Netflix's The Keepers: Agenda before honesty
The 1969 unsolved disappearance and murder of a Baltimore nun, Sister Catherine Cesnik, certainly has all the makings of a compelling whodunnit. "Who killed Sister Cathy?" the trailer asks.
However, The Keepers, a multi-part "documentary" about the case airing on Netflix, is nothing but a bleary-eyed scavenger hunt trafficking in speculation, innuendo, rumor, discredited science, and a healthy heap of anti-Catholic bigotry. Anyone looking for an honest and clear-thinking analysis of this case will not find it here.
How can anyone believe this?
Really, Jean?
Accuser Jean Wehner
For example, in 1995, a woman named Jean Wehner – whose claims play a central role in The Keepers – filed a civil lawsuit against Maskell under the name Jane Doe. What was uncovered in the course of her suit can only described as disturbing. It turns out that all of Wehner's claims of abuse surfaced through the dangerous and discredited practice of "repressed memory therapy."
It turns out that, according to court documents, Wehner has not just claimed that Rev. Maskell abused her in her life. Wehner has also claimed that she has somehow also been abused by:
- four additional priests;
- three or four religious brothers;
- three lay teachers;
- a police officer;
- a local politician;
- an uncle; and
- two nuns.
Good grief. Really, Jean?
[***Click to read the source court documents yourself (pdf)***]
(Originally accessed at the site of writer Mark Pendergrast, author of the upcoming book,
Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die)
To say Wehner's claims are wild is an understatement. Not surprisingly, these inconvenient facts from the court documents were completely omitted from The Keepers.
Indeed, contrary to the series' corrupt attempts to give validity to "repressed memory therapy," there is zero doubt that "repressed memory" is an utter fraud. As Dr. Richard J. McNally, Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, has written (pdf):
"The notion that traumatic events can be repressed and later recovered is the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry. It has provided the theoretical basis for 'recovered memory therapy' — the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era."
That pesky DNA
As if Wehner's outlandish history were not disrupting enough, in May, two days before The Keepers first aired on Netflix, the producers of the series received some really bad news. The body of Fr. Maskell had been exhumed back in February, and police announced that DNA connected to the murder scene of Sr. Cesnik did not match that of the deceased priest. (Maskell died in 2001 denying any abuse and any connection to Sr. Cathy's murder.)
Needless to say, this piece of inconvenient news put a big damper on Netflix's story and Wehner's insane tale about Fr. Maskell somehow once showing her Sr. Cathy's corpse.
Trying to get the facts out
Following the cue of other fact-challenged screeds against the Catholic Church (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), The Keepers tries to advance the ages-old anti-Catholic bigotry of the Church as a corrupt, all-powerful institution somehow able to exert its influence across all sectors of society, including law enforcement.
To its credit, however, the Archdiocese of Baltimore has made a decent effort to punch back against the wild and bigoted claims that litter Netflix's hit piece. For example, contrary to claims in the film, the archdiocese strongly contends that it was not made aware of sex abuse allegations against Fr. Maskell until "1992, more than 20 years after the abuse occurred." Any claim that the archdiocese knew about allegations against Maskell before 1992 "is speculation and it is false."
We encourage readers to check out the archdiocese's extensive rebuttal to The Keepers.
The bottom line: Make no mistake. The Keepers is not honest and clear-thinking filmmaking. The Keepers is a bigoted and bumbling mess whose investigative depth more resembles The Keystone Cops. This is unfortunate, because Sr. Cesnik deserves much, much more.
——————–
[EDITOR'S NOTE, 7/30/17: On the same day we published our post, BigTrial.net published an excellent post by writer Mark Pendergrast, "The Dangerously Misleading Narrative Of 'The Keepers'." Check it out!]
bigotry (def.) – 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Sure sounds to me, like that definition would be a spot-on, perfect description of the catholic cult, the false accusations I've endured from your hierarchy and leaders, heavily larded with the lies of catholic excuser and enabler, publiar. Bigoted hypocrites, liars, deceivers and slanderers of anything or anyone speaking the truth. servant of the Only True God
Poor old ‘Dan’ (the 27th at 1201PM). Here’s an article with factual evidence, even DNA evidence, and an allegant with a long (and jaw-dropping) list of persons she claims “abused” her over the course of her life, replete with ‘recovered memory’ claims and what certainly appears to be a form of multiple-personality issues.
Whatever is he to do?
For ‘Dan’ it’s all easy-peezy: in another fine example of I’m Not/You Are ‘Dan’ simply picks up on the article’s use of the term “bigotry” and then evades all the points of interest in order to merely distract from the article by claiming – using a dictionary to bolster his ‘scientific’ masquerade here – that it’s the Church that is actually the best example of “bigotry”.
Which – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – just happens to dovetail nicely with ‘Dan’ own preferred narrative of his own epic misadventures … it was all “bigotry” – doncha see? – and “lies” from “compulsive liars” by the “hundreds” and so on and so forth.
It apparently has escaped his notice that his own selected definition can pretty well describe his own performances here. That’s what a nice, tight Fixed Delusional Syndrome will get you.
Bigotry and biased. The article attacks the credibility of one victim when there were many victims. Because the victim claims there were other abusers, does not mean she was not raped by Maskell. Again we have another character assasination, before we consider the accusations of other victims. Why when you claim that multiple victims were rare among your cult's priests, it seems just about every case has multiple victims and witnesses.
And again you end with your "I'm Not/You Are bit", something you always accuse others of doing. You are such a deceiving, lying hypocrite. Most definitely the offspring of The Accuser, your father, Satan. servant
The author of this article is well-intentioned but misguided. I worked in a parish Fr. Maskell had been at, before the series came out. There were stories – surprise. No doubt about it, he was a raving lunatic. I have also personally been involved with multiple cases of abuse at the exact same high school featured in the documentary. Fr. Maskell provided the foundation for that fine spiritual legacy. That so many girls have come forward to corroborate the evidence of the documentary should make it clear that Fr. Maskell was nothing short of a monster – which Baltimore finally (!) admitted and dismissed him from ministry. There is definitely some unfair content in the series, and one is free to speculate about the merits of repressed memory, but there is no need to pretend that the whole thing is fake.
How anyone can watch this docuseries and say that this is falsehood is pure lunacy. I am outraged at what is still, at present, being covered up. The right thing to do shouldn't be this hard. Thinking about why any immoral person would want to be a part of this cover up in any way is infuriating! Is this the world you wish to raise your children in? I, for one, want my children to know that no matter how big an untruth is, it needs to be told. Covering up the truth or refusing to look at it is sickening. I am personally sickened by this article. True cowards are people who never own their mistakes. I hope that you, author of this article, will not be such a coward and will one day own the fact that what you are writing is evil, or at least admit that you are too stupid to understand the content that you bore witness to.
Anyone has the right to comment using a screen-name when putting up general thoughts on a subject or when simply examining material that is already on the screen.
But if one is going to be making a) specific and b) accusatory claims, that’s a different kettle of fish.
And ‘Anonymous’ on the 28th at 920AM does make some significant claims.
I have no knowledge of the Maskell matter; my own experience with the occasional priest who seemed a few (or even more than a few) too many sandwiches short of a picnic certainly doesn’t lead me to deny the possibility of the deceased being among that number.
But if we are going to consider the far more serious references and claims as to sexual abuse, then something more is surely required. Especially in light of the fact that the bar for a ‘documentary’ nowadays – especially on so hot-button a topic – is unreliably low and this problem is only intensified by the decades of advocacy ‘reports’ and ‘documentaries’ that claim to ‘expose’ this and that.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Anonymous’ comment of the 28th at 920AM:
I appreciate the tone ‘Anonymous’ takes, and the stance, i.e. that there may well be some problems with the documentary and with the theory of ‘repressed memory’ (indeed, I would say that the theory of ‘repressed memory’ most certainly has near-fatal or fatal conceptual problems, about which I have commented at length here in the past).
And from a general conceptual point of view, I agree that there is surely at present no basis for considering all of the Maskell-related story to be “fake”.
But this is an era of Stampede and what we have so far – a ‘documentary’ claiming to expose something, a number of persons coming forth with claims and stories from the long-ago, the “monster” priest (and now deceased) – has many of the classic Stampede elements.
So in a case like this – and as I have said before on this site – a form of “strict scrutiny” is highly advisable.
Yes, the court of public opinion has no jurisprudence, and repressed memories are indeed suspicious (which would be an important element of retaining the statute of limitations on these things), though I will leave that to the scientists. On the other hand.. I know the infrastructure and people, and unfortunately a lot of the narrative is very plausible. A priest friend of mine who knew him said he had the reputation for always having "two things in his desk – a gun and a d***o." It is laudable to defend the holiness and honor of the Church, but there comes a time where you have to admit the existence of Judas among the Twelve. That's all I have to say on the matter.
I would also invite readers to read the article on the BigTrial site entitled “The Dangerous Misleading Narrative of ‘The Keepers’” – currently it is the top article on the site list.
Thank you for making us aware of Mr. Pendergrast’s article.
We highly recommend it:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/07/the-dangerous-misleading-narrative-of.html
-
And why should we go to the Big Trial site? So we can hear a more bigoted and biased, "Dangerous Misleading Narrative", from more catholic excusers, liars and deceivers.
Read your story on Big Trial. So now I guess we can claim that all the demonstrated and proven cases, along with priests that admitted guilt, are just "fever visions" of the Stampede? The denials, lies and excuses for all the many known perverts and pedophiles of your cult, has become unbearable and ridiculous. Why can't you come to terms with the disgusting sins of your church? Who do you think you're fooling? Surely not the Almighty God.
Seriously, I really have to question whether or not we are talking about the same docuseries. I don't care how much editing is done behind the scenes; I have no doubt that these acts went on. Do we not live in the world where the devil prowls like a lion? Were we not taught to watch for the wolf in sheep's clothing? I don't need any man to tell me in a confessional what to do to pardon my sins, and there's a special place for men who've abused such powers, and I know we may not see justice for these women in any time in the present, but I do thank the Almighty that I can trust justice will be served. Amen.
It is interesting that Jennifer Garner, on the 28th, said that…. "were we not taught to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing?". Agreed… we were. But my own mother, when I was very young, also told me the story about… "the boy who cried wolf". The real message was to warn me that if I told too many lies… then nobody who believe anything I ever said. They might not believe me, even if I was actually telling the truth… and needed help? Jean Wehner has, with her 'recovered memory', told how she was sexually abused by her own uncle. What's more alleged he also sexually abused her ten siblings? Yet not one of those siblings agree with her shocking allegation?. In other words they are calling her a liar. So why does Jennifer believe her?. When Jean's brothers and sisters do not believe her?. I think it may be anti-Catholic bigotry again.
Malcolm says, "my own mother…told me the story about… 'the boy who cried wolf'. The real message was to warn me that if I told too many lies… then nobody [would] believe anything I ever said." Oh! If only the church could understand that little parable about compulsive liars. Speaking of that, if only publiar could understand why it is that 'Dan' does not accept much of anything he says as truth. Strange how persistent liars think it's imperative that I answer to all their ignorant and stupid questioning. You don't get it yet? Stop the lying, slander and false accusations, and you just may gain some respect. That's some advice to all liars out their, especially your lying and denying hierarchy. Malcolm, I suggest you take a more honest look at the bigotry and bias of your own church. And let's not forget all the other disgusting sins, excuses, denials and cover-ups of your cult. Come out to the light, or are you all afraid it may blind you? servant
Malcolm, the story reads, "She also recalled that this uncle abused her ten siblings, though none of them remember it." Nothing says "they are calling her a liar" or that "Jean's brothers and sisters do not believe her". How quickly catholics accuse of "anti-Catholic bigotry".
Check this out:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/07/the-dangerous-misleading-narrative-of.html
Thank you, Ralph. We already received that info from both Dave and publiar on the 28th of July. I understand that all of you want to make sure that everyone hears the character assasinations of any of the victims. You guys ought to inform the courts that you've finally solved the case. Exactly how the Vatican thinks they're to handle all the cases of pedophilia and child molesting among the creeps in your cult. Justice for the unjust criminals of your church. Slander, accusations and character assinations towards any and all victims. Hypocrites!
On the 28th at 459PM ‘Dan’ now demonstrates that disagreement with his cartoons constitutes “bigotry” and is “biased”.
First, there are no “victims” yet, properly speaking. There are allegants.
Second, from the material we have seen from one particularly vivid allegant, we get a congeries of stories and claims that most surely do not offer any cause for trusting in her veracity (or, perhaps, sanity).
Third – even if we were to presume for the purposes of the instant discussion that all of the allegants against Maskell are genuine and veracious – then one case would not justify ‘Dan’s eager leap to his (convenient and self-serving) conclusion that “it seems just about every case has multiple victims and witnesses”.
Nor do I “accuse others” of relying on the juvenile I’m Not/You Are bit; I point out that ‘Dan’ does it, and frequently. It’s one of his signature moves.
I'm saying you use the "juvenile I'm Not/You Are bit" as much as anyone. And I do use it when it applies, peewee, as in this case. servant
By the way, there were 16 other known alledged victims, paid off to the sum of $500,000 by the church. Is the church that dumb to pay off victims when they don't believe there is veracity to their claims. Put on your boots everyone, the BS is getting as deep as a horses bridle.
Responding to the comment by ‘Anonymous’ of the 28th at 409PM:
What “the court of public opinion” does not deploy is careful consideration of the evidence and the formulation of only such conclusions as to either a) what actually did or did not happen or b) the probability of what actually did or did not happen).
While formal courts (at least before Victimist ‘reforms’ were introduced) must follow this procedure in order to properly deploy the sovereign coercive and punitive power of the government, the public is well-advised to scrutinize carefully in order to accurately inform itself and so as to avoid becoming part of a Stampede.
That being said, I certainly don’t deny the conceptual possibility that the deceased was not suitable for the priesthood. And that – surely, if the “desk” remark is accurate – he should have been removed from active public ministry or even prevented from ever being ordained.
Continuing with my response to the comment by ‘Anonymous’ of the 28th at 409PM:
But I would clarify one point especially: my concern is not to “defend the holiness and honor of the Church”; my primary concern is and always has been to work against the dynamics of Stampede.
And it is for that reason that I have never insisted that no priest has ever been guilty of sexual abuse (with due care for however that elastic term is defined). The problem that concerns me is that once a Stampede gets going, with its attendant fever-visions and cartoon caricatures, then there is almost no way of making any reliable determination in a specific case.
In order to "defend the holiness and honor of the church", there would have to be evidence of "holiness and honor" in your church. It would also take a man of moral integrity and righteousness to do that job, so we are all aware that a compulsive liar like yourself wouldn't be qualified. However you are the coward capable of lying, deceiving and excusing all the pedophiles, perverts and creeps of the cult. Maybe they can reward you with the upside-down cross or a statue of the "Queen of Heaven". servant
Continuing with my response to the comment by ‘Anonymous’ of the 28th at 409PM:
The use of the “Judas” image is thought-provoking: he embarked upon a treacherous and traitorous course, but then is not every sin an instance of treason and treachery against God? His ultimate fate was determined by his rejecting the possibility of God’s forgiveness. As he did not allow God’s love and justice to stop him from committing his treason, so he did not allow God’s love and forgiveness to embrace him once he had sinned.
I'm under the impression that you think that you and your fellow creeps are going to receive God's forgiveness. Oh! And how can anyone disagree, when you compulsive liars and perverts are such a fine example of "God's love and justice" and so deserving of His "forgiveness". You are one hilari-ass hypocrite. servant of the One True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 619PM where we get a fine demonstration of slyness and juvenility working together: why examine the Big Trial site’s article since ‘Dan’ already ‘knows’ that it’s just more “bigoted and biased” material and so on.
But then 20 minutes later (the 28th at 639PM) he’s “read” the article and – had you been waittingggg forrrr ittttt? – he’s found nothing but “denials, lies and excuses” and so on.
That’s what a nice, tight Fixed Delusional System will get you.
And why would ‘Dan’ actually have to try to deal with all the material in that article? He speaks for God – doncha see? – and you can’t succeed in “fooling” God. Which is a bit of advice ‘Dan’ should deliver to his bathroom mirror. But then his head would explode.
If you could improve on your reading comprehension skills, you would have recognized that the "denials, lies and excuses" that have become "unbearable and ridiculous", are those defending the "many known perverts and pedophiles of your cult", with an emphasis on "known". I was speaking in regards to the "demonstrated and proven" creeps and the priests and bishops that have "admitted guilt". You know, the opposite of you and all the other liars in your cult. They may have a course in reading comprehension on the internet and maybe you can earn one of those fruit loops badges you're so fond of, or maybe a diploma you can hang over your crib. I told you you will reap what you sow. Keep lying, mocking, and slandering (i.e. bethump, accost, harass, FDS, etc.) and you will receive no respect from me. servant of the Lord
I also notice that none of you excusers, enablers or character assassins are mentioning these sentences from the article;
"It is more likely that Maskell was inappropriate in many ways, and he may have been a voyeur who hugged and fondled girls and watched as they took douches. He may have also acted badly with boys." Do you all find these actions to be commonplace among adult priests and bishops and yourselves. What a bunch of perverted, sick, nasty people you protect and are. Talk about a bunch of brainwashed fools. DESPICABLE!!
On the 30th at 139PM we see again how little ‘Dan’ actually has to say. He merely picks up what other say and tries to toss it back – which is the core of the I’m Not/You Are gambit to which he so very frequently resorts.
Thus he takes the ‘Malcolm Harris’ comment about ‘crying wolf’ and merely tries to pick it up and toss it at the Church.
He has already deployed the old I’m Not/You Are bit with his grip on the phrase “compulsive liar”, which I’ve been saying is a term he probably first encountered when applied by others to himself somewhere along the line, perhaps in one of those court-ordered psychiatric sessions.
If he doesn’t like what is said – or if he can’t handle it – then he merely evasively waves it away as “lies” coming from “compulsive liars” and so on.
What is your basic problem? I was calling you out as the "liar" and "compulsive liar" that you are, for just about as long as I've been in this forum. All the accusations of manipulation, misinterpretation, deceiving and compulsive liar, were labels I originally applied to you and you've tossed back at me, because you're the "BS-tosser".
The truth is that those accusations surely apply to you, and are only true about myself based on your imaginations, false assessments and outright slander. Why not come out into the light and admit your a lying apologist for your cult and the Accuser of the innocent. Creep!!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 139PM:
But wait – there’s more.
With a smoothness grounded in long-practice, ‘Dan’ slyly and deceitfully works in a further self-serving and evasive bit: since he is confronted by nothing but “lies” from “compulsive liars” then – had you been waitttinggg forrrrr itttt? – he doesn’t have to answer the (oh so many) questions that arise from his own material. Neato.
And anyway, all the questions are – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – “ignorant and stupid”.
And has he given any examples or explained just what in the articles here or on the BigTrial site constitutes “bigotry and bias”? He has not.
Tell me how my calling you out as the "ignorant and stupid", "compulsive liar" that you truly are, is self-serving or evasive. The truth is neither, nor is it deceiving. Hypocrite!!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 150PM:
Here he merely waves away the articles as “character assassinations” (correction supplied). Does he give any examples or explications? He does not. Apparently, simply putting up facts (the court dismissal of the accusations) or quoting what persons actually said is supposed to somehow constitute “character assassination”. And putting up his own accusations, assertions and claims is supposed to be ‘proof’. That’s how things work in the cartoon-world ‘Dan’ has created for himself.
Nor – yet again – do we know if we actually are dealing with genuine “victims” rather than ‘allegants’, which really is all we can say about the accusers at this point.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1209AM:
Here we have ‘Dan’ trying to scrounge up as much plop-tossy stuff as he can find.
In this case, Pendergrast has said that this allegant had “recalled” that an uncle whom she alleges abused her also abused “her ten siblings” and yet none of those ten siblings remembers it.
First, we don’t know for sure if – in addition to not-remembering any such abuse – those ten haven’t also allowed themselves any further speculation or characterization of the allegant herself. (For this reason, the Pendergrast book will be of great interest when it comes out, since his article on BigTrial is merely excerpted from the text of the book.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1209AM:
Second – and working with what we do have in the excerpted text – we have somebody who accuses a (deceased) accused of having also “abused” ten other persons … and yet none of those other ten recall being “abused”.
This is not ‘dispositive’ evidence, certainly, but the situation itself makes a certain impression on a rational mind: Allegant claims there are ten further ‘victims’/ and yet none of the ten corroborate the allegant’s claim. So far, so not so good for the allegant … or for ‘Dan’s plop-tossing.
But surely it is no instance of “bigotry” or “character assassination” to point out the actual fact that the allegant’s alleged other victim-corroborators do not support her story.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1209AM:
Do those ten other siblings not wish to publicly declare their allegant-sibling to be a “liar”? If so, it would be understandable and possibly quite carefully honest: i.e. if they were never present when she was allegedly “abused” then they rightfully refrain from declaiming with certainty that she is a “liar”.
Which is as far as one can go with the information available: the allegant is not proven to be a “liar”, but she is also definitively propagating a story whose own multiple other ‘victims’ do not attest to their own alleged victimization.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1041PM:
Here ‘Dan’ merely repeats his stock accusation that I “use” the I’m Not/You Are gambit “as much as anyone”. He proffers – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrr ittttttttttt? – no examples of where I have done so.
But for ‘Dan’s plop-tossy purposes, his mere assertions are supposed to be their own evidence and proof and demonstration and explication and he cawn’t help it if readers are too “ignorant” and “stupid” to see the wisdom and veracity of his plop-tossy bits.
It’s a neat game. But it’s a game, and a deceitful and manipulative one at that.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1214AM:
I don’t know where he has gotten the bit about the “16 other known alleged victims”. Nor does he offer a reference in support of it.
In any case, they would be ‘known alleged allegants’ since it would appear that – if his bit is true here in the first place – the “16” were given a settlement in a civil suit that either went to trial or – much more likely – was settled out of court (and for a rather paltry sum, considering other known settlement amounts; especially if the 500K was divided up among the entire bunch).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1214AM:
The article also notes (in the paragraph beginning “Many hundreds of lawsuits …”) that when the ‘recovered memory’ or ‘repressed memory’ (hereinafter: “RM”) craze was at its height, lawsuits were brought against “stunned parents and relatives” (this was before the Catholic Abuse Stampede really got going) who were placed in the diabolically complex position of contesting their child’s veracity in court or of trying to defend themselves – in a ‘victim-crazy’ environment – by proving that they did not do it.
Because this early form of Stampede – i.e. antedating its application to the Church – had already overridden the presumption of innocence even in the legal forum, as well as in the ‘victim-crazy’ media forum (one may think not only of the newspapers and TV news ‘reports’ but also the talk-shows then prevalent in the 80s and 90s).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1214AM:
We also see a revenant of an old Abusenik bit: if any allegant received settlement money from the accused then that ipso facto proves that the allegant’s claims and accusations were true because the accused implicitly admitted guilt by paying the settlement money.
And that is not true at all. If for no other reason than the fact that suing people or (in the Catholic Abuse Matter, as in many other types of ‘corporate-victim’ lawsuits) suing deep-pockets entities often places the Party Defendant in the position where it is, all things considered, less trouble to pay some money than to go to the expense and attendant difficulties of a trial. And this would be especially true if the Party Defendant were going to have to rely on insurance to pay; the Insurer then has a powerful say in whether to pursue the trial route or the settlement route; guilt or innocence doesn’t necessarily enter into it at all.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1214AM:
Which is why tort-attorneys are so enamored of this strategy: gin up a lawsuit / alleging something that public-opinion is already primed to abhor / and then wait to see if the Party Defendant (parents, relatives, the Church) is going to risk the myriad uncertainties of a trial rather than just hashing out the amount of the checks to be written. Or whether the Insurers of the Party Defendant are going to be willing to go to trial rather than settle.
How nice to see, though, that ‘Dan’ is also familiar with the bridle-end of a horse.
In this regard I would also note several points that struck me when reading the Pendergrast article:
First, the allegant has included in her stories the bit about Maskell actually being aware of RM and its dynamics, such that he is actually supposed to have taken steps to implant the RM dynamic in the alleged victim: You will repress this or You will not remember this. And one even says that he must have put something in her soda (apparently so that she wouldn’t recall) and another that he had “hypnotized” her “with a pocket-watch” (apparently into repressing the event).
Second, the identity of her story’s targeted accused changed as time went on, and the list of targeted accused actually expanded – one might almost say floridly so. This recalls the ever-expanding confabulation of the girls accusing the ‘witches’ in the Salem Trials of 1692.
Continuing the points that struck me:
Third, the statement by Dr. Ellis (in the paragraph beginning “It’s not unreasonable to interpret …”) in which he states his clinical belief that “dreams can be viewed as the dreamer’s attempt to ‘work through’ or resolve some conflict” is not of itself objectionable.
But it hardly goes all the way to the definitive asserted conclusion that if you have a ‘dream’ about something, then you must have had an experience of it. People have dreams of flying but that doesn’t of itself establish that in reality at one time they did fly but that they then “repressed the memory of it”.
And what we seem to be dealing with in the Ellis material is not actually ‘dreaming’ (i.e. while asleep) but rather some form of ‘guided imagining’ (or day-dreaming), under the heavy-handed tutelage of the ‘therapist’.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1115PM:
Here ‘Dan’ simply uses a phrase from ‘Anonymous’ to piggy-back his usual stuff: to “defend the holiness and honor of the church” (sic) isn’t possible because – had you been waittttingggg forrr itttt? – the Church has no holiness and honor.
And then the riff continues with “compulsive liar” and all that.
And then a bit recalling that – in ‘Dan’s considered theological opinion (formulated after deep consultation in séance with the entities that appear to him in his bathroom mirror to impart spiritual wisdom) – Catholicism is a pagan religion that worships Mary as a goddess.
All this material of his does not come from … the bridle-end of a horse.
"Catholicism is a pagan religion that worships Mary as a goddess." I wish you could be that concise with the rest of your longwinded nonsense. Well done. Right from the horses mouth.
But now for something of more substance (not that ‘Dan’ realizes it).
On the 30th at 1124PM ‘Dan’ implies that it can only be an “impression” to think that (fill in the blank: a) Catholics; b) priests and bishops; c) anybody who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s horse-produced theological eructations) “are going to receive God’s forgiveness”.
Thus the pope-of-his-own-bathroom-mirror doth declare that there will be none of God’s forgiveness for (fill in the blank: a) Catholics; b) priests and bishops; c) anybody who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s horse-produced theological eructations).
I’d say that in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse, it is (c) that drives the theological animus here. Everything else is just window-dressing to lend some fig-leaf of gravity to the performance.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1124PM:
But it’s this or else ‘Dan’s head will explode. Thus doth he declare, declaim, pronounce and denounce that – we can take ‘Dan’s word for it – God will not forgive so grievous a sin as not buying ‘Dan’s horse-produced theological eructations.
No siree! Ya mock Deputy ‘Dan’ and his amazing theology-producing horse (at least on one end; I doubt the horse talks like Mr. Ed – but with ‘Dan’s mind and cartoons one never really does know) then God is never ever times a zillion gonna forgive ya.
That’s a heavy load indeed.
I state in regards to publi-con's repetitive ignorance and garbage, "Put on your boots everyone, the BS is getting as deep as a horses bridle." So he thinks he can comeback with his repetitive use of "I'm Not/You Are bits" with lame uses of horse comments (i.e. bridle end of a horse, not… the bridle end of a horse, horse-produced theological eructations, theology- producing horse, horse talks like Mr. Ed). Wow! Those were such clever comebacks. Maybe you should stick to animals you're more familiar with, like jackasses and pigs, peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1101PM:
What explains this bit here is that if you don’t buy ‘Dan’s horse-produced theological eructations and accusations, then you must therefore be “defending” those “many known perverts and pedophiles of your cult”.
But that “defending” is just a conflation ‘Dan’ has had to come up with in order to connect his cartoons – in his mind anyway – to ‘reality’.
Which is itself a confusing conflation, since what one generally means by the term “reality” and what ‘Dan’ means by the term “reality” is not quite the same thing at all.
I can imagine that some few have “admitted guilt” but a) not “many” and b) to what “guilt”, precisely, have they admitted?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1101PM:
And then another I’m Not/You Are bit: parasitically piggy-backing on my image of ‘Dan’s bottom-of-the-cereal-box Deputy Dawg badge (‘proving’ he’s God’s speshull servant and deputy), ‘Dan’ will try his hand with “those fruit loops badges”.
And in terms of “reading comprehension” I had said “cereal” box; but perhaps having recovered some repressed material of his very own, ‘Dan’ changes that to “fruit loops”. Perhaps this sheds some light on his consistent focus on “perverts and pedophiles”.
Not "repressed material" at all. You and the other "fruit loop perverts and pedophiles" of your cult, keep an updated barrage of new cases of catholic pedophile and perverted creeps coming out of the closet on a consistent basis. Systemic Perverts Worldwide Ministries (SPWM). Maybe you can open a new division in your cult? servant of God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1231AM:
He has apparently gone back and looked at the article a bit more closely. But – as he also invariably does with Scripture – he’s only rummaging through the ammo box to see what useful bits might be weaponized to suit the convenience of his own agenda.
He has selected a quotation (beginning the paragraph ”It is more likely that …”).
But Pendergrast is very careful and circumspect in this passage, as is evidenced by the complete dominance of the subjunctive (i.e. “it is more likely that”, “he may have been”; “he may have also”). In other words, not even Pendergrast is willing to make definitive (and indicative-mood) characterizations or accusations. Which is proper methodology when one doesn’t have any evidence that would warrant such conclusions, characterizations and accusations.
But you can’t build a good cartoon on the prudence of the subjunctive, and ‘Dan’ knows it.
Similar sleazy and deceiving statements that you use – "it is more likely that", "he may have been", "he may have also" – Your examples; "probability", "possibility", "assessments" and "questioning". All words you use in order to promote your compulsive lying, and make others believe you're telling the truth, in regards to myself or Biblical interpretations. Why would the Pendergrast even mention those things if there is no truth to them. It makes Maskell look better, that he wasn't a full-fledged pedophile, murderer and child abuser, he was just a nasty creepy sicko, who happened to be a priestly. You excusers amaze the hell out of me. Hilariass! servant of the Lord
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1231AM:
And through ignorance or design ‘Dan’ quickly moves to lard insinuation onto the already dominant subjunctive:” Do [we] all find these actions to be commonplace among adult priests and bishops and yourselves”, he serpent-ly asks.
Beyond the point that there are no child-priests in Catholicism, I would answer No, I don’t find these actions to be commonplace.
But that bit of his then provides the segue into one of ‘Dan’s favorite arias, which he delivers with scenery-chewing gusto, the horned helmet jiggling on his head as the pearls clack noisily on his heaving prophetic bosom.
Satan, first off did we forget that you're the one who hisses serpently?
Secondly, What are you talking about? "Beyond the point that there are no child-priests in Catholicism, I would answer No, I don't find these actions to be commonplace." We all know that there are no child-priests in Catholicism, only child-molesting-priests in catholicism. And, gee-whiz, we really can rely on the compulsive liar, publi-con, to inform us that he doesn't find perverted sickos to be commonplace in catholicism. That's about as true as your your cult being the One True Church of God. And I'm glad to see you insisting on your continual mocking. I'm sure God is so proud of you. servant
I find it strange that there are multiple posts by publicon and Dan jamming up the comments section in protest of the truth about the misinformation included in 'The Keepers". This documentary is not truthful, is misleading, is defamatory in the extreme and the Catholic Church should sue Netflix for their slander. The hocus pocus of repressed memories recalled via hypnosis or other techniques is something out of the dark ages. Thank you for your wonderful expose' of this malignant fake documentary.
Glenna, you may be right. I realize that there can be a problem with "repressed memories recalled via hypnosis" and publiar's favorite "Billy Doe" case, when he wants to display fraud among victim's cases. There were more than a dozen other accusers. And don't you think it's terribly disturbing to hear of the many thousands of other cases of child abuse among priests and bishops, and those are just the ones we know about? All I hear in just about every case is denials, lies and excuses. I'm not buying that the media or anti-catholics are to blame for the church's malfeasance. It's just too widespread and systemic.
I just wonder if the Jennifer Garner who comments here is *the* Jennifer Garner?
On another note, I don't know what to think about anything anymore and I am not sure I care either. I stopped caring about a lot of things when my cousin moved away to live with her boyfriend and my father told me off for being selfish because I couldn't deal with it. I became even more indifferent when Mum told me how the victim of one pedophile priest committed suicede, seemingly in an attempt to justify being pro-abortion in cases of rape or teenage prignancy (which she know denies.)
I expect that last remark might make Dan feel vindicated, in fact, I considered leaving the Catholic Church, even more so after seeing the anti-Catholic video Catholicisim Crisis of Faith, about which, more here: http://www.christianministriesintl.org/store/#!/Catholicism%3A+Crisis+of+Faith/p/12293691
But then I saw this! www.catholic.com/tract/exposing-catholicism-crisis-of-faith
Mark, I suggest you read the Bible for your answers and not depend on biased books and opinions of catholics or fundamentalists. I believe that if your serious about finding God's truth, that He will reveal Himself to you. God does not withold His Truth from us, when we truly seek Him out. And I don't seek vindication from anyone. I'm already vindicated by the blood of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Free from any accusations the world can throw at me. "You shall know the truth and it will set you free." Give Him a try.
The Baltimore Church did not know about the abuse until 1992 ? As we have seen in all these cases the Church knows about them but keeps quiet, that is the "right thing to do". The Maciel case: even Rome said that they did not knew anything about the abuse of the seminarists and suddenly a book ( La Voluntad de no Saber) publishes along with with a pdf documents extracted from the Vatican archives showing that the Church knew that the abuse existed since 1942…. The book was presented in Mexico during pope Benedict XVI visit, with this evidence the Church made John Paul II a saint arguing that he did not knew anything about father Maciel. We have no other option but to expose the Church to the public eye, either Maciel case or Maskell or Law etc, etc, I congratulate the Keepers and encourage the producers to make more documentaries on this matter.
Rafael, Be ready for a full-on attack from the publiar. I can smell him coming already.
You may change your opinion about Law if you read this: http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/cardinal-bernard-law-on-the-frontier-of-civil-rights/
I find the comment by ‘Glenna J. Kerker’ (the 31st, 1027PM) strange.
The first sentence would appear to be a complaint to the effect that “there are multiple posts” by “publicon” and “Dan” that are “jamming up the comments section”. Is her computer not able to display the comments section because it is “jamming up” over the number of comments? Does she have further comments she’d like to put up? She’s welcome to; it’s an open – though moderated – site. Unlike a verbal conversation where only one person can talk at a time, a written comments section can take any number of inputs simultaneously and it’s not a zero-sum sort of thing like a verbal conversation.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Glenna J. Kerker’s of the 31st at 1027PM:
She seems concerned for the Church and good for her.
I would submit – as I have on previously on the site – that some commenters function as ‘magpies’ and collect all manner of anti-Church or anti-Catholic or Abuse Stampede material. That makes their comments a handy and useful compendium of what’s out there in the Web-verse. And following up on their comments thus yields further insight into the dynamics and mentalities that are out there.
Thus the extended commentary on the ‘Dan’ material, as there was in regard to other commenters before him on the site.
If that does not engage the interest and attention of GJK then that’s as may be.
Glenna, How dare you insinuate that publi-con is longwinded. He'll insist on giving you a longwinded excuse for his being longwinded. Excuse him. He's somewhat of a Dodo bird. He's just not yet privy to his bungling, dull-witted ignorance and stupidity yet.
Add. – If you could stop your lying, slandering and false accusations, then that would cut down on more than half of your material. Just a suggestion. servant
Glenna J. Kerker, on the 31st, has said "This documentary ("The Keepers") is not truthful, is misleading, it's defamatory in the extreme, and the Catholic Church should sue Netflix for their slander". Well… I could not agree more….and would only add that it should have been done long ago. The legal redress for defamation should have been deployed from the beginning of this witch hunt against Catholic priests. The first case in which the accused priest denied guilt, should have been contested, tooth and nail. This should have been done out of loyalty, whatever the legal eagles, and insurers, were advising at the time. Perhaps now that a Cardinal is the target, the hierachy will rethink their philosophy, about giving claimants the benefit of the doubt, and turning the other cheek.
God helps those who try to help themselves.
As usual, not all of ‘Dan’s most recent crop are comment-worthy, but that in itself is revealing, as we shall see.
On the 1st at 831PM ‘Dan’ – wearing the Wig of Goody-Two-Shoes – wonders what my “basic problem” might be, since ‘Dan’ has been “calling [me] out” since almost the very beginning of his gig here.
Well, of course he has. Once he saw – and it came about very quickly – that his assorted ploppy bits were going to be questioned (let alone that the questions raised even more questions, and his further efforts created even more questions beyond the prior questions), then his long-standing Fixed Delusional Syndrome’s defense-and-evasion tactics kicked in.
Thus the “compulsive liar” and ‘lies, more lies, and only lies!’ bits instantly appeared and – of course – have remained a major trope in his material ever since.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 831PM:
But you also see the deceptive manipulation that by this point has to be considered a fixed, deep-seated and long-practiced characteristic of this ‘prophet’: he is trying to get himself out from under his I’m Not/You Are problem that his own tactics (for lack of anything any better) have created for himself.
And then – with a darkly marvelous self-ignorance – ‘Dan’ then allows himself a victory-lap in the second paragraph, indulging in that bit about “the truth is that …” – and whenever you read that bleat coming from ‘Dan’, you know “strict scrutiny” is going to be required.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 831PM:
But then we see also his final juvenile epithet (“creep!!”) with those two exclamation points for added emphasis and oomph.
This is revealing: you would think that once ‘Dan’ has decided to pass himself off as sober and insightful and rational and mature, then he would want to keep ‘in-character’ for that role.
But he doesn’t: even in the course of a single comment he ‘breaks character’ or actually ‘shifts character’, i.e. from the sober, informed, rational and mature to the unripe, anti-rational and immaturely epithetical (often larded with the scatological as well).
He’s can’t keep his unripe molten core from bursting out. Like a real-estate salesman trying to sell you a purportedly fine piece of farmland, even though volcanic material vomits itself into the air from below the surface in a number of spots.
It should be no surprise that people who have found themselves in the physical presence of ‘Dan’ have been so often moved to call the police. But it’s always a ‘surprise’ to ‘Dan’ … that’s what a nice, tight Fixed Delusional System will get you.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 836PM:
Once again, still wearing the Wig of Goody-Two-Shoes, ‘Dan’ bleats inquiringly as to how his calling me “ignorant and stupid” and a “compulsive liar” is in any way “self-serving or evasive”.
To answer yet again:
First, it is evasive because all ‘Dan’ is doing is projecting his own ‘negative characteristics’ – to put it nicely – onto a) somebody else (thus evading his own problems and issues) and onto b) somebody who disagrees with his stuff (since – for the purposes of his Fixed Delusional cartoon – whatever ‘Dan’ says is what God says, so if you question ‘Dan’ then you are threatening that self-serving cartoon formulation of ‘Dan’s delusional ‘status’ as God’s oh-so-speshull mouthpiece).
Second, it is self-serving since the entire performance, with all its cartoonery and all its tactics and Biblical props and scenery, operates simply to preserve – at least in ‘Dan’s mind – the cohesion of his Fixed Delusional system. And that Fixed Delusional system exists simply to serve ‘Dan’ himself (or – if you wish – ‘Dan’s self), because if the Fixed Delusional system dissolves then ‘Dan’s head explodes.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1034PM:
Once again, we see ‘Dan’ beginning a comment with a mimicry of maturity and competence (and in this case, a certain pomposity with that “I state …” bit), yet a mere five lines later the molten unripe core is in control again.
That oft-deployed “peewee” bit remains interesting as always, though. He seems to like thinking that he’s bullying children …
Now that's more like the peewee we're used to, putting on the lying "jackass" or insinuating "pig" persona that we're accustomed to. Now he chooses to claim that I "like thinking that [I'm]bullying children". He'll try any lies to push his corrupt agenda by adding to his already false accusations of my "accosting, bethumping, harassing" and now insinuating I enjoy "bullying children". And this is why you most definitely qualify as the compulsive lying jackass label you truly deserve. As far as the rest of your BS today, well you can wiggle away oinking, like the pig you are, and go wallow in your own mud, peewee. I choose not to play in your childish games. Vindicated servant of the Almighty God
P.S. It's a bad character trait for many children to lie, but most grow out of it. Get my point?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1045PM:
With yet more blithe ignorance and the sense of confident assurance that comes from such ignorance, ‘Dan’ – responding to a point of mine (the 31st at 443PM) concerning possibly repressed material – merely doth wave it all away with the declaration that it’s “not ‘repressed material’ at all”.
No practicing competent clinician could refrain from a chuckle of recognition at this gambit.
Ditto ‘Dan’ further effort to evade: he came up with “fruit loops” – doncha see? – only because of “[me] and the other ‘fruit loop perverts and pedophiles’ of [my] cult”. It’s their fault – doncha see? – and ‘Dan’ just had to incorporate that ‘fact’. That’s all; nothing else to see here, folks. Nothing, that is, except what ‘Dan’ wants you to see because that’s all ‘Dan’ can allow himself to see.