutes, walked down the block, turned right and walked another block and a half and was then 1/2 block off of the church property. This was the first time I heard from the four thugs, yelling threats and cursing from the corner of the church. I walked back to ask them why the threats and foul language, when I had caused no one any harm. That was when they hit me from behind in the back and neck.

      There, now you can make your movie and don't forget your popcorn. If you would stop with your ignorance and lying assessments, maybe someone might treat you with respect. Until then your still just a compulsive lying worthless catholic creep.  servant

  52. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1127PM:

    And readers may then compare and contrast their assessment to ‘Dan’s story here.

    This is also precisely the type of assessment made by the investigation that ultimately uncovered the abyssal problems with the stories ‘Billy Doe’ told in the Philadelphia case.

    And the comment riffs on in the usual way to its predictable epithetical ending that drags in the usual God’ll-getcha bit (“God’s wrath”) and the grandiose self-styling as “servant of the Most High”.

  53. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1143PM:

    Here, in response to my pointing out the changing room scenario and its elements in my comment of the 4th at 1137AM, ‘Dan’ merely waves it all away with more evasive epitheticals. My “excuses” are merely “posed as questions” – doncha see? – so ‘Dan’ doesn’t have to deal with them. Neato.

    And on it goes with more epitheticals and the further grandiose self-styling as “servant of The Truth” (capitalized, no less).

  54. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1158PM:

    Commenting (‘responding’ wouldn’t quite be accurate) to my comment of the 4th at 1138AM, ‘Dan’ simply and evasively waves-away the plausibility problems with the standard Stampede/Abusenik scripting whereby even a mere ‘seeing’ would or could result in the ruin of a previously large-futured life and maturity.

    On what basis does ‘Dan’ justify his evasively waving it all away? Why in the sure and certain knowledge (that ‘Dan’ alone doth possess) that Cardinal Pell was “playing” and so on. He cawn’ think why that isn’t all as clear as day.

    • Dan says:

      My apologies, I wasn't aware that perverts think that a grown adult playing grab ass and balls with several young boys and putting his nasty, filthy hands down their swim trunks, is only "playing". Where did you learn that, at NAMBLA.

  55. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1158PM:

    He then considers it necessary (perhaps he noticed the zest with which he described the alleged acts) to insist overtly that he is “not one of the fellow sickos of your disgusting cult”. Well, I could perhaps accept that he isn’t a Catholic, but that’s about all here.

    And then he also considers it necessary (perhaps he realized that his immediately foregoing gambit wasn’t going to do the trick) he opines as to whether I too might be a “pervert”. He’s really really really on about “disgusting creeps” and “perverts” … in fact he sees them all around him (especially among Catholics and their clergy) … but not in any mirror he has ever examined.

    “Lying hypocrite creep” would indeed seem to apply here, though no doubt not in the sense ‘Dan’ intends.

    • Dan says:

      I've rarely if ever used the terms "disgusting creeps" and "perverts" and let's not forget "pedophiles" or "compulsive liars", until dealing with you, other lying catholics and their despicable priests, and the research into your cult, it's disgusting hierarchy and their excusers in this forum. That should sum it up for you. They wouldn't be allowed in God's church, which once again is the gathering of believers, not a building or temple. Does that not compute in your little popcorn clogged brain?

  56. Publion says:

    On then to the ‘True Catholic’ comment of the 5th at midnight:

    In February 2014 Cardinal Pell was appointed to head the new Vatican Secretariat for the Economy. As such he would have had to go to Rome to take up that new office. I leave it to the Australian readership here as to whether trans-oceanic flights from Australia might depart at night.

    As to the fact that Cardinal Pell is a “documented liar”, the commenter offers no demonstration whatsoever. Ditto in regard to “the many credible witnesses” who – further – “attest to his odd behavior, at the pools and in the showers”.

    This is merely a familiar instance of the ‘drive-by’ type of internet comment, one for which ‘True Catholic’ is known on this site.

  57. malcolm harris says:

    These charges against Cardinal Pell are likely to be thrown out. What overseas people don't understand is that this poor man has been a target for opportunists. Also a punching-bag for the activist scribes, with a secular agenda,  who see him as their natural enemy. What is very significant is a case against him in 2002. A Melbourne man accused him of sexual abuse, going back to a youth camp held 40 years ealier, in 1962. The Supreme Court, with a non-Catholic Judge, could not find any evidence to substantiate this accusation. So the accuser failed, even though he had a lawyer (pro-bono) to represent  him. This case had almost saturation coverage in the media. Which means that everybody in this country, including Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument, must have  been aware that the case was going on. Yet they did not come forward with their own 'stories'? Why not? But I hope to make my point more clearly in a later post.

  58. malcolm harris says:

    To clarify my earlier post… if something is true now, then it would have been equally true in 2002. As these stories supposedly refer to events 40 years ago. So Dignan and Monument had only to pick up a phone, and call a newspaper, to get their stories made public. And 2002 would certainly have been the opportune time to do it, as their stories would then have bolstered the accusation of the Melbourne guy. And his accusation would also have given more credibility to them. So why didn't that happen? Well I honestly think that their 'stories' did  not even exist in 2002. I think that their 'stories' only came into existence later… about the time that Cardinal Pell first appeared before the Royal Commission in 2014. These guys could see that a witch-hunt was gathering momentum… so they decided to join in. 

  59. Publion says:

    We proceed with the most recent crop from ‘Dan’.

    On the 5th at 1118PM he again tries to evade his reliance on the old I’m Not/You Are bit by claiming – again – that when I mention his deployment of that bit then I am the one deploying it. I only point out when he is using it yet again. And the comment trails off downward from that bit to more epithet.

    Which includes more evasive epitheticals by which he attempts to dismiss my characterization (drawn from his many submissions here) of his stuff: they are just “rehashing the compulsive lies of yours and your cults” (sic). As always, there is no demonstration of what those “compulsive lies” might be; ‘Dan’ just tosses out his epitheticals to console himself and evade the realities that his delusions were constructed and embraced to evade.

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1118PM:

    Grandiosely – and thus marvelously – ‘Dan’ then puffs up his pinfeathers and huffs about my “mockery of [his] spiritual position with the Almighty”. The Emperor of the French is out on the sun porch and insists on being referred to as Your Imperial Majesty … that sort of thing.

    And then another deployment of the I’m Not/You Are bit: it is I – and not ‘Dan’ – who actually engages in “psychological projection”,  which demonstrates my “ignorance and stupidity”. Readers may consider as they will.

    And by the end of the comment, we can see that ‘Dan’ has done nothing ‘responsive’ but instead has merely consoled himself with a bunch of ‘comebacks’. Nothing new about that.

    • Dan says:

      I remember it being well established that you took up residence under the sun porch, but I do like your new title, even though it should be more like Emperor of the Nazis.

  61. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1136PM:

    ‘Dan’ involved himself in the subject of the ‘Billy Doe’ case when he said he was tired of hearing about it (as well and slyly he should be, since it comprehensively contradicts his preferred cartoon narrative).

    Then he tries to evade his evasion of it (he’s tired of hearing about it) by bleating – warning: get popcorn – that he doth “tend to take someone’s word as being the truth” … well, except “from [me], [my] church and this forum”.

    Though he had just said that he “took Daves [sic] and others in thus forums [sic] word for it”.

    As is clear here, when ‘Dan’ is in evasion mode, he tends to lose control of the sense of his stuff.

    But with ‘Dan’ it’s never about “sense” (let alone “truth”); it’s all about coming up with a comeback that will evade the weaknesses in his presentation and evade responsibility for what he’s said and claimed.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1136PM:

    ‘Dan’ is victimized – doncha see? – in that Persecutory way I had mentioned in a recent prior comment: by myself, the Church and this forum.  If it weren’t for such victimization, why … he would be the very soul of sweetness, rationality, and light.

    But since he is victimized, why … then he can operate with no regard for those elements and just buckle down to epitheticals and cartoons. It’s a neat mind-game he plays here. And gives us an insight into this type of derangement: since one is victimized (in one’s own mind, anyway), then one is justified in dispensing with rationality and truthfulness. Victimization (even if only imagined) makes it all OK … and indeed even makes it all truthy and heroic.

    Which also recalls Vishinsky in that quotation from Stalin’s show trials: since the alleged actions are so awful, then nobody has a right to ask for evidence or proof.

    And at the end of the comment, ‘Dan’ has not supported his here-repeated “excusers and enablers” bit with any demonstration or explication.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! And you're such a prime example of one who is sweetness, rational, light, and let's not forget truthfulness. I do agree that you qualify as being truly a compulsive liar and heroic to all the sick pedophiles and perverts of your cult. How's that comeback, Hypocrite?  servant of Truth

  63. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1136PM:

    One might also ask: if he doth take the Doe trial to be a fraud, then were those who exposed the case as fraudulent not also “excusers and enablers”?

    But the best he can work up here is to whine that too much emphasis is being placed on the fraudulent Doe allegations, as “proof that just about all cases are fraud”. I certainly never said anything about the Doe case ‘proving’ such a thing; my point has always been that we are dealing in probabilities here, and the exposure of the Doe case surely a) conforms to all the elements inherent in the Stampede gambit and thus b) increases the probability of those elements being operative in any Stampede allegations and that therefore c) we must examine each case and allegation carefully.

    But examination isn’t good for cartoons and preferred-narratives and scripting; which is why ‘Dan’ doesn’t like examination.

    • Dan says:

      And we do love how you "examine each case and allegation carefully". Is that catholic apologists language for making excuses, dreaming up other possibilities or probabilities, or when that doesn't suffice, then we'll just flat out lie for the pedophile creeps. Sounds right, publiar.

  64. Publion says:

    Commenting on mine of the 5th at 244PM, ‘Dan’ (the 5th at 1155PM) once more deploys his “scoffing from the mocker” bit.

    His justification here is that regardless of what whoppers we’ve heard here (many from himself, he fails to add) yet that’s all insignificant when compared to the “catholic church” lie. Soooo … it’s OK if ‘Dan’ tells whoppers, since he is engaged in his campaign against (what he claims to be) the biggest lie of all.

    As I said in a prior comment in this sequence, the Victimist and the delusionally-deranged approaches dovetail nicely here in that they both seek to excuse their lack of veracity on the grossly specious grounds that they are merely combating a bigger lie … so it’s OK.

    • Dan says:

      Liars will never qualify as being veracious, no matter how much longwinded ignorance spews from their mouths.

  65. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1212AM:

    Here – commenting on mine of the 5th at 343PM, explaining elements of the Fixed Delusional Syndrome (the newer term for it is ‘Disorder’ rather than ‘Syndrome’) – ‘Dan’ simply asserts and claims and pronounces that he has “never been called or considered to be a ‘compulsive liar’”.

    Readers familiar with his submissions here may take that assertion for what they think it’s worth.

    But on the basis of that (rather dubious) assertion ‘Dan’ can then run the old I’m Not/You Are bit again: it is I who am the “compulsive liar” and not ‘Dan’, so myah-myah. Such a comeback.

    I never said “popcorn was brain food”; it is, instead, just the thing to accompany comical entertainment, which is why I recommend it when perusing much of ‘Dan’s material.

    But whether his delusions are neuro-physiologically based or psycho-dynamically based, he’s not going to be finding any “brain food” that will solve his issues.

    • Dan says:

      You've always been the "compulsive liar" and you've been trying to run that I'm Not/You Are bit back on me. Remembeer peewee that you were honored with the "Compulsive Liar Sippy Cup", filled with your cartoon flavored popcorn.

  66. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1227AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ adds more bits to his old schoolyard story: his “prophecy” (courageously delivered to school-kids behind a fence) “took only a couple of minutes”, after which he walked almost two blocks (and still was only half a block from “the church property”) when suddenly … and then the “four thugs” bit.

    And who were these “four thugs”? Long ago had said they were staffers from the church-school. If that bit is still ‘true’, then we are to imagine that they chased him for two blocks or so and … he then simply couldn’t think why they were chasing him so … he “walked back to ask them why”. And so on with the claim that he was set-upon and bethumped by school-staffers.

    Readers may consider the plausibility and veracity of this scenario as they will.

    ‘Dan’ was a victim – doncha see? – and didn’t do anything really. He’s always a victim … and cawn’t think why.

    • Dan says:

      You are such a dumb jackass. I told you I walked away and was not forced to leave. Add more of your ignorant lies to the story, seeing that you were there to witness the whole scenario. Lying Scumbag.   servant

  67. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1236:

    He treats as if it were proven what has yet to be proven at all, i.e. that Pell was “playing grab ass and balls” and so on. I had used “playing” as a stand-in simply to avoid the rest of his rather vivid accusation, which readers could easily read for themselves.

    Which still leaves us with ‘Dan’ proffering as fact what has not been demonstrated.

    But that gives him a sly opening to toss in his epithetical about “NAMBLA”.

    • Dan says:

      Still defending another Scumbag from your cult?

    • Dan says:

      Pretty much describes your modus operandi, "to avoid the rest of [anyone's] rather vivid accusation[s]", especially when it becomes fairly obvious that those multiple accusations against the pervert are pointing to his obvious guilt. You've done the same with my examples of your evil lies and slander, claiming I never gave them. Sometimes I wonder if you have some seeing or hearing problems. Maybe it's just your reading comprehension and lack of any moral sense. "Nonsense", you are fairly accomplished at.

      Seeing that nothing has yet been proven, why don't you stop with your false proposals, lies, excuses and lame probabilities assessments, attempting to sway public opinion with your unproven ignorance. Please stop with all your excuses for the pedophiles of your cult. The majority have been proven to be creeps, even by their own admission. By now they've learned to just deny, deny, lie and deny some more. Sounds like the definition of you. I've even seen advice from Dave to keep their mouth shut, they've gotten their foot stuck in it so often. How about being honest and truthful about what you've done. That doesn't compute in the minds of lying deceiving catholics? Lie all you want to the world, but your lies won't hold any water with the Almighty.   servant

  68. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1254AM:

    Here – having donned his Wig of Goody-Two-Shoes – ‘Dan’ doth declare and declaim that he has “rarely if ever” made use of the terms “disgusting creeps” and “perverts” and “pedophiles” and “compulsive liars” … until dealing with me and “other lying catholics and their despicable priests” and on and on.

    But since he’s been around Catholics and the Church all his life, then … what really has he said here?

    ‘Dan’s been gone around the bend quite a while. And who could read his myriad bits here and think that he’s rather unused to such vitriol and is instead actually by disposition and character the very soul of sweetness and rationality and light?

    And by the end of his comment the only thing he has managed to “sum up” is the gravamen of his vitriolic cartoons and cartoonishness  But I would say that readers already pretty much knew that anyway.

    • Dan says:

      Wow! Grab your popcorn everybody, publiar's Cartoon Time will be returning tomorrow. What a lying joke you've turned out to be.

    • Dan says:

      Since I had catholic family and friends, yes I went to their celebrations, but had no regular contact with the church since I was 14 and not again until sent to try to awaken the lost at the age of 54. I've been dealing with the liars and the truly dark side of the cult, only for the last 8 or so years. The most disturbing stuff has come about in the last 4 years, but nothing as bad as the garbage and lies I've had to confront in this forum. I guess as the primary slanderer and compulsive liar in this forum, that fact must give you something to be real proud of. I'll expect some of your sarcasm in return for what I've just told you.     servant sent by the Most High

  69. Publion says:

    Moving on to more substantive material, I would recommend to readers Julia Yost’s article about the Pell matter, in the journal First Things and available here

    This is Yost’s review of the book “Cardinal” by one Louise Milligan, the Australian publication of which predates the new charges by only a short time.

    Milligan says she wrote it “from the complainant’s point of view” – and I would say that the deployment of such a legal term indicates that this book was – not to put too fine a point on it – tailor-made for the setting up of charges. (Readers also might recall that it was the claims of a “local historian” that fueled the since-fizzled Irish Magdalene Laundries brouhaha.)

    I am only going to consider here the points she raises relevant to the allegation stories themselves. The Aussie police – as Yost notes – have not actually gotten around to publishing any actual charges. I would say that this is somewhat strategic: they will let the Stampede dynamics get rolling (by announcing that they will bring some charges) and then let public opinion be suitably prepared according to accepted Stampede praxis and the now-familiar dynamics of the Stampede Playbook.

    • Dan says:

      I'm sorry audience, I thought "Cartoon Time" was over, but you'd better prepare a bigger bowl popcorn, the longwinded publiar is going to contradict all the hearsay he knows and solve all the allegations against cardinal pell, and there now is no reason for him to leave Babylon Rome to be tried. That way when he's pronounced guilty, the cult can still protect and hide him under their dresses. Bunch of fairy, pedophile queens, honoring, venerating, adoring, but never accuse us of worshipping our blessed sinless ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven". Perverted creeps, their excusers and enablers, catholic NAMBLA, worldwide.

  70. Publion says:

    In regard to the 1961 thrusting-hands-down-pants allegation story:

    It is alleged to have taken place in the presence of other boys. Milligan resolves this problem by merely claiming that all those non-witnesses were “seemingly oblivious” to what then-seminarian Pell was doing in plain view. The claim was not reported by the allegant until 2002 – the year, regular readers will recall, when the Stampede got going in January in Boston, MA. It was dismissed by a judge that same year because – to use Yost’s phrasing – “There is no eyewitness evidence, no physical evidence, no circumstantial evidence, no cogency, and no contemporary report”. (Yet, again, there were allegedly a number of would-be witnesses present for the alleged act(s)).

  71. Publion says:

    On to the 2015 allegation of acts alleged to have happened in 1978 or 1979:

    In a swimming pool – allege two childhood friends who were 8 or 9 at the time of the allegations – Pell would cup his hands, boys would step into the cupped-hand platform, and Pell would propel them out of the water and into the air. The two – Messrs. Monument and Dignan – claim that Pell “fondled” them and “may have digitally penetrated them”.

    Yost notes that a) the boys would have to hold their legs tightly together when stepping into the cupped-hand platform and b) there were other pool-users, all potential witnesses of any such behavior and yet nobody noticed any of this and that c) while one might “fondle” outside the clothing, digital penetration would have required pulling down the swim trunks (again, in the presence of all those other people) and one’s ‘digit’ would have had to make its way to the anal orifice in the midst of them all.

  72. Publion says:

    In regard to the Torquay changing-room allegation story which Yost says she finds “the most credible” of the bunch:

    The ‘witness’ Tyvack, she notes, says that he entered the changing-room, and that several boys  (around 8 to 10 years old) were there and so was Pell. Tyvack says both that Pell was “facing them” and that he “had his back angled to them”. Tyvack then went behind the shower-screen and took a 5-10 minute shower.

    Tyvack then says that when he came out the boys and Pell were still there, the boys now being dressed but Pell still naked and they were all “looking at each other”. Tyvack claims that he then became “very suspicious” that what he was observing was an act of indecent exposure. Tyvack then says he told the boys to leave and warned Pell that he – Tyvack – would call the police if he ever saw this type of thing again.

    Club records show that both Pell and Tyvack continued to use the Club in the 1986-87 timeframe, with Tyvack even serving as a lifeguard and “bringing his sons around”. Tyvack apparently never mentioned this (alleged) incident to any other Club member or officials nor did he tell (or warn) his sons. Nor did he notify the police.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with the Torquay story:

    Not until 2012 did Tyvack ‘report’ the incident to “civil authorities”.

    Yost asks several questions:

    First, did Tyvack actually take so long a shower in a swimming-pool changing room facility? Most people just want to wash off the pool water and get on with it. But – Yost notes – this abnormally long shower time would establish plausible grounds for alleging “indecent exposure” (suggesting again, I would say, a story tailor-made to support charges).

    Second, would young boys stick around for 5-10 minutes once they had finished changing?

    Third, why would Pell risk so utterly obvious a gambit while knowing that another adult was just on the other side of the shower-screen?

    Fourth, why would Tyvack “wait a quarter of a century” to make his ‘report’?

    And I would add: why did the boys not mention so extended a vision of an adult’s phallus to somebody?

  74. Publion says:

    Yost then takes up what Milligan claims is “an explosive new charge”, i.e. that in 1997 as Archbishop, having finished celebrating Sunday Mass, Pell found two choirboys – aged 13 or so – “in a back room” getting tipsy on altar wine and he forced them to have oral sex.

    Milligan doesn’t meet the first allegant until he is in his thirties, but she assigns him the moniker “The Kid” (because, Yost notes, we are always supposed to believe ‘kids’, even when they are in their 30s).

    But Yost notes a police report, taken just recently, after the release of the Milligan book, in which it was noted that the altar-wine was always locked up and the two boys would have had neither the key nor unaccompanied access to the wine-storage locker.

    And also that as senior a celebrant as an Archbishop is never alone: he is always accompanied by a staffer (much as admirals and generals are always accompanied by staffers). And that the idea of an Archbishop prowling around alone in his (empty?) cathedral on a Sunday looking for lingering choirboys chugging wine “in a back room” or for any other reason is somewhat beyond belief.

    • Publion says:

      The second ‘victim’ (Milligan assigns him he moniker “The Choirboy”) actually isn’t an allegant since he died of a heroin overdose in 2014. His mother is on record as insisting that “Pell and his people ‘need to be responsible for’” her son’s death. That quotation from the mother of the deceased indicates the dynamics involved here: the mother would like someone else to be responsible for her son’s drug-using.

      Understandable, but that’s not the point here. This ‘victim’ is – somewhat conveniently – not in a position to agree or disagree with the claims and allegations made by “The Kid”.

      Yost points to a 1979 study (now “debunked”) that purported to demonstrate that “children never lie about” their sex abuse experiences, except to shield the abusers and that “when it comes to child sex abuse, denial is confirmation; No means Yes” and all the panoply of excuses concocted to explain-away the lack of evidence in child sex-abuse claims.

       (In another part of the review, Yost recalls that one day-care staffer in the 1980s was accused of having inserted a butcher-knife up the anus of a child, though the child displayed no such injuries and that in another case the entire grounds of a day-care center were excavated in search of an alleged subterranean maze of tunnels and secret rooms where Satanic and abuse rituals and acts were carried out by the staff on the children – the alleged maze was never found … the case, nonetheless, went on). 

    • Publion says:

      I would also add that Yost also notes Milligan’s “doctrinal liberalism”; she is against hierarchy and the Catholic Church (as she herself admits in her book). 

  75. Dan says:

    I invite any and all catholics to give a good look at Romans 1:18-32. Read it well, maybe even a few times. Go ahead, read it in The New American Bible, publiar promotes as if the meaning is different from other versions. I did and have no problem with what it says. I'll paraphrase and try to make it a little more concise.

    18 God's wrath is revealed against the wicked who suppress the truth by their wickedness [liars]. 19 God made himself evident to them. 20 Showed his eternal power and divinity – they have NO excuse; 21 they knew God, but did not give Him glory or thanks. Instead they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools [publyin'?] 23 and exchanged God's glory for the likeness of an image [statues] of mortal man [or woman goddess], birds, animals or snakes [publiar?]. 24 God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie [pub-liar]. 26 God handed them over to degrading passions [perversions or pedophilia]. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their PERVERSITY. 28 Since they did not acknowledge God [too busy bowing to mary statues], God handed them over to their undiscerning [sick] minds  to do what is improper. 29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed and malice…envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. 30 + 31 more adjectives – senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless [cowardly thugs]. 32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [As in the excusers, enablers and those who cover-up for the disgusting pedophiles and perverts of your cult.]

    To sum up – Idolatry and the worship of false gods or goddesses led to sexual perversions. God gave them over to do every vile thing. How much worse for a cult that protected and harbored grown men, who preffered anal and oral sex with young innocent boys? Stop claiming your cult to be the moral compass of the world, while performing the most disgusting immoral acts known to man. You enablers, liars and excusers will join in the punishment God has waiting for all the sickos of your despicable cult. There will be no excuses for any of you!!      servant of the One and Only True God



  76. Dan says:

    Better correct my spelling of preferred, before the grammar cop shows up.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Same old shit new day. The smoke screen here seems to have morphed into a very tall hedge. Can't see through it ; or over it or under it.

      Here's the hedge. Dan the Protestant reformer. who brings nothing but verbage vs. Publican who brings a little more than verbage. P brings the latest  RCC propaganda and literally miles of verbage. Nothing sane takes place here. To engage either is to be hedged, screened. Both are here so nothing important regarding victims and their needs gets through the shrubbary.

      As far as "pedophile sodomites in the priesthood" goes ? What did you think they were doing? Playing golf and drinking? All religion is fake. Get over it and get out. No sky fairy gives a rat's ass about you. If you don't know that you're just plain stupid.

  77. Publion says:

    There are a number of ‘Dan’ come-backs in his most recent crop; almost all reveal the level of mentation and character we are dealing with and need no further exposition on my part.

    But a bit can be gleaned from consideration of ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    It is the last in his sequence, and follows the several comments I had made in regard to the questions raised in the Yost article.

    There were a number of questions indicating the significantly problematic nature of each of the extant allegations.

    What does ‘Dan’ do?

  78. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    Why … he changes the subject.

    But merely to distract with more of his same old stuff.

    Donning one of his several faux-papal Wigs, he doth – with uncharacteristic non-directiveness – “invite all catholics” (so this may be classified as another of ‘Dan’s urbi et orbi poses).

    And they are invited to … look up another of the pericopes from ‘Dan’s now-familiar pile.

  79. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    The Letter to the Romans is held to have been written in anticipation of Paul wrapping up his ministry in the Eastern Mediterranean world and heading for Spain, with a planned visit to the Roman Christian community en route. It’s sort of letter-of-introduction, doing the work that pre-visit PR would do today, acquainting the Roman Christians with himself and his message and ideas.

    As Paul often did in his missionary talks to Gentiles in the Eastern Mediterranean world, he goes after the pagans whose lives reflect the consequences of a core rejection of Christ’s Gospel.

    One can easily see how the Roman Christians – given their locality – would be even more acutely aware of the paganism that was all around them in Imperial Rome.

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    ‘Dan’ – of course – urges readers to “read it well” but that – of course – is hardly the full freight of his exhortation: one must read Romans with the speshull ‘Dan’-glasses to see what he sees and what he wants everyone else to see.

    Which reveals a basic (one might easily say ‘fundamental’) problem with ‘Dan’s approach: it doesn’t distinguish between a) the paganism to which Paul is actually referring in the Letter and b) the failures of those who are already Christians.

    Thus: if one is not a pagan but a Christian, and one fails the Gospel through sin, is one then no longer a Christian?

    This is precisely the conceptual conflation upon which the ‘Dan’-verse (and general fundie) ranting against the Church and Catholicism is built: i) pagans (who don’t accept the Gospel) and ii) Christian sinners (who accept the Gospel but occasionally fail the Gospel) are really for all practical purposes the same thing.

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    Several  consequences flow from this abyssal category-error:

    First, it results in the creation of an equivalence type of Scriptural interpretation whereby any pericope comprised of descriptions of pagan belief, culture and lifestyle and the often-accompanying ‘Woes’ and denunciations can thus also be applied to Christians who fail through sin.

    Thus the odd and sustained but (for ‘Dan’s delusional and plop-tossy agenda) necessary insistence on describing Catholicism and the Church as some form of paganism (goddess-worship, idols, church buildings as “temples” and so on).  For the purposes of this agenda, Catholicism and the Church have to be seen as ‘pagan’, so as to open Catholicism and the Church to all the juicy Scripture-bits against pagans (in both the Hebraic era of the OT and the Christian era of the NT).

    And ‘Dan’ – of course – doth love the juicy bits.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    Second, it is necessary to downplay the status of forgiveness within the Christian (and Biblical) vision: if pagans are condemned for their paganism (if not also for their pagan-hood) and if the Church and Catholicism are pagan, why … then there can be no forgiveness. And the plop-tossy ranting can thus proceed con gusto, and under the mask of Scriptural authority, as we see so often demonstrated in the ‘Dan’ stuff.

    The disciples realized this problem – if somewhat inchoately – when they asked Jesus ‘who then can be saved?’ (Luke 13:23 and 18:26, Matthew 19:25): if only perfection in the following of the Gospel will ensure salvation, who then can be saved? Christ replies that it is only possible “for God” to effect this.

    It is on the basis of this point, connected to Christ’s entrusting Peter with “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”, that the Church’s theology of forgiveness is founded.

    The realities of ‘salvation’ and ‘sin’, of pagans who sin and Christians who sin, are connected, but they are not the synonymous.

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    Third, however, is that if there can be no forgiveness then those who claim to be ‘Christians’ must – willy nilly – hold themselves to be without sin. Otherwise, the same conflation that they have weaponized against ‘pagans’ and/or ‘Catholics and Catholicism’ can be as easily applied to themselves.

    A heavy dose of Victimism helps here: ‘Dan’ is – as we have so often heard from him – victimized by pagan-Catholics and so on when really he is (as his preferred narrative scripting  would have it) just the heroic and truthy but sore-bethumped Servant and so on. He doesn’t sin; he’s just really really lied about a whole lot. That sort of thing.

  84. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    ‘Dan’ then tries to evade the problems with Biblical translation (I doubt he is even aware of the abyssal conceptual theological problems) by a) implying that any old translation will do.

    The translation is only part of the problem. The interpretation also vital. And any ‘Dan’-verse interpretation is deformed from the get-go by the assorted elements of his delusional system.

    And then he – with a notable slyness – offers b) to make the gravamen of any Biblical interpretation “more concise” by – had you been waittinggggggggggg forrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – doing the job himself (i.e. he will “paraphrase” the pericope just so it’s easier for folks to ‘get it’ … with that “it” being, of course, merely the official ‘Dan’-verse take on the pericope).

    But don’t be nervous – ‘Dan’ has “no problem” with this sort of thing (and he could add: he does it all the time). Readers may consider it all as they will.

  85. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    Thus ‘Dan’ indulges in his interpretation throughout the second paragraph, though all the while one must consider that Paul is speaking here of the actual pagans (i.e. who do not embrace the Gospel and thus live in darkness) inhabiting Imperial Rome and for that matter much of the world.

    Just to make things more “concise”, then, ‘Dan’ lards his interpretation with his own take, just so you don’t get tempted to give more thought to Paul than you do to ‘Dan’s stuff or start to see daylight appearing between what Paul says and what ‘Dan’ wants you to see.

  86. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1101PM:

    But although ‘Dan’ said he was going to make things “concise”, he finishes that second paragraph and yet senses the need to now “sum up” his ‘concision’.

    And this “sum up” is just a repeat of his usual stuff, built upon the ‘Dan’-verse dogma that the Church is in essence and fundament both pagan and sexually perverted. (I think that’s a more concise summing up of his stuff here.)

    As I have often said, that there are individuals among the human species who are sexually abusive and even perverted is a truism. That individual Christians can and do fail the Gospel is also a historical and theological truism.

    But to leap from those truisms to the “concise” core of the ‘Dan’-verse dogma is a long leap indeed, and over an abyss of delusion and manipulation as well.

    Oh, and he wraps it up with another God’ll-getcha bit and that grandiose self-styling that he no doubt practices in front of his bathroom mirror several times a day.

  87. Jim Robertson says:

    And Dan doesn't like "idolatry" and says the Catholics here practice it. That does what exactly for those who were and are being injured sexually by priests. Why the fuck has an a non abused Protestant and a Non abused Catholic got so much to say about everything but what the church has done to the victims. Nothing obviously. P would like to pretend we all are liars and Dan wants to play back a few centuries as if the RCC hasn't get piles of excuses for all and any of their behaviors. The church is an mpire. It behaves as empires behave. It protects what it values most. No not it's children but it's gold. If the RCC was truly ignorant of the abuse. It would have behaved far differently than it has. Only 15% cheaply compensated; the creation of fake victims groups and the excuses given are the behaviors of an empire not a religion basecd on love. That's the facts. If the church complains it's paid out 3 billion all i can say is you shouldn't have allowed your priests to harm so many children, who you refuse to compensate.

  88. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1239PM (to be found under mine of the 6th at 455PM):

    Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates not his lack of theological and Scriptural chops, but rather his queasy legal chops: “it becomes fairly obvious”, he doth pronounce, “that those multiple accusations against the pervert are pointing to his obvious guilt”. Really? Soooo … the more accusations against you, the more obvious it is that you are guilty … ?

    Where then does that leave ‘Dan’ who by his own count has had “hundreds” testify against him … ? And he has been involved with the law formally on six occasions (that he admits to). Of course, in ‘Dan’s own cases, they were all “liars” and it was all “lies, lies, lies”.

    But in Cardinal Pell’s case, apparently, some other ‘principle’ applies (i.e. the ‘principle’ of ‘Dan’s agenda against the Church and Catholicism).

    • Dan says:

      Big difference is that I'm not being accused of touching or grabbing any child, let alone stranger's little boys. Many of the accusations against me were different, pointing to the fact that they were false and absolute lies. How do I know that? Because I was the accused and none of your cults accusations were ever true. NONE, including yours! This deceiving cardinal pell is a creep and a pedophile and most of the accusations involve young boys. Definitely the modus operandi of many of your cult's leaders and clergy. You've seen one, you've seen them all, perverts, idolators, cowards and lying creeps. There are no saints in your church, only deceivers making outrageous false claims, beating themselves, faking stigmatas and dreaming up visions of mary. Pericope for the dope - Col 2:18.

      "Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you with speculation about what he has seen [false visions]. Such a man is puffed up without basis by his unspiritual mind."  Col 2:18

  89. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1239PM:

    Then he tries to weasel-in something to the effect that he has given examples of my “evil lies and slander”. No, really, all he’s done is to claim that the only acceptable take on his misadventures is his own take on them; for which we only have his word … and readers can do what they want with that.

    And after a bit of epithetical recreation, ‘Dan’ moves on to his second paragraph.

    Here he is going for the gambit that since “nothing has yet been proven” then we should “stop” with “false proposals” (how can he know they are “false”?) and declares that “probabilities assessments” are “lame” (now there’s a mature and competent objection for you).

    My “ignorance”, he further doth declare is “unproven” – and that’s one of the few accuracies we’ve seen from him in quite some time.

  90. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1239PM:

    And then he riffs on with his favorite cartoon characterizations of “the majority of “the pedophiles in your cult”.

    And something about ‘Dan’ having “seen advice from Dave” telling (person or persons unknown) “to keep their mouth shut”. Is it even worth wondering what is going on in ‘Dan’s mind here?

    And he wraps up this performance with more on his ever-handy “lie” and “lies” and “lying” meme.

    And another variation on God’ll-getcha.

    • Dan says:

      You may think that "the pedophiles in your cult" is some of my "favorite cartoon characterizations", but such is further proof of the sickness in your mind. This is an absolute horror story, with actors that need to be purged. Don't forget your popcorn.  servant

  91. Publion says:

    It seems I had overlooked something to be gleaned in ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 522PM:

    Here he demonstrates the connection he wishes existed between ‘pagan’ Catholicism and “bunch of fairy, pedophile queens”. He begins to lose grammatical structure here as he warms with some passion to his meme: “perverted creeps, their excusers and enablers, catholic NAMBLA worldwide”.

    But at least he’s off “nematode”.

    • Publion says:

      And now we find JR slinking back (the 7th at 815PM).

      He was last seen taking his leave (yet again) when confronted with a list of questions about his own favorite scare-vision: that the Church itself master-minded  the Stampede, and not only controlled the tort-attorneys (who gleaned several billion for their allegants) but also the victim organizations such as SNAP, the judges and media and even arranged the Doe/Gallagher case in Philly just to make victims ‘look bad’ and then even arranged for the prosecution of the DA there by the Feds.

      What’s he saying now?

      A bit of adolescent scatology – so often seen in Abuseniks when they are a) trying to bolster their creds even though b) their material can’t stand long enough to do that for them.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 815PM:

      Then he shares with us the meaning of his smoke-screen hedge bit:

      ‘Dan’ is really just a front (full of “verbage”) and so am I / then I bring “the latest RCC propaganda” (no examples and explications given) / leading to JR’s official declaration that “nothing sane takes place here”.

      This, from JR – whose material, especially his own ‘victim’ story and his Church-mastermind theory, stand as clear indications indeed that this site has seen its share of stuff that’s not quite “sane”. 

      We are not supposed to use our minds to think our way through the “shrubbary” that is being put up by whatever elements are operating in the Stampede. We are simply supposed to take JR’s take and consider that a good day’s work.

      And he wraps his performance up with a passel of insinuations – neatly sidestepping the very rational questions posed by the material against Cardinal Pell as we presently know it.

      That makes readers who think “just plain stupid”. We have JR’s word for it. 

    • Publion says:

      Might we have better luck with JR’s of the 7th at 831PM?

      Not very much. JR – donning his primary Wig as Tribune of the Victimry (actually, Tribune of the Allegators) – strikes a heroic and truthy pose as being put-out that nobody is concerned for “the victims” (who – we might wonder – either are or are not so very much like himself and his own story).

      Seeking to create some space for his own upcoming (and repeat) performances, JR then goes after ‘Dan’ for not having been “abused”, larding his question with another dollop of that giveaway adolescent scatology.

      Against me he once again runs his “pretend” meme, as in: I do “pretend we are all liars” (that “we” being allegants, or victims – whether genuine or otherwise). I don’t “pretend” any such thing; I simply ask questions that arise from the material we see here and then do the same with such responses as are made. (That, indeed, is how we eventually got to the bottom of JR’s own story, quite some time ago.)

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 831PM:

      Then on with the Church-as-empire bit, which ‘Dan’ ran with here a thread or two back.

      Then JR tosses out yet again the still-undemonstrated whopper of a claim that “only 15%” of ‘victims’ have been “compensated”, and even then “cheaply”.

      And hopes to establish his own cartoon stuff as reliable by then asserting (since the material can’t establish itself on its own) “that’s the facts”. Whenever JR makes that claim, look even more closely.

    • Dan says:

      publiar's July 8th @ 8:31pm, A perfect connection. " 'pagan' Catholicism and 'bunch of fairy, pedophile queens' " - "A tree and it's fruits. A bad tree bearing evil fruits." Yes, you can take that literally.  servant

  92. Jim Robertson says:

    Any one who listens to and believes what Puberty has to say is a fool. His nasty tone alone makes my cussing look like the nothing it is. Ad hominum attacks are all Pubecence has to offer.  I'd rather be wrong and nice than like Pubic, who's both nasty and wrong.  I'm not wrong in anything I've said here ever. If I made a mistake it's only one: Expecting there to be sane Catholics willing to tell the truth here.I have literally seen none. I'm not crushed by that fact but you should be. The best you can come up with is a lout who hides behind a nom de guar, hiding behind a pen name. And this over rought little "P"imp for the church  is the best you all can offer? Doesn't look like Gods church is getting much help at TMR. This place is like Bill Donahue's ass hole. All his shit comes through here. Have a loved filled day.


  93. Publion says:

    As we have seen, ‘Dan’s bit is basically that the Church and Catholicism are pagan and perverted; JR’s is a) that the Church had master-minded the Stampede and run all the players and b) that only 15 percent of the ‘victims’ have been compensated. (Although at this point, JR is apparently just going with the 15-percent claim – for which he offers no explication.)

    Since his entire performance here is based on the assertion of that 15-percent, then of course the logical thing to do would be to explicate that assertion right off the bat.

    But that’s neither JR’s nor ‘Dan’s nor the Abuseniks’ nor the Stampede’s modus operandi. Rather, evading the demonstration of the assertions (and stories and claims and accusations) the next thing to do, right away, is to simply toss up as much of an epithetical smokescreen as possible; the objective being to distract from the lack of evidence or explication and trust that the manipulation of the public’s emotions (often too politely called its ‘opinion’) will float the assertions over the lethal sandbar of their evidentiary emptiness.

    Thus JR’s of the 9th at 733PM.

    • Dan says:

      First off, This is not at all " 'Dan's bit [as you so rudely put it] is basically that the church and catholicism are pagan and perverted". God's Word, in regards to your church's teachings and abominations prove that your cult is pagan and perverted. Have you forgotten these, Jer 44, Matthew 23 and 24, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1, Rev 21:8,27, Rev 22:11, or just refuse to listen or think you can manipulate the meaning? Let me add some more for you; 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:19-21, Romans 2:8. I can go through the Word and find several "pericopes" that define your holier than thou catholic cult, and you can come up with all kinds of denials and misinterpretations, it will not change the fact that it's a religion based on heresies.

      As far as you lining me up with Jim, and Jim lining me up with you, that's ridiculous. One is a staunch atheist and the other preaches and makes excuses for a false gospel. As far as either one of you thinking I don't belong here, well your welcome to your opinions. Maybe I'm just not here for either one of you, did you ever think about that. I'll know when my work is done here and will be looking forward to that day. As far as blowing smoke goes, there's alot more garbage and ignorance coming towards me than I'm dishing out. I don't believe either one of you care to hear the truth.

  94. Dan says:

    This I find to be fairly sad Jim. I believe the sky fairy at least cares a rat's ass about you. It's a shame you're unable to realize that. I'm not sure how much He cares about making any victims rich or seeing them receive financial compensation, for He asks us to be happy in all circumstances, even with little. Even when faced with the injustices of this world. He's more interested in seeing the healing of the body, mind, heart and soul. My hope is that all victims of abuse may find healing and peace from the struggles they have suffered. Wishing you well. Dan

  95. malcolm harris says:

    The animosity towards Cardinal Pell, in the media, has been very severe from publicly owned T.V. stations. Particularly the A.B.C. (Australian Broadcasting Commission). About 6 years ago I can recall watching a current affairs program, in which he was being questioned by a journalist. The topic was child abuse…and predictably the questioner talked about "victims" and "survivors" I was annoyed that the word 'alleged' was not used, because the deliberate ommission of that word implied that the cases were already proven. They were not proven at all…. it was all based upon a presumption of guilt. Therefore a denial of civil rights. Cardinal Pell said that if anybody had an accusation against a priest then they should take their complaint to the police. Can still see the sneering expression on the face of the journalist…almost as though something extraordinary had just been suggested. Because the journalist was reflecting the accusers'  lawyers…and what they clearly wanted was an out-of-court settlement.  Now I believe the media are seeking to demonstate their own authority….. to punish the Cardinal for refusing to pay up, without a fight.

    • Dan says:

      What kind of civil rights were awarded to the victims? Seems to me like you're making several biased suppositions towards the journalist's expressions and the media. Don't believe that's terribly honest or very fair. Don't know why I expect honesty or fairness from you or publiar?

    • Dan says:

      "The Australian Catholic Church was accused of giving 'God a bad name' as it emerged that seven percent of its priests had been accused of abuse between 1950 and 2010, but FEW CASES WERE EVER INVESTIGATED."

      "Francis Sullivan, head of the Catholic Church's Truth, Justice and Healing Council, held back tears as said the number of abusers was "shocking" and "indefensible".

      " 'As Catholics, we hang our heads in shame', Father Sullivan said, admitting the figures reflected 'a massive failure' by the Church to protect children."

      "A senior Vatican official has admitted the Catholic Church 'has made enomous mistakes' in covering up the widespread sexual abuse of children by priests." Cardinal Pell said, "I'm not here to defend the indefensible."

      My question to you Malcolm and publiar is, Why do you both feel compelled to defend the indefensible?

  96. Publion says:

    I’ll take ‘Dan’s most recent crop in the order they appear on the site, not in strict chronological order.

    Thus to the 10th at 1115PM:

    In regard to the fact that ‘Dan’ has been accused and/or lied-about by “hundreds” so why doesn’t that make him as ‘guilty’ as Cardinal Pell, who has been accused by several? … ‘Dan’ again demonstrates his lack of logic chops and the deforming consequences of same: it’s all about the act of which one is accused, doncha see? Cardinal Pell is accused of child-molestation while ‘Dan’ … isn’t.

    • Dan says:

      I spent jail and hospital stays when I wasn't "guilty" of the accusations, so if you want to put me on the same level as a pervert from your cult, I will hope the courts of Australia will show simular injustice and jail the creep, whether guilty or not. Then maybe your cult will understand that it will reap what it sows.  INNOCENT servant of the Almighty God of Just Judgments

  97. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1115PM:

    That’s supposed to be a game-changing difference.

    But clearly it is not; the principle is the same, regardless of the content of the accusation.

    But what we see here is the usual Stampede gambit: since the accusation is about something so awful, then it doesn’t require evidence the same way that a non-molestation accusation does. One merely recalls Vishinsky’s same gambit in the era of Stalin’s show trials, as I noted in an earlier comment on this thread.

    But with ‘Dan’s silly bit here, he can then merrily continue with his plop-tossing.

  98. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1115PM:

    And anyway, ‘Dan’ adds as an extra bit of insurance, the accusations against himself were – had you been waitttingggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “false and absolute lies”. We ‘know’ that about as solidly as one might claim to ‘know’ already that Cardinal Pell is guilty.

    Ditto when ‘Dan’ claims that we can take his word for everything because ‘Dan’, if he does say so himself, doth “refuse to lie” (the 10th at 1121PM). We ‘know’ that about as solidly as one might claim to ‘know’ already that Cardinal Pell is guilty.

    But on the basis of this house of cards he has built for his own purposes, ‘Dan’ can then riff on epithetically about Cardinal Pell … and then on and on some more.

    And a pericope from his pile to top it all off.

  99. Publion says:

    On then to Dan’s of the 10th at 1023PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ isn’t really so happy with a concise description of his position (i.e. that the Church and Catholicism are ‘pagan’ and ‘perverted’). Concision – it turns out – doesn’t make his stuff look quite so imposing.

    So what then is he to do? Why … he merely repeats a bunch of his stuff about the paganism of the Church and Catholicism. Clearly on some level ‘Dan’ realizes that concision is not his friend and he starts re-larding all of his usual stuff; apparently on the presumption that if you put enough cheap frosting on a badly-baked cake, then it will look better.

    And – but of course – all the pericopes from ‘Dan’s pile will clearly “define” the Church and Catholicism, he doth assure us.

    Which leaves – I say again – yet unanswered the question often put to ‘Dan’: just when, actually, in ‘Dan’s cartoon schema, did the early Christian community suddenly morph into the Church?

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1023PM:

    And we see ‘Dan’ also relegating to himself (or Himself) the authority to classify the Church’s teaching as “heresies”. Either he is not clear on the concept of ‘heresy’ or else he has a rather grandiose conception of himself (or Himself). But I think that grandiosity has already been established; it goes with the Fixed Delusional Syndrome (or Disorder).

    He also doesn’t being ‘lined up with’ JR. How could that be, he goes on, since ‘Dan’ is no atheist?

    As I have said several times when this point has been raised: ‘Dan’ and JR are both in show-business; they have different shticks, but their stuff and their poses are all performance all the time. They are both vaudevillians and in that fundamental sense they are merely two peas in the same vaudeville pod.

    I leave it to the readership to give some thought as to just where ‘Dan’ doth “belong”.

    • Dan says:

      Your cult commits "heresies" against true Biblical Christianity. The opposite of the excuses your cult used to burn people at the stake for refusing to follow catholic dogma and traditions. Murderers, cowards, idolators, pedophiles and perverts, compulsive liars and deceivers, worthy of the Lake of Fire. Rev 21:8   servant

  101. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 135PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ doth confess to “Jim” that ‘Dan’ is made “fairly sad” (not really sad, not very sad, but just “fairly sad”) by JR’s stuff. Sigh.

    Then the Wig of Pastoral Sensitivity is suddenly and rudely thrown askew as ‘Dan’ descends to both the scatological and the (oddly) irreverent (God as “the sky fairy”).

    ‘Dan’ then appears to straighten the Wig and continues on to the end of the comment, burbling piously.

    Such a performance.

    • Dan says:

      How's about you just shut-up when something is of no concern of yours. I was using Jim's words to make a point of how stupid atheism sounds. Take it from a mocker of God to accuse a Christian of being "irreverent". You creeps are so quick to find the chance to judge a true Christian. Try taking a look in your own perverted backyard. Clean up the mess of your own cult, if that was possible, before attempting to find the faults of another.

      "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."  Matthew 7:5

      "The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 1 Cor 2:15

      How's that for being "concise"? My words backed up by Biblical truth. If you can't understand how that works and feel compelled to claim my methods as proof of my FDS, than that only proves your ignorance, apparently on continuous display.  servant


  102. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1249AM:

    In regard to the failure to respect the ‘civil rights’ of Cardinal Pell, ‘Dan’ will once again revert to what is essentially the Vishinsky-ite position: how can one be concerned for the civil rights of the accused when the accused is accused of such terrible things?

    Vishinsky’s method lies at the dark core of the Stampede.

    And – but of course – it requires that one presume the guilt of the accused who is accused of such terrible things. Thus one would need no evidence since one has already presumed that there are indeed genuine ‘victims’ and that the accused actually did such terrible things.

    ‘Dan’ should put aside his Scripture pile and do some reading in Bolshevik and Commie legal thought and praxis. He’d wind up with a pile of 3x5s far more relevant to what he is really up to.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! Yeah! It's the "dark core of the Stampede". When your cult is plagued with all the signs of darkness. Catacombs, skeleton rooms, idols of every type, including idols of pagan Egypt, perverts and pedophiles destroying children's lives, deeds done in darkness where there's little provable evidence – Documentation of some of the crimes never kept or destroyed in order to hide any evidence. Denials, deceptions and lies, in order to preserve the reputation of your holier than thou cult. Hypocrites and deceivers, pointing the finger at others. Pure darkness with no light, claiming to be the light of the world. Wolves in sheep's clothing. servant

    • Dan says:

      And believe me, I'm not interested in reading your "commie" or Nazi material. Is that where you've gained all your ignorance, excuses, lies and stupidity? No thanks.

    • Dan says:

      It's also been terribly apparent that you prefer "Commie" and Nazi ignorance over Scripture and Biblical principles, with your sarcastic "Scripture pile" and "3×5" nonsense. Apparently you think it's funny to disrespect God, His Word and His Spirit. Good luck with that, Mocker. servant

  103. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1249AM:

    Thus, too: what are the “several biased suppositions” made against the journalist who was taken aback and apparently non-plussed by the point being raised that those he calls ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’ have not actually been demonstrated to be so?

    The point revealed precisely the Vishinsky-ite “biased suppositions” that the journalist – according to best Stampede Playbook form – had made.

    What’s “fair” about the Vishinsky-ite game plan?

  104. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:

    Once again, we see that – at least in the Church case, if not in ‘Dan’s own cases – the mere fact of an accusation constitutes … what? Evidence? Proof?

    And in a time of Stampede, anyone so inclined can make an accusation, no matter how dubious (look at Yost’s take-down of the accusations currently on offer against Cardinal Pell).

    But then ‘Dan’ – in his eagerness to toss as much plop as might appear relevant – gets conceptually incoherent:”few” of the cases “will ever be investigated” (screamy scare-caps omitted). Well, if one presumes the guilt of the accused merely on the basis that an accusation was made (Vishinsky again) then why would one need to rely on an ‘investigation’ at all?

    • Dan says:

      The exact quote was, "FEW CASES WERE EVER INVESTIGATED". Rather than this being my conceptual incoherence, seems more accurately to be another of your manipulations or lack of comprehension.

  105. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:

    And the quotation (claimed to be) from ‘Francis Sullivan” “said the number of abusers” is “shocking” and “indefensible”. But this too reflects the Vishinsky-ite core of the Stampede game plan. And although we know there are “accusers” yet we don’t know if there are “abusers”. We have accusations but that’s all.

    But apparently for Sullivan (following Vishinsky) the accusation itself constitutes the evidence and proof.

    And this all makes perfect and clear sense to ‘Dan’. Which is no surprise since ‘Dan’ is conducting his own agenda against the Church largely along the same Vishinsky-ite lines.

    As to the remaining quotes, ‘Dan’ neglects to provide the source of these statements.

    • Dan says:

      This quote from Francis Sullivan, was from the CEO, head of the Catholic Church's Truth, Justice and Healing Council. So you're telling us that the Church's Council for Truth, Justice and Healing is wrong and should be more like you and the Vatican, Catholic Council of Liars, The Unjust and Sickos. Maybe you catholics might want to get on the same page if you're going to be deceitful, but it would probably be a page from the Third Reich.

  106. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:

    Cardinal Pell (himself the author and implementer of the Melbourne Response) said that he was not trying to “defend the indefensible”. But that could simply mean that he was not trying to make a case for the legitimacy of child-abuse (however that elastic term is defined). It certainly does not – as it stands here – indicate some general confession that all the scare/fever-visions of the Abuseniks and the Stampede are accurate and veracious.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:

      Thus ‘Dan’s smarmy rhetorical question that concludes his comment is answered: neither I nor ‘Malcolm Harris’ is defending the concept or act of genuine child sexual abuse. Why does ‘Dan’ try to make it seem as if we are?

      And the answer to that question is: because ‘Dan’ is using the Vishinsky-ite game plan, where an accusation is itself the proof of its own veracity and no further evidence is required. 

    • Dan says:

      You can sure come up with the excuses. You more than Malcolm, but you attempt to defend every charge and every creep of your cult. If they're a member of your clergy, it's a pretty sure bet that they're either a pedophile, pervert, excuser, enabler, compulsive liar or all of the above. Guilty as charged! Were not buying your lame excuses and dreamed-up possibilities.

    • Dan says:

      What kind of BS is this – "But that could simply mean that he was not trying to make a case for the legitimacy of child abuse." Now how could anyone "make a case for the legitimacy of child abuse"? That of course would be excluding you, you lying, manipulating, hypocrite sicko.

  107. Cynthia says:

    If these accusations are proven false, the Catholic Church should sue these devious false accusers and the journalists.  Then watch how fast these false accusations will disappear.  




    • Dan says:

      And what should be done with your church, when accusations are proven to be true, like the majority of other allegations and accusations have turned out to be. They are not "devious false accusers" or "journalists" until that fact is proven to be true. Let's wait for the courts before claiming innocence and laying down threats.

  108. Donald Link says:

    I'm not a lawyer but I watch a lot of TV.  Can someone please tell me how you get an honest conviction for unwitnessed alledged wrongdoing forty years after the offens is supposed to be committed:  I stand second to no one in wanting the guilty punished but I am just as passionate about clearing the innocent. Whole thing reminds me of Henry VIII using such testimony to dispatch two of his wives and look what we got from that.

    • Dan says:

       I would absolutely want the same, the guilty punished and the innocent cleared, though I was never awarded the same from the catholic church of false accusers. This happened several times. They raised their hand in court and said that they promised to tell the truth so help me God, and the next words out of their mouth were lies added to the ones they already falsely accused me of. These were catholic priests, pastors, nuns, principals and a corrupt catholic cop. Shame on your church of hypocrisy.  servant of the Truth

  109. Publion says:

    I will again take ‘Dan’s comments in the order they appear on the site.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 417PM:

    He merely repeats his claim that in all of all of his own misadventures he wasn’t “’guilty’ of the accusations” – so that, he would like us to think, doesn’t put him “on the same level as a pervert from your cult”.

    Which – yet again – presumes that Cardinal Pell is “a pervert” and guilty. The only way ‘Dan’ gets himself out of the corner he has painted himself into here is to insist that he wasn’t guilty. Cardinal Pell also insists he is not guilty. On that score, there’s no difference in their status here.

    But clearly ‘Dan’ has been thrown off his game, because the next thing he says is that he hopes the Aussie courts “jail the creep, whether guilty or not”. But that demonstrates that ‘Dan’ and Vishinsky are surely “on the same level”; one might say they are “sisters under the skin”, to use Kipling’s phrase.

    • Dan says:

      All I have to say is my hope is that your cardinal receives the same injustice that I received from your cult full of lying creeps, like yourself. Reap what you sow! Only difference is if we go by the precedence set by previous hierarchy and clergy, they deny, deny, lie and deny some more, knowing it's an uphill battle to prove guilt from 40 years ago. If they're finally cornered and there is proof, then they'll admit to it, give excuses why they are such a creep, and hope the unholy vatican will protect them. And the wheel it keeps on turning, liars keep on lying, and many victims are denied the justice they deserve. Hypocritical bunch of liars.  servant

  110. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1215PM:

    After ‘Dan’s stab at trying to extricate himself from the ‘heresy’ problem he has created for himself, his problem remains.

    Heresy is opinion or doctrine at variance with the generally accepted doctrine. The only thing the Church is at variance with is ‘Dan’s take on Scripture; the Church is not at variance with Scripture itself.

    Thus the Church is only ‘heretical’ according to the Church-of-‘Dan’ and the ‘Dan’-verse’s take on Scripture. And given the fact that the Church-of-‘Dan’ consists only of the one worshipper and the one ‘pope’ – ‘Dan’ as himself and ‘Dan’ as Himself – then that’s not much of a charge at all.

    And the usual God’ll-getcha bit in conclusion.

    • Dan says:

      I've pointed out several Scriptures that your church fails to follow, and you're going to tell us that the cult "is not at variance with Scripture itself". Is there any chance of your ever being truthful, you compulsive liar. Any catholic, other than the publiar, prove me wrong. Your cult is terribly greedy (none richer), makes statues, bows down to statues, lies like a rug about their pedophilia and perversions with little boys, babbles prayer (rosary) to a false goddess, Mary, and is plagued with sick, wicked leaders, dressed all up in sheep's clothing. Look up Isaiah 44:9-20 about idolatry – Read Matthew chapter 5-7 to find all the words said by Christ and all the places in which the church fails – also Matthew 23 – Romans 1 – 2 Peter 2 – Jude – Rev 21:8  Don't allow a lying, blind, stupid, fool, as described in Isaiah 44 deprive you of the truth. Publiar is deceiving and blinding you with horrible lies and wants to send you down the wicked path that he has chosen. Evil people aren't satisfied until they bring many down with them. servant

  111. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1245 where he once again seems to think that when he puts up material on an open site then it’s nobody’s business except for those he wants to address. That – he apparently has to be reminded yet again – is not how it works when commenting on open sites.

    And ‘Dan’ takes it upon himself to declare himself (or Himself) “a true Christian”. Readers may consider that as they will.

    Then a couple of pericopes larded on for frosting. But while the pericope from 1 Cor 2:15 is no doubt one of ‘Dan’s very very favorites, it only works here as he wants to use it if it has already been established that ‘Dan’ is indeed a “spiritual person” in the Pauline sense (or perhaps any sense) … and that has not been established at all. Indeed, rather quite the contrary appears to be far more accurate.

    And thus my FDS theory remains quite plausible – and becomes more so as ‘Dan’ doth go on and on.

  112. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 126PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will evade the Vishinsky problem by more mere word-play: he gloms onto my phrase “the dark core of the Stampede” and merely riffs on about “signs of darkness”.

  113. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 131PM:

    ‘Dan’ doth proclaim himself (or Himself) uninterested in “reading [my] commie or Nazi material”. Well, since he is so deep into commie (and – yes – Nazi) legal praxis, he might as well get a wider and deeper knowledge about just what it is he is doing. It’s not ‘my’ commie or Nazi legal praxis; it’s ‘Dan’s commie and Nazi legal praxis.

    Does he think he thought up his modus operandi all on his own? Well, Stalin and Vishinsky and Goebbels and Hitler beat him to it by decades.

    He should surely read more and spend less time in confab with the denizens that appear to him in his bathroom mirror.

    • Dan says:

      More I'm Not/ You Are bit ending with more mocking? You seem awful obsessed with bathrooms. Do you spend alot of time with your head in the toilet?

  114. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 137PM:

    He then tries further evasion with the silly bit about my ‘preferring’ Soviet and Nazi stuff “over Scripture and Biblical principles”. It’s ‘Dan’ who is up to his elbows in Vishinsky – whether he realizes it or not.

    And it’s ‘Dan’ who has demonstrated that beyond the pericope quotes in his pile of 3x5s he isn’t really reliably up to speed on “Scripture and Biblical principles” at all.

    He only knows his own cartoons about Scripture.

  115. Publion says:

    Apparently his enjoyment of “the beautiful day” (the 11th at 140PM) didn’t do him much good at all.

    On the 11th at 707PM he seems not to have noticed that I did quote his scream-capped statement accurately in my comment of the 11th at 1118AM. Nor has he answered my question as to why have investigations at all if one has already gone the Vishinsky-ite route and presumed guilt.

  116. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 726PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ again evades the responsibility of providing accurate references for his claims. Merely asserting that the quote is from Francis Sullivan isn’t enough; where is the reference that establishes that ‘Dan’ hasn’t made it up?

    And, still, even if Francis Sullivan said it, then what Sullivan says is still – as I originally stated – indicative of the Vishinsky-ite approach, which Sullivan too deploys in his statement.

    Then a silly attempt to somehow put the Nazi bit to some epithetical use.

  117. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 736PM:

    Here he simply and yet again tries to evade and wave-away the plausible options as being merely “excuses”. How is the option I proposed not plausible? ‘Dan’ doesn’t care or think to explain; I doubt he could do so anyway.

    And who is this “we” who are “not buying” and so on? ‘Dan’ and the séance crew from his bathroom mirror?

    But readers are apparently supposed to accept that the guilt of the Catholic clergy in any case of accusation is “a pretty sure bet” – doncha see? – because all Catholic clergy are either … and so on and so forth.

    In other words, this is the old ‘everybody knows anyway so why quibble about evidence and proof in any specific case?’ bit. That’s the level ‘Dan’s mind works on.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1019PM:

      Here, in the matter of what Cardinal Pell had said about not trying to “defend the indefensible”, ‘Dan’ tries to somehow pull some plop to toss.

      But his mind isn’t up to it: the point would be this: did some questioner ask the Cardinal a question such as ‘Cardinal, are you trying to defend child sex abuse here?’. To which the Cardinal would have quite accurately responded that he was not trying to “defend the indefensible”. i.e. the Cardinal here would be asserting that child sex abuse is “indefensible”.

      ‘Dan’ cannot grasp that (why would he since it isn’t convenient for his scheduled cartoon?) and thus tries to make a general conceptual point about child sex abuse being impossible to defend – which, come to think of it, is precisely what Cardinal Pell said. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1019PM:

      To really establish what Cardinal Pell was on about here, we would need an accurate transcript of the interview, especially the statements or questions put to him to which his statement about the “indefensible” is the response.

      But ‘Dan’s mind doesn’t work that way (why should it since it might well screw up his cartoons?). In the ‘Dan’-verse a plop-tossy presumption beats a study of the actual text any day. 

    • Dan says:

      And more display of ignorance, mocking, excuses and stupidity, from the Catholic Saint of Compulsive Liars.

    • Dan says:

      In response to July 12 @ 2:08pm, You Tube "Cardinal Pell February 29 Session 1" and you can listen to the interview yourself. After 17:00 minutes it gets going and card pell makes sure he says twice how sexual abuse "has been a problem across society, unfortunately in the church for centuries". Excuses regarding it happening "across society" I've heard from others here, as if that makes it OK that it took place in the church claiming to be the One True Holy Catholic Church. DESPICABLE EXCUSES!!

      Question – "Of those inquiries which have done so there appears to be a consistency in their findings in respect of the response of the catholic church to allegations and that consistency seems to be in relation to those in more senior positions not taking the action that a reasonable person thought should be taken in respect to those allegations."

      Cardinal Pell – "As an initial clarification and that is 'I'm not here to defend the indefensible' – The church has made enormous mistakes and uh is working to remedy those but the church in many places, certainly in Australia has mucked things up, has made let people down and 'I'm not here to defend the indefensible'."

      At least he's aware that the church made "enormous mistakes" and fill in the blank, " _ucked things up". Maybe you excusers ought to wake up to your cult's sad reality, that you've made an "enormous" mess of Biblical principles and God's Commandments, and quit thinking you can smooth things over with your repetitive lies, possibilities and deception, and try putting a stop to all your deceit. I don't believe compulsive liars would be capable of such a feat.

      I listened to five minutes from 17:00 to 22:00 minutes and have heard enough to make me sick. Don't care to hear anymore. I'm not the one who takes things out of context or tries to manipulate and misinterpret God's Word in order to suit their corrupt agenda. Think you're missing Cartoon Time or is it past your bedtime, little peewee.

    • Dan says:

      Question – Cardinal, Why you think it is that the catholic church has operated in such a similar way across many different countries in the world?

      Cardinal Pell – Um unfortunately um original sin is alive and well. The tendency to do evil in the catholic church, too. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse. And uh for good or for evil the church follows the patterns of the society in which it lives.

      Bible says – "I do not ask you to take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world." John 17:15-16 

      So tell me how a Cardinal can say there's a "tendency to do evil in the catholic church" and "for good or for evil the church follows the patterns of the society in which it lives." So in other words, the church is most definitely of the world and they belong to the world and they follow the patterns of the world. So they will have no protection from the evil one, and it's apparent by their disgusting evil deeds that this is true.

      You're supposed to be "the light of the world", not join in and go along with the darkness and evil of the society in which you live. And this is why, with many other reasons I have previously pointed out, that your church is not a Christian church founded on the principles of Christ or Peter. No, far from it. It is a disgusting religion plagued with liars, pedophiles, perverts, idolators, unbelievers, and greedy hypocrites, who think they can pull the wool over God's eyes. Boy, you unrepentant, lying sinners are in for a rude awakening. Catholics, escape this wicked cult before it drags you down with them.        servant of the One and Only True God


  118. victor parker says:

    I lived in a hostel with a couple of guys that had been tampered with and this is what happens they fall off the rails and turn to alcohol and drugs.  Even after a payout their life is still crap :(

  119. Publion says:

    Again, I’ll go down the list as they appear on the site.

    On the 12th at 315AM ‘Dan’ tosses up a bit the meaning of which is grammatically somewhat unclear, i.e. does that “other” in the first sentence’s final clause refer to accusations against the Church or is it a more general “other”?.

    I’ll go with the idea that the “other” refers to other allegations of sexual abuse.

    But then that leaves ‘Dan’ with a serious problem: he has asserted, claimed and declared that “the majority” of sexual abuse claims against the church have “turned out to be true”.

    And that whopper most certainly requires evidence and explication, because as far as extant material goes, that isn’t the case at all. The majority – indeed the vast majority – of the Catholic sexual-abuse cases haven’t been examined individually at all, so they have precisely not “turned out to be true”. And surely the ones we here have been able to examine haven’t “turned out to be true”.

  120. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:

    But this is a key element in the Stampede cartoon, and ‘Dan’ here reveals his utter dependence on it (for his own cartoons).

    Ditto, then, with his next claim, i.e. that “they are not ‘devious false accusers’ [or – curiously – “journalists”] until the fact is proven to be true”.

    In other words, having just made his first claim that is grossly contrary to any known fact, immediately thereafter in his second claim he piously bleats that we should wait until a court decides before coming to a conclusion.

    And this bleat comes from ‘Dan’ whose very own stock in trade is to make all manner of assertions without any explication whatsoever.

  121. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:

    Nor, for that matter, am I coming to any definitive conclusions about allegators past or present. I am – and the Yost article to which I linked is – simply pointing out the problems with the allegations that have been made.

    Anybody can apply their mind to allegations (and everybody should) even while awaiting the results of the judicial process.

  122. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:

    And I would also point out that the Aussie police have not yet actually revealed the specific charges they bring against Cardinal Pell. They were quick enough to tell the media that they are filing charges, but have since been playing coy about the actual charges that they bring against him.

    This smacks of a sly media game, a sort of media-amplified Dance of the Seven Veils with the Aussie police playing the part of Little Egypt: their objective is not to get everything up and out there as quickly and fully as possible; rather, they are drawing the performance out, playing the public like an audience at a burlesque show.

  123. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:

    I suspect also that they are continuing a sly gambit initially run by the recently- concluded Royal Commission: while the Commission was in session, it ran a request to the public asking anyone with allegations to come forward. There were few if any resulting responses.

    Here, the police will hope that all this publicity (further fueled by the recently published book that Yost has examined) might elicit further enterprising individuals to come forward with more allegations, which might then quickly and quietly be added to the (still unrevealed) list of charges before the July 26th initial court session.

    In other words, this whole Pell matter may well be a fishing expedition conducted by the Aussie police under the guise of this drawn-out Seven-Veils performance.

  124. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 437PM:

    Here we get another fine example of ‘Dan’ deceptive whackery: he now piously bleats that he “would absolutely want the same, the guilty punished and the innocent cleared”.

    But on the 11th at 417PM ‘Dan’ said “I will hope the courts of Australia will show simular injustice and jail the creep, whether guilty or not” (sic).

    It all depends on what Wig he has chosen for a particular performance.

    And he then uses this opportunity to toss in yet another commercial for himself and how he was victimized by “the catholic church of false accusers” – we can take ‘Dan’s word for it.

    Readers may judge as they will.

    • Dan says:

      Let me see if I can clarify my position as to why these two comments seem to conflict with each other. I'm not piously bleating, and any just and honest person should want to see justice served, "the guilty punished and the innocent cleared". And believe me when I say that this would include justice for everyone, including catholic hierarchy and priests.

      Where the problem lies, is in many cases where guilty suspects go to court, place their hand on the bible, swear to tell the truth so help me God, and then lie through their teeth and deny their transgressions. I've personally witnessed this travesty happen with those who falsely accused myself and also investigating cases of guilty priests from your church. I personally don't believe dishonest liars should receive any justice, for freeing them would not be just, and I have witnessed much corruption in our judicial system.

      This is why I wait in anticipation for the one true judge, God Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ. I shall be totally vindicated of every false accusation from your church of lying hypocrites, and won't need any plea of insanity, as you so rudely claim. Then the guilty will receive their just punishment and all the innocent cleared throughout all eternity. The same fair justice will be awarded to those of the catholic church, and I have absolutely no problem with that.

  125. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 426PM:

    Faced with the conundrum – of his own making – that both he and Cardinal Pell were accused and maintain their innocence, ‘Dan’ simply evades the illogic of his stuff and bleats “All I have to say is …”.

    And that is followed – for this performance, anyway – by yet another variation on ‘Dan’ favorite story about how he was unjustly accused and “lied” about so many times by so many people and the “injustice” of it all. And he wishes “injustice” on Cardinal Pell. ‘Dan’s a really “spiritual’ kinda guy.

    And then we get “deny, deny, lie and deny some more” from the likes of ‘Dan’, whose track record in that department is now on record on this site for all to see.

    • Dan says:

      I also believe I have every right to show some anger, after all the punishments I've suffered at the hands of liars from your church. Like I said before, I don't know how Christ was able to turn the other cheek, but I also know I have a long way to go before ever coming close to His awesome strength and forgiveness. I'm perfectly aware of my own human weaknesses.

  126. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 507PM:

    ‘Dan’ has “pointed out several Scriptures” (sic) – indeed he has bombarded us with pericopes – but he then evaded and now continues to evade the primary problem with his approach: he interprets those passages as referring to the Church, which – as I have demonstrated on those occasions – doesn’t work at all the way he wants them to, mostly because he has confused a) his own interpretations (based on his own whacky issues and agitations) with b) the sense of the Scripture itself.

    His (necessary for his delusionally disordered agenda) conflation of his i) own interpretation with ii) the Mind and Will of God as revealed in the Bible results in the queasy ranting we have always seen from him,  using the pericopes as weapons with which to try to bethump Catholicism and the Church and Catholics.

  127. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 507PM:

    To which – having to repeat now what I have already said in prior comments on this thread as well as others – I also note that ‘Dan’s cartoon necessarily must conflate x) the moral failures of pagans that are ingrained in their Christ-less lifestyles and beliefs with y) the sins and moral failures of individual believing Christians and the failures to which any human institution is subject in this world.

    By skipping around from (x) to (y) and back again, as dictated by his plop-tossy cartoons and agenda, ‘Dan’ tries to keep his ball rolling.

  128. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 507PM:

    ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself), of course, evades his own human infirmities and such fundamental complexities and paradoxes since he evades and avoids any membership in any such human institution (including any religious polity) and instead appoints himself (or Himself) as speshull envoy of God who reports directly to whatever simulacrum of God appears to ‘Dan’s rickety mind and imagination.

    We recall St. Paul, who said of himself “For the good that I would do I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19, the King James Version).

    • Dan says:

      Nice quote, but to understand Paul's segment (Romans 7:13-25) on sin and death, you'd have to look at verses before and after that paragraph.

      Before – "For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death." Romans 7:5

      After – "For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live accosding to the spirit with the things of the spirit. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace. For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:5-8

      And let's not leave out how Paul says you can overcome the evil things of the flesh in line 25 of Romans 7. "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin."

      Now the question is, When did your hierarchy and priests commit the sins of the flesh (pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors)? Was it before or after they came to know the healing power of Jesus Christ, that saves us from our sinful selves. It was definitely after. After they wore the robes of piety, prostrated themselves on the floor, even swore to an oath of celibacy and preached to others, warning them about the sins of the flesh. Take notice that Paul in Romans 7:25 never included Virgin Mary or Saints as necessary intercessors in overcoming the sins of the flesh. He mentions only  "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ."

    • Dan says:

      spelling correction – according

  129. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 511PM:

    Faced with the fact that it is his own de facto use of Soviet and Nazi legal praxis and thought that has been demonstrated, ‘Dan’ merely tries to hide behind the accusation of I’m Not/You Are – although just how that works here in his favor is anybody’s guess.

    But he tries an epithet at the end to gussy the thing up.

  130. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 514PM:

    Faced with the conundrum he has created for himself by deploying Soviet legal thought (i.e. why have trials at all if one has already presumed the guilt of the accused?) ‘Dan’ merely – and so very characteristically and as so very often – evades the problem by telling me I can “answer [my] own questions”.

  131. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’ is correct in his of the 12th at 518PM that I have misspelled the name. The proper spelling is ‘Vyshinsky’ not ‘Vishinsky’. Readers are invited to make the necessary corrections.

  132. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 522PM:

    Faced with the points I raised in my comments on the afternoon of the 12th at 141, 207, and 208 ‘Dan’ will … evade them all by merely waving them away as “ignorance, mocking, excuses and stupidity” and then works in his usual “Compulsive Liars” bit.

    Which of the points in those three comments was somehow indicative of ‘compulsive lies’?

    As I said in the comment at 141PM, ‘Dan’ “doesn’t care to think or explain; I doubt he could do so anyway”.

    Which is now demonstrated to indeed be the case.

  133. Dan says:

    "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, I spread out the earth by myself. I bring to nought the omens of babblers, make fools of diviners, Turn back the wise and make their knowledge foolish. I confirm the words of my servant, carry out the plan my messengers announce."  Isaiah 44: 24-26 (NAB)

    "I AM the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish; That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers." Isaiah 44: 24-26 (KJV)

    No need for me to add any commentary to that. "If only they have eyes to see, and ears to hear, that they might come to Me and I would heal them."

  134. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 103AM and 207AM we get – most uncharacteristically – an extended effort by ‘Dan’ to back up assertions he has made.

    As we will see, his effort is – most characteristically – rather skewed. Even when he looks at or listens to something, he can only allow himself to see and hear what he wants to.

  135. Publion says:

    Beginning, then, with his comment of the 13th at 103AM:

    Cardinal Pell is quotes as noting that sex-abuse “has been a problem across society, unfortunately in the church for centuries”.

    ‘Dan’ labels this as “excuses”. But the statement is factual: sex-abuse has no doubt been around as long as human beings have been around. And as I have often said here, no institution comprised of human beings can be perfectly free of it or of any of the many failures to which human being is heir.

    ‘Dan’ then – no doubt following the dictates of his delusions – asserts that “others here” (i.e. on this site) have made statements “as if that makes it OK” (i.e. that sex abuse – in the Church or anywhere else – is OK). I cannot recall any commenter here who has ever asserted or implied that sex-abuse is “OK”. ‘Dan’s assertion here is not accurate at all.

  136. Publion says:


    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:

    We then – in that same paragraph – see once again ‘Dan’s basic game-plan: if the Church is “the One True Holy Catholic Church” then … it must be perfect in all respects or else it is not “the One True Holy Catholic Church”. And if it is not perfect, then it is not “the One True Holy Catholic Church”.

    But this is utter balderdash. Even St. Paul acknowledged his sinfulness, as I noted in my comment of the 13th at 1117AM, quoting Paul from Romans 7:19. Is Paul thus not the Apostle and Saint? Did not Peter , in Luke 5:8, say to Christ “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord”? And yet Christ gave Peter the Great Commission and the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”.

    ‘Dan’s bit here may or may not be “despicable”, but it surely demonstrates his abyssal ignorance of Scripture.

    • Dan says:

      If you think a church which calls and considers themselves the One Holy True Church of God, is going to be plagued with liars, pedophiles, perverts, the greedy and idolators, then it's absolutely apparent that you're the one with an abyssal ignorance of Scripture. You can't take what Peter said when first encountering Christ, or what Paul explained in regard to sin and insinuate that they were still terrible sinners after meeting Christ. Did they make other mistakes? Absolutely yes! Were they compulsive liars, pedophiles or idolators after coming to know Christ? Absolutely not! Don't even try to project your ignorance of Scripture on someone who's trying to help others to know the truth about God. That's the very reason why liars from your cult accused me, so others would think they represented the good and truthful of society. Deceivers and slandering hypocrites, of which you're well aware, seeing that you mirror the same deceptions, slander and lies.  servant

  137. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:

    Thus, then, Cardinal Pell’s statement that the Church has “made enormous mistakes” is certainly not Scripturally or theologically unsound, nor does such a statement undermine the legitimacy of the Church, any more than Paul’s admission in Romans undermines the legitimacy of Paul or the Pauline corpus nor any more than Peter’s admission undermines the legitimacy of Peter and his role as assigned by Christ.

    Just what those “enormous mistakes” were, Cardinal Pell does not say. Certainly – looking at the accusations that Yost has reviewed from the recently published Australian book and upon which, it appears, the Aussie police are going to rely for such charges as they bring – any rational person would be hard-pressed to come up with a course of action that could ‘satisfy’ the allegation and at the same time duly respect truth, honesty, and rationality. In the face of allegations such as we have seen in Yost’s review, just what “action” might a “reasonable person” think “should be taken in respect to those allegations”?

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:

      It is in this context, then, that Cardinal Pell makes his comment that he is “not here to defend the indefensible”. Which, as I have previously noted in comments on this thread, is a perfectly logical statement to the effect that he is not “here” to defend something as “indefensible” as child sexual abuse.

      ‘Dan’s comment on this bit (in the paragraph beginning “At least”) waves a clear warning flag almost immediately: ‘Dan’ resorts to scatology (albeit here it is implied) at the outset. And having started down that plop-tossy road, ‘Dan’ riffs happily on.

      But he instantly and slyly and manipulatively expands his ‘interpretation’ far beyond what Cardinal Pell says: suddenly it’s not about what Cardinal Pell is talking about, but instead has morphed into ‘Dan’ favorite bugbear, i.e. the “enormous mistakes” (such as they may be) in regard to the allegations suddenly morphs into “an ‘enormous’ mess of Biblical principles and God’s Commandments”. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:

      We have often seen instances of ‘Dan’s Scriptural assertions where a reader might perhaps think: well, I’m no Scripture scholar so how can I know if ‘Dan’ is misinterpreting or manipulating the passage?

      Well, here is a ‘text’ – Cardinal Pell’s statement – and we now have ‘Dan’s ‘interpretation’ of that text, and I think it is clear as day how ‘Dan’ has taken the genuine sense and meaning of the text and manipulated it for his own purposes.

      Upon which manipulation ‘Dan’ then lards his usual epithetical “repetitive lies, possibilities and deception” and his “compulsive liars” bit as well.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:

      ‘Dan’ then admits that he didn’t listen to more than five minutes of the interview (because – doncha see? – it doth “make [him] sick”). Or perhaps he figured he had enough bits for his plop-tossing.

      And then – after what we have now seen of his ‘interpretation’ method – he doth puff up his pinfeathers and declaim that he is not “the one who takes thing out of context or tries to manipulate and misinterpret God’s Word in order to suit their corrupt agenda”.

      But as we have just seen, that is exactly and precisely what he always does and what he has done here, even with the few bits from the Cardinal Pell interview that he has deigned to review.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’ second comment on the Pell interview, that of the 13th at 207AM:

      I would first note that the question posed by the interviewer is insufficiently formulated: as it is put, one might well speak about the Church’s mistakes in dealing with the allegations rather than in dealing with (presumptively guilty) priests.

      But Cardinal Pell chooses to speak with a presumption of the sins and offenses of some priests, and that is his right and that’s what the text provides so we have to go with the text.

      And in that context, Cardinal Pell refers to “original sin” – which afflicts all human beings (including Peter and Paul, we recall). His statement that “the tendency to do evil [is] in the Catholic Church, too” (I assume Cardinal Pell would have capitalized that proper name if he were writing it down) is theologically sound and rings as true for the Church as for any human institution. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:

      As I have said in a prior comment above, the ‘Dan’ game here would be to insist that if the Church is truly God’s Church than it must be perfect and without sin. But they don’t call it “original sin” for nothing; it is a sinfulness or tendency to sin that is with all humans from their ‘origin’ (just as both Paul and Peter recognized in themselves).

      ‘Dan’ here inserts a pericope from the Last Supper Discourses in John’s Gospel, the sense of which insertion is apparently that those who believe in Christ “do not belong to the world any more than [Christ belongs] to the world”. But surely Jesus does not here imply that the Twelve are divine; they remain human beings and human beings are beset with original sin (or original sinfulness). 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:

       ‘Dan’ – who has so often ranted against the Catholic teaching that Mary was conceived without original sin – apparently presumes that to be given God’s Word implies or requires being and living without sin (perhaps he distinguishes between original and actual sin, or perhaps he does not).

      This calls to mind nothing so much as the old saw that Catholics go to church because they know they are sinners and Protestants go to church because they are sure they are not. (A post-Vatican 2 twist on that old saw refers to smarmy postconciliar Catholic hootenanny-type hymns that basically pray ‘O Lord, hear my prayer and make me even nicer and groovier than I already am’.) 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:

      What ‘Dan’ is going for here is this: since Jesus in John’s Gospel says that the Twelve “are not of this world”, then how can Cardinal Pell opine that “the Church follows the patterns of the society in which it lives” … unless this doth prove that the Church doth “belong to the world” and not to Christ and the Gospel.

      A neat little construction, but a cartoon construction nonetheless.

      Believers in Christ and the Gospel may no longer – in John’s terminology – “belong to the world” but they remain in the world and in the sense that they are human beings they remain of the human world.

      Thus believers no longer “belong to the world” but they do remain human, and humans are born with a tendency to sin, and thus the “world” that humans generate is tainted by human sin. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:

      Thus again in the comment’s final paragraph, ‘Dan’ attempts to continue running his theological conceptual switcheroo: the Church – divinely commissioned but comprised of humans, we recall – is “supposed to be ‘the light of the world’” / but if any taint of human sin affects it, then it isn’t and can’t be the Church of Christ.

      But this construction necessarily requires that we presume that Christ expected belief in the Gospel to elevate human nature to … something beyond human nature.

      But that doesn’t work when we consider that when giving Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” Christ said “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:23, supporting – as I have previously pointed out – Matthew 16:19 and 18:18). 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:

      So again, we see how the old saw about Protestants going to church because they believe they are not sinners can lead to this type of fundie stuff so congenial to the ‘Dan’-verse agenda.

      And on that basis – theologically incoherent as it is – ‘Dan’ can happily riff on in the usual way, ending – but of course – with another variant of his usual God’ll-getcha bit. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 114PM:

      Here ‘Dan’ tries another now-familiar evasion tactic:

      Following my comment of the 13th at 1124AM, ‘Dan’ merely tosses up some pericopes that refer to God’s power and glory, with which no believer would take issue.

      The problem – but of course – is that we are not talking about God’s power and glory here; we are talking about ‘Dan’s whackery – which is not at all the same thing.

      Having tossed up the pericopes, ‘Dan’ then tries to further evade by then declaring that there is “no need for [him] to add any commentary to that”.

      True enough in regard to the power and glory of God. But merely another evasion in regard to ‘Dan’s stuff.

  138. Dan says:

    I answered to much of your stuff today before yours was even posted on July 14 @ 1:45am. Is there anything I can ever explain to you that you would be satisfied with, or is it just in your nature to dispute everything of common sense, Biblical or otherwise? I'll give this to you once again and maybe this time you might understand the verse, as it applies to any gathering of believers and the lives they should be living.

    "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people."  Eph 5:3  (NIV)

    And the versions you seem to prefer -

    "But fornication, and all uncleaness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints"  Eph 5:3 (KJV)

    "Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones"  Eph 5:3  (NAB)

    Now to my understanding these three verses from different Bibles seem fairly easy to interpret what is being said. Are you going to try and tell me that it's okay to be a pedophile or pervert, greedy or covet what doesn't belong to you, just as long as you don't talk about it or let it "be mentioned among you". No, for any true Christians there wouldn't even be a hint of these sins, otherwise you are in no way a true Christian. You have not come to know the healing power of Jesus Christ, you have not been forgiven and you have been duped by deceivers of a false gospel. Many religions think that you are now saved and can go on committing the horrible sins of the flesh, because you've been forgiven. This is an outright lie from Hell. You're still living in your sins of the past, and are absolutely unforgiven by God or Christ. Add lies and deception when questioned by others and you've only multiplied your guilt and condemnation before the Lord. True Christians come clean to the Almighty and would not only be honest with Him, but also to the courts. To not be truthful and think you've gotten away with something, would only mean that you've deceived yourselves.    servant


    • Dan says:

      And while were on the subject why not finish it off – Eph 5:5-14

      "Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolator, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth. Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says: "Awake, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.' "

  139. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 222AM:

    Caught in a clear contradiction – as I pointed out in my comment of the 13th at 1113AM – ‘Dan’ will now seek to “clarify [his] position” about “why these two comments seem to conflict with each other” (italics mine).

    His solution – doncha see? – is to presume “many cases” concerning “guilty suspects”. This – but of course – is a manipulative cartoon construction from the get-go: how would one know, until after the trial (if even then), that the “suspects” were indeed “guilty” … ? ‘Dan’ here is merely constructing a hypothetical, and a general one at that.

    His game-plan (such as it is) is quickly revealed when he immediately launches into his favorite aria about his own legal misadventures.

  140. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 222AM:

    And as if that gambit weren’t cheesy enough, his construction then falls into incoherence: in ‘Dan’s cases, it was ‘Dan’ who was the “suspect”. (And I leave it to readers to judge whether he was a “guilty suspect”.) ‘Dan’ might actually be seen here as having revealed more about his guilt than he intended. Ah, the truth will out eventually.

    Readers may judge the reliability of what ‘Dan’ has “personally witnessed” as they will.

    And we see as well the convenient flip-floppery about the integrity of “our judicial system”: does he consider it tainted by “much corruption” or does he insist we wait for the (presumably reliable) courts to decide?

    Well, that depends on what’s most congenial to his plop-tossing at the moment: when they decide against him then they’re tainted with much corruption; when they decide against Catholic clerics, then they are the instruments of God’s justice.

    • Dan says:

      When guilty liars walk away and I'm sentenced for their false accusations, that's corruption. When they decide against catholic clerics, that are pedophiles, perverts and lying creeps, that's justice, but not God's justice. For some of the pedophile creeps with several victims, they should have never seen daylight. Many of the creeps got off Scot-free from Statute of Limitations or died before being prosecuted. You think that's just, you excusing, enabling lying creep. God's final judgment will truly be just, and you'll all get what you really deserve. servant

  141. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 222AM:

    But wait – it gets even better:

    For that reason (i.e. all that “much corruption” in the courts) then ‘Dan’ doth declare and proclaim that – come to think of it – he doth “wait in anticipation for the one true judge” and so on and so forth.

    Well, if that be true, then why listen to him rant on about the Pell matter?

    But of course, the inevitable ‘Dan’-verse switcheroo is this: in the matter of ‘Dan’s own legal misdeeds and misadventures, nobody can truly judge him except God at the Last Day; in the matter of allegations against Catholic clerics, ‘Dan’ is happy to join the pig-pile and do his own judging here and now.

  142. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 234AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try another evasion tactic, one that pop psychology and Victimist psychology call ‘minimizing’: he doth “just show some anger”, is all – doncha see? And he has “every right” to do so – doncha also see? – because – had you been waitttttinggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – he himself has been so many times so unjustly bethumped by that unholy conspiracy of Catholics, the police and the courts.

    Then a manipulative dollop of false humility: ‘Dan’ – alas – has not yet the “awesome strength and forgiveness” of Christ (He Who turned the other cheek to His – but of course – unjust accusers). But rest assured that ‘Dan’ is working on it, you betcha. ‘Dan’ has to because he confronts a world so full of unjust accusers of himself, doncha see?

    Rather than look into his bathroom mirror and see Christ, ‘Dan’ is better advised to see ‘Dan’ as he is.

    But if that were to happen, ‘Dan’s head would of course explode.

    • Dan says:

      Time to grow up, little peewee. How does one so pompous in displaying his worldly wisdom and vocabulary, act like such a baby at other times.

    • Dan says:

      There doesn't even have to be a conspiracy. All it took was lying clergy, nuns, school faculty and one corrupt catholic cop, and who do you think the courts are going to believe. Why don't you stop with your stupid nonsense and get yourself a life. You're not cute with your ignorant sarcasm. Just verification of your foolishness. Your cult is plagued with liars, like yourself.   servant of a Just God

  143. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ has to confront Paul’s own admission of sinfulness, which I had noted in my comment of the 13th at 1117AM.

    He tosses up a chunk of Scripture, but if you read it, it doesn’t at all work the way ‘Dan’ wants it to.

    Cutting right to the chase, Paul says – as ‘Dan’ quotes but apparently doesn’t comprehend – “Therefore, I myself, with my mind serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin”.

    For what then does Paul give thanks when he says in verse 25 “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our lord” … ? Has Jesus somehow made Paul more than a human being?

    Especially when Paul then immediately says – as is quoted above – “Therefore … “. Thus the only thing Paul can be giving thanks to God for is that although with his flesh he is subject to the law of sin, yet with his spirit he remains committed to the law of God.

    Which captures with pristine clarity the ultimate moral paradox of being a Christian: one’s spirit can be committed to the law of God and yet one is still capable of transgressions according to “the law of sin”.

  144. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    Ovid said as much in his Metamorphoses: “I perceive what is better and approve of it, but I pursue what is worse” (7:19).

    The Qumran Essenes tries to solve this paradox by claiming that God had put two spirits in each human being, one good and the other evil, which would struggle against each other in each human until the end of time (Rule of the Congregation, 3:15 to 4:26).

    But Paul says otherwise: he lays the cause of this paradoxical split not upon spirits, but upon humans themselves. (Thus, we might say, Paul isn’t buying the idea of humans as the mere playthings and ‘victims’ of evil spirits.)

    Thus can Paul cry out “Miserable wretch that I am!” in verse 24.

  145. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    But then Paul immediately follows that exclamation with a question: “Who will deliver me from this mortal body?”. Obviously, the only complete ‘deliverance’ would be physical death, since only removal from the human and earthly plane will stop this struggle within him.

    But clearly Paul isn’t wishing for physical death – certainly not immediate death. Rather, he gives thanks to God for having, through Christ, provided the grace to continue the struggle (and precisely not to utterly overcome and win this struggle in this life).

    • Dan says:

      Your theory is absolutely false. Through Christ we can overcome all things. With God nothing is impossible. When you're too consumed with your sinless false goddess, you're blinded to the truth of God and the saving power of His Son, so you remain in the darkness, not knowing where you're going. Unforgiven and stuck in a false gospel. Say ten Hail Marys and remain in your ignorance.  servant

  146. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    Thus when ‘Dan’ attempts to claim that “Paul says you can overcome the evil things of the flesh in line [verse] 25 of Romans 7” that is not accurate if it is intended to mean that one can perfectly and utterly (‘totally’ as contemporary usage might have it) overcome sin in this life. After all, Paul has just exclaimed himself – he, the author of Romans – as being yet still a “miserable wretch” for doing the evil he does not wish to do.

    And while one can dedicate oneself – as Romans 8 will expand upon this – to the law of the spirit, the “concern” of which law is “life and peace”, yet that does not at all establish any sort of guarantee that one will perfectly and utterly embody that law in one’s earthly life. There is no perfect embodiment of the law of the spirit in this life, and its “concern” can from time to time be overridden by the law of the flesh.

  147. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    Thus we see here the abyssal problem with the ‘Dan’-verse formulation: one can be dedicated to the law of the spirit and yet still yield from time to time to the law of the flesh.

    Nor is one’s dedication any sort of a guarantee that one is perfectly and utterly raised above the interior fray between those two laws or principles (Paul uses the Greek term nomos) within one’s own self.

    Nor does one’s being a sinful “miserable wretch” constitute an utter loss or abandonment of one’s dedication to the law of the spirit. (Why else – as I have said above – did Christ assure Peter that “whose sins you forgive” and so on … ?)

  148. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    And with all that having been said, then ‘Dan’s concluding paragraph’s “question” – based as it is on his hugely problematic if not also cartoon conception of Paul’s thought in Romans – is overridden: Paul’s theology here has left much room for human Christians to fail despite their fundamental dedication to the law of the spirit.

    And ‘Dan’ then also slyly and manipulatively slides in the presumption that “your hierarchy” (all of it?) and “priests” (all of them?) did indeed “commit the sins of the flesh” as allegated.

  149. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    And then we see yet again the same ‘Dan’-verse Scriptural incomprehension as ‘Dan’ goes on about “the healing power of Jesus Christ”: that healing power does not constitute a guarantee that one would never again do anything that would require spiritual healing; rather, it constitutes a promise of forgiveness and “healing” to Christians who transgress and seek forgiveness and grace to take up the interior human struggle again.

    Christ’s and Paul’s “healing power” is not some sort of magic that instantly and utterly elevates humans above the struggles between spirit and flesh. It is – as it says – a “healing” power, not a cartoonish perfection-power that instantly and completely turns the Christian into some sort of cartoon super-being, human in appearance only, but actually existing above the struggles of the interior life.

  150. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:

    And almost as an after-thought ‘Dan’ adds another familiar fundie bit: that Paul in Romans here does not mention the intercessory role of Mary and the Saints.

    Nor does Paul here deny them that role.

    • Dan says:

      Have you ever heard that there's a big problem when you add to the words of the bible.

      "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."  Rev. 22:18-19

      So keep on adding and subtracting from His Word, and we'll see if you can fare any better than Pharoah. Good luck with that. They have no intercessory role whatsoever, but I can understand why catholic, lying hypocrites hope so, because they're in such bad shape from the evil sins they've committed, and are in need of all the help they can muster.    servant